Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 489 posts

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#371

Post by cryoshon »

Joeboy wrote: post #190
aNoob7000 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. There should be no topic off limits when it comes to satire and public commentary. The minute we start making exceptions then we start losing control of the conversation/discussion to those that want to control what can and cannot be said. As a Catholic, I watched many cartoons lampooning our priests, pope, and Jesu…

> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but…

Yes, I can see this as their strategic goal.

Importantly, it's just a variation of Osama bin Laden's self-stated goal for 9/11: poke the bear in order to get him to chase us into our trap.

The French will surely be more willing to pursue military intervention against jihadists, leading them to inevitably kill some innocent Muslims in the process, increasing recruitment.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#372

Post by rikacomet »

kristofferR wrote: post #328
rikacomet wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there you go quoting random things from the internet. This is really not worth my time anymore. Should I say two things clearly? 1. I condemn the attack on charlie hebdo. Do you? 2. I condemn the over-the-top carricatures of Muhammad. Do you? Whether your answer is Yes or No, that is your opinion, and this is mine. For the record, any Quran you find over the internet is most likely to be not genuine.For example, ther…

> For example, there are only 30 chapters in Quran. so no.33 is just not possible. You're confused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Text_and_arrangement The Quran has 114 chapters called sura's, but the book can also be divided into 30 parts called juz'. The 33th chapter is in the 22th juz' of your book.

okay, since you are insisting this much. Let us hear what your copy says? What are you quoting exactly, and what is your point? You seem to claim that you are not rigid in your opinion and are open for debate.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#373

Post by btilly »

jacquesm wrote: post #314
codewritinfool wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.

The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enligh…

My view is that Ataturk was trying to declare victory for western ideals while not actually holding them. His policies include fining people who speak languages other than Turkish, forcing people to have Turkish surnames, confiscating property from Armenians and so on. (I don't believe that he was directly responsible for the Armenian genocide, but there is nothing in his policies that would suggest he was opposed to it either.)

I agree that he was an improvement over the state of affairs in most muslim countries in the Middle East, but can't go so far as to say that he had the right idea.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#374

Post by jacquesm »

rikacomet wrote: post #361
jacquesm wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire. Yes, and if you had left it at that your stance would be commendable. But you chose to significantly dilute your position in what followed.

Dear Jacques, your opinion is not the only one that matters, I hope you remember that. No opinion got diluted, nor yours or mine or whatever you meant by that. I will say this clearly to you, Muslim people have faith in Prophet Muhammad and his teachings. What are they? You neither have complete knowledge nor intention to get it. It in-fact, includes the same liberties and rights you seem to be are defending at the m…

The Muslims in my cirle make no attempt to apologize for what happened here and are not adding weaselwords to their condemnations. They realize that actions like these make all muslims look bad, even those that would have nothing to do with any of this.

You are unable for some reason to see that you are indirectly blaming the victim here and you are qualifying your condemnation.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#375

Post by philh »

benihana wrote: post #343
philh wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trite response: if trigger warnings offend you, you can choose to stop reading when you encounter them. Or just skip them, they take up one line in any given article. Problem solved! Longer response: I accept that you, and others like you, don't like trigger warnings. What concrete action would you like me to take in response to this? If the answer is "stop posting this thing that I don't like", well... sorry, but I'…

>That costs a lot less to comply with. You think it does, but you couldn't be further from the truth. The very concept of trigger warnings are costly: Anytime you want to voice an opinion, you're forced to enumerate all the possible ways every reader might be offended or triggered or upset by what you're saying. It's an unscalable solipsistic self-centered notion that implies people are not in control of their own fe…

Nobody's forcing me to use trigger warnings. I choose to use them for some things. I don't choose to enumerate all the possible ways that anyone might be upset by my writing, and nobody's asking me to do that. There is a potential slippery slope, but even if I go a little too far down it, I'm not worried about going all the way to the bottom.

(I don't read tumblr, or any blogs where I think trigger warnings have gotten out of hand. It's possible such blogs exist. That doesn't mean my own use of trigger warnings is excessive.)

Not everyone can easily get help. If you want a therapist for example, that costs time, possibly money, and depending on your social circle you might fear being made fun of or cast out if they discover.

(Actually, as it happens, I approximately never write anything that needs trigger warnings. I'm mostly speaking in the first person for simplicity, and as a hypothetical "this is what I think I would do if I wrote about such things". I don't recall ever issuing a trigger warning though, so it's possible that I'm being somewhat hypocritical here.)

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#376

Post by dragontamer »

ilitirit wrote: post #100
chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

> real satire "Real" satire of Islamic culture has been performed for decades. For the most part, you don't have to include the image of Mohammed for every statement you want to make of Islam. However, I do agree that you should be allowed to do so without fear of violent reprisal. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in at the moment. It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this iss…

If you're gonna denounce a religion, can you at least get the sects done correctly?

Wahhabism / Salafist Islam, which is a very small minority of Muslims, is the one preaching the extremist reaction.

The majority of mainstream Shia / Shiite Muslims are actually peaceful. They kinda don't like the cartoons, but I don't know of any attack from "mainstream" Muslims. They all come from the Al Quaeda-inspired Salafist sect preached by Osama Bin Laden.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#377

Post by jacquesm »

btilly wrote: post #373
jacquesm wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enligh…

My view is that Ataturk was trying to declare victory for western ideals while not actually holding them. His policies include fining people who speak languages other than Turkish, forcing people to have Turkish surnames, confiscating property from Armenians and so on. (I don't believe that he was directly responsible for the Armenian genocide, but there is nothing in his policies that would suggest he was opposed to…

He was far from perfect and the Armenian genocide will forever mar his legacy (and to this day can't be talked about in a reasonable way in Turkey, or even with quite a few Turks outside of Turkey).

But he did move Turkey from the state it was in to the next step. Keep in mind that most of the things that you add there were compromises, he was walking a very fine line between unification and all out civil war.

I doubt he could have done much more in one lifetime, I agree he probably could have done a better job but then again I wasn't in his shoes so it is hard to judge.

But putting Turkey ca. 1980 next to the countries surrounding it and you'd have to agree that his legacy had the potential to pay off.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#378

Post by Killah911 »

jambox888 wrote: post #329
chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

I take your point and agree with it but another factor you can't ignore is that there are 1.7 billion Muslims, compared to 15 million (wikipedia'd that) Mormons. Plus, I can't source it right but I have read editorials where broadsheet editors say they've been asked by the government not to print something in the interests of "national security" (IOW they don't want to cause problems with the Saudis or whoever.

I'm not Mormon, but I shudder when I see the mainstream media ripping on Mormons or Scientologists. This isn't us. I think this is one of the biggest things we've lost to 9/11, decency and restraint. It was first OK to talk shit about Muslims, Towelheads (sadly many more peaceful Sikhs were victimized by actual violence than Muslims), then Scientologists, then Mormons. What the hell happened to our ideals?

I recall receiving an e-mail from a KKK affiliate. It was a rational argument that a significantly larger proportion of the black population was incarcerated as compared to whites. The e-mail stated that see it on TV shows like cops who perpetrate heinous crimes. It then went to state that it's not about being racist. It's about taking a stand... I replied with a long rant countering every point and was obviously unsubscribed from the list.

Now let's apply that template to other minorities. Hmmm, skin color is too obvious, let's do religion instead. "Did you see how most scientologists are crazy? They jump on couches..." It's not racism since you're not targeting a race. But it's the same fucking thing. You're singling out a minority group. While you might not personally like a minority group, one not as powerful as the group you belong to, our society did not publicly attack minorities (I'm talking about the 90's).

It seems the only things that still haven't crept in are outright racism against a different race (probably because racial minorities are more powerful now). But we are now taking pride in offending and trying to decimate the views that aren't mainstream. WTF is that? Did we forget what that type of vitriol led to the last time around?

Can you seriously compare the socioeconomic conditions of the average Mormon to a Muslim from Iraq or Afghanistan?

I'm amazed that I'm reading comments on HN comparing 1.7B Muslims and trying to judge them as a whole. Yes, it's not technically racism, but it's not any less shallow or ignorant.

Is Islam more violent than Christianity? (WTF kind of a question is that)

Are American blacks more criminal than whites?

Both of these questions should make anyone with intelligence shudder. If you just tell yourself that you're asking yourself these questions "scientifically" an "rationally", let's not forget the Nazi Scientists who were measuring how Jews were scientifically different or even earlier when scientists in a slave owning american were trying to prove that blacks people were less evolved than whites.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#379

Post by dharmach »

rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

>To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc.

Disregarding the past, even today Muslims (most) respect only their religious figures. They respect Moses, Jesus, Abraham since they are considered prophet by Islam. Muslims (again, most) have no respect for other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism (You can see this on many occasions when they talk about Muslim tolerance and mention only Jesus, Moses and Abraham). Why being a Hindu or Buddhist, should I respect your prophet?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#380

Post by dragontamer »

jacquesm wrote: post #314
codewritinfool wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.

The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not. So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enligh…

Erm... Islam was what kept most of the world out of the Dark Ages. They didn't need to experience enlightenment when they were busy experiencing Algebra and the number zero.

The Middle-east is such a hellhole because the Ottoman Empire got royally F'''ed up in World War 1. And its iddy-bitty pieces were redrawn by the Allies.

Whereas Germany remained strong and rebelled against the Allied rule by basically starting World War 2... the Ottomans were cut up piece by piece and distributed across the Allied powers. The clusterf'''ed map today was drawn by military commanders with no rhyme or reason to cultural unity, which leads us to how screwed up the Middle East is today.

Granted, the Ottomans were in decline by that point, which contributed to why they lost the Great War. But lets not forget the basis of history here. World War 1 screwed things up, quite severely, in this region.

In fact, the former map of the Ottoman Empire basically reads for where things are screwed up today.

http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2010-01-02-11578/The-Ottoman-...

Ignoring the major geo-political changes between 1850 through 1920 seems frankly insane. The current state of the Middle East can be easily explained by WW1 and the collapse of the Ottomans. Furthermore, the history and culture of the region _remembers_ when they were a great world power.

There's probably a bit of jealousy and pride in there, as the Persians / Ottomans were a great empire only ~150 years ago.

Post reply on HN