terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

No, MuslimsMuslima. Your friend is wrong. In the West, first, you don't kill people. You converse, or boycott.

Why are all of these Muslims immigrating and leaving their countries and moving to France, the UK, the US? It's not for the freedom to practice their religion, they had that back home. It's because their home countries are failed states, because Islam doesn't work as a form of government.

1st you are assuming that all Muslims in France, US & the UK are immigrants. 2nd, the idea that people should just go back"home" is simplistic. And, finally, the issue I was raising goes back to Freedom of Speech, Freedom oF religion. If you label yourself as a free open democracy, why are you restricting the dress/religious practices of a part of your population? Also, why did Charlie Hebdo fire the satirist who wrote that Sarkozy's son would convert to Judaism for financial reason? Why was that considered anti-Semitic and he was put to trial while other religions are not treated the same? Why the double standard?

Yeah, I guess you missed the Holocaust. As well as centuries of discrimination.

Why are Muslims currently the subject of discrimination? It has a lot to do with 9/11, rightly or wrongly.

But I didn't mean Muslums should "go home," I meant that following religion before following the laws of a country doesn't work. Muslims are still working on the concept.

ITA with the bolded above. If you are living in France, and the law says no niqab, then you must abide by that law. There's no point in crying " oh heavens, double standard, no freedom of religion!". Any free, open democracy can restrict certain religious or other practices if lawmakers deem that they affect negatively any other aspect of civil life or somehow endanger their constitution. That's completely different as a private company such as this magazine making a business decision to fire a satirist (assuming what you're saying is true). It's amazing how some Muslims keep focusing on the supposed persecutions, discrimination or hardships they face in democratic countries, instead of pushing for reforms on the absolutely atrocious systems in almost every single Muslim country in the world. Christians are being killed by Muslims in Egypt and Nigeria, and yet you are here whining about cartoons and niqabs. Now that's a double standard!

Christian here. Of course we know about the persecutions. Haven't started a single thread here on them. Why? Nobody would post except maybe that atheist troll to say Jesus never existed and was conceived by a golden penis, Muslima would say something muddled about how the New Testament encourages veiling and polygamy, and so on. No point.

[Muslima]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.

To the PP, do not distort the words on my posts. It doesn't say anywhere that journalists should have been smart enough to cave in the threats of violence. It said:

At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.

This is in reference to the re-printing of the offensive pictures not the cartoonists. Satire against the powerful and mocking the oppressed, minorities, weak are two very different things. Muslims are an underclass in France, constantly ridiculed , with little to no power and these cartoons increased the racist prejudice against them. Islam and most muslims condemned the attack. Its against our doctrine and teaching of the prophet(SAW) but the failure of justice and simplicity of freedom may put peace in everlasting detention. If you call a man a bad name and he felt uncomfortable, why must you call him same name again with the impression of expressing your freedom of speech? Tolerance should recognize individual dignity. The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Muslima, you really do not get it. there is no double standard, the people who were killed yesterday, of whom you admit you know nothing so may be you should learn a little, fought for their, and our, freedom to post satire about anything. they were sued multiple times by catholic organizations and won. the catholics who did not like their cartoons sued them and lost, did not kill them, firebomb their office, prevent them from publishing cartoons. CH did a special issue about Islam and they did an issue about the Holocaust. nothing happened after the Holocaust issue, but they were firebombed after the issue on Islam and killed yesterday by people who allegedly said they were avenging the prophet. newspapers are today re-printing many cartoons by CH, including cartoons depicting priests, politicians, jews and others. they print especially the ones about Islam not because of a double standard, but because the ones about Islam are the only ones that can cost people lives and the only ones people got serious death threats for. the person who wrote this article has no shame

Since there is no double standard, can you explain why Charlie Hebdo fired one of its employees for something he published because it was anti-Semitic ? why was the employee sued? I thought it was all satirical? Oh and last summer, France became the 1st country to ban pro-palestinian demonstrations . Why? Where is the freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697194/Outrage-France-country-world-ban-pro-Palestine-demos.html The larger point here was that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech is slightly disingenuous!

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.

To the PP, do not distort the words on my posts. It doesn't say anywhere that journalists should have been smart enough to cave in the threats of violence. It said:

At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.

This is in reference to the re-printing of the offensive pictures not the cartoonists. Satire against the powerful and mocking the oppressed, minorities, weak are two very different things. Muslims are an underclass in France, constantly ridiculed , with little to no power and these cartoons increased the racist prejudice against them. Islam and most muslims condemned the attack. Its against our doctrine and teaching of the prophet(SAW) but the failure of justice and simplicity of freedom may put peace in everlasting detention. If you call a man a bad name and he felt uncomfortable, why must you call him same name again with the impression of expressing your freedom of speech? Tolerance should recognize individual dignity. The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it.

Nope, not helping your cause, Muslima. Something can be in poor taste, or extremely offensive. That is exactly what freedom of speech protects, the hard, ugly stuff. It's not just for the easy questions.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Also, America and Europe do interpret freedom of expression differently, sometimes very differently.

[Anonymous]

Muslims, this attack cannot be explained. It is evil. No context is necessary.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just said that Charlie will be published next week and instead of 60,000 copies printed, there will be one million.

I find some of the cartoons questionable but I would gladly purchase a copy if I could.

And Yasir Qadhi couldn't have said it better:

"Can you imagine if a racist cartoon, or an anti-Semitic cartoon, caused some physical attack, that news agencies around the globe would reprint those cartoons?!
Somehow, when it comes to offensive images against Muslims, it becomes necessary to display those images continuously in order to make a point: "You had better allow us to say and do whatever we will, without the least care and concern of decency and morals!"
Again, this is NOT to justify these brutal attacks, but it is to point out the double standards that do seem to exist when it comes to mocking Islam. It will come as absolutely no surprise to us to find out that a satirist in the EXACT SAME newspaper was fired, and then put on trial, for an anti-Semitic article that he had written (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-tria…). And previously, I had quoted a story of a similar nature regarding the Danish cartoon controversy: the same newspaper had refused to print cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
There is no doubt that killing these cartoonists is not allowed (firstly, the entire issue of blasphemy laws and its application in the modern world of nation-states is being discussed by leading scholars, and there are multiple views on this; secondly, all those who quote incidents from the Seerah: I reiterate, it is impermissible for a person to take the 'law' into his own hands and be judge, jury and executioner even in an Islamic land - how much more so when Muslim minorities are living in a land that is not ruled by their laws).
At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.
As usual, we are stuck between a rock and a hard stone. On the one hand, we have the excesses of our own internal angry followers, who always justify every violence because of what 'they' have done, and on the other hand we have the arrogance, intransigence and hypocrisy of segments of the Western world, who cannot see that they as well have a huge part to play in the rising tide of anger and violence."

Not a fan of that article. You/he are talking out of both sides of your/his mouth. Let's see. Freedom of speech should allow me to wear a burka, but it's arrogant, intransigent, and hypocritical to use your freedom of speech to publish cartoons that are offensive to me. Violence is wrong, but you're as responsible for the violence as the attackers because, uh, you used free speech in a way that's offensive to me, and this diminishes accountability for the violence.

Not a fan of the New Yorker article, either. Coming up next.

I am not. I cited the niqab ban to show the hypocrisy of the freedom of speech discourse. If Muslims are expected to accept the danish cartoons in the name of Freedom, then they should be allowed to dress as they pleased in the name of that same freedom. Nowhere in what was posted was it ever said that Violence was right or should be expected because of published cartoons or personal grievances of Muslims

PP again. To be very clear about your freedom of speech double standard, you have argued that
1. Women should be allowed to wear burkas freely, but
2. The cartoonists should have shown restraint.
Just to re-emphasize, others here have not accepted that the niqab ban is purely a freedom of speech issue, instead they have brought up issues such as a society preserving its own values (like KSA does) and protecting women from having the burka imposed on them (despite your you tube video, the jury is still out on what percent of women chooses the niwab vs. has it imposed. I could bring any number of ex-Muslim feminsists to counter your Yourtube video, except that I think such anecdotes are pointless.)

Your double standard about violence goes as follows:
1. Violence is wrong, of course, but
2. The journalists should have responded to threats of violence by publishing nicer cartoons, that is, they were "idiots" to not simply cave into threats of violence and thus partly culpable.

No, that is not what I said. I said: You can not call for freedom of speech for cartoonist when you ban the freedom of a part of your population to dress and practice their religion as they see fit. The reasonings behind the niqab, the number of women forced to wear it, ex-muslim feminists are quiet frankly irrelevant since we are talking about freedom here. Why do states have the right to dictate how people dress and then come around and say we are a free open democracy, that is hypocritical. KSA and the so called "Muslim" countries you talk about do not go around labeling themselves as Free Open democracies and nobody sees them as such.

To your second point about violence, again, stop misquoting me, that is not what I said. The point was it is IDIOTIC to continue reprinting the cartoons just thinking that will make a change. You think people who are willing to kill will just say: "Oh, they are republishing the cartoons, we will stop killing people"? The West will always talk about freedom but are they objective? In the UK, an advert showing a pregnant nun having ice-cream was banned because according to The Advertising Standards Authority, “it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs”. An Australian man was charged with mooning Britain's Queen Elizabeth II . And finally, even if you / Newspapers or any one Mock Islam / Muslims , We and what Yasser has been trying to consistently repeat is that we do not respond to it with violence. So your Entire attempt to debate into violence..is like a senseless argument with yourself Not with some one else. Nobody defended it, in fact we keep trying to tell people not to be provoked, and responding with violence is a hypocrisy because its against the teachings of islam.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one here is blaming "muslims and Islam" for this. People here are blaming radical Islamic terrorists. The same way we'd be blaming radical right-wing Christian terrorists if they shot up the place or any other group. Pretending this attack isn't connected to *some offshoot* of Islam is silly.

In fact, I have deleted multiple posts that blamed the attacks on Islam. I simply will not stand for that sort of post and remove them if/when I see them.

In response to the query as to why I posted the religion of the Muslim police officer and didn't post about the other two police officers, it is because I am completely prejudiced in favor of Muslims and don't give a shit about anyone else. No, that's actually not it, though it appears to be what was being suggested. The explanation is much more simple. I saw in my Twitter feed that the officer was Muslim. I didn't see anything about either other officer until I read it here. Despite all my efforts, I am still not able to post things I don't know.

Yet we're supposed to know about deleted posts. Okay. Interesting.

Calm down. I didn't suggest you should know. I was informing you because I assumed that you didn't know.

I don't need to be told to calm down. I'm very calm. It's condescending and unwarranted.

I apologize. I should have said, "Don't be so sensitive."

Not sensitive either. If you read my other comments in this thread, you'll see I'm quite rational. I noted an apparent contradiction in your statements. That implies nothing about my emotional state. I do object to men frequently characterizing women who disagree with them as needing to "calm down" or being "too sensitive", though. I don't know if you personally do that regularly or not, but I'll note it when I see it.

You are not doing a particularly good job of demonstrating your lack of sensitivity. By the way, I had no idea whether you are male or female and actually had assumed you were male. Had I known you were female, I would have told you to shut up and make me a sandwich (joking, joking, joking, I swear I am joking). A need to be calm and less sensitive is not something that I attribute to one sex over the other. Members of both sexes can stand to do both.

Well, we'll disagree then. Which in your mind means I'm too sensitive, because objecting to something you say means a person must be over sensitive. Oh well then! And, to clarify, you haven't done a good job of making your case at all. But vive la difference.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
You are not doing a particularly good job of demonstrating your lack of sensitivity. By the way, I had no idea whether you are male or female and actually had assumed you were male. Had I known you were female, I would have told you to shut up and make me a sandwich (joking, joking, joking, I swear I am joking). A need to be calm and less sensitive is not something that I attribute to one sex over the other. Members of both sexes can stand to do both.

"Butthurt" poster here. Way to dig yourself in, Jeff! You found several more ways, in several new sentences, to keep telling her to "calm down." Meanwhile you're not exactly ignoring her, instead you keep coming back to argue your side and to tell her to calm down again. I've been there: it's passive aggressive, it can be intimidating when it comes from the moderator, but most of all, it was uncalled for the first time you said it.

Ironic that you are posting this in a thread in which the right to be offensive is being so strongly defended. I was using humor. Doesn't that make it okay?

Not PP, but wow now that was offensive. Equating yourself to the murdered satirists? Because some people said they found what you said offensive? Classy.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
I think you are confusing two separate things. The free speech case involving Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt was about a cartoon. I am not surprised that the cartoon was published in law school textbooks. But, I pretty sure it was not published by the mainstream media that is now publishing anti-Muslim cartoons. But, I was actually talking about Larry Flynt getting shot, which is separate from the lawsuit. The shooter was upset because of interracial photos in the magazine. Nobody would expect the Washington Post to publish those X-rated photos to show that Larry Flynt's free expression wouldn't be infringed upon by someone with a gun. Ironically, nobody would expect the Post to publish x-rated photos because they would offend the Post's readers. But, apparently, offending Muslims is no big deal.

Also, I would distinguish between publishing the cartoons as a means of demonstrating the type of drawings published by CH and publishing the drawings as an act of solidarity. As a news item, I think a range of drawings -- not only those about Muslims -- should be shown. A full understanding of CH requires knowing how it represents Jews and Christians. Otherwise, a distorted view of the magazine would be presented. But, again, the media wouldn't want to show a cartoon captioned "Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" that illustrates the trinity with a drawing of males engaged in anal intercourse. That would offend someone other than Muslims.

Yes, it's obviously an act of solidarity. I don't understand why you're busy trying to make various semantic distinctions. I think you have the wrong end of the stick here.The cartoons against Muslims are the cartoons that elicited threats of violence and that eventually led to the murders. The cartoons about the Pope didn't lead to mass murder. So solidarity is going to involve cartoons about Islam and not about the Pope. Republishing the cartoons is not about defying the Pope, it's about defying Muslim radicals.

Why should the Pope be insulted all over again because some Muslims killed the cartoonists? I don't get that logic.

As for the Larry Flint thing. As you said, those photos were X-rated (like your Trinity example) -- as opposed to the CH cartoons, which I agree were bigotted stereotypes, but the dozen or so I saw were not x-rated. Are you arguing that the Post should take up posting Xrated photos, in order to ensure equality of acts of solidarity?

Also, Flint was killed by a loner. The lone killer is dead, and he can no longer intimidate anybody or be discouraged by mass publication of the offensive photos. Whereas, the threat against freedom of speech in those cartoons continues.

And.... now it's somebody else's turn to call you "butthurt." What's with the childish grumbling about offending "someone other than Muslims"? Really, grow up. Also, that's not even correct. CH publishes lots of cartoons aimed at Christians, Jews, and many others. Heck, it's open season on Catholics every day here at DCUM, with constant quips from one poster in particular about how every single priest wants to screw kids - yet you're completely unbothered by that, apparently. (Why? Oh, who cares. Carry on ignoring the people who are just as scatological about Wiccans and Catholics every day on your own website.)

Actually, some of the CH cartoons are X-Rated, they have X-Rated pictures of the Prophet (saw) that I unfortunately stumbled upon, distasteful and Very offensive, so your point is moot.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.

To the PP, do not distort the words on my posts. It doesn't say anywhere that journalists should have been smart enough to cave in the threats of violence. It said:

At the same time, it is also idiotic to continue provoking a group of people who have a long list of their own internal and external political and social grievances that stretch back for many decades (here I mean the N. African Muslim population of France), and then expect that nothing will happen.

This is in reference to the re-printing of the offensive pictures not the cartoonists. Satire against the powerful and mocking the oppressed, minorities, weak are two very different things. Muslims are an underclass in France, constantly ridiculed , with little to no power and these cartoons increased the racist prejudice against them. Islam and most muslims condemned the attack. Its against our doctrine and teaching of the prophet(SAW) but the failure of justice and simplicity of freedom may put peace in everlasting detention. If you call a man a bad name and he felt uncomfortable, why must you call him same name again with the impression of expressing your freedom of speech? Tolerance should recognize individual dignity. The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it.

Not the PP you're responding to but that's exactly what you said--just using different words. And there you go again alternately pleading victimization, blaming the victims and uttering gobbledygook under a thin veil of glittering generalities ("but the failure of justice and simplicity of freedom"--what the heck is that supposed to even mean?) to act as an apologist for a massacre. You would make a good propagandist.

I'll give you the real context: Ahmed Merabet, the policeman and Mustapha Ourrad, the Algerian staff member at Charlie Hebdo who came to France without a penny to his name and with a ticket paid for by his friends: winners. Honest, productive, law-abiding citizens. The papers said that Ourrad never ceased to wow with his charm and erudition.
The killers: Half literate dumbfuck criminals who suddenly found religion after going through every vice on earth and serving a hefty prison sentence. And that's what happens when you serve a heavy dose of religion to dumbfucks.

You think you are serving God by getting all excited about nonsense but in the end you are just tools of the Wahhabis and every other tyrannical so-called"Muslim" regime. Religious fervor keeps you under their thumbs while they rake in the goods and party.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now maybe we can move on. Perhaps you can address my earlier post asking why you said Muslima's quote made a good point - but you ignored one of its key themes, which is that the journalists should have been smart enough to cave in to threats of violence. And whether the point of the cartoons was not to deliberately insult people, but rather to defy those who are threatening violence.

I disagree that journalists should have caved into the threats of violence. I also disagree that threats of violence should be countered by lifting normal content guidelines. If a newspaper wouldn't have published one of the cartoons last week, it shouldn't publish one of them this week. It is wrong to let people with guns change your behavior one way or the other.

I think you're saying that we should let the police do their work, and be done with it. I also feel that this is a position of convenience for you. I feel like you'd totally change your mind if there were a hilarious cartoon involving the Trinity and homosexuals to be published. Maybe I'm wrong.

Finding and incarcerating the killers in no way stops the threat to CH. Without support from other journalists, CH is exposed again. CH is out there again as one of the few journals challenging threats involving cartoons. Unless CH caves too, which might well happen in the absense of support from other journals and journalists. Perhaps you think CH should never have published the cartoons in the first place, which is a defensible position, but now that CH went there, to me caving has become like paying ransom for hostages.

So why shouldn't people use any other non-violent means of protest that are available to them? Sure, other journalists are writing exposes about al Qaeda and ISIS, but nobody was ever killed over an expose. People are being killed over cartoons, so cartoons are point the where other journalists can lend non-violent support.

People are not being killed over cartoons, you can not look at this in a vacuum. Terrorism is always a symptom of something much bigger, the protagonists use the cartoons as their excuse. I don't know if anyone saw what Tim Wise said today but I completely agree with his point:

As we rightly condemn the senseless and barbaric murders of journalists in Paris can we still manage to have a rational conversation about free speech, without the empty platitudes about how these cartoonists were "heroes?" For instance, I believe it is possible to agree that free speech is an essential value, and that journalists should have the right to say what they want -- even to offend others -- without then proceeding to act as though every act of speech (just because people have a right to it) is therefore worth defending as to its substance, and that free speech protects one from being critiqued for the things one says. What I mean is this: I have a right, I suppose, to stand in the middle of Times Square and shout racial or religious slurs. And I surely should be able to do that without fear of being murdered for it. This last point in particular is so obvious as to be beyond debate, I would hope. But if I do this, whether in Times Square or in print, it makes me an asshole, and one who deserves to be labeled as such. Not a hero, but an asshole. And I don't become a hero just because I insulted people, some of whom might be even bigger assholes than me, and so dangerous and unstable that they decide to hurt me. People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one's speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong---always---I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of people whose job appears to have been to insult people they considered inferior to themselves. Especially because, historically, satire has always been about barbs aimed at those who are MORE powerful than oneself (the elite, royalty, the dominant social, economic, political or religious group), rather than being aimed down the power structure at those with less power. To satirize people who are the targets of institutionalized violence (whether for religious or racial or cultural or linguistic or sexual or gendered reasons) is not brave. It's sort of shitty, in fact. Should it be protected legally? Sure. Should those who do it be killed or punished in any way? Of course not. But should we hold them up as exemplars of who we want to be, all the while ignoring how the exercise of their freedom, without any sense of responsibility to the common good, actually feeds acrimony and violence on all sides? I think not. I really think we need to be talking about this.

[Anonymous]

I can look at this in a vacuum. There is good, and there is evil. This is evil.

[Anonymous]

A couple of you here would have hated and despised George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, and Richard Pryor who could be totally irreverent.

[Anonymous]

Muslima, I think you generally bring a useful viewpoint ( to which I disagree to varying degrees), but you have know that the pro-Palestinian demonstrations degenerated into numerous attacks to synagogues and other anti-Semitic acts. They were not anti-Israeli-policy -- they were against Jews. People chanting "death to the Jews" in the middle of Paris. People throwing stones to synagogues. You know that that's the reason some of them were banned -- for public safety. Please don't erode your credibility by portraying that banning them were a demonstration of Islamophobia. I agree that there is quite a bit of Islamophobia in France, but this is a bad example.