The offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been destroyed by a petrol bomb, French police say.
It comes a day after the publication named the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief" for its next issue.
The magazine said the move was intended to "celebrate" the victory of an Islamist party in Tunisia's election.
Charlie Hedbo's editor is quoted as saying: "We no longer have a newspaper. All our equipment has been destroyed."
A single Molotov cocktail was thrown at the offices of Charlie Hebdo during the night and a large amount of material in the office was destroyed, police said.
There have been no reports of injuries.
Charlie Hebdo's website has also been hacked with a message in English and Turkish attacking the magazine.
The magazine was criticised by Muslims in 2007 after reprinting the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that caused outrage around the Islamic world.
Well, hats off to them. If they were trying to illustrate the fact that Muslims are sensitive to matters relating to their prophet, they sure as hell seem to have succeeded. I just hope that the destruction of their office (and possibly the publication itself) was worth it.
Just in the name of further information, the BBC were reporting on the radio this morning that the edition was also to carry a picture of Muhammed on the cover and the magazine was being renamed to "Sheria (sp) Hebdo".
Not that this excuses any counter actions, but it does make me disregard any protestations that they "weren't trying to be controversial" as was claimed at interview.
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
El Moose Monstero wrote:Just in the name of further information, the BBC were reporting on the radio this morning that the edition was also to carry a picture of Muhammed on the cover and the magazine was being renamed to "Sheria (sp) Hebdo".
Not that this excuses any counter actions, but it does make me disregard any protestations that they "weren't trying to be controversial" as was claimed at interview.
Yeah, I don't think this incident reflects well on either party. On the one hand, what the magazine did was basically equivalent to taping a red rag to your dick and waving it in a bull's face, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure they weren't expecting anything more than the protests that those Danish cartoons attracted, never mind a firebombing the day after they made the announcement.
His Divine Shadow wrote:They really are making it hard for people not to become prejudiced against Islam. It does feel like things just keep escalating.
All it takes is a few people. Last week I got a warning/notification at work about part of the city being blocked off due to a demonstration by the Turkish community against terrorism.
El Moose Monstero wrote:Just in the name of further information, the BBC were reporting on the radio this morning that the edition was also to carry a picture of Muhammed on the cover and the magazine was being renamed to "Sheria (sp) Hebdo".
Not that this excuses any counter actions, but it does make me disregard any protestations that they "weren't trying to be controversial" as was claimed at interview.
Eh. It's a satirical magazine : they mock everyone [1]. And I fully except they were counting on causing a controversy to sell more paper : it's an integral part of their commercial strategy since the beginning in the '68-or-something. I just believe they weren't counting on this kind of "controversy". Meh : they'll still turn a PR profit from it.
[1] : They mock ALL religion equally. I don't count the number of covers where you can see a catholic priest/cardinal/Pope in a compromising position or saying incriminating things.
I can accept that they are looking to court controversy as a marketting ploy, but I wonder if there is a comparably offensive image in christianity that could incite protest in the same way?
What I mean is, what if a magazine were to show something like a jewish prophet in bed with a pig, or a hindu god butchering a cow (or similar, I'm not pretending to be a religious expert here)? That would presumably be similarly offensive to the religions and presumably would incite protest comparable to the initial protests over the danish cartoons (though not, hopefully, firebombs). Could you think of a similarly offensive image for christianity? Or is it simply that I've got a blindspot for what would be offensive enough to generate christian protest because mockery of the church is more common in day to day life.
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
Jesus nailed on the cross with suitcases full of money ? The Pope and his posse of Cardinals lurking on small children with a predatory air ? Been there, done that.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but the problem is, as far as I know, that Christianity (or Catholicism at least) doesn't have big "no-no" in it's dogma that can be as easily used in a caricature than for the other religion you cited.
Add to that the fact that we live in an environment very heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian culture (which makes us very accustomed to Christian religious imagery) AND heavily secularised, with a very high proportion of Atheists ; and you'll understand why any open quote attack end quote on Christianity or Catholicism here is not only fair game : it's tradition.
Now, concerning those caricatures, I don't say they weren't offensive, or that people don't have the right to be offended about them ; but it's caricature and as such covered under freedom of speech AND freedom of the press laws. And if you want to live in a civilized country, you have to respect its laws.
Anyway, this act of terrorism (because, let us not kid ourselves, this is an act destined to spread fear and terror) is not, I repeat NOT representative of how the vast majority of people of Muslim faith act and think here, and I'm sure the vast majority of my fellow citizens are as appalled as I am toward this barbarous act.
The problem with this kind of thing, is that the vast majority of moderate Muslim tend to stay silent when the extremists do bad things ; and the association that is supposed to represent the French Muslims is corrupt and riddled with more-or-less-undercover extremists/religious conservative.
El Moose Monstero wrote:I can accept that they are looking to court controversy as a marketting ploy, but I wonder if there is a comparably offensive image in christianity that could incite protest in the same way?
What I mean is, what if a magazine were to show something like a jewish prophet in bed with a pig, or a hindu god butchering a cow (or similar, I'm not pretending to be a religious expert here)? That would presumably be similarly offensive to the religions and presumably would incite protest comparable to the initial protests over the danish cartoons (though not, hopefully, firebombs). Could you think of a similarly offensive image for christianity? Or is it simply that I've got a blindspot for what would be offensive enough to generate christian protest because mockery of the church is more common in day to day life.
I've seen Jesus made fun of and mocked pretty hardcore ways, not to mention all the catholic pedo jokes. Today the radio DJ said that Jesus wouldn't join the army because they don't take the mentally ill. His co-host said "I guess that also explains why jehovas witnesses don't have to join" (we got conscription here).
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
El Moose Monstero wrote:I can accept that they are looking to court controversy as a marketting ploy, but I wonder if there is a comparably offensive image in christianity that could incite protest in the same way?
What I mean is, what if a magazine were to show something like a jewish prophet in bed with a pig, or a hindu god butchering a cow (or similar, I'm not pretending to be a religious expert here)? That would presumably be similarly offensive to the religions and presumably would incite protest comparable to the initial protests over the danish cartoons (though not, hopefully, firebombs). Could you think of a similarly offensive image for christianity? Or is it simply that I've got a blindspot for what would be offensive enough to generate christian protest because mockery of the church is more common in day to day life.
How about a portrait of the Madonna covered in manure, or a crucifix marinating in a jar of urine? Just recently there was a an art exhibit vandalized by a conservative Christian, and galleries frequently take down exhibits early because some piece offends Christians. In the U.S. Christian terrorism is mostly limited to abortion clinics and doctors, and occasionally homosexuals. Of course that's not counting all the threats of death and violence that anyone who openly challenges the right wing receives.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin
"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell
Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
El Moose Monstero wrote:Just in the name of further information, the BBC were reporting on the radio this morning that the edition was also to carry a picture of Muhammed on the cover and the magazine was being renamed to "Sheria (sp) Hebdo".
Not that this excuses any counter actions, but it does make me disregard any protestations that they "weren't trying to be controversial" as was claimed at interview.
It doesn't matter if they were being intentionally confrontational or not. Every other religion on the planet gets the same treatment, Islam isn't any different.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
Johonebesus wrote:How about a portrait of the Madonna covered in manure, or a crucifix marinating in a jar of urine? Just recently there was a an art exhibit vandalized by a conservative Christian, and galleries frequently take down exhibits early because some piece offends Christians.
But are there any recent cases (let's say 1990s-onwards) of fundie Christians setting fire to an art gallery showing these controversial artworks? Because slashing a painting isn't the same as molotoving a magazine's office.
In the U.S. Christian terrorism is mostly limited to abortion clinics and doctors, and occasionally homosexuals. Of course that's not counting all the threats of death and violence that anyone who openly challenges the right wing receives.
This may be a useful thing to say to your countrymen, to minimise the impact of this kind of fuckery in terms of creating prejudice; but the fact is that this crime was committed in France, one of the most secular countries in the world, not America. For a fair comparison, you have to compare the reaction of French Christians to similarly insulting/provocative media stuff. In which case you can see that Muslims, as a whole, come across a lot more violent.
And also one of the ingredients to making a pony is cocaine. -Darth Fanboy.
Flagg wrote:Remember everyone, it's a religion of peace.
Because the person(s) who bombed the offices are representative of the over 500 million Muslims in the world, just like abortion clinic bombers and gay-lynchers are the spokespeople for the near billion Christians in the world. Yeah, this is a bad thing, and while these people are dangerous assholes they are still legitimate followers of the religion they are staining the name of. But to make statements about the religion as a whole based on their actions alone is just as, if not more fallacious as trying to claim that their actions show they're not real-true-scotsmen.
Fanaticism can pop up in any religion, philosophy, or political ideology. Instead of attacking an entire body of thought for its minority lunatic fringe, wouldn't it be more productive to focus on changing the things that lead to this sort of behaviour popping up across the religious/philosophical/political spectrum?
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap. Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow. My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits. "Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
