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

[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.

 

[Evo]

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 dog does what a dog does, and if you can't correct, you may as-well euthanize it. But, having the knowledge that you live around 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.

No, you train the dog to stop the behavior or have him put down, you do not accept it. He could attack some innocent child. So please stop the ridiculous analogy.

 

[nikkkom]

I compared "those who resort to violence in retaliation to ridicule/criticism/non-belief" to a biting dog, not all of the Muslims.

I, too, did not mean all Muslims. I meant those Muslims who support killing for a caricature.

And I never said its 'okay' for the dog to bite me for making a face, but a dog does what a dog does

That's my point: they are HUMANS, not animals. I am against keeping them, or anyone else, to a lower moral standard than the rest of us. It's not okay for me to kill for a cartoon. It's not okay for THEM to do this. If they want to do that, we should not avoid drawing caricatures - we should find these people and throw them to jails.

 

[nikkkom]

Gawd, those cartoonists drew cartoons about Jews too! Prepare for a wave of Jewish terrorists in France!... er... maybe not?

_After_ the shooting, a car was set on fire near a synagogue in Sarcelles (France):

http://www.metronews.fr/info/une-voiture-en-feu-devant-la-synagogue-de-sarcelles/moag!QgmaIv9BerYoY/

Now, this time those pesky Jews will _definitely_ start killing Frenchmen!... or not? Place your bets!

 

[mheslep]

You don't see Indonesian jihadists.

Modern jihadism seems to derive from the Wahhabism movement originating in Saudi Arabia, so that would perhaps explain the concentration in the Middle East, but jihadism is not absent in Indonesia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Indonesia#2010s

 

[I_am_learning]

No, you train the dog to stop the behavior or have him put down, you do not accept it. He could attack some innocent child. So stop the ridiculous analogy.

I am sorry if my analogy is offending you.
I will try to answer without using the analogy.
I fully agree that drawing those cartoons should be allowable.
I fully agree that what the terrorists did should be condemned.
My belief was that, if drawing those cartoons, although allowable by french law, is a sure way to get attacked, maybe its not worth it?
What is to be gained through those cartoons besides laughter and ridicule, to worth the risk?
Maybe be I miss the point because I am not a consumer of ridicule-jokes and maybe I am just too coward.

Thanks.

 

[mheslep]

those cartoonists drew cartoons about Jews too!

And Christians, and ...

 

[Bystander]

Maybe be I miss the point because I am not a consumer of ridicule-jokes and maybe I am just too coward.

How many people are you willing to have running every aspect of your life? Westerners are prone to telling such people to "get over themselves." Live and let live, offend and be offended --- these things are all a matter of personal choice. I'll go out of my way to be civil, not profane another's religion, but I'll not have my life run or dictated by that religion.

 

[Evo]

What is to be gained through those cartoons besides laughter and ridicule, to worth the risk?.

The fact that in a free society, we do not have to live in fear of religious persecution.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Please stay on topic. Off topic posts will be removed.

 

[I_am_learning]

The fact that in a free society, we do not have to live in fear of religious persecution.

Removing the fear of religious persecution is a great cause indeed, and I salute Charlie Hebdo for the bravery to fight for it.

I'll go out of my way to be civil, not profane another's religion

Like talked above, it seems that once in a while, somebody has to profane a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶n̶ religions, to establish that you should be allowed to do that.