Shooting in Paris

[Skyrad 0]

HighJB

***
Its like our drunk guy in a bar example. Hebdo was the drunk asshole yelling insults in the air at a certain race, creed, or religion, and got beat up V.S. the Journalists who were beheaded were simply sitting at the bar quietly and got sucker punched in the back of the head for simply being in the wrong neighborhood.

Clearly it never happened and they were struggling against xenophobia.
Some organisations sued them for incitating to racial hatred, Charlie won their trials.
It seems that you really don't know what this paper was about.

I've seen their bile laden excuse for cartoons, lampooning for example the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Harem, children who this rag of a magazine ridiculed and linked to handout on a welfare system. CH is simply a magazine of hate mongers and bigots who use facile and asinine cartoons to get a rise.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Anvilbrother 0]

His girlfriend knew what he was doing, and she knew he was going to die, and she knew he knew he was going to die. But he continued, how is that not being responsible for the actions of your death even if not on some small part. Im not placing all the blame on Charlie. The terrorist did the killing, but if responsibility were to be laid out some would apply to Charlie Hebdo as well.

Quote

The partner of 'Charb' – Stephane Charbonnier, editor of Charlie Hebdo – has said she always knew he would be assassinated.

In emotional interviews, 41-year-old Jeannette Bougrab said: 'I always knew he was going to die like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch cartoonist murdered in 2004).'

'I begged him to leave France but he wouldn't. My companion is dead because he drew in a newspaper.'

Miss Bougrab, who had lived with Charb and her adopted daughter May for three years, added sadly: 'He never had children because he knew he was going to die. He lived without fear, but he knew he would die.'

He was a communist, she a member of UMP, the centre right party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903278/Girlfriend-murdered-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-editor-says-knew-going-die-blames-police-failng-prevent-massacre.html

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[stayhigh 2]

Fuck Muslims.

They just sit back and do nothing. All they say after this type of bullshit is, "Islam is religion of peace."

Fuck all you Muslims. Back up your claim and enforce "peace".

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

I guess the victims of 9/11 got what they asked for too, sadly.

I guess most people here just cant see the difference in a blind random terror attack of opportunity(beheaded journalists), broad unprovoked(other than they did not like American traditions and ideology as a whole) attack on an entire city(s)(9/11), and an attack on a particular set of named people(kill list) for their 4 year deliberate bigoted, attacks on a certain religion for which they have been bombed, death threats, advised against by government, received governmental protection, and flipped a finger at(Charms statement to islam on his willingness to die), which his girlfriend knew he was going to die for, and begged him to leave the country.

2 of those were not actively provoked attacks. Charlie Hebdo was actively attacking their eventual killers, and did not heed the warning signs.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[HighJB 0]

Skyrad

I've seen their bile laden excuse for cartoons, lampooning for example the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Harem, children who this rag of a magazine ridiculed and linked to handout on a welfare system. CH is simply a magazine of hate mongers and bigots who use facile and asinine cartoons to get a rise.

I 'd like to see examples of what your saying
Some cartoons were bad taste for sure, but bad taste is not a crime.
Usually there cartoon were not 1 st degree. Some people just don't understand 2 nd or 3 rd degree. Their humor might be hard to understand when you're not French (As sometimes I don't catch British Humor). You don't like, you don't buy. And that's all.

ça passe ou ça frotte

[stayhigh 2]

If this type of bullshit continues, people are gonna get fed up with it and eventually they are gonna start burning down mosques.

New age crusade is about to happen.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[normiss 622]

We've had NUMEROUS such rags in the US.
What's the point?

The point is, everyone on the planet has an opinion on something and some of us will probably disagree to the point of being offended at some point.
Stop reading the shit that hurts your little feelings and grow thicker skin.

I am beyond floored that people are willing to support vicious murder for cartoons.
It's just fucking stoopid.

I thought we had more intelligent people on the planet.
I was clearly mistaken.

[stayhigh 2]

People have burn down shit for way less than this.

Ferguson, LA riot, ect.

They keep poking shit, and someone is gonna poke back.

Only solution is to ban all religion. Fuck Muslim, and thanks to those dune koon mother fuckers, no one gets to enjoy any religious bull crap.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Anvilbrother 0]

If you read around at some other journalists opinions of CH after the attacks, they are not blaming them for their deaths, but they are saying that most editors take into account the welfare of their workers lives when agreeing to print shit comics like theirs. Especially now they are refusing to print, or reprint CH just because of that.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

Quote

Why did the British press, unlike some newspapers elsewhere in Europe, refuse to republish the caricatures of Muhammad that led to the slaughter of 12 Charlie Hebdo staff? Plenty of commenters on the Guardian site, not to mention many hundreds on Twitter, asked that question of this newspaper, and all national paper editors, soon after the massacre.

The simplest answer is that freedom is, or should always be, tempered by responsibility. Drawing the line between the two is difficult at the best of times. That task is made exceedingly onerous in the face of murderous irrationality. The issue is not, however, about heroism nor its opposite, cowardice. Editors, imbued with their own society’s cultural norms, need to take account of several factors – including their staff’s safety – but the overriding determinant must be the very reason they are given editorial authority in the first place, their answer to one question: is it right for me to publish this material?

Despite the tragic circumstances of the massacre, after which journalists everywhere wished to signify their full-hearted support for their murdered brethren, editors had to ask themselves whether to publish cartoons they would otherwise reject. Clearly, some journalists do believe that in such extreme circumstances, it was necessary to show solidarity with the murdered French cartoonists by republishing their images.

British national paper editors, who are hardly noted for their unwillingness to publish and be damned, collectively decided otherwise, although the Times did dare to reproduce one small controversial image. It showed the magazine’s front page cartoon of Muhammad from the issue that prompted the firebombing of its offices in 2011.

It was surely key to British newspaper editors’ thinking that, in the normal run of things, they would not have published such cartoons in the first place. That’s not to say they did not support the right of Charlie Hebdo’s editor and staff to have done so. It simply means that, imbued with British culture and British sensitivities, they did not believe it right for them to follow suit.

In other words, despite the widespread belief that our press is imbued with a publish-and-be-damned devil-may-care attitude, editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by legal restrictions, but by a sense of what is fair and tolerable within British society. This surely is the point about the difference between freedom and responsibility.

Press freedom has never been taken to mean that we can publish anything we like. Legal constraints aside, editors have always taken account of society’s wider sensibilities in deciding where to draw the line. When it comes to physical threats, they also have to show concern for their staff. It was a point well made by the Independent’s editor, Amol Rajan, who said he wished he could, in time-honoured fashion, have published. But, out of duty to his staff, his self-censorship had been necessary to “balance principle with pragmatism”.

There was another balancing act, however, which gets to the heart of this dilemma. Should British editors ever carry material, whatever the circumstances, that they would not normally publish? At a “Je suis Charlie” seminar staged by the Guardian last Thursday, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, explained there were “offensive” Charlie Hebdo cartoons “that the Guardian would never in the normal run of events publish”. It was all very well to defend the magazine’s right to exercise its freedom and right to offend – including what Rusbridger called its “ethos and values” – but that could not be the defining issue for another publication.

To borrow and paraphrase the maxim erroneously attributed to Voltaire, it was a case of disapproving of what Charlie Hebdo had published, but expressing a willingness to defend its right to do so. Rusbridger said: “It felt to me there was some tokenism in demanding that the Guardian should change [its editorial values].” Clearly, other editors felt the same way: their natural support for the cartoonists’ rights was offset by the fact that they would not have normally published such images themselves.

Their refusal to publish such cartoons cannot be adduced as proof of cowardice, nor as a sign that they capitulated to intimidation. It should be seen instead as editors, as they do daily, taking account of the effects of what they publish. In essence, they had to ask themselves if they should gratuitously insult a religion and its adherents, because a very small group of fanatics had misused its teachings in order to justify murder. Indeed, would publication of the offending cartoons serve only to provoke others to take retaliatory action or, at the very least, encourage yet more alienation of Muslims in British society?

One Guardian columnist, Timothy Garton Ash, has called on editors across Europe to republish Charlie Hebdo’s front covers in order to show solidarity with the murdered cartoonists. It is a heartfelt and natural reaction to savagery. The criminals who masquerade as martyrs, and their supporters, need to know that western values, which allow for satire, will not be changed by murder. So British editors will surely reject a call to publish on the grounds that intolerance is best fought by tolerance.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[muff528 3]

That looks more like an Uzi than an AK.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

I am beyond floored that people are willing to support vicious murder for cartoons.
It's just fucking stoopid.

I thought we had more intelligent people on the planet.
I was clearly mistaken.

Who is SUPPORTING the murders here? I for one will volunteer to be the one to fly the predator missile up all the terrorists ass for this. Dont confuse my opinion of CH's bigoted and purposely inciteful comics as excuse for terrorism and murder. Im only commenting on personal responsibility, and consequences of ones actions.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rehmwa 2]

stayhigh

Only solution is to ban all religion. Fuck Muslim, and thanks to those dune koon mother fuckers, no one gets to enjoy any religious bull crap.

Hyperbolic trollery of very bad taste designed to elicit a negative reaction or even a censure action if you can jack up a couple people on it.

Not sure the point since this crowd already gets the analogy. I doubt there's anyone here that needs the education you're trying to pre-stage.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

HighJB

***
I've seepn their bile laden excuse for cartoons, lampooning for example the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Harem, children who this rag of a magazine ridiculed and linked to handout on a welfare system. CH is simply a magazine of hate mongers and bigots who use facile and asinine cartoons to get a rise.

I 'd like to see examples of what your saying
Some cartoons were bad taste for sure, but bad taste is not a crime.
Usually there cartoon were not 1 st degree. Some people just don't understand 2 nd or 3 rd degree. Their humor might be hard to understand when you're not French (As sometimes I don't catch British Humor). You don't like, you don't buy. And that's all.

Skyrad has, to his credit, described the killers as psychopaths. He's not defending them. I disagree with his putting blame on the editors/staff. But he's got what I would describe as a "moderate" position. Skyrad is saying that Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve it but sure as hell were asking for it.

And it seems from the press coverage, Charlie Hebdo's staff knew it as asking for it. Trust me, Vizz magazine wasn't worried about fat slags or cockney wankers killing them.

As I stated earlier, people who want to live don't poke fun at Islam. That says a lot about Islam itself. Not about Muslims but about Islam.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[HighJB 0]

Anvilbrother

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

I disagree with the opinion of the article. When British Tabloïds are on their favorite "french bashing" theme many french people could be offended. Where is their sense of responsability in that case ? Why the need to not offend extremist and why do they continue on a regular basis with French people? One difference is that in one case their fear retaliation. Fear makes the difference. They can try to convince themselves that this was not fear but responsability that drives their action, they just don't convince me.

I guess that Chamberlain was speaking of responsability when he came back from Munich (Such as Daladier ...).

ça passe ou ça frotte

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

As I stated earlier, people who want to live don't poke fun at Islam. That says a lot about Islam itself. Not about Muslims but about Islam.

And that is precisely what needs to change. All media outlets should have published or shown the cartoons in solidarity. Kudos to the ones that did. Those that didn't, take the gloves off. Treat Islam the same as all other religions are treated.

Let's end the bullying by intolerant Muslims by standing up against it. Those that are violent and those that support/agree with those violent acts.

Decry and denounce any death or violence in Muhammad's name.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[HighJB 0]

lawrocket

Skyrad has, to his credit, described the killers as psychopaths. He's not defending them. I disagree with his putting blame on the editors/staff. But he's got what I would describe as a "moderate" position. Skyrad is saying that Charlie Hebdo didn't deserve it but sure as hell were asking for it.

And it seems from the press coverage, Charlie Hebdo's staff knew it as asking for it. Trust me, Vizz magazine wasn't worried about fat slags or cockney wankers killing them.

As I stated earlier, people who want to live don't poke fun at Islam. That says a lot about Islam itself. Not about Muslims but about Islam.

They knew the risks, Charb still had a constant protection from the police but they did not deserved what they get. When they republish the cartoon from the the danish newspaper it was in the name of the right of free speech in a free country.
I bought Charlie Hebdo many times when i was younger, and still read it from time to time. I know a little what CH is about.

ça passe ou ça frotte

[lawrocket 3]

Bolas

***As I stated earlier, people who want to live don't poke fun at Islam. That says a lot about Islam itself. Not about Muslims but about Islam.

And that is precisely what needs to change. All media outlets should have published or shown the cartoons in solidarity. Kudos to the ones that did. Those that didn't, take the gloves off. Treat Islam the same as all other religions are treated.

Let's end the bullying by intolerant Muslims by standing up against it. Those that are violent and those that support/agree with those violent acts.

Decry and denounce any death or violence in Muhammad's name.

I think this is a key. When a load of media publish the stuff, it means the anger cannot be solely directed at a lone outlet that had the balls to publish it. The hyenas don't mess with a whole herd.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>2 of those were not actively provoked attacks.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US, specifically mentioning our economy as one of his justifications. We had a direct warning he was going to attack the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. Yet the US kept on right on running the economy he said he would attack, ignoring the warning signs.

So by your logic they got exactly what they asked for - a provoked attack.

[billvon 2,400]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

>2 of those were not actively provoked attacks.

Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US, specifically mentioning our economy as one of his justifications. We had a direct warning he was going to attack the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. Yet the US kept on right on running the economy he said he would attack, ignoring the warning signs.

So by your logic they got exactly what they asked for - a provoked attack.

That argument doesn't work.
Your saying CH is equal to the US, and the cartoons are equal to the US economy. The problem is one is passive and one is an active provocation. CH was actively and consciously seeking to incite and offend the Muslims(which includes terrorists). The US economy simply existed as a factual thing that someone hated. The US was not growing our economy to actively say FUCK you bin laden and sending him copies of all our bank statements to infuriate him....

On one hand you have a passive entity that was unintentional and simply existed for someone to hate. That could be anything, the color of your shoes if someone was crazy enough to hate because of that. The other was actively seeking to infuriate the muslims. Once again its the terrorists fault for the murders, and CH did not deserve to die, but they hold some of the responsibility for bringing this to their doorstep.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,400]

>The problem is one is passive and one is an active provocation.

Both were warned that continuing would result in dire consequences. Both decided to continue doing their jobs, knowing they are infuriating terror groups, rather than heed those warnings.

>Once again its the terrorists fault for the murders, and CH did not deserve to die, but
>they hold some of the responsibility for bringing this to their doorstep.

And the people on Wall Street hold a similar responsibility for continuing doing their jobs after being warned as well. I contend that in both cases that responsibility is equal - zero.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Once again the failure to see ACTIVE vs PASSIVE actions. No one on wallstreet was getting up every day going you know what im gonna make the biggest trade today just to say fuck you Bin Laden. The US economy wasn't actively focused for the last 2 years before 9/11 on making money to fuck over Osama. We were not making ads, to air in the middle east touting our boooming economy, or showing Americans in sports cars just to fuck with them

There is a clear difference in what set them off. One simply was just a factual existence of the US that happened to be hated. The other a communist bigot got up every day and wrote comics to incite Muslims and knew it would one day kill him, as his family knew also.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,400]

>The other a communist bigot got up every day and wrote comics to incite Muslims and
>knew it would one day kill him, as his family knew also.

Ah, so it's personal to you; you dislike him. That makes your take on this a little more understandable.

[Anvilbrother 0]

No I just found that out today at 1:51 see my post when it came out in the interview. His girlfriend was the one calling him communist. Im the one calling him/they bigots. My feelings for the subject existed before I even mistakenly knew that CH was the name of the office only, and not the name of the office, and owner.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

Charlie Hebdo was actively attacking their eventual killers, and did not heed the warning signs.

Congratulations on the most asinine statement of the day.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”