Paris terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo

tbradman

karma_ wrote: »

Look, I have no particular admiration for that poster and I almost never agree with anything he posts on this forum but there is a difference between justification and providing context for deeper understanding. And let's be honest, he hasn't justified any murders.

Ok I take your point, but only to a degree...

He may not have justified the murders, but I do believe he has gone a step beyond “providing a context”. He has stated that they were the literal author of their own misfortunes. That their death was ordained by expressing an opinion that a group of people would find offensive, and that being offended it was a matter of fact that they would be killed. That’s pretty much blaming the victim.

My point of view is that the terrorists had decided to kill someone. If the cartoonists had not been available, it would have been someone else. As their colleague in the kosher supermarket proved.

conorh91

tbradman wrote: »

Interestingly enough even Hamas can find no justification for the murders…

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/hamas-condemns-paris-attacks-as-having-no-justification-1.2061860

If you can understand that Hamas statement, how can you not understand the same principle in what others are saying?

Do you think Hamas support Charlie Hebdo's depiction of Mohammad? Of course not.

Hamas said in their statement in relation to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that "any differences in opinion are no justification for killing innocents"

Clearly you must agree there is some sense in that statement.

And when people say that here, you accuse them of justifying the murders.

fly_agaric

conorh91 wrote: »

Men with pens sometimes advance really dumb ideas. Do you understand?...

I have tried likening this to people claiming God hates fags, to people advancing ideas of white supremacy, and to people who publish the word Nigger. But it's pointless.

Examples seem to be sorts of hate speech (...edit: perhaps not "God Hates fags", but its possibly a short step from proclaiming that "God hates fags" and God's "followers" deciding to become His instruments of punishment for "fags" on earth!). Also another poster mentioned European anti-semitism laws earlier; typically these are aimed at people using Nazi-era symbology, references to the blood libel and the likes (i.e. hate speech against Jews). Were the magazines' cartoonists engaged in hate speech? Is insulting the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him hate speech? Presumably insulting any religion/religious prophet [no matter how daft and prone to offence some of their followers are] is hate speech also? Not to mention the gems to be found in the various holy books.

walshb

tbradman wrote: »

Hmmm… You seem to feel that the cartoons were a justification for the murder of the 10 journalists (and two police officers?). In all of the discussions, objections, questions and observations from myself and other posters you have not shifted from this position, so maybe I’ll just write you off as a lost cause.

Interestingly enough even Hamas can find no justification for the murders…

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/hamas-condemns-paris-attacks-as-having-no-justification-1.2061860

However I do have one last question for you. What do you think justifies the murder of the four civilians in the Kosher supermarket on Friday by their Islamic fundamentalist friend?

In a peaceful world with decent people there is no justification for any deliberate taking of life other than self defence I suppose.

The killings are disgraceful, abhorrent. I simply think that they could have been avoided. The magazine already was under a very dangerous threat. They knew what they were doing, and they knew of its impact and they knew that it was extremely offensive to a massive section of society. So, some nuts decided that the cartoons were too much for them and decided to take the ultimate revenge. Like I said before, we can condemn two different actions here.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

It was bullets that cost them their lives. Cartoons caused these murders like short skirts cause rapes.

I'm curious: you clearly believe that cartoons that offend Muslims shouldn't be published. Do you believe that cartoons that offend Christians shouldn't be published?

If the cartoons brought a very real threat and danger, then I wouldn't be sticking my neck out to publish them.

The Charlie employees didn't seem to care that their lives were in real danger, and continued to bait the Muslim population. Free speech or not, they died from exercising their free speech. I would call their speech in this case not in good taste, and not at all funny or advisable.

walshb

karma_ wrote: »

Look, I have no particular admiration for that poster and I almost never agree with anything he posts on this forum but there is a difference between justification and providing context for deeper understanding. And let's be honest, he hasn't justified any murders.

I am not sure our posting paths have ever crossed. I assume your post above is in relation to me?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ireland.man

Are we defending the right to free speech or the right to free speech of images of which we approve?

I see posters here criticising the nature and content of the cartoons but not calling for their suppression yet other posters are falling over themselves in turn to condemn any criticism. Why?

Can we not call for protecting the free speech of neo-Nazis and their anti-Semitic materials without pretending we approve of their message?

walshb

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes! And more so if he was my brother/father/son.

dlouth15

walshb wrote: »

Yes! And more so if he was my brother/father/son.

And that would be your right. I might do the same. But I think we have to agree that this would not be a principled stand. This is backing down out of fear. This is being intimidated.

What I think people might find objectionable, and I think you are trying to do this, is turning being intimidated into a sort of virtue.

walshb

dlouth15 wrote: »

What about when they poke fun at political leaders. Is that also not justified?

If said political leaders have shown a real sensitivity and a proclivity for violence, and are capable of killing over this sensitivity, (or fun poking) as you put it, then yes, probably not advisable to poke fun at them.

The cartoon creators weren't poking fun. They were more deliberately baiting and offending a religion. That didn't go unnoticed, and they knew that it didn't. They paid with their lives. That's the facts of this. As scummy an acts as it was, the cartoon creators played a part in bringing the scum to their door. To me that is wasted life. And in a few weeks nobody will remember. That's the sadness and madness of it all.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

If the cartoons brought a very real threat and danger, then I wouldn't be sticking my neck out to publish them.

The Charlie employees didn't seem to care that their lives were in real danger, and continued to bait the Muslim population. Free speech or not, they died from exercising their free speech. I would call their speech in this case not in good taste, and not at all funny or advisable.

You didn't answer the question: do you think that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have published cartoons that were offensive to Christians?

dlouth15

walshb wrote: »

If said political leaders have shown a real sensitivity and a proclivity for violence, and are capable of killing over this sensitivity, (or fun poking) as you put it, then yes, probably not advisable to poke fun at them.

I did not ask whether it was "advisable".

walshb

dlouth15 wrote: »

I did not ask whether it was "advisable".

Ok, then no, don't 'poke fun' at anyone who will kill you for doing so.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer the question: do you think that Charlie Hebdo shouldn't have published cartoons that were offensive to Christians?

Publish what they want, but be extremely vigilant and aware of any possible repercussions. In this instance, they got it wrong, very wrong. Their lives ended because of their choices.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Publish what they want, but be extremely vigilant and aware of any possible repercussions.

They were aware of the repercussions. This wasn't the first time they were attacked.

Their lives ended because of their choices.

Their lives ended, as I've already said, because they were murdered.

You won't come out and say it, but you clearly feel that the appropriate response to intimidation is to cower before it and appease it. Which is fair enough, I guess, but it's not exactly a noble principle - and it hardly justifies the continued victim blaming.

dlouth15

walshb wrote: »

Ok, then no, don't 'poke fun' at anyone who will kill you for doing so.

I asked whether it was justified not advisable.

For example it was probably not advisable for Malala Yousafzai to blog about education for girls in Pakistan as this made her a target of the Taliban as they find this sort of thing offensive. But this is a different question from whether she was justified in doing so.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

You won't come out and say it, but you clearly feel that the appropriate response to intimidation is to cower before it and appease it. Which is fair enough, I guess, but it's not exactly a noble principle

Perhaps people are taking this Je Suis Charlie business too literally.

No user of boards.ie is risking their lives on this topic. Any assurance by an anonymous poster that he would risk life and limb for his free speech should be taken for what it is—as an unknowable assurance by a fairly anonymous person behind a keyboard. Lets not give a whole new meaning to the term keyboard warrior.

Walshb is being honest. He wouldn't have risked his life to print cartoons. Maybe because he disagrees with the cartoons; or maybe because he feels his life and family obligations are worth more than that.

To indicate that his imaginary choice is dishonourable, to say that he isn't "noble" because your imaginary choice would be to risk all for your life, is little more than a child's game.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

You won't come out and say it, but you clearly feel that the appropriate response to intimidation is to cower before it and appease it. Which is fair enough, I guess, but it's not exactly a noble principle - and it hardly justifies the continued victim blaming.

No, there are many examples in life where we can't (and shouldn't) back down from intimidation. There are also many areas in life where our actions and choices lead us into danger that is avoidable and unnecessary, and with the right guidance, and advice, and help, we can avoid or protect against this danger.

In relation to Charlie, they went out of their way to look for danger and look to be intimidated. That decision, and continued decisions led to their deaths. Yes, murdered.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

They were aware of the repercussions. This wasn't the first time they were attacked. T

.

Which makes their deaths all the more frustrating....

walshb

dlouth15 wrote: »

I asked whether it was justified not advisable.

For example it was probably not advisable for Malala Yousafzai to blog about education for girls in Pakistan as this made her a target of the Taliban as they find this sort of thing offensive. But this is a different question from whether she was justified in doing so.

If you read back over any of my posts it's clear as day that I never once justified their killing. It sickens me that their lives were taken, but unfortunately, it not at all surprises me.

AlekSmart

walshb wrote: »

If you read back over any of my posts it's clear as day that I never once justified their killing. It sickens me that their lives were taken, but unfortunately, it not at all surprises me.

So would it be accurate to suggest you are broadly in agreement with Anjem Chaudry on this issue then ?

walshb

AlekSmart wrote: »

So would it be accurate to suggest you are broadly in agreement with Anjem Chaudry on this issue then ?

He makes some valid points. Freedom of speech can come with serious responsibilities, and repercussions. I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech in a society. He, and many similar to him wouldn't shed a single tear for those deaths, and would praise and glorify them. Job well done attitude. I am not remotely like that.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

No user of boards.ie is risking their lives on this topic. Any assurance by an anonymous poster that he would risk life and limb for his free speech should be taken for what it is—as an unknowable assurance by a fairly anonymous person behind a keyboard. Lets not give a whole new meaning to the term keyboard warrior.

Walshb is being honest. He wouldn't have risked his life to print cartoons. Maybe because he disagrees with the cartoons; or maybe because he feels his life and family obligations are worth more than that.

To indicate that his imaginary choice is dishonourable, to say that he isn't "noble" because your imaginary choice would be to risk all for your life, is little more than a child's game.

I never claimed that I would risk my life by publishing cartoons that might get me killed, so please do us all a favour and stow the straw man.

I would never criticise someone who was honest enough to say that they wouldn't be brave enough to risk death for the principle of freedom of expression; I'm criticising people who claim that those who were that brave bear the responsibility for their own murders.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm criticising people who claim that those who were that brave bear the responsibility for their own murders.

Quote them.

Dublin Red Devil

I think there is a difference between freedom of expression, and publishing intentionally provocative cartoons opening mocking a peoples faith.

Charlie Hebdo went out of their way to intentionally piss of Muslims in their cartoon

I'm not suggesting that it justifies that kind of attack. But Charlie Hebdo knew they were being intentionally provocative with their content.

You can only poke a dog with a stick for so long before you get bitten.

CptMackey

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

I think there is a difference between freedom of expression, and publishing intentionally provocative cartoons opening mocking a peoples faith.

Charlie Hebdo went out of their way to intentionally piss of Muslims in their cartoon

I'm not suggesting that it justifies that kind of attack. But Charlie Hebdo knew they were being intentionally provocative with their content.

You can only poke a dog with a stick for so long before you get bitten.

They also did the same to Christians? Should they have bitten back?

It is no justification for it and there can be no but.

BoJack Horseman

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

But Charlie Hebdo knew they were being intentionally provocative with their content.

As was their right to pour scorn on sacred cows & institutions.

Muslims should consider the words of the Islamic prophet; عيسى بن مريم (Īsā ibn Maryām)
& perhaps show some peace & tolerance to those who criticise them:

"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

You can only poke a dog with a stick for so long before you get bitten.

Then you put down the dog.

Dublin Red Devil

CptMackey wrote: »

They also did the same to Christians? Should they have bitten back?

It is no justification for it and there can be no but.

I'm an atheist, I think all religions are wrong. Fundamentalist Christians are just as bad as Fundamentalist Muslims.

Armistice

I am a Christian and I believe in freedom of speech.

If anyone truly believes in their religion, then they should believe that their God of choice will enforce their own judgement.

I don't think any all powerful Allah would require AK47's to enforce their will. We should all be allowed to say and criticize what we wish unless it becomes incitement to hatred which would open a person or persons to risk of persecution for their beliefs.

The people who carried out these heinous acts in France were scum. Religion aside they attacked not only people, but the very ideals that we as Western Europeans have fought and died for over hundreds of years. The freedom to be our own person, say what we wish and make our own choices.

Some people here are saying that the cartoonists had it coming, yet they are using and enjoying this forum, which would not be possible if we were to pander to every group that threatens violence if there ideals are publicly criticized.

conorh91

I don't think this matter is so complex that we need simplistic analogies about women in miniskirts and euthanising dogs.

Everybody is capable of grasping the basics:
One group of men made words and shapes. The other group of men hated the words and shapes. This second group shot and killed the first group. It doesn't exactly demand a degree in semiotic anthropology and a goatee.

Equally straightforward is the distinction between identifying motive, and apportioning blame.

A motive for the murders was to stop Charlie Hebdo from causing offence. The cartoonists were warned of this motive. They continued. The threat was realized.

Do people see how that isn't blaming them for their own murder? We haven't even gotten to the controversial part yet.

Not everybody is agreed on the value of Charlie Hebdo as a media outlet. Not everybody is agreed that gratuitous insults directed at minorities, even if those insults are accompanied by insults directed at the majority, is always wise or virtuous. Those same people believe that foolish cartoons are not worth losing your life over.

But you have a right to lose your life over cartoons. And you are not to blame if you do lose it. But just like the real-life example of the white supremacist who was shot for insulting black people, to whom I referred earlier, not everybody who dies for their cause was pursuing a virtuous, or wise, cause.

To sum up.

Right of free expression, sometimes worth dying over: Yea
Everybody who dies for their right to free expression is acting wisely: Nay

dlouth15

conorh91 wrote: »

A motive for the murders was to stop Charlie Hebdo from causing offence. The cartoonists were warned of this motive. They continued. The threat was realized.

That comes across as pretty chilling.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

Quote them.

I have, repeatedly.

conorh91

dlouth15 wrote: »

That comes across as pretty chilling.

To try and illustrate that it isn't intended as blame, let me say that you could apply the same words to Veronica Guerin.

Veronica Guerin enjoyed a right to free expression. A motive for Guerin's murder was to stop her from causing trouble. Guerin was warned of this motive. She continued. The threat against her was realized.

Although she died, I personally believe that she died a hero, and is a symbol of bravery and integrity in the defence of the right to free expression, among other rights.

What distinguishes Guerin from Charlie Hebdo? Perhaps that Guerin's message was seen by some people as more constructive towards the community, that it was more virtuous, whatever.

People are entitled to hold an opinion on the value of a person's mortal endeavours, but even if it is critical, it does not amount to a justification of murder. You are not equipped to accuse someone of justifying murder, just because they are critical of an idea.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have, repeatedly.

No you have not.

dlouth15

walshb wrote: »

As scummy an acts as it was, the cartoon creators played a part in bringing the scum to their door.

Also chilling.

Obviously I don't know you but you come across like someone who has been shaken up by events in Paris. It is as if for you the terrorists are the new law and need to be respected. You are trying to adapt to the new reality as you see it and trying to get others to adapt to it too.

ireland.man

dlouth15 wrote: »

Also chilling.

Obviously I don't know you but you come across like someone who has been shaken up by events in Paris. It is as if for you the terrorists are the new law and need to be respected. You are trying to adapt to the new reality as you see it and trying to get others to adapt to it too.

This is a very, very stupid response.

You can criticise the content of someone's work, condemn their foolhardiness which could harm people around them and still condemn the perpetrators of a terrorist attack AND support free speech.

The ACLU in the States often defend Klan members' rights to free speech but they don't defend the materials themselves from criticism and from claims that the Klan are trying to inflame situations!

K4t

conorh91 wrote: »

This is true, absolutely.

I think there needs to be some time for the dust to settle, before people can face-up to that fact without viewing it as an excuse for murder.

Here's a less controversial example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268474/White-supremacist-stabbed-beaten-death-black-neighbour-Mississippi-town.html#ixzz0m5p3ePqF

Richie Barrett, a white supremacist in Mississippi, with a penchant for racial hate speech, was killed by his black neighbour.

I wonder what happened to all the banners that said "I am Richie, white supremacist". Did anyone march in Dublin for this white supremacist?

I didn't march for the Charlie Hebdo journalists either but I would hope that the murder of Richie Barrett is not the reason for another white supremacist in Mississippi, with a penchant for racial hate speech, not expressing his right to freedom of expression for fear of being murdered. Because that is just as bad as the Irish media (if the motive was they were afraid of being shot) not reprinting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Now I am not claiming that racial hatred is on a par with mocking religion,

But you don't mind using them in the same context as long as it favours your argument, which is worse.

And whilst freedom of expression is among the most vital of our human freedoms, it is not a licence to be really, really dumb.

Yes, it is. People are free to express both intelligent and dumb thoughts. That should be obvious from reading the newspapers and watching the news everyday.

K4t

dlouth15 wrote: »

Also chilling.

Obviously I don't know you but you come across like someone who has been shaken up by events in Paris. It is as if for you the terrorists are the new law and need to be respected. You are trying to adapt to the new reality as you see it and trying to get others to adapt to it too.

What has scared me far more than the events in Paris, is the general consensus in the media and on here.


That is that the journalists were asking for trouble, that their only aim in publishing the cartoons was to insult Islam or Muslim people or both, that freedom of speech does not allow you the right to be really, really dumb, that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. These kinds of beliefs terrify me far more than any Islamic beliefs as a person living in the western world.


And even worse and more terrifying than anything, is that every single one of them, without fail, never forget to qualify their arguments by condemning the murders and advocating for free speech and free expression.

dlouth15

ireland.man wrote: »

This is a very, very stupid response.

You can criticise the content of someone's work, condemn their foolhardiness which could harm people around them and still condemn the perpetrators of a terrorist attack AND support free speech.

No you can't both defend free speech and at the same time say that the speaker has in part brought punishment upon themselves in speaking freely. That is contradictory I'm afraid.

ireland.man

dlouth15 wrote: »

No you can't both defend free speech and at the same time say that the speaker has in part brought punishment upon themselves in speaking freely. That is contradictory I'm afraid.

So you would support an anti-Semite who travels to Israel and walks around holding signs condemning Jewish people with racist images?

If you instead try to convince him it's a bad idea, does this mean you're attacking free speech?

K4t

dlouth15 wrote: »

No you can't both defend free speech and at the same time say that the speaker has in part brought punishment upon themselves in speaking freely. That is contradictory I'm afraid.

Eh, it's factual. They were murdered because they exercised their right to free expression. And even though we might not agree with them taking that risk and putting lives in danger, we will defend their right to have the choice of taking the risk.

dlouth15

K4t wrote: »

Eh, it's factual. They were murdered because they exercised their right to free expression. And even though we might not agree with them taking that risk and putting lives in danger, we will defend their right to have the choice of taking the risk.

Someone used the example of a dog earlier. You poke a dog enough and it will bite back.

But these weren't dogs that can't be held responsible for their actions that did the killings. It wasn't a force of nature that the cartoonists failed to respect and therefore got what was coming to them.

Therefore I find it questionable that people should talk about the cartoonists not properly calculating the risks associated with publishing the cartoons.

K4t

dlouth15 wrote: »

Someone used the example of a dog earlier. You poke a dog enough and it will bite back.

1. If the journalists physically poked the terrorists with their pens and pencils then the terrorists would have had the right to defend themselves.


2. Not all dogs. Some dogs might even run away.


3. Comparing humans to dogs was not a good way to add credibility to your argument.


4. Does it not concern you that you are having to go to such lengths as comparing humans to dogs to support your argument?

But these weren't dogs that can't be held responsible for their actions that did the killings. It wasn't a force of nature that the cartoonists failed to respect and therefore got what was coming to them.

Agreed.

Therefore I find it questionable that people should talk about the cartoonists not properly calculating the risks associated with publishing the cartoons.

They believed the risk was worth taking, and I support their right to take that risk, even if I would have advised against it myself. That they took that risk will hopefully mean that someday it won't be a risk to you or I.


And if we're still talking about the dog, I don't poke dogs personally. Except the odd time on facebook.

dlouth15

ireland.man wrote: »

So you would support an anti-Semite who travels to Israel and walks around holding signs condemning Jewish people with racist images?

If you instead try to convince him it's a bad idea, does this mean you're attacking free speech?

Is that how you see this? The cartoonists were like someone walking around in another country with racist signs against the people of that country?

Let's get some perspective on this. They were French cartoonists in France lampooning many religions, many political ideologies, and were fully entitled to do this under French law without fear.

They (the remaining staff) are publishing another edition next Wednesday in open defiance of those who killed their colleagues.

I don't know how someone can suggest they are stupid for doing this while at the same time expecting others to also believe that they value freedom of speech. It is a contradiction in my mind or at best a questionable mixing of categories of values.

ireland.man

dlouth15 wrote: »

Is that how you see this? The cartoonists were like someone walking around in another country with racist signs against the people of that country?

Let's get some perspective on this. They were French cartoonists in France lampooning many religions, many political ideologies, and were fully entitled to do this under French law without fear.

They (the remaining staff) are publishing another edition next Wednesday in open defiance of those who killed their colleagues.

I don't know how someone can suggest they are stupid for doing this while at the same time expecting others to also believe that they value freedom of speech. It is a contradiction in my mind or at best a questionable mixing of categories of values.

Can I criticise the content of their cartoons (for example ape-like caricatures of African immigrants?) or is that me being anti-Free Speech?

dlouth15

K4t wrote: »

They believed the risk was worth taking, and I support their right to take that risk, even if I would have advised against it myself. That they took that risk will hopefully mean that someday it won't be a risk to you or I.


And if we're still talking about the dog, I don't poke dogs personally. Except the odd time on facebook.

I was specifically disagreeing with the dog analogy. I'm sorry if it seems like I tried to make out you might have agreed with it.

The poster who raised it initially on this thread said

I'm not suggesting that it justifies that kind of attack. But Charlie Hebdo knew they were being intentionally provocative with their content.

You can only poke a dog with a stick for so long before you get bitten.

It is this that I'm taking issue with here which I feel is representative of a fair few posts on the this thread.

dlouth15

ireland.man wrote: »

Can I criticise the content of their cartoons (for example ape-like caricatures of African immigrants?) or is that me being anti-Free Speech?

Why are you asking me that? I don't believe I have commented on peoples right to criticise the content of the cartoons.

Where it becomes questionable in my mind is when someone goes on to suggest that, even in part, they brought the killing upon themselves.

BuilderPlumber

ireland.man wrote: »

Can I criticise the content of their cartoons (for example ape-like caricatures of African immigrants?) or is that me being anti-Free Speech?

While in no way can one condone what ISIS aka ISIL aka dissident al Qaeda do and what happened in Paris was disgusting, we are also hearing very dangerous overtones about so-called free speech.

I read some article in the Indo which I largely agreed with until I came across the phrase 'the right to offend'. Free speech is not about this disgusting activity. It is about voicing opinions but with respect for others. Writing or doing something to deliberately offend some is just plain wrong (taken to the extreme, this means the right to offend means committing terrorist acts but is also is hate speech and it was the right to offend that allows so-called 'Islamic' terror to grow in the first place).

We need to get our act together. Free speech as long as it is responsible. Racism, offending people, bullying, hate speech and harassment have no place in a civilised society. If we are promoting the right to offend, then the rest of the world is no better than ISIS and al Qaeda.

tbradman

conorh91 wrote: »

If you can understand that Hamas statement, how can you not understand the same principle in what others are saying?

Do you think Hamas support Charlie Hebdo's depiction of Mohammad? Of course not.

Hamas said in their statement in relation to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that "any differences in opinion are no justification for killing innocents"

Clearly you must agree there is some sense in that statement.

And when people say that here, you accuse them of justifying the murders.

Because I believe that the statement from Hamas is unequivocal. Hamas is noting a “difference in opinion” and are stating “no justification for killing innocents”. My quoting of Hamas was used to draw attention to an organization viewed as being Islamic Fundamentalist is clearly stating murder of innocents wrong, no excuses! I agree with this Hamas statement.

That is not what some of the posters here are saying. Some of the poster here are saying the murders were wrong, but then following it up with a BUT… Typically along the lines of they were responsible for their own fate… They drew it down upon themselves… They should not criticise Islam.

tbradman

conorh91 wrote: »

=====Snip====
Everybody is capable of grasping the basics:
One group of men made words and shapes. The other group of men hated the words and shapes. This second group shot and killed the first group. It doesn't exactly demand a degree in semiotic anthropology and a goatee.

Equally straightforward is the distinction between identifying motive, and apportioning blame.

A motive for the murders was to stop Charlie Hebdo from causing offence. The cartoonists were warned of this motive. They continued. The threat was realized.
=====Snip====

I have no idea what semiotic anthropology is, so I don’t know if a degree in it is required or not. But I do fully agree that a goat is irrelevant.

Eh no… I have a problem with this. You seem to think that Muslims are mechanical automatons and once the key was wound it was unstoppable.

Input: Read Charlie Hebdo
Process: Become offended
Output: Kill offenders

There are around 6 million Muslims in France. Only 2 individuals decided to commit murder, the remaining 6 million (minus the two terrorists) processed the offence and decided to ignore it, even if they were offended. If they were really offended they can take another option like a normal human being. Reach for a well-paid solicitor and head to the courts. Remember that along with defining motive and apportioning blame, dispensing justice is a matter for the courts, not well armed terrorists.