Je Suis Charlie

+4

It was a nice gesture by Naim - and more effort than my government put in for the big rally; we couldn't even send Biden.

Of course, one must recall the words of Victoia Nuland...

"Terrorists must not be allowed to disrupt our way of life, we’re often told in the wake of atrocities. We must leave that to governments to do in the wakes of these attacks."

I liked this quote in the Guardian.......

+5

The perpetrators of this and many other recent atrocities, whilst claiming their acts are in support of their religion, and against the infidels etc, in reality are nothing but cowardly thugs, who have found umbrella organizations willing to give them the tools and support to enable them to carry out their mindless violence with a chance of getting away with it, unlike if they tried on their own. I don't believe that the actual perpetrators in most cases actually have any belief in Islam, or any other religion, for all they might claim as their "justification". They've cropped up all through history, but fortunately rarely have the umbrella organizations, which sadly and worryingly now seem to be getting more numerous and less defeatable. It is there that the forces of good must focus - and if the solidarity brought about by belief in freedom of expression encapsulated by Charlie helps achieve that, then I unhesitatingly add myself to it.

Why don't you believe them? Is it not at least easier to perpetrate an act that will likely result in one's own death if one believes in some higher purpose or in the afterlife?

I don't get this (inevitably).

What is it about the drawing above that 'represents' Muhammad - apart from saying 'This is a cartoon image of Muhammad'.

Is it still a representation if the image was of a cube, a beard, a turban with the words  'This is a cartoon image of Muhammad'.

What about a bearded, turbaned bloke with 'This isn't a cartoon image of Muhammad'?

I suppose it rather depends on whether you desperately  want to get worked up about things.

Unconfident Christians often have the same lack of perspective.

Looks like they're turning the other cheek.

I'll admit to also being somewhat confused by this.

Yes, it is a little subtle

I suspect ambiguity is the intention, with people free to decide the meaning. Your islamic extremist having a different interpretation to your average pacifist.

One would not expect to get away with making such an image as a grafito in a Middle Eastern country. One might end up being sentenced to 1000 lashes, fifty at a time ...

But people living in liberal Europe had better get used to the different cultural standard we [as indigenous Europeans] regard as normal, and acceptable. And no doubt will defend ...

What is good for the goose in goose-land is good for the gander in gander-land. When in Rome [etc] ...

ATB from George

I think it's suggesting:

that Muhammad has forgiven the artists because he enjoys reading and seeing his cartoon image on the cover of Charlie Hebdo.

He's also very upset about the killings - hence the teardrop and the Je Suis Charlie sign in support.

Debs

+1.

For those interested in an historical perspective, it is IMO worth googling the Newsweek article entitled "Koran does not forbid images of the prophet".

Hook

If they are not allowed images of Mohamed how the hell do they know what he looks like?

These pictures could be anybody.

I am confused by the message the cover is trying to create.  

Debs - is forgiveness an Islamic concept (especially toward Westerners or those who do not convert)?  (I don't know so I am asking).  I do not know the Quran but it seems that many Muslims believe infidels must die as dictated by Muhammed - end of story?

Secondly, why would he be upset about the murders now (not to mention the countless murders before this and the countless murders that will continue to occur in the future)?  Weren't the killers carrying out there deeds on behalf of Muhammed in the first place?  They were shouting things such as "We have avenged the Prophet Muhammed."

I don't know, Doug.

It's is just what i think it is suggesting.

What the terrorists were shouting is apparently immaterial to most Muslims who don't believe they were acting on behalf of their faith - in other works the gunmen were not genuine Muslims.

Debs

Maybe Obomber couldn't make it because he was wringing his hands over the incompatibility of a march for press freedom with his position on Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye.  He, of course, is in prison on the direct orders of President Obama for having reported on secret U.S. strikes in Yemen that killed scores of civilians.

Or perhaps the leader of the free world was having a crisis of conscience over  Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera cameraman who was held for six years without charge in Guantanamo where he was repeatedly interrogated by U.S. operatives who were intent on proving that Al Jazeera had some sort of a link to al-Qaeda.

You must consider all the possibilities when discerning the actions of hypocrites.

The offence is caused by the attempt not by the result.

Indigenous Europeans?  We are all immigrants.

Most of what we (most of us) in western Europe have been taught to believe is an interpretation of some words in a book.

Indeed Hook - in fact, for many centuries, depiction of both humans and Mo appeared in Islamic art. There are some rather beautiful examples in the Courtauld Gallery in London.

Whataboutery. 

Also, on the Ebola outbreak, you're just not telling the truth - although the WHO (a UN agency, not exclusively Western) was inexcusably slow off the mark, not arriving until September last year (the outbreak began in December 2013) Western aid agencies such as MSF were there weeks after the outbreak.

Extreme poverty, poor communications and transport infrastructure, remoteness, a mistrust of government officials after years of warfare, mistrust of Westerners, banditry, poor hygiene, ingrained ignorance all play their part in making getting out to West Africa, and treating the outbreak, difficult.

There are hundreds of dedicated and brave Western people out there fighting this outbreak, often at considerable risk, and your post is both ill-informed and a calumny on their efforts.

1st Attempt.

(Can you tell what it is yet?)