Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

bad_hair_day

Yossarian wrote:

'Rather than presuming that these are otherwise peaceful and law-abiding citizens’ Just a hunch but the profile of these guys is known to you? Poor orphans, pot smoking wasters…

Okay, maybe they weren't law-abiding, but they certainly weren't murderers, your argument rests on the assumption that something within Islam can turn people who've never killed before into murderers.

Hoop 2 'who are seduced by a niche interpretation of Islam' If a niche means the words from Allah are to be strictly adhered to by a true believer then you know that’s not niche but fundamental to the doctrine?

If this were true, a much higher proportion of Muslims would be killing people. They're not, so it's clearly a niche interpretation.

Hoop 3 ‘into believing that if they murder a whole load of people’ Because of their actions you know they regarded everyone involved with Charlie Hebdo as scum that needed to die and not just ‘a whole load of people?’

Um, yes, that's pretty clear. What's your point?

Hoop 4 'they'll go to heaven, what if we were to assume that these were people who reached a point where they just wanted out anyway, as you yourself acknowledge that some people do. If someone of faith reached such a point, does it not seem likely that they would.' You think they both reached this epiphany, and had enough of organising the passage of French Muslims to fight in Iraq and Syria - not at all useful to the cause? If the Police were on to them, people with those connections could disappear and fight in an emerging caliphate somewhere? If they’d had enough and wanted out via martyrdom, why didn't they take the opportunity of hanging around at the scene in a shootout at Charlie Hebdo? Willing to die for the cause sure, but let’s try get away and hide in the Projects - so they don’t want ‘out’ just yet. The police are on to them, so hotfoot to the countryside, so still don’t want to meet their maker. Exhausted they finally had to hold up somewhere. but are cornered and make their last stand; yep, only now paradise becomes the end game. They did their best to escape and NOT to die but weren't prepared to be captured. But you knew all this from the blanket news coverage?

Or, they simply wanted to cause as much chaos as possible on the way out, same as many other nutjobs who go on killing sprees and end up being killed by the police. Edit: they didn't make a break for the border as I'd expect most people who thought they could get away with this to do. France has plenty of borders. /edit Occam's razor suggests that with two competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is likely true. Your hypothesis is riddled with them, most of which come under one whopper: that there is something within a Islam, a religion which sees the vast majority of its adherents follow perfectly peacefully, which turns some otherwise non-murdering people into murderers. Also, both you and @Ian seem to be working under the assumption that every nutjob who shouts 'Allah akbar' when killing someone is a radicalised terrorist, as opposed to just a common or garden wacko who happens to be Islamic. Most Christian wackos would probably invoke god when murdering somebody, but if they were to do so, we wouldn't class them as terrorists, if you're Muslim and you do so, you are. What exactly is the difference?

Even with hindsight you offered an unnecessary what if scenario to how events actually played out.

You're saying they'd had enough of life and made a pact to die in a suicide mission.

I'm saying they wanted eventually to earn a place in paradise but heaven can wait.

You have to jump through hoops to arrive at that hypothesis.

Kow

If your enemy is a blueshirt do you attack him because he's wearing a blue shirt? Yes. Do you attack him because you have some fundamental problem with the colour blue being used on a shirt? No.

[Deleted User]

g.man wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

g.man wrote:

I think that the fear of being shot in the fucking head by people who will actually come and shoot you in the fucking head is a pretty legitimate concern.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the fraction of people who are actually shot in the head divided by the fraction of people who fear being shot in the head is fairly low. I also think the fear that people have about terrorists/immigrants/youth of today/blah fucking blah does nothing but help the cause of idiots when the stats are properly looked at. And being a journalist should carry some moral weight that is lacking in the press today. I noticed the Guardian and Independent showed the cartoon but the rest were too scared. Pussies.

You haven't really thought this through have you? All these newspapers and media organisations have a responsibility to their employees safety that far outweighs sticking it to extremists to please you. Imagine for instance an organisation like the BBC ran with these cartoons in all their broadcasts. That effectively makes every single bbc employee the world over a justifiable target for death by the sort of extremists who will actually kill these people for that reason. Who has the right to make the decision to put thousands of employees lives in danger in the name of some bullshit crusade about freedom of speech?

The BBC did show them. Here's a quick list;

1. Libération: Yes 2. CNN: No. 3. CBS News: Yes. 4. The Guardian: Yes. 5. Wall Street Journal: Yes. NBC News: No. 7. Mashable: No. 8. The Daily Beast: Yes. 9. BBC: Yes. 10. AFP/Yahoo: Yes. 11. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Yes. 12. USA Today: Yes. 13. Business Insider: Yes. 14. NPR: No. 15. Washington Post: Yes. New York Times: No. 17. Los Angeles Times: Yes. The Blaze: Yes. The Telegraph: No. Daily Mail: No. Huffington Post: Yes. 22. Mic: Yes. 23. Fox News: Yes. 24. New York Post: Yes. 25. BuzzFeed: Yes. 25. Artlyst: No

Yossarian

@BHD how is my hypothesis a 'what if' and yours isn't? Neither of us know what was going on in the heads of these guys, we can only speculate.

g.man

SpaceGazelle wrote:

g.man wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

g.man wrote:

I think that the fear of being shot in the fucking head by people who will actually come and shoot you in the fucking head is a pretty legitimate concern.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the fraction of people who are actually shot in the head divided by the fraction of people who fear being shot in the head is fairly low. I also think the fear that people have about terrorists/immigrants/youth of today/blah fucking blah does nothing but help the cause of idiots when the stats are properly looked at. And being a journalist should carry some moral weight that is lacking in the press today. I noticed the Guardian and Independent showed the cartoon but the rest were too scared. Pussies.

You haven't really thought this through have you? All these newspapers and media organisations have a responsibility to their employees safety that far outweighs sticking it to extremists to please you. Imagine for instance an organisation like the BBC ran with these cartoons in all their broadcasts. That effectively makes every single bbc employee the world over a justifiable target for death by the sort of extremists who will actually kill these people for that reason. Who has the right to make the decision to put thousands of employees lives in danger in the name of some bullshit crusade about freedom of speech?

The BBC did show them. Here's a quick list; 1. Libération: Yes 2. CNN: No. 3. CBS News: Yes. 4. The Guardian: Yes. 5. Wall Street Journal: Yes. NBC News: No. 7. Mashable: No. 8. The Daily Beast: Yes. 9. BBC: Yes. 10. AFP/Yahoo: Yes. 11. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Yes. 12. USA Today: Yes. 13. Business Insider: Yes. 14. NPR: No. 15. Washington Post: Yes. New York Times: No. 17. Los Angeles Times: Yes. The Blaze: Yes. The Telegraph: No. Daily Mail: No. Huffington Post: Yes. 22. Mic: Yes. 23. Fox News: Yes. 24. New York Post: Yes. 25. BuzzFeed: Yes. 25. Artlyst: No

What part of "for instance" did you not understand. The BBC was merely used as an example because it was the first name that sprang to mind, not because they did or didn't show the pictures.
Perhaps rather than boldly posting the offending cover here, you should have it made into a placard and go and stand waving it outside your local mosque for a day and see how you get on?

my point stands

g.man

dynamiteReady

Let's try looking at this another way...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/08/christopher-philips-ku-klux-klan_n_4561573.html

LarryDavid

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28246732

From last year, but a good run down of the basics how ISIS operates and what it aims towards.

dynamiteReady

Or just stick to 'us' and 'them'. I suppose it's easier.

Kow

If you want to take the 'us and them' route then logically a big part of it is that we haven't stuck, and continue not to stick', to 'us'.

dynamiteReady

Kow wrote:

If you want to take the 'us and them' route then logically a big part of it is that we haven't stuck, and continue not to stick', to 'us'.

How do you mean?

Kow

Well we've been stuck in their countries and resources and governments for decades, centuries.

Kow

I know you weren't making that point, I just saw an opportunity to slip it in. I do think the religion aspect is convenient to try and reinforce this 'them' argument', thereby absolving ourselves.

Roujin

Kow wrote:

I just saw an opportunity to slip it in.

Miso thred alert!

Kow

She practically said yes. Sounded like yes through the gag anyway.

equinox_code

I think there's a fairly solid case to be made that there was little in the way of 'us' and 'them' until we started talking about it in such terms. Self-fulfilling doctrines ftl

dynamiteReady

Well... Putting aside your inferences(?), in the link I'd just posted, you have an instance of 'free' speech, which was summarily punished by a British judge.

There are a load of differences between that specific case and what Charlie Hebdo were doing, but the fact that the judge actually jailed the "publisher", and the reasons for the punishment are certainly relevant here.

equinox_code

I find it ridiculous that we might jail people for insulting mohammed/the mccanns/holocaust survivors/military 'heroes'.

There's a lot i dislike about the US, but i do prefer their approach to free speech.

GooberTheHat

What were they trying to achieve with the cartoons though? They deliberately insult millions of people in order to do what? I'm all for free speech and clearly what happened was absolutely reprehensible and has no justification, but I don't understand why they felt it was right to deliberately insult and offend millions of people who have done nothing wrong to make a point about IS.

dynamiteReady

equinox_code wrote:

I find it ridiculous that we might jail people for insulting mohammed/the mccanns/holocaust survivors/military 'heroes'. There's a lot i dislike about the US, but i do prefer their approach to free speech.

What if the judge didn't jail that man, and he was beaten to death.

The gang or individual that beat him to death cite his 'work' (hanging golliwogs) as a clear motivation.
They argue that their 'crime', in some way, is a form of 'defense'...

Should the vigilante(s) be jailed?

And where's the deterrent to stop this from happening again?

Would you have the vigilante(s) live in state of purgatory?
I mean given the choice between the eternal threat of deadly violence and jail, most would take option number two...

mistercrayon

You're joking right?

Roujin

I dunno about you guys, but I'm about to download a digital copy of the Qu'ran and then delete the file.

COME AT ME FUNDAMENTALBROS

Yossarian

Imma draw Mohamed on an Etch a Sketch and then shake it clean.

dynamiteReady

mistercrayon wrote:

You're joking right?

Let's not disguise our opinions.

What don't you like about the question I've raised?

bad_hair_day

The Pope Frankie has announced his view on the limited rights of free speech...

http://newsthump.com/2015/01/16/freedom-of-speech-about-as-important-as-freedom-to-use-condoms-insists-pope/

Yossarian

You seem to have missed my question.

bad_hair_day

No, just ignoring it.

nick_md

Anyone see This Week last night? Infuriating.

Spent the whole segment on CH discussing whether the cover image in the latest issue was offensive.

I see two separate arguments about CH's depiction of Mo: Is it permissible at all to depict the prophet? Is it okay to depict him as they did over the years.

These are two very separate issues for me.

A quick summary of my personal opinion: everything is printable, even racist stuff, if you really must. I don't have to like it or support it though, but hey I do enjoy (as free as possible) free speech, so yeah, print away. The old, 'may not agree, die for your right' thing.

Anyway, back to TW - getting fixated on whether a picture of a sad Mo with 'all is forgiven' written is offensive, rather than discussing the entire bulk of the cartoons and their role in French society, just completely avoided the sharp end of the discussion. They had a French Algerian on who was just bombarded with 'do you think this picture of Mohammed is offense? do you think drawings of Mohammed should be banned? He has a tear and is saying all is forgiven, what's wrong with you!?' Was total bullshit. Would they be saying the same things if they were discussing the pig-head fucker cartoon?

I'd wager the vast majority in this country see this as simply a right to draw Mohammed issue, not a how he and other Muslims are portrayed issue.

djchump

bad_hair_day wrote:

No, just ignoring it.

Which is, quite literally, ignorance.

Yossarian wrote:

@BHD how is my hypothesis a 'what if' and yours isn't? Neither of us know what was going on in the heads of these guys, we can only speculate.

Seems like an entirely valid point.
You both speculated, but it seems only BHD turned around to accuse Yoss of "spectacular intellectually dishonest gymnastics".

[Edit] That is to say, unless one of you had/has some kind of extra evidence about the mental state and motivations of the terrorists (e.g. suicide note, manifesto, diary, youtube rantings etc.), then you're both speculating equally as much.

bad_hair_day

Yeah, that did come across rather sharp, my BSOF.

Reply fully when I get chance.

Funkstain

This has gone on quite a while, but it does seem quite simple:

1) There have always been disenfranchised or lunatic or sociopathic (etc) fringes of societies / cultures / religions who perpetrate atrocities in the name of their society / culture / religion. Islam is simply the name du jour.

2) These peoples' acts should absolutely not sully the reputation of invoked society / culture / religion UNLESS it is clearly and unambiguously repugnant, which Islam is not, or at least no more than other societies / cultures / religions.

3) Charlie Hebdo has been pursuing an islamophobic agenda for some time - even a brief perusal of their editorials and cartoons since 2001 should make that clear.

4) This agenda OBVIOUSLY does not justify the violent deaths of the creators, but is worthy of discussion since it exemplifies / facilitates (?) an increasing mainstream acceptance of bigotry.against muslim.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories