12 killed in shooting at French satirical magazine

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

I don't buy that the attackers were trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims in France. There is no advantage if they do that. They will only get more repression and more bigotry thrown their way, and possible right-wing parties taking over, which means restrictions on immigration.


Right, which plays into the Islamist agenda of a conflict between "Western values" and "Islam" (in quotes because it's Islam according to them). According to the stories I'm seeing, the suspects identified with Al Qaeda in Yemen, not any French-based group. Having France veer right plays right into that playbook to my eyes. They don't give a flying f*ck that it would hurt other French Muslims because they WANT it to hurt other Muslims in hopes that it will make them mad enough to support their agenda.
 
Maybe. I think that's giving them too much credit. And if they wanted to do that, they could attack the government for the recent laws passed banning face coverings. That would probably do more to promote the agenda you're suggesting.
 
It would be reassuring if such acts sprang from a rationale which could be easily grasped and understood.

I never seem to get it.

The Norwegian Nutjob (deliberately omitting his name) posted a rationale for his violence. 1500 pages later would I understand him an better?

The Oklahoma Wing-nut (again deliberately omitting his name) gave his reasons for his actions. I didn't understand his actions any better because of those reasons.

There is something about the way these two in particular were wired that I can't connect with. Nothing that allows for an epiphany of some sort, an aha moment that could be worked with.

I suspect that the same would hold true if we captured these murderers. They could talk and talk forever and I probably wouldn't understand them or their motives in the same way I understand the guy who lays on the horn because a car doesn't accelerate fast enough when light turns from red to green.

Do I want to understand them? Probably not. That would entail descending into their darkness and that doesn't hold any attraction for me.

Would understanding them allow for a less bloody resolution of conflict? Probably not because their demands are probably so extreme that compromise, of any kind, would be difficult to manage.

It seems reasonable, in an easily reconcilable way to say, this is what happens when you provoke unhinged people. This is an escalation where de-escalation is what is needed.

It also seems reasonable, in the same easily reconcilable way, that what they want is to get their own way. Attacking unarmed civilians clearly signals that your cause is . . . earnest. I guess.

We like to diminish what we don't understand as if diminishiment is the same as understanding. "This is what religion leads to, " "What doe you expect from the uneducated and culturally backward peoples of the world, " "If only they had been more socially accepted/acceptable this never would have happened."

Heck, even describing these people and their actions as evil begins the demonization train and leads us into areas where solutions may never be found.

Sadly, evil is the only thing that remotely makes sense to me.

These people are corrupt in some sense and what they label as righteousness I brand as degenerate.

That kind of divide is difficult to cross and, I suspect that there is very little motivation on either side of the divide to actually build a bridge.

So in the meantime this action will be politicized from all angles and lines that existed before hand are drawn deeper still.
 
Exactly. Be as offended as you want. Its your right. But don't step on other people and their rights

I don't think its right to insult people for the sake of insulting them, but if there is a satirical point to be made then do so.

Sometimes i think the cartoons in our papers are distasteful. So what. I expect others find them, funny

I heard an otherwise intelligent sounding woman on the radio today. Her point was that if you offend Muhammed , well you asked for trouble.

Really?

Well, I don't think Mohammed can be offended. But some of his followers can.

If lampooning their prophet is such a hot button issue in the Islamic world, why do it? To me, it is socially irresponsible to intentionally push a neighbour's hot button, especially if we know exactly what his hot button is, and push it under the guise of "freedom of expression," knowing bloody well that this will aggravate him to no end.

Is this socially wise, or responsible?
 
Its not bowing to pressure

Any one can be insulted. We can all get out backs up over insults perceived or real. Sowhat

But we must all have the right express ourselves, even if it insults someone

Lots of cartoons in the Globe today, back page of section 1
 
Is "keeps coming back" like an echo or ego in WC terminology? Such things could haunt you like figures in black and white in a "come-back" ... angels and demons in the sole situation of integral synthesis that goes on and on like myth to the institutionalized?

Appears to me lie so many words to learn as satyr, Bacchus or just the devil to desires in the extreme. Always use caution when dealing with extreme passions ... don't push it as it could bite ... and you'll never know what hit Jah! Consider it nothing ... and it leaves a void.

Eve & Sts even (like Ed-om-ism, Sts Eve'n was subtle) broke away on that point like Freud and Jung over the matter of superego and dreams ... only the abba-ridge-in-all (Sisyphus) knows! Then one should research abba and Nan ... them bread fruit of the soul ... arriving here flat-out absorbing until at a critical age ... a Maas to get over when at that midlife crisis and being cognizant of what you missed? There are deviants in this observation ... sometimes called Dionysus or the beauty of what is unseen ... an abstract nothing? It grows from there ...

One really should know their myths ...
 
By user AWildSketchAppeared on Reddit:

sO3GvIY.jpg


The guy is seriously talented. Follow the link to check out his work.
 
Its not bowing to pressure

Any one can be insulted. We can all get out backs up over insults perceived or real. Sowhat

But we must all have the right express ourselves, even if it insults someone

Lots of cartoons in the Globe today, back page of section 1
Can't argue with this, Lastpointe but there is such a thing as asking for trouble.
 
I don't buy the "asking for trouble" line. No one, and no religion, should be immune from mockery. To say that cartoonist, by making a mockery of a religious figure, are "asking for trouble," is exactly the same thing as saying a woman who dresses provocatively is asking to be sexually assaulted. Both attitudes need to be retired.

The cartoons serve as a provocation, that much is true, but a provocation does not have to escalate to violence. It can result in dialogue. It can result in hard feelings. It can result in being ignored. Provocatively dressed women can expect more glances and admiring looks. Maybe some scornful looks. Maybe some comments, positive or negative. There are many ways of dealing with the provocation of others. What you can't do, is respond with violence. That, we can not accept.
 
I don't buy the "asking for trouble" line. No one, and no religion, should be immune from mockery. To say that cartoonist, by making a mockery of a religious figure, are "asking for trouble," is exactly the same thing as saying a woman who dresses provocatively is asking to be sexually assaulted. Both attitudes need to be retired.

The cartoons serve as a provocation, that much is true, but a provocation does not have to escalate to violence. It can result in dialogue. It can result in hard feelings. It can result in being ignored. Provocatively dressed women can expect more glances and admiring looks. Maybe some scornful looks. Maybe some comments, positive or negative. There are many ways of dealing with the provocation of others. What you can't do, is respond with violence. That, we can not accept.
True enough.
 
The Guardian view on the response to terror: the attack on Charlie Hebdo was a crime, not an act of war
Across Europe, these are dangerous times. Political and religious leaders must maintain the calm ...

Guess Stephen Harper does not agree with The Guardian ...

METRO VANCOUVER -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the international jihadist movement has declared war on anyone who does not share its views and countries that value openness.

Harper said the attack on a satirical newspaper in Paris was an attack on democracy and that Canadians must remain vigilant as they loudly and clearly exercise their rights and freedoms to show their intolerance for such heinous acts.

"The fact of the matter is this, ladies and gentlemen, that the international jihadist movement has declared war," Harper said Thursday during an unrelated announcement in Delta

"They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they would think and act," he said.

"We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away. The reality is we are going to have to confront it. That's what, obviously, we are doing in concert with our allies."

Harper said the government is aiming to provide additional powers to security agencies so they can identify potential terror threats and detain people if necessary.

"We want to make sure that we get a balance, that we protect the rights of Canadians and also the security of Canadians," he said.

"I anticipate that we will be moving forward very early in the new session with additional legislative proposals."

Police in Paris are hunting for two suspects after 12 people, mostly journalists, were killed at the offices of newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday.

Harper said the gunmen "assaulted democracy everywhere" and demonstrations around the world have shown that people will not be intimidated by jihadists.

He said Canada is standing with other countries threatened by a jihadist army, which is occupying large parts of Iraq and Syria and has used its vast financial resources to escalate its threat "to a whole new global level."

"This is a movement that has declared war on Canada specifically and has shown it has the ability to develop the capacity to execute attacks on this soil."

Canadians are mourning with the people of France, the prime minister said, adding "the threats are real" in this country, too.

"If anyone doubted that, I think those doubts vanished on Oct. 22," he said of the shooting death of a soldier standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Ottawa, before a gunman who stormed Parliament Hill was killed.

"That was not the first incident or first visible manifestation of this threat in Canada," he said. "We had the Toronto 18 arrests several years ago, we had arrests around a plot to blow up Via Rail services, the B.C. legislature," he said, referring to an alleged plot to bomb the B.C. capital.

"The reality is that our security agencies are able, in the vast majority of cases, to identify threats that are out there and prevent them from coming to fruition."

Canada continues to use its mission in Iraq to eradicate the threat of the Islamic state, Harper said, as the military revealed Thursday that CF-18s carried out another seven attacks in that country over the last couple of weeks.

A decision to extend the air mission, which is due to end in April, has not been made, but prime minister said when the time comes one of the criteria will be "the kind of risk it poses to our country."

And Harper said the risk is significant. He said Canada is at war with the Islamic State and will do what is necessary to eliminate the threat it poses.

"This is a movement that has declared war on Canada specifically and has shown it has the ability to develop the capacity to execute attacks on this soil," he said.

His use of the word "war" is important because it carries specific, legal connotations and the government generally avoided using it during the long campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The word does not appear in the parliamentary motion which authorized the mission in Iraq.
 
Well, Hindus aren't particular. With their one-thousand or so deities, everyone can be satisfied, and almost anything goes. Maybe that's why they are the longest surviving religion in the world? :)
 
There is conflict in the analysis.

The individuals are criminals. Treat them as same.
They do, though, have different motivations than your traditional criminal.

It appears these two are part of a cell. Watching the news re hostages.

We, who do not desire to kill people just for the sake of killing, really do not understand.
 
Only if it's forced on someone, I think. If a satirical image like the above were posted in a workplace, that might be considered to be creating a hostile work environment. Otherwise, we're free to look at, and be offended by, what we choose.
 
Back
Top