It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

page: 12
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bbracken677


You say the editor is responsible for the deaths of employees? Okie Dokie...


Yes because they signed off on this knowing the risk of a cartoon intentionally offending people who may be prone to extremism.
No cartoon, probably no reaction.


I guess that makes the designer of provocative clothing responsible for rapes.


No because rape is nothing to do with what someone wears...
It's a power trip...
No provocative clothing, probably still rape.



I find your comparison to be offensive, and as disingenuous as you make me out to be.


CS...You are mixing up "cause" with "correlation". Perhaps there is a correlation of the free speech cartoon print to the murders, but it is NOT the cause.




posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: blindIo
a reply to: th2356

There is a lot of coverage regarding Muslims condemning this attack, here in France, believe me.
And that's a good thing, because there are lots of Muslims here in France, most of them being...normal people. Living their life, going to work every single day, with mundane concerns, good people. Just as any Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever.
I'm worried about blending thoughts between Muslims, Islam and this attack from extremists, delusional people.


It is good to hear about the press coverage of muslims condemning the attacks. Also, my thoughts are with you all. I am so sorry for the terrible thing that happened in your country today.

I am sending love, solidarity and compassion from Norway.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: blindIo

I prefer Athos,Porthos, and Aramis.

One for all,and ALL for one.

Which is why as an American I stand with the French today.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ok Charlie...what a pseudo...
let assume they called for it: the cartoonists, the editor...
What about the other shot people? The journalist, the policemen, may be some trainees who've just been bringing coffee to employees dor 3 months (we don't know yet who got shot exactly, but 12 people is A LOT of people). They have NOTHING to do with the satires. They've been shot nonetheless.
Is thar fair ?
Is there any excuse to that?
Because some delusional guys are offended by a cartoon, they can kill anybody they want? To calm them down?
That's what you call justice?
Come on...I cannot even believe you REALLY think like that. I think you're being provokative because, somewhere, you are also offended that we could mock your religion...but you wouldn't have come to that, and you don't really think they deserve it, that was to be done, that was "well done".
I might be wrong...I might be optimistic...but I don't think you believe in what you're saying in this thread.
I sure hope you don't, to be honest.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Horrible Tragedy. Hope they find those guys and give them the death sentence. No room for extremist Muslim terrorists in the world.

Islam is a religion of violence. Period. That sentence is controversial, I realize. And I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists or violent. I know a few personally that are very peaceful and great human beings. Yet that religion is what I'm calling out. This religion produces more violence then any other, more terrorists than any other...I'll throw in a Caveat that all religions are bad...I'll throw in Judaism and Christianity and Scientology as well.

Freedom of speech is so important. I hope a dozen more papers take up the place of Charlie Hebdo and everyone draws Mohammed. Only when free speech is more important to a society than religions will we truly make progress as a planet. These religions need to get over themselves.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Let me put it this way...


Do you think an intentionally offensive cartoon might cause extremists to react?

Do you think clothing may cause a rapist to attack?


Because personally, I feel they are different.


I do think the terrorists would react to a cartoon rather than acting randomly.

I think a rapist will rape someone no matter the clothing they wear.


Do you understand the context I am using here?



The victims are those who didn't have a say...
The partly responsible are those who signed off on it.


I've explained my point, I'll discontinue from here because I do not have the intelligence to elaborate any further I'm afraid.
edit on 7-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: th2356

Thanks...it's heartbreaking also, on a trivial way, because one of the cartoonist, Cabu, was the cartoonist of a famous children show.
I mean, Cabu...he was like the good guy, drawing hilarious, stupid cartoons for little children...he is part of my breeding!

Well...



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You really want to get some fireworks going?
Here is a scenario:

Coming next summer

the new Seth Rogen film 'The Interview II'

where journalists meet up with Prophet Mohammed.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

They didn't kill for free speech reasoning...

They killed for what they perceived to be an offence to them...


I'm not mixing up cause and correlation at all.


The cause was the cartoon, the article provides us with that at least.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: blindIo

I prefer Athos,Porthos, and Aramis.

One for all,and ALL for one.

Which is why as an American I stand with the French today.
One hundred percent agreed. When I saw the news tonight when I woke up for work I teared up a little. Nobody, especially some innocent cartoonists, should be subject to the unrelenting fear, pain, and intolerance of religious extremism. Even though I'm but an American Ex-pat in Japan, I stand in solidarity with people of France today.

I'm not a praying gal, but I sincerely hope the people responsible are caught, and made to feel the fear they placed in all the people of France today.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Thanks Neo.
That's a very good metaphor :-)
I'm French...but I've been living and working in Ireland, in Germany...I feel more like...human. Close to all. Brother to all. No boundary.
So...thanks :-)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: blindIo

I have already stated the people affected by this were victims, as are their families as well.


& I never called this "justice" at all.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

I don't think you understand what intentional means, therefore I see this convo going nowhere slowly.




Of course I understand the meaning of "intentional" silly...

Let's try this again with a thought experiment.

Suppose somebody tries to offend you, and makes a statement like, "Charlie, you're an intellectually dishonest idiot. You suck."

Now, do you still have the choice over whether you decide to be offended? Or did that person, by making that statement, magically rip your free will from your brain and force you to be offended?

Can you even BE offended without giving the situation a meaning?

Or do you believe because somebody intends to offend you must automatically be offended?



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

a reply to: ScientificRailgun



That depends if you wish to call the editor & joker victims...





All the other people are victims, nine of them I think up to now, of their selfishness & idiocy as well as extremist terrorism.









I'm just man enough to admit that, others are taking the route of the righteous indignation that doesn't exist in this case.







Which you're free to do of course.

Nobody in their right mind would blame the victims of this tragedy. They did nothing wrong, the committed no crime. They made crude drawings. Were they distasteful? Absolutely? Worth dying over? Not in the least. Yet somehow you continue to state that the victims are the ones at fault here.



Is a rape victim responsible if she wore revealing clothing?

Is a mugging victim responsible because they appear affluent?



By your logic, they would be. Because they "provoked" the crime.

It is a moral problem and not a criminal one.

I do not see much difference between this and "the interview".

Both cases of people using the cover of humor to degrade another person or group.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Let me put it this way...


Do you think an intentionally offensive cartoon might cause extremists to react?

So you think clothing may cause a rapist to attack?


Because personally, I feel they are different.


I do think the terrorists would react to a cartoon rather than acting randomly.

I think a rapist will rape someone no matter the clothing they wear.


Do you understand the context I am using here?



The victims are those who didn't have a say...
The partly responsible are those who signed off on it.


I've explained my point, I'll discontinue from here because I do not have the intelligence to elaborate any further I'm afraid.
The only "context" I am seeing here is that your logic only applies when measured against muslim extremism. Which reveals your bias quite splendidly. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The CAUSE of the murders was the mentally-ill religious fanaticism that condones killing because of a disagreement with another's stated point of view that was using a stylistic method of sarcasm. PERIOD. If you can't understand that, then your last sentence in your previous post is right....."don't have the intelligence to elaborate further".
edit on 7-1-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

a reply to: Jamie1



I don't think you understand what intentional means, therefore I see this convo going nowhere slowly.









Of course I understand the meaning of "intentional" silly...



Let's try this again with a thought experiment.



Suppose somebody tries to offend you, and makes a statement like, "Charlie, you're an intellectually dishonest idiot. You suck."



Now, do you still have the choice over whether you decide to be offended? Or did that person, by making that statement, magically rip your free will from your brain and force you to be offended?



Can you even BE offended without giving the situation a meaning?



Or do you believe because somebody intends to offend you must automatically be offended?





It is about bounderies we all set in our own minds.

You can only stack a certain amount of poo in a bucket.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Offence causes an emotional response...


You cannot choose which emotion it will invoke...



I can think of many things that I could say that would be deemed offensive without the person choosing to be offended...
That you can find an example that can doesn't change that.

I am pleased these people are dead!


Now before you get offended, I say that as an example...
But to think, if I was being sincere, that people could only choose to be offended by that statement is wrong...

So to generalise that all offence must be chosen, is pseudo-psychology.



edit on 7-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I'm anti-abortion...

But I'd never blow up a clinic or shoot an abortionist...



But to think that some people wouldn't is naive at best, idiocy at worst.


The same goes for this.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

So when the article specifically says "because of depictions of Muhammad" it's actually a lie & not the cause, eh!


At least I admit to the limit of my intelligence...

More than I can say for some here.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join