• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Terror attack kills 12 at Paris newspaper - 4 wounded, gunmen identified

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Magni

Member
LeMonde.fr: Beaucoup de rumeurs circulent sur une interpellation de suspects à Reims. Ce sont des fausses informations. Les sources policiètes contactées par Le Monde affirment qu'aucune arrestation n'a eu lieu pour l'heure.
Click to expand...

Le Monde (the biggest French newspaper) is saying that the rumors of suspects being taken in custody in Reims (where the RAID action is ongoing) are false.

Alligatorjandro said:
Why do we have to offend each other?
Click to expand...

Why do we have to be offended?
 
D

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Dryk said:
You can't keep satirists down. If the Hebdo artists had a say in it I doubt even dying would stop them.
Click to expand...
Tugatrix said:
I find this one pretty funny and a great homage

B6wNIciCEAI4Dju.jpg
Click to expand...


2pKcsJUl.jpg


"The idiots! They've sent them our way!"
"We have an eternity to piss them off now!"
 
B

Blue Ninja

Member
Arabian Mage said:
As a Muslim myself, I feel so ashamed of my culture, ashamed that my culture sprouted this bullshit that costed lives of innocent people.
Click to expand...

Don't. You did nothing wrong. Other cultures have sprouted people just as bad as the ones we saw today. Your culture isn't filled with hate, the men who did this are. It is they who abused your religion to take the lives of innocents.

Be better than those men. Grieve with the world. But don't be ashamed.
 
X

Xando

Member
Magni said:
Le Monde (the biggest French newspaper) is saying that the rumors of suspects being taken in custody in Reims (where the RAID action is ongoing) are false.
Click to expand...

I'd rather believe french media than american media and their famous "sources".
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
She's a leader of a major party. It doesn't mean he has to take her ideas seriously if they are wrong.
Click to expand...

I know, but the Socialists have a history of refusing all kind of dialogue with the Front National, as they deem them to be Satan incarnate. I'm not complaining, though. By doing this, Hollande is acting as a true head of State.
 
D

delta25

Banned
It's fucking sickening when I see a certain Internet site where a trend seems to be going in the direction that all muslims with a belief in islam should be held accountable for these kinds of actions. What fucking disease of a site reddit can be sometimes.
 
A

Astrogavol

Member
Raist said:
Va te faire foutre.

Or Allez vous faire foutre if you're talking to several people.

Not a direct equivalent of "go fuck yourself", it's more like "go get fucked". There really isn't any equivalent of go fuck yourself in french.
Click to expand...

"Allez vous faire foutre" could be use for one personne, in a polite way ;)

The real thing Is "va t'faire foutre"
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Azula said:
I think it is. I think anyone has the right to be offended. You can voice your opinion. But there is a big difference between being offended and angry, and enacting violence and bullying people. My point was, on a personal level, you can find something offensive. But you should be okay with someone having that right to live and say those offensive things.

You really don't agree with that?
Click to expand...

I don't. I think it's not too far of a stretch from anger to violence. Clearly as we saw today it is not nearly far enough.

The problem is that a feeling of offence is inevitably going to lead to a feeling of anger. That's not to say anger will inevitably lead to violence, but there are enough cunts out there who will resort to it.
 
S

Sapphire Dreams

Member
Azula said:
Plenty of people in your religion are peaceful and kind. I'm truly sorry that you have to feel bad and suffer because of extremists. There has been a lot of bigotry and hate aimed towards that religion, because of events in the last 10 years. And while I understand where the hate/fear comes from. It's not fair to people like yourself, who just want to practice your religion, and be a contributing and loving person in society.

Keep your head up. I think it's important to talk about the culture, and the issues that are coming out of this. But this isn't something that just impacts others. People in the religion are being negatively impacted by extremists, and that is important to acknowledge as well.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the kind words, it's just awful that people do this horrible stuff and say they do it to defend my culture.
 
X

xbhaskarx

Member
Foreign Policy
Je Suis Charlie (Until Je Get Scared)
Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?

The New York Times tweeted today that the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which found itself the victim of a gruesome massacre, “long tested the limits of satire.” I did not know that there were limits to satire or that the Gray Lady, which often unintentionally engages in the art form, had managed to uncover them. The implication here is one that will surely become as tediously explicit in the hours and days ahead as it is familiar: If you “provoke” Muslims by mocking their religion, then you’ve only yourself to blame for what happens next.

As the British left-wing columnist Nick Cohen points out in You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom, his brilliant book on free speech and the lengths to which liberal democracies will go to nullify or diminish this right, those who fancy themselves the most progressive when it comes to, say, mocking Jesus Christ or George W. Bush or Tony Blair will suffer no crisis of intellect or conscience in deferring to reactionary lunatics on what are the acceptable bounds of humor and good taste for dealing with the Prophet Mohammed.

Some in the media are admirably honest about why they go mum in this regard. Stephen Pollard, the editor of London’s Jewish Chronicle, today explained that his newspaper will not run any of Charlie Hebdo’s notorious cartoons in its coverage of the terrorist attack on the French weekly: “Get real, folks. A Jewish newspaper like mine that published such cartoons would be at the front of the queue for Islamists to murder,” Pollard wrote on Twitter. I don’t blame him and nor should you. As he further put it, he doesn’t feel entitled to take the lives of his staff into his own hands to “make a point.” Media organizations throughout the world are now dealing with much the same problem, albeit without like-minded candor. (Britain’s Daily Telegraph, for instance, which has no problem pursuing Islamist politicians at home or exhibiting the war crimes of jihadis in Syria and Iraq, today blurred one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.)

But now contrast Pollard’s justification with how Bruce Crumley, Time magazine’s then-Paris bureau chief, characterized the work of satirists after Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed in 2011 for the ostensible “offense” of putting Mohammed in the editor’s chair for a single issue: “[N]ot only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?”

Openly beg. I wonder if Crumley will write that the 10 Charlie Hebdo employees gunned down today by men claiming (evidently in perfect French) to have “avenged the Prophet Muhammad” got what they deserved or were perhaps laïcité’s answer to suicide bombers. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber calls the satirical newspaper a “bastion of the French tradition of hard-hitting satire” in a sentence right before one in which he calls it a bastion of “baiting and needling Muslims.” Well, which is it? Hard-hitting satire or rank bigotry? This is by no means the only logical pretzel Barbers wanders into in essentially blaming the magazine for its own misfortune. He of course doesn’t “condone” murder or the curtailment of free speech, only “common sense” in editorial standards — because without curtailing free speech, one may invite murder. Got that?
Click to expand...
 
C

Circle Jerk

Member
RustyNails said:
Fatwas are in no way a death sentence, especially from an ayatollah who has no standing in the Sunni jurispudence (which is 85% of the Muslim world), and non binding legally upon anyone, and . It's not a decree or an order. The extremely wahhabist Islamic Jurispudence Council of Mecca in Saudi Arabia did not support the Fatwa, and said if someone is guilty of something, they should be tried in a court of law. Al Azhar, which is the brain of Sunni thought for 1000 years, said that the contents of the Fatwa are unacceptable.
Click to expand...

None of this changes that a fatwa was put on Rushdie, which was followed by multiple assassination attempts. They were right. The fatwa on Rushdie was a death sentence. It doesn't matter what Saudi thinks, multiple religious fanatics heard the call and tried to answer it. You trying to downplay that just makes you look worse, not the situation look better.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't. I think it's not too far of a stretch from anger to violence. Clearly as we saw today it is not nearly far enough.

The problem is that a feeling of offence is inevitably going to lead to a feeling of anger. That's not to say anger will inevitably lead to violence, but there are enough cunts out there who will resort to it.
Click to expand...

So police peoples reactions and opinions? Why can't someone find another actions reprehensible if they acknowledge this doesn't give them the right of any action beyond expressing their opinion?

xbhaskarx said:
Foreign Policy
Je Suis Charlie (Until Je Get Scared)
Why do self-declared liberals cower in front of Muslim fundamentalists?
Click to expand...

This article is weird. I completely thing there is something to be said about liberals and their soft-bigotry and acceptance of many things in non-western places and cultures but this article seems to hold that one must have a certain opinion about these specific cartoons or type of satire. Like one can't believe these people needlessly provoked people and that it was a part of a french tradition, I don't know where there is a contradiction
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Interceptor said:
Somehow i missed this explanation when a fatwa is used as an example on how the muslim communities condem attacks like this.
Click to expand...
...that's what fatwas are good for. Legal opinion of jurists.
Circle Jerk said:
None of this changes that a fatwa was put on Rushdie, which was followed by multiple assassination attempts. They were right. The fatwa on Rushdie was a death sentence. It doesn't matter what Saudi thinks, multiple religious fanatics heard the call and tried to answer it. You trying to downplay that just makes you look worse, not the situation look better.
Click to expand...

I'm not downplaying it. I'm responding to a poster that wrongly said fatwa is a decree, which isn't...jeez.
 
RoyalLaFlame

RoyalLaFlame

Banned
Fudgepuppy said:
barbaric
Click to expand...
Perfect word to describe what just happened today.

No one has the right to take others life. I would say that we're just as animals but there's a difference: fighting for survival is one thing, fighting over something as stupid as this (I'm not saying religion is stupid just fighting over it) and taking people's lives in the process is barbaric and deserves punishment.


I woke up today receiving a message that this happened. This is simply not right.
 
M

Mononoke

Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't. I think it's not too far of a stretch from anger to violence. Clearly as we saw today it is not nearly far enough.

The problem is that a feeling of offence is inevitably going to lead to a feeling of anger. That's not to say anger will inevitably lead to violence, but there are enough cunts out there who will resort to it.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are religious and something is blasphemous, I think it makes sense to be offended. It's your own religious faith (that is your own truth, which defines life itself). I edited my post to say, that I get where you are coming from. That in a civilized society with freedom of speech and living among diverse people with different views. Foaming at the mouth with rage is NOT acceptable. That isn't what I meant.

I was just saying on a personal level, you can find something someone says blasphemous and terrible, but if you are going to live in this society, you MUST be okay with someone having the right to live and say those things. That is really what my post was about. I'm not entirely sure how much we disagree (and to what degree) when it comes to people being offended or getting angry.
 
N

Nesotenso

Member
zomgbbqftw said:
No it isn't. Blasphemy is not a criminal offence in France or anywhere which purports to call itself civilised. Being offended or angry if one's religion is insulted is not an acceptable response in countries which value freedom of expression. In the US the First Amendment acts as a bulwark against this kind of response, it is ingrained into American culture, as it should be in Europe, but we have all become soft and scared of being shot or blown up by Muslim terrorists.
Click to expand...

No one gets to dictate what a segment of the population is offended by. Being offended or angry at something does not have to negate freedom of expression. People can practice their freedom of speech by depicting whatever they like. But it doesn't mean others can't be angry or offended by it. What would be unacceptable is resorting to murder, violence or intimidation.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Yesterday in Paris we in the west crossed a boundary that cannot be recrossed. For the first time since the defeat of fascism a group of citizens were massacred because of what they had drawn, said and published. Or else, in the case of the murdered police officers, because it was their job to protect such citizens. Children lost parents, parents lost children and for what? For the cretinous notion that a deity who supposedly made the Universe, the world and everything in it would give a fart in a gale about whether an insignificant speck of humanity drew a picture of a man in a turban and called it Muhammad?

God, of course, is not mocked, but Man. The cartoonists cannot unmake the creation if it happened. They can’t storm the ramparts of heaven and topple the celestial throne. But they can make the believer feel silly. They can suggest that the divine is in fact claybound, that the ineffable is really just another bloke in a robe. They can suggest, with an immediacy that a column lacks, that the grandest conceit is exactly that — a conceit — and all the more absurd for being so grand. No one who kills for God, therefore, is killing for anyone but themselves and then because, really, they cannot bear to be thought silly.

Journalists and writers have been violently attacked before here in the west. The Norwegian publisher of The Satanic Verses was shot and nearly killed in Oslo in 1993. Eleven years later a “controversial” film-maker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in Amsterdam by a Dutch Muslim outraged by a short film that Van Gogh had made. Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine whose staff were slaughtered yesterday, had been firebombed three years ago after the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammad. In 2010 a Somali-born Muslim broke into the house of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (another depictor of the founder of Islam), armed with an axe.

Appalling as these attacks were, they were generally the work of disorganised loners. The real consequences of organised violence in response to supposed “insults” to Islam and the prophet were felt in Muslim countries themselves. That’s where the riots took place and the embassies were set on fire.

Until yesterday. As of now there is not a broadcaster, a newspaper, a magazine, a publisher in the democratic world that is not reviewing its security and imagining what would happen if the murderers turned up at their place. Where the killers’ cars might draw up, whether they’d use grenades to get past the man who stands at the door and gives you the once-over, whether they’d use the lifts or the stairs.

Who would they be? We know who they’d be. They’d be Muslim men, sometimes converts, who had lived among us for years. French Muslim leaders acknowledged this when they went to the scene of the Paris massacre within hours of the killings. “They have hit us all,” the leaders said. “We are all victims. These people are a minority.”

In the week when thousands of Germans in Dresden and elsewhere marched again in vague opposition to the Muslim presence among them, the Charlie Hebdo massacre seems like a gigantic placard held above them reading: “See? Told you!” This, a buoyant Marine Le Pen will remind French people, is what you get. And even some liberals who loathe the National Front will agree, in sadness.

The problem is, you may think, that even though the vast majority of Muslims would no more kill a cartoonist than a Methodist would, they still don’t quite get our commitment to freedom of speech. When they complain about insults and say they’re angry about this or that being published and want it banned, then they create the permissive fluid in which the violent zealot swims.

So we need to be clear, for everyone’s sake, and at the moment we are anything but. This is the deal for living together. The same tolerance that allows Muslims or Methodists freedom to practise and espouse their religion is the same tolerance that allows their religion or any aspect of it to be depicted, criticised or even ridiculed. Take away one part of the deal and the other part falls too. You live here, that’s what you agree to. You don’t like it, go somewhere else.

The countries of Europe need the same glacial clarity that governs free speech in America. There shall be no law (or action) that abridges the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress.

And there’s something else we need to do. A reason why Charlie Hebdo could be singled out for attack is because the rest of us have been cowards. There should, of course, be satires on Islam as on Christianity as on capitalism as on Russell Brand. But there aren’t. Part of this is because of a misplaced decency (“why make people feel uncomfortable?”) but most of it is fear.

Let me remind readers that just under a year ago there was a minor British controversy about a cartoon called Jesus and Mo, which depicted a nice-looking Jesus and a nice-looking Muhammad. A Muslim politician, Maajid Nawaz, tweeted this cartoon to demonstrate its anodyne quality and was rewarded by a campaign against him on the basis of insulting the prophet.

The BBC’s Newsnight hosted a discussion but would not show the cartoon being discussed. There was “no strong journalistic reason to use it”, said the programme editor, ludicrously. Channel 4 News showed part of the cartoon but with Muhammad blanked out.

They weren’t the only ones — as far as I know no one but tweeters published it. Newspapers don’t like insulting the religious. That’s a genuine inhibition. But the main reason was given yesterday by the blunt editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, and it’s the reason that all seasoned hacks know: fear of violence and a sense of responsibility towards employees. Is publishing X worth the risk that some demented Godnik will turn up at your door with a carving knife and a selfie-stick?

But that logic leaves the likes of Charlie Hebdo, who are more reckless or more committed to freedom of expression, looking like eccentric and isolated stand-outs in a sea of slightly shamed discretion. We who don’t publish what may offend Muslims but would offend no one else, act in in effect to abnormalise what should be normal — we help to make peculiar that which should be banal.

We have operated a Muslim double standard and in so doing we have gently connived in turning Charlie Hebdo and others like them into targets. Paris says we must stop.
Click to expand...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4316868.ece

By David Aaronovitch in The Times.

It's paywalled but given today's events I don't think the Times will be too bothered about copyright infringement.
 
C

CrimzonSamurai

Member
Does anyone know if Fox News is showing the cartoons?

I'm going to go from 9 to 11 on the irate scale if I actually have to have more respect for Fox than any of the other American networks.
 
M

Micerider

Member
Arabian Mage said:
Thanks for the kind words, it's just awful that people do this horrible stuff and say they do it to defend my culture.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate for the billion of muslims that wants nothing like this to ever happen, especially not in their name. But you shouldn't blame yourself or your culture (and no-one should). It is not what spawned these abject behaviors. Pitty that some idiots will find a way to use that to make it worse for all muslims, regardless of what they actually think.
 
M

Mononoke

Banned
Nesotenso said:
No one gets to dictate what a segment of the population is offended by. Being offended or angry at something does not have to negate freedom of expression. People can practice their freedom of speech by depicting whatever they like. But it doesn't mean others can't be angry or offended by it. What would be unacceptable is resorting to murder, violence or intimidation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, as long as people are using speech in a way that isn't bullying, I see nothing wrong with being offended by something and voicing your opinion. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Anyways, my point was (which is what that post was replying to), is that a person can personally be offended by something they find blasphemous, but if they are going to live in a modern society with other people, they have to be okay with people having the right to live and saying those things (no matter if they find those things terrible). I wasn't trying to suggest that, raging out and having pure anger was an acceptable response to others saying something you don't agree with.

Of course, that is not acceptable. Apart of living in a community with others that don't share your views, is accepting that you won't always agree with them, and that people will sometimes do things you might find offensive. I do think you have the right to voice your opinion. But that isn't the same as enacting violence, or using speech to threaten or bully someone.
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
It's weird that so many people are reporting 1 dead and 2 arrests while BFMTV has nothing and keeps analysing the stuff we already know (I bet they're bored and desperate for new news to report, lol)
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4316868.ece

By David Aaronovitch in The Times.

It's paywalled but given today's events I don't think the Times will be too bothered about copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
Yesterday in Paris we in the west crossed a boundary that cannot be recrossed. For the first time since the defeat of fascism a group of citizens were massacred because of what they had drawn, said and published. Or else, in the case of the murdered police officers, because it was their job to protect such citizens. Children lost parents, parents lost children and for what? For the cretinous notion that a deity who supposedly made the Universe, the world and everything in it would give a fart in a gale about whether an insignificant speck of humanity drew a picture of a man in a turban and called it Muhammad?
Click to expand...

This seems to be not true at all (I guess its true if you are talking about a massacre meaning multiple people) and seems to elevate these murders beyond others who have killed for ideas. I don't like the idea that these people did something 'special' or unique. They were part of a long line of cowards and insecure people who have murdered because of offense.
 
S

Sane_Man

Member
maquiladora said:
Not even the headlines? Wow...

And yet the newspapers and news channels show the images of the officer being murdered. Nothing offensive about that right?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly blame them for not wanting to risk the lives of their staff? I wouldn't want to make that call, no matter how much I might value free speech.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't. I think it's not too far of a stretch from anger to violence. Clearly as we saw today it is not nearly far enough.

The problem is that a feeling of offence is inevitably going to lead to a feeling of anger. That's not to say anger will inevitably lead to violence, but there are enough cunts out there who will resort to it.
Click to expand...

Then you have no fundamental appreciation of free speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rainbow Six Siege cheater sentenced for swatting Ubisoft Montreal offices
News
20
2K
Danjin44 replied
  • Locked
Taliban vs ISIS K continues suicide bomber kills 50 in suspected ISIS attack on Afghanistan mosque as the country descends further into chaos
1
959
chromhound replied
South Carolina veteran uses butt of his shotgun to kill home intruder who attacked his wife
News 2
53
5K
Leyasu replied
Hostage situation in France (potenially terrorism related)
18
2K
IaN_GAF replied
Ubisoft: French newspaper attacks with stories of harassment, rape and sexual assault.
Rumor 2 3
117
12K
Gankthenew replied
Top Bottom