World Politics

[sniper]

An already radicalized jihadist doesn't need much to justify his own actions. But there *are* socio-political factors in how a Muslim youth becomes radicalized and turns to jihadism.

This kind of attack is meant to polarize France by pitting everyone else against the Muslims, thus isolating them, creating grievances for them and increasing the odds that they'll turn to jihadism. Wanna lash out against Islam as a whole? Good job, that's just what the jihadists want.

great post.

 

[The Hitch]

with all respect, this is the recurring populist strawman that kills any real discussion about deeper motives and about ways in which the civilized west might be propelling certain forms of terrorism.

there are no reasons for freakish gunnings.
we didn't need yesterday's tragedy to realize that.

There is NO way, the west propels sociopaths who massacre innocents in the street. You apologists need to learn to accept that sometimes people are responsible for their own actions and not everything must be the fault of the big bad west.

To suggest there is anything legitimate in the motives behind these people who want to enslave all women, destroy all free press and kill everyone who doesn't convert to their religion is disgusting.

 

[sniper]

Let's n say it baldly, shall we? Freedom of speech is only hallow in the West (I don't even count the Middle East, where no such freedom exists and for the known reason), so long as it doesn't touch the ultra-sensitive nerve of religion (I'm not taking about racial slurs, minority discrimination, offending those based on various social phobias and paranoia, frequently by the way religiously driven).

But I say it’s the religious that need to get over themselves, grow-up, and stop placing their damn irrational beliefs before my freedom of independent thought and expression. The level of which, in any given society, the necessary art of satire is tolerated, or not; is a demonstration of the civility and maturity of that society. To place that in doubt, or to question it, means caving into a world of obscurantism, irrationality, arrogance, violence, baseness. It isn't an attack against religion, or anyone’s right to believe in whatever they like, but an appeal to that independence of any dogmatic viewpoints, without which civilization rests firmly in a decidedly less comprehending and crueler Middle Ages.

fair points, and well said.

but I think it's useless to place so much emphasis on 'freedom of speech' as a defining value, as the West is doing.
what about 'the right to not live in poverty', or 'the right to not get your house bombed'? The West only pretends to care about those rights.
Freedom of speech, put bluntly, serves those in power. It does not serve the people who struggle to get food on the table on a daily basis.

(have to apologize as well for lacking the time right now to dive into this discussion with more nuance as the topic certainly deserves.)

 

[Merckx index]

Anyone else struck by how much "Je Suis" looks like "Jesu is"?

Some interesting developments:

1) One of the alleged perps turned himself in, saying he had nothing to do with the murders, but heard his name on social media as being involved. Possible that was to lead the police astray? Also in support of that,

2) One of the brothers thought to be involved left his ID behind. Given how professional this attack was, would he really be that careless? Is it possible he used the ID of someone already linked to jihadists, with the latter's permission, again, to confuse the police?

3) The investigators allegedly said they didn't think these brothers ever had training that would enable them to carry out the attack so professionally. That could also be consistent with a false lead, the perps not being who the police think they are.

 

[sniper]

There is NO way, the west propels sociopaths who massacre innocents in the street. You apologists need to learn to accept that sometimes people are responsible for their own actions and not everything must be the fault of the big bad west.

To suggest there is anything legitimate in the motives behind these people who want to enslave all women, destroy all free press and kill everyone who doesn't convert to their religion is disgusting.

fair points, for sure.

But to label those who call for wider reflection on the role of the west in triggering terrorism 'apologists', that's a strawman, imo.

And freedom of speech? They don't need that in Irak, Afghanistan and Palestina. There they need food on the table and a roof over their heads in the first place.

(again, apolpgies for lacking the time to go into this deeper, and with more nuance.)

 

[rhubroma]

fair points, and well said.

but I think it's useless to place so much emphasis on 'freedom of speech' as a defining value, as the West is doing.
what about 'the right to not live in poverty', or 'the right to not get your house bombed'? The West only pretends to care about those rights.
Freedom of speech, put bluntly, serves those in power. It does not serve the people who struggle to get food on the table on a daily basis.

(have to apologize as well for lacking the time right now to dive into this discussion with more nuance as the topic certainly deserves.)

And I agree with you, but unfortunately, what was at hand yersterday and is at stake today, is an issue over freedom of speech that has come to distinguish modernity from the bleak and totalitarian orders of the past.

Orders still represented by the terrorists who decided that someone else's sacrosanct right to satire, for this is what we are talking about, was just (divinely sanctioned) cause for their extinction.

Certainly the West pays mere lips service to those other rights you mentioned, to which I would add a human dignity that is free from danger at the hands of religious fanatics, who can't tolerate anyone that isn't a religious fanatic like themselves.

Blunt freedom of speech, however, doesn't only serve those in power. It also serves those who refuse to be subjugated. Now at the risk of serving those in power, versus not having freedom of speech (which serves those in power even more); it obviously behooves us to live with that risk.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

To suggest there is anything legitimate in the motives behind these people who want to enslave all women, destroy all free press and kill everyone who doesn't convert to their religion is disgusting.

Obviously nobody in this topic is suggesting anything remotely close to this.

But there's two simple facts which prompts one to ask the questions hrotha and sniper are asking.

1) Mainstream Islam doesn't support these types of terrorist actions. For all that might be wrong with mainstream Islam, the average Muslim walking around in Europe doesn't support terrorism.

2) Increasingly, young Muslims in Europe are attracted away from traditional mainstream Islam to forms of Islam that do promote terrorism.

Nobody is questioning the heinous nature of Islamic terrorism. But the question remains; why do Muslim youths who grow up in the West radicalize and support terrorism? There is a real problem, but the problem isn't with mainstream Islam, but with specific jihadist forms of Islam which are unfortunately becoming more prominent and appear to be appealing to young European muslims.

Just ranting about Islam in general will only cause polarization and increase the hostilities between Islam and the West. So I fully agree with hrotha; if our response to these types of heinous acts is antagonizing all of Islam, it only furthers the cause of the terrorists.

 

[The Hitch]

fair points, and well said.

but I think it's useless to place so much emphasis on 'freedom of speech' as a defining value, as the West is doing.
what about 'the right to not live in poverty', or 'the right to not get your house bombed'? The West only pretends to care about those rights.
Freedom of speech, put bluntly, serves those in power. It does not serve the people who struggle to get food on the table on a daily basis.

(have to apologize as well for lacking the time right now to dive into this discussion with more nuance as the topic certainly deserves.)

No they were not protesting poverty. And unless they had some solidarity with the ivory coast or Greenpeace I doubt they were protesting bombings, considering the attack occured in France.

 

[blutto]

So. what is the "injustice" the shooters were protesting against?

....the post clearly said "real or perceived injustice".....

...so why don't we just take a deep breath, calm down and get off the high horse shall we....

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Obviously nobody in this topic is suggesting anything remotely close to this.

But there's two simple facts which prompts one to ask the questions hrotha and sniper are asking.

1) Mainstream Islam doesn't support these types of terrorist actions. For all that might be wrong with mainstream Islam, the average Muslim walking around in Europe doesn't support terrorism.

2) Increasingly, young Muslims in Europe are attracted away from traditional mainstream Islam to forms of Islam that do promote terrorism.

Nobody is questioning the heinous nature of Islamic terrorism. But the question remains; why do Muslim youths who grow up in the West radicalize and support terrorism? There is a real problem, but the problem isn't with mainstream Islam, but with specific jihadist forms of Islam which are unfortunately becoming more prominent and appear to be appealing to young European muslims.

Just ranting about Islam in general will only cause polarization and increase the hostilities between Islam and the West. So I fully agree with hrotha; if our response to these types of heinous acts is antagonizing all of Islam, it only furthers the cause of the terrorists.

Unfortunately mainstream Islam doesn't tolerate satire either. It's time for moderate Islam to start taking its share in the responsibility for radical Islam.

A good start would be mass Muslim protests against the jihadists next door and doning the black arm band of mouring for Charlie Hebdo.

 

[The Hitch]

Obviously nobody in this topic is suggesting anything remotely close to this.

But there's two simple facts which prompts one to ask the questions hrotha and sniper are asking.

1) Mainstream Islam doesn't support these types of terrorist actions. For all that might be wrong with mainstream Islam, the average Muslim walking around in Europe doesn't support terrorism.

2) Increasingly, young Muslims in Europe are attracted away from traditional mainstream Islam to forms of Islam that do promote terrorism.

Nobody is questioning the heinous nature of Islamic terrorism. But the question remains; why do Muslim youths who grow up in the West radicalize and support terrorism? There is a real problem, but the problem isn't with mainstream Islam, but with specific jihadist forms of Islam which are unfortunately becoming more prominent and appear to be appealing to young European muslims.

Just ranting about Islam in general will only cause polarization and increase the hostilities between Islam and the West. So I fully agree with hrotha; if our response to these types of heinous acts is antagonizing all of Islam, it only furthers the cause of the terrorists.

err, are you trying to troll me or just possess some.massive reading and comprehension difficulties.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Your response appears to confirm my point.

Elaborate. This is no sort of reply. You may not know that I am not Dutch, just a long time resident.

 

[cineteq]

 

[theyoungest]

Elaborate. This is no sort of reply. You may not know that I am not Dutch, just a long time resident.

Outside of Holland, Hirsi Ali has positioned herself as a kind of martyr for free speech, maybe that's what del1962 refers to.

Anyway, my personal favourite response by a cartoonist (Joep Bertrams):

 

[mrhender]

Anyone else struck by how much "Je Suis" looks like "Jesu is"?

Yes, one can't help to wonder how "coincidental" the usage in this instance is.

Some interesting developments:

1) One of the alleged perps turned himself in, saying he had nothing to do with the murders, but heard his name on social media as being involved. Possible that was to lead the police astray? Also in support of that,

2) One of the brothers thought to be involved left his ID behind. Given how professional this attack was, would he really be that careless? Is it possible he used the ID of someone already linked to jihadists, with the latter's permission, again, to confuse the police?

3) The investigators allegedly said they didn't think these brothers ever had training that would enable them to carry out the attack so professionally. That could also be consistent with a false lead, the perps not being who the police think they are.

Yes.. It seems (to me) unusual in "common terror" events with this kind of potential smokescreen.. I wonder if they wish to make the humuliation complete by not only murdering, but also displaying a form of incompetence and of course powerlessness with the 'counterpart' and their authorities...

 

[rhubroma]

 

[blutto]

....some words that should be looked at ....from an academic source that is considered fairly centrist...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris
By Juan Cole | Jan. 7, 2015

The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. French Muslims may be the most secular Muslim-heritage population in the world (ex-Soviet ethnic Muslims often also have low rates of belief and observance). Many Muslim immigrants in the post-war period to France came as laborers and were not literate people, and their grandchildren are rather distant from Middle Eastern fundamentalism, pursuing urban cosmopolitan culture such as rap and rai. In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination. This tactic is similar to the one used by Stalinists in the early 20th century. Decades ago I read an account by the philosopher Karl Popper of how he flirted with Marxism for about 6 months in 1919 when he was auditing classes at the University of Vienna. He left the group in disgust when he discovered that they were attempting to use false flag operations to provoke militant confrontations. In one of them police killed 8 socialist youth at Hörlgasse on 15 June 1919. For the unscrupulous among Bolsheviks–who would later be Stalinists– the fact that most students and workers don’t want to overthrow the business class is inconvenient, and so it seemed desirable to some of them to “sharpen the contradictions” between labor and capital.

The operatives who carried out this attack exhibit signs of professional training. They spoke unaccented French, and so certainly know that they are playing into the hands of Marine LePen and the Islamophobic French Right wing. They may have been French, but they appear to have been battle hardened. This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes instead of faltering in the face of lively Beur youth culture (French Arabs playfully call themselves by this anagram). Ironically, there are reports that one of the two policemen they killed was a Muslim.
***

“Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers

 

[theyoungest]

We probably won't get any tributes better than this, by the one and only Uderzo:

 

[frenchfry]

Anyone else struck by how much "Je Suis" looks like "Jesu is"?

Some interesting developments:

1) One of the alleged perps turned himself in, saying he had nothing to do with the murders, but heard his name on social media as being involved. Possible that was to lead the police astray? Also in support of that,

2) One of the brothers thought to be involved left his ID behind. Given how professional this attack was, would he really be that careless? Is it possible he used the ID of someone already linked to jihadists, with the latter's permission, again, to confuse the police?

3) The investigators allegedly said they didn't think these brothers ever had training that would enable them to carry out the attack so professionally. That could also be consistent with a false lead, the perps not being who the police think they are.

I really don't think there is any intention for Je suis to represent Jesus. In any case, Charlie Hebdo is resolutely anti-religion (or the excesses of religion) regardless of what the religion is.

As to your other points:

1) the person who "turned himself in" apparently had the same name as one of the suspects but is not that person. A witness said he was in class yesterday.

2) indeed strange that one of the main suspects left his ID in the car. Stupid mistake or deliberate? For now it doesn't appear that they are trying to hide their identities as they are reportedly holed up in a house NE of Paris after being identified by a gas station attendant. This will probably end up in a blaze of gunfire and explosions. If indeed the brothers are not the attackers, it is quite an elaborate plot for them to take the heat while the real attackers get away - doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

3) although it is apparent the perpetrators had some training, there have also been some mistakes identified. For example, they first went to the wrong building. They appear to have had inside information as the entire Charlie Hebdo staff was together for a meeting when the shooting happened.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

...oh boy....lets start by noting we have agreed in the past and hopefully we will agree on many things in the future....but your response here mystifies though there is the distinct possibility that I wasn't clear enough ( or maybe just maybe you may have read my post in haste and didn't tie it into its relationship to a previous post )....

...so to reiterate....the atrocity in Paris was at base a crime that demands justice be brought to bear on the perps who slaughtered people that presented no immediate danger to the perps....the ongoing atrocity that is Iraq is also at base a crime that demands that justice be brought to bear on the perps who facilitated the slaughter of people that presented no immediate danger to those perps....

...in both cases justices needs to meted out in no uncertain terms....and seeing as the perps in both cases are real old school in their religious thinking something like burning at the stake ( or liberally sprinkled with weaponized phosphorous which is the modern equivalent ) or being drawn and quartered seems a sorta appropriate sentence....but only after they have been given a fair trial....

...and the fact that both stories surfaced on the same day is simply an odd coincidence so please don't jump to equate stuff ....

Cheers

nah Glen, you misinterpreted the analogy/metaphor.

was, taking the West to war in Mesopotamia = War Crime, the criminals in Paris who committed colded blooded mass murder = debased criminals.

the post was about ciminal action.

The cartoonists, they were just unwitting victims. Tho, they may have considered they were invoking some press freedom, when another interpretation may have been they were invoking samuel huntington's debunked thesis on Clash. Like those in Cophenhagen. Yes, you can do satire. But satire in context when George W talks about a crusade, and the conflagration in Mesopotamia.

remmber, you are ex uniform.

They aphorism bu the intelligence service goes
torture them in Damascus(Syria)
make them talk in Amman(Jordan)
make them disappear in Cairo(Egypt)

so we would send people to Assad in Damascus if we wanted them to squeal. Maher Arar?

He was "our *******". until he wasnt.

Blutto - yes I did read your post in haste. I apologize for the Jump to conclusion.

Blackcat - points taken thanks for the help.

I really don't get BuffaloSoldier and Amsterhammers posts about it is nice to see that there are sane people in the forums with regards to Swansons post.

So far with the exception of one poster here everyone seemed to be having some good opinions whether I agreed or not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

+1
great post.
all of this gets lost, unfortunately, in the hollow discussion about freedom of speech.

Yeah great post....I agree the injustice of those cartoons were just well so over the top. People were falling over dead when they read them and if not dead they were starving because of the drawings. It was just such an atrocity.

Religion of Peace.

Were are the Moderate Mainstream Muzelims protesting these radical Jihadist who have hijacked the religion of peace?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

err, are you trying to troll me or just possess some.massive reading and comprehension difficulties.

Hitch, I'm kind of curious how you've informed yourself about mainstream Islam. Do you have Muslim friends that explain their beliefs? Do you use the media? Which media? You hold some very strong opinions and I'm curious how you've formed them.

For the record, every mosque I've ever heard of is completely open to anyone. You might want to drop by one and see for yourself what's being discussed. Talk to a few of the other people attending. Make some new friends. Don't worry, they won't tackle you and saw off your head. Well, at least it's no more likely than a Christian will destroy your family with a hellfire missile launched from a drone.

John Swanson

 

[Amsterhammer]

I really don't get BuffaloSoldier and Amsterhammers posts about it is nice to see that there are sane people in the forums with regards to Swansons post.

So far with the exception of one poster here everyone seemed to be having some good opinions whether I agreed or not.

I think his post came after a number of more vitriolic ones, and it seemed like an oasis of calm and common sense by comparison. That's all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hitch, I'm kind of curious how you've informed yourself about mainstream Islam. Do you have Muslim friends that explain their beliefs? Do you use the media? Which media? You hold some very strong opinions and I'm curious how you've formed them.

For the record, every mosque I've ever heard of is completely open to anyone. You might want to drop by one and see for yourself what's being discussed. Talk to a few of the other people attending. Make some new friends. Don't worry, they won't tackle you and saw off your head. Well, at least it's no more likely than a Christian will destroy your family with a hellfire missile launched from a drone.

John Swanson

You are so cool brah.

Hey if anyone is invited to a mosque then how come the NYPD are not allowed into the mosque out in Queens or Brooklyn?

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch, I'm kind of curious how you've informed yourself about mainstream Islam. Do you have Muslim friends that explain their beliefs? Do you use the media? Which media? You hold some very strong opinions and I'm curious how you've formed them.

For the record, every mosque I've ever heard of is completely open to anyone. You might want to drop by one and see for yourself what's being discussed. Talk to a few of the other people attending. Make some new friends. Don't worry, they won't tackle you and saw off your head. Well, at least it's no more likely than a Christian will destroy your family with a hellfire missile launched from a drone.

John Swanson

What the **** are you talking about?

There was certainly nothing remotely related to what you just wrote, in the post you quoted, it's extremely bizzare, you are either going need to point out to me what post you are responding to or apolgize for misreading something.