Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Charlie Hebdo Paris shooting: 12 dead after gunmen storm newspaper's HQ

«13456724

Comments

  • dignindignin Posts: 8,988
    Warning, this video shows the suspects executing a police officer. Absolutely terrible.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668

  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    So people witnessed 2 hooded gunmen walk Into the building holding AK-47s and no one decided to call the police INSTANTLY? These guys had enough time to go Into the building, kill and shoot a shitload of people and then escaped in a waiting car. Unreal. I would believe that the military or police would've been there instantly had someone who witnessed them walking in WITH AK-47s had called them instead of waiting for something to happen. Does this make any sense? Let's just watch and see what these guys in hoodies and AK-47s are gonna do.
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,988
    Cartoon Debate

    The case for mocking religion.

    By Christopher Hitchens

    On Wednesday, gunmen attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12. The magazine was known for printing images of the prophet Mohammed, including the 2005 cartoons that originally ran in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, leading to widespread violence. In February 2006, Christopher Hitchens addressed that controversy in his inimitable way. His article is reprinted below:
    As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.

    "Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

    Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable"? That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party) and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.

    Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.

    Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

    I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." (By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.



    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,988
    continued


    As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.

    The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

    Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Just saw the video, disturbing to say the least. Unreal
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,988
    badbrains wrote: »
    Just saw the video, disturbing to say the least. Unreal

    Yeah man, not recommended viewing.

  • The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
    Las Cruces, NM Pan Am Center September 14, 1995
    Albuquerque, NM Tingley Coliseum July 7, 1998
    New York City, NY MSG May 20, 2010
    Eddie Vedder Solo Albuquerque, NM November 9, 2012
    Wrigley Field July 19, 2013
    LA Nov. 23: 24, 2013
    Denver 10-22-14
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    Every newspaper, magazine, tv show should show image of Mohamed. Then we stop being considerate and call out all gods as BS. How can we as a seemingly intelligent species continue this charade. Humans.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    That's the problem Callen, we're NOT intelligent as a species. We're savages, ALL of us, ALL religions, ALL leaders.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    Not ALL of us.
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Ok not BS, but the rest of us.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,871
    I'm thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,871
    The great irony is that instead of these newspaper covers being seen by a very small percentage of the population of France, they are now being seen by everyone around the world.

    Mission accomplished, Assholes ...
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    Jason P wrote: »
    I'm thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.

    I was thinking the same thing.
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,988
    callen wrote: »
    Every newspaper, magazine, tv show should show image of Mohamed. Then we stop being considerate and call out all gods as BS. How can we as a seemingly intelligent species continue this charade. Humans.

    That is a great idea.

  • JSBachJSBach Posts: 108
    Jason P wrote: »
    I'm thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.

    I'm afraid the ocean isn't (anymore) such a boundary... see 9/11...
    LK
    Sift everything, hold on to what is good!
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,871
    edited January 2015
    JSBach wrote: »
    Jason P wrote: »
    I'm thankful for the Atlantic Ocean.

    I'm afraid the ocean isn't (anymore) such a boundary... see 9/11...
    LK
    True, but it still helps compared to what the Europeans face.

    Biggest issue is that these wackos can still use media to poison minds on NA soil.
    Post edited by Jason P on
  • EnkiduEnkidu So CalPosts: 2,973
    Thanks for posting the Christopher Hitchens piece. Amazing that it was written in 2006.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,955
    new rule.

    it is the responsibility of the sane people of any given religion to rein in the fucking crazies. they make all of you look crazy. if you cherish your god and you cherish your religion and you care about how it is perceived, and how you are perceived being in that population, you must keep your fucking crazies in check.

    i am tired of reading about this shit.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,955
    edited January 2015
    these people, the shooters, al qaeda, isis, etc are the ones tarnishing islam, not the cartoonists.

    do they ever consider that if they did not kill innocent people, then cartoonists would have no reason to lampoon them?
    Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • new rule.

    it is the responsibility of the sane people of any given religion to rein in the fucking crazies. they make all of you look crazy. if you cherish your god and you cherish your religion and you care about how it is perceived, and how you are perceived being in that population, you must keep your fucking crazies in check.

    i am tired of reading about this shit.

    Me too, man. Me too.

    And these extremists weren't born extremists. They started out as moderates that became extremist.

    I hope, at a bare minimum, they hit their head on the ground next time they're worshipping really hard and concuss themselves. Tools.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    these people, the shooters, al qaeda, isis, etc are the ones tarnishing islam, not the cartoonists.

    do they ever consider that if they did not kill innocent people, then cartoonists would have no reason to lampoon them?

    I hope that's rhetorical. Because I'm not sure there could be any other response other than fuck no
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    edited January 2015
    I had a talk with my mom about this. My moms 60 and said that these people (fanatics) are so brainwashed. She can't understand how even a 10 year old would even know that these kinds of shit are doing MORE harm then good. She doesn't understand how people who are Muslim would do this. I showed my mom the video and she cried for the policeman. Said you don't do that to anyone. That's not just against Islam, it's against humanity. It's not easy seeing your mom cry in front of you. I think my moms been thinking about it all day cuz her moods changed. It's a sad sad world and times we're living. Such a disgrace. Not a good day that's for sure.
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    edited January 2015
    I dint think it's a brainwashing problem at all. These terrorists are born and bred to hate.
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 23,597
    Last 12, I think it's more bred than born (innate).

    Earlier I was thinking about the folks at The Onion, in terms of satire, and my husband said he heard something today from someone who works there, and their security. Sure it hit home for them.

    If I can find a link, I'll post it.
  • badbrains wrote: »
    That's the problem Callen, we're NOT intelligent as a species. We're savages, ALL of us, ALL religions, ALL leaders.

    I have a bit of an issue with this statement.

    While I would agree with you that we are all inherently stupid to some degree... some have taken our stupidity and kicked it up a couple notches choosing to believe in gods that simply do not exist. Period.

    The fact that some of these idiots then go kill in the name of a god that simply does not exist pisses me off. It's one thing to be 'next level stupid'... it's quite another to be a homicidal maniac while you're at it.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 18,955
    seriously, what god demands bloodshed in his/her name?

    haven't we evolved past this bullshit by now?
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • ldent42ldent42 NYCPosts: 7,856
    new rule.

    it is the responsibility of the sane people of any given religion to rein in the fucking crazies. they make all of you look crazy. if you cherish your god and you cherish your religion and you care about how it is perceived, and how you are perceived being in that population, you must keep your fucking crazies in check.

    i am tired of reading about this shit.

    Man I was baptized catholic - I would NOT want to have to be responsible for those kid touchers.
    NYC 06/24/08-Auckland 11/27/09-Chch 11/29/09-Newark 05/18/10-Atlanta 09/22/12-Chicago 07/19/13-Brooklyn 10/18/13 & 10/19/13-Hartford 10/25/13-Baltimore 10/27/13-Auckland 1/17/14-GC 1/19/14-Melbourne 1/24/14-Sydney 1/26/14-Amsterdam 6/16/14 & 6/17/14-Milan 6/20/14-Berlin 6/26/14-Leeds 7/8/14-Milton Keynes 7/11/14-St. Louis 10/3/14-NYC 9/26/15
    LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    I was gonna post another post, but why even bother anymore with this shit. It is what it is. It's fucken pointless. It really is.
Sign In or Register to comment.