Jump to content

Charlie Hebdo under terrorist attack


KAH

Recommended Posts

It is horrible. Legends were murdered today. This being said, we should wait until we know the reasons of the attack before going on about cartoons and muslims. Even if it is likely, jumping to conclusions like that is hardly productive.

Here's a leap for you:

The gunmen shouted "we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad", witnesses say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is horrible. Legends were murdered today. This being said, we should wait until we know the reasons of the attack before going on about cartoons and muslims. Even if it is likely, jumping to conclusions like that is hardly productive.

Are you preaching caution in terms of it not being an Islamic related attack at all? Because there is video evidence of the attackers shouting "Allahu Akbar" before the shooting begins.

But if it's just caution around the cartoons being the driving force, I would still say the coincidence is too large to ignore and goes behind beyond being "highly likely". It seems also that the editor and the cartoonists were targeted, adding further weight to this being the reason behind the attack, despite no official claims of responsibility thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right? Why live your life the way you wish when you can just cower in fear that some assholes will take offense at what you're doing and try to kill you?

You should be able to live your life the way you wish. But the world is not as it should be.

In this instance, I would advise against it given the potential consequences for doing so. It's not worth your life or families' life. Especially if the French government cannot ensure your rights are protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be able to live your life the way you wish. But the world is not as it should be.

In this instance, I would advise against it given the potential consequences for doing so. It's not worth your life or families' life. Especially if the French government cannot ensure your rights are protected.

Ahh, was wondering where your angle was going with this. I couldn't figure it out, just knew it would be ridiculous. And I was right.

How, exactly, was the government supposed to protect these people? Thousands of Americans are dying to know. Literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this a couple of hours ago and I'm even more shocked than I thought I would be given the amount of atrocities that happen in the world every day. But yeah, the fact that it happened close by and that the people that were killed are symbolic add to the shock.



ETA : I don't think this conveys well what I think. What I mean is that it's not more or less atrocious than a lot of events that have happened in the past few days/weeks/months/years but that I somehow feel even more affected by it because of the above.






Why would a fireman fight fires?



He might not be happy about it if the equipment his employer provides is sub-optimal (or even sub-standard), but that does not take away the firemans raison d'etre.




And if that is giving the average journalist too much credit, one might consider that this is one of the few ways media institutions actually can do something to protect themselves while not bowing to pressure; showing the terrorists that what they do does not work - trying to silence us only gave you a hundred more speaking the same. There is a measure of protection in solidarity.



Uncovering shit that the powers that be (in all it's various incarnations) wants to keep unspoken - that will always carry a certain danger, and sometimes the state itself (or parts of it) will be the source from where the danger comes...for those who would suggest relying on state power to "address threats".




This.


I can't say whether I would have the courage to do it myself if I were in this situation, but I certainly won't blame those who have.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a show of solidarity, in days to come all European newspapers should print whatever pictures the victims had drawn and published. I wouldn't give a flying fig if muslims find it disrespectful or not. But I'd wager most would be hesistant to do so because it would be too riskant to vex their peace-loving muslim minorities.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

to clarify, I know what the threat is

Still doesn't make much sense, for two reasons:

1. As has already been pointed out, you can't 'find and kill' a 'what'. Only a 'who'.

2. The 'find and kill' strategy has been employed for a very long time now, and as we see, it has not stopped the threat.

That's not to say the people involved here should not be found and face the just penalty for what they've done. They are murderers: whatever else is true, that at least is something we can all agree on. Instead, it's pointing out that your 'solution' is not going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a show of solidarity, in days to come all European newspapers should print whatever pictures the victims had drawn and published. I wouldn't give a flying fig if muslims find it disrespectful or not. But I'd wager most would be hesistant to do so because it would be too riskant to vex their peace-loving muslim minorities.

The peace-loving muslims should be vexed by this, to the same extent that peace-loving UKIP voters should be vexed by anti-UKIP satire. Namely not.

It’s simply not an argument and just a continuation of the erosion of very basic free speech rights.

But you’re right: I want newspapers tomorrow to be filled with cartoons that offend the Prophet. The reason that will not happen is that most newspapers fear for the lives of their employees. (This is not an imagined threat, there are plenty of examples.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are sickening news. The day when editors start pondering what to publish with their lives and their coworkers at stake, we can start abandoning hope.





The correct reaction from enlightened media is to cover tomorrow’s newspaper front pages with Charlie Hebdo drawings making fun of the prophet. Add some drawings from the Danish Muhammad cartoons for variety (so far, those people haven’t been killed, despite several serious attempts.)





I disagree. Most of the people who were offended by the cartoons are not violent murderers.



ETA: The murderers were perfectly aware that their attack would raise awareness of the charicatures and contribute to their spread, and they did it anyway. Their goal is to radicalize everyone, including their opponents. If we want to make things better, we'll need the collaboration of the reasonable muslims (which are obvioulsy a great majority), and they will be more likely to collaborate with us if our media refrains from insulting their prophet and beliefs.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Most of the people who were offended by the cartoons are not violent murderers.

Did I say that?

This is not a good time to be imprecise about which values you attack others for holding. Say what you mean, instead of attacking something you think I mean.

Is your hidden assumption that only violent murderers can be the target of newspaper satire? We can only offend groups that have killed somebody? I really try to understand your argument, or what part of my paragraph you disagree with, but I fail. (I love disagreement. I’m a pluralist.)

To be clear: nobody in the open society has the right to not be offended. Being offended is the price we pay for free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still have a moral obligation to not do what it is these murderers demand. Hence my poor characature above.

Scot, you are mixing up your negatives here until you lose sight of the point.

What the murderers apparently demand is not to do something, but not to do it. So, your argument is that we have a moral obligation not to not do what the murderers demand? And that equates to a moral obligation to do whatever it is they don't want us to do?

Except that these two things are not the same at all. Refusing to do what someone tells you to do because they threaten you, is not the same as doing something you would not have done, purely because they threatened you. You might have avoided doing the thing in question for a whole host of other perfectly valid reasons, including, in this case, respect for the feelings of those who would rather you didn't do it and who make their request peacefully.

All of those very valid reasons get chucked out the window the moment you get into this foolish double-negative. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in other words. You're also letting the actions of the terrorists dictate your own actions.

The right thing to do is to do the right thing: by which I mean, the thing you would have considered the right thing anyway, even if this attack had not occurred.

Take a concrete example (deliberately absurd) - if the attackers were demanding you not execute an innocent man, should you execute him, just to show how you're uncowed by them? Clearly not.

Your principles should remain unaltered. That is the right response to threats and terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...