Forums / Discussion / General

Ok, so, I made the entry. Now, let's discuss it a bit and away from Lisa Lombardo, shall we?
For those who don't know, there has been a mass shooting today in France with 12 people dead. 2 men with rifles and Islam-related scandering entered the building and shot at everyone before fleeing.
The usual terrorist attack kind of event. I'm really sad to say "the usual" though but it's the case anyway.

Sad world we live in… Never thought that would happen, even if i knew Charlie Hebdo as been threatened for a while, this was a total chock.

Internal terrorism again, The Merrah case requiem.

All these scenes of people in the street… that's a good and strong reaction.
Didn't expect such a reaction around the world though. The press liberty wasn't the think to touch, Nous sommes tous Charlie !

So, John Kerry made a full speech in French for us. That's heartwarming.

Yeah i saw that, he did quite well.
Apparently all media center (TV and press) are now guarded with security guards equipped of sub machine guns, that's crazy.
Police operation ahead at Reims now.

Dear western soldiers: STOP BEING COWARDS AND BE WILLING TO DIE.
Seriously that is the problem dealing with isis and it is that the soldiers fighting them are too cowardly.

It's sad that this doesn't really suprise me. That doesn't make it any less tragic, of course.

And I doubt western soldiers being less cowardly will stop terrorist attacks on European ground, iapbdnw. Hell, rushing in and being willing to die won't even solve the ISIS issue.

what i'm surprised of is, that shooting a dozen of people and then escaping isn't the "usual" 08/15 islamist attack scheme, it doesn't carry the common pathos (suicide bombing, "leaving a message", no IS flags or other symbols) and islamist terror groups are usually swift to claim the attacks were their handiwork. these guys just went in, out and escaped.
there's also no telling if this is the ISIS's, some other terror organisation's, or two "lone wolves'" work yet.

@iatmbdnw:
i don't think sending in ground troops to fight the ISIS would be the right way to deal with the ISIS. it would be iraq/afghanistan all over again. also the NATO would never openly support the kurds, since turkey is part of the NATO, so invading the ISIS territories would just lead to the installment of a more-or-less democratic-seeming government that doesn't represent a majority in the country and lead to unrest again. turkey needs to open their border for kurd soldiers to reclaim their territories from the ISIS, rather than fighting them and (in)directly supporting ISIS.

I think you mean local defense forces the Americans trained m8.

You should join the military

@On topic

I got notified of this by a Syrian friend of mine yesterday. He said it would be in the news tomorrow, and he was right.

I'm not sure if there is any proof yet that ISIS was behind this. There's more than one radical Islamist group out there. The shooters could have been any, or just acting alone.

Although from this a survivor claims an Al Qaeda connection.

Although it isn't important for our article. There's no mention of the motive behind it

Rumor I got is that the attack was spurred by…surprise surprise…depictions of Muhammad created by Charlie Hebdo in their magazine from <href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers">October last year.

The cartoon aboves plays the stereotype of "islamists" violently attacking any mention of Muhammad…even if it was Muhammad himself.

And then two guys just proved the stereotype.

Breaking News: Another man with bullet-proof vest and rifle attacked two police officers in a neighborhood of Paris today. He killed one. The other is badly wounded.
I don't know if it's related to anything though.

The two armed men responsible for the Charlie Hebdo carnage still have all of France on their tails.

they apparently robbed a gas station in northern france.

I keep reading Hebdo as hobo…

I'm concerned that this terrible event it's making anti-islamistic movements arise like PEGIDA in germany, and could have huge impact in the next years.

This is why you anger people. Tell me, what's cowardly about putting your life on the line every day to prevent terrorist attacks? What's cowardly about driving out into hostile territory to patrol regions knowing that at any moment you could be killed and never even see who killed you? What's cowardly about risking your ass to save innocent women and children, to stop militants who would slaughter any who disagree with them, who would sell innocent girls into sexual slavery?

There's no shortage of courage on the part of the American and European soldiers who risk and often sacrifice everything to help people who often don't even speak their language. There's no shortage of courage among the local people they train to stand up for themselves, either. It's not Islam they're fighting against, it's a perverse and all consuming hatred that, once sparked by religious or social or political resent and frustration, leaps beyond all those reasons and turns into a self-sustaining horror. Those who would stand to such dark and consuming oblivion, willing to sacrifice life and limb and sanity for the sake of others, those men are heroes, whether they are Arab or Kurd or Western.

As to the original topic, my comment in the forums section was a bit more harsh than I intended it to come off and I think some people mistook me for one of the far right types. I'm not. For me, the reality is that human life is sacred, when blood is shed it's a tragedy, and feeding into perpetual hatred does nothing to solve problems.

I think that the world is learning from the mistakes of the American response to 9/11. We let fear override the virtues that constitute the American identity and in so doing allowed the terrorists to win a psychological battle almost as devastating as the murders they committed in 2001. But now? Now the world remembers what giving into the fear does. Look at the failed Parliamentary massacre in Canada; immediately after, the Canadians said that they would not let the atrocity change their identity.

"Je Suis Charlie" is a powerful statement following on that positive trend, that trend towards healing. The French people are using this tragedy to reaffirm the good things about their identity, not vilify the other. Some will doubtlessly try to manipulate people after this tragedy towards further hate, but a stronger, louder voice has already spoken over the voice of hate. The best thing that can come from these horrors is the French people positively reaffirming their identity and using that positive affirmation to live more compassionate lives, to redouble their courage and renew the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood among the citizens of a nation.

Possibly useful: I recently found a detailed blog post about the magazine and the work that was done there by some of the cartoonists who were killed. It does a great job of clarifying some of the cultural issues that always show up when you try to translate humour and satire, and it also addresses the racism charges and their relevance to the present issue. I honestly don't know enough about french news satire to properly judge how accurate this is, but at the very least it offers a detailed account of a particular perspective, and so ought to be at useful in at least that sense.

Here is the URL: zompist.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/les-bandes-dessinees-contre-les-bandits/

They got the shooters cornered in a building, they supposedly have one hostage.

Live Feed going on as I post this.

@RM

Video not available in my country :\

Is there another source?

The Telegraph

That's just a static camera though, Sky News is actually on the scene.

ABC News Australia is blocked for me, but it might just work for you. They're covering it as well.

Australia blocked me too apparently. Those damn ozzies. Thanks though.

The gunners want to "die as martyrs". That's not a good sign

Thanks Platus.
I'm not a vivid Charlie Hebdo's reader myself but I've been around long enough to know that they did some brilliant works at times. And, when I see this tumblr "crusade" on them to nearly say that they kinda deserve what has happened to them because they were islamophobic, racists, sexists and the like is really shameful. Context matters the most when you want to address any issue involving -phobic and -ism words.
Anyway, you may not agree with how they did their caricatures and you may criticize them for it. No big deal, I'd totally understand because I, too, think some of them are ugly and in poor taste. But, to blindly jump on the "racist/sexist" card? No, that only proves you didn't understand one bit of the goal of the magazine and its drawings.

As for the event, it seems the two armed men took an office hostage and killed some more people.
The other loose guy who killed a cop in montrouge seems to have done the same.
And there are report of two other armed men running around in Paris. It's kind of a chaos here.

No problem at all.

And, yeah, I'm all for calling out racist or sexist people when they do racist or sexist things, but there is a huge difference between criticizing something someone said and calling for that person's speech to be banned or suppressed – and another thing all together from calling for that person to be killed. People need to learn that it's possible to critique another person's work without bringing into doubt their right to create that work.

@Kourosh Kabir

I am going to reveal something very sad.

When a person "puts their life on the line" it would be considered bravery. But when a person is willing to die they have exceeded bravery beyond the highest level. It is very difficult for them to be captured alive and impossible for them to be demoralised. If you ever watch ISIS's Flames of War you'll see a scene where the narrator claims that they win because they are willing to die.And this is coming from the horse's mouth.

Now Khaled Ibn Walid does not necessarily reflect the views of ISIS but he has uttered this quote

"I bring the men who desire death as ardently as you desire life"
-Khalid Ibn Walid

He is only one of 2 military commanders in history that never suffered defeat. And if ISIS acquires eurofighters from saudi arabia then we are doomed.

Apologies if I dabble in irrelevant concepts.

We can debate about what bravery means but being willing to die or not will not make ISIS go away or make the battle more easy. No way that all western soldiers are merely 'putting their life on the line' and that the battle against ISIS will suddenly be easier when they change to 'being willing to die'.
I doubt the west wants to lose many soldiers anyway.

This is much more to it than just motivation.

This just in: The two men reponsible for the Charlie Hebdo Massacre have been killed by the GIGN and the hostage they had was saved.

As for the guy in Montrouge who attacked a Jewish shop after that, it seems he has been taken out and his hostage (except the two he killed) are alive as well.

Wow, that was impressively fast. Nice going, France. Way to not get sidetracked by media bullshit.

I updated the entry accordingly.

Sigh, the only thing you're going to contribute to this coverage of this tragedy is the spelling of the magazine where a dozen of employees died? That's a dick move man.

Anyways, there are three dead terrorists with a fourth terrorist (a women) on the run.

Ok, finals reports are stating that the Montrouge killer had the time to kill 4 people in the Jewish dali before RAID stormed the place and took him out.
Sad week for France really…

Joe Sacco – the famous comic book writer – just posted a comic about the shooting on The Guardian. I figured it was relevant, so I uploaded it. It's . . . . ambivalent.

Ok, finals reports are stating that the Montrouge killer had the time to kill 4 people in the Jewish dali before RAID stormed the place and took him out.

So what was the deal on this other guy?

Sounds like a friend of the first two attackers who decided to shoot two cops, then make a move on the jewish community at the same time.

According to the news, it was all part of a plan between those 4 people (the brothers, the guy and his female accomplice).

Hi.

I'm an avid French Tumblr user.

I like topics such as feminism, LGBT, antiracism, etc. basically, the SJW stuff, if I want to talk pejoratively.

Well, anyway now with this charlie Hebdo thing, I'm doubting. As much as I dislike the crudeness of the humor of this newspaper, I disagree with the people who think it's a racist newspaper, for many reasons.

I joined a debate with this opinion about Charlie Hebdo, and really, I am now wondering if I'm like the "entitled men" I complain against, like "GamerGaters", like bigots, etc.

Existential crisis, I am doubting: are my beliefs about CH as bad as a bigot's beliefs? Am I defending something as wrong as GamerGate or white suprematism? Am I using the same rhetorics as them?

I feel quite bad now. Should I feel shame for thinking that CH is neither racist nor islamophobic?

Also, WHAT THE FUCK, ANTI-KEBAB PERSON?

Many people on tumblr already explained quite well why CH wasn't racist at all and was, on the contrary, anti-racist.
You can't prevent bigots from spewing their ignorance anywhere.

So there have been a handful of big-shot intellectuals writing about the attack lately, and I thought I'd link some of them here.

Here's one by Slavoj Žižek:

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them?

And one by Teju Cole:

It is not always easy to see the difference between a certain witty dissent from religion and a bullyingly racist agenda, but it is necessary to try. Even Voltaire, a hero to many who extol free speech, got it wrong. His sparkling and courageous anti-clericalism can be a joy to read, but he was also a committed anti-Semite, whose criticisms of Judaism were accompanied by calumnies about the innate character of Jews.

Both take very different approaches to the issue, and come to very different conclusions, but I figure that both are also worth reading.

A bit of research has led me to this:

I don't know how many words will it take to say it's not racist.

@Above

That one is tricky.

The logo in the bottom left is that of a far-right French political party that itself is absolutely racist and terrible. The woman in question is Christine Taubira, the current French minister of justice, appointed in 2012 by president François Hollande, of the Socialist Party – obviously, no friend of the right. The caption translates to "Blue [i.e. right-wing] Racist Rally."

I'm pretty sure the point of the cartoon is something like "this is what the right thinks of her, look how racist they are" or similar. That is, they are adopting a racist trope in order to mock someone else's racism. That is . . . . let's call it risky. The problem is that even the well-intentioned appropriation of racist tropes can still do as much harm as genuine racism. Basically, if you're going to do something like this, you need to be a master satirist, because this kind of art only puts you one slip away from your "mocking racism" becoming "enacting racism." So even if getting "the point" of the piece renders it not racist, I would still call it risky and inept.

So, yeah, if you don't get what their goal is, the work looks like some minstrel-show-level racism. If you do get it . . . eh, it's still pretty bad. I think the Teju Cole quote I posted above gets it right: sometimes, the satirists screw up and end up repeating the very harms they try to attack. At the very least, it's enough to keep me from embracing the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan.

Final verdict: the cartoon is anti-racist in intent, but ineptly so, and likely does more harm than good.

Stop judging it only by its cover if you don't know the context behind it (what a lot of Tumblarriors do). Your research wasn't thorough enough.
As Platus rightly pointed out, it is Christiane Taubira, our minister of Justice since 2012 and the logo besides her is from the Front National Party. During one of the interviews with various Right-wing politicians from the Front National Party (I can't remember the date, either 2013 or 2014), one of them compared our black minister to a monkey by saying that she should go back to eating bananas (the usual kind of racism that they love to play with). It caused a bit of a scandal in France and they portrayed it that way to emphazise on the blatant racism among members of the Front National party. This caricature actually DENOUNCES racism instead of embracing it.

You may not agree with the art and the approach. You may think it's poorly done and in poor taste. Right, I gladly agree with that and sometimes they completely miss their mark (it's a weekly, remember and not all publications are necessarily good). it's also their motto to act dumb. They share pretty much the same spirit as 4chan's from time to time.

But no, FUCK NO, stating that they are racist on this sole basis while every single drawing of them has a peculiar context to it is shameful. I seriously take offense of that.

This is the same fallacy as I commented in the gallery by saying that it would be like claiming that H.G Wells was a racist colonialist suprematist by quoting extracts from his book The War of The Worlds without even trying to understand its context and the author's intents (which obviously indicated that he was against colonialism and war).

Maybe 'a bit of research' wasn't enough. The point of that cartoon wasn't to make a black woman out for a monkey. It's point was that there is this political party that's racist.
You have to know what kind of magazine Charlie Hebdo is and a bit of the things going on in France (luckily this incident with that woman was covered in the Netherlands) to see where they're coming from with some of these.

A lot of people on the internet are now picking out random Charlie Hebdo covers without context and talk about how bad the magazine is.

I would like to add that there has been a forum thread on Quora in which someone asked for context on many Charlie Hebdo caricatures… and there have been lenghty answers that explain pretty much any of them, debunking the "racist" myth quite well.

@The aforementioned political cartoon

I have a good hunch why people are calling it racist.

They don't speak french!

Look at that cartoon at face value and you get a black person drawn like a monkey…yea that's racist…if you don't have context

Translate the French however and the context becomes much more clear, showing a different agenda

But that takes more effort than some Tumblr warriors are willing to put into

That didn't get better. Now France is a shitty racist country and basically we are apologists and anyway "JeSuisCharlie" is the French "WhiteLivesMatter".

Ain't nobody got time for discussing opposite points of view politely instead of treating pro-Charlie or even French Tumblr users like shit? I'm deceived. Maybe I was a little bit too naive.

It really got out of hand… some other French people are still leading the fight; they have more energy for this than me. I just can't anymore.

Sigh. Gimme a gun. No, not for them. I'm pointing myself, why?

Another thing: The New York Observer has published an interview with R Crumb, an American cartoonist who has lived in France for the last 25 years, and who was hugely influential on political cartooning.

I had the same reaction I had when 9/11 happened. I thought, “Jesus Christ, things are really going to turn ugly now.” That kind of thing, just like 9/11, it gives the government the excuse to crack down, to become very much more, like, you know, “Homeland Security” oriented. And the right wing gets like this kind of like fodder for its arguments. The right wing here is very down on the Arabs. And France has an Arab population that’s like, 5 Million, something like that – huge population of Muslims in this country, most of whom just want to mind their own business and don’t want to be bothered. Those kinds of extremists are a very small minority. We have friends here who are from that background, you know, Moroccan or Algerian. And they just don’t want any trouble, and their kids are mostly even more moderate than they are.

The big names have been really coming out of the woodwork lately.

Without the rudeness of many so-called "sjw"s on Tumblr, maybe I would have changed a bit my mind on Charlie Hebdo earlier.

Because what I used to see from it wasn't very disturbing, of course, but I had a look of what was inside, through an article from 2013 (which is not an acceptation of the attacks in Paris), and I must admit that some drawings that I didn't see before, go beyond the borderline.

If anyone's interested by a link in French:
http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous
(nsfw)

I just regret that now thinking that there was some racism in CH equals being an angry SJW. Though I must admit that some of the French people of Tumblr also contributed to this.

Anyway that's my opinion. Yours?

Raâh, so confused in my head, I don't know what to think and what I think.

Here is a response to the Article11 article
Don't ever trust one source. Everything must be put into perspective. Everything.
Let's not forget that, in every situation involving those words in -phobia and -ism, it's easy for some to accuse others just for fame, shit and giggle.

I don't agree with some of their other articles and their stance on Dieudonné, for example, but my point still stands.

Bah, I don't really trust the Cercle des Volontaires.
But your right, everything must be put into a perspective.
However, there's a thing I don't really want to have right now:
An opinion. If you understand it, I'm happy, though if you don't, I won't yell.

Assad makes another war crime: Uh. Yeah I don't care.

8 French satirists die in a mass shooting: JE SUIS CHARLIE. How could you? Their lives mean a lot to us!

I'm pretty disgusted that satirist deaths are worth more than the deaths of thousands of families in Syria. Never before have I seen such a movement dedicated to these cartoonists. Why haven't I ever seen a 'anna syria' movement (anna syria = I am syria)? Of this magnitude?

I bring the syria conflict as an example of how our societies favour the deaths of white people over foreigners. You see it on the news, an Arab family gets killed and the only thing you do is think about it. When the satirists died people marched in the streets.

You can see I will not partake in the 'je suis charlie'.