Attack on French satirical magazine who posted jokes about the prophet Mohammed - 12 killed

[Len Cnut]

To remove the threat of terrorism from radical islamists alltogether, radical islamism must have to change/evolve/disappear.

oh they definitely will. just give them another 300+ years

I think there is, its just the desicion is in the hands of people who have no interest in it.

explain pls?

I think the way to defeat terrorism is by taking away their cause, its gonna get more and more difficult the longer things are left because it allows fanatacism to evolve and permeate a number of different aspects of the belief system of a set of people, the further it gets dug in, especially with every new generation, the harder it is to remove.

But what are their central gripes, most of em? The whole Israel situation that needs fixing to some point of mutually acceptable compromise, the issue of foreign occupation of a few countries, the usual crap. But a lot of those things are in place because they are to the benefit of a number of different outside interested that have a vested interest in them being the way they are. And those things aint about to budge because there's money in it for the right people.

The fact of the matter is that money rules the world and anything goes just so long as it is, broadly speaking, controlled and directed by a set of dominant interests.

You will not see an end to terrorism just as long as, somewhere down the line, the right people profit from its existing...and as things stand they appear to be.

All these arguments about ideology, whether its the language of freedom or fanatacism, is just a circle jerk, an opium for the masses to quibble over whilst the money machine keeps on rolling.

Beliefs are great but nothing beats a pound note.

Ive also come to believe that no one really cares about human life (cept Saint Len of course!) either, people just dream up a line of logic in keeping with the side they've chosen and see how far they can take that shit, then it becomes about giving your life to it...and nothing is worth your life.

Compassion is perhaps the most valuable human emotion and, to quote a certain Strummer, there is no compassion in fanatacism.

but that is the point that it's impossible to take away the cause you're talking about.

the case like this one being discussed here imo has more to do with immigrants from Islamic states living in Europe and having no mental capacity of adapting to the challenges of life in a free society and it's values...

The fact that it has gotten to where it is has something to do with the fact that its been allowed to fester for so long so yes, admittedly the process isnt going to be as straightforward anymore (if it ever was) but a good start would be addressing the clear core issues.

the problem is that so far there is no effective way to protect people from acts of terrorism

I like what I see in many newspapers today: The publishing of similar cartoons to dilute the danger across many newsdesks. It won't eliminate the risk of any given newsroom being targeted by terrorism, but it will certainly lower it for anyone involved. In addition, now the editorial staffs have a genuine journalistic incentive to do it, because there is need to publish the reasons for the cowardly attacks on Charlie, so it won't be "just for provocation".

To remove the threat of terrorism from radical islamists alltogether, radical islamism must have to change/evolve/disappear. Basically they must realize that human rights including freedom of speech are more important than their particular religious laws and taboos. Islamism is the last religious offshoot to be domesticated and it is still apt to bite. It takes time, but sooner or later it will have to adapt to modern times if it wants to be kept indoors. We have gone through the same with other religions, and suffered the consequences, we now simply have to do it again.

they just need to move on from the 9th century.

Its difficult when you keep getting bombed back to it.

[SoulMonster]

To remove the threat of terrorism from radical islamists alltogether, radical islamism must have to change/evolve/disappear.

oh they definitely will. just give them another 300+ years

I think there is, its just the desicion is in the hands of people who have no interest in it.

explain pls?

I think the way to defeat terrorism is by taking away their cause, its gonna get more and more difficult the longer things are left because it allows fanatacism to evolve and permeate a number of different aspects of the belief system of a set of people, the further it gets dug in, especially with every new generation, the harder it is to remove.

But what are their central gripes, most of em? The whole Israel situation that needs fixing to some point of mutually acceptable compromise, the issue of foreign occupation of a few countries, the usual crap. But a lot of those things are in place because they are to the benefit of a number of different outside interested that have a vested interest in them being the way they are. And those things aint about to budge because there's money in it for the right people.

The fact of the matter is that money rules the world and anything goes just so long as it is, broadly speaking, controlled and directed by a set of dominant interests.

You will not see an end to terrorism just as long as, somewhere down the line, the right people profit from its existing...and as things stand they appear to be.

All these arguments about ideology, whether its the language of freedom or fanatacism, is just a circle jerk, an opium for the masses to quibble over whilst the money machine keeps on rolling.

Beliefs are great but nothing beats a pound note.

Ive also come to believe that no one really cares about human life (cept Saint Len of course!) either, people just dream up a line of logic in keeping with the side they've chosen and see how far they can take that shit, then it becomes about giving your life to it...and nothing is worth your life.

Compassion is perhaps the most valuable human emotion and, to quote a certain Strummer, there is no compassion in fanatacism.

I agree with your comments on the cause of much of the terrorism (the Israel situation, foreign occupation, and so on), but I don't get your argument on money. Who are economically benefitting from 12 journalists being massacred in Paris and how have these people who benefitted economically from this tragedy helped make it happen? It all becomes a bit unclear to me, who are these "people [who] profit from [terrorism] existing" that you talk about? To me, your argument comes awfully close to appearing like an amalgam of the common conspiracy theories about "mysterious and powerful men who manipulate world order" with a wide-spread contempt for modern capitalistic society, and I am sure that was not what you intended.

And I happen to think that the modern society we live in, which grants us freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, justice, etc, is worth a lot, including to die for. This might not be so obious to people who have lived all their lives in the comfort of our society and knows no alternative, but it is painfully apparent to people in oppressed countries who fight and die for these causes every day, and to our ancestors who fought for and died so we and our children can enjoy these rights today. It is also tragically obvious to the relatives of the journalists who was murdered simply because they had the courage to treat radical islamism identically to how they treated other religions and ideologies. You may think that your life is more precious than all of this, an opinion to which you are entitled, but I disagree strongly.

[Satanisk_Slakt]

Here's a translated speech I read from two years ago. It summarise everything you need to know about "The religion of peace" really.

Muhammed is a role model for all Muslims in both speech and action. He is not allowed to be criticised. If Muhammed had been a man of peace things would have been very different, but he wasn't. Muhammed was a warlord, a conquerer who led wars with everything that comes along with war. Accounts show that he killed people and one account tells of how he executed as many as 600 Jewish men through decapitation. We know that he attacked caravans to finance his campaigns, we know that captured women and children were sold as slaves. This means, in my opinion, that Muhammed is no better than others who use violence to achieve their goals. I would like to make a comparison between Muhammed and Jesus, between Islam and Christianity. Muhammed's life and his actions are the basis for Islam. If he was a warlord who executed prisoners of war, kept and sold slaves, attacked caravans and committed theft to fund his campaigns, then it must mean that his actions are of great importance for Islam's growth, doctrine and followers.

If we compare this to the founder of Christianity, Jesus, then we see that he supported the complete opposite message. A message of love, which is evident in his life and actions. A Muslim who uses violence to spread his message can find support for their actions from Islam's founder, Muhammed. However, a Christian who uses violence to spread his message finds no support from Christianity's founder as his message was one of non-violence and love. I would like to mention that when Jesus was being arrested by the Romans, the apostle Peter drew his sword. Jesus then commands him to put it away and later he was crucified and Jesus forgave, as you might remember, his murderers. Christianity has a completely different morals and uses a completely different logic compared to Islam. I mean that in many ways, Christianity and Islam are polar opposites.

As if that wasn't enough, Islam, which is based on submission, is not only a religion, but also an ideology, with its stated goal being not only to control over the loves of individuals, but over society as a whole. In Islam there is no distinction between the physical and the spiritual. Islam wants to rule everything. This is very different from Christianity, which most often makes a clear distinction between the physical and the spiritual. The Islamic law, Sharia, is considered supreme above the laws of Western European nations as the Quaran is the only law Muslims should follow. Where Sharia law reigns supreme there will be no need for a legislative assembly. Therefore, Islam is not compatible with freedom, it's not compatible with equality, it's not compatible with democracy. If we are going to compare Islam with anything, it should be with other totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Nazism.

It's time to realise that Islam differs from other world religions in its extreme and widespread fanaticism. Now someone will say not all Muslims are like that. This is true and I have never said anything to the contrary. There are liberal forces within Islam, both in Europe and in the Muslim world. However, they don't have it easy. Just take a look at the Muslim world. Just take a look at the situation in country after country in Europe and how leading Imams express themselves. These liberal forces within Islam need our support, but they are not aided by the fact that we ignore and deny these problems.

[streak]

There is a very real problem with extremism in Europe, both with the large number of Muslim populations in European countries, and the rise of far right groups/movements in the same countries.

Governments (in my opinion) are failing very badly to deal with these issues.

The French prime minister stated that they 'knew' of the suspects, and they were being 'followed'. This attack was planned, its obvious. They must have known, or had some idea that something big was going down. Charlie Hebdo offices should have been protected better. They weren't.

I really feel for the Muslim police officer who was shot with a wife and two kids. What did he do wrong to anyone?

Why are these extremist groups coming to the fore in the last 10-15 years or so?

Why haven't governments done anything about it?

France now has real issues to sort out. There will be a big backlash on its large Muslim population, many who are not extremists. There are also far right groups who will gain massive popularity over this.

It will be interesting to see how they will react to this.

[Len Cnut]

I agree with your comments on the cause of much of the terrorism (the Israel situation, foreign occupation, and so on), but I don't get your argument on money. Who are economically benefitting from 12 journalists being massacred in Paris and how have these people who benefitted economically from this tragedy helped make it happen? It all becomes a bit unclear to me, who are these "people [who] profit from [terrorism] existing" that you talk about? To me, your argument comes awfully close to appearing like an amalgam of the common conspiracy theories about "mysterious and powerful men who manipulate world order" with a wide-spread contempt for modern capitalistic society, and I am sure that was not what you intended.

My argument about money is basically my way of saying that at the end of the day, in terms of politics, when things get done it is in the name of economic benefit, not ideology.

And I happen to think that the modern society we live in, which grants us freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, justice, etc, is worth a lot, including to die for. This might not be so obious to people who have lived all their lives in the comfort of our society and knows no alternative, but it is painfully apparent to people in oppressed countries who fight and die for these causes every day, and to our ancestors who fought for and died so we and our children can enjoy these rights today. It is also tragically obvious to the relatives of the journalists who was murdered simply because they had the courage to treat radical islamism identically to how they treated other religions and ideologies. You may think that your life is more precious than all of this, an opinion to which you are entitled, but I disagree strongly.

I'm not sure whether you don't understand me or you're not capable of understanding me or that perhaps you're prey to a kind of fanatacism yourself but I'm gonna have another go because I don't think you're an unreasonable kind of fella.

OK, all of what you've written above i agree with, i think is correct and true. When there is a situation where your right to free speech and freedom of expression and the right to think as you wish is threatened then its a duty to stand up to it, to fight it, even lay down your life for it. But is that what was happening here? Had that cartoon not been published would free speech in the free world be over and done with? It wouldn't've really, would it? Not at all. Now again, there is a difference between something being institutionally shut down or quietened and one person deciding not to publish something immediately inflammatory. Distinct difference.

Were there a serious threat to our right to free speech I'd be the first one to stand up and say we should fight. Were there a clear and present threat on our liberties and our right to express ourselves freely, I would be right there alongside you. But there wasn't. Now, ideologically speaking every time a person decides to not say exactly whats on his mind, thats a stifling of free speech, on some level. But it doesn't amount to the destruction of our way of life right then and there, it was not so pressing, not so important, not so immediately grave an issue that it required for 12 peoples blood to be spilled out on the street for it, it just wasn't.

Your whole call to arms spiel suggests that not publishing that cartoon amounts to some kind of immediate invalidating and taking away of our way of life, which is simply not true, this is not the burning Reichstag and the coming of Hitler, it is a handful of people making a cartoon that stirs a very very very small minority of loonies to murder that has consequences for a great many people on this earth.

When the call for your life comes I'll be the first to commend your readiness to defend free speech but the above is just lunacy and pointless needless death, for which the terrorists, to my mind, are 99% responsible...but you simply cannot ignore the responsibility to journalists that are wilfully inflammatory, regardless of whether they have something of a point in doing so.

This was not a battle worth 12 human lives. Even as i write this i feel like there's no point because i don't even think you're trying to understand but I'll tell you this for free, you'd do well to check some of your own rhetoric and cross reference it to what some of the terrorists are saying because there are some scary similarities, with the principle one being the absolute refusal to entertain any adjustment of position on the part of the side you are on to avoid the taking of human lives. As if the only validation of your position is bloodshed. That my friend is the language of fanatacism and it is dangerous.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Why are these extremist groups coming to the fore in the last 10-15 years or so?

When you combine a large muslim minority in western countries who is economically and politically marginalised with an increase in sectarian conflict in the countries from which they originate which is partly due to meddling from western countries, then terrorism is bound to happen. When a sufficiently large population of people feel offended and unfairly treatred, there will always be a very small minority willing to go to extremes in attempts to avenge or rectify the situation.

France has a large contigent of citizens who have returned after fighting for ISIL/ISIS in Syria. According to some news report, the suspects for the murders in France are among these. From a practical perspective, the wars in Syria and Iraq are excellent training grounds for confused, disenchanted and violent individuals who are being given a cause and the means to lash in what they consider, according to their abhorrent religion, to be a righteous war.

Edited January 8, 2015 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

I agree with your comments on the cause of much of the terrorism (the Israel situation, foreign occupation, and so on), but I don't get your argument on money. Who are economically benefitting from 12 journalists being massacred in Paris and how have these people who benefitted economically from this tragedy helped make it happen? It all becomes a bit unclear to me, who are these "people [who] profit from [terrorism] existing" that you talk about? To me, your argument comes awfully close to appearing like an amalgam of the common conspiracy theories about "mysterious and powerful men who manipulate world order" with a wide-spread contempt for modern capitalistic society, and I am sure that was not what you intended.

My argument about money is basically my way of saying that at the end of the day, in terms of politics, when things get done it is in the name of economic benefit, not ideology.

But how does this apply to the case of some jihadists murdering 10 journalists who took part on publishing offensive cartoons?

[Len Cnut]

I agree with your comments on the cause of much of the terrorism (the Israel situation, foreign occupation, and so on), but I don't get your argument on money. Who are economically benefitting from 12 journalists being massacred in Paris and how have these people who benefitted economically from this tragedy helped make it happen? It all becomes a bit unclear to me, who are these "people [who] profit from [terrorism] existing" that you talk about? To me, your argument comes awfully close to appearing like an amalgam of the common conspiracy theories about "mysterious and powerful men who manipulate world order" with a wide-spread contempt for modern capitalistic society, and I am sure that was not what you intended.

My argument about money is basically my way of saying that at the end of the day, in terms of politics, when things get done it is in the name of economic benefit, not ideology.

But how does this apply to the case of some jihadists murdering 10 journalists who took part on publishing offensive cartoons?

Because it is an act of terrorism and terrorism, in this day and age, is a functional political tool which is used for the furtherance of certain peoples political objectives. My comment was broad and relating to the current political climate regarding terrorism in the broader sense, not limited specifically to this act. Who does or doesnt benefit remains to be seen in the coming months and years.

[SoulMonster]

When there is a situation where your right to free speech and freedom of expression and the right to think as you wish is threatened then its a duty to stand up to it, to fight it, even lay down your life for it. But is that what was happening here?

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

You seem to think that the war for freedom of speech is ONE separete and singular melee. It isn't, it is a continues war with numerous battles, skirmishes and melees that all need to be won unless freedom of speech shall be reduced and limited. If they had given in here, if this little, in itself rather insignificant battle had been lost, the absolute freedom of speech, and more precisely the freedom to criticise islam through satire and mockery, would have been lost. It wouldn't mean that the constituional freedom to speech in France was abolished, nor that freedom to speech altogether was lost. But it would have meant a reduction in it, and more importanty, it would send the tragic signal that we are willing to concede and limit this right if only bullied enough.

I agree with your comments on the cause of much of the terrorism (the Israel situation, foreign occupation, and so on), but I don't get your argument on money. Who are economically benefitting from 12 journalists being massacred in Paris and how have these people who benefitted economically from this tragedy helped make it happen? It all becomes a bit unclear to me, who are these "people [who] profit from [terrorism] existing" that you talk about? To me, your argument comes awfully close to appearing like an amalgam of the common conspiracy theories about "mysterious and powerful men who manipulate world order" with a wide-spread contempt for modern capitalistic society, and I am sure that was not what you intended.

My argument about money is basically my way of saying that at the end of the day, in terms of politics, when things get done it is in the name of economic benefit, not ideology.

But how does this apply to the case of some jihadists murdering 10 journalists who took part on publishing offensive cartoons?

Because it is an act of terrorism and terrorism, in this day and age, is a functional political tool which is used for the furtherance of certain peoples political objectives.

Sure, and these terrorists could have been manipulated by some figure behind who wanted them to hurt France and the West for fiscal reasons...but it could also just be that they are some loonies who acted on their own solely due to feeling religiously offended and there being no money factors involved whatsoever.

Edited January 8, 2015 by SoulMonster

[rock4eva]

Not sure if anyone has seen this on tv but I commend the interviewer for keeping his cool.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/07/hannity-clashes-radical-imam-anjem-choudary-following-charlie-hebdo-terror-attack

[SoulMonster]

The editorial in today's The Star:

Attack on Charlie Hebdo was a direct assault on freedom of speech: Editorial
The attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine was an assault with worldwide implications on freedom of the press and expression.

The horrific, appalling attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was, sadly, almost predictable.

The magazine is well-known for courting the ire of the powerful, targeting politicians and religious leaders alike with its critical take-no-prisoners approach to journalism and its hallmark powerful — and powerfully offensive to some — cartoons.

It wasn’t as if the warning signs weren’t there before Wednesday’s slaughter that saw 10 journalists — including four cartoonists — and two policemen gunned down.

After a November 2011 spoof edition that invited the Prophet Muhammad to be its guest editor and put his caricature on the cover was published, the magazine’s offices were firebombed. Charlie Hebdo persisted in poking religious sensitivities, particularly among Muslims. Though the affiliation of the attackers wasn’t immediately clear, it seemed evident they were inspired by some form of radical Islamist ideology and were out to punish the weekly for its supposed blasphemy.

The earlier attacks did not deter Charlie Hebdo’s journalists — even when they were personally threatened. Chief among them was the magazine’s editor, cartoonist Stéphane Charbonnier, who was the first to be slain, alongside his police bodyguard, on Wednesday.

Nor should other journalists, writers and cartoonists be cowed by this outrageous act of terrorism or deterred from presenting views some may find offensive.

To do so is their absolute right. As the international writers’ organization PEN said in the aftermath of the attack: “The right to satirize, to question, to expose, to mock, even when offensive to some, is a bulwark of a free society.”

Or as the novelist Salman Rushdie, who spent years in hiding after his novel The Satanic Verses drew a death edict from Iran’s religious authorities, put it: “Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and yes, our fearless disrespect.”

PEN and Rushdie are right. This was not just a cowardly attack on one small, controversial magazine. It was an assault with worldwide implications on freedom of the press, freedom of expression and — in the tradition of the French philosopher and satirist Voltaire — the right to present views that some are bound to find objectionable, even blasphemous.

Charlie Hebdo’s spirit was not killed on Wednesday. It lives on in the words of Charbonnier, who once told Le Monde: “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

Indeed, one of his last cartoons, published in this week’s issue, seemed to foreshadow his fate. “Still no attacks on France,” an extremist fighter says. “Wait — we have until the end of January to present our New Year’s wishes.”

And it lives on among the Charlie Hebdo journalists who were spared in the shooting and immediately vowed to fight back.

Shortly after the attack, the magazine’s website went down. Hours later it was back up with the slogan, “Je suis Charlie” emblazoned against a black background.

The battle for the right to freedom of expression — and yes, the freedom to offend — continues. Secularism, democracy and freedom of expression have their martyrs, too.

Along with so many others around the world, we join in saying: Je suis Charlie.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/01/07/attack_on_charlie_hebdo_was_a_direct_assault_on_freedom_of_speech_editorial.html

[Len Cnut]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

This is simply false, rhetorical and misguided. Nothing was achieved yesterday. Nothing. Not for the terrorists, not for the upholders of free speech, not for anyone.

If they had given in here, if this little, in itself rather insignificant battle had been lost, the absolute freedom of speech, and more precisely the freedom to criticise islam through satire and mockery, would have been lost. It wouldn't mean that the constituional freedom to speech in France was abolished, nor that freedom to speech altogether was lost. But it would have meant a reduction in it, and more importanty, it would send the tragic signal that we are willing to concede and limit this right if only bullied enough.

It is amazing how much blood emboldens us. The battle in itself is insignificant, we agree on that, the rest just amounts to your projections regarding the rammifications of this insignificant act and what it would have resulted in in this hypothetical world where yesterdays tragedys hadn't happened because the cartoonists refused to take the route that they did. And this hypothesis is your justification of 12 dead bodies. Not in a battlefield, not during war, not in the pursuance of defending against some kind of invasion...but a cartoon. Ridiculous. Or it would be if it wasn't so heartbreakingly tragic.

If there's one thing I've found unsettling about you Soulie it's this reckless way you feel that human life is this thing that is expendable so long as your rationalisations for it are airtight, I simply do not and cannot life, believe or think like that. You're so clinical in your rationalisations too, it's really quite scary. Whether it's dictating how many lives you think human beings should be allowed to create or which 'causes' are worthy of sacrificing lives for, you do this with a flippancy that stands contrary to a lot of the humanitarian positions you've espoused on here before now.

Now, ideologically speaking (and this is where you suffer i think, it all goes on in your head and nowhere else apparently) yes ANY infringement of ones liberties COULD potentially be the beginning of a greater evil. But at the same time it is the duty of every sane right minded person to pick and choose when the time is right and y'know, when the time is right it's gonna be fuckin' obvious, you ain't gonna have to read a satirical magazine to tell you when its time. It'll be interested to see how hot your blood is on that day.

The level of infringement that an act of discretion on the part of the author of the cartoons would have resulted in is absolutely not, here today in 2015 in the free world, on a level to where it is worth people dying for it. Do you understand what I'm trying to say here, when wars are fought in the name of freedom and liberty, yes the freedom to express yourself through satire etc etc are all a part of it, I have yet to see an instance where one set of cartoons is worthy of being deemed as the clarion call behind which we should start calculating the impending collateral damage. If you live you live to fight another day in another way, while there is life there is everything, there is hope, there are infinite possibilities.

Free speech and freedom of expression is not some collapsing, on it's last legs thing to where these cartoons become SUCH a substantial and weighty representation of it that people need to start laying down their lives for it, it is nothing of the sort and the sort of unwaivering unreasonable fanatacism with which you are proposing that people should start dying for cartoon strips serves no purpose other than to put us on the fast-track to further more grave conflict and violence.

If you wannabe a big brave man and get your dick hard doing the whole warrior of freedom bit, try maybe doing it in a way where you take responsibility for your own life, not the lives of others.

The battle for the right to freedom of expression — and yes, the freedom to offend — continues. Secularism, democracy and freedom of expression have their martyrs, too.

And so it begins...i guess those terrorists aint so hard to understand after all.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Len B'stard

[streak]

Why are these extremist groups coming to the fore in the last 10-15 years or so?

When you combine a large muslim minority in western countries who is economically and politically marginalised with an increase in sectarian conflict in the countries from which they originate which is partly due to meddling from western countries, then terrorism is bound to happen. When a sufficiently large population of people feel offended and unfairly treatred, there will always be a very small minority willing to go to extremes in attempts to avenge or rectify the situation.

France has a large contigent of citizens who have returned after fighting for ISIL/ISIS in Syria. According to some news report, the suspects for the murders in France are among these. From a practical perspective, the wars in Syria and Iraq are excellent training grounds for confused, disenchanted and violent individuals who are being given a cause and the means to lash in what they consider, according to their abhorrent religion, to be a righteous war.

If the French government knew this, and knew the suspects, or cells. Why the fuck did they not do anything about it?

What have they done to combat extremism? Why did they not protect Charlie Hebdo?

[SoulMonster]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

This is simply false, rhetorical and misguided. Nothing was achieved yesterday. Nothing. Not for the terrorists, not for the upholders of free speech, not for anyone.

It depends to see what the ramifications of this terrorist attack will be. Perhaps will media be more reluctant to offend muslim sensitibilties, perhaps will media be less reluctant. I don't know, nor have I purported to predict what the outcome will be.

As for freedom of expression. Refusing to be bullied into silence is always a victory.

[streak]

Is it really being bullied into silence though soulmonster? or being sensitive to large minority of your population?

[SoulMonster]

Why are these extremist groups coming to the fore in the last 10-15 years or so?

When you combine a large muslim minority in western countries who is economically and politically marginalised with an increase in sectarian conflict in the countries from which they originate which is partly due to meddling from western countries, then terrorism is bound to happen. When a sufficiently large population of people feel offended and unfairly treatred, there will always be a very small minority willing to go to extremes in attempts to avenge or rectify the situation.

France has a large contigent of citizens who have returned after fighting for ISIL/ISIS in Syria. According to some news report, the suspects for the murders in France are among these. From a practical perspective, the wars in Syria and Iraq are excellent training grounds for confused, disenchanted and violent individuals who are being given a cause and the means to lash in what they consider, according to their abhorrent religion, to be a righteous war.

If the French government knew this, and knew the suspects, or cells. Why the fuck did they not do anything about it?

What have they done to combat extremism? Why did they not protect Charlie Hebdo?

I think it is difficult to monitor all the thousands of foreign fighters in ISIL who are returning home and are potential terrorists. It is basically a logistical and economic nightmare. I am not defending France, I just see how hard it can be. I have heard of proposed legislation that will make it illegal for citizens in taking part in foreign wars.

They actually did try to protect Charlie Hebdo by stationing 1 or 2 police officers there. Unfortunately, on this occasion, that was not enough against military trained well-armed and ruthless terrorists.

This whole tragedy really highlights the difficulties European countries are facing when it comes to protecting itself against internal terrorism.

[Len Cnut]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

This is simply false, rhetorical and misguided. Nothing was achieved yesterday. Nothing. Not for the terrorists, not for the upholders of free speech, not for anyone.

It depends to see what the ramifications of this terrorist attack will be. Perhaps will media be more reluctant to offend muslim sensitibilties, perhaps will media be less reluctant. I don't know, nor have I purported to predict what the outcome will be.

As for freedom of expression. Refusing to be bullied into silence is always a victory.

Well what can i say, well done then, clearly you feel something amazing was achieved on the streets of Paris yesterday. All i see is tragedy. I can only pray that as few lives as possible are taken so's people like you can make their point. But they won't.

[SoulMonster]

Is it really being bullied into silence though soulmonster? or being sensitive to large minority of your population?

I'd say that death threats and fire-bombs are in the field of bullying. But yes, one can easily say that they shouldn't have published offensive satire and thus offended a large minority of muslims. Other will say it is important to be critical of religion, even to the point of risking to offend, and that the freedom to express oneself is more important than the freedom to not be offended by words.

[rock4eva]

Hit list is circulating on social media.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/01/08/18/44/al-qaeda-hit-list-re-emerges-after-paris-terror-attack?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Wonder what these radicals will do now that all these cartoons are going viral online, will it infuriate them more? They can't kill everyone who puts them up but in retaliation they are everywhere.

[SoulMonster]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

This is simply false, rhetorical and misguided. Nothing was achieved yesterday. Nothing. Not for the terrorists, not for the upholders of free speech, not for anyone.

It depends to see what the ramifications of this terrorist attack will be. Perhaps will media be more reluctant to offend muslim sensitibilties, perhaps will media be less reluctant. I don't know, nor have I purported to predict what the outcome will be.

As for freedom of expression. Refusing to be bullied into silence is always a victory.

Well what can i say, well done then, clearly you feel something amazing was achieved on the streets of Paris yesterday. All i see is tragedy. I can only pray that as few lives as possible are taken so's people like you can make their point. But they won't.

I have never said something amazing happened nor that it wasn't a tragedy. Stop putting words into my mouth, you are embarrasing yourself.

[Amir]

Not sure if anyone has seen this on tv but I commend the interviewer for keeping his cool.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/01/07/hannity-clashes-radical-imam-anjem-choudary-following-charlie-hebdo-terror-attack

Don't commend Hannity for anything, him and Fox know exactly what they're doing bringing a total knobhead like Choudary on their show it's just cupcake vs. cupcake, designed to get the American people worked up and get them more advertising dollars. I doubt there's a sincere bone in either man's body. Choudary's an attention whore who decided the best way to get attention in his pitiful meaningless existence is to grow a beard, call himself a Muslim cleric, and become the go-to guy anytime Fox News or anyone wants to present Muslims as evil.

Exhibit A of Choudary being a prat:

I mean, Foster's, really, what a cunt

Edited January 8, 2015 by Amir

[Len Cnut]

Yes, that is EXACTLY what was happening here. The journalists experienced threats from jihadists who wanted to curb their freedom of speech by not mocking islam any more. In the end, the journalists refused to give in and gave their lives for it.

This is simply false, rhetorical and misguided. Nothing was achieved yesterday. Nothing. Not for the terrorists, not for the upholders of free speech, not for anyone.

It depends to see what the ramifications of this terrorist attack will be. Perhaps will media be more reluctant to offend muslim sensitibilties, perhaps will media be less reluctant. I don't know, nor have I purported to predict what the outcome will be.

As for freedom of expression. Refusing to be bullied into silence is always a victory.

Well what can i say, well done then, clearly you feel something amazing was achieved on the streets of Paris yesterday. All i see is tragedy. I can only pray that as few lives as possible are taken so's people like you can make their point. But they won't.

I have never said something amazing happened nor that it wasn't a tragedy. Stop putting words into my mouth, you are embarrasing yourself.

Did you not just refer to it as a victory for freedom sir? Thats not an amazing thing, have i misinterpreted you somewhere?

[SoulMonster]

It is amazing how much blood emboldens us. The battle in itself is insignificant, we agree on that, the rest just amounts to your projections regarding the rammifications of this insignificant act and what it would have resulted in in this hypothetical world where yesterdays tragedys hadn't happened because the cartoonists refused to take the route that they did. And this hypothesis is your justification of 12 dead bodies. Not in a battlefield, not during war, not in the pursuance of defending against some kind of invasion...but a cartoon. Ridiculous. Or it would be if it wasn't so heartbreakingly tragic.

This isn't about "one cartoon" but about freedom of speech. And yes, treating muslims differently because of a fear of repraisals wouldn't mean an end to freedom of speech (we have gone through that argument before), but it would set a very, very dangerous precedent and would in effect be a limitation of our absolute freedom of speech.

[magisme]

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

[Amir]

Absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

True, but it doesn't mean we need to impose further restrictions, or concede to all the prohibitions already in place.