Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

[Thumpalumpacus]

A wiseass, eh? There's the door, champ.

Me? A wiseass?

Pretty sure you're spot-on. Don't worry, you'll live.

[pErvinalia]

What we can do is come down hard on the fundamentalist mosques where firebrands preach jihad from the pulpit...

That's one of the things that need to be done. The question is - how to do it while still maintaining a reasonable level of free speech?

[piscator]

America is gonna have a hard time selling the "Hit Me With The Gandhi" shtick in the Middle East...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. Kicking their oil habit would be a good start.

[Hermit]

Ayup, XC. Perspective.

The reaction to the deaths of twelve French citizens is amazing, both in the press and by individuals. Meanwhile, the population of an entire township is massacred by religious fanatics somewhere somewhere in Africa. At least 2000 humans dead. A few articles appear, but nobody puts up "Je suis Baga" posters or avatars. Baga? Who is that? Oh. A town. Thanks for the info. No Caucasians there, though, so, :shrug: .

I know. I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier. No oil in that part of Nigeria either. So no airstrikes for them.

No journalists, black or white, is the deciding factor concerning coverage. No easy lines of communication in the wilds of Africa given there are bands of armed men massacring folks rather than a regular police force on duty. Can you blame journalists for going to the oil areas where they are safely embedded and protected by coalition forces whilst getting footage of the best explosions for war-porn newz?

Going on the wagon has not sharpened your analytical skills on iota. There were no journalists on the spot when the Paris massacre occurred. It's all retrospective reporting. Same as in Africa. There are journalists reporting from all over that continent, including north-eastern Nigeria and Baga itself. Problem is, reports of 2000 murdered blacks don't attract the readership that the murder of 12 whites do, so the former get reported on page nine for a day or two while the latter gets wall to wall coverage for a week or more. And the editors are proven right. The readers care a lot more about the massacre of 12 Caucasians than 2000 Blacks in one single operation by religious extremists. Seen any "Je suis Baga" placards or avatars yet?

[pErvinalia]

It's a simple case of how relevant an event is to you. Quite simply, shit happening in your own country is more important to you than shit happening in another country, particularly one that is a third world country. There's no great mystery. But then, of course, you get the media jizzing all over the place at the thought of selling some fear.

[Hermit]

It's a simple case of how relevant an event is to you.

Correct. The massacre of a dozen Caucasians is less relevant than that of 2000 Blacks. In other words, we don't care so much about tragedies themselves. That's what gives me the shits.

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.

[Galaxian]

It's a simple case of how relevant an event is to you.

Correct. The massacre of a dozen Caucasians is less relevant than that of 2000 Blacks. In other words, we don't care so much about tragedies themselves. That's what gives me the shits.

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.

Thank you for that. No doubt you've read some of the blatent incitement to murder posts on this forum. THAT is part & parcel of the same bigotry that has encouraged 300 years of imperialist colonialism, with millions killed, maimed & disenfranchised. But it's OK, eh? They were/are just "niggers", "wogs", "coons", "rock apes" etc.
Murdering 3rd worlders is not merely acceptable, it is a decided advantage. The theft of their resources, bribary of their politicians & imposition of tyrants to terrorize them is simply par for the course, eh?

Yes, Hermit, Charlie Hebdo may have started out as a satirical rag, but at least over the past decade it has morphed into an "Agitation Propaganda" (AgitProp) paper. Its administration has been unashamedly running a Zionist agenda. The supposedly "funny" anti-Muslim cartoons are NOT funny in any shape or form. They're neither imaginative nor talented. The sketches are specifically designed to be as offensive as possible. They have been designed to goad any orthodox Muslims into retaliation.

But that retaliation did not come, and Israel's precarious position has now precipitated this false-flag using their own mask-wearing agents, who conveniently leave an ID card in their car, leave their phone on, walk nonchalently during the operation knowing they're OK, & speak fluent French in a French accent. So, like the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston), Sirhan Sirhan, Oswald, & other cases, the patsies are easy to finger, arrest or kill, & made a show of that makes Stalin's show trials look like amateur theatrics.

Here are 2 excellent videos to watch, if you dare. Hopefully they'll induce some cognitive dissonence:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/08 ... bdo-viral/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-u4qrmbRHo

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, Infowars.

[laklak]

Neutron bombs.

Just sayin.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What we can do is come down hard on the fundamentalist mosques where firebrands preach jihad from the pulpit...

Like this, you mean?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ayup, XC. Perspective.

The reaction to the deaths of twelve French citizens is amazing, both in the press and by individuals. Meanwhile, the population of an entire township is massacred by religious fanatics somewhere somewhere in Africa. At least 2000 humans dead. A few articles appear, but nobody puts up "Je suis Baga" posters or avatars. Baga? Who is that? Oh. A town. Thanks for the info. No Caucasians there, though, so, :shrug: .

What exactly was your point in posting this, Seraph? That there have been worse atrocities that the Charlie Hebdo killings is a no brainer. Look at the Oklahoma bombing. Or World War II.

It is not the numbers killed that matters here. What makes Charlie Hebdo different is that it was a monstrous over-reaction to a joke. It was an attack on free-speech and the right to offend. It was a small group that decided that they were completely justified in killing people that drew pictures of paedo-Mo. And it was designed to gain the maximum publicity possible and to make others too scared to draw cartoons themselves. That is why there is a #jesuischarlie campaign and not a #jesuisbaga one.

The Baga massacre was very different. It wasn't a terrorist attack of the same ilk. In fact, it wasn't a terrorist attack at all! Just like the similar massacres by ISIS, it was a territorial attack by a land-grabbing gang of revolutionaries and warlords. Despite their (allegedly) religious motivation, you are NOT comparing like with like here!

So I stand by my point. Terrorist attacks are incredibly rare. Sadly, religiously inspired civil strife in failed states is not - but it is not the same thing.

[laklak]

Get everybody in a long line. They have to eat bacon, drink a PBR and piss on a statue of Jebus. If they don't do it they get the chop, right there. Sorts out the fundy Jews, Muslims, Christians, teetotalers, AND vegans.

[Hermit]

Ayup, XC. Perspective.

The reaction to the deaths of twelve French citizens is amazing, both in the press and by individuals. Meanwhile, the population of an entire township is massacred by religious fanatics somewhere somewhere in Africa. At least 2000 humans dead. A few articles appear, but nobody puts up "Je suis Baga" posters or avatars. Baga? Who is that? Oh. A town. Thanks for the info. No Caucasians there, though, so, :shrug: .

What exactly was your point in posting this, Seraph? That there have been worse atrocities that the Charlie Hebdo killings is a no brainer. Look at the Oklahoma bombing. Or World War II.

It is not the numbers killed that matters here. What makes Charlie Hebdo different is that it was a monstrous over-reaction to a joke. It was an attack on free-speech and the right to offend. It was a small group that decided that they were completely justified in killing people that drew pictures of paedo-Mo. And it was designed to gain the maximum publicity possible and to make others too scared to draw cartoons themselves. That is why there is a #jesuischarlie campaign and not a #jesuisbaga one.

The Baga massacre was very different. It wasn't a terrorist attack of the same ilk. In fact, it wasn't a terrorist attack at all! Just like the similar massacres by ISIS, it was a territorial attack by a land-grabbing gang of revolutionaries and warlords. Despite their (allegedly) religious motivation, you are NOT comparing like with like here!

So I stand by my point. Terrorist attacks are incredibly rare. Sadly, religiously inspired civil strife in failed states is not - but it is not the same thing.

OK. Let's scratch 13 words from my post. That deletes the religious aspect for the sake of the argument.

There. Done.

The rest stands as is.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ayup, XC. Perspective.

The reaction to the deaths of twelve French citizens is amazing, both in the press and by individuals. Meanwhile, the population of an entire township is massacred by religious fanatics somewhere somewhere in Africa. At least 2000 humans dead. A few articles appear, but nobody puts up "Je suis Baga" posters or avatars. Baga? Who is that? Oh. A town. Thanks for the info. No Caucasians there, though, so, :shrug: .

What exactly was your point in posting this, Seraph? That there have been worse atrocities that the Charlie Hebdo killings is a no brainer. Look at the Oklahoma bombing. Or World War II.

It is not the numbers killed that matters here. What makes Charlie Hebdo different is that it was a monstrous over-reaction to a joke. It was an attack on free-speech and the right to offend. It was a small group that decided that they were completely justified in killing people that drew pictures of paedo-Mo. And it was designed to gain the maximum publicity possible and to make others too scared to draw cartoons themselves. That is why there is a #jesuischarlie campaign and not a #jesuisbaga one.

The Baga massacre was very different. It wasn't a terrorist attack of the same ilk. In fact, it wasn't a terrorist attack at all! Just like the similar massacres by ISIS, it was a territorial attack by a land-grabbing gang of revolutionaries and warlords. Despite their (allegedly) religious motivation, you are NOT comparing like with like here!

So I stand by my point. Terrorist attacks are incredibly rare. Sadly, religiously inspired civil strife in failed states is not - but it is not the same thing.

OK. Let's scratch 13 words from my post.

There. Done.

The rest stands as is.

The parts you have removed do not address my point. There was nothing factually wrong in what you wrote. They were religious fanatics. What they were not, was terrorists. The reaction was, accordingly, very different.

There have been massacres on a similar scale across Africa for decades. One gang after another fighting a turf-war. In Sierra Leone. In Liberia. In Nigeria. In Ghana. In the Congo. In Somalia, Sudan and the Central African Republic. Some of the fighters are religiously motivated. Some are not. To add the tag "terrorism" whenever the group follows a religious ideology is wrong. They are fighting for land, power, wealth, revenge or, often, because that is all they know! They are stateless armies, militias, gangs - but not terrorists.

Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists seek to make a political point and influence public opinion or government actions through acts of violence. They do not have the numbers or support to make any realistic attempt to overthrow the state. They have an agenda and a point to make.

Boko Haram, on the other hand, are trying to create their own state and secede from Nigeria.



It is a part that you did not remove that I take issue with. "The reaction to the deaths of twelve French citizens is amazing, both in the press and by individuals."

When you say "amazing", I take it that you are not expressing your pleasure at the response but rather see it as an overreaction.

That is what I was addressing in my last post. The reaction has nothing to do with the numbers killed. Holding up another, larger massacre that did not garner such a response is what I find to be a non sequitur. It is in some ways similar to the reaction of many muslims who, when asked to condemn the Charlie Hebdo killings, immediately try to switch focus to the Israeli bombing of Palestinian children in Gaza. Another deplorable act but NOT comparing like with like!

The reaction to Charlie Hebdo was as amazing as it was because people care about their freedom of speech. Because they care about the idea that was attacked in Paris. They know and cherish that idea. And, like it or not, an attack on someone or something you know will always have more impact than an attack on someone that you don't - even if they are children, even if there are thousands of them. And the reporting reflects that impact. It always will. That's its job.