3 gunmen kill 12 at paris office of french magazine charlie hebdo

[Chastlily]

Finally, someone asked why I used those words. I see that you are not happy when someone throws insult for no reason and lump the whole group as a stereotype even when those words are not point at you. Now look at Charlie Hebdo's cartoon and the attack on the Muslim right after the incident. I ask you, what did the Muslim did to have Muhammad drew in such a way? What did the innocent Muslim in France did to be attacked?

Now, look at me. The first thing you did after reading my comment was to quote my comment and asked in a slightly insult way (the above guy threat to kill me). You obviously dont know me in real life. We are just strange people that happen to meet on internet. We are just normal people living in a normal neighborhood. Now, look at IS. They are trained killers, armed with weapons and they have absurd belief. They know where Charlie Hebdo is, they know who they should kill. And we all know just how dangerous IS or the terrorists in general are.

I think you are mistaken, I wasn't aiming to insult you in any way with my question, it was mostly written with a lack of understand about why such a strong hatred aimed at France. And I don't defend Charlie Hebdo either, I don't wish them harm too, i'm just a bystander in this matter and it doesn't concern me so I care very little about what happened. What I was saying in my post is that people care way too much about it but not because of their so called "freedom of speech" but because they care for themselves and this could happen to them aswell, and they don't want that.

Regarding the Charlie Hebdo matter, they indeed saw it coming and they are also to blame for this incident, they taunted IS with their drawings and didn't consider the threats they received, therefor they payed a price they could avoid to have paid.

Actually you guys are the same with French people right now. Talking about peace, love and killing is wrong but all you did are the same. The result may be not but the ideal is the same. I bet that if it's your relative who were killed in the incident and I told you straight to the face, you will beat me to pulp. It's not wrong, but it also proves that with a strong enough reason and an emotion control failure, we all act like IS. We all.

Once again, I care very little about what happens to people I do not care for, as far as I know the primary instinct of an individual is to survive, not to save the others. I don't care much about what can happen to the rest of the world or to my country as long as it doesn't put me directly in danger while it can be avoided, killing is not necessarily wrong because that's how life works, we all live and die and killing another organism has been going on for billions of years.

If one of my relative was killed, your comment would indeed make me mad because it directly concerns my life and the life of an individual that I care for, and than has an influence over me.

Something that I read on the webs about it kinda bugged me too: was Charlie Hebdo's reach that big? I guess that with those terrorist attacks, they (the terrorists) actually ended up doing the exact opposite of the intended - the illustrations now have a much bigger reach than before, and the newspaper is more popular than ever.

Not even, the journal was slowly losing popularity (and therefor) money. It basically survived by becoming a martyr now, Charlie Hebdo was mostly known by name or in our history books but as a regular weekly journal? It was a ghost compared to other journals but since France has a strong muslim presence, anything aimed at them is not well received.

idk, but imo drawing Mohammed/Allah funnily is in no way comparable to killing 12 people

there's no way to justify what happened. Yeah the people on the magazine were dicks, so what? They still have freedom of speech, and even then, try suing them or something rather than SHOOTING AND KILLING 12 PEOPLE

Saying "they asked for it" is victim blaming at its best.

They received threats from IS, known for being extremists and dangerous, but did not do anything to change that. I'm not saying Charlie Hebdo is wrong for doing that, they are free to do what they want, but at some point if you don't care about how it is received, you reap what you sow.

Yes it's a very sad incident, no it's not normal, but it could have been avoided.

Also, here is footage of the policeman killed during their runaway, THIS VIDEO CONTAIN GRAPHIC CONTENT, PLEASE LOWER YOUR VOLUME ASWELL

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10205549517315512

Edited January 10, 2015 by Chasticot

[Magical CC]

Two millions people marched for the people killed in the incident. Everyone in world sent their condolence. Many famous artists and journalists mentioned this incident. France got the support from the whole world.

And yet, no one bat an eye when 132 children were killed in Pakistan. One girl got kidnapped and everyone lost their mind, 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped and nobody bat an eye. If today, you will sharpen your pencil for Charlie, why didnt you do a shit for those children? Why didnt nobody draw something for those children? Who marched for the soul of those children? Who stood together for the right of those children? Nobody did a shit. Some countries sent their condolence for the shake of it, it got into the news of some newspapers and then it's history. The tragedy lasts for one day and everyone forgot about it.

If you truly value life that much then you should react the same to every incident like this, no? I feel disgusted by this Charlie Hebdo incident. It show the ugly side of the western world. Unless it happen right next to their door, nobody give a damn about what is happening in the rest of the world. As long as the "center of the world" is safe, it's fine. 132 children were killed? Who care about...you know, Pakistan? Those kids must be Muslim too, right? Let them kill each other then. 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped, who care? They are in Africa, who care about Africa? Hundred of people killed by Ebola, who care? As if it can get to America and Europe.....oh way, it can! The end of the world is coming!

And now France got its share of IS. This is the lesson for not taking IS serious. This is the lesson for being a bystander to what is happening in the rest of the world. I believe now France will be more active in the fight against IS and I also believe that most of the hate for IS shall be pour on the innocent Muslim in France instead. History once again proved that it is an endless circle.

About the drawing of Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo didnt mock IS. They have been drawing Muhammad even before the rise of IS, for years.They mocked the whole Muslim world for a very long time. They didnt do it because of freedom. They did it for money and because they think it's fun. And I have seen people getting killed because of much more trivial things.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Magical Amber

[dondon151]

this guy just doesn't get it

the prohibition against depicting muhammed is a meme inherent to islam. it's a really weird meme. it's a standard that's not applied to anything else in this world (except for maybe dictators).

in the vast majority of cases, mocking a population a few times doesn't get people killed. if drawing a cartoon results in a death sentence (in a location under which the sentencing party has no jurisdiction, no less), then of course attention should be called to it.

EDIT: you may not criticize the french of being hypocritical for not publicly demonstrating against actions that were not carried out against their own people in their own country. i'm not even going to bother arguing about this point; if you can't understand this, you shouldn't be having this conversation. don't be the pot calling the kettle black - go out there and demonstrate every time a large loss of human life occurs in this world, regardless of how far removed it is from your own relatively comfortable, sheltered life, i dare you. come back and tell me how it is.

Edited January 12, 2015 by dondon151

[Tryhard]

Two millions people marched for the people killed in the incident. Everyone in world sent their condolence. Many famous artists and journalists mentioned this incident. France got the support from the whole world.

And yet, no one bat an eye when 132 children were killed in Pakistan. One girl got kidnapped and everyone lost their mind, 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped and nobody bat an eye. If today, you will sharpen your pencil for Charlie, why didnt you do a shit for those children? Why didnt nobody draw something for those children? Who marched for the soul of those children? Who stood together for the right of those children? Nobody did a shit. Some countries sent their condolence for the shake of it, it got into the news of some newspapers and then it's history. The tragedy lasts for one day and everyone forgot about it.

If you truly value life that much then you should react the same to every incident like this, no? I feel disgusted by this Charlie Hebdo incident. It show the ugly side of the western world. Unless it happen right next to their door, nobody give a damn about what is happening in the rest of the world. As long as the "center of the world" is safe, it's fine. 132 children were killed? Who care about...you know, Pakistan? Those kids must be Muslim too, right? Let them kill each other then. 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped, who care? They are in Africa, who care about Africa? Hundred of people killed by Ebola, who care? As if it can get to America and Europe.....oh way, it can! The end of the world is coming! Everyone and their mama suddenly have enough medicine to cure their whole country. And the worst part is Ebola is a very old disease, but nobody really into finding the cure up to recently. I wonder why. Really.

No-one should tell me what issues I can and can not care about. Yes, it is quite often that people find it hard to care about matters that happen far away from them, but this is not a new or exclusive thing to the western world. It is disheartening, and often as human beings we find ourselves caring about things that are irrelevant or that of no consequence, and I have been guilty of this as well. But what can we do about it, apart from shouting at people "you should care about this"? People aren't 100% consistent, unfortunately.

We can point to many incidents in which perhaps people have diverted their attention to something that is less severe, but is that to say that whatever people are focusing is of no interest, of no consequence? I'd imagine not.

People are often selfish in this regard and care about themselves and those around them, and are not so much concerned about what happens far away from them.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Tryhard

[Magical CC]

this guy just doesn't get it

the prohibition against depicting muhammed is a meme inherent to islam. it's a really weird meme. it's a standard that's not applied to anything else in this world (except for maybe dictators).

People had been killed for more trivial things in the name of God. And no, I am not talking about the zealous or the strayed ones. I am talking about the whole Christian world. People had been killed for trivial things in the name of God, officially, by the church, the priest and the pope, no less. Back in the old days, even mocking Buddha means death. The Buddhist monks were a lot more violent and corrupted back then.

The fact that Christian failed to be the big thing and lost its power in recent centuries doesnt mean that Islam also did. While most of us nowadays give no damn about Christian, the Islam is still strong in its people. It's not weird at all. It's you who doesnt get it.

For example:

Two kids got a ball for their birthday. The first kid, after playing with his ball for some days got bored and threw his ball into a corner, giving no damn about it anymore. Then he visited the second kid's house. He saw the second kid still playing with his ball. What a joke, he thought. So he took the second kid's ball and threw it out of the window. The second kid cried and then the adult came and asked what happened. The first kid said "what is the matter? I have a same ball in my house. It's freaking ugly and boring. He's an ididot for being attracted to the ball so I threw it out of the window".

Edited January 12, 2015 by Magical Amber

[Nobody]

So let me get this straight, you think the people who draw Mohammed are the ones wrong and that the only reason people don't care about others drawing Jesus/the christian god is because christianism failed as a religion?

Edited January 12, 2015 by Nobody

[dondon151]

People had been killed for more trivial things in the name of God. And no, I am not talking about the zealous or the strayed ones. I am talking about the whole Christian world. People had been killed for trivial things in the name of God, officially, by the church, the priest and the pope, no less.

yeah dude

that's why it's called the dark ages

[Rapier]

NO.

I respect their right to say/illustrate things that may be offensive to others. I also reserve the right to not give them readership because that's not my type of media. Killing people who worked there (and involving others who had nothing to do with it) was not deserved, in any way, shape, or form.

This is my opinion, in a nutshell. No matter how comprehensible the motive was, this does not in any way justify what they did.

As an addendum, we should be free to address ideas freely as we see fit (addressing people is different, though, but I don't want to get into that). If someone wants to criticize, attack or joke about Christianism or Islamism or even atheism, which are basically ideas, this should be a right of theirs. It is fair for people to be pissed off when we criticize/attack or joke about ideas that they particularly like, but it is not fair to censor someone because their opinions are not well liked by someone. If anything, this kind of censorship is harmful to a democracy, because it is very easy to 'feel pissed off' about something and then demand on basis of this to take someone else's right of speech (this changes when we address people, of course, but I don't want to get into that).

I'm also not buying the 'islamophobia' claims. If I post the Simpsons' picture about a jihadist dying and meeting virginians in Heaven instead, will I be called a islamophobe for this? Islamophobia means having an aversion to muslins. Such an action does not, in any way, demonstrate that there's an aversion to muslins. Now, enough with this bullshit. This sort of victimism is no more than a whiny child crying, which polictical activists just love to do.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Rapier

[eclipse]

Yet there was a nice little topic in Serious Discussion about that incident in Pakistan, and you definitely saw it.

If you have a thing against religion, fine (that is the sense I'm getting from your posts). But do NOT tell others how you think they should act - a reaction, or lack thereof, is also part of freedom of expression.

[Rapier]

This could be nitpicking of mine, but I don't see anything wrong with telling how people should act. I mean, I don't see a reason why someone shouldn't be able to, and barring someone's right to free speech without a reason is flimsy. That's bad behavior, alright, but valid, as I see. Now, forcing them to act the way you want, is another entirely different story... Which is what dictators do.

[eclipse]

This could be nitpicking of mine, but I don't see anything wrong with telling how people should act. I mean, I don't see a reason why someone shouldn't be able to, and barring someone's right to free speech without a reason is flimsy. That's bad behavior, alright, but valid, as I see. Now, forcing them to act the way you want, is another entirely different story... Which is what dictators do.

It's the sentiment that counts. Why would you be interested in how someone acts, as long as their actions don't harm others?

[Yaynir]

Two millions people marched for the people killed in the incident. Everyone in world sent their condolence. Many famous artists and journalists mentioned this incident. France got the support from the whole world.

And yet, no one bat an eye when 132 children were killed in Pakistan. One girl got kidnapped and everyone lost their mind, 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped and nobody bat an eye. If today, you will sharpen your pencil for Charlie, why didnt you do a shit for those children? Why didnt nobody draw something for those children? Who marched for the soul of those children? Who stood together for the right of those children? Nobody did a shit. Some countries sent their condolence for the shake of it, it got into the news of some newspapers and then it's history. The tragedy lasts for one day and everyone forgot about it.

If you truly value life that much then you should react the same to every incident like this, no? I feel disgusted by this Charlie Hebdo incident. It show the ugly side of the western world. Unless it happen right next to their door, nobody give a damn about what is happening in the rest of the world. As long as the "center of the world" is safe, it's fine. 132 children were killed? Who care about...you know, Pakistan? Those kids must be Muslim too, right? Let them kill each other then. 200 schoolgirls got kidnapped, who care? They are in Africa, who care about Africa? Hundred of people killed by Ebola, who care? As if it can get to America and Europe.....oh way, it can! The end of the world is coming!

Marching for the people killed in the incident does not mean you don't give a damn about these daily atrocities. You feel concerned by these people suffering? It's the same for millions of people, including me. But do you do something more for helping them in their despair? I bet you don't. Stop being a hypocrite. Stop following the easy way condemning without thinking a single second the evil western civilization.

And now France got its share of IS. This is the lesson for not taking IS serious. This is the lesson for being a bystander to what is happening in the rest of the world. I believe now France will be more active in the fight against IS and I also believe that most of the hate for IS shall be pour on the innocent Muslim in France instead. History once again proved that it is an endless circle.

Hate speech laws exists in France, condemning islamophobia in particular. I'm not saying laws solve everything, because it would be a lie. But it means the country fights against hate speech.

Many measures have always been taken to prevent youth from going to jihad (many of them are likely not to be born in muslim families). IS has always been considered as a serious issue in France. You worry me when you say "This is the lesson for not taking IS serious", because it sounds like you think IS (and by IS I especially mean their atrocities) are legitimate.

And let me also tell you something: islamophobic people basically accuse Muslims of terrorism. Islamophobic people are just fu***** morons. They are monsters. They are worthless. And right now, you're just basically accusing French people (including Muslims) of islamophobia. You're not better than islamophobic people.

About the drawing of Muhammad. Charlie Hebdo didnt mock IS. They have been drawing Muhammad even before the rise of IS, for years.They mocked the whole Muslim world for a very long time. They didnt do it because of freedom. They did it for money and because they think it's fun. And I have seen people getting killed because of much more trivial things.

Congratulations, you've just proven how much uneducated you are. You know absolutely nothing about Charlie Hebdo. You know absolutely nothing about France. I'm tired of explaining what's obvious (namely the fact that Charlie Hebdo's journalists were NOT racist and islamophobic), so I'll just invite you to read this: http://ptiteutopie.tumblr.com/post/107531134592/je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-explained

I forgot something. Jean-Marie Le Pen said: "Je ne suis pas Charlie." Who's Jean-Marie Le Pen? Well, he is the former leader of the Front National, a far-right party. Jean-Marie Le Pen is racist. He is misogynist. He is homophobic. He is a holocaust denier. He is obviously islamophobic. He was condemned several times for incitment to racial hatred. Don't you feel glad to be supported by him?

Edit : I don't know where to put this in my post, so I let that here: 17 people died. Not only Charlie Hebdo's journalists. There was also a maintenance man, a muslim policeman, a black policewoman, and four jews who were just shopping. STOP VICTIM BLAMING.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Jejnial

[blah the Prussian]

It is perfectly natural to not give a damn about events not happening near you, however shameful that fact may be. Incidentally, the kidnapping of the Nigerian girls received immense international attention. However, it happened months ago, so it faded from the public eye. I would be very surprised If people are still talking about this 6 months from now. I would also be interested in seeing how much attention Charlie Hebdo is getting in Asia.

Edit: Wait, never mind, this is a whole new Boko Haram incident. Disregard what I said about BH.

Edited January 13, 2015 by blah2127

[Esau of Isaac]

yeah dude

that's why it's called the dark ages

The Dark Ages is an inaccurate term. It is properly referred to by most circles as the Middle Ages, as the period was not generally more awful than most other times in humanity's history.

People had been killed for more trivial things in the name of God. And no, I am not talking about the zealous or the strayed ones. I am talking about the whole Christian world. People had been killed for trivial things in the name of God, officially, by the church, the priest and the pope, no less. Back in the old days, even mocking Buddha means death. The Buddhist monks were a lot more violent and corrupted back then.

The fact that Christian failed to be the big thing and lost its power in recent centuries doesnt mean that Islam also did. While most of us nowadays give no damn about Christian, the Islam is still strong in its people. It's not weird at all. It's you who doesnt get it.

For example:

Two kids got a ball for their birthday. The first kid, after playing with his ball for some days got bored and threw his ball into a corner, giving no damn about it anymore. Then he visited the second kid's house. He saw the second kid still playing with his ball. What a joke, he thought. So he took the second kid's ball and threw it out of the window. The second kid cried and then the adult came and asked what happened. The first kid said "what is the matter? I have a same ball in my house. It's freaking ugly and boring. He's an ididot for being attracted to the ball so I threw it out of the window".

Deciding not to slaughter people for defaming a religious ideology doesn't indicate a weakness in belief. And disapproving of murdering swaths of people for disliking a religious ideology also doesn't indicate someone doesn't understand how deeply others hold their belief system. It just means they don't approve of others arbitrarily deciding to slaughter people.

And Christianity didn't fail to be the big thing; it has a larger population of followers than any other religion on the planet.

[Rapier]

It's the sentiment that counts. Why would you be interested in how someone acts, as long as their actions don't harm others?

Well, you're arguing that one shouldn't tell others how to act... while telling him how he should act. You're also defending freedom of speech... while telling him he should not speak of something. I'm probably nitpicking a lot, but it seems contradictory to me. Anyway, even if I can't think right now about a reason why someone would be interesting in how another person acts, I don't think it would be right to censor this practice. Otherwise, it'd damage our principle of freedom of speech, wouldn't it?

[dondon151]

chastising someone for having a terrible or pernicious opinion isn't suppressing free speech, it's argument.

[Rapier]

Chastising someone for what they say is quite different from arguing that they're not supposed to say something. The latter is a very subtle and effective way of censoring, which makes it worse than it seems when it is treated so lightly.

Telling Magical Amber that his behavior is wrong or bad would be 'chastising', telling him he should not say things about how people act is to add a 'censorship'. Both terms are not accounted as synonymous in the dictionary.

And how is arguing against one's right to speak about something not an attempt to supress free speech? Do explain this.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Rapier

[dondon151]

And how is arguing against one's right to speak about something not an attempt to supress free speech? Do explain this.

you're confusing yourself. eclipse said that one shouldn't tell people how to act; you said that her telling people not to tell people how to act was a violation of that principle. of course it is, by nature it has to be that way.

even the first amendment of the united states constitution is self-contradictory like this: "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." but congress just made a law that abridged its freedom to make a statement prohibiting freedom of speech.

obviously we understand the intention behind this. if i told you "you shouldn't trust what you read on the internet," and you're reading this off the internet, how do you know whether you should trust what you read on the internet?

Edited January 17, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

It is natural that I feel confused with it, I don't know how to deal with paradoxes. As I see it, it is only fixed if we switch the universal meaning for a relative meaning. For example, instead of 'you shouldn't trust what you read on the internet', saying 'you shouldn't trust some/most things that you read in the internet' seems to work without changing much of what the person behind the argument wanted to say.

Also, forget the first part, I approached this on the worst way possible.

[eclipse]

Well, you're arguing that one shouldn't tell others how to act... while telling him how he should act. You're also defending freedom of speech... while telling him he should not speak of something. I'm probably nitpicking a lot, but it seems contradictory to me. Anyway, even if I can't think right now about a reason why someone would be interesting in how another person acts, I don't think it would be right to censor this practice. Otherwise, it'd damage our principle of freedom of speech, wouldn't it?

In the truest sense, it's contradictory for me to say anything as long as someone isn't harming someone. However, I also think that keeping silent when I see something that I strongly disagree with is equally contradictory - I'd curtail my own right of expression because of someone else.

So Magical Amber is free to believe that people should do X, Y, and Z, as long as he keeps it to himself. The minute he opens his mouth, he's opening himself up to anyone who (dis)agrees. To call it censorship is a hell of a stretch - unless I found a way to enforce my opinion, it's going to be left as just that.

[Magical CC]

In the truest sense, it's contradictory for me to say anything as long as someone isn't harming someone. However, I also think that keeping silent when I see something that I strongly disagree with is equally contradictory - I'd curtail my own right of expression because of someone else.

So Magical Amber is free to believe that people should do X, Y, and Z, as long as he keeps it to himself. The minute he opens his mouth, he's opening himself up to anyone who (dis)agrees. To call it censorship is a hell of a stretch - unless I found a way to enforce my opinion, it's going to be left as just that.

Hey, that's my words. But I will now use your words too: I also think that keeping silent when I see something that I strongly disagree with is equally contradictory - I'd curtail my own right of expression because of someone else.

Also, Hebdo is free to believe what people should draw, as long as they keeps it to themselves. The minute they drew it and published it, they are opening themselves up to anyone who (dis)agrees. To call it censorship is a hell of a stretch, the terrorists actually found a way to enforce their opinion. And thus, 12 guys were killed.

As I said, it's easy to preach love and peace. Practice it is another problem. Also, I only bashed Christian, not Buddhism nor Muslim nor Odinism nor Hinduism nor Judaism. Why did you think I am against religion at a whole? Since when hating Christian means hating religion? Get your fact straight, man.

[Rehab]

The simplest answer is that the killing here isn't right-headed criticism of speech, it's barbarism. Eclipse can be as pointed in her disagreement with you as she has been, and more, and without it being censorship or at all analogous to the murders. Because she's not going to kill you or threaten to do so.

Charlie Hebdo deserves to be criticized, and might even court that. But murder hardly even addresses what they said. It more addresses their right to live, having said it.

[Rapier]

Hey, that's my words. But I will now use your words too: I also think that keeping silent when I see something that I strongly disagree with is equally contradictory - I'd curtail my own right of expression because of someone else.

You have the right to say whatever you want, and others have the right to say whatever about what you just said. That's how freedom of speech works.

Also, Hebdo is free to believe what people should draw, as long as they keeps it to themselves. The minute they drew it and published it, they are opening themselves up to anyone who (dis)agrees

What is your point? That they should've suppressed their right of free speech because of some muslim radicals who kill those they disagree with? No way. We didn't fight a long way until freedom of speech became a right, only to let it go because of some radicals.

[blah the Prussian]

You have the right to say whatever you want, and others have the right to say whatever about what you just said. That's how freedom of speech works.

What is your point? That they should've suppressed their right of free speech because of some muslim radicals who kill those they disagree with? No way. We didn't fight a long way until freedom of speech became a right, only to let it go because of some radicals.

They are free to do what they want, but they shouldn't have been surprised when ISIS made good on their threat.

[Esau of Isaac]

They are free to do what they want, but they shouldn't have been surprised when ISIS made good on their threat.

I don't think anyone should suspect they will be murdered for speaking an opinion.

Also, Hebdo is free to believe what people should draw, as long as they keeps it to themselves. The minute they drew it and published it, they are opening themselves up to anyone who (dis)agrees. To call it censorship is a hell of a stretch, the terrorists actually found a way to enforce their opinion. And thus, 12 guys were killed.

To call it anything other than censorship is nothing short of mental blindness. The purpose of free speech is to be free to speak what you wish, without fearing reprisal. Being murdered for speaking an opinion is not freedom.