Terrorist attack in Paris: 12 dead

[Rss]

Gunmen have attacked the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris
Four cartoonists, including the magazine's editor-in-chief, are reportedly among those killed
Twelve people have been killed, four are seriously injured
Paris has been placed on the highest level of alert following the attack
President Hollande called it an act of "extreme barbarity"
There has been international condemnation, with UK Prime Minister David Cameron calling the act "sickening"
In 2011, the publication came under attack after naming the Prophet Muhammad as its "editor-in-chief"

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-30710777

Thoughts? Perps apparently went to the wrong address at first but didn't kill anyone there. There's also liveleak video of the attack. These guys were not your average weekend jihadists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I posted this in another thread, but these dont seem like normal jihadis period. Jihadis generally stick around for the martyrdom part of the plan. Not putting my tinfoil hat on yet, but it just seems odd.

[DOOM]

I posted this in another thread, but these dont seem like normal jihadis period. Jihadis generally stick around for the martyrdom part of the plan. Not putting my tinfoil hat on yet, but it just seems odd.

Well the new wave of terrorists connected to the IS is weird (presumably they have to do something with the IS, as the IS has reached out to them on twitter), they don't fit into the normal paradigm of islamic terrorism.

[Comrade Nymoen]

I also heard a Turkish Marxist group did a suicide bombing in Turkey.

[The Feral Underclass]

I posted this in another thread, but these dont seem like normal jihadis period. Jihadis generally stick around for the martyrdom part of the plan. Not putting my tinfoil hat on yet, but it just seems odd.

Their operation might not be finished yet. They could have other attacks planned.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If anything daesh seems more inclined towards martyrdom than even the older groups they replaced though. Obviously it makes tactical sense not to kill off skilled fighters but judging by the way their combat operations go, ideology seems to trump tactical needs more often than not. Their units seem to be suicide squads by default which is what makes them so successful. It just seems like if you were a rabid nationalist, this is an unbelievably perfect time for an attack of this kind to happen. That's not to say Jihadis couldn't exploit the timing intentionally in order to create a backlash for their own purposes.

[Sasha]

I also heard a Turkish Marxist group did a suicide bombing in Turkey.

yes, that was a DHKC/P attack, nothing to do with what happend in Paris.

[jullia]

I posted this in another thread, but these dont seem like normal jihadis period. Jihadis generally stick around for the martyrdom part of the plan. Not putting my tinfoil hat on yet, but it just seems odd.

Jihad isn't synonym of suicid attack. In a lot of case the jihadist try to escape to hit again later (as Mohamed Merah, the guy in Belgium).

[Sasha]

That's not to say Jihadis couldn't exploit the timing intentionally in order to create a backlash for their own purposes.


IS thrives on Islamophobia, they intentionally want to make the west unlivable for Muslims so they all move to their stupid Caliphate, its what makes them fundamentally different from Al-Qaida

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Wasn't that guy more of a lone wolf though? I know he had fought in Syria for a while but I didn't think that was an actual planned operation and but almost some kind of spree killing

[Sasha]

this seems a very well planned attack; a. they knew where to hit (the offices where moved to a secret location after a previous firebomb attack), b. they knew when to hit (the attack was during the weekly redaction meeting, the only time the cartoonists are all there), c. they knew who to hit (witnesses are saying that they called out many of the victims by name before they shot them). Also the attackers obviously had military training in the way they worked.
I assume this where Jihadist veterans but completely contrary to my normal postings here after terrorist attacks i keep a very small option open that, if these people are not caught soon, that this could have been an false flag attack by right extremists, because they repeatedly identified themselves to witnesses as Al-Qaida Yemen, the balaclava's and the organisation.

[RevUK]

Blowback.

[Rss]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2899209/France-deploy-aircraft-carrier-Gulf-IS-fight.html

Concidence?

[Hrafn]

Of all organizations I would have suspected, Yemenite Al-Qaeda would not be one of them.

[Lord Testicles]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2899209/France-deploy-aircraft-carrier-Gulf-IS-fight.html

Concidence?


If that deployment only became public knowledge yesterday then I would say it's probably a coincidence.

[Sasha]

Of all organizations I would have suspected, Yemenite Al-Qaeda would not be one of them.

yeah, that fact also really peaked my interest, France doesnt have a big Yemenite minority so homegrown terrorists with military training would be pretty hard to find, IS or Al Nusra or some Libian or Algerian faction would be far more logical, I know Yemenite Al-Qaeda is the favorite boogyman for scare stories about airplane attacks with rectal bombs etc but further they are not really known for professional operations in the west.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think it's a false flag, but let's say it is, that it's a left-wing magazine opposed to the far-right may explain the target.

[Sasha]

like said its probably a form of wishful thinking on my part and coincidences or translation errors are jumping up to me as proof or patterns that are not there.
still, it would be an absolute first for the Yemenite group and the fact they got away, the extremely high planning which suggest they where inside before, the wearing of balaclava's to avoid identification and the fact that they spoke, according to the women who they forced to let them inside, flawless french without any accent its itching me.

[Tim Cornelis]

If it was a false flag, wouldn't they fake some accent?

[Sasha]

probably, though dont forget that BBET was also planning to assassinate even Filip de Winter and blame it on the muslims, also in the 70/80's there was a long string of strategy of tension attacks by fash terrorists which where pinned on the left (mostly in italy but even here in the netherlands), took decades to get the truth out. and lets not forget the weird attack on Liberation last year, just around of the corner of where the attack today was, in which some weird Libyan guy tried to shoot up the leftist newspaper and only failed to inflict similar casulties because his gun jammed after shots. he rolled before with some "anarchist" spree killers and claimed then to work for the Lybian and french secretservice to destabilize the ultra-left.
but yeah, i'm probably reaching for straws here.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

False flag in this sense doesn't necessarily imply state backing, and therefore state planning assistance. Even a well executed plan can get sloppy with little things. Anyway it sounds like im grasping at straws when I say that and I'm totally not. 99.999% says it's probably just a normal attack, its just the timing, target and all the little details make it stick out a bit.

[DOOM]

This was way to brutal to be the act of some B&H gang.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

B&H?

[Sasha]

This was way to brutal to be the act of some B&H gang.

no one is implying that, if it would be, and again it is probably not, some strategy of tension thing it would be, like previously, probably (ex-)military or police officers or something like that. one thing is sure, many on the french extreme-right who are now howling with indegnation would have loved to shoot up Charlie Habdo too if they got the chance.

[Sasha]

B&H?

blood and honour, nazi boneheads.
though the belgium BBET group i referred too was also BH-RVF affiliated and did exist of almost exclusively military members with acces to military weaponry.

[khad]

What I find important to note is how the perps specified they represented Al Qaeda Yemen, AKA Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, which is known to be highly sympathetic to the goals of the Islamic State. They did not claim to be representing Al-Qaeda in general.

With the Islamic State essentially calling for the extermination of Al-Qaeda Central Command with their latest official publication, naturally the various branch operations would take care to distance themselves from Zawahiri's circle.

[Sasha]

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian pensula is though one of the few chapters that is said to be firmly under central commands controll isn't it?

[jullia]

If it was a false flag, wouldn't they fake some accent?

It's really unlikly to be a false flag attack. It's probably more ex jihadist from syria who come back in france to continue the fight. Medias said that the way they move and fight, show some military training. It seems they don't hesitate to shoot.

[Dat Soviet Zaen]

It's really unlikly to be a false flag attack. It's probably more ex jihadist from syria who come back in france to continue the fight. Medias said that the way they move and fight, show some military training. It seems they don't hesitate to shoot.

The sentiments of you and some others in this thread suggesting that they are trained seem a bit iffy to me. Their posture may be very confident and it is clear that they have not held the AK for the first time, however their movement, co-ordination, situational awareness and to some extent weapons handling seems to be lacking, at least from what I've seen in the video where they shoot the policeman.

[Sasha]

French news is reporting that the intelligence agency has identified the gunman, two are French converts that indeed recently came back from Syria. So that explains that.
Still curious that they claimed it as Al-Qaeda Yemen but maybe they got their funding and Intel from there.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

one thing is sure, many on the french extreme-right who are now howling with indegnation would have loved to shoot up Charlie Habdo too if they got the chance.

from what ive seen they publish an awful kind of bigoted offensive tasteless humour that's intended to stir controversy and inflame people so i for one am very skeptical of the whole narrative of this being an attack on french press freedom and democracy and tolerance

[Hrafn]

The magazine appears to have published some very racist things, even if we take their criticism of religion at face value.

[Sasha]

French news is reporting that the intelligence agency has identified the gunman, two are French converts that indeed recently came back from Syria. So that explains that.
Still curious that they claimed it as Al-Qaeda Yemen but maybe they got their funding and Intel from there.

What the fuck, cops claim they where identified because they left their ID-cards in the gettaway car?!? Yeah right, pull the other one it got bells on it... Now I'm getting into conspiracy mode...

[Lord Testicles]

What the fuck, cops claim they where identified because they left their ID-cards in the gettaway car?!? Yeah right, pull the other one it got bells on it... Now I'm getting into conspiracy mode...

Yeah, that's an odd one.

"I'm off to commit some heinous crime, better not forget my ID card."

Still, people have probably done stupider things.

If this was a false-flag attack, who do people think would benefit the most from framing this on Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula?

[jullia]

It seems that the terrorist were pretty good for the "warior side of the operation". They stay calm but move quickly, kill only there targets, don't hesitate...

On the other side, they were very unprepare for the logistic. First they go to the wrong adress, use their own car and forget their papers inside.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I doubt this was a false flag attack. Charlie Hebdo has been a target of Muslim extremists before. Their office was fire-bombed in 2011.

[Tim Cornelis]

You'd need your ID and such when you get pulled over on your way to the target area. You don't want your plan to fail because of a broken tail light, being pulled over, failing to show id, car search, guns and balaclavas found, arrested. Wasn't that how Timothy McVeigh was arrested after his act? I'm certain some guy was found out that way.

EDIT: well very similarly.


Shortly after the bombing, while driving on I-35 in Noble County, near Perry, Oklahoma, McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charles J. Hanger from Perry, Oklahoma.[56] Hanger had passed McVeigh's yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis and noticed that it had no license plate. McVeigh admitted to the police officer (who noticed a bulge under his jacket) that he had a gun and McVeigh was subsequently arrested for having driven without plates and illegal firearm possession; McVeigh's concealed weapon permit was not legal in Oklahoma. McVeigh was wearing a T-shirt at that time with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the motto: sic semper tyrannis ('Thus always to tyrants'), the state motto of Virginia and also the words shouted by John Wilkes Booth after he shot Lincoln.[57] On the back, it had a tree with a picture of three blood droplets and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."[58] Three days later, while still in jail, McVeigh was identified as the subject of the nationwide manhunt.

[Sasha]

Yeah, that's an odd one.

"I'm off to commit some heinous crime, better not forget my ID card."

Still, people have probably done stupider things.

probably these guys where, as was the killer of theo van gogh here, high on the radar of the intelligence services and they fucked up royally somewhere and want to cover that up now but not impede the search. probably they just went past all their likely suspects and these guys where suddenly missing. it was wat happened here. they didn't accurately asses the risk of Mohammed B. so they lapsed on his surveillance and then tried to cover that up when he turned out to be the murderer.



If this was a false-flag attack, who do people think would benefit the most from framing this on Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula?

either a bunch of fascists trying to provoke some strategy of tension shit who where sloppy in their research or a faction of the intelligence services who wanted more funding and legal room, but like said, most off the gaps are getting explained, most of my, already small, doubts that this was anything other than dipshit Syria vets are taken away.

[khad]

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian pensula is though one of the few chapters that is said to be firmly under central commands controll isn't it?
That's where you'd be wrong. Though the leadership still pledges formal allegiance to central command, a huge part of the rank and file is leaning towards ISIS, if only for the sake of practicality. A group in Iraq is that much better equipped to provide assistance to their cause than some old fart hiding in a cave in Pakistan. This accounts for the seemingly contradictory statements issued by the group in recent months, but pay attention to the source--field commanders tend to lean ISIS while senior clerics continue to toe the Zawahiri line.

http://www.yementimes.com/en/1808/news/4216/AQAP-announces-support-for-ISIL.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/world/meast/al-qaeda-yemen-isis/

If you are to believe the French government's ID of the shooters, at least one of the shooters (Cherif K.) was actively involved in recruiting fighters for Abu-Musab Zarqawi's outfit in Iraq in ~2005. And if you've read the latest Dabiq issue and gleaned ISIS's narrative of global jihad, they trace their roots to Zarqawi in opposition to Zawahiri. In their minds, it was Zarqawi and not Bin Laden and his successors, who was the father of modern day jihad.

[consuming negativity]

i have no idea if this is legit or not but it is apparently the three guys gunning down some cop: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc6_1420632668 (mildly graphic but not like gut-wrenching)

[Illegalitarian]

What sort of racist stuff has this magazine published in the past?

[Illegalitarian]

That's where you'd be wrong. Though the leadership still pledges formal allegiance to central command, a huge part of the rank and file is leaning towards ISIS, if only for the sake of practicality. A group in Iraq is that much better equipped to provide assistance to their cause than some old fart hiding in a cave in Pakistan. This accounts for the seemingly contradictory statements issued by the group in recent months, but pay attention to the source--field commanders tend to lean ISIS while senior clerics continue to toe the Zawahiri line.

http://www.yementimes.com/en/1808/news/4216/AQAP-announces-support-for-ISIL.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/world/meast/al-qaeda-yemen-isis/

If you are to believe the French government's ID of the shooters, at least one of the shooters (Cherif K.) was actively involved in recruiting fighters for Abu-Musab Zarqawi's outfit in Iraq in ~2005. And if you've read the latest Dabiq issue and gleaned ISIS's narrative of global jihad, they trace their roots to Zarqawi in opposition to Zawahiri. In their minds, it was Zarqawi and not Bin Laden and his successors, who was the father of modern day jihad.


Zarqawi is considered the founder of A-Q in Iraq and thus one of the founding fathers of ISIS, isn't he? If so, that certainly explains the links between IS and the shooters, even if it's weak

[khad]

Zarqawi is considered the founder of A-Q in Iraq and thus one of the founding fathers of ISIS, isn't he? If so, that certainly explains the links between IS and the shooters, even if it's weak
Yes, and he was famously scapegoated as a failure after his death by Zawahiri and his Central Command in Pakistan. The ISIS revisionist narrative (See Dabiq #6) is that Zarqawi was the noble "pure" jihadi who freed himself from the corruption of Zawahiri and the Taliban.

Of course, it is questionable that the French cops have identified the correct suspects in the first place. A third "shooter" turned himself in, but he did so in an attempt to clear his name, as he has an alibi.


02:31 GMT: The 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad reportedly handed himself in at a police station in Charleville Mézières after seeing his name on the list of shooting suspects on social media, French media reports.

According to French channel iTele, Mourad claims to have alibi of his innocence, which is being investigated.

[ola.]

What sort of racist stuff has this magazine published in the past?

https://33.media.tumblr.com/1efec9b54fd6cf1905527d619dc32eec/tumblr_nhthcge55B1sjbdxko1_400.jpg

https://38.media.tumblr.com/1e652fa89be89935e593e2b4ba426511/tumblr_nhthcge55B1sjbdxko2_400.jpg

https://38.media.tumblr.com/c9ddf6157738bbdb3d74ac08b07ce70a/tumblr_nhtixkLO3w1qzi1v3o3_1280.jpg

https://38.media.tumblr.com/e2229713ab7713127569d24f52b00df1/tumblr_nhtixkLO3w1qzi1v3o1_400.jpg

https://38.media.tumblr.com/33081de1861775880d741cdacac86cb9/tumblr_nhtgluNeF51sjbdxko1_400.jpg

https://33.media.tumblr.com/9fb61b515e6be6d85cb7a5a378aaa7c5/tumblr_nhtixkLO3w1qzi1v3o5_250.jpg

This is some really vile stuff.

[DOOM]

Well that's some nasty stuff but it's naive to belive they attacked Charlie Hebdo for racist caricatures.

[jullia]

I don't see the racism in their cover. It's the opposite.

[Hrafn]

I don't see the racism in their cover. It's the opposite.

You are blind.

[RevUK]

George Galloway predicted this specific attack in 2012:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dosqZ1BpzhY

[Dat Soviet Zaen]

News just in of a new shooting in Paris with one dead and one injured, as well as an explosion in a kebab shop

[Tim Cornelis]

Well you have to speak French to know the content -- I don't. But for instance, I'm pretty sure that some Front National member referred to the French minister of health (?), whom is of African descent, as a monkey or ape, so the third one would likely be more of a caricature of the FN, and would then be anti-racist. The one below that features that anti-semitic comedian, but he is not portrayed as a racial caricature, so that one just happens to feature a black person -- hardly racist.

I don't know about the other ones. Need context and content.

[consuming negativity]

e: unnecessary to read

[DOOM]

News just in of a new shooting in Paris with one dead and one injured, as well as an explosion in a kebab shop

And here we go. The backlash I was afraid of is really happening

[ola.]

Well you have to speak French to know the content -- I don't.

For anyone wondering, this blog (http://social-justice-fire-mage.tumblr.com/post/107444852419/pm-hello-i-agree-that-no-journalist-artist) run by a French woman has translated and explained the contexts and content of the posters and several other posters too designed by the magazine.

I found these pictures from this link (http://avantblargh.tumblr.com/post/107422672105), with the following statements:


I need it to be known that this newspaper was not some sweet periodical that used it’s platform of freedom of speech as a catalyst to social change in France. Before you allow Fox News to label the shooters as Muslim Terrorist and that all Muslims are terrorist and that Charlie Hebdo was a magazines for families and saints you need to know that this newspaper was infamously known for being racist, homophobic, and highly islamophobic. I am not one to laugh at a blatant racist comic as “oh lol free speech” because with free speech comes RESPONSIBILITY.

For Charlie Hebdo to be a left wing newspaper that questioned the actions of the right wing, why does it often look like they are laughing along with them? Why can’t this magazine question why we are racist and islamophobic than to continue to justify their belief in supposed “ironic” comics?

My prayers go out to the victims of this shooing. As an artist, a person who works in magazines, a human, and as a French woman I feel their pain.

MAIS

JE NE SUIS PAIS CHARLIE

I will not stand for this magazine, I will not celebrate the privilege of “free speech” to be a disguise for hate. I am a black woman who understands how frustrated one can be as whites continue to use laws as an excuse to be abusive to who we are whether it be religion, skin color, or sexual orientation. I know France is scared, I know people are hurting. But I cannot be this newspaper’s ally. I am an ally for the people of France, I am an ally to the victims and their families but I will not stand in solidarity for this hateful newspaper.

JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE

As for the last picture, it was sexist. They can criticize religion without such sexually degrading and vulgar depictions of women.

[Sasha]

News just in of a new shooting in Paris with one dead and one injured, as well as an explosion in a kebab shop

the shooting in paris is being reported as a copycat attack by an jihadi on the cops.
but the kebab shop was next to a mosque and probably a racist attack, there are also reports of someone shooting at a muslim family and grenades thrown at a mosque. here in the netherlands this morning a mosque got firebomb too.
ugly shit.

[gef-gons]

"They don't fit into the normal paradigm of Islamic terrorism". Read that phrase again - "normal paradigm of Islamic terrorism" - as if Islamic terrorism (whatever that is) could have something approaching a "normal paradigm".
In modernity when a form defines itself as an ideology (political or religious) the tool of terrorism is no longer a useful tool - terrorism is counter to the reproductive aim of the ideology. Put another way - they may call themselves Islamic but if one does even a minimal compare/contrast analysis you see that in no way, shape or form do they meet the normative value of Islam. The fact of terror obviates any association with religion.
When we read the news we need to be aware that the bias of the producer's of the news need not be reproduced by us. Religion is almost always used as cover for another aim. Recall the wars of religion (Catholic/Protestant) in Europe. The wars had a spiritual aspect to them but the tools of war were bought and paid for by the aristocracy who had territorial aims far more important than any religious belief. They wanted to draw the map in their own favour.
Today, similarly, IS' terror is being used by someone who would like to draw the map with boarder's in their interest. Religion is used as a tool to work w/ the masses.
When we repeat terms like 'normal paradigm of Islamic terrorism' we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

[contracycle]

I'm not sure that argument really works for theocratic structures. If you have a situation where, say, kings use the church to justify their rule, precisely because they are using the church cynically, those kings can reign it in when it gets carried away and starts to undermine their interests. When the whole structure is made up of true believers, though, there's no cynical element to exercise that control and restraint.

[Leo]

Just a correction:


I also heard a Turkish Marxist group did a suicide bombing in Turkey.


yes, that was a DHKC/P attack, nothing to do with what happend in Paris.

It turned out that it wasn't a DHKP/C attack actually. The suicide bomber turned out not a member of the DHKP/C but a Chechen woman, allegedly an Islamist. Why DHKP/C claimed this attack is a mystery, but the speculations range from they were planning another attack and thought this was theirs to this being proof that they are controlled by the Turkish state.

[Sasha]

the two guys who did the habdo attack are now under siege, probably with a hostage in a building in a small town near Paris.

the guy who shot the two cops in the afternoon, who the cops are now reporting is an associate of the habdo guys, just shot two people in front of a jewish supermarket in Paris and took people inside hostage.

[Arlekino]

Nah I confused little bit is that Hollywood movie or for real. Sarcasm and I waiting Adam Curtis will make some documentary conspiracy theories.

[jullia]

You are blind.

Not really, you must understand the context of each cover. Most of them are caricature of a racist way of thinking to show the abusdity of racism.
It's not first level interpretation. It's a very special kind of humor, very dark and violent.
All the member of Charlie hebdo were leftist and human right militant. They are no doubt of their messages.

[Hrafn]

The left-wing can be racist. Many on here are.

[jullia]

The left-wing can be racist. Many on here are.

Charlie Hebdo is very borderline, they go far away. So you can understand some of their cover like this if they are taken out of the context.
If they should be racist it's a long time the newspaper should be closed. They have been attack in tribunal many times.

You use as avatar a nazi caricature, are you a nazi?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not really, you must understand the context of each cover. Most of them are caricature of a racist way of thinking to show the abusdity of racism.
It's not first level interpretation. It's a very special kind of humor, very dark and violent.
All the member of Charlie hebdo were leftist and human right militant. They are no doubt of their messages.

no wonder the european left is the state it's in

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Using a nazi caricature ironically isn't really the same as using racist imagery of marginalized groups in a context where those groups are already under threat. They may not have explicitly called for violence against immigrants, but theres something to be said for not adding your voice to a stream of shit. I can't really make sense of this magazine, it must lose something in translation.

[Illegalitarian]

Even if Charlie Hebdo uses its characters to subtly mock racist stereotypes found in the right-wing through satire, using such characterizations in a society renowned for its very high levels of social and institutionalized Islamiphobia is not wise or edgy, because such satire is most likely going to be lost on a society that, for a great part of it, unironically believes in those stereotypes.

If I can use hyperbole to prove a point without the G-word being thrown around, it would be like an anti-Nazi publication in Nazi Germany producing pictures of characterized Jews... while it may be an attempt at subtle satire against the entire idea of that characterization, because those negative stereotypes were culturally and politically dominant, such a cartoon would still only serve the dominant narrative against Jews.

Do you know how many Americans there are that don't understand that Stephen Colbert was mocking conservatives on his program? Or fuck, how many people there are that don't get that The Onion is fake? Remember how everyone used to laugh at Dave Chappelles over-the-top depictions of black people, and how black people are treated by society - not because they thought it was a funny take on race relations, which it was meant to be - but because they got a kick out of seeing black people depicted in such a light?


That's the danger of satire. If you don't know your audience, it stops being satire.

[jullia]

Using a nazi caricature ironically isn't really the same as using racist imagery of marginalized groups in a context where those groups are already under threat. They may not have explicitly called for violence against immigrants, but theres something to be said for not adding your voice to a stream of shit. I can't really make sense of this magazine, it must lose something in translation.

I think it's not only the translation but the reference to. To get their purpose, we must know the political situation in France.

I don't really get their sense of humor to but it's not a relevant reason to describe them as racist. It seems in France, they were pretty famous and nobody have doubt about their opinion.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I've read some of the articles trying to explain the context. I can't help but wonder, maybe some of the covers are intentionally drawn to appear racist so that unwitting racists will buy a copy and read the articles, wherein their worldview will be critiqued and ridiculed.

I'm not French, and I can't say I entirely "get" this magazine. If I had to make a judgement, I would say that the humor is overly crass and irresponsible, but to insinuate, as some have, that the authors deserved this, in any way, is vile, even more vile than anything they could have ever drawn.

[jullia]

Even if Charlie Hebdo uses its characters to subtly mock racist stereotypes found in the right-wing through satire, using such characterizations in a society renowned for its very high levels of social and institutionalized Islamiphobia is not wise or edgy, because such satire is most likely going to be lost on a society that, for a great part of it, unironically believes in those stereotypes.

If I can use hyperbole to prove a point without the G-word being thrown around, it would be like an anti-Nazi publication in Nazi Germany producing pictures of characterized Jews... while it may be an attempt at subtle satire against the entire idea of that characterization, because those negative stereotypes were culturally and politically dominant, such a cartoon would still only serve the dominant narrative against Jews.

Do you know how many Americans there are that don't understand that Stephen Colbert was mocking conservatives on his program? Or fuck, how many people there are that don't get that The Onion is fake? Remember how everyone used to laugh at Dave Chappelles over-the-top depictions of black people, and how black people are treated by society - not because they thought it was a funny take on race relations, which it was meant to be - but because they got a kick out of seeing black people depicted in such a light?


That's the danger of satire. If you don't know your audience, it stops being satire.

I totally get your point and agree with it.
But for the moment all the accusation that charlie hebdo is a racist newspaper are coming from non french people who don't speak french.
It seems that all Frenchs haven't any confusions or doubts about the subjects.

[agnixie]

That's the danger of satire. If you don't know your audience, it stops being satire.

Considering the minister being caricatured hailed CH and sued the FN publication that caused the caricature, I'd say they were probably aware of their audience.

[Rosa Partizan]

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? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

[The Intransigent Faction]

What I don't quite understand are these "national unity" rallies. What are they meant to accomplish, exactly? Is this just rallying around the flag for its own sake, or are there different groups making specific demands...?

It seems like they could just easily lead to xenophobic mob violence, or scattered racist attacks at least.

[bricolage]

What I don't quite understand are these "national unity" rallies. What are they meant to accomplish, exactly? Is this just rallying around the flag for its own sake, or are there different groups making specific demands...?
I guess they are intended to 'send a message' - whatever that means. But they also function as a way for individuals to collectively mourn and for politicians to get photographed linking arms. I think what will also happen is that the size of the marches will be used by the state to legitimise various polices, i.e. two million are against terrorism so we must increase surveillance!


It seems like they could just easily lead to xenophobic mob violence, or scattered racist attacks at least.
I mean this is already happening though.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I mean this is already happening though.

Yeah, I figured as much. I just haven't gotten around to reading news of anything specific...and there's the problem of people like Marine Le Pen and the National Front and the degree to which they might benefit from this.

EDIT: Well, okay, there's this:

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731/french-muslims-attacks-charlie-hebdo

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/65T9QO97oPH0H3qFPoTa5afYgQQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2921926/B67eRvTCcAAwU24.0.jpg

[motion denied]

I have read, and agree for the most part, that the next issue of CH will be important on how the backlash will be managed or to what degree FN may benefit from it (which will obviously happen). If they'll go full "defend our freedoms against islamic fascism of les sangs impurs" or, as moderately "left" as they seemingly were (are), try to ponder it. Thin boundary between showing just abhorrence towards the attack without following the jingoist chorus.

Tougher of the times to be an immigrant worker. Shit.

[agnixie]

I have read, and agree for the most part, that the next issue of CH will be important on how the backlash will be managed or to what degree FN may benefit from it (which will obviously happen). If they'll go full "defend our freedoms against islamic fascism of les sangs impurs" or, as moderately "left" as they seemingly were (are), try to ponder it. Thin boundary between showing just abhorrence towards the attack without following the jingoist chorus.

Tougher of the times to be an immigrant worker. Shit.

You have no fucking clue about Charlie. One of the dead was a cofounder of a cuban solidarity group that actually did more than any wannabe castrist in the west will ever be able to claim.

Also Jean Marie Le Pen isn't playing ball with his daughter's PR campaign; this is, after all, a newspaper the old FN would have sent against the wall about two days after winning the elections. One of the dead did a lot of stuff exposing LePen's Algerian war record, including the fact that he personally tortured and committed war crimes.

[Hrafn]

You have no fucking clue about Charlie. One of the dead was a cofounder of a cuban solidarity group that actually did more than any wannabe castrist in the west will ever be able to claim.

Lol. Cuba.

[TheEmancipator]

Guys, as a french speaker (from Wallonia albeit) take my word for it ; Charlie Hebdo is NOT a racist newspaper. They've always criticised FN's hidden racial agenda and hypocrisy and any representation of racist stereotypes is usually a way to criticise these precise stereotypes.

It annoys me that there are people on here who are deliberately being contrarian about a satirical comic book and falling into the trap of the ''Free Speech, Political Correctness Must Die'' liberals instead of talking about what is a serious issue that must be discussed on the left so that the Fascists don't monopolise this debate : How to tackle islamist extremism?

Also, the intrumentalisation of the #JesuisCharlie hashtag/trend, etc reminds me of someone who complained to me about a raised fist in one of our campaign leflets. Ultimately every single political entity will try to exploit political symbols for their own gain, usually changing any original meaning. Its up to us to do what is called détournement and elaborate on what we feel represents the JesuisCharlie symbolism. Certainly the contrarian rebels who are putting #JesuispasCharlie are insulting many ordinary people who just used it as a tribute to the victims. They now share a symbol with JM Le Pen. Does that make them fascists? No.

Just my 2cents on the whole issue. At the end of the day, the big ''Free Speech'' debate will die down and we'll focus on the real issue, that is 17 innocent people getting gun down by brainwashed men who lost all sense of reason to live. Then perhaps a debate on anti-fascism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, this is happening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

"Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad"

What

The

Fuck?!

This doesn't seem particularly well-thought-out. It's just more of the typical self-righteous bullshit of right-wingers who complain about censorship whenever they're simply called out for xenophobia or doing stupid shit to offend people "because they can" (equivocating "can" with "should"). It's a slap in the face to Muslims in France who have condemned the attacks.

[Slavic]

So, this is happening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

"Charlie Hebdo's latest edition to depict Prophet Muhammad"

What

The

Fuck?!

This doesn't seem particularly well-thought-out. It's just more of the typical self-righteous bullshit of right-wingers who complain about censorship whenever they're simply called out for xenophobia or doing stupid shit to offend people "because they can" (equivocating "can" with "should"). It's a slap in the face to Muslims in France who have condemned the attacks.


Tell me what is wrong with this?

"The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"."

And how is it a slap in the face to Muslims in France?

[consuming negativity]

if someone gunned down my friends i'd be itching to do a lot more than print a cartoon

maybe not on the tier of starting two wars and killing over 100,000 people, but i'd be pissed off

[The Intransigent Faction]

Tell me what is wrong with this?

"The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"."

And how is it a slap in the face to Muslims in France?

Okay, so part of that may have been me reacting too quickly to the headline on that one. :o

It has been my understanding, though, that depictions of Mohammed in general are considered offensive by a not-insignificant number of Muslims.

It also depends on how much of a caricature the depiction is, too, I suppose. I'm not saying I'd blame anyone in that situation for being angry. I just hope they don't go out of their way to publish something (like those Danish cartoons or ones published by a pundit here in Canada) that would do more than show resilience to spite the attackers specifically.

[BIXX]

Tell me what is wrong with this?

"The cover shows the Prophet holding a sign reading "I am Charlie", below the words "all is forgiven"."

And how is it a slap in the face to Muslims in France?

Regarding the last bit, while I don't know if its true, I think you're not supposed to depict holy figures in Islamic belief. So yeah, its offensive.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Regarding the last bit, while I don't know if its true, I think you're not supposed to depict holy figures in Islamic belief. So yeah, its offensive.

It's Sunni muslims who mostly hold the opinion that depicting the prophet in a visual sense is disrespectful.

Shia muslims, on the other hand, are more or less OK with it as long as its done respectfully.

[Slavic]

Regarding the last bit, while I don't know if its true, I think you're not supposed to depict holy figures in Islamic belief. So yeah, its offensive.

I know it is offensive to Muslims, I'm asking why should anyone care.

[Sasha]

good, long article on the post 9/11 racism of Charlie Hebdo, written by a former staff member (written in 2011 so well before these attacks but still as valid in its criticisms); http://posthypnotic.randomstatic.net/charliehebdo/Charlie_Hebdo_article%2011.htm

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I know it is offensive to Muslims, I'm asking why should anyone care.

I think a better question is what will be gained from it? Is our abstract notion of 'freedom' more secure because of this cartoon? Someone can still shoot up their offices again or take some random unlucky people hostage. Do you think muslims will abandon islam because of a cartoon or something? I think in some instances we can flip what zizek has to say about fundamentalists on it's head and say it about our arch liberal secularists as well.

[Ⓐdh0crat]

I'm honestly gobsmacked by this thread. All this petty detraction and talk of 'cultural sensitivity' is the stuff of bourgeois liberal commentary. It has no place on a forum for those inclined towards revolutionary politics. Even more dismaying is overriding discussion regarding a potential fascist backlash - whilst important, it's a separate topic, and should be dealt with elsewhere.

Perhaps we can now return to the crux of the issue - the cold-blooded murder of ten fellow leftists, at the hands of religious dogmatists, for their portrayal of a millennium-dead religious figure?

[contracycle]

Christian sects have also opposed representing religious figures; Protestants regarded the crucifix as blasphemous, which is why they use crosses without christ's body instead.

[motion denied]

I'm honestly gobsmacked by this thread. All this petty detraction and talk of 'cultural sensitivity' is the stuff of bourgeois liberal commentary. It has no place on a forum for those inclined towards revolutionary politics. Even more dismaying is overriding discussion regarding a potential fascist backlash - whilst important, it's a separate topic, and should be dealt with elsewhere.

Perhaps we can now return to the crux of the issue - the cold-blooded murder of ten fellow leftists, at the hands of religious dogmatists, for their portrayal of a millennium-dead religious figure?


It's possible, and hell expected, that the left oppose both the attacks and the racist backlash. No one except utter imbeciles are relativizing anything.

[Ⓐdh0crat]

It's possible, and hell expected, that the left oppose both the attacks and the racist backlash. No one except utter imbeciles are relativizing anything.
Well, that explains the disproportionate focus on the latter above. :rolleyes:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm honestly gobsmacked by this thread. All this petty detraction and talk of 'cultural sensitivity' is the stuff of bourgeois liberal commentary. It has no place on a forum for those inclined towards revolutionary politics. Even more dismaying is overriding discussion regarding a potential fascist backlash - whilst important, it's a separate topic, and should be dealt with elsewhere.

Perhaps we can now return to the crux of the issue - the cold-blooded murder of ten fellow leftists, at the hands of religious dogmatists, for their portrayal of a millennium-dead religious figure?

I would say that terrorist attacks in general have lost a lot of their former brutality for me. So maybe it seems like I'm glossing over it, but I'm really just used to them I suppose. Besides, the deaths of 14 people is pretty inconsequential compared to the 2k+ boko haram just killed. Shit the US kills more on any given weekend with drone strikes. Is this more deserving of our outrage because the victims were mostly white and came from the first world? Meanwhile there are several million people living in europe at risk of being sacrificed for the sake of petty nationalism and political expediency, who have no connection with the attack. The charlies of the world have powerful states and armies to protect them, immigrants and refugees do not. I am more concerned for them at the moment, not these so called leftists who have allied themselves with the architects of 'the war on terror'.

[Ⓐdh0crat]

I would say that terrorist attacks in general have lost a lot of their former brutality for me. So maybe it seems like I'm glossing over it, but I'm really just used to them I suppose. Besides, the deaths of 14 people is pretty inconsequential compared to the 2k+ boko haram just killed. Shit the US kills more on any given weekend with drone strikes. Is this more deserving of our outrage because the victims were mostly white and came from the first world?
All very valid points, but they bear little relation to the incident at hand.

Meanwhile there are several million people living in europe at risk of being sacrificed for the sake of petty nationalism and political expediency, who have no connection with the attack. The charlies of the world have powerful states and armies to protect them, immigrants and refugees do not. I am more concerned for them at the moment, not these so called leftists who have allied themselves with the architects of 'the war on terror'.
Where did they do any such thing? Charlie Hebdo's anti-imperialist and anti-nationalist credentials have been detailed by others here. Whatever the sensitivities of some on here, calling out the oppressive characteristics of a religion (and CH lampoons EVERY religion) is not racist, nor does it land one in the imperialist camp.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Catholics are not under threat in france, jews certainly are but not from the french state, lampooning them is not the same as attacking muslims in this context. I would suggest you read the article sasha posted above written by a former staff member. This is not a question of imperialism this is a question of domestic racism. Immigrants and refugees have long been blamed by bourgeois politicians for europes economic and social woes, anyone who adds their voice to that becomes, willing or unwilling, a tool of the political right regardless of credentials. The defeat of religion will not result from crude attacks on marginalized populations, it will come when the conditions that breed religion change.

[Sasha]

Article explaining the origins of this terror attack in the colonial history of France; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html

[Ⓐdh0crat]

Catholics are not under threat in france, jews certainly are but not from the french state, lampooning them is not the same as attacking muslims in this context. I would suggest you read the article sasha posted above written by a former staff member.
That article characterizes attacks on Islam as innately racist, which is flagrantly dishonest. Yes, I'm aware of the fact rightist 'anti-Islam' is a typically a cover for immigrant-bashing, in much the same way antisemitism is often sold as an 'anti-Zionist' platform, but CH doesn't simply reserve itself to that.

This is not a question of imperialism this is a question of domestic racism. Immigrants and refugees have long been blamed by bourgeois politicians for europes economic and social woes, anyone who adds their voice to that becomes, willing or unwilling, a tool of the political right regardless of credentials.
So it's impossible to attack and ridicule iconoclasm, misogyny, fanaticism and other shitty dogmatic functions (those cartoons are far-divorced from rightist "DEY TAKE DER JERBS" folly) without reducing yourself to a pawn of the fascist pigs?

For real?

The defeat of religion will not result from crude attacks on marginalized populations, it will come when the conditions that breed religion change.
There is no clear-cut, scientific set of conditions that simply permit religious opiate to proliferate. Until the day it consigned eternally to the intellectual dustbin, the left has every reason to pick it apart for what it is.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Religion thrives on dispossession, alienation and lack of autonomy, all things our current social structure thrives on as well. Without these features religious texts will turn into simple literature and nothing more. That's how you kill religion. Of course it's possible to attack islam and any other faith without siding with the right. My question to you would be is a critique of islam possible without being accompanied by racist caricatures and ridiculous fear-mongering?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Guys, as a french speaker (from Wallonia albeit) take my word for it ; Charlie Hebdo is NOT a racist newspaper. They've always criticised FN's hidden racial agenda and hypocrisy and any representation of racist stereotypes is usually a way to criticise these precise stereotypes.

It annoys me that there are people on here who are deliberately being contrarian about a satirical comic book and falling into the trap of the ''Free Speech, Political Correctness Must Die'' liberals instead of talking about what is a serious issue that must be discussed on the left so that the Fascists don't monopolise this debate : How to tackle islamist extremism?

Also, the intrumentalisation of the #JesuisCharlie hashtag/trend, etc reminds me of someone who complained to me about a raised fist in one of our campaign leflets. Ultimately every single political entity will try to exploit political symbols for their own gain, usually changing any original meaning. Its up to us to do what is called détournement and elaborate on what we feel represents the JesuisCharlie symbolism. Certainly the contrarian rebels who are putting #JesuispasCharlie are insulting many ordinary people who just used it as a tribute to the victims. They now share a symbol with JM Le Pen. Does that make them fascists? No.

Just my 2cents on the whole issue. At the end of the day, the big ''Free Speech'' debate will die down and we'll focus on the real issue, that is 17 innocent people getting gun down by brainwashed men who lost all sense of reason to live. Then perhaps a debate on anti-fascism.

to question the "humor" of ch is to tackle the issue of islamic extremism. because ch's humor deals directly with islamic extremism and does so from an allegedly leftist position. we need to ask whether it's an acceptable way to do so. and how it impacts immigrant communities. and how we would like to address imperialism and islamism. which in my view are two sides of the same coin.

[Ⓐdh0crat]

Religion thrives on dispossession, alienation and lack of autonomy, all things our current social structure thrives on as well. Without these features religious texts will turn into simple literature and nothing more.
Deprivation and disenfranchisement are big factors, of course, but it's far more complex than that. Religion is a markedly more prominent force in public life in the U.S. than in, for instance, China, despite the former's workers being able to claim relatively better general living standards to those found in the latter. Several (very) wealthy Muslim states enforce downright arbitrary religious codes and practices.

That's how you kill religion. Of course it's possible to attack islam and any other faith without siding with the right. My question to you would be is a critique of islam possible without being accompanied by racist caricatures and ridiculous fear-mongering?
And therein lies the problem. Coyness on behalf of leftists has permitted the right to monopolize discourse on Islam to such a degree that it's become impossible for many to draw what should be an obvious line between genuine criticism of an oppressive theological doctrine and racism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not talking about an arbitrary increase in the standard of living, a bourgeois metric. Workers in China are no less alienated than workers in Haiti nor do they have more autonomy, I'm talking about communism. Religion has never held the same cultural place in China that it has in the middle east or western countries, however superstition is no less prevalent there than anywhere else, which is why the government has to regularly launch anti-superstition campaigns. Communism is a critique of religion in itself. The religious leaders know this, which is why they have struggled against it tooth and nail. The belief in the western countries that religion can be eliminated under capitalism is delusion worthy of any abrahamic faith. I'm satisfied to leave critiques based on racism and nationalism to the right, they can be buried with them if they like.

[Ⓐdh0crat]

I'm not talking about an arbitrary increase in the standard of living, a bourgeois metric. Workers in China are no less alienated than workers in Haiti nor do they have more autonomy, I'm talking about communism.
Whilst I also detest such bourgeois fare, can it really be argued your average Western European worker is subject to the exact same lot that a counterpart in Uganda or Latin America is?

Religion has never held the same cultural place in China that it has in the middle east or western countries, however superstition is no less prevalent there than anywhere else, which is why the government has to regularly launch anti-superstition campaigns.
Doesn't that prove there's far more at work here than economic conditions? There's political attitudes, culture, the fact religion assumes different forms in different places ...

For the prevalence of religion and superstition to be elevated by a recurring set of social factors, it would have to take the same guise everywhere. It doesn't. Though they may share some commonalities, the position of public religion in Riyadh is fundamentally different to that of religion in Nanjing, New Delhi and Austin, Texas.

Communism is a critique of religion in itself. The religious leaders know this, which is why they have struggled against it tooth and nail. The belief in the western countries that religion can be eliminated under capitalism is delusion worthy of any abrahamic faith. I'm satisfied to leave critiques based on racism and nationalism to the right, they can be buried with them if they like.
Fuck the half-arsed critiques of the right. It's beyond question they're just looking for a new race-hate target. But I'm unwilling to give a free pass to Islam and its doctrines by account of the fact it's the Le Pens' traditional bugbear.

[agnixie]

Regarding the last bit, while I don't know if its true, I think you're not supposed to depict holy figures in Islamic belief. So yeah, its offensive.

You're not supposed to idolize icons. There is a lot of traditional art from Iran and the Ottoman Empire depicting holy figures, the idea that it was a solid interdiction against all representations is a modern orthodox conceit.


Shia muslims, on the other hand, are more or less OK with it as long as its done respectfully.


Which is why safavid era art shows the prophet unveiled, unlike contemporary ottoman art.

[Rafiq]

I think a better question is what will be gained from it?

We don't decide or set the standards for the intent. These cartoons are made by default. So the question is still: Why should we oppose them? We can criticize the intent of making such cartoons as flimsy, but this doesn't constitute a position regarding opposing the cartoons as being offensive to Muslims. We can say that the cartoons will have little to no effect, but this is not the same as condemning them. After all, if they have little to no effect, who cares?

The difference with the liberal secularists you speak of is that they are not defending themselves from the onslaught of Islamist globalization - Islamists are by default reactionaries. Likewise, why should we have to politically justify everything? Should we do the same for children's cartoon shows? The fact of the matter is that Islamists are consumed by the liberal ideological universe - liberals do not care about Islamists making cartoons - because liberals are setting the standards for what is acceptable and what is not.

To claim that the Islamists are just as justified in doing the same thing ignores the fact that they are reactionaries to liberal-capitlaism, Islamism arose before the former and not the other way around. It's playing a cheap game of relativism which is paradoxical by nature in that only someone living in circumstances created by liberal-capitalism could be a relativist. The notion of relativism is in itself Euro-centric.

[Rafiq]

You're not supposed to idolize icons. There is a lot of traditional art from Iran and the Ottoman Empire depicting holy figures, the idea that it was a solid interdiction against all representations is a modern orthodox conceit.


Muslim offense to depictions of the muhammad have nothing to do with centuries old traditions or anything grounded in Islamic scripture alone. It is precisely their relationship as a cultural, ethnic group within our capitalist totality to western society that shapes such sentiments. They see it as an affront to their identity and their existence, they take offense not because they oppose freedom of speech but because they see it as a direct attack on their sense of dignity, insult to injury from a society which is already culturally hostile to their existence. Zizek was absolutely correct -Muslims perceive THEMSELVES as inferior, or being in an inferior position. Leftists ought not to go about defending this identity - but demonstrating its falseness as an identity necessarily integral to the existing social order. Only through a Communist universality can Islam as such be destroyed.

[Rafiq]

For the record, it is the impotence of liberal multiculturalism and the inability for ruling ideology to properly account for 'cultural difference' and deal with it as such that has partially fostered the islamist reaction. Muslims were necessarily designated as an 'other' in our societies, and conformed to it, perceived their magnitude of interests as being grounded in rabidly defending capital's caricature of them.

The problem is not that western societies were too hostile or intolerant to Islam, it is the fact that they were, INDIRECTLY too lenient and tolerant of Islamism - Muslims did not "ask" to be designated as a cultural other, socially isolated from the liberal world. They conformed to this position. Islamism is merely a logical extension of this fact.

In effect, perceived cultural difference is a distraction. There is no inherent cultural difference - there is only politics and ideology. Culturally, Muslims are already 'westernized', if you will.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Whilst I also detest such bourgeois fare, can it really be argued your average Western European worker is subject to the exact same lot that a counterpart in Uganda or Latin America is?

Doesn't that prove there's far more at work here than economic conditions? There's political attitudes, culture, the fact religion assumes different forms in different places ...

For the prevalence of religion and superstition to be elevated by a recurring set of social factors, it would have to take the same guise everywhere. It doesn't. Though they may share some commonalities, the position of public religion in Riyadh is fundamentally different to that of religion in Nanjing, New Delhi and Austin, Texas.

Fuck the half-arsed critiques of the right. It's beyond question they're just looking for a new race-hate target. But I'm unwilling to give a free pass to Islam and its doctrines by account of the fact it's the Le Pens' traditional bugbear.

It's not that their living conditions are the same, it's their relationship to property. This alienation, this lack of control over one's self is what leads to religion and religious thought in general. Whether we are speaking of islam, christianity, chakras, crystal healing, ancestral spirits, all that bullshit. Even faith in the market has become a religious action at this point. No one has suggested that islam be given a 'free pass', you do not know me but I assure you I have no love for practicing muslims, nor do I have any kind of fashionable abstract appreciation for islam. What I've suggested is that the left make a better attempt at separating authentic religious criticism from chauvinism. The right's critique is not our own, we are not concerned with political islam threatening our judeo-christian heritage. As such we should feel no need to defend it, nor should we be uniquely outraged when it blows up in their face. Which isn't to assign blame or take sides; similar to when the egyptian military slaughtered hundreds of muslim brotherhood supporters while clearing their camps. Two groups of reactionaries killing each other should not be a call to action for us.

Instead what should concern us is the plight of the dispossessed in the context of a rising 'secular' fanaticism in europe and extreme capital crisis. We have seen this before, to think that europe has developed beyond such madness is naive to say the least. To lend your voice to such a rising tide is to take part in a historical crime in the making.

[Rafiq]

There is no "militant secularism" rising in Europe. Such "secularism" is a facade, consequential of rising anti-immigrant sentiment and nothing more. What examples of militant secularism exist in your mind that do not exclusively see Islam as a problem?

It is ridiculous to talk of "secular fanaticism". Sure some may prattle of secular values as a guise for assaulting immigrants, but it's a guise and nothing more.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

DailyKos has this gallery of images (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you?detail=email) drawn by Cabu, one of the cartoonists who was killed.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think it's secular at all which is why I used the scare quotes. It's christian chauvinism masquerading as secularism. I'm reading your other post i'll respond in a little bit.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

We don't decide or set the standards for the intent. These cartoons are made by default. So the question is still: Why should we oppose them? We can criticize the intent of making such cartoons as flimsy, but this doesn't constitute a position regarding opposing the cartoons as being offensive to Muslims. We can say that the cartoons will have little to no effect, but this is not the same as condemning them. After all, if they have little to no effect, who cares?

The difference with the liberal secularists you speak of is that they are not defending themselves from the onslaught of Islamist globalization - Islamists are by default reactionaries. Likewise, why should we have to politically justify everything? Should we do the same for children's cartoon shows? The fact of the matter is that Islamists are consumed by the liberal ideological universe - liberals do not care about Islamists making cartoons - because liberals are setting the standards for what is acceptable and what is not.

To claim that the Islamists are just as justified in doing the same thing ignores the fact that they are reactionaries to liberal-capitlaism, Islamism arose before the former and not the other way around. It's playing a cheap game of relativism which is paradoxical by nature in that only someone living in circumstances created by liberal-capitalism could be a relativist. The notion of relativism is in itself Euro-centric.

My opposition to the cartoons shouldn't be interpreted as a call for censorship. One should be free to publish whatever they wish. I do not feel that there is a limit to free speech, but the belief in laws regarding the protection of free speech are obviously over-estimated at this point. The protection offered by such laws are useful only when the opposing party accepts such a law as legitimate in the first place. If not, well, they don't do much to stop bullets.

Zizek states that when fundamentalists look at liberal democracies they feel a mixture of resentment and envy, which I agree with. However we can look at the exasperation from, again the 'secular', liberals and see another type of envy emanating from them as well. What is really terrifying to the west about the fundamentalists is their commitment above anything else. Murder is the daily business of life on earth, nothing about it is shocking. But to be murdered as a sign of commitment to an alien cause? That is truly horrifying for the western liberal. Christianity in the open has not inspired such acts on a large scale in almost a century in the west. Instead it must continually cloak itself in other language, which only serves to push it's real meaning further below the surface. These secularists who bathe in the white-washed filth of Judeo-Christian heritage practically salivate at the honesty of the Islamic fundamentalists. Of course one would be hard pressed to revitalize a Christian crusade in the west. Certain neocons obviously saw the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to do so and we can see how well that worked out, in comparison to almost 65+ years of unapologetic Islamic fundamentalism that has only grown stronger with each strategic defeat. Instead this group's hope lies in the divine relationship of the Secular Judeo-Christian State and it's Holy Citizen. Case in point:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlxI2fAUymw&feature=share


Marchers from Saturday singing along to Imagine by John Lennon. Apparently 50% of this song's meaning is lost to a crowd which has shown up for a display of National unity, of course based on what I have to say about their relationship to the state I would say it's actually 100%. This is how Christianity mobilizes itself in our modern era in response to a growing population of Others which threatens it's hegemony. We should not be tricked into supporting it out of a kneejerk reaction to a quantity of murders that would go almost completely unnoticed if it were to have happened in the third world instead of France.

[Rafiq]

Forgive me, but I am confused. What exactly are western liberals envious of? The problem I have your position - is that it fails to address or understand Hebdo's murder as a substantial ideological event - or should I say, the commotion surrounding it.

Take for example the murder of Pavlos Fyssas in Greece. This had enormous significance politically. The criticism should not base itself in the "objective" implications of the death of a single individual, but the symbolic, eventful significance such a death would possess in relation to a very precarious political climate. You are correct that liberal pathology is inherently horrified, aversed toward absolute dedication and the logic of self-sacrifice - however it's important to understand that this isn't the important conclusion we can draw from the commotion surrounding Hebdo's death. The death manifests more than degeneration in our political standards wherein national chauvinism is given a silent free pass - I don't buy this. For the French reaction, Hebdo's death simply isn't self-sufficient as a means of bolstering legitimacy - there's a reason why Le Pen distinguishes herself with her "Je Suis Charlie Martel" - the national chauvinists, with little regard for bourgeois civic values see the commotion and sentimentality as weak.

Frankly, I more than anyone am the first to recognize that free speech alone being constituted as a reason is wrong. I would not mind at all the death of a Fascist satirist at all. The fact is that we ought to remember Hebdo fervently opposed anti-immigration sentiment, his reluctance to care at all for the so-called 'sensitivities' of the 'Muslim community' are completely justified. Leftists ought to abandon this cheap relativism and recognize that Islamists are just as much enemies of Communist universality as Fascists. Muslims are not animals, they are not exempt from the class struggle. Their 'representatives', in the form of organized religious establishments deserve no sympathy whatsoever. Hebdo is unique simply because he refused to frame the point of struggle between Chauvinist islamophobes and Muslims. This is a dichotomy he fervently refused to acknowledge. Now, whether the expression of his refusal was petty or impotent is another story, but this changes little. The sentimnetalities we are seeing in France and globally are precisely a last ditch liberal effort to refuse to confront the struggle in terms of national chauvinism and articulate Hebdo's death as an affront to freedom of expression. Whatever chauvinist elements may reside in it, they are largely marginal.

Which is why Leftists ought to be careful about condemning the Je Suis Charlie movement - we should remind everyone that the same cartoons which Islamists met with outrage were the same ones fervently condemning the French political reaction and establishment - we should emphasize the tacit solidarity between them as forces of degeneracy and reaction, as conditions of each other's existence - two sides of the same coin, if you will. The legitimacy of liberal democracy itself is sustained by Islamist reaction and vice versa, as an other we use to legitimize ourselves. Instead of resorting to relativism, we should point to the fact that our qualifications and conditions of freedom extend beyond that which is possibly perceived through "Islamic fundamentalism". Our standards for struggle and demand must not be lowered in the midst of reaction, which is why Je Suis Charlie - while inherently liberal, may not be as threatening as we would think.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The impotence of the liberals you are talking about is where this envy emanates from. As a result of the degeneration caused by merging their religion with the state, Christianity in the west has become incapable of mobilizing itself along the lines that Islam in the hands of the current generation of radicals has. That's the envy; the openness, the lack of politically correct language or goals. Instead when Christianity mobilizes itself in France it necessarily has to include members of the group it opposes in the first place. The politicians who prattle on about 'islamization' are then required to march along side their enemies in the streets of Paris, because of course their enemies are not Daesh or the Taliban, but the muslim immigrants and refugees in their own country, who are as lazy in their religious practice and belief as your average American protestant. The politicians defend multiculturalism on tv while their supporters attack mosques and pregnant women, and their policies lead to migrant deaths that go unnoticed.

Now of course we should know that the idea of an 'Islamic victory' is a farce, a collective delusion shared by supposed enemies who mysteriously end up on the same side over and over again. Nonetheless we should be worried about those who should know this but do not, whether they are new atheists, european nationalists, muslim radicals, useful idiots 'defending free speech', etc. The blueprints for a new fascism are here in front of us.

Overall I don't think you and I are in disagreement, the idea of liberalism erasing religion is a sick joke. Communism will erase Islam and Christianity from the world, not racist caricatures.

[agnixie]

Ethics, I am amazed at the sheer amount of horseshit you can put out and still sound learned and profound, really I am. Your complete lack of historical understanding of the french bourgeois state is so lacking that it would likely make Marx himself lower his head.

The idea that french laicite is somehow rooted in a desire to tie catholicism to the state when every debate about it was a) led by socialists, social democrats and republican radicals and b) absolutely, definitely and unequivocally about jettisoning it out of the state is very silly. The fact that there is still a loud and louder catholic opposition which managed to mobilise between half and two millions against gay marriage, something the french liberal state was pushing as a consensus, should already be fairly clear.

Yes, christians will hide behind laicite against muslims, but this is a recent, postmodern phenomenon.

[Zukunftsmusik]

http://mouvement-communiste.com/documents/MC/Leaflets/BLT1501ENVFINALE2.pdf

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not sure you've grasped what I'm trying to say, regardless I could spit horseshit that would make your head spin, this is nothing.

[contracycle]

I regard myself as pretty militantly atheist; nevertheless, I don't make it my business to walk into churches and piss on the altar and take a dump in the baptismal font.

--

On the issue of representation of divinity, it may be fair to say that different approaches have been taken from time to time, but not to say it's a made up issue.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Do you mean the artistic representation of religious figures or are you talking about the form divine figures take in different societies?

[contracycle]

Artistic representation of divine figures, in the judeao-christian-islamic tradition. Aniconism in Judaism bans depiction of god outright; god is infinite and inconceivable, so to depict it is automatically to diminish it.

The Byzantines had serious and long running disturbances between iconoclasts and iconodules, which included serious street fighting between rival chariot team supporters (the Greens and the Purples IIRC) that left thousands dead. The issue of concern that veneration of a depiction amounts to idolatry, instead of veneration of the actual (or "actual") divine being. And so just within Christianity, each of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Greek Orthodoxy all have slightly different positions on what kind of depiction is allowed and appropriate, and how those depictions should be treated.

Islam, or some of it at any rate, took the principle of aniconism and applied to the prophet as well. Some think that this was a sufficiently substantial and long lasting effect that much of what we think of as islamic art and architecture was developed from the need to praise god and the prophet while depicting neither, although admittedly sources on the actual motivations of those artists are thin on the ground.

An interesting case was that of of an Ottoman explorer who claimed to have been set on his path by a vision of the prophet, and he was able to give a fairly detailed description of how he appeared, that he was dressed in orange and had 3 feathers in his turban, but no description was given of his face.

The point is that I think Rafiq over states the case when he says that the sense of outrage has "nothing to do" with centuries old traditions. The question of if and how god, and for Mulsims by extension, Muhammad, should be represented, is one that all three of these religions have grappled with seriously.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If I recall correctly the taboo actually extends to human representations all together, which might explain the geometrical focus of so much Islamic art. However a cursory look at historical Islamic art will show how seriously it was taken. The islamic golden age prized by so many Jihadis today was actually much more cosmopolitan than anything they would see fit to take part it. Rafiq is right, today's caliphate is a false design borne of reactionary liberalism not the quran.

As for idolatry of the prophet, it is rampant, particularly in the radical camp. A favorite pastime for takfiri shitheads is to trace their lineage back to the prophet using bogus and laughable family trees. There is no unique destiny for the descendants of muhammad, and as such there is no need to trace such nonsense in the first place if not for simple idolatry. We must be careful not to take jihadi ideology too seriously, it is no different from any other reactionary ideology.

[contracycle]

Well, sure; and there were Islamic poets who extolled the virtues of wine, and Istanbul had a guild of tavern-keepers which, while run by foreigners, was not proscribed. I'm not at all disputing that the ISIS conception of pure Islamic society is historically baseless.

But that ban on human figures arises not out of nowhere, but from extension, that is, from the fact that man is made in the image of god. I'm actually much less concerned about what jihadis think of the depiction of the prophet than what moderate, Western Muslims do.

I may neither like nor particularly respect religious beliefs of any kind, but I don't try to trick my Muslim and Jewish acquaintances into eating pork just for shits and giggles.

[Rafiq]

Contra, the overwhelming majority of the numerous western and Muslim depictions of mohommad in pre-modern and modern times inspired zero controversy whatsoever. While the rhetoric may have grounding in conceived previous tradition, the real dimension or pathology has nothing to do with it. Likewise Islamism in general has nothing to do with deductions or conclusions based on Islamic history.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The average muslim is no more fanatical or ideologically in step with their religion than the average christian or jew. The image of all muslims being ultra-devout scholars is a product of western orientalism.

[contracycle]

Contra, the overwhelming majority of the numerous western and Muslim depictions of mohommad in pre-modern and modern times inspired zero controversy whatsoever. While the rhetoric may have grounding in conceived previous tradition, the real dimension or pathology has nothing to do with it. Likewise Islamism in general has nothing to do with deductions or conclusions based on Islamic history.

True enough; but the difference now, of course, is that electronic media distributes those images worldwide instantly. It may well have been the case that positions would shift in a local society which made such depictions uncontroversial; but seeing as only the locals, or a few long range traders, would see them, this was of little significance.

Nor am I talking about an "average" Muslim; Islam is much more decentralised than any of the christian sects, and I fully expect a wide variety of doctrines. Which is of course in large part what ISIS wants to stamp out. But precisely BECAUSE of that variety, you can't just blithely say that only active Islamists care about this.

[Rafiq]

This understanding doesn't account for the ideologically distinct nature of Islamism in retrospect to previous forms of Islamic fanaticism. The former developed as a reaction to globalization - it is a part of our world historical totality. Saying ISIS is a matter of glorified variation is pointless - it ignores why and how this variation and fanaticism comes to pass in the first place. ISIS would have been impossible just fifty years ago. Imagine. Talk to Near Easterners about their lives who lived through the early post war (WWII) years and you'll understand this.

The notion that the point of controversy is grounded in the age of information might work as a weak argument, except the fact that outrage over blasphemy in general existed decades before the digital age, during early manifestations of Islamist sentiment circa 1970's-1990's. Recall the Satanic Verses incident. Mass distribution of blasphemy is only a single facet to a wider more consistent explanation.

But let's grant you your argument, just to demonstrate a point. Let's say Sunni Muslims would meet depictions of Muhammad with outrage had they been mass distributed during the middle ages. The form of outrage would still take an entirely different character than it has today. Not only would it occur for difference reasons, it would be different in nature. Just as I said Islamism itself is entirely distinct from previous forms of Islamic fanaticism in general. Things may correlate or appear similar, but they have nothing to do with each other. Greece and Persia have no qualms today, but I guarantee you if they did, some positivist philistines would say it has its root in "a two thousand year old conflict grounded in deep seated long articulated cultural and national hostility". This model does not work. The fact is that previous social epochs have nothing to do with our social epoch, and anything carried over is uniquely and distinctively perpetuated in ours - otherwise it would not exist (Greece and Persia).

[contracycle]

I don't know what it is that you think you're disagreeing with. All I'm pointing out is that other Muslims, not ISIS, and not in the past, may well take offence at the depiction of the prophet. So if you think you're sticking it to ISIS by being gratuitously offensive, you're not: you're also convincing many moderate muslims that you hold them in contempt. That's a problem.

[contracycle]

Here is another take on CH's crudity and how it backfires as a supposed effort to deliver a liberal and lefty message:

With White Supremacy on Display in Paris, a Celebration of Western Hypocrisy

I have witnessed the spectacle of Eurocentric arrogance many times over my long years of struggle and resistance to colonial/capitalist domination and dehumanization. The grotesque, 21st Century version of the “white man’s burden,” which asserts that the international community (meaning the West) has a moral and legal “responsibility to protect,” is one current example; the generalized acceptance by many in the West that their governments have a right to wage permanent war against the global “others” to maintain international order is another.

Yet, when I think I have seen it all, along comes the response to the attack at the racist, Islamophobic publication Charlie Hebdo. Even though I shouldn’t be surprised, I am still left in complete wonderment at the West’s unmitigated self-centeredness and self-righteous arrogance.
...
The Je Suis Charlie slogan like one of those mindless advertising themes meant to appeal to the unconscious and the irrational, nevertheless, has to have cultural reference points, culturally embedded meanings that evoke the desire to want to buy a product, or in this case to identify with an imagined civilization. It does not matter that the supposed superiority of Western civilization and its values is based on constructed lies and myths, it is still the basis of a cross-class, transnational white identity. The white identity is so powerfully inculcated while simultaneously invisibalized that identification is not seen as the essentialized identity politics that people of color supposedly engage in, instead it is just being “human.” And as we witnessed this weekend and throughout the colonial world, identification with whiteness is not limited by one’s racial or national assignment.
...
It is the arrogant lack of respect for the ideas and culture of non-European peoples that drove the French ban on the wearing of the niqab and other traditional veiling clothing for Muslim women, just one example of the generalized discriminatory treatment of Arabs and Muslims in France. In this lager context, Charlie Hebdo’s blatant disregard and disrespect for another religion, shielded by an absolute commitment to freedom of speech that gives them blanket immunity, is now compounded by the “Je Suis Charlie campaign,” orchestrated in the name of upholding the values of liberal, Western civilization.

What it means for many of us in the Black community is that Je Suis Charlie has become a sound bite to justify the erasure of non-Europeans, and for ignoring the sentiments, values and views of the racialized “other.” In short, Je Suis Charlie has become an arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy that was echoed at the white power march on Sunday in Paris and in the popularity of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo.
...
The valuation of white life over everyone else is a fundamental component of white supremacy and not limited to those people that might be defined as white. That is why no one cares about the families that weep for their love ones in Nigeria and no one marches for them. That is why anti-Muslim and anti-Arab violence has exploded across France but the only mention in the Western press is the supposed fear in the Jewish community. And that is why that after the attack in Baga, Nigerian authorities were largely silent until Nigerian President Goodluck finally issued a statement on terrorism where he forcefully condemned the attack in Paris!

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/14/white-supremacy-display-paris-celebration-western-hypocrisy

[Rafiq]

So if you think you're sticking it to ISIS by being gratuitously offensive, you're not: you're also convincing many moderate muslims that you hold them in contempt. That's a problem.

Undoubtedly, but the point was not that Hebdo were trying to be provocative to Muslims. It is simply that they lacked hesitance, and did not cater to Muslim sensitivities in their caricatures. Obviously they were conscious of its controversial nature after the immense amounts of threats received, but still - the point wasn't to stick it to anyone as such but refuse to conform the style of the magazine to such sensitivities. It is true that many 'moderate' Muslims would hold you in contempt for such drawings, as again, contextually they manifest western hostility towards their existence (in their eyes). Though let's ask another question: Should we cater to fundamentalist Christians in the American South (many of whom are working-class) in the same way? Backwardness cannot be fought by succumbing to its standards or abiding by it.

It would be incredibly pointless for any mass movement appealing to the Muslim working class demographic to publish Mohommad cartoons, but Hebdo did not pretend to be one. The point is this: Ought they deserve condemnation? If we are in the buisness of being engaged with the situation, then we ought to oppose Islamism in all of its manifestations - including politicized opposition to Mohommad caricatures. The religious are by nature opportunistic - if Christian establishments had the same parasitic platform in claiming to represent poor immigrants, they would exploit this to the end.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I doubt very much that normal muslims would be offended by muhammad's depiction for ideological or theological reasons. Instead what's offensive is that there exists a group explicitly aiming to offend them in the first place, when they've done nothing themselves to merit it and are already under assault in western society to begin with. I'm not concerned with protecting 'muslim sensibilities' whatever those would be, I'm concerned with groups exacerbating already existing social fragmentation, intentional or otherwise, in the context of rampant nationalism and capital crisis.

If charlie hedbo's muslim cartoons had been published in saudi arabia, I wouldn't really bat an eye at them. Indeed religious critics in muslim majority countries should be absolutely relentless in their mockery of Islam and it's magical men. But what would we think of an Arab publication that 'lampooned Arab feelings towards Jews' by nonetheless publishing anti-semitic caricatures, in a context of a society in which anti-semitic caricatures were already everywhere?

In our attempts to take western muslims seriously and include them as participants in the class struggle like any other group, we should be cautious not to play into anyone else's hands. We should not assume out critique or world outlook has hegemony when the exact opposite is true.

Anyhow Rafiq I respect your view even if I don't agree with it entirely myself, I feel that I've spent more time discussing this event then it merits and I'd like to go back to harassing Tim redd or something

[Rafiq]

If charlie hedbo's muslim cartoons had been published in saudi arabia, I wouldn't really bat an eye at them. Indeed religious critics in muslim majority countries should be absolutely relentless in their mockery of Islam and it's magical men. But what would we think of an Arab publication that 'lampooned Arab feelings towards Jews' by nonetheless publishing anti-semitic caricatures, in a context of a society in which anti-semitic caricatures were already everywhere?

Hebdo's caricatures were made completely in response to already prevailing and powerful caricatures, though, not as a tag-along even if this looks the same aesthetically. We can disagree with Hebdo about whether this was ever effective, but the overwhelming power of islamophobic caricatures rested in the fact that it escaped the ridiculous - the Muslims were the ridiculous subjects to be caricatured. So Hebdos' attempt was to counter this by rendering the caricatures themselves ridiculous. Let's pretend that this cartoon would be used by people in Muslim countries, more or less with aesthetic differences as criticism of anti-semitism: http://www.jjmccullough.com/comics/20060204.gif. Now, we know full well that this is an islamophobic racist cartoon, but let's ignore that. Let's pretend a Muslim in Saudi Arabia drew that directed at his own society. Does it reinforce anti-semitic stereotypes by recognizing their nature? No, as a matter of fact, anti-semitic stereotypes thrive by simple ignorance of their absurdity.

Hebdo's employment of such caricatures might be ineffective or might produce the wrong effects (it was impotent after all), but this only reflects weakness, not racism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The aesthetic is actually important in this instance though. The focus of your cartoon is on the muslim artist (who looks like a mirrorverse character from star trek lol) and the nice respectful european artist. This isn't the aesthetic used by charlie hebdo. Instead, if we were to continue with our example of an Arab publication, that cartoon would consist of only the anti-semitic caricature and nothing else. And then supposedly we would find the written attack on anti-semitism somewhere inside one of articles buried in the magazine.

[Rafiq]

For Hebdo, the fact that such caricatures deserve mockery is absolutely self-evident in their appearance. Again, it may not be an effective approach, but this was the intended effect. There were no essential Islamophobic pathologies behind them. With the above cartoon, the point wasn't the ridiculousness was conveyed simply through being made under the backdrop of others - but the Jew in the cartoon is a caricature of alleged caricatures. If it existed a la Hebdo, it would exist alone coupled with a caption rendering it ridiculous.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So for the sake of the conversation let's just assume that charlie hebdo has no islamophobic intent behind it, because really the intent isn't the issue. Maybe the editorial board spent their weekends street fighting with National Front members, it doesn't matter. Their approach which you admit was ineffective was the issue then anyway. If 100 white men in Arizona hold up signs that say "wetbacks out!" but only 99 are serious about it while the 1 is just mocking the others, is any of that really relevant when someone walks by and sees it? Even if that one guy makes a big deal about the fact that he is actually just making fun of the others? No, it just looks like a crowd of white people showed up for an anti immigrant march. I have the same problem with anti-war films in the us come to think of it, the ones with lots of combat scenes that are supposed to horrify the viewer. 9 times out of 10 the theme is lost on the audience and just serves to satisfy the american lust for warporn, and simultaneously help lend support to actual war.


They certainly had the ridiculous part down that is for sure, do you find it entertaining at all?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

So for the sake of the conversation let's just assume that charlie hebdo has no islamophobic intent behind it, because really the intent isn't the issue. Maybe the editorial board spent their weekends street fighting with National Front members, it doesn't matter. Their approach which you admit was ineffective was the issue then anyway. If 100 white men in Arizona hold up signs that say "wetbacks out!" but only 99 are serious about it while the 1 is just mocking the others, is any of that really relevant when someone walks by and sees it? Even if that one guy makes a big deal about the fact that he is actually just making fun of the others? No, it just looks like a crowd of white people showed up for an anti immigrant march. I have the same problem with anti-war films in the us come to think of it, the ones with lots of combat scenes that are supposed to horrify the viewer. 9 times out of 10 the theme is lost on the audience and just serves to satisfy the american lust for warporn, and simultaneously help lend support to actual war.


They certainly had the ridiculous part down that is for sure, do you find it entertaining at all?

But you are just making up an some social context in abstraction and then try to put actual Hebdo's case in it. The fact that pretty much nobody in France view Hebdo as racist or islamophobic is enough evidence to show that their approach doesn't have the consequences that claim they do or might have.

Every caricature of theirs have a specific socio-political context and these caricatures could only have positive effect in that context. Taking them out of it and putting them in some other context would certainly seem as they are racist etc. that's why people all over the world where pretty confused as to how exactly can these caricatures be considered reinforcing progressive leftist ideas.

It's certainly true that you can come up with some abstract or even specific situations where caricatures of right-wing ideas lose their positive effect under such and such circumstances and simply reinforce the ideas they purport to critique, but that simply wasn't what happened in France and you can't abstract the actual circumstances away in favour of abstractions.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You mean aside from all the, admittedly mostly non-white, people in france who regard it as racist and islamophobic?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You mean aside from all the, admittedly mostly non-white, people in france who regard it as racist and islamophobic?

Care to reference this one? Would be interested in reading up on this.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I would invite you to re-read the entire 7 pages of this thread and not just respond to the latest post because multiple articles have already been posted on this subject.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I would invite you to re-read the entire 7 pages of this thread and not just respond to the latest post because multiple articles have already been posted on this subject.

You are being dishonest. I've been following this thread from the get-go and I've also just went through all the pages looking for these links. There were only a couple of links even remotely linked to the comment that you made and the arguments in that article were shown to be flawed by members already.

I have either missed some links or you are simply stretching your argument way too far.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

i wrote up a sufficiently edgy response but I'm gonna not post it instead. If you've managed to miss the coverage of the people who think it's a racist publication in france you obviously haven't taken that keen of an interest in the subject, so I'm cool with not going back and forth about it since I already said 3 posts ago that I've spent more time discussing the event than it merits. I will admit there were only two links in this particular thread detailing it, my bad.

[Sasha]

Le Pen senior up to his old anti-semite antics again, he blamed the mossad; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html

Whats up with the groups most benefiting off these attacks always blaming them on those pesky jews, be it al-qaida attacks or andreas breivik...

[consuming negativity]

the term judeo-christian is a political invention. all it really says is that christianity is a supercession - a replacement - of judaism. an idea that is obviously not jewish.

it also sort of brushes its hand over centuries of anti-semitism...

[Rafiq]

Le Pen senior up to his old anti-semite antics again, he blamed the mossad; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html

Whats up with the groups most benefiting off these attacks always blaming them on those pesky jews, be it al-qaida attacks or andreas breivik...

This was Le Pen senior, remember. There have been clear signs of dissonance, whether staged or not, between the European new right, which attempts to distance itself from blatant anti-semitism, and the old - more sympathetic to typical Fascist "anti-imperialism" or anti-Americanism. The narratives, which usually exist in different shades follow as: The Jews are largely responsible for the influx of immigrants in Europe in order to undermine European values and destroy the national sovereignty of European countries. These claims do not have to be consistent or logical, because their inception is not grounded in any complex standard of reason but in a pathology - they don't really care about real Jews, it's the archetypal Jew, the object of reactionary sentiments. As a cliche, the Jews are a scapegoat from which nationalist sentiments can further legitimize themselves, by displacing the idea of class struggle - directing people's attention and fervent toward a secret group of enemies within our society. It's important to bear in mind though that Israel was only referred to in connection to the United States.

The European new right's manifestation of anti-semitism is distinctively not "anti-imperialist" but explicitly chauvinistic. Israel is seen as an extension of western civilization into the Near east - anti-semitism is still present, but it is restricted precisely to rootless Jew without any identifiable national allegiance. Jews are fine, so long as they stop messing with us and return to the homeland to become an identifiable nation state.

What I find strange about the article, however, is the recognition of an American/Israeli axis as opposed to a unified or stable Europe. Ironically, Christian fundamentalists in the United States also possess this mentality. Also the fact that Le Pen senior is an ardent Euroskeptic, one would expect the opposite - it's most likely a response to the liberal sentiments surrounding the Hebdo incident which naturally would irritate the old reaction. It's just as how the Pro-Russian right prattled of a conspiracy in Ukraine, or the Arab spring, or whatever you want.

[Rafiq]

i wrote up a sufficiently edgy response but I'm gonna not post it instead. If you've managed to miss the coverage of the people who think it's a racist publication in france you obviously haven't taken that keen of an interest in the subject, so I'm cool with not going back and forth about it since I already said 3 posts ago that I've spent more time discussing the event than it merits. I will admit there were only two links in this particular thread detailing it, my bad.

It's obvious that to those outside of the French political context, the publications would appear aesthetically racist. But again, Charlie Hebdo never bothered or tried to appeal to people outside of the French political context. This might have been erroneous in retrospect, but it sais nothing about the alleged racism of the cartoon.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Le Pen senior up to his old anti-semite antics again, he blamed the mossad; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jeanmarie-le-pen-says-french-terror-attacks-were-work-of-western-intelligence-9985047.html

Whats up with the groups most benefiting off these attacks always blaming them on those pesky jews, be it al-qaida attacks or andreas breivik...

You do not know the half of it Greta Berlin, founder of Free Gaza Movement, released this Tweet (or is it Twit :rolleyes:):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Berlin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Gaza_Movement

“MOSSAD just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France….Here’s hoping the French police will be able to tell a well executed hit by a well trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their freind… Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four year old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack.”

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6xyjj3CcAAD4B-.png

https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/552942832940359681/photo/1

So are your fellow Elders of Zion working double shifts this month...just kidding.;)

[Sasha]

Dont know, i work the judeo-bolshevic conspiracy department, we got seriously downsized, to be honest I think I hit a dead road in my career at the company...

[Rosa Partizan]

I stumbled upon this article, it is not super well written, but makes a few important points why without paying attention to political, historical and cultural context, evaluating CH is absolutely pointless.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1356945/-On-not-understanding-Charlie-Why-many-smart-people-are-getting-it-wrong#

As Rafiq mentioned, it is important to consider that CH never tried to appeal to audience outside from France because a huge amount of what they published was about French politics and contemporary history.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Dont know, i work the judeo-bolshevic conspiracy department, we got seriously downsized, to be honest I think I hit a dead road in my career at the company...

Really? I thought the Jews controlled the banks. That is why you bought up Hokkaido and caused the Japanese tsunami in 2011 with your magic Jew powers:

oDdr-1iOqag

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1260318

All kidding aside...I had a friend who swore uphill and down that swore uphill and down that the Jews owned every bank in the world. As for communism, that was a conspiracy designed by the Pope to take over the world. As a matter of fact, Stalin was secretly a Catholic priest:

https://archive.org/details/TheGodfathers

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0053/0053_01.asp

http://one-evil.org/content/people_20c_stalin.html

Needless to say we are not friends anymore...

Anyways I have to go to now. I am supposed to meet Elvis and the Easter Bunny in five minutes and Elvis always complains if I am not there on time.