It reads "I am Charlie", and there are bunch of translations in the PDF.
I don't know what the site is about.
Edit: Alright, the domain is the actual domain of Charlie Hebdo. This isn't some kind of political message by a third party but most likely a message by the people of Charlie Hebdo. I don't know any more.
Well ... this is satirical magazine that puts offensive content on purpose (not pointlessly though) and they had their headquarters attacked and 10 personal killed (also 2 police officers).
They were notorious for mocking all religions and have posted content offensive to all.
Right now it is thought that this was the work on islamist terrorists (I have not seen reliable info though, and crazy is cross religion)
Now to make matters worse the right is on the rise in Europe and the interfaith tensions are high due to complex reasons (being in economic depression for a decade helps little).
In a sense this was attack against the core values of what lots of Europe believes. And there are a lot of people for which anti muslim sentiment is a godsend ...
Tiny detail, one of the cops that was killed on duty was a Muslim man named Ahmed. Hoping this will help avoiding the racist crowd to take advantage of the event too much.
Well, actually much more. If you tell me you're atheist I don't know much about your race. If you tell me you're a muslim, I can have a very good statistical chance to pinpoint you in one of several ethnicities...
> If you tell me you're a muslim, I can have a very good statistical chance to pinpoint you in one of several ethnicities...
So what? A person's race doesn't determine the ideas, religious or otherwise, that they hold. Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it.
A person's ideas, on the other hand, make all the difference in the world. Who can deny that these terrorists were not motivated and guided by a distinct ideology: fundamentalist Islam?
>So what? A person's race doesn't determine the ideas, religious or otherwise, that they hold.
You'be be surprised. The race (or, to be precise, the ethnicity) very much determines the ideas, religious or otherwise that a person holds. Statistically very much. There's a reason a person born in Italy is far far far more likely to be Catholic and not Budhist, etc.
>Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it.
That you can point to a few specific invdividuals as examples for that, doesn't it tell you all you need to know? That these people are famous exactly as outliers?
Most people stick with the prevailing religion in their country etc.
I really doubt it ... the recent Ny cops death and the reaction of the minority of the force (and mostly the union leadership) showed - people will spin any event in whatever is needed, if it is their job to do so.
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.
Even if they weren't even-handed, it wouldn't change a thing. They could be publishing a newspaper named "Fuck Muhammad" and it'd still be equally wrong for them to have been attacked in this way.
I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.
Oh, I agree, it's just that the impression the FT tries to give ("Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper specialized in Muslim-baiting") is wrong. Hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing.
But they are supposed to be free to practice their religion, which means shooting people for a drawing. Maybe religious freedom should not extend to psychopathic ideologies just as freedom to bear arms does not extend to personal nuclear weapons.
Wasn't the act of shooting a religious practice? You may choose to rationalize a separation of religion from its inevitable outcomes. They don't.
Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.
I'm not so much hiding from the issue as (apparently) failing to understand what point you are trying to make.
Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).
I think we agree that the killing is not a good outcome. Going back to your initial statement that "hopefully nobody reading this thinks it's entirely reasonable to shoot people for a drawing", my point is that hopefully nobody reading this thinks Islam is compatible with reason.
"Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.
We don't coddle religious fanatics, we coddle the moderate masses.
As soon as extremists get involved things change. These murders have caused many people who were against publishing Mohammed cartoons to change their stance.
> Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech
How is explicitly challenging those who oppose free speech not the best way to be a 'champion of the principle of free speech'?
Your link is so much more relevant than the thousands of people taking the streets brandishing "Je suis Charlie" signs when the terrorists are still at large. /s
Right. Or if you're non-religious but also not a communist.
More importantly, the condemnation of "extremism" misses the point. No one's worried about Catholic monks. Yet they're some of the most extreme religious extremists around. Buddhist monks even more so.
He means it was "islamic fanaticism", so it's islams fault, and those other types are not fanatics...
On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades.
Yeah, after I wrote that it occured to me also that in the past the "poor opressed" buddhists of Tibet (with Dalai Lama as their spokesperson) actually ruled over the people there as dictatorial overlords, with slaves and everything...
The difference with Islam is that the Koran advocates for violent persecution of non-muslims and that is something that the founder, Mohammed, took a great part in including murdering people [in battle and after when they refused to convert] and taking their wives as his possessions. It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those positions are contrary.
Sikhism has violent elements in it's historical fundamentals too, from what I've read. But they have appear to me to have been 'editted' out to some extent (cf history of the kirpan).
Whilst Shintoist Japanese were involved in horrible atrocities Shintoism, at least Confucian Shintoism, historically was quite anti-war.
Simply being an adherent of a particular way or faith or religion and performing violence doesn't make that 'way' a violent one. There is a great difference between this and the foundation and fundamental teachings including violence.
>It seems to me that if you choose to identify as a follower of Mohammed you can't uphold him as a paragon and oppose violence, those positions are contrary.
Well, being contradictory is nothing that ever stopped people (religious or not). For example Jesus was all about piece, yet horrible attrocities have been done in his name by people saying their were for Jesus ideals (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Latin American indians, etc).
You can use the New Testament and Jesus own words/actions to criticise the [Spanish] Inquisition whilst you can't do the same with non-abrogated ayahs or by demonstrating the contrast with Mohammed's model of life.
There's documentary evidence, via Wikipedia, to support 1250 being sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition over a 200 year period. The monarchy in Spain established that Inquisition: the people were tried for things like witchcraft but also child rape, bestiality and such which are still consider serious crimes today - though seldom is capital punishment legally applied for those crimes now. Interestingly none of the motives mentioned in the Wiki' article is "spreading Christianity": indeed IIRC the Inquisitions apply to those "baptised" in to the Catholic church [albeit baptisms were often under duress of being expelled from Spain it seems].
Whatever atrocities can be pegged on Christians I don't see how that stops the Koran and Mohammed from being supporters of violent persecution however.
Well you can look at it based on how each news source labeled it, some stated terrorist, some stated attackers, some called it out for they religion they are, Islamic.
Far too many people fear to name it for what it is.
Sally Kohn of CNN: "It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions. #CharlieHedbo"
Totally disregarding that machine-gunning to death 11 people because you're offended, which is what just happened, is a gross violation of free speech in addition to being a human tragedy. By bringing this up right now, how could this be interpreted any other way than believing these tragedies wouldn't happen if those people weren't so darn disrespectful of Muslims.
Sally Kohn is actually right in what you quoted, even if not in where you think she's going with it.
I believe in free speech, including the right to insult other people's faith traditions. (Other people feel free to insult my faith traditions, and do so on a semi-regular basis. I respond with speech, not with bullets or bombs.)
On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting other people's faith traditions to be a virtue.
What's more, we live in a world where violent extremists exist. That's reality. They shouldn't exist, but this is not an ideal world. They're out there. When you choose to deliberately insult the cherished beliefs of violent extremists, in the real world you have to know that you are likely to cause some consequences. (Let me be very clear here. The violent extremists are morally responsible for the violent reaction. But when you push their buttons, you have to know that their buttons are hot-wired to their trigger fingers.)
Now, you may conclude that it's worth it to demonstrate that these people really are violent extremists. That's your choice. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But you'd better think it through before you do it, because the way the world actually works, you may receive some consequences.
The people that died today were a warriors. In a war that I am not sure you even realize is waging. The war for the freedom of the human mind. Humor, satire, mockery - they all help society to see through haze.
Because nothing should be sacrosanct. The moment we say that even a single thing is ... then everything that suits the powers that be will be.
because this is not just about freedom of speech, it is about freedom of religion, the freedom to live your life as you so choose in any shape or form that does not negatively impact others.
these people do not believe in any self determination.
On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting other people's faith traditions to be a virtue.
I don't see that. This is a magazine that you can choose to buy or to ignore. If you don't want to be insulted (most satirical magazines insult everyone, including me), don't buy it.
I can guarantee you that's not what she means, or if so, it would be wildly inconsistent with the definition of victim blaming re. rape victims which she supports. You would never, ever, catch her saying "it was a completely expected outcome if you lead the guy on" or digress about how so many girls dress so provocatively. She would rightly focus on the exact crime and its perpetrator.
There's a big, big, big difference between insult and satire.
I'll let you think about that for a while.
Charlie was a satirical paper, it was here to provoke thoughts, not just for muslims. The people that took the insult were the people that don't understand satire.
That's not saying much, though: everything can be considered an act of violence when interpreted by twisted minds. You can get assaulted just for merely looking at someone's wife.
I am just shocked to hear a CNN representative say that we should find ways to avoid offending people with words: this is not just a futile endeavor, it's a very dangerous one that leads to thought police and arbitrary sentences.
Some context for people wondering what this is about.
Wednesday 7th, at 11am, 3 people entered "Charlie Hebdo" a very well known French satirical newspaper and shot 12 people with kalashnikov. Charlie Hebdo is also known, for their caricatures of the prophet Mahomet.
"Je Suis Charlie" means, "I Am Charlie" and is a message of support to the newspaper.
(That's irrelevant. However, it's also an urban legend. Be rest assured that no one in Kennedy's German audience was even for a second confused and didn't understand exactly what he meant. He was perfectly clear. Even if you argue that his choice of words is grammatically questionable – something I disagree with and I think it works quite well as an emphasis and makes it clear that he is speaking figuratively and not simply declaring that he is from Berlin or was born in Berlin – the context of his speech and the preceding sentence as well as the sentence itself make it crystal clear what he is talking about and also insures that no one is thinking of baked things.)
Yep, Kennedy had his speech prepared by a native German speaker. There was no confusion.
An equivalent(ish) English example would be saying "I am a New Yorker."
Does it mean you literally are a Reuben (or New Yorker Sandwich)? Hell no, it is plainly obvious that is a ludicrous interpretation even without grammatical context of the rest of the speech.
> not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.
Something that reddit doesn't care about at all. I was wondering if no post about this event was on HN's frontpage because it tries to avoid political/flame wars. But now this is on the frontpage 5 hours after... And it's not even relevant.
> how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion
Although it would be nice, from a PR standpoint, if some French Muslim organizations could condemn those events, becuase I don't know what most Muslims think about Charlie Hebdo. Have they? I have searched Google News for that and didn't find links, so please post if there are some. Or they may just not be sufficiently organized for PR.
The president of the UOIF [1], the collective of all the French muslim organizations,
is invited to speak at 8pm on France 2 (the national TV channel). Source: https://twitter.com/UOIF/status/552891285900894209
At least here in Holland, many muslims form communities, often centered around cultural and religious centers. These communities tend to have leaders and/or spokespeople. These people can speak on behalf of the community. They are not (necessarily) self-appointed.
In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim extremist retaliation. They are in a really bad spot, and I sympathize with their situation.
1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance.
2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max vote, the rest can't be bothered because they are busy with their daily problems. Add to that that most Muslims live in a third world country, so they have enough problems already.
3- The first people affected by terrorism in term of body counts and extremism in general are Muslims themselves. Did you know for example that ISIS consider the previous president of egypt (Mursi) who is from the muslim brotherhood to be an infidel who need to be killed.
4- People in Muslim countries are getting numb to all this news reports because they are used to it. I remember when I was a kid watching Arab TV news showing people dying in Palestine and at one time the TV commentator laughed. She then said she was sorry and she didn't mean to laugh at what was happening. Most Arabs/Muslim who care about what's going on the Middle East have already watched too much death to react to it.
5- Some people do want to go to the street and demonstrate against this blood shed but they are not allowed by their local governments. They fear that this could turn in a revolt. Arab spring says hi.
6- There have been hundreds if not thousands of condemnation an protests by muslims all over the world but the media don't cover them much because they don't fit the narrative of evil muslims.
Me as a Muslim I'm ashamed of what is happening and wish this Scumbugs are captured and put to justice. I see to much politic invested in terrorism that I know it's about power not about religion.
I also do believe we muslims failed big time to adapt to the 21st century and need to wake up and get our acts together.
I'm really sorry for the families of the victims and I hope they capture the scums who did this.
There was an interesting discussion on reddit about this:
The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam.
So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet".
I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don't condemn your prophet, when is killing for insults allowed and when is it not becomes a valid question.
To put it bluntly : if you don't condemn this, you're at least somewhat of a terrorist supporter. If you do, how can you be a muslim (given what the daily prayer says, mohamed could not have done anything wrong, plus you'd be lying when you say that prayer).
Allow me to put up the full actions of the prophet :
Upon hearing the poem, Muhammad then called for her death
in turn, saying "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"
Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi, a blind man belonging to the
same tribe as Asma’s husband (i.e., Banu Khatma)
responded that he would. He crept into her room in the
dark of night where she was sleeping with her five
children, her infant child close to her bosom. Umayr
removed the child from Asma's breast and killed her.
This is far from the only time that muhammad did this sort of thing, and this is part of the "canon" of islam. It is also law in over 50 countries.
Well since you are asking about typing it in google. I actually did. Here is what comes as an answer from the muslim side[1]:
A member on my blog, brother "zulfiqarchucknorris", sent me the following information:
Peace
Dear Osama Abdullah
I would like to inform you that on the many articles about the "poet killings" (specifically asma bint marwan) you fail to to include why the asma bint marwan chain for ibn saad is weak, although the ibn ishaq version is fully explained. I'll give you the explanasion:
(copied from wikipedia, scroll toward the middle of the page)
Al-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:[2]
Ibn Sa'd → Al-Waqidi → 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl → Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars.[3] Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani[2] said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
In addition, this isnad is discontinued (muʻḍal) as Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl never met any of Muhammad's companions.[3]
Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
And does this answer satisfy you ? Answering-christianity (the site) is full of these sorts of answers. Most are similar to this one.
The technical answer to this reply is, firstly, that the same story is told by different narrators, not just the one mentioned. This is, of course, conveniently left out from the reponse you posted.
But if you're not a muslim, the answer is that this is part of the islamic canon. It's also part of sharia. It's part of the law in >50 islamic countries. If the argument held any water this would not be true.
> Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
Sorry I was trained in exact sciences, and I have family that's in history (with focus on religious history). I believe in first sources' authority over people's authority.
He only had one killed? What a modest man, by biblical standards.
For comparison:
> He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
(Not to mention killing all the firstborns of Egypt, wiping out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah's family, yadda yadda.)
> He only had one killed? What a modest man, by biblical standards.
No this is just one example. Estimates of how many people got killed and/or massacred by the prophet to bring us islam range from 10 000 to 100 000.
Individual people murdered by the prophet or his assassins (on his direct orders, excluding massacres of entire villages/groups/caravans/muslims), according to muslim's own history, is about 1220 people (most were "convicted" by him, the victims not even knowing there was a trial. That's how islam works : muslims would go to the prophet, explain the situation, the prophet would convict someone to death and send a squad of muslims to go kill the man/woman).
Example:
A girl wearing ornaments, went out at Medina. Somebody struck her with a stone.
She was brought to the Prophet while she was still alive. Allah's Apostle asked
her, "Did such-and-such a person strike you?" She raised her head, denying
that. He asked her a second time, saying, "Did so-and-so strike you?" She
raised her head, denying that. He said for the third time, "Did so-and-so
strike you?" She lowered her head, agreeing. Allah's Apostle then sent for the
killer and killed him between two stones.
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 83, Number 16)
Islam/muslims (the Mughals to be exact) also hold the title of biggest massacre in history. The Mughal invasion of India was a massacre that lasted almost 1300 years and estimates of the death toll range from 60 million to 300 million people. Before the massacre India bordered Russia. Ironically a region of Afghanistan is still called "Hindu Kush" or massacre of Hindus.
"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).
Remember that religious texts are mostly proverbs. These events most probably didn't actually happen, they are trying to communicate moral attitudes via stories... a little like Winnie the Pooh and Friends.
1) does that excuse muhammad's massacres in any way ? Or should I answer with pointing out that atheists are responsible for the biggest massacres of the 20th century perhaps (ie. the communist "opium for the people" folks)
2) you're mostly showing ignorance, as "mostly proverbs" does not apply at all to islamic texts. Random example :
Different religions are different (surprising how controversial such an obvious truth can be).
3) Given that you're comparing moral parables ("lies to convey a greater truth" I've heard it defined, like fairy tales) to actual events, your point is reversed.
> In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim extremist retaliation. They are in a really bad spot, and I sympathize with their situation.
They're no more quiet than when say a white Christian lunatic (Breivik) shot 77 people to death and injured over 300. The vast majority of them will denounce both acts, but otherwise they're pretty quiet. Which goes for most people, really, none of my non-muslim friends have gone to any demonstrations lately or spoke out publicly. Sure there are people who do it, but that goes for muslims, too. It's not always very well reported, but if you go and look you'll find a shit ton of muslim leaders denounce such attacks, for example today the French Muslim Council called it an "attack on democracy", barbaric, an attack on freedom of the press etc. And you don't really see anyone speak out against those Muslim organisations like CFCM which is said to represent between 3.5 and 5 million muslims in France. And these aren't just formal organisations, they often have deep ties to the community, particularly with direct links to formal networks of all mosques in the country.
I always wonder what it'd really look like. I'm not religious but family is. They look at attacks like these with disgust. But he's not a well known individual, he has no place on TV to 'publicly speak out'. What would that even look like? Public persons tend to speak out against attacks like these without exception. Today the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam did, and a Muslim member of the Labor party has planned demonstrations with a large Moroccan youth movement coinciding with demonstrations planned in France.
>The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[4] but he is not "excessively religious"[4] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[3][4] His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[3][182] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."[3][192] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.[193] //
I described myself as a "cultural christian" as a teenager, I was agnostic and acted atheistically (ie not a Christian). He surely means he wants to maintain 'Western' culture rather than allow Islamisation. That's not "Christian", if he were a Christian terrorist the aim of the terror would be to convert people to Christianity or punish them for not being/opposing Christians. He was, according to this, not bothered by any non-Christians as long as they didn't seek to change Western culture.
If Breivik had cried "for Jesus" or said he was "killing those who offended God by opposing Christianity" then the Pope, Archbishops, and other leaders of formalised Christian congregations would have been giving statements against it at the drop of a hat.
Some of their victims were likely Muslims, including the cop they executed as he laid wounded. Unlike the US, I think most French people actually at least casually know some Muslims, which helps not seeing them as an alien entity.
Just a small precision (I am French and following media closely):
- Two people assaulted the office, and killed 10, wounded 11 (4 of which considered critical).
- They furthermore killed 2 police officers on their way out, one of them point blank as he lay wounded and was asking for mercy (do yourself a favor and don't look at that witness video. I mean it. NSFL).
- They are on the loose and are reported armed with automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. No kidding.
- Their car was found in a suburban ghetto (Pantin, in Seine-saint-denis)
It will probably survive, actually. Many people will buy the journal in the next few weeks, even if they never read it before. There are many talentuous cartoonists that can help for a few months if needed. And even without that, how could the French government let that journal fail in the next weeks ? It would be a very negative symbol; that would mean "they" won.
This is horrible, and we as a society need to somehow make this kind of thing not happen. I have no idea what that means in practice, though. It seems everything that has been tried so far has only escalated the hatred and strengthened the extremists.
Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
But it's hard not to get swept up in it right now. I too want to _do something_. The question is, what? How is freedom of speech best defended in the face of unreasonable people who have no limits to what they are prepared to do?
People being murdered is a shame, but the only way that it can stifle freedom of speech is if we let it. Obviously the person(s) murdered lose their ability to exercise that freedom when they're murdered, but the point is to continue pushing forward as a whole. Doing that requires us to all decide to continue to utilize our freedom.
There is no muslim (extremist or not) law that encourages these acts, research it. You can tweak any law to do exactly as you wanted to do and that's what those people are doing. The last thing I know about a war (if we put this as a kind of war) is don't cut trees, don't kill non-armed soldier, women, children or old people but they keep beheading people on national television.
I think that's unfortunately just the first order aim. The second order is to provoke an even more extreme reaction from the other side which drives wedges and divisions where there were none (or were manageable). Pretty soon everyone is at war.
Not for very long, though, if by "war" you mean war, rather than the sort of half-hearted low-intensity brushfire nonsense of which we've seen so much out of US policymakers for the last couple of decades.
Charb, one of the victims (and maybe the main target) said in 2012: "Je n'ai pas de gosses, pas de femme, pas de voiture, pas de crédit. C'est peut-être un peu pompeux ce que je vais dire, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux." ("I have no kids, no wife, no car, no debt. It may sound a tad pompous but I'd rather die standing up than on my knees.")
Even aside from the blatantly unreasonable people, consider the reasonable people who don't think that you should have that freedom of speech. Demographic trends present in Europe today make eventual change in public policy on the matter an increasingly realistic prospect. This is one of the underlying reasons behind the European right's distress about rising influence of Muslims, and a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment and related intolerance.
It's kind of a new problem: how can a democratic, tolerant society defend both ideals (democracy, tolerance) under these circumstances? And at the same time it does echo back to old conflicts: once upon a time European, Christian states were facing increasing pressure from Arabic, Islamic ones... their solution involved crusades. :/
(No solutions to this problem are hereby offered or endorsed.)
The democratic society has to convert people to a democratic, tolerant viewpoint at something approaching the rate at which people from other backgrounds enter the country. As far as I can see, that's the only thing that can possibly work.
Many European born people are traveling to Syria to fight for ISIS. They're not being converted by extremist immigrants but by online communities and their extremist non-immigran friends.
Hang on: in england we had blasphemy laws that meant you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ (those laws have recently gone); and we had racial discrimination laws which meant you could not have an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using g*d.
It's not some radical muslim fundamentalist conspiracy to extend these protections to muslims.
(I am not saying it's the right thing to do. I think the blasphemy laws should have gone a lot sooner and racial discrimination laws should have been clearer about who was included and what was prohibited).
The UK establishment appears to be side with Christianity being openly mocked (viz a special show on Tim Rice choosing to lead with songs and artists mocking Christianity being scheduled for prime-time Christmas day). In contrast the BBC will not even mention that attacks were perpetrated by muslims [rightly or wrongly] 'in the name of Islam' in news reports.
>you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ //
Something like Jesus Christ Superstar, Jerry Springer the Opera or The Life of Brian [which have all been featured on the BBC] are pretty closely mocking in the same way as the Jyllands-Posten cartoons; except instead of mocking people they are directly targeted at the subject of Christian worship and respect. An equivalent to the Mohammed cartoons would be something like a cartoon of John the Baptist.
Jesus Christ Superstar doesn't mock Christianity or its object of worship and respect. Certainly, its been argued by some as providing a too-sympathetic presentation of Judas Iscariot, and certainly many people don't like the way in which the presentation of the Passion is done (or the creators comments outside of the work portraying Christ as human but not divine), but there is nothing in the work mocking Christ or Christianity.
You've got me, I don't know JCS so well. I've played the main songs on the piano.
The BBC's special used Herod mocking Christ sung by an ardent atheist as the opener to a Christmas day program "They think they've found the new Messiah, And they'll hurt You when they find they're wrong".
That's like doing a feature on Denmark for Eid and opening, just coincidentally of course, with Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed cartoons.
FWIW they followed that with "I Don't Know How To Love Him" which has a strong undercurrent of suggesting an erotic triste between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Then to follow was Judas singing "Jesus Christ, Superstar, Do you think you're what they say you are?" which is a statement of incredulity as much as anything.
Now Tim Rice's music is great and there's a place for Superstar for sure. In general it can be seen as an enquiry but this selection to lead off on Christmas day, to me, was mocking.
Why is it okay to print shitty zero-value cartoons that are anti-Muslim[1] but not print shitty zero-value cartoons that are anti-Jew or anti-other-minority?
[1] and these cartoons are anti-Muslim, pushing ignorance and bigotry.
A few years ago, Charlie Hebdo fired cartoonist Siné over a relatively innocuous joke about Jean Sarkozy (the son of then president Nicolas Sarkozy) planning to convert to judaism in order to marry into the family of the founders of supermarket chain Darty. Siné's quip was basically a direct quote of a comment by Patrick Gaubert (a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy's and the president of LICRA at the time) but since he had added a sarcastic bit to the effect that the young boy would have a bright future, Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief decided that it was an unacceptable display of antisemitism and could put the newspaper at risk of lawsuits. Therefore Siné had to be let go.
That's only one example for sure, and things may have been a bit different after Philippe Val left, but I don't think it's fair to say that Charlie was even-handed in the way it targeted its gushes of vitriol, and even less so that they were principled champions of freedom of speech. Like most French people across the whole political spectrum, they were stauch supporters of speech-they-agree-with.
None of this detracts from the horror of what has happened of course. I just thought I would mention that the popular "uncompromising beacon of freedom" narrative might be a bit too simplistic.
This picture (taken from Charlie Hebdo, and drawn by one of the murdered cartoonist) is as "anti-jew" as "anti-muslim". The title says that those two minorities cannot be mocked.
At the risk of a naive/blunt response, "Je Suis Charlie". Exercise your freedom. Throw it in the face of anyone who thinks that fear and threats of violence or ANY means are sufficient to oppress it. Be like those who worked for this paper, and stand against this sort of fearmongering. I see no other way to not do a disservice to the people lost in this.
I don't think technology or psychology is yet sufficiently advanced to be able to stop this stuff altogether.
However horrible it may sound, I think our best course of action is to accept that these things do happen occasionally. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to prevent them, but it does mean that we must accept that we'll never get to 100%.
If we can move forward with the idea that we'll do our best to reduce these attacks as much as possible, rather than with the idea that we'll eliminate them, I think the result will be much better.
As for what to do, I think the combination of smart intelligence (as opposed to NSA-style dragnets) and emergency response (to minimize the effects of attacks after they happen) are the way to go.
Edit: whee, downvotes. If you think I'm wrong, or even just right but insensitive, would you mind explaining yourself instead of (or, heck, in addition to) downvoting? I honestly don't see anything wrong with my comment.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right: absolute security is impossible. Unfortunately, I can already see more "security" laws on the horizon, because lawmakers have to be seen doing something.
Upvoted, because you make a very important point: I think our best course of action is to accept that these things do happen occasionally.
It is very hard to stop all zealots, especially if they act on their own or in small groups. Trying to extend spying, restraining ourselves in our free speech, starting to hunt down people of a certain religion, etc. will only have the opposite effect: stifling democracy and free speech.
The best reaction is to stay calm and continue to be rational: terrorism exists to instill fear in people. However, looking objectively, the chance of being hurt in a terrorist act is fairly slim in most countries. Especially if the problem is treated well, besides smart intelligence, social improvement: ensuring that kids have a future, talk with them before they radicalize, etc.
> Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right-wing nutjobs are right-wing nutjobs, whatever their creed.
No? He himself claims that it does, in the sense that he sees himself as a Christian crusader defending the european christian monoculture against an islamic invasion. His reason for killing social democrats was that he feels that the party is too supportive of a multicultural society.
Those are all aspects of his acts, and the acts of the Islamic State as well. You can't separate religion cleanly from traditionalism for example, because religion is to a large part tradition - it is not a coincidence that sons commonly have the religion of their fathers. The acts of Breivik definitely have a religious component. He dresses like a Knight Templar, he speaks of a crusade, these are all religious in nature.
The thing is that on the level of abstraction where 'religion' prompts someone to kill people, it really is rather facetious to consider Breivik any different.
As far as I'm concerned (and others too, judging by the downvotes), his concoction of 'Western-european culture', Christian or not, that led to his actions, is on the same level as this particular case.
Singling out 'religion' as somehow a differentiating factor is like trying to differentiate between Hitler's eradication of gypsies and homosexuals. It serves no purpose other than raising the suspicion that one particularly hates gypsies or homosexuals.
I think the chasm we need to cross is accepting that anything "faith based" is an acceptable target of satire. Additionally, I think the satire adds a lot of value in constraining the absurdity.
I don't strictly mean religion here. Among others, politics and political candidates meet the requirements. I think there is a lot of value to satirical political cartoons.
> This is horrible, and we as a society need to somehow make this kind of thing not happen.
No. We shouldn't. We as a society need to stand for values of openness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There is no way to do this other than to accept that there are psychopaths and lunatics among the human race and sometimes they do something terrible.
After all, the only way to truly prevent acts like these is with an absolute police state. I am Charlie, and I will not stand for such a crackdown.
We have to stop imagining that we can entirely cure the human race from mental sickness or extreme radicalism. We have to accept that, in a free society, sometimes horrible things happen. One day it's a hurricane, the other day it's a terrorist attack. Nobody is to blame except the perpetrators and their direct influencers.
Stoltenberg (ironically now the boss of NATO) said it best the last time something like this happened in Europe: "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation". That's the only valid response.
In America we like say "freedom isn't free" while we waste trillions on ineffectual wars, but we don't like hearing "freedom isn't free" in cases like this. But you are unfortunately absolutely right, we have to accept that our freedom implies risks.
Right, maybe I was not clear enough in my meaning - I have some hope that there are ways to make this not happen at all or at least happen a lot more rarely, and I think the way to get there is to get the standard of living and education, and the openness of society, extended to all people, and for religion and fundamentalist thought to be a rare fringe activity and not commonplace.
I don't think an absolute police state can prevent violent acts, because an absolute police state IS violence.
It's easy to forget that less than 100 years ago the whole world was at war. There has been progress, even though things may seem bleak. We are still at the infancy of global civilization. Of course it's possible that we're also at the zenith of global civilization, but that's where the hope comes in...
We should adopt a very simple policy: the satire will continue until the killings stop.
This puts the onus on the Islamist murderers to stop killing people. When they stop killing people for making fun of them for being religion-addled killers, the number of people making fun of them for being religion-addled murderers will start a long slow decline, until eventually it will, as it were, die away.
Until then, we should all make fun of them for being murderous anti-Bayesians, because they are.
We should also depict the Prophet Muhammad ~0:-{= frequently and with great glee, because offending murderers and defending free speech is way more important than delicately tiptoeing around the sensibilities of the vast majority of Muslims, who are in any case the primary victims of Islamist hatred.
Well, that's if freedom of speech continues to be allowed and accepted. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Freedom of Speech has a very bright future.
These attacks are likely to promote freedoms of speech and to slow down people calling for restrictions.
My position used to be one of asking people to consider whether the value of printing a shitty cartoon is worth causing deep offence to very many people. The murders have changed my position to supporting -with caution- the printing of these cartoons.
>the value of printing a shitty cartoon is worth causing deep offence to very many people //
Mostly they're choosing to be offended, they're seeking out something to be offended by. It's a case of "we want to be violent against people who oppose our views, so we'll look and find things we can call offensive and use that to justify murder and violence". It's behaviour that seems very true to the war-lord that inspires it however [as much as that person is depicted in "his" writings/collected sayings].
The vast majority of muslims surely don't read Charlie Hebdo or similar satirical cartoons - how then can they be offended by them? The offence seemingly lies in society allowing people to hold views contrary to their religion. Even if you kowtow to that desire and implemented sharia in Western Europe there are seemingly enough Sunni and Shia willing to blow one another up that it's not going to prevent violent atrocities in the name of Islam.
I don't understand how such satirising "promotes ignorance and fear" however, can you explain that? Surely the point of satire is cast a critical light on things in order to dispel what the satirist sees as ignorance.
I am outraged at the enormity of the murders, but I can't see a simple solution given the significant presence of extremists. Their brazen acts know no limits; what then are governments to do? In my country, Singapore (which has a significant Muslim population), we have a relative lack of incidents or conflict, but the government also maintains tight control that probably wouldn't be feasible in Europe (clarification: meaning that mosques and madrasahs are regulated and overseen by an Islamic Council that is part of government).
Are you implying that you need to have tight control of citizens if you have a significant Muslim population? Somehow the US doesn't have this problem within the Muslim community.
As far as I know none of those were related to free speech which is what the GP meant by strict controls, i.e. you are not allowed to insult a religion.
> Really? What about the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and the Boston Marathon bombings?
If three incidents in five years is a problem, the US has a problem with every community. Timothy McVeigh killed more than all of those attacks combined.
What? I don't live there, I've never even been to USA so I know nearly nothing I can be spectacularly wrong. However, if even 1/10 of what I read about TSA, Patriot Act, NSA and so on (and on...) is true then I think there is at least some degree of control over Muslim citizens? Isn't it actually an official policy?
Posted on my Facebook wall immediately. Thanks for sharing the link. Earlier today, I was searching for news stories about the shooting incident in Paris that would actually show the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo to establish context for how cowardly and despicable the shooting was. Most English-language press outlets are not showing the cartoons. A comment on one news site pointed out that Spanish-language media are generally not being so gutless today, so I linked a slideshow from El Pais[1] on my Facebook wall so that my friends could see that the shooting is all about suppressing free speech.
Thanks for sharing this. For context, the picture says:
- top-left: "Mahomet overwhelmed by fundamentalists"
- in the speech bubble: "It's hard to be loved by dumbasses" (the meaning of "con" is hard to convey in certain cases, it has this idea of "nefariously idiotic" - translating it to "cunt" wouldn't do it justice I believe)
In any case, this is all very alarming. I hope nobody submits to the threats, as is the point of "Je suis Charlie". I also feel for all the Muslims who will end up being discriminated against for the actions of a few imbeciles.
"Je n'ai pas peur des représailles. Je n'ai pas de gosses, pas de femme, pas de voiture, pas de crédit. ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux." - Charb, one of the murdered satirists
note that everyone is quoting Charb on this, sometimes just quoting the "I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" that is actually him quoting someone else:
There is not the Zappata quote, but it still seems relevant :
"Finally, for the Homeric hero, aretê consisted of a set of qualities clustered around the readiness to fight a beautiful war and die a beautiful death."
"preferring to die in their own land rather than live to dwell in that of others"
My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here.
I really, really hope that people from different muslim communities speak up as well. In past incidents there was a lot of silence, usually prompted by fear (I suspect). I understand if they don't, but I hope they do.
Agreed. The potential backlash against innocent French and European Muslims is one of the scariest things in these events. France is full of closeted (and not-so-closeted) islamophobic fascists, and this attack of violence against words is almost guaranteed to cause some of them to unite and multiply their aggressiveness and stupidity. It is not a good day for the Muslim world.
I've been involved with some projects involving muslim cultural centers here, and I've spent a large part of my life in a country that was largely muslim. While I have many issues with Islam, and while I see how predominantly secular Western (European?) culture clashes with many of it's values, I found the experience of 'muslim culture' (which I do realize is not homogenous) almost uniformly enriching. I have a number of friends who have spent a lot of time in the Middle-East, and they feel the same way.
It frustrates me to see the non-specific, general anger against muslims in my country, and how shrewd right-wing politicians use this for support. I hope that I won't have to show support to both sides against extremism, but I fear the worst.
This situation really scares me, as it was not too long ago that one of our prominent right-wing politicians (Geert Wilders) exclaimed 'do we want more or less moroccans', followed by a chanting of 'less' by his supporters.
Muslims speaking up about this will not be enough. If they really condemn this, they should post these cartoons on their Facebook walls, newspapers, etc. That's the only way to show where they stand.
I disagree. It's one thing to condemn violence perpetrated in the name of your faith. It's quite another to post cartoons that openly blaspheme it.
Failing to see the difference between the two and posing it as a black or white issue only feeds fundamentalism. As much as I applaud freedom of expression above all else, I do not expect everyone to express this in the same manner, and I do not condemn those who take issue with, to them, blasphemous cartoons without proposing violence as a solution.
>My heart sunk as soon as I heard the terrorists were muslim extremists, as here in Holland anti-immigrant and anti-muslim feelings are very present, and these incidents are fuel on the fire of racism here.
Shouldn't your heard sink for the victims first?
Looks like you have a pre-defined ideology ("muslim communities are OK always and a good fit for our society") and when faced when a counter fact ("under some circumstances like today, people of that faith can be wrong/dangerous") you try to ignore it.
Not saying that muslim communities are bad in general, but being open in what problematic spots they can exhibit (e.g. opression towards their women, they sometimes harbor extremists like that, etc) is more helpful than trying to absolve them with apriori ideas. Truth can also be a common ground with those not wanting the muslims in Holland. E.g. you might hate their racist propaganda and lies, but you both can agree to some specific problems and can try to work out solutions.
Else you have two camps, the racists and those that thing everybody is always rosy, and society never solves its issues, and can never integrate other communities.
I think you read too much into my words. I felt terrible for the victims too, but I didn't feel that mentioning this would have much value.
I completely agree with you, and as I might have mentioned in another comment, my experiences living among muslims has definitely not left me with only positive impressions. Reality is not so simple.
I merely wanted to emphasize my fear that this situation is a lot of fuel on the fire in those who oversimplify against muslims, and I felt that this was worth mentioning.
My belief is that, when something like this happens, we need a strong show of solidarity with the victim.
If you are (or know) a journalist, please consider publishing some of the Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons, unredacted and uncensored, in your coverage of this story.
Terrorists may be able to kill some of us, but they can't kill all of us.
308 points in 2 hours and 121 comments... and listed at #24. Ranked below stories like:
2. 121 points, 3 hours ago , 26 comments
3. 69 points , 2 hours ago , 22 comments
5. 138 points, 4 hours ago , 33 comments
8. 80 points , 4 hours ago , 28 comments
9. 46 points , 3 hours ago , 10 comments
10. 56 points , 3 hours ago , 19 comments
Looks like it's being flagged left and right. Why? What if, instead of Charlie, it was some Internet startup? Freedom of speech is important to all of us.
Either some folks don't want to see "news" on HN at all or they are flagging it because they don't like the specific subject or are afraid of the conversation that will result.
I'll upvote something that actually discusses how this effects our freedom rather than just some "let's all be upset". As far as I know western politicians have been far more effective at undermining our freedom and increasing extremism than the terrorists could ever have been on their own.
!!!EXCLUSIEF religies. MOORDENAAR VAN EUROPA EN ... !!!!EXCLUSIVE RELIGIONS. KILLER OUT OF EUROPE AND ... !!!!RELIGIONS exclusive. KILLER OUT DE L'EUROPE ET ... !!!!¡¡¡¡ RELIGIONES EXCLUYENTES Y ASESINAS... FUERA DE EUROPA YA...!!!!
SI NO QUEREMOS SER : EURABIA
I think HN is trying not to have stories like this here. I have to admit I was really curious about this community's reaction (as reddit's reaction is pretty... violent). But afterall is HN really the place to discuss such things?
I think one post as an outlet is fine, but I agree that HN is not the best place for seat-of-the-pants style outrage. I'm looking forward to quality posts written after the initial shock and outrage has subsided.
I think it's flagged because this type of news usually doesn't lead to interesting comments.
Yes, freedom of speech is important and I suppose all readers feel sad about what happened, but what can we do about it?
Three uneducated, brainwashed guys decided to kill satirists that offended them by making fun of their prophet a few years ago.
The problem lies in poverty, lack of education, propaganda... it's not going to be solved overnight.
I just wonder who is leading this propaganda effort and trick those kids into murdering people. Is there an "evil brain" somewhere or is it some kind of "natural phenomenon" that feeds itself?
EDIT: not sure about the downvotes. Did I say something dumb? Living in France, my interpretation of the situation is that more and more teenagers or young adults are attracted to radical islam. This concerns usually people from the poorest neighbourhoods. Most of them aren't dangerous (even though it's quite shocking to read what they have to say on social networks). Atop of this, some get recruited by islamist organisation and are led to go to Syria for instance to fight there (A few hundreds according to the French government). Others are just lost people and commit terrorist attacks on their own behalf (like Merah http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohammed_Merah a couple of years ago).
So one hand, we know there are islamist groups recruiting people to commit terrorist attacks, but also there's very clearly an overall rise of radical islam in France that catalyse crazy behaviours.
Bush killing thousands of people is not in there. Oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity. French colonialism traces are still felt in many countries, oh I see, it's not on the name of Christianity.
Who gives a crap about in the name of what, it's a crime.
If we're not supposed to comment when we flag articles[1], does it really make sense to ask why?
For the record, I hit flag because while this was an outrageous act of barbarism, and indeed freedom of speech is important for all of us, the link does not particularly gratify intellectual curiosity[1]. Nor do I think it's a good idea to start discussing even significant non-hacker news of the day here. The (relative) focus of the hn community is one reason we have such an amazing stable of regular commenters.
I respectfully disagree. It does sate one's intellectual curiosity to see how an organisation manages its web presence in the immediate aftermath of an event such as this.
Freedom of expression is also central to the hacker ethos, and even with the limited information we have at present, it is quite apparent this was an attack on that principle.
I'm a muslim and I found most of cartoons by Charlie Hebdo funny, however the cartoon about the prophet didn't upset me at all but was not funny. It did however trigger something: this is how people actually see this religion, a bomb on a prophet's head. The reality is what makes something funny or not.
Should this be the end of making funny of anything or raising questions/ideas, no. However a journalist's job is not to upset people but to cross the line then come back and bring some people with him/her: convince.
All my condolences to those affected by this tragedy from Ottawa, Canada.
it is still an opinion (you know free speech). I assume in a civilized world, when you make a statement that upset somebody, you apologize. Something like http://xkcd.com/814
!!!EXCLUSIEF religies. MOORDENAAR VAN EUROPA EN ... !!!!EXCLUSIVE RELIGIONS. KILLER OUT OF EUROPE AND ... !!!!RELIGIONS exclusive. KILLER OUT DE L'EUROPE ET ... !!!!¡¡¡¡ RELIGIONES EXCLUYENTES Y ASESINAS... FUERA DE EUROPA YA...!!!!
SI NO QUEREMOS SER : EURABIA
!!!EXCLUSIEF religies. MOORDENAAR VAN EUROPA EN ... !!!!EXCLUSIVE RELIGIONS. KILLER OUT OF EUROPE AND ... !!!!RELIGIONS exclusive. KILLER OUT DE L'EUROPE ET ... !!!!¡¡¡¡ RELIGIONES EXCLUYENTES Y ASESINAS... FUERA DE EUROPA YA...!!!!
SI NO QUEREMOS SER : EURABIA
They might. But you do know that new laws usually come with a shield and a sword. More often than none, a few more laws also means a few less liberties. That's usually how terrorism wins.
I disagree with actually all the comics. I don't think anybody is "charlie" in those comics. Everyone is saying they are "charlie", but nobody is "charlie" because none of those comics are depicting the prophet mohammed as charlie clearly would have.
291 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 289 ms ] threadI don't know what the site is about.
Edit: Alright, the domain is the actual domain of Charlie Hebdo. This isn't some kind of political message by a third party but most likely a message by the people of Charlie Hebdo. I don't know any more.
Your EQ is low, isn't it?
But hey, jumping straight to a personal attack instead of an explanation says volumes about your EQ.
after you "corrected" a perfectly good translation?
They were notorious for mocking all religions and have posted content offensive to all.
Right now it is thought that this was the work on islamist terrorists (I have not seen reliable info though, and crazy is cross religion)
Now to make matters worse the right is on the rise in Europe and the interfaith tensions are high due to complex reasons (being in economic depression for a decade helps little).
In a sense this was attack against the core values of what lots of Europe believes. And there are a lot of people for which anti muslim sentiment is a godsend ...
So what? A person's race doesn't determine the ideas, religious or otherwise, that they hold. Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it.
A person's ideas, on the other hand, make all the difference in the world. Who can deny that these terrorists were not motivated and guided by a distinct ideology: fundamentalist Islam?
You'be be surprised. The race (or, to be precise, the ethnicity) very much determines the ideas, religious or otherwise that a person holds. Statistically very much. There's a reason a person born in Italy is far far far more likely to be Catholic and not Budhist, etc.
>Two famous examples: Ayaan Hirsi Ali left Islam, and Cat Stevens joined it.
That you can point to a few specific invdividuals as examples for that, doesn't it tell you all you need to know? That these people are famous exactly as outliers?
Most people stick with the prevailing religion in their country etc.
Let me try restating my point: there is no heritable trait that makes you a muslim, a buddhist or a freethinker.
What people choose to believe is ultimately on them. Uncritically accepting what your parents, friends and countrymen have to say is still a choice.
Here is one.
I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.
Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.
Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).
"Religious practice" is not limited to ritual. Good deeds, helping the elderly, being honest, not stealing, the 10 commandments, sacrificing the goat, killing the cartoonist, etc are all part of religious practice. "Religious reasoning" exists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The killing in this case is not justified through interpretation, rationalization, or reasoning. It is commanded by the final, uncorrupted word of God.
As soon as extremists get involved things change. These murders have caused many people who were against publishing Mohammed cartoons to change their stance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1133...
> "We must stop blaming ourselves for Islamist terror"
> It is tempting to think the Islamic fanaticism is purely a reaction to the West, but jihadists kill because that is what they do
> [...] Provocation is merely an excuse used by bullies to justify their actions, [...]
How is explicitly challenging those who oppose free speech not the best way to be a 'champion of the principle of free speech'?
Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.
Sorry, I meant : yes, really.
This is an important distinction if you are religious but want to pretend to yourself extremism only happens with muslims.
More importantly, the condemnation of "extremism" misses the point. No one's worried about Catholic monks. Yet they're some of the most extreme religious extremists around. Buddhist monks even more so.
Why speak like a politician when you're not one?
On the other hand the Sintoist Japanese did horrible attrocities in China and Korea back in the day, Israeli Jews can also be genocidal against Palestinians etc. And Christianity has had its share of crime, starting with the Crusades.
Budhists might be better, dunno.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306
Sikhism has violent elements in it's historical fundamentals too, from what I've read. But they have appear to me to have been 'editted' out to some extent (cf history of the kirpan).
Whilst Shintoist Japanese were involved in horrible atrocities Shintoism, at least Confucian Shintoism, historically was quite anti-war.
Simply being an adherent of a particular way or faith or religion and performing violence doesn't make that 'way' a violent one. There is a great difference between this and the foundation and fundamental teachings including violence.
Well, being contradictory is nothing that ever stopped people (religious or not). For example Jesus was all about piece, yet horrible attrocities have been done in his name by people saying their were for Jesus ideals (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Latin American indians, etc).
There's documentary evidence, via Wikipedia, to support 1250 being sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition over a 200 year period. The monarchy in Spain established that Inquisition: the people were tried for things like witchcraft but also child rape, bestiality and such which are still consider serious crimes today - though seldom is capital punishment legally applied for those crimes now. Interestingly none of the motives mentioned in the Wiki' article is "spreading Christianity": indeed IIRC the Inquisitions apply to those "baptised" in to the Catholic church [albeit baptisms were often under duress of being expelled from Spain it seems].
Whatever atrocities can be pegged on Christians I don't see how that stops the Koran and Mohammed from being supporters of violent persecution however.
Far too many people fear to name it for what it is.
Totally disregarding that machine-gunning to death 11 people because you're offended, which is what just happened, is a gross violation of free speech in addition to being a human tragedy. By bringing this up right now, how could this be interpreted any other way than believing these tragedies wouldn't happen if those people weren't so darn disrespectful of Muslims.
I believe in free speech, including the right to insult other people's faith traditions. (Other people feel free to insult my faith traditions, and do so on a semi-regular basis. I respond with speech, not with bullets or bombs.)
On the other hand, basic politeness means that I do not consider insulting other people's faith traditions to be a virtue.
What's more, we live in a world where violent extremists exist. That's reality. They shouldn't exist, but this is not an ideal world. They're out there. When you choose to deliberately insult the cherished beliefs of violent extremists, in the real world you have to know that you are likely to cause some consequences. (Let me be very clear here. The violent extremists are morally responsible for the violent reaction. But when you push their buttons, you have to know that their buttons are hot-wired to their trigger fingers.)
Now, you may conclude that it's worth it to demonstrate that these people really are violent extremists. That's your choice. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But you'd better think it through before you do it, because the way the world actually works, you may receive some consequences.
Because nothing should be sacrosanct. The moment we say that even a single thing is ... then everything that suits the powers that be will be.
these people do not believe in any self determination.
I don't see that. This is a magazine that you can choose to buy or to ignore. If you don't want to be insulted (most satirical magazines insult everyone, including me), don't buy it.
Charlie was a satirical paper, it was here to provoke thoughts, not just for muslims. The people that took the insult were the people that don't understand satire.
It's just ideas. You're free to have them and express them, everyone else is free to agree with them or ridicule them.
Ridiculing ideas is a victimless crime and the foundation of freedom.
Propaganda using cartoons has been used at all levels of oppression from small groups targeting Others to genocide.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that a cartoon is not an act of violence - because they can be.
(Just for clarity: this does not mean they should be banned)
I am just shocked to hear a CNN representative say that we should find ways to avoid offending people with words: this is not just a futile endeavor, it's a very dangerous one that leads to thought police and arbitrary sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Wednesday 7th, at 11am, 3 people entered "Charlie Hebdo" a very well known French satirical newspaper and shot 12 people with kalashnikov. Charlie Hebdo is also known, for their caricatures of the prophet Mahomet.
"Je Suis Charlie" means, "I Am Charlie" and is a message of support to the newspaper.
This is obviously a very short sum-up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mu02xUgE4k
(Don't mean to take away from the gravity of the situation — merely wanted to share a good laugh.)
An equivalent(ish) English example would be saying "I am a New Yorker."
Does it mean you literally are a Reuben (or New Yorker Sandwich)? Hell no, it is plainly obvious that is a ludicrous interpretation even without grammatical context of the rest of the speech.
Not sure why the previous poster thinks this might be ISIS on the other hand.
A noticeable fact is how mainstream newspapers in France are careful not to make the amalgam between these few barbarians and a whole religion.
Something that reddit doesn't care about at all. I was wondering if no post about this event was on HN's frontpage because it tries to avoid political/flame wars. But now this is on the frontpage 5 hours after... And it's not even relevant.
Not sure why you think it's not relevant? Je Suis charlie is the phrase being used to show support and solidarity.
(This is an unfortunate language coincidence.)
It's not "as relevant" as an article explaining the story, the wikipedia page, ...
Although it would be nice, from a PR standpoint, if some French Muslim organizations could condemn those events, becuase I don't know what most Muslims think about Charlie Hebdo. Have they? I have searched Google News for that and didn't find links, so please post if there are some. Or they may just not be sufficiently organized for PR.
[1]: http://www.uoif-online.com/
http://www.uoif-online.com/communiques/horrible-attaque-au-s...
["The UOIF condemns in the strongest terms this criminal attack, and these horrible murders."](translated)
Maybe ask most Muslims, not some self-appointed leaders?
In my experience, here, the moderate muslims are often rather quiet, perhaps out of fear. In general, they do not support extremism and fear non-muslim extremist retaliation. They are in a really bad spot, and I sympathize with their situation.
> the moderate muslims are often rather quiet.
Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that:
1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance.
2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max vote, the rest can't be bothered because they are busy with their daily problems. Add to that that most Muslims live in a third world country, so they have enough problems already.
3- The first people affected by terrorism in term of body counts and extremism in general are Muslims themselves. Did you know for example that ISIS consider the previous president of egypt (Mursi) who is from the muslim brotherhood to be an infidel who need to be killed.
4- People in Muslim countries are getting numb to all this news reports because they are used to it. I remember when I was a kid watching Arab TV news showing people dying in Palestine and at one time the TV commentator laughed. She then said she was sorry and she didn't mean to laugh at what was happening. Most Arabs/Muslim who care about what's going on the Middle East have already watched too much death to react to it.
5- Some people do want to go to the street and demonstrate against this blood shed but they are not allowed by their local governments. They fear that this could turn in a revolt. Arab spring says hi.
6- There have been hundreds if not thousands of condemnation an protests by muslims all over the world but the media don't cover them much because they don't fit the narrative of evil muslims.
Me as a Muslim I'm ashamed of what is happening and wish this Scumbugs are captured and put to justice. I see to much politic invested in terrorism that I know it's about power not about religion. I also do believe we muslims failed big time to adapt to the 21st century and need to wake up and get our acts together.
I'm really sorry for the families of the victims and I hope they capture the scums who did this.
There was an interesting discussion on reddit about this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2rmmx8/el...
So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet".
I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don't condemn your prophet, when is killing for insults allowed and when is it not becomes a valid question.
To put it bluntly : if you don't condemn this, you're at least somewhat of a terrorist supporter. If you do, how can you be a muslim (given what the daily prayer says, mohamed could not have done anything wrong, plus you'd be lying when you say that prayer).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan
Allow me to put up the full actions of the prophet :
This is far from the only time that muhammad did this sort of thing, and this is part of the "canon" of islam. It is also law in over 50 countries.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan
(but if you doubt the quote, just type it into Google)
A member on my blog, brother "zulfiqarchucknorris", sent me the following information:
Peace Dear Osama Abdullah I would like to inform you that on the many articles about the "poet killings" (specifically asma bint marwan) you fail to to include why the asma bint marwan chain for ibn saad is weak, although the ibn ishaq version is fully explained. I'll give you the explanasion:
(copied from wikipedia, scroll toward the middle of the page)
Al-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:[2]
Ibn Sa'd → Al-Waqidi → 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl → Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars.[3] Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani[2] said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
In addition, this isnad is discontinued (muʻḍal) as Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl never met any of Muhammad's companions.[3]
2 is al waqidi 3 is ibn hisham
[1]http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/forgeries_about_...
Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
The technical answer to this reply is, firstly, that the same story is told by different narrators, not just the one mentioned. This is, of course, conveniently left out from the reponse you posted.
But if you're not a muslim, the answer is that this is part of the islamic canon. It's also part of sharia. It's part of the law in >50 islamic countries. If the argument held any water this would not be true.
> Copy pasting doesn't help anyone. I'd rather have it that you go to someone who is an expert on this field, do your research and ask him/her what's bugging you.
Sorry I was trained in exact sciences, and I have family that's in history (with focus on religious history). I believe in first sources' authority over people's authority.
For comparison:
> He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
(Not to mention killing all the firstborns of Egypt, wiping out the entire population of the Earth except for Noah's family, yadda yadda.)
No this is just one example. Estimates of how many people got killed and/or massacred by the prophet to bring us islam range from 10 000 to 100 000.
Individual people murdered by the prophet or his assassins (on his direct orders, excluding massacres of entire villages/groups/caravans/muslims), according to muslim's own history, is about 1220 people (most were "convicted" by him, the victims not even knowing there was a trial. That's how islam works : muslims would go to the prophet, explain the situation, the prophet would convict someone to death and send a squad of muslims to go kill the man/woman).
Example:
(Sahih Bukhari, Book 83, Number 16)Islam/muslims (the Mughals to be exact) also hold the title of biggest massacre in history. The Mughal invasion of India was a massacre that lasted almost 1300 years and estimates of the death toll range from 60 million to 300 million people. Before the massacre India bordered Russia. Ironically a region of Afghanistan is still called "Hindu Kush" or massacre of Hindus.
"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).
Remember that religious texts are mostly proverbs. These events most probably didn't actually happen, they are trying to communicate moral attitudes via stories... a little like Winnie the Pooh and Friends.
2) you're mostly showing ignorance, as "mostly proverbs" does not apply at all to islamic texts. Random example :
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0...
Different religions are different (surprising how controversial such an obvious truth can be).
3) Given that you're comparing moral parables ("lies to convey a greater truth" I've heard it defined, like fairy tales) to actual events, your point is reversed.
They're no more quiet than when say a white Christian lunatic (Breivik) shot 77 people to death and injured over 300. The vast majority of them will denounce both acts, but otherwise they're pretty quiet. Which goes for most people, really, none of my non-muslim friends have gone to any demonstrations lately or spoke out publicly. Sure there are people who do it, but that goes for muslims, too. It's not always very well reported, but if you go and look you'll find a shit ton of muslim leaders denounce such attacks, for example today the French Muslim Council called it an "attack on democracy", barbaric, an attack on freedom of the press etc. And you don't really see anyone speak out against those Muslim organisations like CFCM which is said to represent between 3.5 and 5 million muslims in France. And these aren't just formal organisations, they often have deep ties to the community, particularly with direct links to formal networks of all mosques in the country.
I always wonder what it'd really look like. I'm not religious but family is. They look at attacks like these with disgust. But he's not a well known individual, he has no place on TV to 'publicly speak out'. What would that even look like? Public persons tend to speak out against attacks like these without exception. Today the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam did, and a Muslim member of the Labor party has planned demonstrations with a large Moroccan youth movement coinciding with demonstrations planned in France.
>The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian",[4] but he is not "excessively religious"[4] and considers himself a "cultural Christian" and a "modern-day crusader".[3][4] His manifesto states "I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie", calls religion a crutch and a source for drawing mental strength, and says "I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment." Regarding the term cultural Christian, which he says means preserving European culture, he notes, "It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy...)"[3][182] Furthermore, Breivik stated that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God."[3][192] Nevertheless, he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.[193] //
I described myself as a "cultural christian" as a teenager, I was agnostic and acted atheistically (ie not a Christian). He surely means he wants to maintain 'Western' culture rather than allow Islamisation. That's not "Christian", if he were a Christian terrorist the aim of the terror would be to convert people to Christianity or punish them for not being/opposing Christians. He was, according to this, not bothered by any non-Christians as long as they didn't seek to change Western culture.
If Breivik had cried "for Jesus" or said he was "killing those who offended God by opposing Christianity" then the Pope, Archbishops, and other leaders of formalised Christian congregations would have been giving statements against it at the drop of a hat.
Muslim leaders and organizations around the world condemning the attack: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-out...
Some of the greatest Muslim scholars (who the masses follow) had to say about it: http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/special-coverage/4816...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-cha...
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/7/leading_muslim_scholar_...
I can go on and on but I think you get the picture. Practicing orthodox Muslims (notice I didn't say "moderate Muslims") are NOT quiet on this.
- Two people assaulted the office, and killed 10, wounded 11 (4 of which considered critical).
- They furthermore killed 2 police officers on their way out, one of them point blank as he lay wounded and was asking for mercy (do yourself a favor and don't look at that witness video. I mean it. NSFL).
- They are on the loose and are reported armed with automatic weapons and a rocket launcher. No kidding.
- Their car was found in a suburban ghetto (Pantin, in Seine-saint-denis)
Sorry for the gory details.
However, the others french papers are trying to help the redaction, so maybe Charlie will live.
Also, at a time like this it is important not to forget that the last major terrorist attack in Europe was instigated by a fundamentalist christian norwegian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
But it's hard not to get swept up in it right now. I too want to _do something_. The question is, what? How is freedom of speech best defended in the face of unreasonable people who have no limits to what they are prepared to do?
By everyone continuing to utilize their freedom of speech. It's really that simple. The only way to lose is to not make use of your freedom.
Let's just hope that people do not begin to follow extremist muslim law out of fear for their lives.
It's kind of a new problem: how can a democratic, tolerant society defend both ideals (democracy, tolerance) under these circumstances? And at the same time it does echo back to old conflicts: once upon a time European, Christian states were facing increasing pressure from Arabic, Islamic ones... their solution involved crusades. :/
(No solutions to this problem are hereby offered or endorsed.)
Many European born people are traveling to Syria to fight for ISIS. They're not being converted by extremist immigrants but by online communities and their extremist non-immigran friends.
It's not some radical muslim fundamentalist conspiracy to extend these protections to muslims.
(I am not saying it's the right thing to do. I think the blasphemy laws should have gone a lot sooner and racial discrimination laws should have been clearer about who was included and what was prohibited).
>you could not do an equivalent of the mohamed cartoons using christ //
Something like Jesus Christ Superstar, Jerry Springer the Opera or The Life of Brian [which have all been featured on the BBC] are pretty closely mocking in the same way as the Jyllands-Posten cartoons; except instead of mocking people they are directly targeted at the subject of Christian worship and respect. An equivalent to the Mohammed cartoons would be something like a cartoon of John the Baptist.
Blasphemy laws haven't been applied here in living memory to "defend" against insult to Christians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm). Speaking about the message of the New Testament of the Bible in public can get your arrested though (eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-p...).
Not sure what race discrimination has to do with questions of freedom of conscience and speech though.
The BBC's special used Herod mocking Christ sung by an ardent atheist as the opener to a Christmas day program "They think they've found the new Messiah, And they'll hurt You when they find they're wrong".
That's like doing a feature on Denmark for Eid and opening, just coincidentally of course, with Jyllands-Posten's Mohammed cartoons.
FWIW they followed that with "I Don't Know How To Love Him" which has a strong undercurrent of suggesting an erotic triste between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Then to follow was Judas singing "Jesus Christ, Superstar, Do you think you're what they say you are?" which is a statement of incredulity as much as anything.
Now Tim Rice's music is great and there's a place for Superstar for sure. In general it can be seen as an enquiry but this selection to lead off on Christmas day, to me, was mocking.
Do you think normal daily newspapers should print the cartoons? How about KKK cartoon propaganda? How about "With Jews you lose"? http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/with-...
[1] and these cartoons are anti-Muslim, pushing ignorance and bigotry.
Source : Am french, and actually read the Charlie Hebdo. You can also check here, for example : http://qz.com/322550/charlie-hebdo-has-had-more-legal-run-in...
That's only one example for sure, and things may have been a bit different after Philippe Val left, but I don't think it's fair to say that Charlie was even-handed in the way it targeted its gushes of vitriol, and even less so that they were principled champions of freedom of speech. Like most French people across the whole political spectrum, they were stauch supporters of speech-they-agree-with.
None of this detracts from the horror of what has happened of course. I just thought I would mention that the popular "uncompromising beacon of freedom" narrative might be a bit too simplistic.
http://www.tuxboard.com/photos/2012/09/Charlie-Hebdo-Intouch...
They drew many anti-catholic pictures, too. They never especially attacked muslims more than other communities.
http://p1.storage.canalblog.com/19/22/177230/100853043.png
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
However horrible it may sound, I think our best course of action is to accept that these things do happen occasionally. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to prevent them, but it does mean that we must accept that we'll never get to 100%.
If we can move forward with the idea that we'll do our best to reduce these attacks as much as possible, rather than with the idea that we'll eliminate them, I think the result will be much better.
As for what to do, I think the combination of smart intelligence (as opposed to NSA-style dragnets) and emergency response (to minimize the effects of attacks after they happen) are the way to go.
Edit: whee, downvotes. If you think I'm wrong, or even just right but insensitive, would you mind explaining yourself instead of (or, heck, in addition to) downvoting? I honestly don't see anything wrong with my comment.
It is very hard to stop all zealots, especially if they act on their own or in small groups. Trying to extend spying, restraining ourselves in our free speech, starting to hunt down people of a certain religion, etc. will only have the opposite effect: stifling democracy and free speech.
The best reaction is to stay calm and continue to be rational: terrorism exists to instill fear in people. However, looking objectively, the chance of being hurt in a terrorist act is fairly slim in most countries. Especially if the problem is treated well, besides smart intelligence, social improvement: ensuring that kids have a future, talk with them before they radicalize, etc.
Sure. And there were also numerous bombings and attacks in Europe by left-wing extremists during the "years of lead". That said, the difference between Breivik and these guys is just the beard length. Right-wing nutjobs are right-wing nutjobs, whatever their creed.
As far as I'm concerned (and others too, judging by the downvotes), his concoction of 'Western-european culture', Christian or not, that led to his actions, is on the same level as this particular case.
Singling out 'religion' as somehow a differentiating factor is like trying to differentiate between Hitler's eradication of gypsies and homosexuals. It serves no purpose other than raising the suspicion that one particularly hates gypsies or homosexuals.
I don't strictly mean religion here. Among others, politics and political candidates meet the requirements. I think there is a lot of value to satirical political cartoons.
No. We shouldn't. We as a society need to stand for values of openness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There is no way to do this other than to accept that there are psychopaths and lunatics among the human race and sometimes they do something terrible.
After all, the only way to truly prevent acts like these is with an absolute police state. I am Charlie, and I will not stand for such a crackdown.
We have to stop imagining that we can entirely cure the human race from mental sickness or extreme radicalism. We have to accept that, in a free society, sometimes horrible things happen. One day it's a hurricane, the other day it's a terrorist attack. Nobody is to blame except the perpetrators and their direct influencers.
Stoltenberg (ironically now the boss of NATO) said it best the last time something like this happened in Europe: "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation". That's the only valid response.
I don't think an absolute police state can prevent violent acts, because an absolute police state IS violence.
It's easy to forget that less than 100 years ago the whole world was at war. There has been progress, even though things may seem bleak. We are still at the infancy of global civilization. Of course it's possible that we're also at the zenith of global civilization, but that's where the hope comes in...
This puts the onus on the Islamist murderers to stop killing people. When they stop killing people for making fun of them for being religion-addled killers, the number of people making fun of them for being religion-addled murderers will start a long slow decline, until eventually it will, as it were, die away.
Until then, we should all make fun of them for being murderous anti-Bayesians, because they are.
We should also depict the Prophet Muhammad ~0:-{= frequently and with great glee, because offending murderers and defending free speech is way more important than delicately tiptoeing around the sensibilities of the vast majority of Muslims, who are in any case the primary victims of Islamist hatred.
My position used to be one of asking people to consider whether the value of printing a shitty cartoon is worth causing deep offence to very many people. The murders have changed my position to supporting -with caution- the printing of these cartoons.
Mostly they're choosing to be offended, they're seeking out something to be offended by. It's a case of "we want to be violent against people who oppose our views, so we'll look and find things we can call offensive and use that to justify murder and violence". It's behaviour that seems very true to the war-lord that inspires it however [as much as that person is depicted in "his" writings/collected sayings].
And it's not just "offence" - this type of material promotes ignorance and fear and it marginalises and already marginalised minority.
I don't understand how such satirising "promotes ignorance and fear" however, can you explain that? Surely the point of satire is cast a critical light on things in order to dispel what the satirist sees as ignorance.
Plenty of people make jokes about others faiths yet do not expect death.
I am outraged at the enormity of the murders, but I can't see a simple solution given the significant presence of extremists. Their brazen acts know no limits; what then are governments to do? In my country, Singapore (which has a significant Muslim population), we have a relative lack of incidents or conflict, but the government also maintains tight control that probably wouldn't be feasible in Europe (clarification: meaning that mosques and madrasahs are regulated and overseen by an Islamic Council that is part of government).
[edited]
Really? What about the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and the Boston Marathon bombings?
Also, the US certainly keeps a close - often oppressive - watch over its Muslim community. This American Life had an episode about it: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/471
(See also the AP prize-winning investigation that TAL mentions on the NYPD probes into the city's mosques)
If three incidents in five years is a problem, the US has a problem with every community. Timothy McVeigh killed more than all of those attacks combined.
[1] http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/01/07/album/1420632020_829679....
- top-left: "Mahomet overwhelmed by fundamentalists"
- in the speech bubble: "It's hard to be loved by dumbasses" (the meaning of "con" is hard to convey in certain cases, it has this idea of "nefariously idiotic" - translating it to "cunt" wouldn't do it justice I believe)
In any case, this is all very alarming. I hope nobody submits to the threats, as is the point of "Je suis Charlie". I also feel for all the Muslims who will end up being discriminated against for the actions of a few imbeciles.
"I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no mortgage. It surely is a bit dramatic but I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees" - translation from http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2rmgra/these_two_carto...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata
Maybe Zappata went to school and studied the story of Athen?
Edit: Yeah sure, downvote me instead of the guy that is posting nonsense...
"Finally, for the Homeric hero, aretê consisted of a set of qualities clustered around the readiness to fight a beautiful war and die a beautiful death."
"preferring to die in their own land rather than live to dwell in that of others"
I really, really hope that people from different muslim communities speak up as well. In past incidents there was a lot of silence, usually prompted by fear (I suspect). I understand if they don't, but I hope they do.
It frustrates me to see the non-specific, general anger against muslims in my country, and how shrewd right-wing politicians use this for support. I hope that I won't have to show support to both sides against extremism, but I fear the worst.
This situation really scares me, as it was not too long ago that one of our prominent right-wing politicians (Geert Wilders) exclaimed 'do we want more or less moroccans', followed by a chanting of 'less' by his supporters.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/01/what-if-these-lone-wolves-w...
Failing to see the difference between the two and posing it as a black or white issue only feeds fundamentalism. As much as I applaud freedom of expression above all else, I do not expect everyone to express this in the same manner, and I do not condemn those who take issue with, to them, blasphemous cartoons without proposing violence as a solution.
Shouldn't your heard sink for the victims first?
Looks like you have a pre-defined ideology ("muslim communities are OK always and a good fit for our society") and when faced when a counter fact ("under some circumstances like today, people of that faith can be wrong/dangerous") you try to ignore it.
Not saying that muslim communities are bad in general, but being open in what problematic spots they can exhibit (e.g. opression towards their women, they sometimes harbor extremists like that, etc) is more helpful than trying to absolve them with apriori ideas. Truth can also be a common ground with those not wanting the muslims in Holland. E.g. you might hate their racist propaganda and lies, but you both can agree to some specific problems and can try to work out solutions.
Else you have two camps, the racists and those that thing everybody is always rosy, and society never solves its issues, and can never integrate other communities.
I completely agree with you, and as I might have mentioned in another comment, my experiences living among muslims has definitely not left me with only positive impressions. Reality is not so simple.
I merely wanted to emphasize my fear that this situation is a lot of fuel on the fire in those who oversimplify against muslims, and I felt that this was worth mentioning.
There are meetings everywhere in France right now and people are displaying those printed papers.
on Facebook everybody is changing their profile picture to this image.
PS: What does [Flagkilled] mean?, I see it at the end of my post.
If you are (or know) a journalist, please consider publishing some of the Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons, unredacted and uncensored, in your coverage of this story.
Terrorists may be able to kill some of us, but they can't kill all of us.
https://twitter.com/MadAxes/status/552814382338826240
https://www.facebook.com/events/1562482893969481/?pnref=stor...
#JeSuisCharlie
Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Communists...." comes to mind: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
I guess that it's to prevent abuses, but as you say, we are all affected. I think it's important to have a single main thread about this.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-sa...
Seriously? You're making a comparison to the Nazis?
Edit: It's 3 assholes with assault rifles, not a totalitarian state. Can we calibrate our references to be a bit less hysterical and hyperbolic?
The problem lies in poverty, lack of education, propaganda... it's not going to be solved overnight. I just wonder who is leading this propaganda effort and trick those kids into murdering people. Is there an "evil brain" somewhere or is it some kind of "natural phenomenon" that feeds itself?
EDIT: not sure about the downvotes. Did I say something dumb? Living in France, my interpretation of the situation is that more and more teenagers or young adults are attracted to radical islam. This concerns usually people from the poorest neighbourhoods. Most of them aren't dangerous (even though it's quite shocking to read what they have to say on social networks). Atop of this, some get recruited by islamist organisation and are led to go to Syria for instance to fight there (A few hundreds according to the French government). Others are just lost people and commit terrorist attacks on their own behalf (like Merah http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohammed_Merah a couple of years ago).
So one hand, we know there are islamist groups recruiting people to commit terrorist attacks, but also there's very clearly an overall rise of radical islam in France that catalyse crazy behaviours.
Who gives a crap about in the name of what, it's a crime.
For the record, I hit flag because while this was an outrageous act of barbarism, and indeed freedom of speech is important for all of us, the link does not particularly gratify intellectual curiosity[1]. Nor do I think it's a good idea to start discussing even significant non-hacker news of the day here. The (relative) focus of the hn community is one reason we have such an amazing stable of regular commenters.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Freedom of expression is also central to the hacker ethos, and even with the limited information we have at present, it is quite apparent this was an attack on that principle.
Should this be the end of making funny of anything or raising questions/ideas, no. However a journalist's job is not to upset people but to cross the line then come back and bring some people with him/her: convince.
All my condolences to those affected by this tragedy from Ottawa, Canada.