CharlieHebdo

1131416181945

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding who benefits? My point is that it is important not to take everything at face value. Question more and be skeptical. People took the initial 'fact' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at face value. Those people look like complete idiots now. Other people took the initial 'fact' that the Benghazi murders were committed by people angry about a Jewish made anti-Islam video. Those people also look like idiots now.

    Actually, no. "People" did not take this at face value, you are making a very broad generalization. And it was not a fact, it was a claim. The Bush administration made this claim and many, many people, in the US and elsewhere, questioned these claims and many Western countries refused to go to war because they considered the claims had not met their burden of proof.

    When it comes to the terrorist attack on CH, all the evidence leads to a religious motivation. Not economy, CH was not exactly the incarnation of capitalist exploitation. Not colonialism, which CH had nothing to do with it. If you think the evidence leads somewhere else, please present your argument.

    As for the attack on the Jewish kosher market, it was a by product of the initial attack on CH as well as a manifestation of antisemitism... not unheard of with religious devouts of the other two Abrahamic faiths.

    Perhaps we're having a communication problem so let me clear this up.

    You're wrong regarding the fact that people did not take the Bush statements at face value. Many members of the US congress and senate did, as well as members of the US media and many of the public. I assume you do not live in the US, so you have a different point of view. I realize that the French and the Germans in particular were skeptical (and good for them - I respect that) and what happened in the US was 'Freedom fries' and 'Freedom toast' as a thank you to the French for their valid skepticism. The US public had been attacked. They were fearful. They elected strong leader Bush again in 2004 despite already being aware of the Iraq b/s already by that time, and a Bin Laden video appeared just before the election, interestingly, which further boosted their fear.

    Regarding CH, as I said in my above post, I am not making any statements regarding the facts on this matter. I'm reserving judgement until the dust clears and more information comes out. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not talking about an ecomonic motivation for the CH attack in particular. I've been clear. All the currently available evidence leads where you say it does. So did the evidence presented by Colin Powell at the UN at the time when it was presented. The French public has been attacked. They are fearful and angry. Just like the US public was in 2001. They are now very easy to manipulate as they are emotionally raw and angry. I'm watching to see how public opinion reacts over the next few years and what politicians are able to get away with now that the public has been mobilized. I'm curious to see if we get a similar approach in France to what happened in the US from the period of 2001 to 2008 (when fear finally was abolished and Obama was elected).

    You may choose to believe your elected leaders. I'm reserving judgement as I've heard too much b/s over the years (but again, to be clear, am not suggesting this particular CH attack was economic).

    You are making a strange comparison between the Iraq war and the Charlie Hebdo attack. And a false equivalence: the evidence brought forward by Powell were deemed unconvincing by many. Maybe by Powell himself. The evidence about the motivations of the terrorists is overwhelming. And, if we don't know everything yet... Nothing can make us believe that pusillanimous, socialist Francois Hollande had anything to do with the origins of the attack and anything else is paranoid speculation.

    I have tried to be as clear as I can be. My point is be skeptical and question (that is why I used Powell as an example - many in the US and the world took his comments at face value because he in particular was a credible man up to that point unlike Cheney/Rumsfled/Bush/Rice - some may not have believed him, but many in fact did). There is nothing wrong with that. I am suggesting that you not take what you are told at face value. Listen to it and then be skeptical. Don't be naive and don't assume that what you are being told is the truth, although it very well may be, don't make that assumption off the bat just because it affirms your preconceived view of the world and because it is most obvious (I am not referring to you personally, but certainly the media). That is not being paranoid. That is being careful. Irrefutable evidence is not possible because we are not in court. So skepticism & questioning is a good thing. Not paranoia. There is a difference.

    France has engaged in Libya, may do in Syria & has done so in Mali. In all cases, the target is people of Islamic faith and there is collateral damage. I think it's safe to say that asymmetrical retributions and reprisals are likely, as has been promised.. That is common sense and is to be expected once one engages militarily elsewhere. This instance is about CH and a cartoon. The next one may not be. The question is what does the government do now to limit freedoms as a result of an attack spurred by a cartoon of all things.

    To be clear, I have not suggested that Hollande is behind anything. The media in France or the right wing may have suggested this, as noted by @Suivez_ce_parachute, but I certainly have not. The most I have suggested is that he may be capitalizing on it. That is not paranoid speculation. He'd be a fool not to capitalize on it. He was in big trouble politically before this happened.

    This has nothing to do with right wing/left wing simplistic distinctions.

    Please read my statements before putting words in my mouth.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Getafix wrote: »
    loving the way our Arab 'ally' saudi Arabia have sentenced a man to ten years in jail and 1000 lashes for criticising some Muslim clerics. and we continue to treat the saudis as the good guys. hilarious.

    They had to delay week two of the lashes as the wounds had not healed from week one. Barbaric treatment from a barbaric country with a barbaric idea of freedom and justice. But we deal with them as if they are old palls. This is the problem with our nations relationship with Islam, we send out very mixed messages.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    loving the way our Arab 'ally' saudi Arabia have sentenced a man to ten years in jail and 1000 lashes for criticising some Muslim clerics. and we continue to treat the saudis as the good guys. hilarious.

    They had to delay week two of the lashes as the wounds had not healed from week one. Barbaric treatment from a barbaric country with a barbaric idea of freedom and justice. But we deal with them as if they are old palls. This is the problem with our nations relationship with Islam, we send out very mixed messages.

    The House of Saud is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. As long as they have the oil, US presidents will continue to bow before them (literally in the case of Barack Obama).

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Sickening.

    @bondjames makes a perfectly valid point about the media - most of what we're told is bull****. Some of that is deliberate lies but also a lot of the misinformation in the media is because journalists just get stuff wrong - a lot. They report heresay as fact, don't do enough actual investigating and are often simply not qualified to talk about the subject. So much of what we get in the media is TV presenters speaking to other TV presenters, regurgitating inane observations that lack insight or understanding. Newspapers sell comment and opinion, as its a lot cheaper than investigative reporting. The consequence is that if you're in power and doing something bad, chances are you'll get away with it.

    As @bondjames says, we need to be sceptical about everything the media tells us. I'm not saying that because I believe in conspiracies, but because most journalists are not very good.

    As I get older and actually have more expert knowledge on my area of work, the more I realise that when the media talk about it they don't really understand it. Then I realise that this must be the case in relation to everything they report on. They skim the surface, make sweeping generalisations and never actually help people really understand what's going on. That's why our leaders get away with being such total muppets.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    @bondjames makes a perfectly valid point about the media - most of what we're told is bull****.
    Many things that have been written here about the terrorist attacks in France was plain wrong. Including by people who criticize journalists.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    @bondjames makes a perfectly valid point about the media - most of what we're told is bull****.
    Many things that have been written here about the terrorist attacks in France was plain wrong. Including by people who criticize journalists.

    And you get an A+ for pointing that out.

    As mentioned, just don't pass a Patriot Act and don't let your politicians manipulate you. The world is watching.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    At the end of the day, this was an act of terrorism by three criminals. My view with terrorism has always been that you should not overreact. That was the mistake that the US made after 911 and by doing so they walked straight into Bin Laden's trap. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Queda got the 'clash of civilisations' narrative that they'd been dreaming about and which they could only actually create if the US played along with their grand plan. I'm sure Bin Laden never dreamed how successful it would be.

    I wish we'd start referring to these people more as 'criminals' and 'murderers'.

    In Northern Ireland, what the IRA wanted was a 'war' with Britain. The UK government partially gave them what they wanted, but it never quite escalated into an all out conflict. Also, even though the Irish government (and the US government for that matter) were totally complicit in funding and supporting the IRA, the British government never allowed the IRA to assume that legitemacy by turning it into a wider 'British verus Irish' war. Lucky, since the mainland UK is home to millions of people of Irish descent.

    The world needs to learn similar lessons now.

    Crazy to think that into the 21st century the White House was hosting IRA fundraisers - essentially giving money to terrorists so that they could kill British people. Ah, the 'special relationship'. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Exactly, and can we please stop calling M a "prophet"? Criminal and murderer was better suited to him as well.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    bondjames wrote: »
    As mentioned, just don't pass a Patriot Act and don't let your politicians manipulate you. The world is watching.

    Well, you already wrote that the French were "in fear". So I don't think you're really watching us...

    Instead of fantasies of what you think will happen next according to your theories, why not focusing in trying to understand why, today, Sky News had to cut a French journalist who wanted to show the cover of the French newspaper she works for ?

    With predictions about the future (and moreover, about the "hidden truth" of the future), no one can contradict you, so you always feel you're right. Actual facts (and not "hidden facts") are more interesting to discuss.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    With predictions about the future (and moreover, about the "hidden truth" of the future), no one can contradict you, so you always feel you're right. Actual facts (and not "hidden facts") are more interesting to discuss.

    Look, I'm not saying I'm right. In fact I hope I'm not. Why are you wasting your time trying to contradict me. Just be viligent and don't believe/buy everything you are told blindly. Or do so if you want, that's your business.
    Getafix wrote: »
    At the end of the day, this was an act of terrorism by three criminals. My view with terrorism has always been that you should not overreact. That was the mistake that the US made after 911 and by doing so they walked straight into Bin Laden's trap. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Queda got the 'clash of civilisations' narrative that they'd been dreaming about and which they could only actually create if the US played along with their grand plan. I'm sure Bin Laden never dreamed how successful it would be.

    I wish we'd start referring to these people more as 'criminals' and 'murderers'.

    Well put @Getafix. I agree completely.

  • Posts: 15,124
    There is always a risk of turning to restricting freedom in order to protect it, out of fear. I don't like the French law against the "apology of terrorism" for that reason. But in general, France has stood brilliantly against the terrorist attacks. The main difference between the reaction of America to 9/11 is that the French answer was mainly and very strongly secular: we have a right to criticize, we have a right to mock, even mock an hypothetical God.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote: »
    There is always a risk of turning to restricting freedom in order to protect it, out of fear. I don't like the French law against the "apology of terrorism" for that reason. But in general, France has stood brilliantly against the terrorist attacks. The main difference between the reaction of America to 9/11 is that the French answer was mainly and very strongly secular: we have a right to criticize, we have a right to mock, even mock an hypothetical God.

    Yes, it helps that France isn't pervaded by religious nutjobs a la the US.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    There is always a risk of turning to restricting freedom in order to protect it, out of fear. I don't like the French law against the "apology of terrorism" for that reason. But in general, France has stood brilliantly against the terrorist attacks. The main difference between the reaction of America to 9/11 is that the French answer was mainly and very strongly secular: we have a right to criticize, we have a right to mock, even mock an hypothetical God.

    Yes, it helps that France isn't pervaded by religious nutjobs a la the US.

    Agreed and happy to hear this @Ludovico.
  • Like with a few other cases here on other subjects, here I criticize only the know-it-all, and when it seems they actually know not much, I confess it can be quite funny to look at them unable to say "I don't know" :)

    Me I don't know how to solve the terrorist issue, given I think it's a very irrationnal issue, but I know when I'm being told psychobabble. And well, all the "economics explain everything in the world" is what teenagers were saying in the 80s, so to my ears it sounds very, very dated (I was a teenager in the 80s).
    bondjames wrote: »
    Just be viligent and don't believe/buy everything you are told blindly. Or do so if you want, that's your business.

    Well, you can tell me many times that I live in a country under fear full of angry people, I won't believe you, that's for sure :) On the other hand, I've just seen a UK journalist very afraid of a French journalist trying to show a drawing...

    And about accepting everything blindly, I often found that those who criticize journalists and talk a lot about "hidden truth" are actually the most gullible of the lot : they don't trust journalists, but anything "explaining" why the journalists are wong easily becomes some gospel for them.

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/23/king-abdullah-wickedness-saudi-arabia-regime

    the saudis are responsible for all this evil. they spread their insane version of islam around the world.
  • Posts: 4,617
    we in the UK and many other countries are complicit in the insanity by treating them as our best friend
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes. Saudis are arguably a much bigger threat than Saddam ever was.
  • Posts: 4,617
    Just seen that Westminster has ordered union jacks to be flown at half mast, just a couple of weeks after DC marched in France in support of tolerance and free speech, utterly shameful
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    Just seen that Westminster has ordered union jacks to be flown at half mast, just a couple of weeks after DC marched in France in support of tolerance and free speech, utterly shameful

    That is sickening.

    Still, as long as they keep on buying our weapons...
  • Posts: 4,617
    to make things worse, tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Churchills death so, if flags were going to be lowered for that event, it takes away the impact
  • Posts: 11,425
    Churchill was a mere commoner. A prince of the House of Saud clearly takes precedence!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    They are members of the same club.
  • Posts: 4,617
    https://richarddawkins.net/2015/01/judge-orders-father-to-take-his-children-to-church/
    Quite a day for our country to show how freedom matters little in compared to the religious big guns
  • Posts: 11,425
    They are members of the same club.

    What Churchill and King Whotsit? Pull the other one.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I was referring to Cameron, but they are all elitists scratching each other s backs.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Point of order.
    Flags are lowered to half staff ( flag staff) Half mast only applies to ships and naval installations.
    Lazy media have been getting this wrong for years, so it falls into the common vernacular.

    If you ever hear a broadcaster actually correctly say half staff, sit up. You know this one is at least paying attention and making an effort.
    He/she is not only about their time in the makeup room and wardrobe.
  • Posts: 4,617
    thanks for correction, in the meantime:
    Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has condemned the lowering of flags on public buildings as a mark of respect for the Saudi king.

    Ms Davidson tweeted that it was "a steaming pile of nonsense".

    Downing Street and other Whitehall departments were among those to put Union Flags at half mast after the death of 90-year-old King Abdullah.

    In a second tweet, Ms Davidson said it was a "stupid act on its own and a stupid precedent to set".

    I love the imagery of a steaming pile as it implies "sh*t without mentioning it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    But what about heating costs and SUV's?

    Surely we have to respect the nation that funds these things indirectly. ;)

    Right now they are helping Europe out of its economic funk by keeping the oil prices down and supporting the petrodollar from crashing under its own weight.
  • Posts: 4,617
    In the coming weeks, I look forward to quoting Ms Davidson when I get the local Conservative on the doorstep
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,622
    patb wrote: »
    thanks for correction, in the meantime:

    yet you still get it wrong :))
    Downing Street and other Whitehall departments were among those to put Union Flags at half mast after the death of 90-year-old King Abdullah.
    [/quote]

    Does this excitable, rushed, lack of concern for accuracy, impact the veracity of some of your other posts? hmmm

    Give those door knocking Tories heck ! Hold them to their lofty standards! Bravo!
    bondjames wrote: »
    But what about heating costs and SUV's?

    Surely we have to respect the nation that funds these things indirectly. ;)

    Right now they are helping Europe out of its economic funk by keeping the oil prices down and supporting the petrodollar from crashing under its own weight.
    yes the Backhand "help" from the OPEC nations, does qualify as silver lining in cloud.
    Reduced oil prices is a huge boon to the rest of the economy.
    Alas the OPECers I fear, have only flooded the market with excess supply in order to drive down the profitability of Western producers, whom they don't want to compete with.
    I have no sympathy for our western producers though. In a market economy, that's the way the supply-and-demand equation is played. Profits are always subject to changing market conditions.
    I'll enjoy less expensive fuel while it lasts. Notice I didn't say cheap.

Sign In or Register to comment.