Shooting at Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris

[Cooksen]

have no fear of reprisals. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. It's probably a bit pompous, but i prefer to die standing than to live on your knees.'

Charb in 2012

Quote by the editor in chief of the magazine.

 

[MDFC Manager]

However it hasn't come COMPLETELY from nothing, some would say it's a scary time for Europeans in Europe as well due to these attacks that are taking place and threats of further attacks by Islam too.

Correct. The ultimate root cause is the meddling of outside powers into middle eastern affairs.

 

[XdanielredX]

I wouldn't say those attacking have much to do with an entire religion. They're more akin to terrorists than a vast majority of believers.

Watch the video I posted earlier.

It doesn't NEED to represent all of the people to be a threat or cause damage.

 

[JohnDoe]

I don't like Brigitte Gabriel, but she undoubtedly makes an important point here.

 

[Siorac]

The director of Le Monde newspaper, Gilles Van Kote, has condemned the attack on Charlie Hebdo, saying: "The killing that occurred [today] only reinforces our belief that it is necessary to fight against ignorance, intolerance, obscurantism and fanaticism. It is more vital than ever to remember that freedom of the press is not negotiable."

Very good.

 

[Raoul]

Whether it represents over a Billion people or not is irrelevant, it doesn't take over 1 billion people to cause damage.

I know I posted this before but I think it needs to be seen.

I didn't find this particularly compelling. A Lebanese woman and strident anti-Islam activist berates a lone Arab-American girl asking a legitimate question before a right wing think tank and receives applause from a mostly conservative audience.

 

[Shamwow]

Watch the video I posted earlier.

It doesn't NEED to represent all of the people to be a threat or cause damage.

Not sure what you are proposing.

 

[Raoul]

Watch the video I posted earlier.

It doesn't NEED to represent all of the people to be a threat or cause damage.

I watched it. Its a bit myopic and cringeworthy.

 

[MDFC Manager]

I'm actually quite curious about the prevalence of Muslims living in Europe (or elsewhere) signing up to go fight with the Kurds against ISIS? Is this a common occurrence at all? I feel like would be a pretty important act to take. Radical Islam is spiraling further and further out of control and it is a bit of a clash of culture within Islam at this point, but only one side seems to be fighting for what they believe in?

Why would the vast majority of Muslims, who just want to live in peace, want to take up arms to fight ISIS? Why, for example, should the 150m+ Indian Muslim population be even bothered about radical groups that are hacking each other in the middle east?

 

[XdanielredX]

Not sure what you are proposing.

Everyone says "it doesn't represent the 1 billion innocent Muslims out there"

All I'm trying to say is, whether it does or not is irrelevant, it doesn't need the entire Islamic community to all agree with what the extremist terrorists are doing for them to cause damage.

I watched it. Its a bit myopic and cringeworthy.

But it also makes the point that it doesn't require the entire population to believe in something for it to cause damage and cause harm.

The reason I think it's important is the seemingly sole response seems to be "Well this doesn't represent the entire Islamic community" And all I'm saying is I'm glad it doesn't, but it doesn't need to.

 

[Raoul]

Everyone says "it doesn't represent the 1 billion innocent Muslims out there"

All I'm trying to say is, whether it does or not is irrelevant, it doesn't need the entire Islamic community to all agree with what the extremist terrorists are doing for them to cause damage.



But it also makes the point that it doesn't require the entire population to believe in something for it to cause damage and cause harm.

The reason I think it's important is the seemingly sole response seems to be "Well this doesn't represent the entire Islamic community" And all I'm saying is I'm glad it doesn't, but it doesn't need to.

What it doesn't say is that even the smaller segment of the population that may tacitly agree with such acts, weren't affiliated with their execution. That credit solely belongs to those who conducted the attacks and the immediate network of people who helped them carry it out.

 

[holyland red]

I still don't know where I stand on this. Freedom of speech is important but is it that important?

If you know saying something - especially with the intention to offend - would result in people dying, should you still say it? I remember @Plechazunga articulating this better on here a long time ago.

Depending on how strong they are allowed to become, or their self-confidence levels, the same people can be offended in the future by the sale of alcohol in certain spots, opened restaurants near mosques during Ramadan or church bells ringing during their prayers. How far are you willing to go compromising your beliefs because those who have a different set to yours are violent?

 

[XdanielredX]

What it doesn't say is that even the smaller segment of the population that may tacitly agree with such acts, weren't affiliated with their execution. That credit solely belongs to those who conducted the attacks and the immediate network of people who helped them carry it out.

I never said anyone but the people that carried out the acts were responsible.

I'm saying they don't need everyone else to agree with them to cause harm.

 

[ravi2]

Correct. The ultimate root cause is the meddling of outside powers into middle eastern affairs.

Yup, it would all be sunshine and roses if it wasn't for all the "meddling of outside powers".
/s

 

[MDFC Manager]

The reason I think it's important is the seemingly sole response seems to be "Well this doesn't represent the entire Islamic community" And all I'm saying is I'm glad it doesn't, but it doesn't need to.

What do you think the response should instead be?

 

[MDFC Manager]

Yup, it would all be sunshine and roses if it wasn't for all the "meddling of outside powers".
/s

No, but it wouldn't be a global epidemic either.

 

[Siorac]

I do think influential leaders of Islam do have a responsibility to come out and condemn these acts and call for an end to terrorism in the name of religion.

Then again, as far as I'm aware, important Muslim leaders did condemn the IS. Such condemnation should receive greater publicity and peaceful Muslim communities everywhere should protest against the radicals. Not against being tarred with the same brush as them though I expect that cannot be easy; still, they have to protest against the radicals themselves, distancing themselves from them.

 

[Raoul]

I never said anyone but the people that carried out the acts were responsible.

I'm saying they don't need everyone else to agree with them to cause harm.

Theoretically, they don't need anyone else to agree with them to cause harm, which is why they should be treated as terrorists/criminals, rather than vaguely official representatives of a billion plus person religion.

 

[2cents]

Depending on how strong they are allowed to become, or their self-confidence levels, the same people can be offended in the future by the sale of alcohol in certain spots, opened restaurants near mosques during Ramadan or church bells ringing during their prayers. How far are you willing to go compromising your beliefs because those who have a different set to yours are violent?

Yep, and not only that, giving in would encourage other groups, religious or otherwise, to resort to violence to get what they want. It would be the beginning of a rapid descent to rule of fear rather than rule of law.

 

[ravi2]

No, but it wouldn't be a global epidemic either.

I think poverty, lack of education and ignorance are the main factors to the rise of this extremism. But its the same with the formation of any gang IMO.

Having said that, I have no clue why teens in Europe and North America are leaving their homes to join ISIS...that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[ravi2]

I never said anyone but the people that carried out the acts were responsible.
I'm saying they don't need everyone else to agree with them to cause harm.

Theoretically, they don't need anyone else to agree with them to cause harm, which is why they should be treated as terrorists/criminals, rather than vaguely official representatives of a billion plus person religion.

Most Muslims feel no more connection to radical Islam than most Christians do to the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Wolverine]

Yup, it would all be sunshine and roses if it wasn't for all the "meddling of outside powers".
/s

It's all got to be taken into consideration

- foreign policy
- social status (poverty, isolation)
- radicalisation (radical preachers in community or on the web, ideas that are anti-thetical to democratic/secular value)
- culture in Islamic communities
- xenophobia (the exacerbation of racial tensions by the far-right)

The problem is that I reckon we can tackle all these things at once. Pointing out that foreign policy plays a part doesn't make you a naive apologist. Pointing out that radicalisation or a milieu exists where fundamentalism (even in western countries) thrives doesn't make you an islamophobe.

What makes you wrong is denying that each of the things plays a causative role. And pointing that out isn't justifying or condoning it.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I'm actually quite curious about the prevalence of Muslims living in Europe (or elsewhere) signing up to go fight with the Kurds against ISIS? Is this a common occurrence at all? I feel like would be a pretty important act to take. Radical Islam is spiraling further and further out of control and it is a bit of a clash of culture within Islam at this point, but only one side seems to be fighting for what they believe in?

There have been examples of this reported in the British media at least, however i've not heard of any estimates regarding their total numbers or what the wider picture is across Europe. For all that the Kurds are opposing ISiL, it's not an idea that they're going to promote publicly.

 

[XdanielredX]

I think poverty, lack of education and ignorance are the main factors to the rise of this extremism. But its the same with the formation of any gang IMO.

Having said that, I have no clue why teens in Europe and North America are leaving their homes to join ISIS...that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Propaganda.

Because they don't see the reality, it's romanticised.

 

[Raoul]

Most Muslims feel no more connection to radical Islam than most Christians do to the Westboro Baptist Church.

That goes without saying.

 

[holyland red]

Correct. The ultimate root cause is the meddling of outside powers into middle eastern affairs.

Fecking Greek and Roman twats ruined a perfectly fine region.

 

[ravi2]

It's all got to be taken into consideration

- foreign policy
- social status (poverty, isolation)
- radicalisation (radical preachers in community or on the web, ideas that are anti-thetical to democratic/secular value)
- culture in Islamic communities
- xenophobia (the exacerbation of racial tensions by the far-right)

The problem is that I reckon we can tackle all these things at once. Pointing out that foreign policy plays a part doesn't make you a naive apologist. Pointing out that radicalisation or a milieu exists where fundamentalism (even in western countries) thrives doesn't make you an islamophobe.

What makes you wrong is denying that each of the things plays a causative role. And pointing that out isn't justifying or condoning it.

I agree with you, foreign policy definitely plays a part; but there are so many other factors that contribute to the problem...as you have pointed out.
Great post btw!

 

[2cents]

Correct. The ultimate root cause is the meddling of outside powers into middle eastern affairs.

Whatever the truth of this, it's similar to blaming the Crusades or the Inquisition on the Islamic conquests of Christian regions in the Middle East and Spain.

 

[MDFC Manager]

I do think influential leaders of Islam do have a responsibility to come out and condemn these acts and call for an end to terrorism in the name of religion.

Then again, as far as I'm aware, important Muslim leaders did condemn the IS. Such condemnation should receive greater publicity and peaceful Muslim communities everywhere should protest against the radicals. Not against being tarred with the same brush as them though I expect that cannot be easy; still, they have to protest against the radicals themselves, distancing themselves from them.

There's only so much that local protests can achieve though. What can half a billion muslims in south and east asia do, for example? 150+ kids, nearly all of them Muslim, got gunned down by Taliban in Pakistan. There were big protests but nothing came out of it.

The point is that people need to realize that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban etc are products of political anarchy in those respective regions. There's absolutely feck all that Muslims elsewhere can do about it, except distance themselves and live in fear of a backlash.

 

[MajorTom]

Love is the only force capable of turning an enemy into a friend.

Why is it so hard for people to open their palms instead of clenching their fist? Not only is this incident a tragedy but the wedge in division from interpretation/opinion of it will only create more hatred, more division and a more paranoid society. The voices of reason will once again be lost in a sea of bile, in a sea of confusion and a sea that will drown you right into the abyss. Spread love not hate x

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I am reluctant to get drawn into some broader debate in this thread, particularly with these three terrorists free in the community at present, however the foreign policy argument surely runs into some difficulty when one examins the disproportionately low number of Americans presently volunteering for ISiL.



Back to Paris however:

A mother and her daughter were threatened at gunpoint to permit them entry to the building. She says that they claimed to be representing al-Qaeda.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Whatever the truth of this, it's similar to blaming the Crusades or the Inquisition on the Islamic conquests of Christian regions in the Middle East and Spain.

Well its not a coincidence that pretty much all the Islamic terrorist organizations took birth in regions with nearly zero political systems, which were directly or indirectly a result of foreign involvement.

 

[ravi2]

There's only so much that local protests can achieve though. What can half a billion muslims in south and east asia do, for example? 150+ kids, nearly all of them Muslim, got gunned down by Taliban in Pakistan. There were big protests but nothing came out of it.

The point is that people need to realize that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban etc are products of political anarchy in those respective regions. There's absolutely feck all that Muslims elsewhere can do about it, except distance themselves and live in fear of a backlash.

Good post, the Islamic terrorists actually kill more muslims than anybody else.

 

[Nucks]

Why would the vast majority of Muslims, who just want to live in peace, want to take up arms to fight ISIS? Why, for example, should the 150m+ Indian Muslim population be even bothered about radical groups that are hacking each other in the middle east?

I was just asking a question. However at the same time. Why? Because they want to live in peace.

 

[Siorac]

There's only so much that local protests can achieve though. What can half a billion muslims in south and east asia do, for example? 150+ kids, nearly all of them Muslim, got gunned down by Taliban in Pakistan. There were big protests but nothing came out of it.

The point is that people need to realize that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban etc are products of political anarchy in those respective regions. There's absolutely feck all that Muslims elsewhere can do about it, except distance themselves and live in fear of a backlash.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong. What protests and vocal condemnation might achieve, in my opinion, is that it might just lessen the islamophobia and curb the rising popularity of the far right. At least make the world see that the majority does not agree with these actions and are disgusted by them. You might say that's common sense and it should be but in reality many people simply do not accept this. Let's provide more proof and then maybe there will be less danger of a backlash.

 

[ThierryHenry]

No idea/religion should be immune from critique or satire. I've felt the criticism of Muslims (as a whole) veers into dangerous hyperbole and is exploited by the far right. But I defend their right to say it and would argue against what I feel is wrong, through dialogue. Absolutely horrific.

Not sure if you're suggesting this, but Charlie Hebdo weren't a far-right or racist publication at all. Just FYI.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Good post, the Islamic terrorists actually kill more muslims than anybody else.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Muslims die at their hands and then the muslims everywhere else have to distance themselves from it or live in fear. Its a lose-lose but we still can't do anything about it. The world muslim population isn't exactly a single group of people, with any sort of political or military power to have any sort of effect on these dogs. Maybe the rich Islamic countries could do something, but they are essentially only bothered about saving their own arses.

 

[ThierryHenry]

And when one considers the proportion of Europeans fighting for Islamic State, both France and the UK appear to be a particularly fertile ground for their number. Few of us would be surprised were those responsible for these killings found to be of Western origin.

I do wonder when the next attack in London will be, feels like there's no question it will come.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I agree with you, don't get me wrong. What protests and vocal condemnation might achieve, in my opinion, is that it might just lessen the islamophobia and curb the rising popularity of the far right. At least make the world see that the majority does not agree with these actions and are disgusted by them. You might say that's common sense and it should be but in reality many people simply do not accept this. Let's provide more proof and then maybe there will be less danger of a backlash.

To be honest, I agree with this. It seems absurd that moderate muslims should have to take to the streets to condemn something like this but it would make a really powerful statement and do a lot of good for the long term benefit of inter-cultural relations in whichever country they march in. There's an electronic version going on already, with loads of muslims tweeting their revulsion over what happened but getting out on the streets in large numbers would be so much more impactful.

 

[2cents]

Well its not a coincidence that pretty much all the Islamic terrorist organizations took birth in regions with nearly zero political systems, which were directly or indirectly a result of foreign involvement.

That's true , but on the other hand, there are other parts of the world that 'outside powers' fecked up just as bad as the Islamic world that haven't produced this specific set of problems (transnational jihadist terrorism). Just look what the US did in S/E Asia in the 60s/70s, millions killed and they helped create the conditions for the Khmer Rouge, but we don't have Vietnamese or Cambodian militants, or their co-religionists from elsewhere, attacking the US today.

So while we can certainly say that Western policies have ranged from 'unhelpful' to 'destructive' in the Islamic world, they can't explain everything. You have to consider a range of factors such as the deep religious conservatism in the region, the youth bulge whereby you've a surplus of young angry men with nothing to do or really live for, a strong tradition of autocratic governance, struggles over resources, etc.