Wow. That is rather incredible.
“Why don’t we attack the offices of the government, or maybe an oil company profiting from our homeland’s resources? Maybe attack the barracks of the army? Bomb a church?”
“Have you SEEN the size of the ears on this drawing of Mohammad? No, these infidels must die!”
The French aren’t nearly as PC as the US. I don’t see this ending well for Arab immigrants there.
Fuck 'em, if they can’t take a joke.
This is a paranoid conspiracy conjecture for which I have absolutely no evidence… But what are the odds this was actually a false flag operation by the French far right?
Le Pen and co. certainly stand to gain the most from this and yelling Allahu Akbar! is not exactly an incontrovertible proof the perpetrators were Muslims.
I don’t consider it the most likely explanation by a long shot (there is an extensive history… and the victims were on many lists), but given the circumstances (relatively well armed men with a so-far successful escape plan), I don’t feel like it should be entirely ruled out either.
Maybe we should stop right there, pending said evidence.
Got to remember it’s an entirely different culture that they come from. And if these guys are truly Al Queda in Yemen, then they done just about all the things you’ve listed above.
What occurred is the textbook definition of terrorism.
Knowing that depictions of the prophet Muhammed are considered a sin even by the non-nutter muslims, I find it odd that people insist on making drawings of him. I’d maybe understand it if it was meant as an aggravation for the complete nutters, but it’s aggravating even to the peaceful ones.
Now, none of these people deserved to die. At worst a hearty “Fuck off, ya c***.” would probably do, or the french equivalent, whatever that might be.
I’m sure there are ways of saying “Boy, aren’t some muslims weird?” without insulting every muslim while at it.
Last I checked, “insulting people”, while against the rules of courtesy, is not a crime.
So, while I personally would not do it, the fact that Charlie Hebdo did and people got offended by it had a clear solution in our society:
They should not buy Charlie Hebdo
Just in case you missed it.
Generally agreed.
But everyone has already come to a conclusion this was perpetrated by Muslims and there is no definitive evidence for that either. (Although it is prima facie much more likely. As I note above.) Since my comment, if anything, should push for a more restrained and less hasty judgment of the situation, I don’t think the wild speculations on my part are likely to cause any damage.
Without wanting to get all shouty, you’d really understand the murder of 12 people because some particular magazine cover was found to aggravate someone? Holy shit that’s ridiculous. Would you extend that idea to all of the press and populace such that, prior to publishing anything, writers, artists, and editors would have to ask the focus point of their particular work whether the work offends or not?
As for the ways of saying, “Boy, aren’t some [fundamentalist religious crazies] weird?” that might not offend the mildly religious–if you have to do things that way, then you are employed in Public Relations, and definitely not Journalism.
Ha ha. Yes - let’s all avoid anything any religion considers a sin lest we insult people. That’s going to work out very well.
I am fully aware that the culture is so foreign to western thought most people don’t truly understand it.
Because freedom of speech? There are no “sacred cows”? Catholics and many non-Catholics hold the Pope in high regard. All Christians view Jesus in high regard (son of God and all). You don’t think things like lampooning to out right blasphemous images don’t upset these people? They do. They just don’t kill other people over it, they write letters to the editor and boycott that media. Like reasonable people.
Eating pork is also considered a sin even by the “non-nutter Muslims” (along with the Jews, Hindus and many Buddhists). Do you find it odd that so many people insist on eating bacon?
How exactly does Mr. Kerr intend to “fight back”?? Weaponized tweets??
Things haven’t been going well for the Maghrebs in France in, well, forever. This also is far from the first instance of Islamic terrorism in France, or cartoon-related terrorism in Europe.
Check again. Incitement of racial hatred is a crime in France, although it seems to be used mainly in cases of antisemitism.
Re-publication of these kinds of cartoons has been done on the same sort of “freedom of speech” grounds. But if freedom of speech includes the right to be gratuitously offensive, why don’t these brave publications also publish gratuitously antisemitic or holocaust-denying cartoons? Surely that would be an even greater stand for the principle of freedom of speech, since both of those things are illegal in much of Europe.
Like reasonable people, however, magazine editors generally don’t do this sort of thing.
Crack one joke about one small aspect of any group and everyone goes apeshit with indignation.
That’s why I keep my opinions to myself 
The covers pictured above indicate that they haven’t shied away from mocking Judaism either. I don’t think holocaust-denying is really in the same category since that’s less “lampooning the genuine foibles of organized religion” than “being dicks just for the sake of being dicks.”
[quote=“Mister44, post:14, topic:49448”]
There are no “sacred cows”? [/quote]
There are in India.
