News What lessons can we learn from the Charlie Hebdo shooting?

[DrClaude]

There has been a shooting at the offices of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

It's crazy what some people can come to if they feel their "beliefs" have been "mocked."

 

[Bystander]

"At least twelve dead?"

 

[DrClaude]

Latest news names the journalists/cartoonists Charb (editor in chief publishing director), Cabu and Wolinski among the victims.

I have no words to express my sadness. This is a great loss. :L

 

[Dotini]

The statement from the OP article, "The gunmen shouted 'we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad', witnesses say", could be a pointer to the identity and motivations of the killers. But an Australian moderator on another forum said,

"It should be, but it could also be something dreamed up by an extreme right-wing group to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment in France.

Okay, that's an extremely unlikely explanation - the point is that we should wait and see what happens before jumping to conclusions. Look at the Sydney siege gunman, who used radical iconography during his attack, but whose motivations had nothing to do with radical Islam."

 

[DrClaude]

The statement from the OP article, "The gunmen shouted 'we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad', witnesses say", could be a pointer to the identity and motivations of the killers. But an Australian moderator on another forum said,

"It should be, but it could also be something dreamed up by an extreme right-wing group to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment in France.

Okay, that's an extremely unlikely explanation - the point is that we should wait and see what happens before jumping to conclusions. Look at the Sydney siege gunman, who used radical iconography during his attack, but whose motivations had nothing to do with radical Islam."

We won't know the motivations of the killers until tehy get arrested and tried, or they release a statement. But one should use Occam's razor and, if the eyewitness statements are correct, assume that this was religiously motivated. Charlie Hebdo has been targeted in the past.

 

[Dotini]

We won't know the motivations of the killers until tehy get arrested and tried, or they release a statement. But one should use Occam's razor and, if the eyewitness statements are correct, assume that this was religiously motivated. Charlie Hebdo has been targeted in the past.

I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree. Millions of Muslims have fled war and deprivation in the Middle East. They will have many motivations and justifications for their actions, religion being only one.

 

[Borg]

We won't know the motivations of the killers until tehy get arrested and tried, or they release a statement. But one should use Occam's razor and, if the eyewitness statements are correct, assume that this was religiously motivated. Charlie Hebdo has been targeted in the past.

I have to agree. I'll have to go with what was reported in the news rather than random internet opinions that strain credibility.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Latest news names the journalists/cartoonists Charb (editor in chief), Cabu and Wolinski among the victims.

I am so angry and sad. This along with the North Korea fiasco will be a massive test for the freedom of speech and press in the free worlds.

 

[lisab]

This is awful. France 24 reports the terrorists shouted, "We avenged the prophet, we killed Charlie Hebdo!" before driving off.

They are mistaken.

Je suis Charlie Hebdo!

 

[Mark44]

We won't know the motivations of the killers until tehy get arrested and tried, or they release a statement. But one should use Occam's razor and, if the eyewitness statements are correct, assume that this was religiously motivated. Charlie Hebdo has been targeted in the past.

This is awful. France 24 reports the terrorists shouted, "We avenged the prophet, we killed Charlie Hebdo!" before driving off.

They are mistaken.

Sounds religious to me...

 

[Dotini]

...before driving off.

If they had blown themselves up it would be more convincingly religious.

Perhaps it would help to catch them and then find the truth?

 

[nikkkom]

I'm afraid nothing short of events like this will be enough to curtail excessive PC practiced nowadays.

Religions are not skin color or shape of your eyes. You are not born with it, you accept its ideas - or decline. Religions are sets of ideas, they are ideologies, and they are not all equally good or evil.

Yet somehow, it is okay to disagree with a political idea (e.g. you can openly critisize Nazism. Or capitalism. Etc), but whenever you criticize a religion, you are labeled "racist".

 

[DrClaude]

Millions of Muslims have fled war and deprivation in the Middle East.

I don't see what this would have to do with Charlie Hebdo, while I can see why religious fanatics would be angry at them.

 

[russ_watters]

We won't know the motivations of the killers until tehy get arrested and tried, or they release a statement...

IMO, shouting their motivation during the attack is releasing a statement.

 

[DrClaude]

IMO, shouting their motivation during the attack is releasing a statement.

Indeed. I have now seen video where they clearly shout "on a vengé le prophète Mohamed" ("we have avenged the prophet Mohamed").

 

[Dotini]

I don't see what this would have to do with Charlie Hebdo, while I can see why religious fanatics would be angry at them.

Perhaps this article will help to answer your question.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30717728

 

[nikkkom]

Apparently, we are in great danger. Not of being unable to speak freely without running the risk of being gunned down, mind you. We are at great risk of, gasp, "rise in anti-Islam sentiment". It's not allowed to be anti-Islam, you right-wing fascist racist pig you!

Quote from the article: "many feared for the long-term implications for a French society already witness to a steady rise in xenophobic and anti-Islam sentiment"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-attack-turning-point-french-politics

 

[Bystander]

"Judge not lest ye be judged by the company of the birds of a feather you flock with."

 

[Dotini]

From a friend in Europe I hear,

- French authorities have identified the 3 terrorists.

- Their ages: 18, 32 and 34 years old. Two are brothers and supposedly of French nationality.

- The French edition of Metro reports this.

- More reports are coming out that 2 of them went to Syria this summer.

- Brothers are Cherif and Said K. and the youngest is called Hamyd M.

- Already known by French police and actively involved in recruiting jihadists for the Iraq conflict around 2005. Hamyd M. is a recent arrival.

- The police also raided a house in the northeast of Paris, Pantin, without any arrests made.

 

[HossamCFD]

What a vicious and barbaric attack!

I wonder if this madness will ever end.

 

[nikkkom]

What a vicious and barbaric attack!

I'm a bit puzzled by seeing many reactions like yours. Yes, this was a terrorist attack.

But.

Every day, something like this happens in other places. Even much worse things happen. Say, Boko Haram killing _hundreds_ of people, and taking women into slavery (!). Or North Korea running Nazi-style extermination camps for about 200 thousand of its dissidents (this particular atrocity happens RIGHT NOW as we speak). We do nothing.

Every time I think about it, it almost hurts. I recall reading documentary evidence about Nazi camps. This was horrible beyond belief. And it happens. Now. Again.

But people somehow don't get outraged.

[edit] Somehow it ended up sounding wrong. As if I accuse you of something... didn't mean it this way. Sorry.

 

[nsaspook]

People are outraged that this medieval behavior happened in a modern western society. The motivational factors for this extreme violence seems completely out of sync with the level of wrong to the attackers for those who believe in basic human freedom of expression in a modern democracy. I'm outraged but not surprised.

 

[HossamCFD]

I'm a bit puzzled by seeing many reactions like yours. Yes, this was a terrorist attack.

But.

Every day, something like this happens in other places. Even much worse things happen. Say, Boko Haram killing _hundreds_ of people, and taking women into slavery (!). Or North Korea running Nazi-style extermination camps for about 200 thousand of its dissidents (this particular atrocity happens RIGHT NOW as we speak). We do nothing.

and the list goes on... ISIS almost unprecedented savagery, cleansing entire communities, and making an industry out of sex slaves! Taliban Pakistan massacring 140 school children, and so on. All of them are abhorrent, yet it shouldn't stop people from getting appalled whenever another terrorist attack happens.

But people somehow don't get outraged.

Many people do, including myself.

[edit] Somehow it ended up sounding wrong. As if I accuse you of something... didn't mean it this way. Sorry.

No worries. I know what you mean and I didn't feel accused at all.

 

[Dotini]

What a vicious and barbaric attack!

I wonder if this madness will ever end.

In my opinion, it will not end if this sort of blowback is accepted as an inevitable cost of liberal western European intervention in the Middle East, and welcoming the fleeing victims back in Europe.

On the other hand, if the blowback is deemed intolerable, there are two obvious ways to end the violence:
#1. Elect populist politicians across Europe who will shoo out the Muslims.
#2. Elect another sort of authoritarian regime which enacts Continent-wide blasphemy laws which fully accept the laws and needs of a growing Islamic population in Europe.

 

[HossamCFD]

#1. Elect populist politicians across Europe who will shoo out the Muslims.

Seriously?! Shoo out the muslims?!

I can't believe you actually said that.

People complain that when they criticize Islam they sometimes get labelled bigots. And I agree this is ridiculous. Islam is a religion and it deserves to be criticised, even ridiculed, especially when it inspires some people to behave in this way.

But electing politicians who would purge the entire muslim population off the continent?!

Well I'm glad only few europeans think this way.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a bit puzzled by seeing many reactions like yours. Yes, this was a terrorist attack.

But.

Every day, something like this happens in other places...

Well first, for the record, we have threads here for all of those other classes of atrocities you listed. Still:

1. Kinship (with deference to Hossam). This attack hit closer to home for all Westerners than you might think. I have a New Yorker Magazine comic flip calendar on my desk. The reason this attack happened in Paris instead of New York was based primarily on arbitrary immigration choices by the attackers or their parents (not sure what generation they are). The French could think exactly the same thing about the Boston Marathon bombing happening in the Tour de France. As could any other Westerner about either (not to mention Denmark, which has had similar attacks on cartoonists).

2. Rarity/commonality. News gets stale. So if the same thing happens over and over, it is no longer news and doesn't get as much attention. So my first reaction to a Boko Haram atrocity was much stronger than my later reactions. Such attacks are fairly rare in Western countries, so they get a lot of attention when they happen.

3. Expectation/contrast. When atrocities happen in places where atrocities happen, they don't seem as bad because they seem more "normal". So when a rare and terrible act happens in a place where it isn't expected/as common, it stands out more. Similarly, I've heard from people visiting Israel that they were shocked at how little people in Israel pay attention to the daily threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. It becomes normal after a while.

 

[BobG]

IMO, shouting their motivation during the attack is releasing a statement.

It's at least possible that the motivation for the shooting was something else entirely and making it look like a terrorist act was a ruse to send authorities looking for terrorist groups instead of investigating people with some other association with the magazine and/or its employees. They made an attempt to hide their identities, so they weren't exactly sacrificing themselves for their cause. Making it look like a terrorist act could be another attempt to hide their identities.

Not likely, but possible.

Similar to Jeffrey MacDonald murdering his wife and kids and trying to make it look like a cult killing (ala Charlie Manson).

I can understand not wanting to bet the farm that this was a terrorist act.

I'd probably bet at least $10, though.

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, it will not end if this sort of blowback is accepted as an inevitable cost of liberal western European intervention in the Middle East, and welcoming the fleeing victims back in Europe.

On the other hand, if the blowback is deemed intolerable, there are two obvious ways to end the violence:
#1. Elect populist politicians across Europe who will shoo out the Muslims.
#2. Elect another sort of authoritarian regime which enacts Continent-wide blasphemy laws which fully accept the laws and needs of a growing Islamic population in Europe.

Neither of those fits at all with Western values. If we change who we are because of terrorists, we lose -- even if they don't win.

 

[Dotini]

Neither of those fits at all with Western values. If we change who we are because of terrorists, we lose -- even if they don't win.

Agreed. We need a less obvious way to end the violence, but what is it? Perhaps a time machine and a little chat with Sykes and Picot? Really, it all began at the Crusades.

 

[mheslep]

Je Suis Charlie.
l' gillotine pour vous, you bastards.

 

[nikkkom]

Agreed. We need a less obvious way to end the violence, but what is it? Perhaps a time machine and a little chat with Sykes and Picot? Really, it all began at the Crusades.

It's quite easy to end this kind of violence, as soon as you remove ideological blinders that "all religions are equal" and "police can't racially or religiously profile people".

Governments should take the threat of Islamist terror seriously. They should start serious counter-espionage operations against them.

As in: bugging mosques with mics and cameras. Why is it not okay, again?

Finding terrorists via undercover agents pretending to sell weapons/explosives, or disseminating extremist Islamist literature.

Making it absolutely clear to Muslim community leaders that they are free to believe in whatever religious fairy tale they want, but they *can't* force it down other people's throats - after all, *we* aren't forcing them to convert to another religion or atheism. Make it clear that they must obey the laws of the country they live in - being a Muslim (or any other religion) is not entitling anyone to be exempt from some laws.

[edit] Note: I am *not* saying that we should criminalize being a Muslim. Absolutely not.

 

[mheslep]

... Really, it all began at the Crusades.

Though ruthless violence predates the Crusades, I'm more inclined to 1740 AD if I have to pick a date related to the onset of this particular jihadi mindset, when the like of "slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out ..." apparently began to take precedence over more peaceful aspects of the Quran.

 

[I_am_learning]

So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad. I have't heard violence in retaliation on a non-ridiculing and factual articles comparing and contrasting the problems in Islam.
Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary? Ok, let's not modify the law on freedom of expression to exclude ridicule, because the demarcation might be difficult and prone to abuse, but can't everybody agree to use their own common sense and not ridicule the ISLAM?
For example, If your dog would bite you every-time you make a face to it, isn't it wise to stop doing it? at-least until you have trained it to not bite. You might feel that its your right to make face, and the dog should only retaliate by making face itself, but isn't it wise to be be pragmatic and realize that you live together with a dog who doesn't share your thought about freedom?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

 

[Tobias Funke]

snip

I'm pretty sure that governments already do all of that, even though they will likely deny bugging mosques because even they know that's going too far. I also believe that just as many Muslim immigrants know they have to obey the laws as American or Chinese immigrants. If they weren't Muslim, the popular narrative would be that this is a mental health issue and crazy people going on mass shootings is simply unavoidable (the US narrative, that is).

 

[mheslep]

I'm pretty sure that governments already do all of that, ...

Not so.
NYPD ends controversial Muslim spying unit

 

[Bystander]

Everybody take a deep breath, count to ten, go walk around the block. Evo's going to have to come in and throw a bucket of cold water here fairly soon.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?

It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?

 

[nikkkom]

I also believe that just as many Muslim immigrants know they have to obey the laws as American or Chinese immigrants.

Surely, they know they have to obey the law. It's just that Muslims significantly more often (than other groups) do not obey the law. For example, rapes in Western Europe are perpetrated by Muslims significantly in excess to their population fraction. Google, for example, "British muslim rape gang". Read the links. And notice that police was trying to ignore it for years on end - because being not-politically-correct can be a career-ending move.

 

[mheslep]

but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?

Yes, the freedom is necessary, though the ridicule may or may not be. And with it comes consequences; the possibility of speech directed back at the source, but not a massacre.

 

[nikkkom]

Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?

It is not merely necessary. Freedom to criticize other ideas is one of most *essential* parts of democracy.

 

[Evo]

Charlie Hebdo attack: 1 suspect dead, 2 arrested

The manhunt led authorities to the home of 18-year-old suspect Hamyd Mourad. The two other suspects were identified as homegrown terrorists Said Kouachi, 32, and Cherif Kouachi, 34;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/1-killed-3-injured-shooting-french-satirical-paper-article-1.2068486

 

[I_am_learning]

It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?

I am not advocating to fulfill their demands. I am just just suggesting not to do unnecessary things that can clearly result in violent retaliation. And it is we who are making the decision, not granting them the right, so I don't see a chance of slippery slope.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

suggesting not to do unnecessary things

What they think is unnecessary I most certainty can guarantee is not what you think is unnecessary. You are not dealing with logical people that behave civilly. You are missing the point to all of this. If not this cartoon, then something else. Non believers are infidels. They will think of something that offends them. Once you appease them to no end you'll be left with only one thing left to do and that is to convert.

 

[nikkkom]

I am not advocating to fulfill their demands. I am just just suggesting not to do unnecessary things that can clearly result in violent retaliation.

In your post, you compared them to a biting dog. This means that somehow you hold them to a lesser moral standard than other people. Somehow, it "okay" for them to kill people for drawing a cartoon, yet it's not okay if e.g. Christians would do this for a caricature of Jesus.

Are you advocating different rights for different people based on religion?

 

[Evo]

So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad. I have't heard violence in retaliation on a non-ridiculing and factual articles comparing and contrasting the problems in Islam.
Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary? Ok, let's not modify the law on freedom of expression to exclude ridicule, because the demarcation might be difficult and prone to abuse, but can't everybody agree to use their own common sense and not ridicule the ISLAM?
For example, If your dog would bite you every-time you make a face to it, isn't it wise to stop doing it? at-least until you have trained it to not bite. You might feel that its your right to make face, and the dog should only retaliate by making face itself, but isn't it wise to be be pragmatic and realize that you live together with a dog who doesn't share your thought about freedom?

If a dog bit you just because you made a face, the dog would be considered dangerous and NOT NORMAL, it's a stupid analogy.

So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad

Normal people would not take offense. This is what is wrong with Islam. You do not see this craziness and violence in other religions. I'm not even aware of the craziest of fundamental Christians going out and killing innocent people because they make jokes about Jesus.

 

[I_am_learning]

In your post, you compared them to a biting dog. This means that somehow you hold them to a lesser moral standard than other people. Somehow, it "okay" for them to kill people for drawing a cartoon, yet it's not okay if e.g. Christians would do this for a caricature of Jesus.

Are you advocating different rights for different people based on religion?

I compared "those who resort to violence in retaliation to ridicule/criticism/non-belief" to a biting dog, not all of the Muslims.
And I never said its 'okay' for the dog to bite me for making a face, but a mad dog does what a mad dog does, and if you can't correct, you may as-well euthanize it. But, having the knowledge that you live around mad dogs, who would bite for making a face, eating your breakfast, or just randomly, you can reduce your chance of getting bitten by stopping doing the least important thing: making a face.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is what is wrong with Islam

It's not just Islam though. It's very much cultural. Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east. You don't see Indonesian jihadists.

 

[Evo]

It's not just Islam though. It's very much cultural. Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east. You don't see Indonesian jihadists.

That may very well be true.

 

[Bystander]

Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east.

East of the Nile and west of the Khyber Pass is a rough rule of thumb.