On the news they said that they're dead. Which apparently makes them look like "heroes" in the eyes of other extremists (for dying), but the truth is they were, bluntly, monsters.

as IF that was why you were in the marais tho hun http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/images/smilies/gggggg.gif

can't a gal just do some sales shopping in peace?? (lol no ye its the marais who am i kiddin)

On the news they said that they're dead. Which apparently makes them look like "heroes" in the eyes of other extremists (for dying), but the truth is they were, bluntly, monsters.

Nevertheless they will be seen as martyrs by a small - but angry - minority.

Nevertheless they will be seen as martyrs by a small - but angry - minority.

Which is why I was really hoping they would wait them out. They got what they wanted not what they deserved - prison.

God, who are the sick people who do these things? They disgust me.

Also, on the bus yesterday I was talking about this and someone pointed out that if we're not careful, we could end up with these people as our government. (Well, technically people aren't stupid enough to vote for terrorists for Head of Government, but the average number of children for a woman is under 2 in Europe, but theirs is higher, so it is possible that some country ends up with extremists in their government, and then... that country is almost certainly doomed.)

Please. Who the f*** are you referring to? I don't think terrorist fertility rate is a widely-measured statistic.

Edited January 10, 201510 yr by Harve

Please. Who the f*** are you referring to? I don't think terrorist fertility rate is a widely-measured statistic.

I'm pleased someone called it out, I didn't want to SAY...

Yes, what a moronically worded/thought out post all round :huh:

I'm pleased someone called it out, I didn't want to SAY...

Since it reads like the kind of post I would've made when I was 14 or so, right down to 'also, on the bus today', I felt obliged. When such garbage is 90% of what you hear, I don't blame him for believing it.

 

As tiresome as it is, the Muslims /=/ terrorists thing still bears repeating!

Rupert Murdoch has now "treated" us to his opinions and has shown his true racist colours. In his "considered" view, he thinks all Muslims should take responsibility for this week's dreadful events. I must have missed him calling for all Catholics to take responsibility for the IRA. His insistence that all Australians should take responsibility for the siege in Sydney last month also seems to have passed me by. So far, it would appear that just four people are responsible. Three of them are now dead and will be seen as martyrs by others of the same mindset.

The scenes in Paris today are very uplifting. A humongous show of unity, love and support!

 

Rupert Murdoch has now "treated" us to his opinions and has shown his true racist colours. In his "considered" view, he thinks all Muslims should take responsibility for this week's dreadful events. I must have missed him calling for all Catholics to take responsibility for the IRA. His insistence that all Australians should take responsibility for the siege in Sydney last month also seems to have passed me by. So far, it would appear that just four people are responsible. Three of them are now dead and will be seen as martyrs by others of the same mindset.

On the flip side, Twitter is now full of Rupert's, Murdoch's, White People and Australians apologising for Rupert Murdoch and it's GLORIOUS.

We had national marches today and over 5,000 people sang La Marseillaise outside Alliance Française in Dublin. I planned to go but got held up elsewhere, but apparently it was quite something.

 

And JK Rowling's response to Murdoch was fabulous.

Prophet Muhammad on the new Charlie Hebdo cover.

 

Suedehead edit - if you are offended by depictions of Muhammad, don't look any further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/12/12-charlie-hebdo.w245.h368.2x.jpg

Edited January 13, 201510 yr by Suedehead2

I was quite surprised to find myself agreeing totally with the Islamic voice in the Guardian on this.

 

I've never really been a fan of Charlie Hebdo – its humour was often too bawdy for my taste and I agree with one of their former employees, Olivier Cyran, that in recent years it has often drifted into racist caricatures, reinforcing an already toxic environment for French Muslims.

 

For an allegedly anti-establishment magazine, it failed to challenge, and often buttressed, the state's well-documented increasing restrictions on the basic freedoms of Muslims. It also used the sorts of racial stereotypes in its imagery which foster precisely the sorts of racist attitudes they purported to be challenging. At some point, one's claim to be anti-racist has to be diminished if the subjects of racism – minorities themselves – tell you you're being racist. Ignoring their voice is arguably a dubious form of anti-racism.

 

My kind of satire is the type that punches up, the type that holds the powerful to account and mocks authority – there is a huge difference between mocking the clerical class that used to rule France through privileged access to power and mocking the faith of the descendants of immigrants largely locked out of power and experiencing acute levels of prejudice.

 

Today's front cover bothers me only in one regard and that is in the racial stereotypes employed in the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, a shorthand here for Arabs and Muslims more broadly. We (thankfully!) wouldn't accept an image of a hooked-nose Jew, so it is unclear to me why images of hooked-nose Arabs – because forget who the prophet Muhammad is to Muslims, he is an Arab man being depicted in racially stereotypical terms – isn't more disturbing to others. One of my favourite caricatures by Charlie Hebdo was one featuring the prophet Muhammad being beheaded by an extremist. That image perfectly captures the hijacking of the faith by radicals and the truth that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism and the main target of retaliatory violence.

The Arts correspondent one was so slobbering it almost read like parody. Someone get Pseud's Corner on the phone.

 

It's a life affirming work of art.

 

Charlie Hebdo's new cover depicting the prophet Muhammad holding a Je suis Charlie placard with a tear coming from his eye is a life-affirming work of art. For a brief moment, it will turn Paris into the art capital of Europe, which of course would come as no surprise to Manet, Picasso or the cartoonist Daumier who went to prison in 1835 for portraying the king as a pear. Luz has drawn Muhammad in his customary abbreviated manner, simple and sketchy with thick rapid lines. It is this quick, almost dismissive style of drawing that communicates his universal disrespect. He'd draw you or me like this and he draws Muhammad like this too. Yet in the aftermath of the mass murder of his colleagues this lack of reverence declared in every line of the drawing becomes a truly sublime declaration of freedom.

 

This cover is not just a work of art because it's drawn well. It's a work of art in the way it is challenging world media to republish it and thus join Charlie Hebdo's gentle, sniggering army of freedom. I do mean sniggering. It is laughter that came under attack last week. Funny people were killed for being funny. This new cover is the only possible response – a response that makes you laugh. Denying the comic power of this cover would be another way to censor it, smothering the joke with anxieties. The comic humanist Rabelais, in the 16th century, put intelligent laughter at the heart of French culture. If you can laugh you can think. If you can see something as funny you can stand back from it and consider it in a more rounded, healthy, human way.

 

The slain staff and contributors to Charlie Hebdo were killed because of the exact images and words used by Charlie Hebdo, but well-meaning support for the magazine has until now foundered on the fear of republishing those supposedly offensive creations. If they were not republished, what did all the handwringing mean?

 

Now the magazine has taken matters into its own hands and saved its archive from some kind of pious oblivion. This cover cannot be ignored. Above all, take a close look at this drawing – whatever your faith or lack of faith. What, in the eyes of humanity as opposed to ideology or dogma, can really be offensive about it? There is nothing to see here except good humour and reason and the love of life.

 

 

I think the first article raises some good points, but I find this bit to be a bit of a leap of logic:

 

Today's front cover bothers me only in one regard and that is in the racial stereotypes employed in the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, a shorthand here for Arabs and Muslims more broadly. We (thankfully!) wouldn't accept an image of a hooked-nose Jew, so it is unclear to me why images of hooked-nose Arabs – because forget who the prophet Muhammad is to Muslims, he is an Arab man being depicted in racially stereotypical terms – isn't more disturbing to others.

 

Who says Muhammad is being used to stereotype Arabs and Muslims more broadly, rather than just Muhammad "himself"?