Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Igster

Really? At the end of the day, nobody forces anyone to read them. If you don't like a picture, don't look at it. Don't like literature, don't read it. Regardless of liking it or not, they have every right to produce it.

What if they are displayed in public on newsstands? They might not be forced to read them, but the images hard to escape. In fact, many people are advocating taking the images and posting them everywhere as retaliation. Fighting extremism with racism isn't likely to be very productive. Might as well fight against Boko Haram by standing on the street corner in black face make-up. It would likely have the same effect.... it will just cause non-extremist to hate you too.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I am not convinced yet that this specific attack yesterday was part of a larger plot. It could very well just be the result of 2 individuals from a particular religious/ethnic minority that snapped after being continually bullied and harassed. That magazine doesn't just taunt extremist Muslims, but it is down right racist to Muslims and Arabs. IMO, they cross the line between being non-conformist free speech activists to being bigots often.

We see violent incidents like this all the often. People feel like society is somehow destroying them and they lash out. For example, a few years ago, there was a shooting in Montreal where a man who believed that feminists were holding him back, went to an all woman college and murdered a bunch of women. There are numerous other examples throughout history.

Unless the people responsible issued some type of statement to the contrary, I think it's too early to assume anything about the intent. If they went into Playboy magazine or something and shot the place up, I would be more inclined to think that it was just an anti-west type of attack, but in this case I think it is just as likely that the 2 guys went "postal" (hate answered with hate).

Obviously nothing justifies murder, but I am surprised that so many people are being supportive of the repugnant cartoons that this magazine makes.

This isn't about bullying, this isn't about some youths that are feeling that society is somehow destroying them.

This was far too well planned and coldly executed for that.

and the cartoons are irrelevant in terms of their content in a modern society where free speech and liberty trump everything.

I hate it when people make excuses for monsters like these people, or try to somehow justify their actions. There is no justification, no matter what the situation for mowing down a bunch of people with AK's that you've never met in your life.

No wait let me redact that, there is no excuse for the actions of these scumbags.

The world will be better off when they and their like minded buddies are removed from it. whether through a bullet between the eyes, or a permanent jail sentence.

Their back story is entirely irrelevant to me.

Being bullied is never justified for these kind of violent actions.

Its their poisoned ideology that leaves them outside of society, and being outside of society doesn't justify the actions.

Nor does following a extreme and poisoned version of a religion.

Sorry, no insult intended, but I really really got bristled by your post.

[icecube]

Nobody is justifying their actions. Shame on you for even suggesting that.

[CaptainCrunch]

Read his post again.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am not justifying their actions. Heck, someone could go and murder the whole Westborough Baptist congregation and it wouldn't be justifiable and if someone did, I wouldn't support re-distributing their hate literature in protest either even if they were free to do so.

Ok, that is an extreme comparison, but you get the gist. The cartoons do not justify violence, but they are part of another problem. It's sad that people are putting them on a pedestal now.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am not justifying their actions. Heck, someone could go and murder the whole Westborough Baptist congregation and it wouldn't be justifiable and if someone did, I wouldn't support re-distributing their hate literature in protest either.

Ok, that is an extreme comparison, but you get the gist. The cartoons do not justify violence, but they are part of another problem. It's sad that people are putting them on a pedestal now.

We live in a society where people have the right to offend and to be offended. Offending someone doesn't justify violence, the proper response is criticism.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

We live in a society where people have the right to offend and to be offended. Offending someone doesn't justify violence, the proper response is criticism.

Sure, criticism of the violence, but lashing out against a whole ethnic/religious group isn't going to lead to anything positive.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

We live in a society where people have the right to offend and to be offended. Offending someone doesn't justify violence, the proper response is criticism.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on this point.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What if they are displayed in public on newsstands? They might not be forced to read them, but the images hard to escape. In fact, many people are advocating taking the images and posting them everywhere as retaliation. Fighting extremism with racism isn't likely to be very productive. Might as well fight against Boko Haram by standing on the street corner in black face make-up. It would likely have the same effect.... it will just cause non-extremist to hate you too.

Well, I find it rather easy to simply ignore things that offend me. I don't think the way I feel about something should effect others, so if it was displayed on a newsstand somewhere and I didn't want to see it, I would avoid walking by those newsstands. This isn't rocket science. Ignore something that offends you and get on with your day.

Violence solves nothing and now these people who simply drew comics are dead and their families are left to grieve. It's simply ridiculous what some people think is a proper response to something like a comic.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by icecube

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on this point.

No, but the comment was "it's sad people are putting them on a pedestal". I don't think it's sad at all. People aren't putting them on a pedestal because they publish offensive cartoons, they are putting them on a pedestal because they weren't intimidated by bullies into silence.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

That picture deliberately targets Islam and not extremism.

Edit: Inadvertently not deliberately.

Does it make a difference if they are targeting Islam vs extremism and whether it is intentional or not? They have the right to do any of these in a free society. And now this publication will gain an incredible number of viewers because of this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Igster

Well, I find it rather easy to simply ignore things that offend me. I don't think the way I feel about something should effect others, so if it was displayed on a newsstand somewhere and I didn't want to see it, I would avoid walking by those newsstands. This isn't rocket science. Ignore something that offends you and get on with your day.

Violence solves nothing and now these people who simply drew comics are dead and their families are left to grieve. It's simply ridiculous what some people think is a proper response to something like a comic.

I can't say that I disagree with you. And I am sure most of the 4 million Muslims in France have been doing a good job of ignoring it.

Violence is definitely not a proper response, but to me there are 2 issues here. The violence/potential terrorism, and the fact that it is causing otherwise reasonable people to support hateful literature. You are simply saying that it should be ignored, which is fair; but many others are saying it should be revered which I think its wrong.

[BigNumbers]

So...Getting off the religious crap - Another shootout and a policewoman was killed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0KG0Y120150108

"A policewoman was killed in a shootout in Paris earlier in the day, but police sources could not immediately confirm a link with Wednesday's killings at the Charlie Hebdo weekly newspaper that marked the worst attack on French soil for decades."

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can't say that I disagree with you. And I am sure most of the 4 million Muslims in France have been doing a good job of ignoring it.

Violence is definitely not a proper response, but to me there are 2 issues here. The violence/potential terrorism, and the fact that it is causing otherwise reasonable people to support hateful literature. You are simply saying that it should be ignored, which is fair; but many others are saying it should be revered which I think its wrong.

You're confusing support of the specific literature to support of free speech itself.

I mean the history of liberty and freedom to offend is pretty well known to most of the modern world. These cartoons/magazine certainly do not promote hatred.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

[Flamenspiel]

Apparently, next weeks issue of Charlie Hebdo will have 1000000 Issues, ten times the usual subscription. There have been some great responses to this event so far including a complete reprint of all the Charlie Hebdo covers by a German newspaper.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Umm... No. Very much no.

You're just overreacting in the same way you accuse Flames Gimp of doing.

How can you in all seriousness think that shooting amongst others two kids in cold blood is not worse than the reprehensible murder of a bunch of men mostly in their Middle Ages.
Are you honestly thinking the circumstances were any different, in Edmonton, the father went room to room slaughtering his family, they were all cowering in terror just as much as the victims in France.

More people will ever be killed as a result of domestic violence in France or Canada than will ever be killed by some wack job claiming terrorism, and the only threat to our way of life 'terror' attacks pose is due to our over reaction.
If you'd watched the video from France but been told it was a bank robbery gone terribly wrong no one would be suggesting we do any more than we do now to catch bank robbers, why, as soon as we call something terrorism does it suddenly make it worse?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

How can you in all seriousness think that shooting amongst others two kids in cold blood is not worse than the reprehensible murder of a bunch of men mostly in their Middle Ages.

Twelve people were murdered in Paris vs. six in Edmonton. Both incidents were terrible, but simple math dictates that a mass murder with twelve victims is worse than a mass murder with six victims. Are you suggesting that the lives of children are somehow worth more than the lives of adults, therefore the Edmonton incident is a greater tragedy in your view?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Twelve people were murdered in Paris vs. six in Edmonton. Both incidents were terrible, but simple math dictates that a mass murder with twelve victims is worse than a mass murder with six victims. Are you suggesting that the lives of children are somehow worth more than the lives of adults, therefore the Edmonton incident is a greater tragedy in your view?

Do we really need to grade the tragedies?


Isn't the death of one innocent individual enough?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Do we really need to grade the tragedies?


Isn't the death of one innocent individual enough?

I agree completely that it's a fruitless exercise to rank the severity of mass murders. I took issue with afc wimbledon's post where he seemed so confident in his claim that the Edmonton killing spree was quite obviously "worse" because it involved children. That doesn't at all make it a greater tragedy, and I'm curious why he seems to think that it does.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I agree completely that it's a fruitless exercise to rank the severity of mass murders. I took issue with afc wimbledon's post where he seemed so confident in his claim that the Edmonton killing spree was quite obviously "worse" because it involved children. That doesn't at all make it a greater tragedy, and I'm curious why he seems to think that it does.

In answer to your question, yes I do think killing children is worse than killing adults, and I'm not trying to rank the tragedies, in fact my point is not that Edmonton was worse but that they are the same, and that it makes no sense that we react to Paris differently to Edmonton.

I'm actually amazed that anyone wouldn't think that killing kids is worse than killing adults.