11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[11B4V]

Languish at its 'finest', some initial sympathy for the French evaporates into 2003 era disdain, thread then successfully detailed by in your face troll. 

Cop out and cowardly. Try again.

No cop out.

What, that it's a typical languish thread. Or you think I was winking at "detailed by in your face troll".

Was/is no troll. Do I need to state that IMO CH has some culpability.

[11B4V]

and further more, I hope Obama really is looking down his nose at France and CH. I don't really even like him either. The march got the US official it deserved. 

[crazy canuck]

In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here?  They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.  They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen.  That is why more protection was provided to them.  That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway.  I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication.  But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.

[The Brain]

They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.

[crazy canuck]

They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.

No, obviously you don't.  They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it.  Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk.  B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument.  He does not view it as bravery but stupidity.  His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.

I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it.  But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.

[The Brain]

As I said...

[Martinus]

As I said...

Yup, they are just like those sluts who dress provocatively or go out alone with a guy on a date. Just asking to get themselves raped. They knew the risk.

[Martinus]

They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.

No, obviously you don't.  They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it.  Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk.  B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument.  He does not view it as bravery but stupidity.  His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.

I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it.  But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.

All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). 

There is absolutely no difference between this stance and one that says a rape is a consequence of a woman going alone/provocatively dressed/in a bad neighbourhood etc.

[Malthus]

One thing I did not know: the "Charlie" in Charlie Hebdo originally referred to ... Charlie Brown. [Also, a mocking reference to Charles de Gaulle]. 

A less controversial cartoon in general than Charlie Brown would be hard to find, in my adult lifetime. I guess things were really different in the '60s. 

[Martinus]

One thing I did not know: the "Charlie" in Charlie Hebdo originally referred to ... Charlie Brown. [Also, a mocking reference to Charles de Gaulle]. 

A less controversial cartoon in general than Charlie Brown would be hard to find, in my adult lifetime. I guess things were really different in the '60s. 

I think the Charlie Brown reference was a cover (they were really mocking the death of de Gaulle, as the magazine that the staff originally was employed in was closed down by the government as a punitive measure for running a satire on de Gaulle's death, which itself was a response to the mainstream/government media making light of a death of 150-something people in a week before or some such).

[11B4V]

They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.

No, obviously you don't.  They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it.  Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk.  B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument.  He does not view it as bravery but stupidity.  His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.

I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it.  But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.

All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). 

[alfred russel]

Can't read French.  Though the big slogan I'm seeing is "I am Charlie"

Lots of older Parisians carried signs, "I stand with Charlie" that were left over from late 60s/early 70s protests.

[crazy canuck]

They dressed as sluts. Gotcha.

No, obviously you don't.  They knew there was a substantial risk in publishing and they took it.  Ignoring that fact undermines the bravery of publishing in spite of the risk.  B4 is simply taking the flip side of the argument.  He does not view it as bravery but stupidity.  His point is that even if one were to view it as bravery one cannot forget the decision to publish was made knowing it would put people at risk.

I don't think he is correct that their decision to publish was wrong - as I said I defend it.  But he has a point that the decision did have consequences.

All actions have consequences. But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out when someone is murdered or raped because it comes very close to blaming the victim (which B4 is actually doing explicitly). 

The rule you speak of has no role in a free and democratic society.  B4's right to say uncomfortably things should be defended just strongly as the right Charlie had to do the same.  I would hate to live in a society where it was the done thing not to say things just because it might upset people.  Isnt that exactly the point all those who laud Charlie are making.  Don't you see inconsistency of your position?

[Razgovory]

In defense of B4, what is so outrageous about suggesting that the editors of Charlie have some responsibility here?  They knew they were taking a baseball bat to a hornet's nest.  They and the French government knew there was a chance something would happen.  That is why more protection was provided to them.  That protection failed. I defend Charlie's right to make the decision to take the risk and publish anyway.  I applaud the decision of the French government to try to provide more protection for Charlie rather than banning the publication.  But to suggest that Charlie's decision to publish didn't contribute to what occurred is simply ignoring the facts.

Ehhh I'm not so keen on this line of thought.

[Martinus]

I am not saying he should be killed or punished for his view. I just find it distateful. Where's the inconsistency?