Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[jwl]

In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd.

No, they really wouldn't. Name examples of when stuff like that happened.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ob-during/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 147780.cms

Well, close enough, I think.

I would say that a group of counter-activists meeting a of group of activists under a inadequate-but-present police presence leading to an activist and a policeman getting injured is pretty radically different to the automatic public stoning of all the members of a satire newspaper for publishing an offensive cartoon. The former could happen anywhere. Remember the groups of clashing activists back during the Scotland referendum?

[AniThyng]

I would say that a group of counter-activists meeting a of group of activists under a inadequate-but-present police presence leading to an activist and a policeman getting injured is pretty radically different to the automatic public stoning of all the members of a satire newspaper for publishing an offensive cartoon. The former could happen anywhere. Remember the groups of clashing activists back during the Scotland referendum?

Well I think the bigger point is the stated reason for the offense, which again ties back to perceived offense to the religious practice. Pretty much everyone agrees that straight up murder is not okay, but it does not mean they agree that there should be no consequences whatsoever. A lot of Muslim countries that expressed sympathy and condolences and said that the attackers are a stain on Islam would NEVER allow Charlie Hedbo to exist, and would likely jail anyone who tried to do the same >in< the country itself.

Sure, you don't need to be an Islamic country to do so, China would probably be no less harsh.

[Broomstick]

You know I'm starting to get seriously pissed that people so completely misread what I'm writing that I'm starting to think that it's deliberate trolling.

Either that, or it is YOU who are failing to communicate. If everyone is misinterpreting you in the same manner it's time to look in the mirror.

[Metahive]

You know I'm starting to get seriously pissed that people so completely misread what I'm writing that I'm starting to think that it's deliberate trolling.

Either that, or it is YOU who are failing to communicate. If everyone is misinterpreting you in the same manner it's time to look in the mirror.

OK, then tell me how

How do you think how those refugees feel when they not only get the usual dose of xenophobia but are also told by people like Crown here that the fuckers who chased them off their homes and probably butchered people they know are the true Muslims and the real face of Islam? It's adding insult to injury to people who already have suffered and lost quite a lot in life, don't you think? I find that abominable.

translates to "ISIS are not true Muslims". I eagerly await your lessons , O great teacher. Come on, show this ignorant foreigner who had English as his fourth foreign language how English's done by real true native speakers.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In fact, if this was India, the editors and the cartoonists would be dragged out to the street and stoned publicly to a massive cheering crowd.

No, they really wouldn't. Name examples of when stuff like that happened.

The last president's husband was killed by a sikh because of a slight, and a sikh pogrom happened thereafter.

A century old mosque was burnt down because of some nationalist Hindus.

The current prime minister is accused of abetting or fascilitating a muslim pogrom.

A Christian pogrom just happenee a few years ago.

Are you seriously going to make such a claim?

[jwl]

I would say that a group of counter-activists meeting a of group of activists under a inadequate-but-present police presence leading to an activist and a policeman getting injured is pretty radically different to the automatic public stoning of all the members of a satire newspaper for publishing an offensive cartoon. The former could happen anywhere. Remember the groups of clashing activists back during the Scotland referendum?

Well I think the bigger point is the stated reason for the offense, which again ties back to perceived offense to the religious practice. Pretty much everyone agrees that straight up murder is not okay, but it does not mean they agree that there should be no consequences whatsoever. A lot of Muslim countries that expressed sympathy and condolences and said that the attackers are a stain on Islam would NEVER allow Charlie Hedbo to exist, and would likely jail anyone who tried to do the same >in< the country itself.

Sure, you don't need to be an Islamic country to do so, China would probably be no less harsh.

Yeah but India is not an Islamic country and probably would allow Charlie Hebdo to exist, so using India as an example, especially using the extreme example of an automatic stoning, is absurd.

[Metahive]

...I'm not sure how you can define Christianity as a "death worshiping doomsday cult" in such a way that excludes Islam from the same charges. Okay, true, Islam declares that Jesus did not in fact die and raise again, but Islam has a doomsday and end of days concept just like the Christians.

And no, of course I don't think that an Islamic reformation will occur under those conditions, or even that it can be forced from the outside, it has to come from within from Islam's followers themselves.

And I think you are reading far too much into Crown's rhetoric - he obviously knows that not all Muslim individuals are poised to turn into fanatical murders. But what we are interested here are the ideologies, some fundamental to the religion's main sects today, that facilitate such attitudes when it does occur.

Sorry, overlooked this at first. Therefore the double post.

OK, first off, I apologize for the angry outburst, this topic is not good for my already way too high blood pressure.

The death worship is clear, Jesus' cruxifiction is the crucial (huhu) point around which the whole religion revolves. There's about not one single christian sect that doesn't contain this as the most pivotal event of the whole fate to the point it's the very symbol of the religion as a whole. There's no equivalent for this in Islam. Sure, there are martyrs in Islam, even prominent ones like Hassan and Hussain, but their deaths serve less as a pivotal event of metaphysical inspiration than an excuse for harboring political grudges (as Hassan and Hussain's death ensured the domination of Islam by the Sunnites over the Shiat Ali). As for the end of days, yes, both Islam and Judaism feature End of Days scenarios, but unlike Christianity both teach to be more concerned with the here and now, whereas there are entire christian sects, Calvinism the most prominent among them, who proclaim that actions on this world don't really matter any more and one should just wait for doomsday because that's the only important event that a human might experience in his life ever. It's even used as justification to preach against environmentalism and it's only christian sects that seem to be actively trying to make it happen (look at the support of Israel by the christian right for example). This isn't simply as pronounced in Islam. Sure, there's kismet and fatalism, but that's usually not applied to the end of the world.

[Channel72]

So ... we can't draw a straight line between Christian belief in the sanctity of the fetus and extreme Christians bombing an abortion clinic? I don't entirely understand what you mean by this statement.

Everytime yet another Muslim-perpetrated terror attack happens we have endless debate between the "fuck all Muslims" crowd and "but... but... but.. Christianity = evil also!!" crowd.

The reality is that while any religious nutcase can use either the Bible or the Koran to justify killing somebody, it's simply more likely that the Koran will be used this way at the moment. This isn't necessarily due to the content of either book (you can cherry pick either of them endlessly), but rather due to the cultural climate that surrounds each document.

Look: the Muslim world (which I define as the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Central/South Asia) never had a fucking Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, or giant cultural movements/political revolutions rooted in Enlightenment ideals. They don't necessarily value free speech or the right to say anything. The Arab Spring showed that Muslims can be motivated en masse to protest against government censorship, but that doesn't necessarily mean this sort of thinking extends deep into their psyche to the extent that it overrides reverence for the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH )

(1) Westerners, (especially the French), are used to having things like freedom of expression enshrined into the law as an untouchable, sacred right. But the Muslim world doesn't necessarily give a shit... yet. And insulting the Prophet Mohammed is deeply, deeply offensive to many Muslims, on a level that is hard for most Westerners to understand. (Think of it as possibly analogous to someone calling your wife/significant other a stupid fat cunt to your face. Yeah... you probably wouldn't shoot the guy, but many people might get violent, and this analogy at least helps understand the feelings of resentment, hatred and deep personal offense involved here.)

(2) Secondly, Westerners are used to a culture of ridicule and cynicism. I can call Jesus a stupid donkey-fucking schizophrenic asshole all day, and this requires absolutely zero bravery because most Christians have seen worse on TV or on the Internet. They mostly just roll their eyes, or spout Biblical platitudes in protest. Elfdart's "Last Temptation of Christ" example is from the 80s, before everyone had the Internet and R-rated mass-media shoved in their face. When shit (pun-intended) like this provokes zero violence, and "Fuck the Skull of Jesus" is an actual registered Internet domain, hosted by a major American University no less, and yet nobody gives a shit, I think it's time to stop trying to equate Christian and Muslim outrage in this regard.

The Muslim world simply hasn't been exposed to this kind of endless ridicule and cynicism via pop-culture, either because they live in a country where the media is highly censored, or they exist in a social network of friends where this sort of thing is shunned, and Muslim values are constantly reinforced. Yes, there are similarly insulated Christian social-circles in the USA, but the combined effects of (1) and (2) work to significantly dilute any outrage they might feel over insults towards Jesus. Abortion clinic bombers are another issue, but I don't think this is entirely analogous to killing someone over an insult, since abortion clinic bombers have been indoctrinated to believe that they are doing the equivalent of liberating Auschwitz or something.

We should also stop acting like killing someone over words is so inexplicable. Human beings have been doing that for millenia. Disrespect has been grounds for summary execution in many cultures, for many centuries, and it's taken a massive cultural shift in thinking to work against this natural human tendency.

So yeah... the Muslim world is certainly more likely to generate the social conditions necessary to drive someone to kill over a perceived insult than the Western world is, given the parameters in place today. We need to stop pretending otherwise, and don't need to qualify every single statement about Islam with a "but... but... Christianity is bad too!". Yeah, we know it's bad too, but that's not the issue now.

[Broomstick]

OK, then tell me how

How do you think how those refugees feel when they not only get the usual dose of xenophobia but are also told by people like Crown here that the fuckers who chased them off their homes and probably butchered people they know are the true Muslims and the real face of Islam? It's adding insult to injury to people who already have suffered and lost quite a lot in life, don't you think? I find that abominable.

translates to "ISIS are not true Muslims". I eagerly await your lessons , O great teacher. Come on, show this ignorant foreigner who had English as his fourth foreign language how English's done by real true native speakers.

Fuck off and get over yourself already.

Are YOU one of those Muslim refugees yourself? Yes or no. Because if you aren't you're being fucking arrogant claiming that YOU know how they feel.

Seems to me you've bought into the "wah, wah, wah, my people have suffered more than yours!" bullshit. It's not a dick-measuring contest.

Newsflash: the current Muslims refugees are not the only people to have suffered all manner of oppression as refugees. How are they different than any other group of refugees? What makes them so goddamned special the rest of the world should kowtow to their demands? On to of which, quite a few of the perpetrators of recent acts are hard to describe as either "refugee" (as they seem to have no trouble traveling back and forth from their homeland to their adopted country) or "oppressed" - the Tsarneav brothers, for example.*

Yes, other groups riot and commit crimes. Other refugees have lashed out at oppressors. Why do the extreme Muslims seem to do this so much more than the others at present? That's the only question I'm really interested in knowing the answer to. And note I singled out the extreme - MOST Muslim refugees in the world do not go around killing other people even if they themselves aren't happy and have real grievances.



* The Tsarnaev parents came to the US on a tourist visa then applied for asylum based on the father's ties to Chechnya and Muslim faith, so yes, they did for awhile have the official legal status of "refugee" in the US. Nonetheless, at the time the brothers bombed the Boston Marathon they had progressed beyond that. Legally, the family became permanent US residents in 2007 and some members of the family applied for US citizenship. Several of them held multiple citizenship (Tamerlane held Kyrgyz and Russia citizenship and applied for a US one in 2012) They weren't wealthy, but they were far from stateless people on the run. I don't see anything particularly "oppressive" about their lives.

[Metahive]

Do you know what I'm missing in your post, Broomstick? You showing me what's so wrong with my English that people could read a completely askew meaning into my post. I do expect that after you accused me of writing incomprehensibly . Not going to discuss anything else with until you either retracted your accusation or shown me how my paragraph could be mistaken in the way it did.

Y'know, otherwise I must presume you wish to strawman my points and then blame it on my supposedly bad English.

[Thanas]

Please tell me you're joking when you say that someone deserved to be killed for blasphemy.

Read up on the definition in Greek times and the case of Socrates (as well as the circumstances surrounding it, like how he was a treasonous asshole who argued for the enslavement of all of society in favor of a few aristocratic rulers) and don't go "ZOMG THANAS SUPPORTS KILLINGS FOR BLASPHEMY".

Sokrates is the convenient case for free speech which uneducated idiots bring up without knowing the circumstances.

[Broomstick]

Do you know what I'm missing in your post, Broomstick? You showing me what's so wrong with my English that people could read a completely askew meaning into my post.

No, I didn't say your English was inadequate, I said you weren't expressing yourself as you thought you were. Those are two different things. Your English is entirely comprehensible, it's your reasoning I can't make out.

Or, if that's too complicated for you: I don't agree with you. Apparently a lot of other people in this thread feel the same way.

[Crown]

Please tell me you're joking when you say that someone deserved to be killed for blasphemy.

Read up on the definition in Greek times and the case of Socrates (as well as the circumstances surrounding it, like how he was a treasonous asshole who argued for the enslavement of all of society in favor of a few aristocratic rulers) and don't go "ZOMG THANAS SUPPORTS KILLINGS FOR BLASPHEMY".

Sokrates is the convenient case for free speech which uneducated idiots bring up without knowing the circumstances.

We talking about "The Trial of Socrates" by I.F. Stone?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I would say that a group of counter-activists meeting a of group of activists under a inadequate-but-present police presence leading to an activist and a policeman getting injured is pretty radically different to the automatic public stoning of all the members of a satire newspaper for publishing an offensive cartoon. The former could happen anywhere. Remember the groups of clashing activists back during the Scotland referendum?

Well I think the bigger point is the stated reason for the offense, which again ties back to perceived offense to the religious practice. Pretty much everyone agrees that straight up murder is not okay, but it does not mean they agree that there should be no consequences whatsoever. A lot of Muslim countries that expressed sympathy and condolences and said that the attackers are a stain on Islam would NEVER allow Charlie Hedbo to exist, and would likely jail anyone who tried to do the same >in< the country itself.

Sure, you don't need to be an Islamic country to do so, China would probably be no less harsh.

Yeah but India is not an Islamic country and probably would allow Charlie Hebdo to exist, so using India as an example, especially using the extreme example of an automatic stoning, is absurd.

Nonsense. A real Charlie Hebdo in India would be mocking Hindus as well and a lynch mob will follow after.

[Metahive]

Do you know what I'm missing in your post, Broomstick? You showing me what's so wrong with my English that people could read a completely askew meaning into my post.

No, I didn't say your English was inadequate, I said you weren't expressing yourself as you thought you were. Those are two different things. Your English is entirely comprehensible, it's your reasoning I can't make out.

Or, if that's too complicated for you: I don't agree with you. Apparently a lot of other people in this thread feel the same way.

That's what I call backpedaling furiously. Also, I don't care if the whole world disagreed with me, truth ain't a democracy.

[Thanas]

We talking about "The Trial of Socrates" by I.F. Stone?

Nah, just about any scientific commentary written on it. Didn't even know of Stone's book.

[Crown]

We talking about "The Trial of Socrates" by I.F. Stone?

Nah, just about any scientific commentary written on it. Didn't even know of Stone's book.

Fair enough, for my own edification (and I appreciate that this now taking the thread off topic), I understand there was more to the the charge agains Socrates than "blasphemer!" but how do we get around the cross examination of Meletus by Socrates as presented in Plato's Apology where Socrates has to specifically deal of the charge of blasphemy/atheism/etc?

I mean I understand we can say there was more at play than Socrates being on trial for being a "blasphemer!", but curious as to how we can get from that to implying that it had nothing to do with it at all*?


*Assuming that was what you were implying, apologies if I got it wrong.

[jwl]

Yeah but India is not an Islamic country and probably would allow Charlie Hebdo to exist, so using India as an example, especially using the extreme example of an automatic stoning, is absurd.

Nonsense. A real Charlie Hebdo in India would be mocking Hindus as well and a lynch mob will follow after.

Said lynch mob would be swiftly kettled (and possibly arrested depending on what they do), Charlie Hebdo would get back to operating again.

I doubt many people would read Charlie Hebdo in India, and I don't doubt that people might try to sue it, but I don't think it would be banned and I certainly don't think anything like public stoning is going to happen. India isn't Saudi Arabia, it's a democratic country with free speech and all the rest of it.

Again, give a (good) example of something like this actually happening in India and I might be more willing to believe you.

[Thanas]

Fair enough, for my own edification (and I appreciate that this now taking the thread off topic), I understand there was more to the the charge agains Socrates than "blasphemer!" but how do we get around the cross examination of Meletus by Socrates as presented in Plato's Apology where Socrates has to specifically deal of the charge of blasphemy/atheism/etc?

I mean I understand we can say there was more at play than Socrates being on trial for being a "blasphemer!", but curious as to how we can get from that to implying that it had nothing to do with it at all*?

*Assuming that was what you were implying, apologies if I got it wrong.

Well, first of all, we cannot trust Plato. He was the guy's student and needed a saint to justify his own personal leanings. Other sources about the trial actually mention a violation of general laws, so Plato probably chose to omit those to make Socrates look more like a saint. Especially because the prosecution reads like a complete philosophical invention - you got the brave philosopher accused (rather clumsily) in something that reads more like a giant strawman than actual charges.

However, even if we accept Plato as 100% true then the story still does paint a very good picture of Socrates - within the context of the time - deserving the death penalty. The situation, as I remember it off-hand , was that the polis had thrown out the aristocrats. Yet then you have a group actively lecturing in favor of the aristocracy. Shortly after a member of this group defects to Sparta after the worst catastrophe in the history of the city - a catastrophe that guy had caused in the first place. So the best friend and mentor of this guy who had ruined the city is not only openly preaching his philosophy, but also goes out of his way to insult everything and preach sedition and anti-democratic ideals. Probably in violation of City laws as well.

So if this happened in a modern democracy, he would of course not deserve anything. But in the specific context of Athens? Holy shit, did he go out of his way to be executed. Was it the right thing to do? I remember the reply of Hadrian to such things being to let the fly screech as much as it wanted. So maybe yes, maybe no.

But still, he is really not any poster child for free speech. Unless you strip away the context and transport him into modern times.

[Broomstick]

That's what I call backpedaling furiously. Also, I don't care if the whole world disagreed with me, truth ain't a democracy.

Like I said, get the fuck over yourself.

Clearly, your argument is not as compelling as you thought it was. It's not divine revelation.

Seriously, every single one of my forebears who came to the US came as refugees. Every damn one of them. The Irish were literally starving when they came over - smack into the middle of a Civil War. Don't know why my German grandfather came over, but given he stowed away on a ship at 14 I assume his reasons were compelling and I can't imagine he was thrilled to be in the US with a permanent German accent during WWI, which probably has something to do with changing his name from Rausch to Roach. The Russians came over under threat of death (they claimed), then post-Revolution had the double-whammy of being both Jewish and "dirty commies" by association (which they never were). Oh, yeah, the US McCarthy era and cold war was tons of fun for them. In addition, in my grandparents generation the Asian ancestry on that side was still apparent - I had several school mates who met my grandmother ask me if she was Chinese. (Part Mongolian, actually) So add in a little racial intolerance on top of everything else.

Funny, though, not a single damn one of us felt compelled to blow shit up or murder people.

So, tell me, how is this "oppression" experienced by Muslims who come to Europe and North America and Australia any different than what my immediate ancestors went through? Please list the points of difference. My family seems to have hit all the points of 1) lives endangered back home, 2) religious oppression, 3) political prejudice, and 4) racial intolerance. Explain to me how these modern day refugees have it so much fucking worse than either side of my family. It's not like my ancestors were all lily-white Europeans used to democracy either (dad's side came from Tsarist Russia, after all) or Christians.

[jwl]

That's what I call backpedaling furiously. Also, I don't care if the whole world disagreed with me, truth ain't a democracy.

Like I said, get the fuck over yourself.

Clearly, your argument is not as compelling as you thought it was. It's not divine revelation.

Seriously, every single one of my forebears who came to the US came as refugees. Every damn one of them. The Irish were literally starving when they came over - smack into the middle of a Civil War. Don't know why my German grandfather came over, but given he stowed away on a ship at 14 I assume his reasons were compelling and I can't imagine he was thrilled to be in the US with a permanent German accent during WWI, which probably has something to do with changing his name from Rausch to Roach. The Russians came over under threat of death (they claimed), then post-Revolution had the double-whammy of being both Jewish and "dirty commies" by association (which they never were). Oh, yeah, the US McCarthy era and cold war was tons of fun for them. In addition, in my grandparents generation the Asian ancestry on that side was still apparent - I had several school mates who met my grandmother ask me if she was Chinese. (Part Mongolian, actually) So add in a little racial intolerance on top of everything else.

Funny, though, not a single damn one of us felt compelled to blow shit up or murder people.

So, tell me, how is this "oppression" experienced by Muslims who come to Europe and North America and Australia any different than what my immediate ancestors went through? Please list the points of difference. My family seems to have hit all the points of 1) lives endangered back home, 2) religious oppression, 3) political prejudice, and 4) racial intolerance. Explain to me how these modern day refugees have it so much fucking worse than either side of my family. It's not like my ancestors were all lily-white Europeans used to democracy either (dad's side came from Tsarist Russia, after all) or Christians.

I think the point he was trying to make is that Muslims escaping extremist islamists in their home country do not appreciate being lumped with them, in the same way that your ancestors probably didn't appreciate being lumped with the USSR administration.

[Broomstick]

No, my grandparents didn't appreciate it, but they understand why that happened and, as I said, didn't go around killing people and breaking shit. German grandpa didn't appreciate being lumped in with the enemy Krauts during the two world wars. I get it - it can suck to be guilty by association.

Most people don't turn into terrorists over it. In fact, it's pretty damn rare for that to happen.

So Metahive is going "wah-wah-wah - the poor Muslims! You don't understand! like they're some extra-special snowflakes more oppressed and abused than anyone else ever. They aren't.

If taking up residence in European/North America/Australia is so fucking traumatic WHY do they go there? Why not seek asylum in, say, Indonesia? One of the 'Stans in the former soviet union? Some other predominantly Muslim nation? Is it because their Muslim brethren won't make room at the table for them? What?

It's not like they even have to stay in "the West" - Tamerlane Tsarnaev apparently was looking into moving to Dagestan, Chechnya, or the North Caucus region and no one stopped him going there or prevented his return to the US even though he was associating with some dodgy people.

So no, I don't think being "refugees", or a conservative religious minority, or in a new culture, in any excuses this sort of asshat behavior.

[Ralin]

And that's a reason not to shove it in their faces at work or when socializing. Doesn't make a difference when it comes to arguing that hey, maybe the Islamists back in their home countries really ARE a whole lot more diligent at practicing their mutual religion and may actually be on better theological ground than them when it comes to justifying their actions and lifestyle.

Not liking something or finding it painful doesn't make it any less true. We shouldn't have to spell that out here of all places.

EDIT: Aimed at jwl. Quoting is a pain on a tablet.

[Metahive]

So no, I don't think being "refugees", or a conservative religious minority, or in a new culture, in any excuses this sort of asshat behavior.

I guess my bad, stupid, ignorant, foreigner Engrish is still not good enough to be understood by real true native English speakers since I never even once made that claim anywhere and in fact condemned the deeds of the CH attackers. Yuck Fou with a heaping-helping of Jape Gruice.

...

My point is that these things don't happen in a vacuum and that if we stubbornly concentrate only on looking at them in the most superficial way (for example by simply claiming that Islam is evil and makes peple do evil things, so no Islam, no problem) we will not be getting to the actual root of the problem and find solutions that will help to solve these issues in a more permanent way.There's also the fact that these attacks already happen very rarely so acting is if they're the one Real True Big Problem of our Time(TM) that needs unbound and mindless actionism is hardly justified.

I swear, if that's still not getting through I'll be typing exclusively in Chinese and expect everyone to perfectly understand it.

Also, Yuck Fou, Broomstick for trying to play pity-Olympics, as if people need to compete with each other for who deserves pity and who doesn't. Yuck Fou, you insensitve piece of hardened concrete.

[Ralin]

Okay, is anyone here actually arguing that Islam is inherently evil and the sole cause of these attacks? Because I'm not, I don't think Broomstick is and I'm a little out of it and about to head to bed but I don't think anyone else is either.