French newspaper Petrol-bombed for depiciting the Prophet Mohamed

[Caladan]

I didn't offer any judgement about provocation. I said that I took the magazines assertion that there was no intention to provoke with a pinch of salt.

The Charlie Hebdo magazine posts offensive cartoons on a weekly basis, these cartoons target anyone in the French arena, from the mainstream to the far right with very offensive caricatures. I have to say that looking at their Muhammad caricature it is pretty mild.
of course all caricatures are aimedto provoke, the main point is, that no one else has lobbed petrol bombs because of such caricatures.

 

[sandandfoam]

The Charlie Hebdo magazine posts offensive cartoons on a weekly basis, these cartoons target anyone in the French arena, from the mainstream to the far right with very offensive caricatures. I have to say that looking at their Muhammad caricature it is pretty mild.
of course all caricatures are main to provoke, the main point is, that no one else has lobbed petrol bombs because of such caricatures.

I am in agreement with you Dan.
I said that whoever threw the petrol bomb was a moron.
I agree that the cartoons were intended to be provocative.
My point is simply that I don't believe the magazine guy who claims that they weren't.

 

[Caladan]

I am in agreement with you Dan.
I said that whoever threw the petrol bomb was a moron.
I agree that the cartoons were intended to be provocative.
My point is simply that I don't believe the magazine guy who claims that they weren't.

I think their claim is that they didn't intend to provoke *such* a provocation.
this is what I get from the article:

"We don't feel like causing further provocation. We simply feel like doing our job as usual. The only difference this week is that Muhammad is on the cover and it's pretty rare to put him on the cover."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Satire points out all that is ridiculous and wrong in the world, it does it by pushing ideas and images to extremes. Religions, rulers, the law and society itself, have always been a rich source material.

That is is still legal after so many centuries indicates, to me at least, that it is effective in curbing the excesses of many of the the more extreme leaders.

The More radical and ultra sensitive Muslims have yet to realise, that in attacking the use of satire they are directing the spotlight against themselves. "Satire" is a long term educational process and will always win over time.

 

[cablescavenger]

It reminds me of the Danish attack, which was provoked by Danish muslim Imams:
(Mohammed Image Archive

 

[Breathe]

He said that the guy saying he never meant to offend should be taken with a pinch of salt, implying he did offend. Keep up.

See what Stephen said.
Slow down.

 

[cablescavenger]

See what Stephen said.
Slow down.

Glad that you could read his mind.
Whether he was offended or not still doesn't change the nature of the attack, the fact it was abhorrent, the fact that it was without justification and the fact that it now has some bearing on how some people will view Muslims.

I also have to question what principle lies behind the attacks?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Being offended is a choice. The type of people who make a habit of choosing to be offended will find a way to be offended, regardless of what you do. Some people just enjoy that feeling of self-righteous anger which allows them to abdicate personal responsibility and act out in violent or destructive ways.

 

[Breathe]

Glad that you could read his mind.
Whether he was offended or not still doesn't change the nature of the attack, the fact it was abhorrent, the fact that it was without justification and the fact that it now has some bearing on how some people will view Muslims.

I also have to question what principle lies behind the attacks?

Neither of us would say anything contrary.

 

[beenie]

Someday these bomb-throwing idiots will realize that their actions are more insulting to Prophet Muhammad than the depiction of him by others.

 

[doppelganger]

You obviously do not get satire. It is not there to be offensive, it is supposed to raise a smile.

It is there to tease out the truth behind the sacrosanct. Its purpose is to be simultaneously offensive to those who can't look at themselves, and funny to those who can.

And sometimes the emotionally damaged who can't take their sacred cow as anything less than completely seriously will kill you for giving others the tools they might need to heal and gain perspective.

That's the way it goes, whether we harumph about it in an anonymous internet discussion forum or not.

 

[cablescavenger]

anonymous or not, it does make you wonder what you can and cannot say for the sake of people prepared to injure your business or family over the slightest remark.

 

[Gharib]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way, but instead we get a thread like this? is it just me who recons this is just too picky?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way, but instead we get a thread like this? is it just me who recons this is just too picky?

Because civilized peoples' primary reaction is that violence is always an extreme and inappropriate response to differences over words and ideas?

 

[Tamar]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way, but instead we get a thread like this? is it just me who recons this is just too picky?

Lots of folks get offended and provoked but they don't fall back on violence to fix the problem as they see it.

It is more offensive that people are killed and property is damaged when Muslims feel offended.

 

[gnomon]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way, but instead we get a thread like this? is it just me who recons this is just too picky?

Because creating a thread as you suggest would be idiotic.

If there were no bombing I doubt that many people outside France would even have a passing knowledge of the magazine and it's contents. However, by bombing the place at the time they were going to publish something offensive has actually brought more attention to the material. So now more people, not just in France but the whole world, get to learn about the content of the material and thus creating the possibility of offending even more people.

I'm certain that somewhere on an internet forum someone is framing the incident as "Magazine creators get just desserts" just as when Scott Roeder killed George Tiller there were groups who framed Roeder as a hero for gunning down a doctor at his own church.

 

[Onkara]

All news is 'good' news when you get paid for the news you print; for everything else there is insurance.

All the culpriates do is give their 'divine cause' just more bad press.

 

[Panda]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way, but instead we get a thread like this? is it just me who recons this is just too picky?

So saying something that offends you is reason to resort to violence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

why didn't anyone open a thread saying something about a french dude offending and provoking muslims for no reason and him being a bunch of minority morons who deserve what they might have coming their way,

You believe they deserved to be firebombed?

 

[Gharib]

Because civilized peoples' primary reaction is that violence is always an extreme and inappropriate response to differences over words and ideas?

i agree, but if i was to insult you now and ask for an apology then we can both let that go an move on, but if i keep insulting you again and again then how would that make you feel? if words don't get through then you get what you ask for. who's to say that words cannot be just as bad as actions? there have been numerous cases of suicides by people who were bullied on facebook and no actual physical harm was done to them it took only words that lead to them comiting suicide.