terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

You're missing the point. CH may be a pure issue of freedom of speech, but niqab-wearing is more complicated. The niqab debate is NOT just about freedom of speech. It is VERY relevant to bring the reasons women wear the niqab into the conversation, and whether they are in fact wearing it freely, as well as issues of national mores.

Niqab-wearing is not more complicated. It is a freedom of speech issue, if you can't see that, that is your prerogative but to restrict niqab because you don't know if people are forced to wear it or national mores is ridiculous and hypocritical when you label yourself as a free democracy.

Also, you don't get that we're talking about two sides of the same coin: You can't call for burka wearing and muzzling CH in the same breath.

Iam not muzzling CH. The niqab ban has been in place since 2010. My point remains, you can not ask Muslims to accept CH in the name of freedom of speech and in that same breath tell them they can't dress the way they choose to because it is inconsistent with the values of the republic.

Sorry, you never said what you're now claiming you said (that the idiocy involves expecting change). Here is what you actually 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." Your quote is right above, and everybody can check for themselves.

That's exactly what I said. Nowhere was it said it was referring to CH, you made that assumption on your own and I corrected you and told you that was referring to the current continuous printing of the cartoons thinking that would make a change, if you can't accept that, i can't help you.

Please, just stop with the nonsense about how the cartoons were designed to "provoke people to violence". The cartoons were a form of expression, no more, no less. But your rephrasing about how they were intended to "provoke violence" once again shifts the blame from the violent people to their victims.

Your words , not mine. Nowhere did I say that the cartoons were intended to provoke violence, maybe that is truly what you think? Interesting ~

Wrong, wrong, wrong,

Sorry. Niqab wearing IS more complicated than pure feared on of speech and you're wrong to write off women who are forced to wear it.

Also, the record clearly shows that typos DIFvkink idiocy to ignoring threats of violence, rather than your attempted rewrite to link idiocy to exoecting so change. And the statement stands: you can't telk CH to self-censure even as you try to make burkas into a freedom of speech issue.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Niqab wearing is more complicated than pure freedom of speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

most on this forum think he is racist.

I wish I had Maher's memory. No one refutes the facts. moral equivalence at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj58TavOIqg#t=13

And you know this how? I don't swing one way or the other with Maher but you're presuming an awful lot.

PP again. Though I was thinking of some of the comments about Maher, and there is a pool that does support your opinion. Never mind. I'm tired. To bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

You are misrepresenting their issue with Bill Maher, namely that Islam is the only religion "that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book." The religion doesn't kill people for writing a book. Maher is one who blames religion for the problems of society, and not just Islam. Bill Maher was the hero of conservatives in September. In March, when he called God a psychotic mass murderer, the Fox crowd was up in arms.

[Anonymous]

the problems of what society?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

I wonder was this kid set up? How did the murderers get his ID card (assuming he's innocent)? From the International Business Times:

Mourad Hamyd surrendered himself after reportedly seeing his name circulating on the media, but some reports now suggest that he had only gone to the police to clarify that he was in school at the time of the attack.
Hamyd, reportedly a student at a high school in Charleville-Mezieres near Reims has been named as one of the three suspects who attacked Charlie Hebdo office, along with two brothers - Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi.
Authorities claimed that Hamyd, the youngest suspect, drove the car in which the attackers fled after the shooting and was identified by an ID card left behind in the abandoned car, but many netizens have voiced the possibility of a possible decoy.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I doubt that every single person protesting was rioting and throwing stones at synagogues. But you prove my point that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech disingenuous! We can agree to disagree.

Muslima, do you understand what you are saying????? France (right or not) banned protests in support of Gaza last summer after prior protests had degenerated into riots resulting in violent attacks against French Jews and synagogues. so the ban (again, right or wrong) was AGAINST THE VIOLENT PROTESTERS, their freedom of speech was limited because some of them were expressing it by attacking other people. the cartoonist did not violently attack anybody, they drew satirical cartoons, there was no need to limit their free speech because they did not hurt anybody.

[Anonymous]

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."

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!

again, there is no double standard. CH mocked everything and everybody, including the Jews. just look at the second cartoon that Jeff posted yesterday depicting a caricature of a Jew with long pointed nose and so on. they did an entire section on the Holocaust. if you know Europe, you must this the Holocaust is THE TABOO there if there is one, nobody make fun of it, denying it is a crime in several countries. these people made an issue of satirical cartoons on the Holocaust in a country with millions of survivors or relatives of survivors of extermination camps. the history of the magazine simply shows clearly that they did not bow before Jews, just look at their cartoons, if you argue that CH had a special soft angle for Jews then you really do not want to see the facts.

about the cartoonist that was fired, I am not CH, I just see the news about it, it does not look at all that they fired somebody for mocking the Jews. the cartoonist apparently wrote a piece on a very specific person (the son of Sarkozy, then still president of France if I remember, who was engaged to a rich Israeli heiress) saying that he was converting to Judaism in order to get married to the rich girl and as a Jew get ahead in life. apparently this was not true, the guy did not convert to Judaism and was not pleased. when the journalist refused to apologize, he was let go. the employee was sued by others, not by CH (by a sort of French anti defamation league, which lost in court). as for the demonstrations, others have already pointed out that you are really disingenuous. we can discuss about the ban, but at the height of the Gaza war last summer demonstrations against Israel degenerated violent attacks against other French people (Jewish) and synagogues. there is Islamophobia in France, but there is also anti-Semitism, which result I attacks against Jewish people and destruction of property (synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, and so on) and Muslim youths from the banlieues have been involved in these attacks. so the situation is a little more complicated that "look France banned protests against Palestinians, the first country in Europe". and again, you still get confused about the issue of limitation of freedom of speech. the ban on the demonstrations was motivated by the need to avoid further violence BY PART OF THE DEMONSTRATORS. the cartoonists did not act violently. you seems to say that THE CARTOONISTS' freedom of speech should have been limited by France TO AVOID OTHER PEOPLE'S VIOLENCE.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN just announced there are 88,000 police and security personnel in France looking for the murders. They are determined to get them.

I wonder why we haven't heard more about the kid that turned himself in. It seems they should have been able to determine whether or not he was involved by now.

I wonder was this kid set up? How did the murderers get his ID card (assuming he's innocent)? From the International Business Times:

Mourad Hamyd surrendered himself after reportedly seeing his name circulating on the media, but some reports now suggest that he had only gone to the police to clarify that he was in school at the time of the attack.
Hamyd, reportedly a student at a high school in Charleville-Mezieres near Reims has been named as one of the three suspects who attacked Charlie Hebdo office, along with two brothers - Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi.
Authorities claimed that Hamyd, the youngest suspect, drove the car in which the attackers fled after the shooting and was identified by an ID card left behind in the abandoned car, but many netizens have voiced the possibility of a possible decoy.

I read in the French papers that Hamyd is the brother in law of one of the suspects. His friends told him that his name was circulating as one of the suspects and he went to the police with his dad and told the cops he had no idea what was going on since he was in school when all of this was happening.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I doubt that every single person protesting was rioting and throwing stones at synagogues. But you prove my point that France has chosen security over speech previously and so the absoluteness of yesterday's Freedom of Speech disingenuous! We can agree to disagree.

Muslima, do you understand what you are saying????? France (right or not) banned protests in support of Gaza last summer after prior protests had degenerated into riots resulting in violent attacks against French Jews and synagogues. so the ban (again, right or wrong) was AGAINST THE VIOLENT PROTESTERS, their freedom of speech was limited because some of them were expressing it by attacking other people. the cartoonist did not violently attack anybody, they drew satirical cartoons, there was no need to limit their free speech because they did not hurt anybody.

Uhm no, that is not what I am saying. France banned the protests because It chose to do so under the guise of "a high risk path" .This was a political move.The ban in fact was the CAUSE of the riots since citizens took it to the streets and marched anyways clashing with cops on the streets. The decision of France to ban marches was criticized by Amnesty International and many other international organizations. Amnesty stated at the time that it was concerned about "the threat in France to the fundamental right of freedom of peaceful assembly" and that "the ban appeared to be an admission by France that it could not control its own people, and that the "peaceful intentions" of the vast majority of protestors should be respected. " You can not have it both ways! But really I don't want to turn this conversation into the Palestinian issue so back to the cartoonists & CH !

[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."

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!

again, there is no double standard. CH mocked everything and everybody, including the Jews. just look at the second cartoon that Jeff posted yesterday depicting a caricature of a Jew with long pointed nose and so on. they did an entire section on the Holocaust. if you know Europe, you must this the Holocaust is THE TABOO there if there is one, nobody make fun of it, denying it is a crime in several countries. these people made an issue of satirical cartoons on the Holocaust in a country with millions of survivors or relatives of survivors of extermination camps. the history of the magazine simply shows clearly that they did not bow before Jews, just look at their cartoons, if you argue that CH had a special soft angle for Jews then you really do not want to see the facts.

about the cartoonist that was fired, I am not CH, I just see the news about it, it does not look at all that they fired somebody for mocking the Jews. the cartoonist apparently wrote a piece on a very specific person (the son of Sarkozy, then still president of France if I remember, who was engaged to a rich Israeli heiress) saying that he was converting to Judaism in order to get married to the rich girl and as a Jew get ahead in life. apparently this was not true, the guy did not convert to Judaism and was not pleased. when the journalist refused to apologize, he was let go. the employee was sued by others, not by CH (by a sort of French anti defamation league, which lost in court). as for the demonstrations, others have already pointed out that you are really disingenuous. we can discuss about the ban, but at the height of the Gaza war last summer demonstrations against Israel degenerated violent attacks against other French people (Jewish) and synagogues. there is Islamophobia in France, but there is also anti-Semitism, which result I attacks against Jewish people and destruction of property (synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, and so on) and Muslim youths from the banlieues have been involved in these attacks. so the situation is a little more complicated that "look France banned protests against Palestinians, the first country in Europe". and again, you still get confused about the issue of limitation of freedom of speech. the ban on the demonstrations was motivated by the need to avoid further violence BY PART OF THE DEMONSTRATORS. the cartoonists did not act violently. you seems to say that THE CARTOONISTS' freedom of speech should have been limited by France TO AVOID OTHER PEOPLE'S VIOLENCE.

Look, we will just have to agree to disagree, no need to hash this out 1000 times. You're saying that because Jewish people have a long story of being abused in Europe, the Holocaust is taboo, and they are exempt? Here we are taking about Mauraice Sinet, who was 80 at the time and was fired by Charlie Hebdo over a column some interpreted as “linking prejudice about Jews and social success.” France’s Hate Speech Laws, however, are not designed to just protect Jews.

In 30's America when white people were burning black people on trees, whites could equally have used this argument. After all there were cartoons even about the president! However making insulting cartoons about white people who controlled the power structures was not the same as demonizing black people?, a powerless underclass. Imagery of black people being, dumb, violent, lazy, thieves who looked like monkeys?—?upheld a political reality, the very imagery re-enforced the prejudices of those in power and subjugated blacks.

The same with Jews in Nazi Germany?. Imagine today’s spurious and conceited argument being used by the Nazi’s?. Could a German newspaper hide behind the claim it also made fun of white Germans? How unjustified that only the Jews complained so! After all Germans didn’t complain when they were made fun of?. ?Those backward Jews and their greedy religion didn’t understand free speech!

The Muslims today are a demonized underclass in France. A people vilified and attacked by the power structures. A poor people with little or no power and these vile cartoons made their lives worse and heightened the racist prejudice against them.The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it. It has to be seen through the prism of events that are going on around the world. With eyes firmly fixed on the wars going on from Palestine to Pakistan.

A global view spreading across the Muslim world, is that the West is at war with them (propagandists say this is due to hate preachers?, nothing to do with more bombs being dropped on Iraq alone than were used in the whole of the first and second world war). I argue, that we are creating extremists in the bucket load and have done so exponentially, since we declared this endless war of terror . Our policies are hardening views on all sides. Twelve people are dead because the world we are creating is utterly polarized.

We need to have an honest conversation about the root problems. Grievance and ideology are the 2 main ingredients, and we need to talk about the impact of foreign policies, military invasions, occupation ect. 2 People wanted to avenge Mohamed (saw) but they killed Ahmed, there is irony in that, but I can't even find humor in it, it is a sad day for the World.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

Maher is back and is continuing to press his argument. Whatever one thinks of the merits of his arguments, the dude's got courage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Bill Maher was called a racist for saying fundamental Muslims kill people who publish cartoons they disagree with?

Maher is back and is continuing to press his argument. Whatever one thinks of the merits of his arguments, the dude's got courage.

Maher's HBO show, "Real Time With Bill Maher," returns on Friday night and one of his guests will be author Salman Rushdie, who knows first-hand the wrath of the Muslim world after the Supreme Leader of Iran called for his assassination in 1989 after the publication of his novel "The Satanic Verses."

Remember Rushdie, target of a fatwa for writing a book.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty funny to see conservatives cheer on two atheists who mock religion and despise the Republican Party, just because they dislike Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty funny to see conservatives cheer on two atheists who mock religion and despise the Republican Party, just because they dislike Islam.

That is a ridiculous comment. Disliking Islam has nothing to do with anything. You're a moron.