Paris shooting

[Ndaccountant]

Reportedly linked to terrorists upset by characatures of Mohammed. Gunmen still on the loose.At least 12 killed in shooting at office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo - CNN.com

 

[magogian]

Nah, just likely workplace violence.

 

[BGIF]

World’s cartoonists respond to the attack on ‘Charlie Hebdo’

 

[BGIF]

Police hunt three Frenchmen after 12 killed in Paris attack | Reuters

BY JOHN IRISH AND ALEXANDRIA SAGE
PARIS Wed Jan 7, 2015 6:14pm EST

Police issued a document to forces across the region saying the three men were being sought for murder in relation to the Charlie Hebdo attack. The document, reviewed by a Reuters correspondent, named them as Said Kouachi, born in 1980, Cherif Kouachi, born in 1982, and Hamyd Mourned, born in 1996.

The police source said one of them had been identified by his identity card which had been left in the getaway car.

The Kouachi brothers were from the Paris region while Mourad was from the area of the northeastern city of Reims, the government source told Reuters.

Anti-terrorism police were preparing an operation in Reims, the police source said, declining to give more details.

The police source said one of the brothers had previously been tried on terrorism charges.

Cherif Kouachi was charged with criminal association related to a terrorist enterprise in 2005 after he had been arrested before leaving for Iraq to join Islamist militants. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 2008, according to French media.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Nah, just likely workplace violence.

Should've stopped him with the scissors.

 

[BGIF]

Incorrect article deleted

 

[NDPhilly]

Religion of Peace

 

[johnnycando]

Religion of Peace

And Mohammed is his prophet.

 

[greyhammer90]

There's only one proper response to acts of terror like this:

Come and get me extremists.

 

[woolybug25]

Not to defend these human scum that committed this atrocity, but I see this as more of a radical islam attack on specific people. Not on democracy, western culture or "infidels".

Hear me out here... again... these murderers deserve to burn in hell. All I am saying is that this was much different than 911 or other attacks. Charlie Hebdo was a cartoon that specifically antagonized the muslim religion (as well as the catholic religion). Not just extremism or terrorist specifically, but the religion as a whole. This is a magazine that frequently made offensive covers including the beheading of Mohammed, cartoons of him posing for nude pics for a camera and even having homosexual relations.

By no means is anyone "asking for it" in regards to being slaughtered by barbarians like this, but what did he think was the end game? Here were Stephane Charbonnier's own thoughts on his sattire:

"I don't feel as though I'm killing someone with a pen. I'm not putting lives at risk. When activists need a pretext to justify their violence, they always find it."

Well, he did put lives at risk. His own as well as 11 other staffers. They weren't protecting free speech, they simply were using Charlie Hebdo as an avenue to attack other religions and get famous doing so. As far as I know, they weren't in the business of mocking his own jewish religion, just the ones that he disproved of, which is his right. That being said, I don't see this as a terrorist act in the sense of 911. That was an act to kill people that had no idea that they were in danger. Innocent people that didn't do anything specific to antagonize radicals.

So while I'm saddened by the horrendous act, i'm not going to compare this to terrorist attacks like 911. They poked a bear and eventually it turned around and cornered them. It's a terrible tragedy, but one they put themselves in harms way of.

 

[MNIrishman]

Not to defend these human scum that committed this atrocity, but I see this as more of a radical islam attack on specific people. Not on democracy, western culture or "infidels".

Hear me out here... again... these murderers deserve to burn in hell. All I am saying is that this was much different than 911 or other attacks. Charlie Hebdo was a cartoon that specifically antagonized the muslim religion (as well as the catholic religion). Not just extremism or terrorist specifically, but the religion as a whole. This is a magazine that frequently made offensive covers including the beheading of Mohammed, cartoons of him posing for nude pics for a camera and even having homosexual relations.

By no means is anyone "asking for it" in regards to being slaughtered by barbarians like this, but what did he think was the end game? Here were Stephane Charbonnier's own thoughts on his sattire:



Well, he did put lives at risk. His own as well as 11 other staffers. They weren't protecting free speech, they simply were using Charlie Hebdo as an avenue to attack other religions and get famous doing so. As far as I know, they weren't in the business of mocking his own jewish religion, just the ones that he disproved of, which is his right. That being said, I don't see this as a terrorist act in the sense of 911. That was an act to kill people that had no idea that they were in danger. Innocent people that didn't do anything specific to antagonize radicals.

So while I'm saddened by the horrendous act, i'm not going to compare this to terrorist attacks like 911. They poked a bear and eventually it turned around and cornered them. It's a terrible tragedy, but one they put themselves in harms way of.

There's no way anyone should reasonably expect to risk their lives through exercising free speech in a free country. In a free country, you should feel insulted sooner or later, because freedom of speech sometimes means people say things you don't agree with. Let people insult, mock, or otherwise deride Catholics and Christianity. Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic.

These people acted free in a free country. They are absolutely as innocent as the people on 9/11. There were perceived insults against Muslims there too.

 

[greyhammer90]

There's no way anyone should reasonably expect to risk their lives through exercising free speech in a free country. In a free country, you should feel insulted sooner or later, because freedom of speech sometimes means people say things you don't agree with. Let people insult, mock, or otherwise deride Catholics and Christianity. Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic.

These people acted free in a free country. They are absolutely as innocent as the people on 9/11. There were perceived insults against Muslims there too.

+1.

 

[woolybug25]

There's no way anyone should reasonably expect to risk their lives through exercising free speech in a free country. In a free country, you should feel insulted sooner or later, because freedom of speech sometimes means people say things you don't agree with. Let people insult, mock, or otherwise deride Catholics and Christianity. Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic.

These people acted free in a free country. They are absolutely as innocent as the people on 9/11. There were perceived insults against Muslims there too.

Christians would never commit atrocity? Are you kidding? Look over history, my man. Hell... look at every abortion clinic bombing or shooting. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. The Hutaree Christian militia. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting. I could go on and on.

If you reread my comments, I repeatedly said that these people neither deserved this act of horror, nor should it be simply wrote off. But the fact remains, Charlie Hebdo was a publication that had a sole purpose of mocking religions that Stephane Charbonnier didn't like. So i'm not going to put this incident on the same pedestal as 911 when those people didn't do anything to antagonize radicals. Charnonnier knew that this day could come, he spoke about it specifically. So i'm sorry if you feel that he deserves the same sorrow as innocent American people that weren't doing anything but minding their own business.

Let me give you an example. Say I went into a bar and started telling everyone that I hated _____, assuming the vast majority were in agreement and amused by my humor. But meanwhile, a person of ______ was witnessing this. Then beats the hell out of me in the parking lot later. Should that be looked at with the same amount of anger as a hate crime or a lynching? I absolutely do not. The violence is still senseless and terrible. But to act like that is the same thing as someone innocently being targeted simply because of who they are is asinine.

 

[MNIrishman]

Christians would never commit atrocity? Are you kidding? Look over history, my man. Hell... look at every abortion clinic bombing or shooting. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. The Hutaree Christian militia. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting. I could go on and on.

If you reread my comments, I repeatedly said that these people neither deserved this act of horror, nor should it be simply wrote off. But the fact remains, Charlie Hebdo was a publication that had a sole purpose of mocking religions that Stephane Charbonnier didn't like. So i'm not going to put this incident on the same pedestal as 911 when those people didn't do anything to antagonize radicals. Charnonnier knew that this day could come, he spoke about it specifically. So i'm sorry if you feel that he deserves the same sorrow as innocent American people that weren't doing anything but minding their own business.

Let me give you an example. Say I went into a bar and started telling everyone that I hated _____, assuming the vast majority were in agreement and amused by my humor. But meanwhile, a person of ______ was witnessing this. Then beats the hell out of me in the parking lot later. Should that be looked at with the same amount of anger as a hate crime or a lynching? I absolutely do not. The violence is still senseless and terrible. But to act like that is the same thing as someone innocently being targeted simply because of who they are is asinine.

I never said anything about Christians not committing atrocity. I said they're not going to do anything violent about cartoons in France. Putting words in my mouth. I'd be impressed if you can find a single news article anywhere about a Christian shooting up a place or bombing a place because of a cartoon.

And I guess we're going to have to disagree about the second one. It's like saying a woman shouldn't be pitied as much if she dressed provocatively before being raped as opposed to dressing conservatively. Yeah, we can agree it's wrong in both cases, but I'm saying both cases are equally wrong and deplorable, no matter how much she was "asking for it."

 

[woolybug25]

I never said anything about Christians not committing atrocity. I said they're not going to do anything violent about cartoons in France. Putting words in my mouth. I'd be impressed if you can find a single news article anywhere about a Christian shooting up a place or bombing a place because of a cartoon.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and it may have been unintentional, but you most certainly did.

"Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic."

You said that. My apologies if that was not your intent. Christians impose violence on people they feel are mocking their faith on a daily basis.

And I guess we're going to have to disagree about the second one. It's like saying a woman shouldn't be pitied as much if she dressed provocatively before being raped as opposed to dressing conservatively. Yeah, we can agree it's wrong in both cases, but I'm saying both cases are equally wrong and deplorable.

I see that far different. A woman dressing provocatively isn't the same as directly offending trying to offend someone. That woman is still innocent, someone trying to look a certain way is far different than someone purposely attacking someone. I feel that comparison is quite the stretch from my original point. Charnonnier wasn't a girl in a pretty dress, he was the drunk @sshole yelling about dirty ____'s at the bar. Far different scenarios.

 

[MNIrishman]

I'm sorry that you feel that way, and it may have been unintentional, but you most certainly did.

"Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic."

You said that. My apologies if that was not your intent. Christians impose violence on people they feel are mocking their faith on a daily basis.



I see that far different. A woman dressing provocatively isn't the same as directly offending trying to offend someone. That woman is still innocent, someone trying to look a certain way is far different than someone purposely attacking someone. I feel that comparison is quite the stretch from my original point. Charnonnier wasn't a girl in a pretty dress, he was the drunk @sshole yelling about dirty ____'s at the bar. Far different scenarios.

The antecedent of "it" is the derision and insult I referenced in the sentence right before this one.

 

[woolybug25]

The antecedent of "it" is the derision and insult I referenced in the sentence right before this one.

I've re read it a few times now, and I must be misreading it. I took your comment to read;

"In a free country, people will be mocked. Should be expected to in fact. Let people mock catholics/christians, as they wont do anything violent about it."

vs

"There's no way anyone should reasonably expect to risk their lives through exercising free speech in a free country. In a free country, you should feel insulted sooner or later, because freedom of speech sometimes means people say things you don't agree with. Let people insult, mock, or otherwise deride Catholics and Christianity. Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic."

So I am obviously misreading or misinterpreting what you are saying. Because as I read it, that looks like what it says. My opinion is that here in America, christians commit violent acts upon people they deem as mocking, insulting or personally attacking them all of the time. There are a lot of examples of this fact.

 

[Rhode Irish]

There's only one proper response to acts of terror like this:

Come and get me extremists.

I spent my work day posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammed to Facebook. I'm from the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of liberal. Fuck these people making demands about what we can draw pictures of and what we can't. The only time I was ever disappointed in Trey Parker and Matt Stone is when they didn't go through with showing Muhammed on South Park. In general, I respect people's religious beliefs, but the freedom to publish freely and be critical of religious, government and cultural institutions is a value that should never be compromised.

 

[woolybug25]

I spent my work day posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammed to Facebook. I'm from the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of liberal. Fuck these people making demands about what we can draw pictures of and what we can't. The only time I was ever disappointed in Trey Parker and Matt Stone is when they didn't go through with showing Muhammed on South Park. In general, I respect people's religious beliefs, but the freedom to publish freely and be critical of religious, government and cultural institutions is a value that should never be compromised.

So you're that guy? haha

Just messin' with ya, Rhode.

 

[MNIrishman]

I've re read it a few times now, and I must be misreading it. I took your comment to read;

"In a free country, people will be mocked. Should be expected to in fact. Let people mock catholics/christians, as they wont do anything violent about it."

vs

"There's no way anyone should reasonably expect to risk their lives through exercising free speech in a free country. In a free country, you should feel insulted sooner or later, because freedom of speech sometimes means people say things you don't agree with. Let people insult, mock, or otherwise deride Catholics and Christianity. Catholics aren't going to do anything violent about it, even in a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic."

So I am obviously misreading or misinterpreting what you are saying. Because as I read it, that looks like what it says. My opinion is that here in America, christians commit violent acts upon people they deem as mocking, insulting or personally attacking them all of the time. There are a lot of examples of this fact.

I'm going to go ahead and avoid further argument over semantics, since that's boring and won't really get us anywhere, except to say that I maintain my disagreement. I will reassert my claim that in a free country, insulting an idea, philosophy, government, notion, thought, religion, assertion, or public figure, should NEVER be met with violence, and that exercising your freedom to insult such things does not, under any circumstance, increase your personal culpability when barbarians respond to pen with sword.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm going to go ahead and avoid further argument over semantics, since that's boring and won't really get us anywhere, except to say that I maintain my disagreement. I will reassert my claim that in a free country, insulting an idea, philosophy, government, notion, thought, religion, assertion, or public figure, should NEVER be met with violence, and that exercising your freedom to insult such things does not, under any circumstance, increase your personal culpability when barbarians respond to pen with sword.

Which is fine. I'm not trying to disagree with that. I'm just saying that i'm not going to put these people on the same pedestal as victims of non instigated attacks like 911. Never did I say that they deserved to be met with violence or that these acts were anything but a travesty.

 

[NDBoiler]

Not to defend these human scum that committed this atrocity, but I see this as more of a radical islam attack on specific people. Not on democracy, western culture or "infidels".

Hear me out here... again... these murderers deserve to burn in hell. All I am saying is that this was much different than 911 or other attacks. Charlie Hebdo was a cartoon that specifically antagonized the muslim religion (as well as the catholic religion). Not just extremism or terrorist specifically, but the religion as a whole. This is a magazine that frequently made offensive covers including the beheading of Mohammed, cartoons of him posing for nude pics for a camera and even having homosexual relations.

By no means is anyone "asking for it" in regards to being slaughtered by barbarians like this, but what did he think was the end game? Here were Stephane Charbonnier's own thoughts on his sattire:



Well, he did put lives at risk. His own as well as 11 other staffers. They weren't protecting free speech, they simply were using Charlie Hebdo as an avenue to attack other religions and get famous doing so. As far as I know, they weren't in the business of mocking his own jewish religion, just the ones that he disproved of, which is his right. That being said, I don't see this as a terrorist act in the sense of 911. That was an act to kill people that had no idea that they were in danger. Innocent people that didn't do anything specific to antagonize radicals.

So while I'm saddened by the horrendous act, i'm not going to compare this to terrorist attacks like 911. They poked a bear and eventually it turned around and cornered them. It's a terrible tragedy, but one they put themselves in harms way of.

I'm not buying the editor being at fault here. I have a hard time believing that the people who worked there didn't understand the potential risks of their chosen career. Their office was attacked before in 2011 and they had added armed guards, so to make the implication that the editor was putting staffers at risk is misleading. They had to know that something like this could potentially happen, yet they still chose to work there. And they must have felt strongly about not succumbing to the threat of physical violence over their right to express their opinion.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not buying the editor being at fault here. I have a hard time believing that the people who worked there didn't understand the potential risks of their chosen career. Their office was attacked before in 2011 and they had added armed guards, so to make the implication that the editor was putting staffers at risk is misleading. They had to know that something like this could potentially happen, yet they still chose to work there. And they must have felt strongly about not succumbing to the threat of physical violence over their right to express their opinion.

Cheese and Rice.... I never said he was at fault. Why do I even bother?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NDBoiler]

Cheese and Rice.... I never said he was at fault. Why do I even bother?

You said he put his and his staff's life at risk, which obviously implies he bears at least some blame. I'm not sure how you could characterize that statement as something else other than that.

 

[MNIrishman]

Which is fine. I'm not trying to disagree with that. I'm just saying that i'm not going to put these people on the same pedestal as victims of non instigated attacks like 911. Never did I say that they deserved to be met with violence or that these acts were anything but a travesty.

I think I understand what you're saying---that what they did doesn't justify the violence against them, but that they have a degree of innocence which is different from, say, the police officers who responded but were shot, since they had nothing to do with the cartoons. If I understand you correctly, I can respect that point of view (personal responsibility of actions), but I cannot agree with it. I also understand your frustration with the strawman arguments against what you said, even if I DO agree with the sentiment of those arguments.

 

[woolybug25]

You said he put his and his staff's life at risk, which obviously implies he bears at least some blame. I'm not sure how you could characterize that statement as something else other than that.

Easily, if you read the entire post.

I clearly say that it was a horrendous act, that they didn't deserve it, etc. My entire point was that they aren't victims in the same sense as 911. That they willingly chose to antagonize terrorists and extremists, then paid the ultimate price for it. They are not "to blame" for radical crimes against them, but they willingly put their life at risk.

Putting yourself and others in harms way is different than bearing blame. If you cannot separate the two conceptually, then my comment stands. In which, I shouldn't have bothered.

 

[woolybug25]

I think I understand what you're saying---that what they did doesn't justify the violence against them, but that they have a degree of innocence which is different from, say, the police officers who responded but were shot, since they had nothing to do with the cartoons. If I understand you correctly, I can respect that point of view (personal responsibility of actions), but I cannot agree with it. I also understand your frustration with the strawman arguments against what you said, even if I DO agree with the sentiment of those arguments.

Spot on, my friend.

 

[NDBoiler]

Easily, if you read the entire post.

I clearly say that it was a horrendous act, that they didn't deserve it, etc. My entire point was that they aren't victims in the same sense as 911. That they willingly chose to antagonize terrorists and extremists, then paid the ultimate price for it. They are not "to blame" for radical crimes against them, but they willingly put their life at risk.

Putting yourself and others in harms way is different than bearing blame. If you cannot separate the two conceptually, then my comment stands. In which, I shouldn't have bothered.

Ok, sounds good to me.

There, I feel better now

 

[Rhode Irish]

So you're that guy? haha

Just messin' with ya, Rhode.

Ha no I am basically the opposite of that guy and I have defended Muslims in other situations ("Ground Zero" mosque idiotic panic, for example), but I cannot ever concede to intimidation. So while I'd never have posted any of those pictures before today, today it needed to be done to demonstrate a refusal to be cowed.