The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?

by 238 replies
299
So, recently there was the issue with the alleged North Korea threat to theaters to not show the movie The Interview. The movie is now being shown in defiance of that threat. However, now that some terrorists attacked the paper and cartoonists who mocked the "prophet", most media outlets won't show the cartoons. Should they? Is not showing them just giving in to the threats, this time much more real than the one from whomever made the threat against the theaters.

News Outlets Aren

One big online media site, Huffington Post, has shown them on the front page for days now.

These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over
#off topic forum
  • I thought the cartoons where aimed at the radicals much more so then at Islam.
    I also think that the majority of Muslims would see that also.
    They're not really mocking the prophet as much as mocking the terrorist.
    I'm startimg to repeat myself, so ya show the comics.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Yeah, wonder what moderate Christians would think if a media group started doing caricatures of Jesus to mock some of the hardcore radical Christians like the late great Tim McVeigh and his repugnant sorts ?

      Not trying to say one way or the other or whether it is even comparable but it is an interesting parallel to consider.
      • [2] replies
  • Banned
    We have freedom speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion here in the U.S. That said, each individual outlet can make their own choice and that's the beauty of our system. IMO if you are going to show video of the murderers committing the act then you should be showing some of the cartoon artwork that supposedly caused the act to be committed.

    We have plenty folks bashing Christians in the U.S. and some of those people are quite popular. Here is a story at a relatively large media outlet as an example:

    Bill Maher Absolutely Trashes the Bible and ‘Psychotic Mass Murderer’ God | Mediaite

    On top of that I think it is best to show solidarity with those that believe in freedom of expression and freedom speech at times like this. A few of the outlets that have decided to show some of the cartoons along with The Huffington Post are: BuzzFeed, Business Insider, Gawker and The Daily Beast.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?

      Yes!

      And...

      have the cartoons tattooed on the foreheads of the terrorists... with a branding iron.


      Joe Mobley
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • South Park. They will knock anything and everything. Yes, Jesus gets characterized.

    We need to run those videos now. Our hand has been forced. If you let the terrorists think that violence will stop free speech, then it's pretty much a done deal that you have to run whatever it was they committed the violence for and run it widely. Make every act of terrorism backfire on them.

    Today there's Islam jokes running rampant on Facebook. I think that should be done after any act of terrorism committed by the people claiming to be Islam. I've yet to hear any of the "moderates" speak against them, but we have to or every time we turn around we'll be getting death threats over anything and everything they want to control. Enough is just damned enough. I live in a country with freedom of both speech and religious choice........and I damned well intend for it to stay that way. If I wanted to be Islamic, I'd move to a country where it was the law. Real simple.
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • [DELETED]
    • You forgot the fact that this attack has been condemned by almost every Muslim country in the world
      • [1] reply

  • Not necessarily. It's obviously an editorial decision, but choosing not to publish the cartoons isn't giving in to the terrorists. Deciding not to risk offending the sensibilities of part of your readership isn't the same thing as censorship. If some maniacs were to shoot down the staff of a pornography publisher, would everyone still be clamouring for the offending pictures to be published for all to see?

    The point is, it doesn't matter what was published or what "cause" might have driven this act of violence. Any act like this has to be abhorred and categorically denounced by a free society.

    But we should focus on the crime, not on the supposed cause. That's giving the perpetrators too much respect and their cause too much unwarranted credence.


    Frank
    • [ 9 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • I wholeheartedly disagree with this, Frank. We're seeing more and more murders done in the name of ....... all the time. We've been hiding. We've been politically correct - and they take it as weakness. I think the best way to stop this crap now that it is getting so prevalent is to make every act of violence in the name of ....... backfire to hell and back on them.

      This situation is not the same as a publicity stunt of Kimmy having a tantrum and threatening people. Real murders are going on. There is a psychotically violent, and very large group infiltrating countries across the globe with no respect for the laws of the country they invade. They move in groups then expect everyone in that country to obey THEIR laws. If not, people are beheaded, murdered, raped, etc, and so on. It has to be stopped. If it meant kicking every one of them out of the country to stop the violence, then that is what should be done. These people have been allowed to go too far already. It's time to stop the PC crap and recognize that some groups are violent. Just because they hide behind a name that they can use to yell "discrimination" if we don't bend, doesn't mean they aren't violent and dangerous. You cannot co-exist with people who insist on either owning you or killing you.
      • [2] replies
    • Banned
      It's not legal for media outlets to show porn to minors here in the U.S. (and many other places), so publishing porn for all to see would not be an option. To the matter being discussed here, which is satire, it is interesting that you have mentioned pornographers.

      Here in the U.S. it was Larry Flint (the pornographer) who won the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing (upholding) the publication of satire as a First Amendment right. That decision went against Jerry Falwell, the well known pastor, founder of Liberty University, and co-founder of the Moral Majority

      Satire v Defamation: What You Need To Know

      No, publishers did not publish Larry's porn in places where it is not appropriate to publish porn, but people still do refer to the decision, and people have more clarity on the legal publication of satire because of that First Amendment ruling. The case was a very well known and has been lauded by countless many over the years.

      As mentioned above, this case was chronicled in a movie that was quite well received by critics and movie goers alike.

      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/people_vs_larry_flynt/

      The People vs. Larry Flynt (7/8) Movie CLIP - The Supreme Court (1996) HD - YouTube
      For those not familiar with the case:

      The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that we do have the freedom to offend with free speech (with some limitations).

      Hustler v. Falwell

      Falwell v Flynt Trial (1984)

      I believe many of the large media outlets are not publishing the cartoon(s) because they fear correspondents may be attacked in certain parts of the world. That said, USA Today's Editorial Board has also published the cartoons:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...ates/21417099/

      The Washington Post has published the cartoon that lead to the 2011 firebombing of Charlie Hebdo's offices in London. It's the same cartoon I posted from Wikipedia above.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-app...024.jpg&w=1484

      Cheers

      -don
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    I've never thought that freedom of speech needed to include disparaging other people's beliefs, particularly about religion. Obviously, these people who killed the people in France are terrorists. Why poke a stick at them over their religious beliefs? I personally don't see anything comical about those comics. They are just intended to infuriate, and they got what they wanted. They infuriated the terrorists. With 12 people dead, was that such a great idea? Why not attack them with cartoons on their brutality and inhumanity rather than their religion? I could understand that kind of satire, but I don't really understand the need for an attack on their religious beliefs.
    • [ 4 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Yes, we do tend to look at the outcome and not what initiated it in the first place!

      The Mohammid cartoons were in bad taste, well some were, but you are supposed to create a banner and walk around in circles outside, singing a monotonous song, and have a speech trashing the company.

      Not storm the place and open fire!

      I agree l would be p**** if l was them, but l wouldn't go on a killing spree!

      I suppose they are thinking we will avenge our god, but knocking them off, or something like that?

      No brains and lethal weapons is never a good mix!

  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • They have a cartoon with Mohammad being naked with the genitals seen from behind. I think reproducing that would be highly insensitive.
    • [ 3 ] Thanks
  • Banned


    If the terrorists thought they were going to curb this type of satire they have failed miserably. Charlie Hedbo usually prints aaround 60,000 copies and has a circulation of somewhere between 30K and 45K. This next print run will be by far their largest ever at 1,000,000 copies with some help from French newspapers and The Fund For Digital Innovation, which is an independent trade group funded by Google.

    Charlie Hebdo will publish one million copies next week with help from Google-backed fund | The Verge

    Subscriptions are available through Amazon.com.

    Charlie Hebdo: Amazon.com: Magazines

    Cheers

    -don
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Yea, but will they ever deliberately antagonize Muslims again with stuff like a naked pic of Muhammad?
      • [1] reply
    • Banned


      I'll save my money for cartoons that are funnier and wittier.
  • [DELETED]
  • Interesting subject line:

    "The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France"

    I'm pretty sure it was crazy people deciding to go into Charlie Hebdo and slaughter the innocent which was the cause of the attack... not a cartoon.

    I've seen a lot of cartoons in my life, none of which made me kill someone.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Taste is taste, opinion is opinion, and satire is satire. The publication has been operating in France for decades so we can assume they are abiding by French law.

    The U.S. press is allowed to report on offensive material and that's the way it is. They report on on all sorts of offensive material and discrimination, and often times they show the discriminatory statements, events, images etc. The press trashes the Korean leaders, the Iranian leaders, radical Muslims etc. etc. quite frequently and it's well within their right to do so.

    Have a listen to President Obama on the matter --> between the 40 second and the 1:20 mark he gets straight to the point of freedom of the press and freedom of expression:

    President Obama reacts to the shootings in Paris - YouTube
    And the French president:

    French President Calls Paris Attack Act of 'extreme Barbarity' - YouTube
    I strongly agree with both the U.S. president and the French president.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      The French have a long history of acquitting defendants of hate speech against Muslims but you'd better not utter a single insult against Jewish people in France. Sounds to me like a bit of judicial racism, much like our own country.

      I don't care what the French and US presidents have to say. That magazine was firebombed years ago and they well knew the risk they were taking and decided that those poorly done cartoons were more important than the lives of their staff. The French government has more than once warned the magazine about the laws of France regarding hate speech.


      The British designer John Galliano has been given a suspended fine of €6,000 (£5,200) by a Paris court for racist and antisemitic rants at people in a Paris bar. The former couturier was found guilty of "public insults" based on origin, religion, race or ethnicity after two incidents in February 2011 and last year.

      In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for "glorifying a crime" after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to school wearing a shirt that said "I am a bomb."

      Last year, Interior Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, declaring that he was "no longer a comedian" but was rather an "anti-Semite and racist."

      Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, "We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized." The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn't feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was "making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites." The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.

      and then we have this glowing example of freedom of speech in France

      Recently, speech regulation in France has expanded into non-hate speech, with courts routinely intervening in matters of opinion. For example, last year, a French court fined blogger Caroline Doudet and ordered her to change a headline to reduce its prominence on Google -- for her negative review of a restaurant.

      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    Satire ---> let's hear what a the darling liberal Bill Maher has to say on this matter.

    Bill Maher on Terrorism and the Charlie Hebdo Attack - YouTube
    Jokes are jokes! You gotta be able to take a joke. Go ahead and insult and joke on my president, go ahead and joke on my religious icons, go ahead joke on my heroes...it's your right to do so! I am not going to freak out and start killing people! If you can't handle satire and/or a little criticism without feeling the need to kill someone then you have a personal problem or worse.

    Cheers

    -don
  • Banned
    Now let's have a listen to what a couple of the other contemporary comedic icons have to say on the subject.

    Conan O'Brien

    Conan's Statement On The Charlie Hebdo Tragedy - CONAN on TBS - YouTube
    Jon Stewart

    The Daily Show - The Charlie Hebdo Tragedy - YouTube
    Cheers

    -don
  • Banned
    @ Suzanne

    We can agree to disagree. I think Charlie Hedbo was within their legal right to publish the satire, and I agree with France in allowing them to do so. They have been allowed to publish satire legally as Charlie Hedbo across 5 decades. Hate speech, defamation, etc. --> and satire are entirely different matters. I stand with the leaders of many free nations including Prime Minister Cameron, German Chancellor Merkel, President Obama, the French president François Hollande, the Secretary General of U.N. as well as with the free speech, free press, and freedom of expression advocates around the world.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Banned
      Of course we can agree to disagree. That's what free speech is. lol.
    • The magazine was in the legal right - but that's not the point. The point is just because someone "offends" you - it doesn't give you the right to run a terror campaign and start slaughtering people. It doesn't give you the right to "force" respect of your ideology. If people want to think your ideology is derisive, they are going to think so.

      To disallow humor of any subject is to curtail free speech. It's not the speech that is the problem -- it's people that try to dictate what you can and can't say.

      So I say something that offends someone. They tell me. It's my choice to say "oh, sorry, I was out of line" or "so freaking what? I could care less how you feel about it". Supporting laws about speech just because someone might be offended is tantamount to supporting fascism. Saying that it is illegal to say something because someone might get bent out of shape and go crazy and kill people is not a logical position. Anyone killing over being offended needs to be put down as the rabid dog they are.
      • [2] replies
  • [DELETED]
  • It's been almost a decade since the London tube bombings, when most Londoners (and people across the country) determined that we would do our best not to give the terrorists the satisfaction of letting it change the way we did things, or have it pit us against each other to the point where we were doing their dirty work for them by shedding each other's blood on our streets because of each other's religion.

    If you're a media outlet and going to alter your plans in order to publish a potentially inflammatory cartoon that was probably barely on your radar in the first place, aren't you just offering the terrorists a massive WIN on both the above counts?
    • [2] replies
    • Banned
      The terrorists are trying to suppress these types of images (in other words, change things) --> and more outlets publishing the images is not suppression. In-fact it has been said that it shows the terrorists that are committing these cowardly acts of murder (to attempt suppression) that murder does not work, and may actually cause the opposite effect.

      The only people that want to shed blood on the streets over satire are the terrorists.

      Cheers

      -don
      • [1] reply
    • WELL SAID! I said the US should do that WAY BACK in 2001! ALAS, Saddam succeeded. ISLAM is the ONE religion I never saw widely and publicly parodied, and it is because of this garbage.

      Steve
  • Terrifying activity done by the terrorists. Shameless act.
    Nothing more to say.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • One fact we can't escape whether we think we've free speech or not is there is a Salafist sect of Islam that will want to get revenge by killing you if you mock their prophet. That's just a fact so print away but there will be a response. In fact these same people harbour quite serious goals of world domination and the return of the Caliphate only this time ruling the entire world. They believe in getting 72 virgins upon the entrance of paradise for simply strapping up a bomb vest and blowing up as many people they've never met before.

      You can talk of the right to publish them or not but these people are as offended by these cartoons as I am about the Taliban walking into a school to massacre children while screaming God is great.

      That's what we're dealing with. I assure you there isn't a single member of ISIS or any group of Al Qaeda etc. that wouldn't have shot the magazine people if they had the chance.

      Really what we're saying is should we have the right to publish something that absolutely will cause some people to want and plan to actually murder you?

      Charlie Hebdo printed endless cartoons about Jesus, Jews and just about everyone, Including Muslims but it's only ever been the extremist element of Islam that has decided to take physical action against it.

      A part of me wants them to be able to publish them, people shouldn't die over a cartoon but, BUT, I'm also well aware if you do something to offend the prophet, shit will hit the fan. So it's a difficult one and if it helps recruit more people to the extremist way of thinking, I'm afraid I'm not sure I do want them published

      For me there were 3 heroes in the whole thing. The guy that hid under the sink in the print firm and gave tactical information. Ahmed the policeman that died defending his city and the Worker in the Kosher supermarket that rescued all those people.

      2 of those 3 were Muslims and very decent Muslims too and as the guy in the supermarket said...

      "We're all brothers. Jews, Christians, Muslims. We're all in this together".
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • People have been slaughtering each other over religion and politics for centuries and more. Saying these people were psychopths etc for doing what they did aren't living in the real world in my opinion. You keep goading a dog, don't be surprised if you end up getting bit.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Do you even know what the medical terminology and definition for a psychopath is ??

      Just curious ?
      • [1] reply
  • Just saw this news article from the Telegraph that would raise questions of double standards.
    French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe - Telegraph

    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      I ran out of thanks ... that story is old, but highlights both the hypocrisy of Freedom of Speech in France and of Charlie Hebdo who fired him for his anti-semitic column.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Re: Double Standards

    Even if some double standards can be shown --> any error should be made on the side of free speech and freedom of expression. Many people say France needs some work in this area, but don't condemn France and the free speech and freedom of expressions advocates for standing with Charlie Hedbo.

    Instead encourage them in whatever way you can to allow more speech.

    Cheers

    -don
  • Wow!

    Maybe world leaders didn't actually lead that huge march in Paris but instead conducted a photo op on an empty guarded street.


    What the world saw...




    I hear this is another pic from the scene.

    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • TL,

      Thankfully I'm not a terrorist but imagine if they did the Hebdo attack by a first cell then kept just 2 or 3 cells back who could then attack the massive amount of people that paraded through Paris as a big spectacular?

      I know everyone's going to scream 'what about security?' but that's what I said when Paris was on lock down during a major terrorist incident and the other guy strolled down the street with 2 AK's and wandered straight into a Jewish supermarket to kill people.

      Bearing in mind the Supermarket killer was with someone when he shot a copper the day before. We now know it's not his wife - Who was it then? There was also a 3rd attacker apparently in the Hebdo attack that handed himself in. He apparently had an alibi, so who and where is that person?

      Perhaps that security around the parade was better than I thought after all.
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    The world leaders showing solidarity for freedom of speech should probably have stayed home and worked on their own records of freedom of speech

    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • IMHO there are two reasons the admin so-called apologized for not showing up in France.

    #1: It was the diplomatic and polite thing to do verses what another recent admin would have probably done in this situation - which would be to probably say a loud F.U. and kiss my bumper to everyone that disagrees with them.

    #2: To shut up the petty, scandal-mongering-jackals in the WH press corps who would probably never leave it alone - so they were thrown a bone.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Getting a bit partisan, eh? LoL

    #1) IMO, the previous admin would have probably sent a few high level people to France considering their anti-terror stance and posture.

    #2) This administration is less transparent than the previous administration according to most sources, which includes the press.

    #3) Loud F.U.'s eh? That's a laugh since the leader of this admin says "I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone" so F.U... Below is quote that I will never forget! I guess we were kissing someone's bumper!!!

    #4) I can't recall a time that you have have referred to your favorite liberal outlets as "scandal-mongering-jackal" dens.

    #5) I think the administration apologized because they realized they made a mistake and wanted to do some damage control.

    Even some White House allies were critical of the "not sending a higher level official" blunder..

    Cheers

    -don
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Well, FWIW, this type terrorism started long before 2001 and I think Christianity is probably one of the most widely parodied and lampooned religions. It has been suggested that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was basically the only religious figure being lampooned on a regular basis which is absolute nonsense. I think we all know tons of people poke-fun, lampoon and/or otherwise disparage Christians on a regular basis --> again, can anyone say "Bill Maher"!?!

    Dude is famous for attacking Christians, Christian symbols, and Christian beliefs and he has plenty of company! For anyone that does not know who Bill Maher is go to Youtube and type "Bill Maher religion" into the search box or turn on HBO. Maher was formerly on Comedy Central and ABC and he is also a stand-up comic and political commentator. In-fact he even made a movie called Religulous that mocks Jews for Jesus, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Hasidic Jews and Scientology. The film was distributed by Lionsgate, and Maher both wrote it and he starred in it.

    I remember back in the day it was PLO, PLO, PLO all day every day! Below are just a few of the Islamic extremest terrorist groups that I can remember in my lifetime that were operating prior to 2001.

    PLO - 1964
    PFLP - 1968
    ANO - 1970's
    Hezbollah - 1982
    Islamic Jihad - 1970's
    Abu Sayyaf - 1991
    Taliban - 1994 (militia)
    Al-Qaeda - 1990
    HAMAS - 1987
    IG - 1970's
    GIA - 1992
    AAIA - 1999
    HUM - 1990's
    LT - 1989
    PIJ - 1970's

    Back in the 1980's I was supposed to port in Pakistan for a few days but unfortunately we could get no closer than 1 mile from the coast of Pakistan because Islamic extremists were killing Christians in the streets on a nightly basis. In-fact we could not even pull all the way into port for fear of a small raft with suicide bombers possibly pulling alongside the ship at night and detonating to try to sink us. We had to add tons of extra watches and lookouts to look for small watercraft approaching the ship 24/7 while we were there.

    Bummer! I sat there for days looking at the coastline of Pakistan and never got to step foot on land. Talk about a tease!

    Anyway, Charlie Hedbo has operated through 5 decades and they often pilloried religion, but they sorta put a bit more focus on radical Islam in 2006 when they reprinted those controversial cartoons originally published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [2] replies
    • YEAH, you have THAT right! People will even say christianity does things it never did, or associate it with some belief they never had, etc... I think it is ALWAYS the FIRST lampooned. Look at southpark, They lampoon christianity, judaism, Hindu, mormon, budist , and satanism. I may have missed some, but I heard they NEVER aired any ones against islam,

      Yeah, people seem to forget about Jyllands-Posten. I think THAT is what got southpark to stop their plans to parody islam. And to attack DENMARK? WOW! A relatively tiny country that isn't trying to hurt anyone.

      BTW about Charlie Hedbo They apparently usually print about 60,000 copies, but the current issue, that is being advertised so much, and that you showed the cover of, now has 3 MILLION copies, and they have to limit distribution! Many newstands sold out in minutes!

      Steve
      • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Again can we say Bill Maher = US, Charlie Hebdo = France. France has laws that it selectively enforces against insults and speech that incites violence. Those laws were used against Charlie Hebdo to shut them down at one time and those laws are routinely used against people who insult Jews. Ask Galliano about insulting Jews.

      Further, I cited the US Supreme Court decision that the US speech does not include the "right to yell fire" in a theater or other speech that would inevitably put people in harm's way .... Here it is.

      If France wants to allow their innocent citizens to be put in harm's way so that Charlie Hebdo can promote anti-Muslim hate, then they're going to have a lot of "parades." If you want to allow groups to promote racism and hatred and religious intolerance, call it what it is rather than hiding behind the right to free speech.
      • [2] replies
  • Banned
    PARIS — Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen formally claimed responsibility on Wednesday for the deadly assault a week ago at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 people, saying that the target was chosen by the Qaeda leadership and referring to attackers as “two heroes of Islam.”

    The newspaper attack began three days of bloodshed that killed five more people and were immediately labeled France’s equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/wo...lie-hebdo.html
  • Banned
    Glad to see that India doesn't profess to "be Charlie". It appears that they are deeply offended by this new beer.

    Connecticut Brewery Stirs Controversy With 'Gandhi-Bot' Beer




    I was checking out the list of names of world leaders who were at the photo op and noticed that India, Italy, and Australia were not mentioned. I'm sure there's lots more that declined the photo op since there's hundreds of countries, just noticed those off the top of my head.
    • [1] reply
  • Banned
  • Banned
    France is not playing around with terrorist sympathizers. Dieudonne has been arrested and detained...

    http://hosted2.ap.org/AKJUN/2e515285...9b02d64d1a32c6

    Dieudonné arrested over Facebook post on Paris gunman | World news | The Guardian

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Well, terrorists don't just hurt or bandrupt .... they kill. The point is that Charlie Hebdo should bear all the risk and responsibility if they think their brand of speech is worth dying for.

      But of course ... they really don't like his humor and satire very much

  • Banned
    One brand mocks radicals and the other supports terrorists --> big difference.

    His Facebook post:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-9976667.html

    Who is Coulibaly?



    http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-at...ror-1421204761

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...libaly-4961806

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Right. Of course. Actually, one brand mocks and ridicules and insults all Muslims, however, all Muslims are not murderous terrorists and suffer it silently.

      The other is nothing but speech. Was he building an arsenal? Did he communicate with terrorists? Have bomb making material in his house? Provide money or material support to terrorists? Did he shout out a call for bloodshed or revolt? Doubt it. He simply typed a sentence on Facebook that the free speech loving French did not like.
  • Banned
    It's French law... Inciting terrorism can get you a five-year prison term in France and inciting terrorism online can get you up to seven years in prison. France ordered prosecutors around the country to crackdown on people that are glorifying or defending terrorism and it looks like that is what they are doing. The law was passed 2012 following a series of shootings in France by Islamist gunman Mohamed Merah. It's seems now is as good as time as any to start enforcing it.

    If you stand with terrorists on your Facebook page then be prepared to pay the price if convicted for it.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      There you have it. The French lawyer speaks.

      Funny .... one group actually did in fact incite a terrorist attack ... the other comedian ... not so much.
  • Banned
    Funny how you ignore the French laws you don't like... Radical Islam incited the attacks and you know it.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-minister-says

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Yeah ... kind of like the French do.

  • Banned
    That definition fits radical Islam and especially the radical Islamic leaders to a T. People in their right mind do not take up arms and commit violence against comics and satirists when they see or hear something they do not like. Radicals and Jihadists do...

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      I think we're all well aware of what radicals do and don't do. Gee, I know I was aware. But calling a bunch of racist, hateful people cartoonists is where we disagree completely, and if you consistently something with the full knowledge that it will bring the wrath of terrorists down on you, that is the very definition of incite. And they knew it would since it happened to them previously. Like I said. I don't have a problem with it if it's their blood being shed and not innocent victims.
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    Good thing you don't live in France as you might be one of those that are rounded up for your posts to this thread. And before you say it, we know it will be cold day in hel* before you live in France. We got it....you don't like French law.

    The only people that are "incited" to commit violence by satire and comedy are psychopaths and those that have bought into the mindset and ideologies the Islamic extremists. You may have noticed much of the world is at war with the extremists and here you are on the thread talking about you have no problem with Islamic extremists killing the cartoonists. Talk about killing innocents...

    Simpy unbelievable.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      So you're saying that Muslim cops (who are insulted and mocked by Hebdo) and Jewish people should die because they (Hebdo) chose to poke a stick at terrorists?

      There is nothing innocent about the hideous brand of racism Hebdo promotes. If they believe in it, they should bear the risk rather than people who don't spend their lives mocking other people for their culture, religion or race.

      Simply unbelievable that you think others should die defending speech they would never say, cartoons they would never draw.
  • Banned
    I never said anything like that, and please stop pretending that you know what I think.

    What I will say is the terrorists should be wiped out and/or driven from all places that condone freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression, and all places where blasphemy is legal because they have a hard time coexisting without murdering innocents --> and the cartoonists were innocents. It's unfortunate and tragic that any innocent is killed by terrorists.

    Again, you call it racism but the French and most of the rest of the world clearly understand it is not racism.

    Furthermore, the Quran does say kill those who mock the religion ---> far from it.

    Do not sit with them does NOT mean kill them!

    Cheers

    -don
    • [3] replies
    • Banned
      Who hasn't said that terrorists should be hunted down and killed? Hmmm? You think that's a new concept? Oh, and we know that the Quran doesn't promote violence. We also know that most Muslims are not terrorists. Got anything new? Maybe some charts and graphs?

      The rest of the world ... well, not exactly. I've read many articles that describe Hebdo as racists. Many people don't think they're in the least bit funny or cool. They think they're racists spreading hate and intolerance.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • Depends on where you look.

      Make no mistake. We are all pretty much condemned by the extremists at this point.
    • Actually, this isn't necessarily true. A lot of people assume terrorists and religious extremists who commit these horrific acts of violence are psychopaths. While a small percentage might be, most of these individuals don't fit the clinical profile of a psychopath.

      You have to remember that psychopaths have no conscience. They have no genuine regard for anyone. People are merely objects to them. They don't have meaningful connections with others (they may appear to, but those are superficial and always self-serving). They aren't motivated by a "cause" that they believe in very strongly.

      These extremists often don't fit that profile at all. From our perspective they are evil, cold-blooded murderers who go around slaughtering innocent people. From their perspective, they are justified in taking extreme measures for a cause (usually political or religious). They don't believe they are killing "innocent" people - quite the opposite, actually.

      The motivation for killing that drives most terrorists and extremists is usually not the same as that which drives a violent psychopath.

      You (and probably the vast majority of people) believe terrorists should be "wiped out" - put to death for their actions (or at least put behind bars for the rest of their lives). I, too, believe they deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. But is believing they deserve to be "wiped out" really that different than what these extremists believe should happen to those who so flagrantly ridicule their faith?

      Please don't get me wrong; I understand where you are coming from.

      My point, however, is that the heart of the issue is essentially the same on both sides: reprehensible behavior deserves severe punishment. But we (most people in general vs terrorists) have very different ideas regarding what qualifies as reprehensible and deserving of death. Their viewpoint and behavior - no matter how extreme or unjustified we believe it to be - doesn't automatically make them psychopaths.

      (Here's an article that may help shed more light on this: Are Terrorists Psychotic or Psychopaths)
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    It sounds like it might be for you... You did say this:

    No need for charts and graphs on this one. Most of the free world supports Charlie Hedbo's right to publish satirical cartoons without being murdered for it.

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      They may have the right to incite violence, spread hate, insult, mock and ridicule people based on their beliefs without being murdered for it (hiding behind the guise of satire), but it's apparent that isn't reality, and anyone who reads news knows that terrorists will retaliate if you mock their prophet. So while they have the right to do that, they run the risk of retaliation, whether anyone likes it or not.

      Yes, I most certainly did say that and firmly believe that if they feel their hateful anti-Muslim cartoons are worth dying for, let it be them that die for them, and not someone who is not guilty of spreading anti-Muslim cartoons and insulting people based on their religious beliefs.

      Personally, I don't expect others to die for my beliefs, nor would I deliberately put them in harm's way and say ... well, thems the breaks kiddos ... I have rights.


      And here's what a Muslim thinks about Islamaphobia not being racist

      From the perspective of a *gasp* Muslim
      Another Muslim perspective

      https://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/...race-argument/

      Another point of view

      Islam Is Not A Race–But Anti-Muslim Bigotry Is Still Very Often Racist
      • [1] reply
  • Banned










    French President Francois Hollande

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel

    British Prime Minister David Cameron

    Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi

    Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy

    Romanian President Klaus Iohannis

    European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker

    European Parliament president Martin Schulz

    European Union president Donald Tusk

    Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg

    Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz

    Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt

    Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel

    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras

    Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny

    Portuguese Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho

    Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka

    Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico

    Latvian Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma

    Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

    Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic

    Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel

    Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat

    Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar

    Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven

    Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko

    Swiss President Simonetta Sommaruga

    Kosovo President Atifete Jahjaga

    Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama

    Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

    Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg

    Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibachvili

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

    Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz

    Canadian public safety minister Steven Blaney

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman

    Jordanian King Abdullah II and Queen Rania

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas

    United Arab Emirates foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan

    Qatari Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani

    Bahrain Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled ben Ahmed Al Khalifa and Prince Abdullah Ben Hamad al-Khalifa

    Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita

    Gabonese President Ali Bongo

    Niger President Mahamadou Issoufou

    Benin President Thomas Boni Yayi

    Tunisian Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa

    Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra
    • [1] reply
  • Simply put - here's exactly what France thinks of US opinions about Charlie, his humor and US attitudes and air-raid siren like screaming "racist".

    Maybe you might want to consider looking at it from their point of view instead of ours.

    dear US followers
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • That genuinely saddened me. Thanks to peoples reactions to Paris the terrorists have succeeded in murdering the cartoonists and sowing discord among their enemies. If I was the terrorists I'd be very happy with myself.

      Interestingly for people saying how 'Racist' Charlie Hebdo is.

      If I was a Muslim in Dagestan or Chechenya, I'd be white.

      If I was Muslim in Nigeria I'd be black.

      In Indonesia I'd be Javanese.

      If I was a Uighur Muslim I'd be Oriental.

      If I lived in the Middle East I'd be Asian (At least they're called that in the UK).


      If there is every race in Islam, how can Islam be a race?
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • God forbid, anyone else gets killed because of Charlie's antics verses Muslims. But only the craziest of Muslims would carry out an attack.

    If it happens I also hope its only those who do the cartoons and work there etc. and not someone who has nothing to do with the publication.
  • This is a nice development...

    Hero of Paris grocery store siege to get the ultimate reward from the French government
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • I have a hard time with any group that starts moving into a country then demanding that country abide by their religion or law. If they don't like our laws - they need to stay the f*** home and not bother us. I don't care what their religion says - I don't believe in it and I am not going to be told I have to respect any group that is nothing but violent dogs. And no - I didn't just call all muslims dogs - I called the Jihad extremists dogs - and frankly, I feel bad for insulting dogs.

    Richard - I don't think most people in the US even know what Sikh is. It's a shame, too. These people are really non violent and you will never hear one in your face about why you should believe like they do. One of the most non-intrusive religions and people I know of.

    Suzanne - I know you have heard the quote from Franklin: Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety will have nor deserve neither.

    I do not think you understand the least word of that quote. When you have to be so afraid to speak your mind because someone might kill you for it - um..........that's called Tyranny. If you let it spread, you'll soon be bowing to the people who insist on your silence. Don't forget what your life means to these terrorists, whether you mock them or not. You do realize how they treat women wherever they're allowed to get away with it?
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies
    • Banned
      I'm afraid you don't understand my point in the least bit. I don't consider the freedom to mock and ridicule people based on their religious beliefs, culture or race to be "my freedom" and a freedom worth defending. I am not risking "my speech," as it's speech that I wouldn't speak and cartoons that I wouldn't draw. I see no good reason for being mean spirited and hateful to other people for the sake of being mean spirited and hateful. Those cartoons aren't aimed at terrorists solely. If they were, I wouldn't have a problem with them, as I've both said and shown in this thread with cartoons that do mock terrorism. Those cartoons, whether the intended target audience reacts with violence or just suffers the humiliation of religious mockery silently offends many Muslims ... most certainly not just terrorists. I'm not even Muslim and I find them deeply offensive. Not particularly the blasphemy, because I'm not in the least bit religious. They are simply disgusting and revolting actually. They are created to deliberately offend Muslims and I find that uncivil.

      Whether or not someone has a right to mock, insult, ridicule and spread hate against those of different colors, culture, religion is unimportant to me. I won't support it, and that's the great thing about these freedoms ... I do have the right to not support it and speak out against it.
      • [2] replies
    • You mean like white people did in America, Canada, Australia, etc..
      • [2] replies
  • Banned
    Here are a couple of snippets of free speech spoken by Francois Hollande, the President of France.

    "Charlie Hebdo is alive and will live on"

    "You can murder men and women but you can never kill their ideas"

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • And IMHO, Charlie is an ideal who's time has come to pass.
  • Banned
    Secretary of State John Kerry:

    “The murderers dared proclaim, ‘Charlie Hebdo is dead.’ But, make no mistake. They are wrong… no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror."

    President Barack Obama:

    "The fact that this was an attack on journalists, attack on our free press, also underscores the degree to which these terrorists fear freedom of speech and freedom of the press,"

    But the one thing that I'm very confident about is that the values that we share with the French people, a belief — a universal belief in the freedom of expression, is something that can't be silenced because of the senseless violence of the few."

    Cheers

    -don
    • [1] reply
    • Let's not. In fact, let's stop quoting U.S. officials a week or more after the attack (after they've had time to re-evaluate where they stand or sit).

      It's not perfect - it's an ideal and you can't always reach ideals in a society because other societal rules limit freedoms WHEN YOUR FREEDOMS IMPINGE ON THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS WHO HAVE RIGHTS AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR OWN.
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    Yeah ... but I wonder if Charlie Hebdo will be doing any more "satire" about the French government ... like they did when they were immediately banned for their de Gualle stunt. lol.

    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Charlie Hedbo has have been publishing in France since 1970 and they regularly lampoon political figures, including members of the French government. On New Year's Eve (2014) they published a caricature of a dog having sex with French President Francois Hollande's leg.

      Cheers

      -don
      • [1] reply
  • Freedom of press is something that only a few countries such as USA allow. In other countries the government censors a lot of media into and out of the country.
    • [1] reply
  • Banned
    @ PNeg

    It's called freedom of expression and freedom of speech. My views on freedom of expression and freedom of speech are supported by the French and most of the free world - they are not misguided. No twisting, no turning, no corrupting, and no high horse. As for thick, biased skin...that's an absolute laugh. Run-ins? Another laugher...it's a discussion board. Try to stick to the topic of discussion and please abstain from making lame attempts at direct personal attacks.

    Let's have another listen to the Pope...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...terrorism.html

    The Pope is not high on religious satire, fundamentalists, extremists, and/or what he calls deviant religions. In related news, the Catholic League does not like religious jokes or criticism either. League president Bill Donohue speaks below...

    Catholic League On Bill Maher's 'Anti-Catholic' Jokes: Time Warner Must Have 'A Serious Talk' With Him

    Here is what the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy group in the U.S. had to say on the attacks...

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102318066#.

    I have said it before, and I'll say it again, while I don't agree with or like everything that Charlie Hedbo publishes, they have the right to publish it

    Cheers

    -don

    Edit: I see you have edited part of your post, or it was deleted by the mods.
  • More news...

    Police Arrest 12 Suspected Of Helping Islamist Militant Gunmen In Last Week's Paris Killings
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • That's interesting, seeing as they've suddenly arrested 12 after Belgium did a rather good job of snubbing out there version, I wonder what they found in those properties in Belgium?

      Certainly seems like the two were linked a bit more now.
  • Lassana Bathily, a Muslim man originally from Mali, who saved several lives in the siege of a Paris grocery store will be awarded French citizenship on January 20th 2015!
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [3] replies
    • Banned
      I'm glad to see the Government of France doing that. He was the other Muslim, along with the dead Muslim cop that I thought were the true heroes of this story. I know Richard pointed out another hero who was not Muslim, but it takes a special kind of person to defend people who ridicule and insult your culture and faith, which can certainly be said about the cop.
      • [ 2 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
    • Yes I saw that. Quite right too. He's a brave fellow.

      I mentioned earlier I was pleased that 2 of the 3 ordinary people that became heroes out of this were Muslim.

      Sadly it's also ironic that it took a Muslim to save these people from another Muslim that thought it was a good idea to kill random people for a cartoon they didn't draw and as Jews (I'm assuming they were all Jews being a Kosher supermarket and all that), a publication they would be unlikely to buy and I doubt they even liked.

      In fact, I was thinking about this the other day. Relations between Muslims and Jews is always talked about in Paris as though the Jews are constantly attacked by them. I find it hard to believe it's that bad if a Kosher supermarket employs a Malian immigrant Muslim to work in a food shop that caters for Jewish people.

      They certainly didn't make a mistake though. Not after what he did on the day.


    • Steve . . . what in the world?
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • This is interesting...


    WATCH: John Kerry Brings James Taylor To Paris To Sing 'You've Got A Friend'
    • [2] replies
    • IRONIC! YOU had a video with poor sound that made kerry, and that woman seem like doting parents wiping whatever off of their toddler james taylor.

      Rush Limbaugh, today, had a FAR better audio with kerry introducing him in french, and him singing, though it lacked the doting parents nuance.

      Rush said people like you would be writing of this event in their memoirs!

      He ALSO said it was ironic, because they DID call, and YKW said NO!

      Steve
    • Banned
      And yet, our government says we're morally opposed to torture. Amazing!

      Cheers. - Frank
      • [ 4 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Well, they are now having riots, killing people, and holding up signs saying "If you are charlie, I am kochi.".

    Steve
  • First of all, shooting down the cartoonists was extremely barbaric and unfortunate. They did not avenge the Prophet, but fueled Islamophobia.

    I understand the international reaction, but do not understand why Charlie Hebdo is being put on a pedestal and the dead cartoonists being hailed as heroes. What happened to them was totally unacceptable and is condemned in the strongest of words. But elevating them to such a heroic status beats me.

    Charlie Hebdo defended its drawings of Prophet, a few of them extremely distasteful and pornographic in nature, and defended them as freedom of expression and having the right to blaspheme. They sold more than 400,000 copies of a 'special' edition with images of the Prophet. Yet, 2 years later, One of their cartoonist was fired for making an 'Anti-Semitic' joke.

    The level of hypocrisy shown here was unbelievable. It is alright to draw a highly offensive cartoon of a religious figure, but cracking a silly joke is 'Anti-Semitic'.

    Hypocrisy has no limits, does it?

    What Charlie Hebdo does is a classical example of misusing the freedom of expression clause. Condemning the incident is fine, but they are NO heroes or martyrs.
    • [ 4 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • You ARE right about THAT. I don't know if ANYONE here, or even ANYWHERE, said Charlie hebdo was a hero, or even good. I think associating with Charlie was ALMOST on a par with when the king of Denmark encouraged EVERYONE, and HE did as well, to wear a yellow star during the N*I occupations. It just confounded the N*I efforts, and was denmarks way of saying that they disagreed and weren't going to help.
      Some of those may even have hated supporting that group, but they hated the OTHERS more.

      Anyway, as I have said earlier in this thread, I wish people would not do that AT ALL! But a number of islamic groups HAVE done it towards the other religions, and they shouldn't be killing people for this.

      Steve
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Kerry's visit and the parade will have zero impact on fighting terrorism. The things that are being done behind the scenes, some that we will never know about because they are classified, in conjunction with other countries are the things that will and have always made a difference.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I'm willing to bet the French gov has no real problems (even privately) with what transpired regarding the lack of an high level American presence at the march and it will have no short or long term negative effect on our working relationship with the French gov.
  • Patriot Act Idea Rises in France, and Is Ridiculed...


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/wo...uled.html?_r=1
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      Yeah ... it's kind of ironic isn't it for France to make free speech even more restrictive and give up privacy rights to boot, giving them the right of surveillance of their own citizens and to remove content <<<< free speech from the Internet.

      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Banned
    Paris, deeply offended by Fox News, forgets about the right to offend

    • [ 1 ] Thanks
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 299

    The cartoons that caused the terrorist attack in France: should the media show them?

    So, recently there was the issue with the alleged North Korea threat to theaters to not show the movie The Interview. The movie is now being shown in defiance of that threat. However, now that some terrorists attacked the paper and cartoonists who mocked the "prophet", most media outlets won't show the cartoons. Should they? Is not showing them just giving in to the threats, this time much more real than the one from whomever made the threat against the theaters. As news organizations reported on Wednesday's attack on Charlie Hebdo, many made a point of not showing the cartoons that apparently angered the gunmen who killed 12 people at the satirical newspaper's Paris offices. (Some Muslim traditions prohibit visual depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the strictest interpretations of the religion's anti-idolatry laws ban images of people altogether.) A few places took it a step further by obscuring images of Charlie Hebdo's work. News Outlets Aren