Looks like another Fundamentalist Muslim attack, this time in Paris.

[Mike Sheehy]

Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..

"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"

go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?

[Lar Naparka]

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.

I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.

I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.

It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.

The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.

But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.

Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?

Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.

I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.

Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?

I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?

The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.

It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.

You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.

It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.

Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted  go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.

As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.

I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.

Point taken, Sid. I imagine most people in western society will agree with you but the fact is that some don't and some of that some are prepared to use AK47s to express their opinions.
To most Western eyes, the cartoons that caused the murderous attack  are pretty harmless but, obviously, there are some who don't see it that way.
I'm not condoning the attack in any way but both the staff at Charlie Hebdo and the security authorities should have anticipated the likelihood of such an action and, unfortunately, underestimated the chances of it happening.

[moysider]

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.

I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.

I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.

It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.

The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.

But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.

Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?

Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.

I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.

Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?

I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?

The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.

It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.

You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.

It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.

Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted  go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.

As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.

I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.

Agree, but what do you suggest should be done? Identifying a problem is all very well but a solution is something else. Do you think Charlie was liberal? Could make a case it has been a Godsend for LePen and National Front. I think they are probably right-wing. Modern France is secular and more racist than we are.

[moysider]

http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

On of their most prominent satirists was fired for anti-semitism. He set up a rival publication.

I am all for freedom of the press, but not freedom of the press unless you mention Jews. Then you are fired.

I seen that mentioned on a blog. Its a partially separate issue, but yes it struck a chord with me when I seen that.

It is a separate issue and I had to think before posting it, but ffs it is time the double standards ended.

The people who carried out this act, we can all agree, are scumbags. They are vile flith that have had their tiny brains poluted with religious hatred which allows them to justify their outrageous actions. There is no defending them whatsoever.

But the double standards applied to staff in that magazine for lampooning Islam and Judaism is very frustrating to see.

Indeed. I m not particularly religious and don t take offence easily. But should anybody be surprised when something like this happens in a Christian country that has a colonial history in Muslim lands and as a result millions of Muslim citizens? All you need is a few of those to become radicalised and there is a problem. As I posted earlier, it's not so long ago we were burning anybody who would dare contradict the church.
France has for years has a policy of assimilation for immigrants but different cultures don t evolve the same and trying to force the issue wont work. I m all for freedom of speech but what were Charlie and its cartoonists seeking to achieve? Shock? Humiliate or just make a living by selling magazines to a small enough readership? I would suspect that Charlie was not flavour of the month with the French establishment and security forces that would be hoping that zealots would not be encouraged?

Being a bit devil's advocate here of course. Cruikshank's cartoons of Ireland I'm sure were very influential in Britain at that time. I have to admit hey are well crafted. But they are also seeking to ridicule and influence opinion. Could even be accused of influencing government policy in Ireland. I suspect that many Irish people would still find these images offensive.

I find that a rather contradictory line. France has incitement to hatred laws and as long as you're not breaching those, anything is rightly fair game.

Their incitement to hatred laws are not working then!
Looks like some people don t like cartoonists but don t bother taking it to court. Instead they take AK47s into the middle of Paris.
Like you Charlie believed anything fair game. They paid a heavy price but I m sure it was worth it?

I still don t understand what they were trying to achieve?

The incitement of hated laws are not an issue here because the cartoons were well within the bounds of what is acceptable.

It's called freedom of expression, and whether you agree with it or not, their right to express themselves is a pillar of any free society.

You rather bizarrely approach this issue from the point of view of the perpetrators.

It's the same logic as saying that a rape victim deserves it because she wears revealing clothes.

Nah. That is totally unfair.
Ok, where to start here. Fine; the content of the cartoons were within what is acceptable in French law. But unfortunately not everybody looks on it that way. That s the thing. I expect there will be a backlash now after the initial solidarity with Charlie and freedom of speech. Surprisingly a British editor today said that yesterday proved that the gun can be mightier than the pen.
The reality is that Britain and France have large Muslim minorities. All it needs is a few to feel slighted  go rogue and innocent people ( who don t take satirical political magazines or bother anybody) die as a result.

As regards the point of view of the perpetrators!! That s what it s all about. There wouldn t be a story without them! Imagine all the intelligence and security in place in France to try and prevent acts like this. Yet a wee publication brings it on. But I suppose 'freedom of speech' makes it all worth while.

I'm as left-liberal as they come, am a a supporter of the Palestinian right of return and right to self-determination, voted Socialist at the last election and I imagine I will do again. My reaction, respectfully, to those Muslims who are offended by such cartoons, is "go and fook yourselves". There is a strain of fundamentalist Islam that is slowly gaining traction in the West and it cannot be allowed to do so.

Point taken, Sid. I imagine most people in western society will agree with you but the fact is that some don't and some of that some are prepared to use AK47s to express their opinions.
To most Western eyes, the cartoons that caused the murderous attack  are pretty harmless but, obviously, there are some who don't see it that way.
I'm not condoning the attack in any way but both the staff at Charlie Hebdo and the security authorities should have anticipated the likelihood of such an action and, unfortunately, underestimated the chances of it happening.

I doubt intelligence were surprised by this but how can you prevent it. It was already targeted. Only a question of when and how did it not happen sooner? A bit like what vultures get to the kill first - or more appropriately what leopard gets to the tethered goat first. Those cartoonists were dead men walking.

[Mike Sheehy]

Agree, but what do you suggest should be done? Identifying a problem is all very well but a solution is something else. Do you think Charlie was liberal? Could make a case it has been a Godsend for LePen and National Front. I think they are probably right-wing. Modern France is secular and more racist than we are.

"Charlie Hebdo"  is very much left wing. 

[charlieTully]

you love these atrocities Mike, they are just another opportunity for you to pick a fight with Seafoid, no doubt Muppet will now be on your list of legitimate targets as well.

[seafoid]

"Your obvious need to find some reason to blame the US or the Jews for every Jihadi atrocity points at some deep seated prejudice.
How about, for once, unequivocally condemning an atrocity without feeling the need for thrash around for some "dirt" to pin  on the victims."

That is classic Sheehy.It would not be complete without the ritual demand for a condemnation even though it was already included.
Muppet is worse than the killers because of the depth of his hatred.
Jesus Christ. 

[gallsman]

Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..

"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"

go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?

Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.

[AZOffaly]

Here is another one for your "craption" competition Muppet..

"...they promised me 72 virgins and all I got was this nerd"

go on...come up with something better ...or does your sense of humour cower before the precious "prophet" ?

I've looked at the cartoons, and while a few are fairly poor and I would say inflammatory towards Islam the religion, I think most of them are squarely aimed at the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. The one where the ISIS guy is beheading the prophet is particularly poignant I think.

I don't believe it's necessary to 'flame' anyone's religious beliefs continuously and spitefully, but I don't really think that's what this magazine was doing. It was lampooning the extremist mindset and violent actions of these lunatics. No less dangerous, sadly that's obvious, but a subtle difference in intention I would say.

[AZOffaly]

Here is one for your caption competition Muppet. I paraphrased it a bit..I hope you wont be "offended"



"It is hard to be apologised for by idiots"

'It is hard to be loved by dicks' is the translation. I see why you like it. 

Note: Here is a great blog for those afflicted with the need to use inappropriate "quotation marks": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com

you do understand what paraphrased means right ?

jesus, you are as thick as you are opinionated

This is another cartoon which makes my point. How is this a slag of Muhammad? It's obviously aimed at the people I was talking about. It's hard to be liked by idiots/dicks/arseholes/c***ts (cons is fairly flexible). Sums it up really. This one and the beheading one are fairly powerful statements, and neither are against Islam per se.

[Milltown Row2]

The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!!  Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.

Remember the life of Brian was banned here...

Banned by eejits that hadn't even seen it lol.... No one was wiped out by an AK47 for it, Dave Allen had a go at the Catholic church every week and we laughed, is Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie still a target?

Anybody trying to find a reason to excuse/blame/justify this needs to realise that people were executed in their place of work, regardless of whether you believe they were crossing the line with their 'cartoons' to have people, fathers/sons daughters/friends taken out like that is never never the right way to go about. Fecking animals

[Mike Sheehy]

Hypocritical coward. You attack others relentlessly for a misguided perception of their disdain for Jews while openly displaying naked contempt for Islam. And that's nothing to do with the image, which I couldn't give a toss about.

how does that image display "naked contempt for Islam" ?

[seafoid]

Les flics seem to have cornered the killers 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates

[haveaharp]

The cast of The Life of Brian are said yo be in hiding!! Seriously people need to cop on.... Just like here people are easily duped into doing deeds for a cause!!  Brainwashed very easily...... On all sides.

Remember the life of Brian was banned here...

Banned by eejits that hadn't even seen it lol.... No one was wiped out by an AK47 for it, Dave Allen had a go at the Catholic church every week and we laughed, is Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie still a target?

Anybody trying to find a reason to excuse/blame/justify this needs to realise that people were executed in their place of work, regardless of whether you believe they were crossing the line with their 'cartoons' to have people, fathers/sons daughters/friends taken out like that is never never the right way to go about. Fecking animals

If Charlie Hebdo had have found away to beam "muhammed is a twat" onto the face of a full moon, it would still be no justification for what those animals did.

[Milltown Row2]

I'm sure religion heals a lot of people, brings answers to their 'prayers' and gives them hope for the future/afterlife, but in this stage of civilisation surely we have to fecking really get our heads out of the sand and wise the feck up.

Why these clampets on here are actually trying to debate reasons/excuses for this is unreal..... There was even someone on saying it didn't pan out the way it actually looked ?