Freedom of speech or provocation?

[oberliner]

Johannesburg - Years of taunting, insulting and humiliating caricatures of the revered Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), immigrants, blacks and Muslims by the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine has resulted in what the French authorities have long warned against – an explosion of violence leading to the tragic deaths and injuries of 17 people.

President Hollande described this attack as an assault on secular French values, democracy, freedom of speech and expression, condemning “Islamic terrorists” for perpetrating these heinous crimes. But the bloodbath in Paris has nothing to do with freedom of speech or with Islam.

The deliberate provocation of 6 million Muslims in France and 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide through constant racial vulgarities and indignities directed at the Prophet and Islam under the guise of freedom of speech is reckless and reprehensible.

Surely French “values” and democracy do not confer on it the freedom to denigrate and desecrate a prophet who is so deeply cherished by all Muslims.

http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/freedom-of-speech-or-provocation-1.1804335#.VLURz1qprzI

Honestly cannot believe how many articles like this are being published and how many prominent people are taking this "blame the cartoonists for their murder" approach.

[NutmegYankee]

1. A lot of people have a problem with freedom of ALL speech.

It really is a radical concept.

[Fumesucker]

3. No, they are all fine with their own freedom of speech

It's those ~other~ people who are creating all the problems by saying things they don't want to hear.

[NutmegYankee]

6. A rephrasing of the same thing.

I've encountered dozen of people IRL who say they like freedom of speech but then commented "they shouldn't be allowed to say that".

[MADem]

81. The French actually have "hate speech" laws. They put people in jail for it.

They can get around it if they're being funny or satirical, but don't get the idea that France is a Free Speech Zone--it isn't. In France, people aren't allowed to say some stuff.

[Codeine]

2. Revolting. So many cowards. nt

[belzabubba333]

4. i think it brings up another question would we be so je suis charlie and happy theyre

back if instead of mocking religion he drew cartoons of obama as a witch doctor or watermellons on the front lawn

[cilla4progress]

145. I agree ...

Of course they have the right to say this shit.

Is it showing mature discretion and respect? No. Are they provoking more attacks and death, presumably. Is it mature, necessary, and helpful? No, not at all.

[leftynyc]

151. Well, since that has actually happened

perhaps you can point to anyone around here saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'll wait.

[randys1]

177. Yes, indeed. Right now I hear Huckabee is questioning the Obama daughters morals

by attacking their parents.

The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.
The Republican party and the teaparty exist to cause death and destruction and nothing else.

[Quantess]

5. I am fully in favor of freedom of speech. This is a western cultural value.

There seems to be an underlying rift in values when it comes down to it. Muslim cultures seem to really have a different perspective regarding freedom of speech.

I would be interested in knowing what percentage of mainstream, non-fundamentalist muslims feel that -although they themselves would never commit violence- the cartoonists brought it upon themselves and pretty much asked for it.

[branford]

8. American notions of free speech are fairly unique,

and extend well beyond that of other democracies like in western Europe, Canada and Australia, where it is not uncommon to criminalize certain criticisms of minority groups or other "hate speech."

[bemildred]

7. People are only reasonable when they want to be.

Some of the early Christian religious disputes are very illuminating about just what sort of empty babble people are willing to kill each other over. I am thoroughly on the Charlie Hebdo side, but it IS a religious disagreement, and that has always been a chancy business. Where people err in my view is in thinking that we are rational or reasonable now. Ha. You can get yourself killed very easily right here in the USA by mouthing off to the wrong people. We have Charlie Hebdo attacks all the time here, in schools.

So basically, I think it's both. Free Speech isn't worth much if it doesn't protect you when provoking assholes. The error is thinking assholes can be made to be reasonable by the law. They won't. And that our free speech rights protect us, they don't.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. At the end of the article . . .

Perhaps the French and their European and Western counterparts need to imbibe the Islamic values of tolerance, respect and honour.

Except - there are *I think* more than 100 verses in the Koran calling for the death of infidels. An infidel being: anyone who does not adhere to one's own religion.

Now, the vast majority of Muslims throughout this world do not take these verses as a call to 'justifiable violence' -

But the author of this article would be well served in explaining the next step - which is that Fundamentalist Muslims do not respect their own values of tolerance, respect, and honour - any more than a Fundie Far right Christian in America respects my right to not have their faith imposed on me by the state.

I wonder oberliner - if people would understand so many of your statements here this past week if they could see the correlations between people like Ralph Reed and the Imam in Paris who inspired the three?

I don't know - but I thank you for posting this article and your excellent comments this past week.

[merrily]

10. Not to mention that the magazine's skirt was much too short.

[LWolf]

11. I'm surprised that you can't believe it.

We live in a culture of blame, and blaming the victims is the norm.

[leftynyc]

153. That it's happening right here on

this thread is an embarrassment to the entire community.

[LWolf]

187. It sure as hell is. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. How does the author, in adjoining sentences, claim the attack has nothing to do with religion

only to then immediately say this is what is to be expected when you insult people's religion?

Was this even edited for coherency?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Coherency is a symptom of apostasy, to make sense is a sin.

nt

[UglyGreed]

13. I'm sorry but I did not

find the cartoons funny, so I'm a coward for that point of view? If I create a cartoon depicting a child dying of cancer being molested by a pedophile is that humorous???

I understand free speech but I also understand being a target of others who feel I'm not worthy of respect and after years of torment and isolation you tend to strike back. Would you be brave/dumb enough to be locked in a room with a serial killer with no way to defend yourself and torment him for hours at end, would it be smart to do so???

IMO any extremist be it Christian, Muslim, Ammosexual or whatever you like to list is suffering from some sort of mental illness and is weak in the sense of being brainwashed to the point that they will kill others. Sure people are brave when attacking others from a distance or on the internet yet when face to face that bravery tends to melt away. Sorry being an instigator is nothing to be proud of and really does not help any of us in the end.


May the attacks begin

[el_bryanto]

15. this is kind of all over the place.

You may not find them funny, but do you feel like they are so bad as to merit the death sentence?

Do you feel like France is hostile to it's Muslim population? Are French Muslims treated with torment and isolation? Accounts from the region suggest that most French muslims are pretty well integrated and secular.

In what sense did the editors and cartoonists lock themselves in a room with a serial killer?

Bryant

[UglyGreed]

20. Well I do know if I drew such cartoons

I would expect some sort of blow back, lets not pretend that is not possible. What sense did they the cartoonists lock themselves in a room with a serial killer? They are dead now at the hands of a few crazy people and they did it to themselves. I see no difference than poking a bear with a short stick. The cartoons were not sticking up for anyone they were meant to provoke and belittle and that's what they did in the end. So when the cartoonists get the reaction they wanted we are shocked??? Every action has a reaction, we have been tormenting the Middle East and their people for years and no they don't hate us for our freedoms.

[cali]

22. One of the more disgusting comments I've seen about this: "they did it to themselves"

No, they sure as hell did not. They were murdered and there was NO justification for it. Lots of people find lots of different things offensive. I, for instance, am very offended by victim blaming. It makes my blood boil, but I don't even consider hurting or killing anyone who offends me.

And no, the wars in the middle east that we've launched (not France, btw) are NOT an excuse for murder.

In disgust,

cali

[UglyGreed]

29. It makes my blood boil when

people think it is ok to attack others and not expect some sort of reaction. I'm sorry but this is all due to the war on terror. Our actions in the Middle East has caused great harm to thousands of people and displaced many of their people causing some to be easy targets for radicalization. If you can not see this then I can not help you.

[cali]

32. so are you planning to gun someone down for offending you? I'd wager not.

and no, all this is not solely due to the war on terror. It's a far more complex web than that, with many strands: political, religious, cultural and more.

One can recognize that the U.S. actions vis a vis the middle east have caused great harm and still grasp that murdering journalists and Jews in Paris is completely unjustifiable.

If you can't entertain more than one simple thought at a time, I can't help you. If you continue to dehumanize and justify the unjustifiable (I don't attempt to justify the U.S. crimes in the middle east),. you can't be helped by anyone.

[UglyGreed]

63. This part of the Crusade

started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the US taking over where the Soviet Union left off. We helped create this mind set in the Middle East with the propaganda we supplied the mujahideen. If you do not care to see that I can not help you.

[KittyWampus]

45. Okay, where did the poster say "they did it to themselves"? You put it in quotation marks

I've read and re-read the post and can't find that quote.

[cali]

51. It's right there. read it again.

here, from the post.

They are dead now at the hands of a few crazy people and they did it to themselves.

[leftynyc]

62. You obviously DID NOT read it

or re-read it. It's right there.

[PeaceNikki]

88. .

[el_bryanto]

28. OK - well you've crawled out a little further on that limb

But no - they didn't do it to themselves. They were murdered. By Murderers. If you think the murderers had a point, well, you are allowed to have that point of view, but I'd expect some blowback.

Bryant

[UglyGreed]

30. Would they have been murdered by brainwashed

mental ill radicals if they did not provoke them???

[el_bryanto]

31. That's irrelevant

When you are the victim of a crime the person guilty is the person committing the crime, not the victim of the crime. In a generalized sense you can argue that there are steps that people can take to avoid trouble, but once you are talking about a specific incident, it's cruel to suggest that the people who were murdered were responsible for their murder.

Bryant

[UglyGreed]

37. I am not saying it was ok to kill them

but the cartoonist knew what he was doing and even said I have no children or wife so he was willing to die, The only problem is that others died because he did not care if he did. Did they want to die also??? We will never know.

[cali]

41. lol. no, you're just blaming them for being murdered.

[UglyGreed]

46. Don't put words in my mouth

Their actions caused what had happened and there is no way around it. Just because it is a terrible thing that happened we can not be blind to what led up to this slaughter.

[cali]

53. YOU wrote: they did it to themselves. you can't squirm awayn from that line. it's reprehensible

and you are deservedly getting chastised for your victim blaming.

[UglyGreed]

72. Even the cartoonist knew he might be killed

yet when I point that out I'm blaming the victim. He is a more of martyr than a victim since he chose to do what he did. The others who died because of his actions were victims.

[melman]

113. There was more than one cartoonist

You are deciding who is a victim and who's not and you don't even know the details of what happened.

[UglyGreed]

169. You are so wise and so informed

what about the officer who was shot in the head, did he draw cartoons also???

[onenote]

68. If a woman wearing a shirt skirt is raped

By a mentally ill sexual predator, do you think she "caused" it to happen?

[PeaceNikki]

93. No need to. You said that they did it to themselves.

No, they didn't. They published cartoons. They were murdered in cold blood.

Anyone offended had a right to be pissed, a write to scream at them, to protest... but they were fucking murdered.

[melman]

47. No, they died because people decided to shoot them

Not because of anything Charb did or didn't do or care about.

[el_bryanto]

49. Please provide a link to the assertion that he was willing to die. nt

[cali]

33. so what did those in the kosher grocery store do?

how did they provoke them? Do explain.

[UglyGreed]

44. They were related to cartoon attack

by sick people that have been brainwashed.

[cali]

55. whatever. you don't even make a a semi coherent argument.

[UglyGreed]

86. Yeah whatever

thanks for the chat....

[NutmegYankee]

42. So we should walk on eggshells and try to never offend even the most unreasonably sensitive person..

for fear they might kill us? Sorry, that is not freedom.

[UglyGreed]

52. Well if you like go ahead and torment

sick people who might kill you that is your right. If that is what freedom is to you than knock yourself out.

[NutmegYankee]

54. Some people choose to live on their knees.

Not me.

[ND-Dem]

136. "live on their knees" usually refers to living under some oppressive force. in what sense

did the CH staff live under an oppressive force?

The quote is from Emiliano Zapata, btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata

[NutmegYankee]

185. I was referring to us living in fear of terrorism

Having to "walk on eggshells" all the time is oppressive.

[leftynyc]

64. How said you want to live

your life cowering in fear of offending someone. That's pretty pathetic. Since when is there a right to not be offended? Your victim blaming could be the most disgusting thing I've ever seen on this board. I'd ban you in a heartbeat.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Perhaps next you could provide commentary on short skirts and sexual assault. nt

[UglyGreed]

111. A women can wear what she likes

but it really had nothing to do with this subject yet many here would like to muddy the waters by adding that to the conversation. Make a lot of sense

[leftynyc]

156. Where is the proof the killers

were mentally ill and not just some hate filled animals?

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

35. Is it the rape victim's fault because she wore a short skirt?

Sick sick sick victim blaming.

[cali]

36. +1 and welcome to DU

[UglyGreed]

56. Grasping at straws

welcome to DU indeed. The rapist is the sick person just like the radials which our war on terror has created.

[cali]

60. When was the fatwa against Rushdie issued?

On 14 February 1989, the day of the funeral of his close friend Bruce Chatwin, a fatwā requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam" (chapter IV of the book depicts the character of an Imam in exile who returns to incite revolt from the people of his country with no regard for their safety). A bounty was offered for Rushdie's death, and he was thus forced to live under police protection for several years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Failed_assassination_attempt_and_Hezbollah.27s_comments

Just think, Rushdie offended people. He should never have written "The Satanic Verses". He provoked them.

[PeaceNikki]

65. I liked his statement on Charlie Hebdo

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/01/07/salman-rushdie-i-stand-with-charlie-hebdo-as-we-all-must/

[cali]

66. wow. that's great. thanks for posting it.

It deserves to be an op on its own.

[cilla4progress]

146. May I ask, ever so innocuously -

do you draw a line on what is appropriate to say or broadcast, in any manner?

See the post above by belzabubba333:

" i think it brings up another question would we be so je suis charlie and happy theyre back if instead of mocking religion he drew cartoons of obama as a witch doctor or watermellons on the front lawn".

I'm interested in your thoughts on this ...

[PeaceNikki]

161. They didn't publish racist cartoons so I doubt they'd do that.

But, since we're doing hypotheticals, sure, I'd be "happy theyre [sic] back" because in my pretend world, I have a unicorn and hoverboard.

[cilla4progress]

165. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. ....

Here's a very good article that expresses my view on this.

Discuss.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/13/i-will-grieve-i-will-laugh-i-am-not-charlie

<snip>

In a country (France) and an era (post-9/11) where Muslims face rampant discrimination and often violent exclusion, Charlie Hebdo's cheap shots at Islam added fuel to the racist fire. I understand the desire to make fun of organized religion in all its absurdities, but it's possible to do that without graphic cartoons of Muhammad being sodomized. That's not brilliant satire, that's pornographic hate speech. And I don't know about you, but I prefer my porn without violent hatred.

[PeaceNikki]

166. Islam is not a race.

That's a fact, not an opinion.

[cilla4progress]

171. So, it's ok to diss a religion

but not a race.

Got it.

[PeaceNikki]

173. Yes. Absolutely. Ideas dictate behavior, skin color does not.

Religion is an idea—a faith-based idea lacking any evidence—or a set of ideas to which one willingly adheres. Race can't be changed; religion can. All you have to do is change your mind. Think for yourself and you can be free from religion.

[cilla4progress]

175. Your response is so overly simplistic

as to be difficult to respond to.

There are ethnic, cultural, and yes, perhaps racial, underpinnings to religious affiliation.

And I'm certain we would agree that "all" Muslims, as well as the religion of Islam, do not condone this violence.

Also, "race" is actually a social construct, not a scientific fact.

[PeaceNikki]

176. And I never said or implied that "all" Muslims are anything.

[cilla4progress]

178. That's why I said

I'm certain we agree on that fact.

But I guess we aren't going to agree on the wisdom, sensitivity, or appropriateness of Charlie Hebdo.

[UglyGreed]

73. Look at the timing

The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted over nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen, mostly composed of two alliances – the Peshawar Seven and the Tehran Eight. The Peshawar Seven insurgents received military training in neighboring Pakistan and China,[8] as well as weapons and billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.[2][3][4][8][26] The Shia groups of the Tehran Eight alliance received support from the Islamic Republic of Iran. Early in the rule of the PDPA government, the Maoist Afghanistan Liberation Organization also played a significant role in opposition, but its major force was defeated by late 1979, prior to the Soviet intervention. The decade-long war resulted in the death of 850,000–1.5 million civilians[23][24] as well as causing millions of Afghans to flee the country, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.

[cali]

77. stretch much, Ugly Greed?

you're desperation and single mindedness are... interesting. Are you actually claiming that the fatwa on Rushdie, a Pakistani Muslim, is largely the result of the Russian incursion into Afghanistan and the U.S. response?

Just absurd

[ND-Dem]

137. still alive, isn't he?

[leftynyc]

61. Well, yours could be the most disgusting

comment I've seen on DU over this whole issue. They did it to themselves? Do you also blame a woman who wears a short skirt for her rape? Because that's the same thing you're doing. You may want to rethink your comment. My advice would be to self delete. You think the problem is the cartoon and not that some violent lunatics think a cartoon is worth committing mass murder for. You're defending the killers and frankly, have no business on a progressive board.

[UglyGreed]

67. Thank you

are you trying to trample my freedom of speech by recommending I should self delete??? Extremists of any religion are not making our world any safer.

[cali]

70. weak. because suggesting you delete a post is just like

"trampling freedom of speech".

Not.

[leftynyc]

71. LOL - a suggestion is not

trampling on anything. No wonder you seem to be so confused about who the victims were in France. You want everyone to see your victim blaming and lack of common sense - knock yourself out.

[UglyGreed]

84. Well I'm not blaming the victims

that is where everyone is wrong. A man made a choice to do what he did knowing that his actions may cause his death, the only problem others had to pay the price of his "bravery" which in my eyes are the true victims.

[cali]

94. yeah. everyone but you, all wrong. except YOU wrote that they brought it on

themselves. Sorry, but that's de facto victim blaming. as clear an example of it as could possibly be found.

and where is your quote from this guy? link- you've been asked for it, where is it? Oh, and you are blaming one of the murder victims for the death of the other victims.

Sickening. your posts in this thread are worthy only of this:

[UglyGreed]

100. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30724678

Charb" was 47. He had received death threats in the past and had been under police protection.

A stout defender of the left-wing magazine's provocative approach, he refused to bow to critics.

"I don't have kids, no wife, no car, no debt," he once told France's Le Monde newspaper. "Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

[cali]

102. good for him. and thumbs down to you for blaming him for being murdered.

quite in the tradition of Voltaire and others. He refused to be silenced by those who would shut up all criticism.

[UglyGreed]

168. And I refuse to be railroaded into

not being able to see how this has all happened.

[PeaceNikki]

101. "they did it to themselves" *literally* equals blaming them.

Yes, you are.

[UglyGreed]

170. Their actions caused these deaths

Sure they have the right to publish these cartoons and knew that were placing a target on themselves by doing so yet we are surprised when something bad happens??? It's not victim blaming or supporting their murders. All I did was to see the problem as for it is.

[delta17]

183. No, the trigger pullers caused these deaths.

The terrorists are 100% responsible for this atrocity. They made a concious decision to commit murder because their feelings got hurt.

[UglyGreed]

184. charlie hebdo made a concious decision to

post such cartoons knowing damn well it may be deadly. It was their choice and if you feel it was worth the effort then that is your choice also. I feel these people died in vain and will not help matters at all and that is my choice.

[delta17]

186. Posting the cartoons wasn't deadly, getting shot was.

Yes, posting the cartoons offended some people. They should have responded by writing a letter or boycotting the magazine, not murdering people. They are wholly responsible for their actions.

Was MLK Jr. responsible for his own death? He recieved thousands of death threats before he was killed. We don't let violence dictate our actions.

[UglyGreed]

188. We don't let violence

dictate our actions yet we use violence for revenge for 14 years now killing and maiming more of our own people than what was lost in the first place. This war on terror is just working out so well. Never mind the fact that Charlie Hebdo has not been all about free speech and are not equal opportunity instigators.

But it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo did not offend with equal frequency. Over the last fifteen years, Islam became a primary target for the satirical magazine, out of all proportion with the number of Muslims in France or their political weight in the country. And it wasn’t hard to pick out the Muslims in their cartoons—the men were bearded and turbaned, the women veiled and submissive. Charlie Hebdo’s editors deemed any criticism of these portrayals to be a bow to political correctness and an attack on their right to criticize religion. Freedom of speech became synonymous, in their work, with the right to offend, but not with the right to call out bigotry. I would invite those who insist that the magazine was always and exclusively satirizing ideas to consider the geographic origins of turbans and veils, as well as France’s history in North Africa. I remember one cover from last fall, which depicted the Nigerian schoolgirls who were abducted by Boko Haram as pregnant welfare queens, demanding that no one touch their payments. Mocking victims of kidnapping and rape and having them voice right-wing fears about welfare payments to descendants of immigrants is not an image I find amusing or instructive.

Almost immediately after the terrorist attack, the usual claims were made that Muslims are silent about radicalism. At home in Santa Monica, I watched my social media timelines fill with calls on Muslims to denounce the tragedy, even as Muslims did exactly that. Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, condemned the attack as “barbaric.” Tariq Ramadan, the influential professor of Islamic studies, declared, “It is not the Prophet who was avenged, it is our religion, our values and Islamic principles that have been betrayed.” Al-Azhar University, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League all condemned the attack, as did the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America and thousands upon thousands of ordinary people online. But I doubt this will suffice. In a few weeks or a few months, we will once again hear some pundit or other demand that Muslims speak out against radicals, a standard that is not applied to any other community when one of its members perpetrates a violent act.

The story is that France has failed to integrate approximately 5 million Muslims who call the country home. Under the ideals of the French republic, citizens are to be treated equally under the law, with no regard for race or religion. For this reason, the government does not keep statistics on citizens of Muslim descent. But academic studies have repeatedly shown that French Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed than non-Muslims. They graduate from high school at lower rates and are imprisoned at higher rates. Many of them live in densely populated housing projects, with little access to the kinds of opportunities other French citizens receive. While it is hard to overstate the level of disenfranchisement among French Muslims, this cannot explain what happened either. That morning in France, millions of Muslims went about their own business, regardless of any political grievance or private injustice.

Something else separated the two perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack from the rest of their community. Said and Cherif Kouachi, both of them in their early 30s, were born in Paris and orphaned at a young age. A decade ago, the younger of the two brothers was a rapper trying to make a name for himself through his music. When that failed, Cherif Kouachi turned to drugs and petty crime. Eventually, he met a radical preacher who encouraged him to go fight in Iraq, but he was arrested in 2005,before he could carry out his plan. Those who put the blame for the Charlie Hebdo attack on France’s involvement in Muslim countries should remember that France did not support the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and did not send troops there. Charlie Hebdoran cartoons that criticized the war, including one that portrayed UN inspectors studiously searching for weapons of mass destruction, while behind them missiles labeled “USA” were poised to strike. Whatever anger the brothers felt about the invasion of Iraq, it makes no sense to direct that rage at the magazine.

Well, then, what about the double standards? This is a refrain we hear all the time with satirical weeklies like Charlie Hebdo. And not without cause. Under French law, the magazine could run cartoons mocking Islam, but it could not run cartoons mocking the Holocaust. In fact, in 2009, Charlie Hebdo fired Maurice Sinet (known as Siné), one of its most famous cartoonists, because of a column in which he suggested that Nicolas Sarkozy’s son would “go a long way in life” after marrying a Jewish heiress. But murdering cartoonists will not put a stop to double standards. Instead of tolerating less speech, we must ask for more speech. And here is where we must work for greater diversity in newsrooms: the more voices we have, the more complex our understanding of one another will be. The best response to offense is not murder. It is life. It is resilience. It is art.


http://www.alternet.org/world/there-are-no-simple-explanations-about-charlie-hebdo-attack

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. "Well I'm not blaming the victims"

"Yes, you did, Brett! Yes, you did!" -- Jules

[UglyGreed]

116. Well Charlie knew what he was

doing so is he a victim or a martyr????


"I don't have kids, no wife, no car, no debt," he once told France's Le Monde newspaper. "Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

[cali]

122. He's clearly a victim. He was murdered in cold blood for no other reason but

that he drew cartoons that offended some people.

[melman]

142. Charlie is the magazine

FFS

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message

On Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:06 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well I do know if I drew such cartoons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6079449

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Says murder victims deserved to die "they did it to themselves" because they offended someone else's religion

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 13, 2015, 04:15 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Aside from the unrepentant victim-blaming, general nastiness, inability to understand that non-Islamists are free to draw cartoons of Mohammed, what can I say? I refer you to panel number 4 of this week's Tom Tomorrow cartoon - let the hot takes begin.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an ugly, unsympathetic post, but I'm not sure being heartless and full of shit is any violation in itself. This jerkoff will be handed his head by the other DUers, so not necessary to hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: My goodness gracious now some alerter is trying to censor an opinion and stifle debate. I thought you people supported free speech even if its offensive? Je sui Charlie!!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Wtf! This is disgusting!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't completely agree with the post, but he/she is entitled to that opinion. Just because you don't agree with an opinion doesn't make it hide-worthy imho.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Matter of opinion. Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cali]

133. wll I didn't alert and I'm glad it wasn't hidden. I think the poster's disgusting victim

blaming should be seen- and disputed.

[UglyGreed]

135. Thank you for posting this

Glad to see more name calling and attacks, so much for freedom of speech and all. Charlie himself knew that this may cause his death yet when I point out that was the reason for his death and the death of others who did not have a say in whether they live or die I'm a vile person who is not worthy of posting on DU. SMH Thanks to those who were brave enough to allow my posts to stay in view.

[Bluenorthwest]

143. Charlie Hebdo' is a made up title for the publication, not a person's name.

'Charlie himself knew' is an absurdity. Charlie is made of paper and ink, not of flesh and of bones.
Good to see how you inform yourself around these issues before you speak. It explains so very much.

[leftynyc]

159. I didn't alert

In fact the only alert I've ever done was for a bigot who was banned before the jury even came back. I like stupidity right in front of me where I can see it and mock it unmercifully.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Cleric gives a sermon demonizing gay people, and that's religion?

I find it interesting that the people who are highly offended when religion is mocked are not ever bothered in the slightest when religion mounts hate campaigns against gay people.
Rick Warren called us criminal pedophiles who were like those who practice incest. Two week later he was praying at the Inauguration. That's the standard. You expect so much from some of us while giving all license to others. Hypocrisy served up poser style.

[UglyGreed]

21. I don't think it is right to mock anyone

let people live their lives the way they like. No one likes to be the one who is on the outside being mocked or considered less of human than others.

[cali]

23. tough that no one likes being mocked or having their beliefs mocked.

now don't mock the belief of wingnuts, you might offend them.

Ugh.

[UglyGreed]

26. Yeah mocking poeple always

works out well. I've made so many friends that way.

[LanternWaste]

104. As did Mark Twain, Dorothy Parker and Lewis Carroll.

"I've made so many friends that way..."

As did Mark Twain, Dorothy Parker and Lewis Carroll. However, your snark seems to be mocking other people-- if that is indeed the case, you are then holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to...?

[UglyGreed]

106. If you could not tell

let me add this here then

[treestar]

43. Yet there are congregations with gay pastors

Broad Brush and all that.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. That's not a broad brush, kid, that's contextualization. Religions regularly denigrate LGBT people

and yet those who are so very worked up about any criticism of religion never, ever speak out against the daily diatribes that stream out from the religious community. My comment is not even about the religious people themselves but those who claim to be inherently opposed to negative commentary about others who do not in fact apply that opposition to negative commentary that comes from religious clergy and groups toward others.
Hope that clears it up for you. My mother was a devout Christian, so this attitude of yours that I don't know the hate mongers from the 'real thing' is just a product of your own assumptions. Why you make such assumptions is not for me to say.

[cali]

19. I didn't find the ones I've seen funny either. So what?

but your comparison isn't apt. The cartoons attacked religion, not a someone afflicted with a disease or being victimized.

Belief systems should be questioned, and yes, even attacked. They should be able to withstand that. And what the hell does being locked in a room with a serial killer have to do with satirical cartoons? Nothing whatsoever.

You are, unwittingly I presume, blaming the victims of violence in almost exactly the same way that wingers attack women for being raped because they drank too much or wore clothes that were "provocative".

[UglyGreed]

25. Victims are usually

innocent bystanders...... they picked a fight with sick people and now we are all going to suffer more because of it. Let the war on terror reign on and on and on. We are right they are wrong, we kill thousands they kill a few mean while those in power (MIC) laugh all the way to the bank.

[cali]

27. they did not pick a fight. period. they expressed a pov

and sorry, but the U.S. killing thousands is not justification as you so clearly believe. Furthermore, they don't just kill a few. Boko Haram ring a bell? ISIS? In fact, Muslims largely kill.... other Muslims. You might consider informing yourself a wee bit.

[UglyGreed]

34. Yeah ISIS was created

by our actions in Iraq just like al Qaeda was created by our actions in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union........... you sound like the right who you mock.

[leftynyc]

59. Your mistake is like some others here on DU

You're under the impression that satire needs to be funny to be effective. It doesn't.

[UglyGreed]

92. yes so effective

that it caused his death and the death of many others. He made his point and I'm sure it will be to the benefit to all of us in the end.

[cali]

99. wowser. you go from ugly victim blaming to even uglier victim blaming. shame on you.

for the tenth time. His death was caused by the shitstain murderers who wielded guns. duh.

[UglyGreed]

120. Shame on me for seeing that

when dealing with sick people one must use caution. It was his choice......


"I don't have kids, no wife, no car, no debt," he once told France's Le Monde newspaper. "Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

[cali]

123. bzzzt. fail. it was NOT his choice to be murdered. It was his choice

to draw cartoons.

[UglyGreed]

125. That he himself said

that he might be killed for it.........

[cali]

130. let me translate for you: He was saying that he was willing to stand up for what he believes

that is not the same thing.

[UglyGreed]

140. his words

plainly states what he felt, he had nothing to lose by dying. Thank you but I don't need your interpretation of his words they are clear and to the point.

[leftynyc]

115. The only thing that caused death

were the animals with the guns. That you think cartoonists are worthy of the death penalty because of thin skinned imbeciles is an embarrassment to this entire community.

[UglyGreed]

121. No but he was smart enough to understand

his actions may cause his death...

"I don't have kids, no wife, no car, no debt," he once told France's Le Monde newspaper. "Maybe it's a little pompous to say, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

[leftynyc]

147. Knowing there are violent animals out

who kill over cartoons doesn't mean he was looking for death. I cant' believe you're still victim blaming. You're an embarrassment to this entire community.

[UglyGreed]

127. Yes so embarrassing

be reasonable and try to understand how and why this happened. Charlie knew what could happen and for me to point out that it did happen because he decided to continue his actions is just horrible. Shame on me and I 'm sure I want women to raped and puppies to be kicked and any other horrible thing you guys would like to pin on me for seeing that an action may cause a reaction be it good or bad.

[leftynyc]

148. More victim blaming

There is nothing reasonable about murdering over a cartoon. Only a repulsive animal would do that and that's exactly what those murderous pieces of crap were. Let's just coddle those jihadists and allow them to decide what can and cannot be said - wouldn't want to offend the little darlings, would we? That attitude is quite nauseating.

[UglyGreed]

167. There is nothing reasonable with

with people who put so called religion before their common sense, yes I totally agree with you!!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

14. None of these victim blamers seem to mention the constant, intentional denigration of LGBT people

by religious clerics, nor the rhetoric that denigrates other peoples, faiths and nations. On DU and elsewhere, the same people who seem to expect LGBT people to endure any horrid insulting speech any religion feels like delivering also seem to think that religious people have the right to do violence if religion is insulted. Religion calls gay people criminals, pedophiles and then gets to preside over the Inauguration. No one says 'any response that gay people had to that would be understandable, because when you intentionally denigrate others, when you poke the bear...'
Fuck these hypocrites.

[oberliner]

18. That is part of what makes me so angry

And it's strange to me that otherwise intelligent people can't even see their own hypocrisy.

[sibelian]

40. Maybe we need to blow something up or cut someone's head off, BNW.

Seems to me that that's how one advances rank.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. I'm utterly opposed to violence of course, but I am stunned that the very same people who criticized

LGBT people for objecting to religious clergy using denigrating language about us by saying we exhibited 'poutrage' and 'wanted a pony' are now saying they might understand murdering people over a cartoon.
What I have realized is that those people do not empathize with us at all, but they can instantly empathize with heavily armed mass murderers targeting cartoonists and Jewish shoppers. This disgusts me.

[sibelian]

179. Yes. It's revolting.

But there's point telling them they're revolting. It's nothing more than a ranking system to them. What actually happens to people is of no consequence. They have no moral spine whatsoever, it's all about who can gain enough attention by shouting the appropriate soundbites the loudest. They fancy themselves miniature journalists.

Any number of them reading this subthread will feel thwarted and thus emboldened. They will continue as before, with greater enthusiasm. It's perfectly obvious how it all works on this site.

[JonLP24]

24. US is actually very unique when it comes to freedom of speech laws

We basically have none though we're going backwards with things like the Espionage Act (I know is from 1917, I'm talking about enforcement here) but in the context of freedom of speech you have to factor in other countries laws and I can't think of one that is unambiguous as ours.

[Man from Pickens]

57. Our censorship regime runs through copyright laws

Just ask Aaron Schwarz... oh wait, you can't since he's dead thanks to an absolutely ridiculous prosecution that made no sense whatsoever unless the purpose was to squelch free speech and the dissemination of information to the public.

[JonLP24]

58. I agree

I was just relating the context of France's free speech laws in how it relates to this discussion which I have no clue in how it relates to this question but Muslim majority countries didn't start changing laws until the Wahabbis were offended by it and kinda forcing it down their throats so we should definitely push back against it.

[treestar]

38. Both. This is not either/or

We have free speech. There may be consequences. Usually hopefully simply someone disagreeing and using their free speech to oppose, by more speech, what we said.

If you do vulgar cartoons of Mohamed, you can expect to upset a lot of Muslims and you in fact probably intended to.

If I call out the KKK, I can expect them to get mad. I don't expect them to kill me, oddly enough, but if I were black, I might think that a risk.

We know already how bad Muslims can be, and might indeed expect violence, as we know the history with Rushdie, etc.

Even so, if they do harm us, they can be treated as criminals, so that is on them.

Quit making it black and white and insisting we can't talk about the fact that we all know full well how Muslims can be when it comes to these sorts of things. They've happened before.

[TheKentuckian]

69. Our freedoms are not limited to "how bad they get", if they can get bad then we must segregate

and if that is not good enough then we have no choice but to annihilate with extreme prejudice.

"Getting bad" cannot be tolerated or appeased. You can live and let live through such offenses, you keep to your own, or you can be a corpse.

Anything else sets up the entire civilization as a hostage situation and before you know it openly guy folks and women with self determination and the like become subject to the review of fundies willing to act out in extreme ways.

[treestar]

74. Don't see anyone coming up with any positive solutions

Like how to talk Muslims out of being so extremely upset (by our standards) at such things.

"Appeasement" is not always an evil, either. The right to make vulgar cartoons of Mohamed is not the same as the right to speak out about elected officials. We "appease" people every day when we refrain from making some of the comments we could make about them.

It is a challenge to us in the sense that we do condemn use of racial or sexist epithets on DU. True no one has the right to kill because someone called them the n word or the b word. If it did happen though, I have to wonder about the DU reaction.

[leftynyc]

162. I certainly can't speak for all of DU

but if someone killed over words, I'd condemn them every day, all day long without qualification.

[TheKentuckian]

174. Appeasement is ALWAYS horrible. You are conflating appeasement with manners and being respectful

oreely given or at worst given in return for exchange in benefit or compensation.

We aren't constrained by force of law much less pain of death to refrain from making some comments we could. No one is surrendering to a threat, a threat that can be used time and time again with the EXACT same basis of justification.

As for your ending query, I find it so absurd to be insulting as well as a bizarre comparison, conflating a direct personal affront to a general one against a historical figure is pretty far off base and way far from rational still but not the same at all.

You really think DU will be on fire behind somebody who walks up and blasts say Mark Fuhrman, someone we know might bust a "nigger" out quick for saying such?

I think you got it all twisted up beyond recognition, even people who actively despise that man would not cheer such a crime, what you hint at is insane.

Good luck with a "bitch" defense with a jury of even 12 women, your ass would be going away save maybe a 1 in 10 million chance.

[treestar]

189. Look up the word in the dictionary.

[TheKentuckian]

190. I know exactly what it means and you know in context that it is surrender under threat of violence.

There is no real coming to peace in response to being under threat of violence, that is giving in to fear in hopes of pacification.

What else are you willing to appease them on? Choice? Open homosexuality? Religious freedom? Women in the workplace?

No, I've been supportive of Muslims as I can be and strongly oppose the military crusades but I won't cross this bridge and if pushed then will support a very callously violent response if containment doesn't work.

If these folks cannot stomach a free society then they need to go to closed ones.

Like it, lump it, get the fuck out, talk to Allah directly free from this mortal coil are my options for these terrorists.

[PeaceNikki]

39. The world needs to kill blasphemy taboos, not people.

[oberliner]

48. Agreed

What do you think would be the most effective way to do that?

[PeaceNikki]

50. I am not sure.

I think that it needs to come from within the Muslim community. I certainly don't have all of the answers... or maybe any. But I have been reading a great deal by Maajod Nawaz and Usama Hasan on the topic.

Here's an example.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/charlie-hebdo-attacks-time-for-reform-within-islam-shootings-paris

[treestar]

80. Good article

reformation within Islam is also a struggle to reconcile Islam with aspects of modernity: modern science, universal human rights, and evolution of legal, political and social structures. All of this takes place within the context of a post-colonial legacy. Most of the Muslim-majority world was under European colonial rule until the last century, and Western economic and cultural dominance continues today.

this is a point often overlooked when we say Christians don't react as strongly. It's not simple religion, it's politics, too.

[treestar]

75. +1

The small subset of Muslims that get this upset over cartoons - making even more fun of them is not the answer. Somehow, talking to them about it may be. Not sure, but I don't see anyone trying for solutions.

[azurnoir]

76. Let's start with the subtitle which was left out of the of the carefully chosen snipettes

France won’t accept anti-Semitism yet it tolerates cartoons offensive to Muslims, Dr Firoz Osman.

The comparison(s) are in reality the subject matter of the article, yet if one just reads the snips provided one would never ever realize that

[oberliner]

79. Carefully chosen snippets?

It's the first four paragraphs of the article.

[cali]

83. first of all, that's a lie. France does "accept" anti-semitism

Charlie Hebdo has published cartoons that absolutely can be seen as anti-semitic. and I read the entire bullshit article

[oberliner]

85. May I also call BS on his last paragraph

"Perhaps the French and their European and Western counterparts need to imbibe the Islamic values of tolerance, respect and honor."

So I would assume that the Islamic world rigorous prevents publication of any cartoons that in any way sow a lack of tolerance, respect, and honor for other faiths?

[azurnoir]

97. no but the Koran does preach tolerance of other religions

English (Yusuf Ali): (Recite)
2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/2/2_62.htm

[oberliner]

117. Seems pretty hostile towards atheists

What happens to the people that don't believe in those collections of fairy tales?

[azurnoir]

128. Does the Bible preach tolerance of atheism, if so please cite the passage

but it does seem as if you ascribe to atheism as a religion in and of itself, is that so?

[oberliner]

132. Not in the slightest

The Bible is one of the most intolerant books in existence.

[cali]

119. So what?

The Koran like the Bible is full of conflicting messages.

that hardly negates the fact that in some places, Islam isn't tolerant and enforces that intolerance legally.

[azurnoir]

87. then you must have missed the part where the Hebdo cartoonist was fired for antisemitism

but that's okay and well your statement about France tolerating antisemitism, you seem to yield a mighty broad brush all I can ask to such a statement is - what about Birmingham?

cali
83. first of all, that's a lie. France does "accept" anti-semitism

View profile
Charlie Hebdo has published cartoons that absolutely can be seen as anti-semitic. and I read the entire bullshit article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6079784

[cali]

96. yeah? how does that prove that France accepts anti-Muslim sentiments and

rejects anti-semitism?

[azurnoir]

98. I guess being fired for antisemitism is a sign of acceptance of that by an entire nation?

hmm once again but what about Birmingham?

[cali]

105. I suggest you read post #95 in this thread

[azurnoir]

107. please post then as you're promoting it apparently it could not be a call out

[riderinthestorm]

118. Obviously I'm on azurnoirs ignore list. Feel free to re-copy my post cali nt

[riderinthestorm]

89. Charlie Hebdo did indeed satirize Judaism, and Christianity

and politicians, and current events, and movies, and controversial cultural events etc etc etc

[azurnoir]

90. and once again which one of those resulted in the firing of a cartoonist? I'll wait :)

[riderinthestorm]

95. CH fired the cartoonist who drew anti-Semitic cartoons. We all know that

which indicates to me you believe CH's other cartoons are racist or bigoted.

They're not. That's what you're failing to understand.

It's satire. CH lampooned everything. And when an artist crossed the line into anti-semitism they were fired.

As they should have been.

[ND-Dem]

138. huh?

and ps: it was two people sacked for similar issues, at different times, by the same editor.


In 2000, journalist Mona Chollet was sacked after she had protested against a Philippe Val article which called Palestinians "non-civilized".


In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné's sacking by Val.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo

[Avalux]

91. I read the entire article. What are you trying to say?

The article says that the French censor other topics, but allow the press to go after Islam no holds barred, which is the reason why terrorists exist. Because they've been unduly targeted and laughed at by the French.

As I said in my post below, BULLSHIT.

[azurnoir]

109. I do not believe the article blames th cartoonists as some here on DU have been saying but I do find

it rather disturbing that any questioning of the cause and of these horrendous attacks is met with stuff that reminds me of what post 9/11 questioning of America's role in the ME is/was and how that may have contributed was met wih then

[cali]

114. seriously?

he couldn't have been much clearer. and no one is saying that western actions haven't contributed to the violence perpetrated in the name of violence. What people are saying is that whatever the contributing factors, those responsible for these acts are the people wielding the guns- or the armies. Bush doesn't get a pass because of 9/11. The 9/11 bombers don't get a pass because of western imperialism, etc.

Oh and his comments about how tolerant Islam is comparatively? That's pretty delusional.

[azurnoir]

124. when it comes to other religions the Koran does preach some tolerance

English (Yusuf Ali): (Recite)
2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

http://www.islamicity.com/MOSQUE/ARABICSCRIPT/AYAT/2/2_62.htm

[cali]

134. as I said, both the Bible and the Koran are full of contradictions

they espouse both violence and revenge and tolerance.

[oberliner]

139. Do you have some quotes from the Koran about non-believers?

That is to say, people who are not Muslims/Jews/Christians. Any quotes about what the prophet says folks should do about them?

[azurnoir]

152. are you repeating yourself?

oberliner (27,421 posts)
117. Seems pretty hostile towards atheists

What happens to the people that don't believe in those collections of fairy tales?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6079947

[Bluenorthwest]

141. And the Bible says to follow Jesus you have to sell all you have and give it to the poor.

Holy texts are followed selectively and applied more often to others than to the believers of the texts themselves.
The Bible also says 'Love your neighbors as yourself'. Do Christians do that? Or does the fact that the Bible says it excuse them from actual practice? You tell me.

[azurnoir]

150. I pointed out what the Koran says but your point is taken :)

[cali]

144. It also preaches this

"fight and slay the nonbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]."

http://www.politicalislam.com/the-sword-verses-executive-summary/

Again, both the Bible and the Koran are filled with contradictory pronouncements- and they both advocate some pretty militant stuff.

[azurnoir]

149. wow from a Rightwing Islamophobic website too, guess tolerance is in the eye of the beholder indeed

Star Member cali (97,279 posts)
144. It also preaches this

"fight and slay the nonbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem ."

http://www.politicalislam.com/the-sword-verses-executive-summary/

Again, both the Bible and the Koran are filled with contradictory pronouncements- and they both advocate some pretty militant stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6080156

[cali]

154. I got the website from an article by Peter Bergen

published in Newsweek.

and there are a myriad of other sources for it.

You seem to have a very hard time accepting that the Koran advocates violence as well as peace. Funny, you have no problem accepting that the Bible does that.

Religion is full of contradictions and a lot of dog shit hate for others and that include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[azurnoir]

155. I'm not having a hard time with anything I simply pointed out the website

that was apparently chosen

[Avalux]

158. You don't believe? Really?

"Surely French “values” and democracy do not confer on it the freedom to denigrate and desecrate a prophet who is so deeply cherished by all Muslims."

Then what does that statement mean to you?

I'm sorry, playing the blame game just isn't going to solve anything. A person is responsible for their actions, no matter who they are, what they believe, or what others say about them.

[azurnoir]

160. it was pointing out the obvious but to say that means the cartoonists at Hebdo deserved it

is a stretch IMO

[Avalux]

180. You sure are a wiggly worm.

What do you think the cartoonists at Hebdo deserved, since you obviously blame them for what happened? Maybe forced to close their doors and silence their voices?

[onenote]

78. If you provoke someone to kill you

by pointing a loaded gun at them there might be a valid basis for concluding you caused the attack that took your life. But if you provoke someone to kill you by pointing a pen and piece of paper at them? Nope.

[Avalux]

82. NO. BULLSHIT. Charlie Hebdo's cartoons did not cause the explosion of violence.

If your god (as described by Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion) becomes easily offended and can't laugh at himself, then how can your god be omnipotent, as you say?

[seveneyes]

110. Science alone is the Prophet

Perhaps science will someday show there is a larger intelligence building Universes in infinite space.

But for now, it is only human imagination and fear building up these human prophets and gods, and they are open for mocking when their beliefs intrude on the freedom of others that believe otherwise.

Banning the brainwashing of young minds into believing they are owned by inanimate "gods" would help to end the bloodshed and evil ways of the possessed.

[el_bryanto]

131. When you say the brainwashing of young minds - do you think children should be allowed in Churchs?

Also inanimate is an interesting choice of word - how do you mean that Gods are inanimate?

Bryant

[seveneyes]

163. For some definitions of Church

If the church is how they force the developing minds of children to follow gospel that harms others in its defense and propagation, then no.

Gods can only be inanimate. The gods are just human words written and followed by the imaginations of humans. Perhaps when one or more of these "gods" present themselves and show how they performed their actions scientifically, we can move beyond inanimate.

Religion is just human imagination that sometimes brings out the worst and best of those that follow it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

157. Freedom of Speech!!!

[rollin74]

164. freedom of speech

[annabanana]

172. If you don't like THEIR Free Speech.. use YOUR Free Speech.

insult, provocation, taunts & "humiliation" be damned.

[Blue_Tires]

181. "blame the cartoonists for their murder" pales in comparison

to the other nutbar justifications I've read this past week...

1. Israel set the whole thing up
2. The United States set the whole thing up
3. France set the whole thing up
4. The massacre was a hoax with a bunch of Hollywood EFX

[Behind the Aegis]

182. You forgot the magical Jews!!

"Magical Jews" orchestrated the Charlie Hebdo attacks to make Muslims look bad.
This one's reportedly popular in some Muslim-heavy French suburbs like Sevren, where many abstained from attending the weekend's massive "Je Suis Charlie" rallies for fear of retaliation. The Daily Beast spoke with Sevren residents who believe that the weapons and I.D. cards found at the crime scene were intentionally placed there to implicate Muslims. "It was a conspiracy designed by the Jews to make Muslims look bad," one man told the Beast.

Others the Daily Beast spoke to believed the event to be the work of enchanted Jewish people. Those who planned the attack are a "'hybrid race of shape shifters' who have extraordinary abilities," reports the Beast. "They know how to get in everywhere," one man said. "They are master manipulators." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/guide-to-the-charlie-hebdo-conspiracy-theories.html?mid=google

cali