Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

And fuck Charlie Hebdo. That rag is not a satirical, no punches pulled, no prisoners taken equal opportunity offender, as one journalist put it in The Times. That's bullshit. The then editor of Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, told one of its writers, Maurice Sinet, to apologise or get fired after he had been charged with inciting racial hatred because he had written a barbed remark about president Sarkozy's son's engagement to a Jewish heiress. Sinet replied that he'd rather get his balls cut off than apologise. Val fired him. Linkypoo So much for being an equal opportunity, no punches pulled offender the publication is being lionised as in the press.

I think nobody deserves being executed for making jokes that offend some, but please, let's not lionise and idealise a satirical rag.

If Charlie Hebdo wants to live up to its reputation as a no-holds-barred satirical paper, it could do worse than to publish an article next week, describing in detail how the massacre was an inside job perpetrated to ramp up circulation, that the clever hoax worked better than expected and that its owners are now laughing all the way to the bank.

Any media organisation is going to have some warts. Maybe there is some zionist leanings and hypocrisy in Charlie Hebdo (Galaxian's inane conspiracy theories can be quietly ignored, as always...) However, you don't have to lionise a media outlet to be outraged that islamic thugs think they can murder anyone who dares to satirise their absurd religion and their paedophile prophet.

[Hermit]

"The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition."

From the same source you cited: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." Fits both examples. The fact that it is the first sentence in that article, and you blithely skipped straight past it, causes me to suspect a bit of dishonesty on your part.

[JimC]

XC wrote:

Such as the tribal slaughter in Rwanda, for example?

Hard to compare, really; Rwanda was a clear case of ethnic/tribal hatreds gone crazy, whereas there does not seem to be any tribal/ethnic motivations behind Boko Haram. I agree that territorial ambitions and power lust in their leaders are important motivations, but they are imbued through and through with the true, fanatical hatred characteristic of islam at its worst...

[piscator]

"The word "terrorism" is politically loaded and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition."

From the same source you cited: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." Fits both examples. The fact that it is the first sentence in that article, and you blithely skipped straight past it, causes me to suspect a bit of dishonesty on your part.

If you're going to call me "Dishonest" over that trivial bit, what are we to think of your deliberate skipping over of the fact that

"In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[3][4]"


?

[Hermit]

If you're going to call me "Dishonest" over that trivial bit, what are we to think of your deliberate skipping over of the fact that

"In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[3][4]"?

LOL. If there's no legally binding, criminal law definition for terrorism it doesn't exist? Now, that would definitely not be trivial. Perhaps you ought to tell the families of those dead civilians who survived in Paris, Baga and Gaza. Meanwhile you ought to be grateful instead of objecting that I ignored that fact.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

there does not seem to be any tribal/ethnic motivations behind Boko Haram

Actually, that's not true at all. Most of Boko Haram is derived from the Kanuri ethnic group. Leaving aside the tribal nature of religion in the first place.

[piscator]

If you're going to call me "Dishonest" over that trivial bit, what are we to think of your deliberate skipping over of the fact that

"In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[3][4]"?

LOL. If there's no legally binding, criminal law definition for terrorism it doesn't exist? Now, that would definitely not be trivial. Perhaps you ought to tell the families of those dead civilians who survived in Paris, Baga and Gaza. Meanwhile you ought to be grateful instead of objecting that I ignored that fact.

I wasn't objecting to you applying the ill-defined and vitriolic political term "Terrorist" to your government, I was applying your term, Dishonest" to you.
Because by your ad hoc metric, you are at least as dishonest as you assert I am.

[piscator]

there does not seem to be any tribal/ethnic motivations behind Boko Haram

Actually, that's not true at all. Most of Boko Haram is derived from the Kanuri ethnic group. Leaving aside the tribal nature of religion in the first place.

Tribalism is but another great thing about monarchy being God's chosen form of government. That circularity is the core of the reaction.

[pErvinalia]

XC, I have some difficulty in not regarding the killing of 2000 civilians as an act of terrorism, and any way you look at it, there's no getting away from the fact that 2000 unarmed humans were massacred.

A good point - the barbaric killings and rapes they inflict are deliberately designed to create terror, so that other villages will simply give in early in the piece, and accept their authority. If this isn't terrorism, I don't know what is...

If we call Baga terrorism, then we have to call Israeli bombing raids on Gaza that kill unarmed civilians terrorism too - by the same logic. For that matter, Hiroshima?

Well I consider what Israel do in Gaza "terrorism" without a shadow of a doubt. Collective punishment is without doubt a form of terrorism.

[pErvinalia]

Hahaha, poor guy. I don't think he's every properly debated an atheist before. He's a bit lost.

Linky?

It's on my facebook wall. You can't access that.

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure. Its scope is "friends only". Given you aren't a friend of mine on facebook, then you won't be able to see it.

[pErvinalia]

Religious groups don't get to be on government committees concerning anything other than faith.

But religious people do, and their religion is allowed to inform their decisions.

Yeah, that's fine, but they are representing themselves, not a religion.

Are they? Would a radical Muslim governor of a state be representing himself or Islam?

Would a crypto-Marxist President of the United States be representing himself or his ideology?

If a person can show a relevant interest in whatever is being discussed in a government committee, outside of their religious beliefs, then they are just one more interested party. Governments should absolutely not be giving social policy legitimacy to religions. Religion should have as much to do with the state as kustom car kulture should.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

XC, I have some difficulty in not regarding the killing of 2000 civilians as an act of terrorism, and any way you look at it, there's no getting away from the fact that 2000 unarmed humans were massacred.

A good point - the barbaric killings and rapes they inflict are deliberately designed to create terror, so that other villages will simply give in early in the piece, and accept their authority. If this isn't terrorism, I don't know what is...

If we call Baga terrorism, then we have to call Israeli bombing raids on Gaza that kill unarmed civilians terrorism too - by the same logic. For that matter, Hiroshima?

Well I consider what Israel do in Gaza "terrorism" without a shadow of a doubt. Collective punishment is without doubt a form of terrorism.

Might as well call all forms of armed conflict "terrorism", in that case. I have no problem if you wish to define it that way. Kind of means we need a new word for the stuff that we used to separate out as terrorism though...

[pErvinalia]

They knowingly and willingly target citizens. They collectively punish civilians. There's no need for a new definition. It's terrorism, plain and simple.

[piscator]

Like what the Russians did to Germany?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Like what the Russians did to Germany?

Or the Germans did to teh Jooz?