11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[mongers]

Just when I think I understand your vernacular you give me a half dozen posts I can't fathom, I give up.

[garbon]

[DGuller]

I'm probably bigger than Katmai these days.

Good God!

[CountDeMoney]

I'm probably bigger than Katmai these days.

Good God!

"My God...it's full of fries!"

[garbon]

I'm probably bigger than Katmai these days.

Good God!

"My God...it's full of fries!"

[derspiess]

They've started arresting Danish douchebags applauding the attack on CH online. First time I've been glad about our new "Terrorism Law".

Bleh. Wouldn't want a law like that here. We prefer our wackos to have the freedom to identify themselves.

[Jacob]

Not a novel thought, but well put IMO:

Here's a theory. Terrorists aren't offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don't care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.

Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.

Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting.

In our angry innocence, however, we persist in thinking this is somehow about cartoons. In thinking that the terrorists "win" if we don't reproduce those cartoons, and "lose" if we do. As if, at this very moment, terrorist leaders across the West are privately wailing in anguished disbelief because satirical cartoons have been reproduced this morning in several European newspapers.("Disaster! Our plan has backfired in a way we couldn't possibly have foreseen! Ink really does beat Kalashnikovs! Satire defeats us once again!")

On the whole, I'm not sure that's very likely. I don't think the terrorists "win" if we fail to reproduce cartoons. I think the terrorists "win" if we leap up, gulp down their bait – and hate Muslims.

This is not about satire. This is beyond satire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332535/We-think-the-Paris-terrorists-were-offended-by-Charlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

The idea that extremists strike to provoke a backlash and increase radicalization and driving towards a wider scale conflict they desire is not exactly new, I don't think.

Two questions:

1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?

[Valmy]

Well obviously the people most endangered by extremists are Muslims.  They are killed by them in vast numbers and it is putting their culture and civilization in peril.  The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever. 

Anyway I look around and I see Muslims thriving and doing well in the US like never before and nobody is hating them.  Yet somehow the terrorists have not lost and been defeated, because this is not about us.  If it was the terrorists would be blowing up Houston and Austin not Syria and Egypt.

[mongers]

It's a suicide death cult, a vanishingly small percentage join it, but enough do to perpetuate 'it'.

The ones who are groomed, seduced into it are probably already hating on society for real or largely imaginary reasons, I don't think typically they can be rescue.

Possibly the only way to combat it, is to make sure they're ridiculed in death, maybe televise the return of each body back from Iraq or Syria, treat their parents with contempt, for they will in part have played a role in moulding them into the person they became. Sufficient, so that muslim parents know to deter their sons and daughter from Jihad and probably turn them into the police at the first sign of trouble. The very small percentage of parents who don't bother, will be in some way be encouragers and complicit in the crimes their children go on to commit.

We should carry on with everyday life and not buy into the alienation narrative, as 99% of the apparently vulnerable never do any harm to society.

[Martinus]

You can get arrested for cheering?  Not sure I'm too fond of that law.

There is a fine line between cheering on a crime committed and inciting to one.

[Martinus]

You can get arrested for cheering?  Not sure I'm too fond of that law.

Its wording is something like: "He who publicly applauds/approves a terrorist action can be fined or jailed for up to two years."

That's kind of vague.

They probably mean gaoled.

[Martinus]

The idea that this internal Muslim is decided by how we respond seems rather absurd but hey whatever. 

Does not compute. Really. I usually try to make sense of someone's post, even if they make some syntax mistake or miss words, but I completely do not understand what you are saying

[Martinus]

It's a suicide death cult, a vanishingly small percentage join it, but enough do to perpetuate 'it'.

The ones who are groomed, seduced into it are probably already hating on society for real or largely imaginary reasons, I don't think typically they can be rescue.

Possibly the only way to combat it, is to make sure they're ridiculed in death, maybe televise the return of each body back from Iraq or Syria, treat their parents with contempt, for they will in part have played a role in moulding them into the person they became. Sufficient, so that muslim parents know to deter their sons and daughter from Jihad and probably turn them into the police at the first sign of trouble. The very small percentage of parents who don't bother, will be in some way be encouragers and complicit in the crimes their children go on to commit.

We should carry on with everyday life and not buy into the alienation narrative, as 99% of the apparently vulnerable never do any harm to society.

This. There may be some perverted "rationale" to the actions of Islamist terrorists, as Jake's post argues but that does not mean that we should acknowledge or accommodate that (I may be wrong but I think there is this lingering, implied view in that article that we should not react by reprinting Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I think we should do it, even if the real motives of the terrorists were different - because we need to send the message - both to others and to ourselves - that violence is never going to  work in silencing us - it will always have the opposite effect).

[Sheilbh]

Two questions:

1 - Does it sound reasonable to you?
2 - Does this change how we should react?

1 - Yes.

2 - No.

I disagree with Mart that we should publish the cartoons to make a statement. However I think they're more or less essential context for the story, so should be published as any other image that was the ostensible justification for murder would be published. 

As I say I caveat that by recognising that it's a tough choice for editors who may have real fears. If that's the case I think they should admit that because refusing to publish something for fear is a political point in itself - which is what the Jewish Chronicle did - and I think it's honest. Coming up with bien pensant nonsense like the FT did isn't right.

In terms of making a point I quite like Deacon's (ex-)colleague Tom Chivers suggestion of a newspaper actually publishing a very respectful cartoon of their own of Mohammed. I think there's too much focus on the disrespectful angle. Hebdo's Rabelaisian style probably made the cartoons more offensive but it's the image itself that's blasphemous. If there's a desire to make a point I think it's there, not on the 'duty to disrespect' side.

[Razgovory]

Raz has always been one for the popular liberal trends. Never for the little guy.

Who do you guys consider to be the little guy?

Minorities in Missouri.

You mean, blacks?  I mentioned them.  There aren't any Missouri French anymore, and the Osage are long gone.