French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead

[cwmbrancity]

nah its just the west does it on a far greater scale

 

#hypocrisy

[Hugh Mughnus]

 

Not really directly related but I didn't know where else to put it.

 

Apparently building snowmen is anti islamic.

 

 

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/01/12/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic

 

 

LOL

 

 

 

Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. "It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," one wrote.

 

 

 

I don't even care if I sound ignorant but that is complete nonsense. Snowmen promoting lustiness and eroticism?

[Lane Visitor]

 

 

 

Sure, I'm never one to turn down information from anyone who has knowledge, so I appreciate that breakdown and respect what seems like a pretty decent comprehension of the unfolding of events in the region. I am familiar with many aspects of that history, but I'm not a history buff or geopolitical scholar, though I do take an interest and have a poly sci / mass comm degree. Regardless, that's all fine and I'm not disagreeing with how things played out as you explained them. I just think those aspects are irrelevant when it comes to acts of terror on innocent lives. No "background information" is going to change that for me. Purposely targeting (and non-defensively) killing innocent people is black and white for me period, as nothing will ever justify (or as you might rather me put it- "empathize with perspectives of mindsets", or shed light upon reasoning etc etc) that. An escapee from an Aushwitz concentration camp going out of their way to murder a random German civilian farmer in the next village (who poses no threat) over out of sheer revenge due to adrenaline, anger, starvation, exhaustion, and battered spirit would get no sympathy from me in terms of justification/reasoning behind that act of murder. I also wouldn't try and "study" the effects of persecution and the roots of revenge killing as a way to normalize or pass off that act of murder as a problem of environment/institution/sociology. I would make a judgement, and say flat out that that hypothetical person is .. wait for it.. WRONG and acted out of evil. No shades of grey there for me. Anyway, just wanted to illustrate it from a different perspective, as it sometimes seems like a good amount of ppl on here don't like to talk about black and white, good and evil, shades of grey, morality as it relates to Islamic terrorism or extremism- for some reason, we have to understand more, more and more, and each time innocents are killed by them, we have to feel sadness rather than anger and analyze ourselves and geopolitics and democracy and sanctions and oil and everything- everything except the act itself. This line of thought is as if humans have zero free will, as we are simply all zombies playing out actions. Cold blooded murder? The system. Plane hijacked? U.S. government's military campaign. Charlie Hebdo attack? "Sure it was terrible and a horrific act of violence but we have to also look at the west's misunderstanding of Islam/French colonies/poor immigrant conditions etc etc etc..." And on and on... With that line of thought, shit, I could partially or even fully blame all the wrong things I've ever done to people or myself on everything from city council meetings to Chinese cyberhackers to even slavery (since ya know my girlfriend does in fact have 1/10 African American in her background). Yes, abstract notions of blame, but hey theyre there. Where do you draw the line of directly associated with abstractly associated? Is there an actual line? If so, I'd like you to point it out to explain your case. Where does accountability start and end? The reason why that can't be answered with confidence is the reason I'm quick to judge an act of coldblooded non-defensive murder on random innocent lives that happens in terrorist as inexcusable. There may be fibers of motive and connections behind the event of the Charlie Hebdo attack that were abstract indirect catalysts in the grand scheme of things, but the clear and apparent motive (Islamic radicalism in and of itself) is what led to this. They believed that the defaming the prophet called for the extreme act of taking out innocent lives to protect the image of their version of religion. That's it. It has nothing to do with oil, U.S. invasion, French colonies in Algeria. Look around the world and you will even find examples of how militants and terrorists convert by sword, enslaving and raping mass amounts of people from Africa to the Middle East- I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any other way than to blame those atrocities on anything other than the radical aspects of their religion. Does Boko Haram "feel oppressed to the point" where they had to go and steal little schoolgirls and throw them into a slave trade? Cmon.

 

 

 

Again, you're seeing "things" from a post-enlightenment, pro-individual, post-christian perspective.

 

There are people & places where that sense of perspective doesnt exist. They see humanity as "dividuals" and AGAIN, if you can not separate the causes of the acts from the acts themselves you understand very little about life beyond your own nation's borders. America has murdered, yes MURDERED, 1000's & 1000's of Islamic civilians in recent years, but thats just a footnote in history, n'est pas? Killing in the name of what then? The "FIYAH OF FREEDOM" (Bush 200?)? Democracy? Western values?

 

Here's another example for you - would i condone any Irish repblican killings, even though i fully grasp the extent of the human-rights struggle waged across that island? No. BUT (caveat) - i fully understand issues of internment w/out trial, stop n search, collusion between MI5 (British domestic intelligence service) and Unionist (protestant) paramilitaries (murderers), lack of access to education & discrimination in employment.

 

Now subvert that position even further - with infinitely more death & murder, infinitely more interference from foreign powers, infinitely more despair and loss of hope..........

 

imagine your country occupied by a foreign power (seen Red Dawn?).........wouldnt you act? What if you were Palestinian, living in Gaza after the Israelis showed up (yet again) and murdered your relatives n friends? You may not turn to murder,,,,,,and i respect your morality highly (honestly), but you would DEFINITELY be politicized and until you WERE in such a situation you have no context for empathy either. And it shows.

 

I'm not condoning murder and i'm no bleeding heart liberal, but i understand the causes of these actions. They are numerous & complex, but w/out decades & decades of western interference in Middle Eastern affairs none of these people would have any cause to act as they do.

 

 

There are also places where cannibalism or genocide is the status quo or culturally acceptable- doesn't mean that i can't judge it from the perspective of my culture and the majority of global humanity as an abhorrent, inhumane act. By your logic here, the concept of international law should be completely irrelevant because every society comes from different stages of the evolution of humanity. So more advanced and enlightened cultures acting upon human rights and individuality should tolerate tribal barbaric motives by tribal societies that lack the concept of human rights?

 

Anyone can throw the word "murder" around as it relates to U.S. intervention in the middle east, that's a pretty easy to try and demonize the the US/west/democracies. The difference between the types of "murder" between military campaigns and terrorist acts is not some fine line of debate. There's an ocean of differences in terms of intent, context, targeting. It's fine if you want to call purposeful strategic military targets on known militants as "murder", but that's simply twisting language around. Slitting a random coffeeshop owner's throat is cold blooded murder. Innocents unfortunately killed from a targeted drone attack on militant bases gone wrong, or from innocents in the line of fire is civilian casualties. And I know you're gonna tell me next that "these people in these tribal villages don't realize that collateral death is unintentional because they don't have internet, because their mass media blocks information from the west, because their religious fundamentalist-run leaderships don't allow the spread of global information," right? What's to blame for that lack of knowledge? I imagine you'd say "it's the West, we've completely dismantled their society and culture from decades of oppression to the point where they have been left powerless, without real leadership. It's no wonder they turn to fanatical religious mindsets? Right?" NO. They have other options than to use religious fanaticism and restriction of individual freedoms to organize their people. Their leaderships have chosen to do so, out of the countless models of how a leadership can run its nation.

 

Regarding this hypothetical infinite amount of despair-in-a-vacuum that you speak of, sure, I guess I couldn't know without a doubt how I'd react to this "despair" you speak of. However, I know that reality isn't as extreme as it's portrayed in Hollywood, and there always ways out of hopelessness without turning to losing one self's humanity. I think it's a little absurd you'd bring the aspect of this despair times infinity when many of the radicals in say France, which is what this thread is relating to, have more opportunities, freedom and life choices than some friends who I know in my own city lol

 

but all this aside, it's all good of course i know you or JE are not condoning those murders nor would i imagine anyone in here would.

[Lane Visitor]

 

It's cool though, you still make good vaporwave

 

 

haha thanks man.. likewise, I dig that Fluorescent Grey.

[DerWaschbar]

I think there is a misunderstanding in regards to differences between explaining behavior and excusing it. I don't think anyone in here is condoning these sort of attacks, which seems to be what you are perceiving.

 

It's the consequences of reactionary impulsive action that drives this cycle on all sides.

[Lane Visitor]

I think there is a misunderstanding in regards to differences between explaining behavior and excusing it. I don't think anyone in here is condoning these sort of attacks, which seems to be what you are perceiving.

 

It's the consequences of reactionary impulsive action that drives this cycle on all sides.

 

 

Agreed.. No i understand no one's condoning them.. but what Im really interested in, is the fine lines between making a multitude of indirect connections / explaining away context and empathy of mindsets and then the fine line between empathy of mindsets and condoning/justifying... but ehh that's another topic, prob best for some kind of ethics/psychology/philosophy thread

[chenGOD]

 

 

Not really directly related but I didn't know where else to put it.

 

Apparently building snowmen is anti islamic.

 

 

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/01/12/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic

 

 

LOL

 

 

 

Sheikh Munajjid had some supporters, however. "It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism," one wrote.

 

 

 

I don't even care if I sound ignorant but that is complete nonsense. Snowmen promoting lustiness and eroticism?

 

 

I don't know about you, but I always get solid wood when I sing Frosty the Snowman.

[cwmbrancity]

 

 

 

 

Sure, I'm never one to turn down information from anyone who has knowledge, so I appreciate that breakdown and respect what seems like a pretty decent comprehension of the unfolding of events in the region. I am familiar with many aspects of that history, but I'm not a history buff or geopolitical scholar, though I do take an interest and have a poly sci / mass comm degree. Regardless, that's all fine and I'm not disagreeing with how things played out as you explained them. I just think those aspects are irrelevant when it comes to acts of terror on innocent lives. No "background information" is going to change that for me. Purposely targeting (and non-defensively) killing innocent people is black and white for me period, as nothing will ever justify (or as you might rather me put it- "empathize with perspectives of mindsets", or shed light upon reasoning etc etc) that. An escapee from an Aushwitz concentration camp going out of their way to murder a random German civilian farmer in the next village (who poses no threat) over out of sheer revenge due to adrenaline, anger, starvation, exhaustion, and battered spirit would get no sympathy from me in terms of justification/reasoning behind that act of murder. I also wouldn't try and "study" the effects of persecution and the roots of revenge killing as a way to normalize or pass off that act of murder as a problem of environment/institution/sociology. I would make a judgement, and say flat out that that hypothetical person is .. wait for it.. WRONG and acted out of evil. No shades of grey there for me. Anyway, just wanted to illustrate it from a different perspective, as it sometimes seems like a good amount of ppl on here don't like to talk about black and white, good and evil, shades of grey, morality as it relates to Islamic terrorism or extremism- for some reason, we have to understand more, more and more, and each time innocents are killed by them, we have to feel sadness rather than anger and analyze ourselves and geopolitics and democracy and sanctions and oil and everything- everything except the act itself. This line of thought is as if humans have zero free will, as we are simply all zombies playing out actions. Cold blooded murder? The system. Plane hijacked? U.S. government's military campaign. Charlie Hebdo attack? "Sure it was terrible and a horrific act of violence but we have to also look at the west's misunderstanding of Islam/French colonies/poor immigrant conditions etc etc etc..." And on and on... With that line of thought, shit, I could partially or even fully blame all the wrong things I've ever done to people or myself on everything from city council meetings to Chinese cyberhackers to even slavery (since ya know my girlfriend does in fact have 1/10 African American in her background). Yes, abstract notions of blame, but hey theyre there. Where do you draw the line of directly associated with abstractly associated? Is there an actual line? If so, I'd like you to point it out to explain your case. Where does accountability start and end? The reason why that can't be answered with confidence is the reason I'm quick to judge an act of coldblooded non-defensive murder on random innocent lives that happens in terrorist as inexcusable. There may be fibers of motive and connections behind the event of the Charlie Hebdo attack that were abstract indirect catalysts in the grand scheme of things, but the clear and apparent motive (Islamic radicalism in and of itself) is what led to this. They believed that the defaming the prophet called for the extreme act of taking out innocent lives to protect the image of their version of religion. That's it. It has nothing to do with oil, U.S. invasion, French colonies in Algeria. Look around the world and you will even find examples of how militants and terrorists convert by sword, enslaving and raping mass amounts of people from Africa to the Middle East- I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any other way than to blame those atrocities on anything other than the radical aspects of their religion. Does Boko Haram "feel oppressed to the point" where they had to go and steal little schoolgirls and throw them into a slave trade? Cmon.

 

 

 

Again, you're seeing "things" from a post-enlightenment, pro-individual, post-christian perspective.

 

There are people & places where that sense of perspective doesnt exist. They see humanity as "dividuals" and AGAIN, if you can not separate the causes of the acts from the acts themselves you understand very little about life beyond your own nation's borders. America has murdered, yes MURDERED, 1000's & 1000's of Islamic civilians in recent years, but thats just a footnote in history, n'est pas? Killing in the name of what then? The "FIYAH OF FREEDOM" (Bush 200?)? Democracy? Western values?

 

Here's another example for you - would i condone any Irish repblican killings, even though i fully grasp the extent of the human-rights struggle waged across that island? No. BUT (caveat) - i fully understand issues of internment w/out trial, stop n search, collusion between MI5 (British domestic intelligence service) and Unionist (protestant) paramilitaries (murderers), lack of access to education & discrimination in employment.

 

Now subvert that position even further - with infinitely more death & murder, infinitely more interference from foreign powers, infinitely more despair and loss of hope..........

 

imagine your country occupied by a foreign power (seen Red Dawn?).........wouldnt you act? What if you were Palestinian, living in Gaza after the Israelis showed up (yet again) and murdered your relatives n friends? You may not turn to murder,,,,,,and i respect your morality highly (honestly), but you would DEFINITELY be politicized and until you WERE in such a situation you have no context for empathy either. And it shows.

 

I'm not condoning murder and i'm no bleeding heart liberal, but i understand the causes of these actions. They are numerous & complex, but w/out decades & decades of western interference in Middle Eastern affairs none of these people would have any cause to act as they do.

 

 

Regarding this hypothetical infinite amount of despair-in-a-vacuum that you speak of, sure, I guess I couldn't know without a doubt how I'd react to this "despair" you speak of. However, I know that reality isn't as extreme as it's portrayed in Hollywood

 

 

This is my point, its not Hollywood, its the death of hope itself. And from there you find fascism (which is what Islamic extremism is) & the last chance saloon politics of suicide bombers & the cunts who exploit these people into actually acting. Plenty of lambs have been fed into this particular meat grinder and i'd reiterate that choice is a very subjective element here. I look at the kids who left Britain recently, paraded on IS videos as calm, thoughtful, pious souls, but they're kids, they can barely grow facial hair. They're nearly all the sons of people who've come to this country since the division of India/Pakistan in 1947, who traveled here looking for a better life. They've experienced all the trappings of British society, but through the "war on terror" they've been thrust into the underbelly of chaos, religious zealotry & war. And at the same time i'm not saying they're all children, but loneliness, confusion about identity and far darker influences all play their part.

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic. I worked in DC for a period and i saw exactly what state some of the veterans who were visiting Walter Reed Hospital were in. Horrendous maiming. ts inexcusable. And dont forget Clinton & Blair bombed a European capital when they bombed Belgrade.

 

There has been a vicious, fuck you, murderous configuration to US foreign policy since WWII. Watch Oliver Stone's Untold History of America for a superbly researched angle. Look where US army bases are in comparison to where British military bases were during the empire.....coincidence? And i aint Merka-bashing either - as a British citizen i'm completely disgusted with the actions of our recent governments. Both of our nations have followed fascist, totalitarian, dictatorial agendas for hundreds of years. Dont let the notion that you believe you live in a supposedly civilized country lead you into thinking otherwise.

[awepittance]

I like the cut of your jib, we need more thoughtful perspectives like this on the forum. Sorry If my attempts are half-assed ar snarky, I've been on this forum for 7+ years and every time islamic terrorism fears are hyped up here I feel like I'm trying to move a mountain.

[khov]

 

 

 

 

And dont forget Clinton & Blair bombed a European capital when they bombed Belgrade.

 

you mean they almost stopped a genocide in Kosovo ? Sure they did. Belgrade and Milosevic brought back genocide in Europe during the 90s.

[cwmbrancity]

atrocities were committed by all sides.

 

they could have put more pressure on the Russians, who essentially owned Serbian influence.

 

it's called politics.

[khov]

atrocities were committed by all sides.

 

they could have put more pressure on the Russians, who essentially owned Serbian influence.

 

it's called politics.

 

Politics and genocide are 2 differents things actually. Check the number of civilians deaths caused by NATO, and the ones caused by Serbians troops/allies during the war in Yougoslavia between 1991 and 1999. It's insulting what you said. & Russia had been under pressure since 1991, the nato bombing happened in... 1999. Bombing an european capital is horrible as it implied civilians death but Milosevic and the serbians in Kosovo had to be stopped.

[chenGOD]

I'm surprised no one has posted Zizek's thoughts on this yet:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

 

 

I don't think it's the best thing he's ever written, but hey, it's Zizek

 

[cwmbrancity]

 

atrocities were committed by all sides.

 

they could have put more pressure on the Russians, who essentially owned Serbian influence.

 

it's called politics.

 

It's insulting what you said. & Russia had been under pressure since 1991

 

 

 

If the Russians had wanted to they could've pulled some serious moves on the Serbian leadership, but instead the west threw bombs at the problem.

 

Again, you've taken an emotive issue out of context.

 

Do you really think bombing Belgrade stopped the situation in the Balkans?

 

Are you aware of Croatian & Bosnian-Muslim militias killing civilians? So why not bomb Zagreb?

 

Bombing Belgrade was a massive fuck you to the Russians. If you cant see that then you need help.

[khov]

i need HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

[cwmbrancity]

not as much as this chap une chapesse,,,,,,,,,

 

 

[khov]

ah ah, i loved charb...

[cwmbrancity]

her tattoo makes me laugh

[chenGOD]

So for all you calling for moderate muslims to speak up more:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-islamists-to-f-off-on-live-television/

[Hugh Mughnus]

So for all you calling for moderate muslims to speak up more:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-islamists-to-f-off-on-live-television/

 

This is what the world needs, and this is what mainstream media needs to pick up on (sadly most mainstream media has a different agenda).

 

Hopefully imams and similar worldwide echo this sentiment. It's very scary what we have to live through right now.

[chenGOD]

It's not scary, your chance of dying in a terrorist attack in Calgary is infinitely smaller than being dragged to death by some drunk urban cowboy in his Ram 3500 that has never gone off clean pavement once in its entire driving life.

[Hugh Mughnus]

I disagree. I think the fear is real and tangible. I'll admit that the terrorists have won in this regard, that I do live in a bit of fear. I still do my daily shit, it just triggers my anxiety that maybe I'll probably die this time going grocery shopping lol.

 

These groups have listed France, Australia, the UK, and Canada as their enemies and have encouraged attacks in these places. Relative to other cities in Canada, Calgary has the highest number of people that have moved over to fight WITH ISIS (I forget where I've read that, tbh).

 

It's only a matter of time before someone bombs our ctrain (mass transit), etc.

 

But yeah the dickhead cowboys in their trucks with lift kits they don't really need etc.. that's still a real danger too...

 

 

Edit: Just to add to that, Canada just approved 13000 syrian refugees????

 

Yeah, that won't be a problem at all.... =S

 

wtf

[goDel]

Aboutaleb is great!

[chenGOD]

I disagree. I think the fear is real and tangible. I'll admit that the terrorists have won in this regard, that I do live in a bit of fear. I still do my daily shit, it just triggers my anxiety that maybe I'll probably die this time going grocery shopping lol.

 

These groups have listed France, Australia, the UK, and Canada as their enemies and have encouraged attacks in these places. Relative to other cities in Canada, Calgary has the highest number of people that have moved over to fight WITH ISIS (I forget where I've read that, tbh).

 

It's only a matter of time before someone bombs our ctrain (mass transit), etc.

 

But yeah the dickhead cowboys in their trucks with lift kits they don't really need etc.. that's still a real danger too...

 

 

Edit: Just to add to that, Canada just approved 13000 syrian refugees????

 

Yeah, that won't be a problem at all.... =S

 

wtf

 

Canada has a long history of accepting refugees, and this is Harper's grandstanding to make up for his government's terrible record with the issue.

 

Please don't buy the fear. The US has long been on the terrorist shit list - your chances of dying in a terrorist attack there (at least one that's not homegrown) are far smaller than just about any daily activity you can think of. You have a greater chance of dying going grocery shopping.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

 

http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

[manmower]

So for all you calling for moderate muslims to speak up more:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/muslim-mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-islamists-to-f-off-on-live-television/

Those still calling for it as if "the" moderate muslims are condoning terrorism or burying their heads in the sand must not have paid much attention for the past week or so. That or they get their news exclusively from WATMM's echo chamber for (un)subtle islamophobia.