Je suis charlie

[bobkayli]

Forgive me the indulgence but l need to express myself on this.

I spent a lot of my life living in Paris so feel a real connect with the march.

Many soul lovers i know there will be on the streets today.

[marv2]

Forgive me the indulgence but l need to express myself on this.

I spent a lot of my life living in Paris so feel a real connect with the march.

Many soul lovers i know there will be on the streets today.

I am watching the live reports now on CNN!

[144man]

Je suis Charlie.

[splanky]

As I age I spend more time watching the world around me and how quite a bit of it seems to
be in constant conflict more and more. Or maybe that's just me. Anyway, as I see it a long
long time ago it used to be those that called themselves Christians who were using their
religious beliefs as justification to commit acts of extreme violence across the globe. Somehow along the way they for the most part have evolved in their thinking. So much so
that even believers can tolerate the expression of humour in relation to their God and biblical figures. We've heard this kind of stuff all that time, whether from comedians like
Richard Pryor, George Carlin and others and phrases like "Christ on a cracker!" are quite
common. But Islamic fundamentalists are different. I believe not only that they haven't evolved much thinking wise in 2000 + years but that the extremists never will. Not in any
of our lifetimes. There'll never be peace in the Middle East and this is where we are now.
Another thing, too... Just because one can do a thing, does that mean he or she should?..
I keep seeing in the media all of these suggestions that freedom of speech or expression
should ALWAYS be defended during discussions of this event but wait a minute....I and I'm
sure a number of other black,brown,red and yellow people round these parts can recall
when that wasn't the case. In a well, semi perfect world anyone could draw a cartoon of
say Ramagoochie on a tiolet reading a newspaper without retaliation. But in this world does
it ever occur to you that followers of Ramagoochie might take offense and take it out on
not only whoever drew the cartoon but other innocents?....Just saying......

[Jerry Oz]

Thanks for saying what I was thinking splanky. You might be able to poke a bear, thinking that it's otherwise too preoccupied to bite, but if it attacks you, are you surprised that a bear does what a bear does?

Part of the 'humor' of making fun of Mohamed lied in the fact that these people were extremists [[read: EXTREME in what they'll do to honor their faith). They were already doing horrendous things to their own countrymen who had fundamental differences in how they understood the Kuran. Why would they, after many threats, not eventually find a soft target to attack?

The massacre was horrible and I understand the fear and the outrage. But at the same time, there is absolutely nothing funny about ISIL or al Quaeda or their barbaric actions. So why is that what you choose to attack. I have the freedom to speak, but I'm going to be careful about how I use that freedom.

[theboyfromxtown]

I have the freedom to speak, but I'm going to be careful about how I use that freedom.

Absolutely agree.

[bobkayli]

Just to note that the attacks in France were three pronged and did not have just one target. Those killed were journalists, Jewish citizens buying at a supermarket and the French police. The extremists responsible regarded all three as an enemy to be attacked.
No different to many other atrocities which have taken place in other countries.
These guys would have found some reason to attack and the cartoon was a convenient context to attack western authority as well as showing anti-semitism.
France has a long tradition of pointed sarcasm which many groups have complained of in the past, Christians and politicians equally well as Muslims. The journalists have lived with death threats for a long time.
In standing up for freedom of expression, the murdered journalists were doing what they believed in.
Did they deseerve to be killed for it? Defence of liberty takes many forms, that others don't take their path doesn't make them wrong. Hiding under a rock to stay safe won't remove extremism of this sort.
I may not have thought much of their jokes but I do defend their right to say it.

[Jerry Oz]

I have the same question for the editors that I have for the supporters of cops who use deadly force as the apparent first resort when it seems that other options are available: Even if it's appropriate, was it necessary? The only way that you can make your point about radical Islamists is to insult billions of Muslims who aren't [[yet) radicalized? That's like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Actions have consequences, whether intended or not. The evening news just reported that there have been many anti-France/anti-Charlie protests in middle eastern cities. The end result to laughing at others will likely be more anti-west backlash.

[bobkayli]

I think that there is a big difference between publishing a cartoon and using deadly force as a first resort.
The perpetrators of these crimes were not on some angry spur of the moment reaction. They were committed, organised, trained, financed and incredibly armed. Friday last. another seven were arrested of allegedly supporting them in setting these operations up. Europe has been on high security alert for some time because something of this sort was being planned.
The Jewish supermarket visitors were not involved in the cartoon, the police officer lying injured in the street pleading for mercy before being shot in the head was not involved in the cartoon.
There are plenty of legal remedies available in France for people offended by the cartoon. They do not include cold-bloodedly murdering 17 people.
If we accept that what we say should be conditioned by the acts of these extremists, then they have won.
Should we stop flying on planes, working in tower blocks, travelling on the underground, watching a marathon because we might be provoking some guy to commit another 9/11 or 7/7 or Boston Marathon episode? It's not a world I want to be a part of.

[Jerry Oz]

You missed my point. The perpetrators of this act were looking for an excuse. Knowing that you're dealing with madmen who are capable of killing innocents over perceived disrespect [[girls attending schools, women refusing to wear bhurkas, refusing to follow teachings of Ali, etc.) is it wise to give them one? It's not about whether they have the right to do so; they have the unqualified right to publish anything about anyone that they choose to. My opinion is simply that there are better ways to make points than to put bullseyes on your back. I never read Charlie Hebdo, but I'm not even Muslim and I find depictions of Mohamed in cartoons offensive. But they were counting on that when they printed them.

Of course there are legal remedies. But legal remedies are pursued by people with a respect for the rule of law and these animals clearly do not harbor that. It's like the old joke about the man who asked the snake why he bit him. 'What did you expect me to do?', was the reply. 'I'm a snake.' And snakes do what they're going to do which is bite.

The comparison with the cops was simply that they aren't trained to use their guns without assessing the situation, yet they do so with impunity because there's no consequence for using any means if it can be 'justified'. That doesn't make it necessary, though. In my personal opinion, it seems like the publishers of Charlie went out of their way to offend some very violent people and I wonder if they couldn't have made their point with subtlety instead of overtly stepping over that line.

And would the attack against the kosher market have occurred if the other attack did not take place? I don't know.

[144man]

That's right, blame the victims.

I consider people who murder other people in the name of religion culturally my inferior, and it is my absolute right to offend them. These attacks are not acts of terrorism, they are acts of war.

We take our freedoms too much for granted, and every generation has different battles to fight. If you want to continue living in a free society, the convenience of appeasement is not the answer.

[splanky]

That's right, blame the victims.
.

This expression has become quite common over the last few years but I feel it's misleading
at times. It implies that those commenting on an incident think those injured or killed somehow deserved it but that's not the case here. I think of for instance two kids playing
with matches and starting a fire that burns down their home killing them and others inside...
Did they deserve to die? Of course not. But the real question is did their actions in anyway
allow what happened to them to occur?...Think about it. All I'm saying is knowing how
these extremists think and behave we need to find a better way to deal with their existence
in the world because they are not going away anytime soon, are they?....

[144man]

Absolutely agree.

In the extremists' views, their version of Sharia law should be applied to everybody. Will you still agree when liberated women and gays in Western countries are targetted? No excuse but their existence will be needed.

[Jerry Oz]

That's right, blame the victims.

I consider people who murder other people in the name of religion culturally my inferior, and it is my absolute right to offend them. These attacks are not acts of terrorism, they are acts of war.

We take our freedoms too much for granted, and every generation has different battles to fight. If you want to continue living in a free society, the convenience of appeasement is not the answer.

I guess I'll stop commenting if I'm going to be misinterpreted. I didn't blame the victim and I object to your assertion that I did. I specifically stated that the criminals were reprehensible. The staff of Charlie Hebdo in no way asked for or invited the crime. But if they received death threats prior to it occurring, they knew that it was possible if not imminent that something would happen.

If you were to walk drunkenly into a country bar in rural Mississippi wearing cut-off Daisie Dukes shorts and a gay pride t-shirt, it's very likely that you will have something bad happen to you. The crime is absolutely repugnant. But I guarantee that your friends and family will be wondering [[even if they didn't ask you) what the hell you were thinking. You had a right to be there. They didn't have the right to attack you. But at the end of the day, you have to determine what's more important, your right to self expression or your right to expressing yourself at the risk of great harm or death.

[skooldem1]

I don't support Charlie.

[westgrandboulevard]

I'm minded to agree with you there, Jerry.

It would seem intelligent, at least prudent, to learn to think for oneself, know one's own mind, and have an opinion. However, it would also seem intelligent not always to then share that opinion with others, especially if there is a very real chance of strong objection, and maybe violence directed at oneself.

The process then starts to become complex. The innate nature of the individual concerned can have a marked effect on their behaviour and of how they may be perceived, as can the defence which may become necessary for them to guard against the extreme behaviour of others, especially those who may use it simply as a means of justifying their faith. Then, also, there is the behaviour of some aggressive and violent individuals who simply don't like the look of others, irrespective of what they represent, or may be thinking.

However each individual may directly deal with opposition and violence, or negotiate their way through life, none of us should back down in our own mind from what we believe is right for us, and neither should we wish to impose it on others.

Unfortunately, that is an ideal, and very often not the reality for many.

[144man]

If it hadn't been the offices of Charlie Hebdo, it would have been somewhere else...

[Jerry Oz]

But it wasn't, so it's hard to qualify that statement. In fact, you made my point because it WAS the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Why do you suppose that to be? There are many synagogues and kosher delis in France, but they specifically went to attack a magazine?

[144man]

Because it was an easy target unlike army bases.

[Jerry Oz]

We're all targets for these idiots. Where we rank on their priority list depends on them and where they turn their twisted gaze. Unfortunately, they're emboldened by the success of this attack and we can expect more of them.

[sophisticated_soul]

Je suis Charlie

[marv2]

Thanks for saying what I was thinking splanky. You might be able to poke a bear, thinking that it's otherwise too preoccupied to bite, but if it attacks you, are you surprised that a bear does what a bear does?

Part of the 'humor' of making fun of Mohamed lied in the fact that these people were extremists [[read: EXTREME in what they'll do to honor their faith). They were already doing horrendous things to their own countrymen who had fundamental differences in how they understood the Kuran. Why would they, after many threats, not eventually find a soft target to attack?

The massacre was horrible and I understand the fear and the outrage. But at the same time, there is absolutely nothing funny about ISIL or al Quaeda or their barbaric actions. So why is that what you choose to attack. I have the freedom to speak, but I'm going to be careful about how I use that freedom.

I absolutely agree! Words can kill or get you killed. I totally understand freedom of speech , the press,etc ,etc. But I prefer Pope Francis' take on things. It is the same lesson we learned as kids growing up around the ghetto and that is basically....."don't start none, won't be none"! The Pope recently that you have the right to say what you want even though he feels it is wrong to mock another person's religion. He went on to say that if you cursed his mother, he would punch you right in the mouth!

Why provoke?

[skooldem1]

Some people are for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, until you say or do something that offends them.

[Jerry Oz]

Some people are for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, until you say or do something that offends them.

There was a situation in Ohio where an assistant pastor was leading his parishioners to demonstrate at a local strip club. He thought that things like strippers and the annual Columbus Gay Pride Parade were leading men to do horrible things and ruining the fabric of the family. Well, the manager of the strip club had an idea to get him back. He and his strippers began to demonstrate outside the church one Sunday morning.

Did I fail to mention that it is permissible for women to be topless in public in Ohio? Guess what the 'family men' and their kids saw bouncing around their church when they showed up that day? Be very careful when you deal with freedom of speech; that sword cuts both ways in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

[144man]

There was a situation in Ohio where an assistant pastor was leading his parishioners to demonstrate at a local strip club. He thought that things like strippers and the annual Columbus Gay Pride Parade were leading men to do horrible things and ruining the fabric of the family. Well, the manager of the strip club had an idea to get him back. He and his strippers began to demonstrate outside the church one Sunday morning.

Did I fail to mention that it is permissible for women to be topless in public in Ohio? Guess what the 'family men' and their kids saw bouncing around their church when they showed up that day? Be very careful when you deal with freedom of speech; that sword cuts both ways in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

I have no problem with either of those situations.

[144man]

I absolutely agree! Words can kill or get you killed. I totally understand freedom of speech , the press,etc ,etc. But I prefer Pope Francis' take on things. It is the same lesson we learned as kids growing up around the ghetto and that is basically....."don't start none, won't be none"! The Pope recently that you have the right to say what you want even though he feels it is wrong to mock another person's religion. He went on to say that if you cursed his mother, he would punch you right in the mouth!

Why provoke?

But that's the whole point of satire - to be provocative. Charlie Hebdo hasn't just singled out Moslems; everybody including Christians, Jews and atheists have been subjects. In Charlie Hebdo's eyes, not treating the Moslem religion equally wouldn't have been seen as expedient; it would have been seen as cowardice.

[Jerry Oz]

Well, nobody can accuse them of that. And the thing about humor is that you are either laughing with someone being lampooned or you are laughing at them. One of them will get them to laugh with you and the other very well is likely to get you shot. That is true at almost every corner bar and it holds true in a world that cannot see past itself to understand that we should all have the right to our opinions.

Like it or not, the world is a smaller place and whereas most Frenchmen understand Charlie Hebdo's humor, that form of parody would not fly in the Middle East. There are no borders anymore, by the way. So saying it in France is just like saying it in Tehran.

[144man]

The fact that Charlie Hebdo's opponents had to resort to such extreme violence shows that the magazine picked exactly the right target to attack, and the numerical strength of the demonstrations in France followed by the massive increase in the magazine's circulation was indeed a victory for Charlie Hebdo and free speech.

[marv2]

But that's the whole point of satire - to be provocative. Charlie Hebdo hasn't just singled out Moslems; everybody including Christians, Jews and atheists have been subjects. In Charlie Hebdo's eyes, not treating the Moslem religion equally wouldn't have been seen as expedient; it would have been seen as cowardice.

Wasn't necessary to be provocative? You know it lead to former living people to be dead now.

[Jerry Oz]

The fact that Charlie Hebdo's opponents had to resort to such extreme violence shows that the magazine picked exactly the right target to attack, and the numerical strength of the demonstrations in France followed by the massive increase in the magazine's circulation was indeed a victory for Charlie Hebdo and free speech.

Temper the victory celebration with the knowledge that the three terrorists are viewed as martyrs throughout the Arab world and will only inspire others to pick up their cause.

Don't try to apply logic or common sense to what's going on. There's a sickness of hate and intolerance going through the world and for every one who is killed, two more take his or her place. And they are as firm in their convictions that murdering and decapitating heretical innocents is their duty to God as you are that Western principles will galvanize free peoples everywhere to win a war that will never cease.

[144man]

Wasn't necessary to be provocative? You know it lead to former living people to be dead now.

Without provocation, there is no satire.

[144man]

Temper the victory celebration with the knowledge that the three terrorists are viewed as martyrs throughout the Arab world and will only inspire others to pick up their cause.

Don't try to apply logic or common sense to what's going on. There's a sickness of hate and intolerance going through the world and for every one who is killed, two more take his or her place. And they are as firm in their convictions that murdering and decapitating heretical innocents is their duty to God as you are that Western principles will galvanize free peoples everywhere to win a war that will never cease.

Yes, in the Western world, the murdered Charlie Hebdo employees will be looked upon as martyrs to the cause of free speech.

It's a simple choice. It's time you decided which side you're on.

[marv2]

Without provocation, there is no satire.

We don't need satire. We need LIFE, we need PEACE!

[skooldem1]

There are some people in this world who think they can say and do anything, no matter how offensive. Just because you can say things- no matter how offensive, doesn't mean that you should. Charlie has printed some highly offensive racist images and no matter how much I support free speech, I just can't get with that. They are racist disguised as free speech warriors.

[Jerry Oz]

Yes, in the Western world, the murdered Charlie Hebdo employees will be looked upon as martyrs to the cause of free speech.

It's a simple choice. It's time you decided which side you're on.

Wow. Do you still not know what side I'm on after I've made it abundantly clear multiple times? Free speech should never be used lacking common sense about the repercussions. If you challenge someone to a fight, don't pretend to be surprised that they accept.

[144man]

We don't need satire. We need LIFE, we need PEACE!

We do need satire. Its history goes back long before the Ancient Greeks. Although meant to be humorous, by holding individuals and organisations up to ridicule, it has the honourable objective of shaming them into improvement.

[144man]

Wasn't necessary to be provocative? You know it lead to former living people to be dead now.

Do you really think that Rosa Parks bothered to consider whether she was being provocative when she refused to give up her seat?

[marv2]

Do you really think that Rosa Parks bothered to consider whether she was being provocative when she refused to give up her seat?

That is not even a correct comparison. Rosa Parks [[whom I have met), was not making fun of others or a system. She was standing up for her rights as an American born citizen!

[144man]

That is not even a correct comparison. Rosa Parks [[whom I have met), was not making fun of others or a system. She was standing up for her rights as an American born citizen!

I disagree. They were both actions that had the capacity to provoke a violent reaction.

[marv2]

I disagree. They were both actions that had the capacity to provoke a violent reaction.

Then why didn't they kill her?

It is not normal at all that a little middle aged woman sitting in her seat on a bus be faced with violence for simply riding in a bus! Anyone with the capacity to react violently to that is warped, evil and needs help severely.

[Jerry Oz]

The closest analogy would be the many Freedom Riders who were murdered for daring to register Black people to vote. Medgar Evers being the first to come to mind. They knew full well that their actions could instigate a reaction by the aforementioned warped and evil devils, but found that their cause was sufficiently important to do it anyway. With that being said, they did not go out of their way to dare the Klan or its sympathizers to murder them. In fact, they were more important to the movement alive than as martyrs so their deaths were tragedies beyond whether they galvanized the movement.

With that being said, Minister Shabazz was much more provocative in his challenging the institution of racism in the U.S. and they didn't move against him. Cowards will move against the softest targets. I wonder if the editors of Charlie Hebdo underestimated the depraved resolve of the Islamists they lampooned.

[144man]

The European response to the Charlie Hebdo killings was one of defiance against the terrorists and solidarity with the magazine. I expected the same sentiments to be shown here and was rather taken aback when this did not materialise.

[144man]

If any of you were to feel that your comments made on this thread might make you a target for retaliation by the terrorists, would you let that influence what you write here?

[Jerry Oz]

If you lived in an apartment and some gangsters moved next door, would you call the manager if they turned their music up, knowing that they could easily identify who complained? You absolutely should do it and you have the unqualified right to do so, but it might put your family at risk.

Personally, if make arrangements to move with haste instead of giving dangerous people cause to notice me.

[144man]

If you lived in an apartment and some gangsters moved next door, would you call the manager if they turned their music up, knowing that they could easily identify who complained? You absolutely should do it and you have the unqualified right to do so, but it might put your family at risk.

Personally, if make arrangements to move with haste instead of giving dangerous people cause to notice me.

That makes you either very sensible or a coward.

I certainly am not going to judge you.

[Jerry Oz]

But which are you? You didn't answer which would be your course of action. If prudence to avoid an untimely end over something as small as most neighbors is cowardice, then a smart man would also be the coward. Pride indeed goes before the fall.

And I hope you don't think that I was judgmental about the staff of Charlie Hebdo in my posts, because I'm not. The villains are clearly the madmen with the guns.

[144man]

You can probably see the yellow streak down my back from there.