Revenge is often characterized as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The Challie Hebdo killings were not proportional. Why did the gunmen not assemble a cartoon which ridiculed the editor of Charlie Hebdo, That is free speech. What happened is criminality.
5
I'm beginning to think Bill Mahr has got it right.
9
The terrible massacre against freedom of expression in Paris make Sony's recent miserable failure to stand up against an alleged North Korean cyber attack on their web site all the more shameful. It should also be a wake up call to those European leaders who refuse to take Islamist extremists as a serous threat to their very being. "...For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
5
The only response to an assault on our freedoms needs to come from the barrel of a gun. Any other response is tepid and innefective.
8
Every day in America 87 people die from firearms, day after day after day without letup from various causes, but all are deaths by firearms. The twelve killed in France are less than 14 percent of one days carnage in America.
The twelve deaths in France are important as regards to freedom of expression, but where is the outrage in the public mind and the media. do we just except this daily slaughter of Americans and at the same instance consider ourselves civilized.
The twelve deaths in France are important as regards to freedom of expression, but where is the outrage in the public mind and the media. do we just except this daily slaughter of Americans and at the same instance consider ourselves civilized.
7
I am appalled at the number of readers who are urging The New York Times to publish the cartoons lampooning Catholicism, Judaism and Islam on its pages. Constructive criticism of Islam is much more effective by using civil, intellectual and meaningful methodologies.
The crassness, vulgarity and often obscene depictions seen in these cartoons have no place in reputable newspapers. There are other publications that can host them if they choose to.
I hope The New York Times does not debase itself and diminish its journalistic credibility by heeding these misguided comments.
The crassness, vulgarity and often obscene depictions seen in these cartoons have no place in reputable newspapers. There are other publications that can host them if they choose to.
I hope The New York Times does not debase itself and diminish its journalistic credibility by heeding these misguided comments.
5
Before anything else I would like to express my sincere sympathies with the families of the people murdered yesterday: "Je suis Charlie". I also have a thought for the parents of the three murderous lunatics, I am sure that is not what they had intended for their off-spring.
As to how to respond; clearly many issues need to be addressed all across the spectrum from the intolerance expressed by the self-styled Islamic extremists to the intolerance expressed by the populists on the right wing. The answers are complex and I am pretty sure I do not have many answers except to say that whatever we do, we should continue to be true to the values we say these terrorists have violated and not descend to their level however tempting that may be at times. That approach will certainly cost more blood but if that is the price we have to pay to retain our essential freedoms then so be it.
Lastly, should these guys ever be brought to court, unlikely as I suspect they will take the cowards way out and not have the courage to publicly defend their convictions, we should all go to court and laugh at them out loud. We should celebrate the fact that even monsters such as these guys will get a trial and legal representation. Something they will forever deny others as they would lose the argument every time.
As to how to respond; clearly many issues need to be addressed all across the spectrum from the intolerance expressed by the self-styled Islamic extremists to the intolerance expressed by the populists on the right wing. The answers are complex and I am pretty sure I do not have many answers except to say that whatever we do, we should continue to be true to the values we say these terrorists have violated and not descend to their level however tempting that may be at times. That approach will certainly cost more blood but if that is the price we have to pay to retain our essential freedoms then so be it.
Lastly, should these guys ever be brought to court, unlikely as I suspect they will take the cowards way out and not have the courage to publicly defend their convictions, we should all go to court and laugh at them out loud. We should celebrate the fact that even monsters such as these guys will get a trial and legal representation. Something they will forever deny others as they would lose the argument every time.
1
I too condemn the crime in Paris.
I too believe strongly in freedom of expression.
Moi aussi, "Je Suis Charlie"
BUT I do not see the crime in Paris being an attack on "la liberté" or freedom of expression. Nor do I see the destruction the twin towers in New York as an attack "our way of life". The politicians may want me to believe these motivations, but I do not see these catch phrases as sufficient understanding. I will not put my head in the sand. I will look for reason.
I believe that unless we fully understand the growth of radical and violent Islam, it will plague us for decades to come. We need to find out what feeds the beast, then begin the process of starving it to death.
I too believe strongly in freedom of expression.
Moi aussi, "Je Suis Charlie"
BUT I do not see the crime in Paris being an attack on "la liberté" or freedom of expression. Nor do I see the destruction the twin towers in New York as an attack "our way of life". The politicians may want me to believe these motivations, but I do not see these catch phrases as sufficient understanding. I will not put my head in the sand. I will look for reason.
I believe that unless we fully understand the growth of radical and violent Islam, it will plague us for decades to come. We need to find out what feeds the beast, then begin the process of starving it to death.
3
Publish the cartoons as an act of defiance and in affirmation of free speech? Maybe we should all stand up and join in on a rousing chorus of La Marseillaise just like in a bad movie. Voltaire would be laughing at the very idea. Must we engage in such knee-jerk responses which only show how conformist we are? Perhaps we should satirize our own tendency to engage in groupthink like mindless caricatures of protest by making a cartoon of it and publishing it around the world. We would then be directing satire against an appropriate target--ourselves and our own moral smugness and stupidity. We could then have a good laugh at ourselves.
1
I hope the NYT editorial board will be open about why they choose not to publish the cartoons. I see three possible reasons:
1. The cartoons have no news value (despite the fact they they’re directly related to the murder of 12 people)
2. The cartoons are offensive, and you don’t want to offend people (other than Putin and republicans)
3. You’re afraid of the consequences.
I hope that the true reason is no. 3. If that’s the case, tomorrow’s headline should be “NYT chooses not to publish cartoons because of fear of consequences.” Then we all know where we stand. But don’t just say that the cartoons are not relevant for print.
1. The cartoons have no news value (despite the fact they they’re directly related to the murder of 12 people)
2. The cartoons are offensive, and you don’t want to offend people (other than Putin and republicans)
3. You’re afraid of the consequences.
I hope that the true reason is no. 3. If that’s the case, tomorrow’s headline should be “NYT chooses not to publish cartoons because of fear of consequences.” Then we all know where we stand. But don’t just say that the cartoons are not relevant for print.
14
I'd strongly encourage the NYT to collaborate with the London Times, Guardian, Le Monde and all serious newspapers throughout the world to publish representative examples of these cartoons on their front page on a single day as a coordinated response to this madness.
10
So proud of all Western journalists' passionate screeds in support of freedom of the press.
While they bend to the terrorists' will and refuse to exercise this freedom themselves.
Cowards.
While they bend to the terrorists' will and refuse to exercise this freedom themselves.
Cowards.
7
If every magazine & newspaper in the world republished the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, that would discourage future attacks of this nature.
7
What I don't understand is why no one has made the clear connection between what happened here re: the Sony cyber attack and Paris. A corporation gets threatening emails and every major theater chain in the country kicks the film loose. Talk about corporate cowardice. And some of those chains, particularly Regal, are managed and owned by some very conservative people -- the kind of folks like the ones below who are always claiming Obama is a coward. To paraphrase Moe Howard, right wingers will fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. In the Sony case, when it came to creative freedom and what this country supposed stands for, they didn't fight at all.
2
The Washington Post published the offending Charlie Hebdo cartoon. Why doesn't the New York Times publish the cartoon? Where is the editorial fortitude to practice what is preached. Is this not a form of censorship? What is the point of carrying on about the subject if the very object of the Islamic extremists wrath is not shown. Thank goodness there are outlets who may not like the cartoon but do have the courage to publish for the benefit of public knowledge and understanding. I bet you have an "explanation." I bet I won't like it.
13
I am at loss as a Muslim and fail to find reasons why people are losing respect for others belief and life .These are truly bad times to live a life of our own choice.
5
Joshua Kemp, 28, was involved in the recent shooting of two NYPD officers in the Bronx. What does he have in common with Chérif Kouachi, suspect in the Charlie Hebdo massacre? A background in foster care. What is a common condition in foster care kids? Trauma. Unidentified, misdiagnosed, untreated, troubling trauma. Don't get me wrong. There is no justification. But when we try to understand (and hope to prevent) tragic violence, we need to consider not only the individuals involved but how we as a society fail. NY Times, what do you say?
5
What the editorial board needs to ask is why there are #JeSuisCharlie demonstrations in Paris, New York, and Seattle, but none in Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Tangiers, Casablanca, Jakarka, Dhaka, Kuala Lampur, Kabul, and the capital we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to liberate, Baghdad.
19
Freedom of expression is a founding principle in the west, as it must be. That said, I don't care for the kinds of obnoxious cartoons often featured in Charlie Hebdo, which seem to exist to offend. If I try to imagine how a cartoon can elicit strong emotions, I remember the one I saw showing Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, obviously post-rape. This image was utterly disgusting to me and even now I find it painful and quite disturbing to recall it. These kinds of images make me feel sad for the human race and I protect myself from their vulgarity by turning my back on them. There are people to whom nothing is worthy of respect, or tenderness, or restraint. Unfortunately, this is the price to be paid for free speech. I would never buy a copy of Charlie Hebdo, but if I were in Paris today, I would certainly be in the streets protesting this latest assault, committed in the name of islam, on our most essential freedom.
6
I noticed the New York Times is showing solidarity with Islamists and Islamic apologists by NOT publishing the satirical cartoons that are the supposed rationale for the attack.
Shameful.
Washington POST: "The Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC News and others have all shunned the images under one rationale or another..."
Shameful.
Washington POST: "The Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC News and others have all shunned the images under one rationale or another..."
9
You have every Constitutionally-protected right to walk down a dark alley at 3 am in the worst neighborhood in your city, but that entitlement doesn't require you to exercise it. Hebdo's I-dare-you editorial bravado gave the madmen precisely what they were looking for. Let us count two victims here - 1. freedom of speech
2. common sense.
2. common sense.
1
This editorial, if you can call it that since its POV barely even registers, feels like it was written by someone who really, really didn't want to be forced to offer an opinion on the Charlie Hebdo massacre but was compelled to by his or her editor. "The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy." Wow, thanks for that insight. I guess that means you'll be posting a selection of "offensive" Charlie Hebdo covers and cartoons? What am I thinking. That would involve actually acting on the ideals you claim to espouse.
10
There is no justification or sense to the killings of these innocent people. I have seen attempts to blame it on the press, the cartoonists for being "insensitive" to muslim thoughts. To accept this would mean extremists get to dictate and police the standards. The Charlie Hebdo journalists were French, steeped in their respective culture, publishing for a French audience. If you don't like what they have to say don't buy their paper. As simple as that. I do not want to live anywhere, where I have to be afraid to "offend" religious sensibilities by looking at cartoons. I cannot stomach any attempts of explaining these senseless murders that muslim extremists are committing (& not just against Westerners) in the name of Allah. Enough already...there is simply no justification. That point needs to be made loud & clear regardless of one's religious beliefs.
6
As an Obama supporter, I'm appalled and ashamed to look back at the comments he made in 2012 regarding speech found to be offensive by those following Islam. It was a difficult time with protests throughout the Muslim world, but those are the times to stand for the values of tolerance and speech in a free society. I will admit he did not and in fact did the opposite. The horrific murders at Charlie Hebdo should shake his conscious and rattle his soul. It's hypocritical of the Potus to declare that Sony was wrong to pull The Interview, after previously saying Charlie Hebdo used poor judgment in running it's cartoons. It's wrong to declare The Interview is valid, but the Innocence of Muslims is not. That kind of moral judgement is for individuals to decide, not the Potus or State Department. That pandering and moral judgement of individual speech was wrong then, and his silence on the subject of freedom is wrong now.
8
The NYTimes as a show of support and defender of the inalienable right to freedom of expression should publish the cartoons and cover pages of Charlie Hedgbo. This would be a fitting epitaph from "All The News That's Fit To Print"
RIP Charlie
RIP Charlie
7
The best response to vile Muslim attacks like this is even more poking fun at Mohammad and Islam for their ridiculous stupidity, murderousness, and blathering about peace when adherents insist on harming those who for one good reason or another poke fun at or disbelieve this often foul religion. The way for that or any religion to stop being caricatured is to cease being illogical, and fomenting bad ethics, unfounded hokem, and vile behavior. Religious stupidity deserves being caricatured. Heavily!
6
Use drones to drop these cartoons all over Europe, the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and yes, major cities here in the United States.
The more radical Islam tries to suppress us, the more we should express our determination for freedom of thought.
How dare they?
The more radical Islam tries to suppress us, the more we should express our determination for freedom of thought.
How dare they?
6
I am in agreement with the majority of the comments. Print the cartoons, sophomoric as they may be. Take a stand NYT.
9
It is Ironic, that these acts of reprehensible violence, while they glorify evil, in the same instance always seem to illuminate the heroic and the brave, whether it be Anne Frank, or the man with the red bandanna, or the editor of a French satirical newspaper with enough courage for twenty men.
That editor Stephanie Charbonnier, stated what freedom of the press meant to him:
" If we can poke fun at everything in France, if we can talk about anything."
This is what we are losing. Freedom, that is endangered, and not just in France.
That editor Stephanie Charbonnier, stated what freedom of the press meant to him:
" If we can poke fun at everything in France, if we can talk about anything."
This is what we are losing. Freedom, that is endangered, and not just in France.
4
As a late friend of mine used to stamp on his outgoing mail, RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM. We are the only species, as far as we know that can imagine an afterlife. Other mammals, such as elephants and dolphins, grieve for their dead, but we so hate the idea of our own mortality that we have come up with this nonsense that makes us hate each other--contrary to what our prophets, Jesus and Mohammed, commanded us.
The brutal terrorist attack on the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo is the latest manifestation of the irrational state of mind of "Islamic Fundamentalism" and radical Islam.
Religious fundamentalism and extremism from any religion is intolerable. Radical Islam and their irrational, deranged followers with their own interpretation of Islam are becoming a grave threat to the rest of the world. Today, the whole world feels their alliance with France in their grief.
Condemnation of such henious act from people all over the world who believe in free expression is not enough to stop thid tide. All muslim nations and all peacefull and tolerant muslims all over the world should thoroughly condem this act, which is an assault on freedom everywhere.
Religious fundamentalism and extremism from any religion is intolerable. Radical Islam and their irrational, deranged followers with their own interpretation of Islam are becoming a grave threat to the rest of the world. Today, the whole world feels their alliance with France in their grief.
Condemnation of such henious act from people all over the world who believe in free expression is not enough to stop thid tide. All muslim nations and all peacefull and tolerant muslims all over the world should thoroughly condem this act, which is an assault on freedom everywhere.
2
It's awfully hard to threaten with death people who believe virgins and paradise await them after said death.
2
When it happened in Toulouse, a Rabbi and three young children massacred, executed by a Muslim Jihadist France said "Oh, they were Jewish". It always starts with killing Jews, but than, world apathy, "understanding" Muslim grievances, respecting their religion, culture, appeasing...And after the Jews always come the good people who remained silent when Jews are murdered. Ilan Halimi, a Jewish boy was tortured in Paris for two weeks before the killers had mercy and shot him in the head. Did you Parisians protest? You called the Jihadists "barbarians" not to touch a Muslim nerve.
9
It is time for the NYT to publish on the front pages the names of all journalists who have been killed, in prisoned unjustly etc all over the world on their front pages to remind us of those who put their lives on the line for upholding the freedoms we all say we support.
3
More heartbreaking evidence of how very little life is worth nowadays.
In the days of video games, where characters have several "lives" and may be "killed" more than once, the notion that life is worthless seems reinforced by the second.
So much for believing we have evolved - maybe in the degree and sophistication of our cruelty maybe.
In the days of video games, where characters have several "lives" and may be "killed" more than once, the notion that life is worthless seems reinforced by the second.
So much for believing we have evolved - maybe in the degree and sophistication of our cruelty maybe.
Religious belief is an ideology like any other, including political ideologies. We can be against fascism, communism, or capitalism without being bigots. Likewise, even theists like me have the right (and the duty) to be against Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all of which are populist, nationalist ideologies with historically political goals.
Nobody has the inherent right to subscribe to an ideology that the rest of us find repugnant. Moreover, Voltaire, who unlike his great rival Rousseau was a lifelong coward and grovelling lickspittle of the first order, never said what people think he said. It is not always as simple as a matter of our much-vaunted right to free speech. For example, the New York Times would not publish an apologia from anyone seeking to justify sex between adults and ten-year-old prepubescent children because the underlying tenets of such an apologia are simply unacceptable to most Westerners in this day.
The fundamental principle of liberalism as espoused by John Stuart Mill in his great essay 'On Liberty' is that we can do whatever we want provide we don't interfere with the right of anyone else to do the same. Some ideologies fail that test. They are unacceptable, therefore, to the modern western mind. I contend that organised religions such as Islam fall into that category of the unacceptable. We do not have to accept Islam. Nor should we. Just as we have resisted fascism and communism with all our might, and defeated them, we must resist Islam.
Nobody has the inherent right to subscribe to an ideology that the rest of us find repugnant. Moreover, Voltaire, who unlike his great rival Rousseau was a lifelong coward and grovelling lickspittle of the first order, never said what people think he said. It is not always as simple as a matter of our much-vaunted right to free speech. For example, the New York Times would not publish an apologia from anyone seeking to justify sex between adults and ten-year-old prepubescent children because the underlying tenets of such an apologia are simply unacceptable to most Westerners in this day.
The fundamental principle of liberalism as espoused by John Stuart Mill in his great essay 'On Liberty' is that we can do whatever we want provide we don't interfere with the right of anyone else to do the same. Some ideologies fail that test. They are unacceptable, therefore, to the modern western mind. I contend that organised religions such as Islam fall into that category of the unacceptable. We do not have to accept Islam. Nor should we. Just as we have resisted fascism and communism with all our might, and defeated them, we must resist Islam.
5
it is notable that the New York Times failed in its journalistic duty to publish the cartoons at the time of the Cartoons crisis in 2005 and now also ...we the readers have the right to see the cartoons that are the ostensible cause for this outrage, but the NYTimes is chickening out yet again
8
Why is it that The NY Times Editorial Board can finally call terrorism for what it is, when President Barack Obama still cannot?
5
Cartoons are at best blurred or cropped in US media, but clearly printed in French media.
We are Charlie and not afraid, US media surrendered to radical Islam lobbies.
Disappointing.
We are Charlie and not afraid, US media surrendered to radical Islam lobbies.
Disappointing.
9
Cartoons for Charlie Hebdo
1. "Where the Serpent in Paradise went..." A fierce serpent "Intolerance" chases adepts fleeing with the Bible, Torah, Koran.
2. "Justice unbalanced...". Justice peeks beneath the blindfold at the balance. One pan has the Koran, Torah, Bible. The heavier-- a Kalashnikov.
3. "Who will tell the story?..." Idem above -Justice wears a burka, blindfolded.
4. "David and Goliath". Goliath is "religious intolerance".
5. "Oops!..." A self-satisfied jihadi with smoking weapon surveys his victims: "Women", Sunnis, Shiites, Bahais, Yazidis, Ahmadis. In the foreground, lies "Islam".
6. "..then they came for me and there was nobody to speak for me..." Same victims and jihadist as above. In the foreground "Moderate Islam" begs/explains.
7. "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Three moderate Moslems kneel on prayer rugs. On one side of the panel the jihadi with the smoking weapon. Targets are seen on the backs of the three.
8. A framed blank canvas titled "The One True God..."
9. Jihadis and troopers killing one another "in the name of god" ...in the lower right a pleased devil in a dilapidated throne with Hell crossed out and a badly written "Heaven" inked in...
10. "National pastime". Jihadis playing Moderate Islam in soccer match, kicking at a skull.
11. In the Bazaar moderate Moslems are selling rope and timber to jihadis...in the background gallows....
Laughter is life. Satire is laughter without humor...
1. "Where the Serpent in Paradise went..." A fierce serpent "Intolerance" chases adepts fleeing with the Bible, Torah, Koran.
2. "Justice unbalanced...". Justice peeks beneath the blindfold at the balance. One pan has the Koran, Torah, Bible. The heavier-- a Kalashnikov.
3. "Who will tell the story?..." Idem above -Justice wears a burka, blindfolded.
4. "David and Goliath". Goliath is "religious intolerance".
5. "Oops!..." A self-satisfied jihadi with smoking weapon surveys his victims: "Women", Sunnis, Shiites, Bahais, Yazidis, Ahmadis. In the foreground, lies "Islam".
6. "..then they came for me and there was nobody to speak for me..." Same victims and jihadist as above. In the foreground "Moderate Islam" begs/explains.
7. "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Three moderate Moslems kneel on prayer rugs. On one side of the panel the jihadi with the smoking weapon. Targets are seen on the backs of the three.
8. A framed blank canvas titled "The One True God..."
9. Jihadis and troopers killing one another "in the name of god" ...in the lower right a pleased devil in a dilapidated throne with Hell crossed out and a badly written "Heaven" inked in...
10. "National pastime". Jihadis playing Moderate Islam in soccer match, kicking at a skull.
11. In the Bazaar moderate Moslems are selling rope and timber to jihadis...in the background gallows....
Laughter is life. Satire is laughter without humor...
4
Tragically, there are times when the pen isn't mightier than the sword. And those times include when anyone uses the pen to mock the prophet (life anchor) of seriously misguided followers of a perverted form of religion. These murderous actors aren't rational. They don't care about our freedoms one way or the other. Instead, they are more like hypnotized automatons, robots following a pre programmed scrip. And that scipt means annihilating "infidels." Especially infidels that denegrate their revered leader. Remember these aren't rational people. They don't think like rational people. So they can't be thought of in those terms. And until we accept that fact and find and treat the underlying social/familial and other issues that cause desperate young men globally to turn in droves into dyed in the wool murders who blindly follow the dictates of warped others; distates wrapped in religiosity thus justified, we all will all remain in danger no matter where we are or what we do.
3
There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world. Why do I not hear an outrage from them. Surely these 1.6 BILLION Muslims could force these terrorists to the ground and eradicate this menace once and for all instead of letting the rest of the world deal with their dirty laundry. Clean your house Muslims!!!!!
12
And all along we have been told they hated and killed us because of our support of Israel and our presence in the ME. Sure is confusing.
4
Let's all find the most offensive cartoons of the prophet muhammed and have as many people as possible display them everywhere. We must show these punks that their killings will always produce exactly the opposite effect that they desire. Until now, I never even saw the cartoons in question, but now I think it is important for everyone to see them.
6
Personally, I think the cartoons were disgusting, tasteless, needlessly provocative and an academic exercise in testing the limits of irresponsible free speech. That said, I would defend the right to such free speech to the fullest extent of my strength and ability because I wholeheartedly believe that most civilizations have, after millennia of evolution, arrived at the absolute necessity for this right.
We can make choices about what we read and whether we agree with it or not, but we do not have the right, and no religion can give us the right, to take a life in retribution for a perceived slight. France has been one of the nations most open to immigration and it is sad to see some of these immigrants using the freedoms they are given to behave abominably. Such immigrants do a disservice to their fellow immigrants, most of whom live within the law of their adopted land.
And last but not least, we are again hearing from moderate Muslims that these attackers were not representative of Islam. Why then am I not seeing prominent Muslim clerics in France and in the rest of Europe out on the street right in front of the supporters of free speech?
We can make choices about what we read and whether we agree with it or not, but we do not have the right, and no religion can give us the right, to take a life in retribution for a perceived slight. France has been one of the nations most open to immigration and it is sad to see some of these immigrants using the freedoms they are given to behave abominably. Such immigrants do a disservice to their fellow immigrants, most of whom live within the law of their adopted land.
And last but not least, we are again hearing from moderate Muslims that these attackers were not representative of Islam. Why then am I not seeing prominent Muslim clerics in France and in the rest of Europe out on the street right in front of the supporters of free speech?
8
When. exactly. are our 'great' problem-solvers going to ask the critical questions involving the fundamental, underlying cause of the monotonic rise in jihadism? I am NOT referring to poverty, joblessness, language, religion, ignorance, intolerance, or any related factors. I am referring to correlating international activities.
2
I was thinking of The assassinations in Paris today got me to wondering. So I did a little bit of research today. I came up with this list: Cote d'Ivorie, Cyprus, East Timor, Indonesia, Maluka Islands, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, Kashmir, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda,and the Uighur fighting in Southwest China. Do you know what the nations on my list have in common?++++++++++++++++++Wait for it++++++++++the answer is comming ++++++++++++Okay boys and girls, ALL OF THEM have their hands full of revolutions and civil strife caused by their Muslim populations.
I would like to know, and I'm being serious here, HOW the hell it is possible for a supposedly peaceful religion to be involved in nearly ALL of the world’s strife? It would seem, well at least Mr. Spock's Logic says, that peace can only be achieved IF the rest of the world accepts Islam as the ONLY way to be in the grace of that (again supposed) all loving, all knowing G-d, up there.
One other question while I’m at it: Where are ALL the (again supposed) moderate Muslims protesting what their coreligionists are doing to the world? Because I do not think that I am alone in trying to hear the voices of sanity from Islam?
I would like to know, and I'm being serious here, HOW the hell it is possible for a supposedly peaceful religion to be involved in nearly ALL of the world’s strife? It would seem, well at least Mr. Spock's Logic says, that peace can only be achieved IF the rest of the world accepts Islam as the ONLY way to be in the grace of that (again supposed) all loving, all knowing G-d, up there.
One other question while I’m at it: Where are ALL the (again supposed) moderate Muslims protesting what their coreligionists are doing to the world? Because I do not think that I am alone in trying to hear the voices of sanity from Islam?
11
France is now 10% Muslim.
4
During more than 10 years of NATO's military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and war conflicts in these countries, were killed at least 174,000 civilians. In reality, there were much more direct and indirect victims of military violence. This was a price for collision with the West, while the United States expanded its sphere of influence and worked for their geopolitical ambitions.
1
"A terrorist attack on the French satirical weekly is an assault on freedom everywhere."
I'm surprised that the Times would resort to such poor editorial writing Stop with the cliches already. This has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with cold-blooded murder. (Sorry for the cliche at the end)
I'm surprised that the Times would resort to such poor editorial writing Stop with the cliches already. This has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with cold-blooded murder. (Sorry for the cliche at the end)
I am disappointed that this editorial seems to applaud Charlie Hebdo but neglects to mention its own temerity in refusing to publish the same cartoons mentioned from several years ago, out of fear of reprisals.
9
I have been listening To NPR talk shows and their guest discuss this atrocity all morning.
So Muslims leave their countries to emigrate to Europe, Canada, the US Australia in order to have a better life; more prosperity, safety, health services, education, more freedom. All these characteristice that have been hard achieved by wars, sacrifice and compromise by the peoples to whom they are emigrating andare so attractive to those from nations without.
But then someof these freedom seeking emigrants try to say they are entitled to change the very nation they came to for all these things and make it follow the medieval Sharia law of Islam.
I'm sorry, but 21st century cultural diversity doesn't and shouldn't support changing a nation's values at the behest of a radical religious minority.
If the radical Muslims don't like the culture of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia , let them go back to the Islamic nations from whence they came. Let them live with less freedom, less prosperity, worse health services, little education, few to no job opportunities.
Life-long Liberal Democrat who won't give up her freedom!
So Muslims leave their countries to emigrate to Europe, Canada, the US Australia in order to have a better life; more prosperity, safety, health services, education, more freedom. All these characteristice that have been hard achieved by wars, sacrifice and compromise by the peoples to whom they are emigrating andare so attractive to those from nations without.
But then someof these freedom seeking emigrants try to say they are entitled to change the very nation they came to for all these things and make it follow the medieval Sharia law of Islam.
I'm sorry, but 21st century cultural diversity doesn't and shouldn't support changing a nation's values at the behest of a radical religious minority.
If the radical Muslims don't like the culture of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia , let them go back to the Islamic nations from whence they came. Let them live with less freedom, less prosperity, worse health services, little education, few to no job opportunities.
Life-long Liberal Democrat who won't give up her freedom!
14
"This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush."
The vast majority of the time scanning reader's comments on the conservative Wall Street Journal vs the liberal NY Times brings diametrically opposed reactions. Not in this instance. This suggests that many people of all political stripes have in fact made up their minds: Islam isn't a mere bystander to terrorism but is its cause.
There used to be arguments about whether Communism was a good idea that just happened to be misapplied. Same for Islam and the conclusion being reached by many is that this a religion that inherently leads a too large a percentage of its adherents to violence.
The vast majority of the time scanning reader's comments on the conservative Wall Street Journal vs the liberal NY Times brings diametrically opposed reactions. Not in this instance. This suggests that many people of all political stripes have in fact made up their minds: Islam isn't a mere bystander to terrorism but is its cause.
There used to be arguments about whether Communism was a good idea that just happened to be misapplied. Same for Islam and the conclusion being reached by many is that this a religion that inherently leads a too large a percentage of its adherents to violence.
8
I agree that this was a tragedy of epic proportions and highlights the barbarity of radical Islamists. I do not agree that the NYT should jump on the bandwagon and re-print inflammatory images out of some need for solidarity. Endangering the lives of it's workers to prove a point is wrong. The NYT should lead the dialog of this issue and not let it fall to the back pages when Jeb Bush makes another political move. Keep the conversation going. Islam is the world's most popular religion, focus a light on the issues and engage Islamic leaders to defend their cause. Show the world what it's dealing with through analysis and dialog rather than blindly poking a stick into the tiger's cage for fun.
What happened in Paris is the most vicious, diabolical and evil form of suppressing the individual human spirit in the name of political and/or religious correctness. While our domestic issues on political correctness are pallid by comparison, they are nevertheless becoming more stifling--and institutionalized.
4
If The New York Times had a milligram of journalistic integrity remaining, it would have used its editorial board space to reprint the cartoons. The terrorists have won...It's over.
Just skip the 9 January editorial and print a white flag being held by members of the NYT editorial board.
Just skip the 9 January editorial and print a white flag being held by members of the NYT editorial board.
8
This proves that the issue for the French is not freedom of speech but attacking Muslims
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-law-aids-charlie-hebdo-hunt-1420726705
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-law-aids-charlie-hebdo-hunt-1420726705
Isn't it time now to give the great writer Salman Rushdie the Nobel Prize he deserves and which has been denied him by the spirit of these murderers and the fear they inspire? Je Suis Charlie and Je Suis Salman.
7
A pathetic failure by the Times. If you stand with Charlie Hebdo show the cartoons, not three cartoons of politicians.
7
Given the history of threats against this firm why the lack of security or personnel protection?
Once again we see the New York Times acting politically correct instead of courageous.
Instead, this editorial staff decided it was "better" to bury the message by wasting space by choosing to re-report the events, quelling any potential of anti=Muslim xenophobia and dismissing Charlie Hebdo as little more than a publication that publishes "buffoonish, vulgar caricatures."
If this publication any real real courage it would have published a clear and forceful message:
"Freedom of press is inviolate, period"
Instead, this editorial staff decided it was "better" to bury the message by wasting space by choosing to re-report the events, quelling any potential of anti=Muslim xenophobia and dismissing Charlie Hebdo as little more than a publication that publishes "buffoonish, vulgar caricatures."
If this publication any real real courage it would have published a clear and forceful message:
"Freedom of press is inviolate, period"
9
And when is the New York Times going to state:
"Je Suis Charlie"
"Je Suis Charlie"
6
The Times' lead editorial should
read, "Yes, we are afraid to publish words or images offensive to Muslims, and we are ashamed."
read, "Yes, we are afraid to publish words or images offensive to Muslims, and we are ashamed."
6
This is not a case of defending ones rights to say what one wants to say. The French know they have that right, as we know we have it.
The editors and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should though have shown some sensitivity and respect towards the Muslims and their faith and self-censored themselves in this matter.
It would not have been a sign of weakness or intimidation to do that, but rather a sign that they understood their responsibility to ridicule and make fun of someone on issues as inflammatory as religion.
There is no writer or editor who does not self-censor himself or herself when an issue may be too damaging to publish. The New York Times have done it and so have many other papers done it.
So why shouldn't Charlie Hebdo have done it and shown some respect towards the sensitivities of the Muslims and their adoration of the Prophet Mohammed?
It wouldn't have diminished their freedom to ridicule or make fun of someone, since they already knew they had it.
The editors and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should though have shown some sensitivity and respect towards the Muslims and their faith and self-censored themselves in this matter.
It would not have been a sign of weakness or intimidation to do that, but rather a sign that they understood their responsibility to ridicule and make fun of someone on issues as inflammatory as religion.
There is no writer or editor who does not self-censor himself or herself when an issue may be too damaging to publish. The New York Times have done it and so have many other papers done it.
So why shouldn't Charlie Hebdo have done it and shown some respect towards the sensitivities of the Muslims and their adoration of the Prophet Mohammed?
It wouldn't have diminished their freedom to ridicule or make fun of someone, since they already knew they had it.
As dangerous as terrorists/extremists is trying to satisfy everyone´s expectations, not even a blank page can be considered harmless when it comes to human feelings.
Removing satire/humor of our lives is a self-inflicted defeat. Laughter lightens life burdens and is the final triumph of the brain: means it understood the joke.
No self-respected religion can dismiss something as human as criticism, and any well founded belief can afford to be teased.
Removing satire/humor of our lives is a self-inflicted defeat. Laughter lightens life burdens and is the final triumph of the brain: means it understood the joke.
No self-respected religion can dismiss something as human as criticism, and any well founded belief can afford to be teased.
Newspapers, including the New York Times, are making halfhearted shows of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and connecting it to the broader issue of freedom of the press.
The New York Times, and the rest of the free media should express real solidarity by showing the terrorists the futility of their actions. The Times should publish the very same pictures of the Prophet Mohammad on their front page.
I only regret that I was unable to paste such an image in this comment.
The New York Times, and the rest of the free media should express real solidarity by showing the terrorists the futility of their actions. The Times should publish the very same pictures of the Prophet Mohammad on their front page.
I only regret that I was unable to paste such an image in this comment.
3
Saying a terrorist attack is "an assault on freedom everywhere," as it does in the subhed for this editorial on the NY Times main page, is so empty and trite. I don't know if it's a legacy of the W. Bush administration, when similar language was endlessly used for cynical purposes, but I can't help tuning out such words. They also don't do justice to the revulsion and outrage I feel after watching that poor French police officer being executed so casually on a sidewalk.
1
Besides the family and friends of the victims of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the most disturbed and affected people in Paris have to be Muslims, the vast majority of whom are working, law abiding citizens, and who must be aghast at the smear on their religion's reputation this deplorable action represents.
1
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell
George Orwell
5
I wish I could think of some comparable American publication - all that comes to mind is the great Mad Magazine. And the isolated political cartoons in the daily papers. I'll have to start looking through the news stands more carefully. I suppose our venue for wild satire is the various electronic media, but who has time to watch them? Raise a glass to Charlie.
2
The cowardice of the NYT is glaring when compared to the reaction of your more courageous sister publications. This morning it was heartening to see the "offending" cartoons that triggered the insane massacre of 12 innocents in Paris in no less than three other newspapers. Why is no surprise that the mouthpiece of liberal self doubt would only show us the most insipid satire from this courageous little periodical. "Je suis Charlie" indeed.
5
I see no "freedom" in the satire of another person's faith or culture. I think it is as intolerant as the brutality witnessed on the streets of Paris yesterday. It mascarades as "freedom" but is simply brutality by other means. It is just as degrading and painful.
I think these are both extremes. One suggests literal brutality is appropriate and the other misappropriates a cherished value, freedom, to degrade others.
I think I can still exercise my freedom without hurting others. When others suggest my "freedom" comes at their expense, I think in a healthy community I ought to be empathetic to them, though I may disagree with them.
This is especially so if I am an outsider to that group. It is one thing for, say, a member of a group to tell a dirty joke about it, and a world of a different thing for an outsider to tell the same group the same joke.
I do like freedom, but just not the kind that allows me to hurt others. To me that's not really freedom, especially if I seek a healthy community. In a healthy community people should not just look out for what's theirs alone.
Yes, it's my freedom, but what about the hurt it instills in others? Is this freedom really worth a healthy community? I don't think it is.
I think these are both extremes. One suggests literal brutality is appropriate and the other misappropriates a cherished value, freedom, to degrade others.
I think I can still exercise my freedom without hurting others. When others suggest my "freedom" comes at their expense, I think in a healthy community I ought to be empathetic to them, though I may disagree with them.
This is especially so if I am an outsider to that group. It is one thing for, say, a member of a group to tell a dirty joke about it, and a world of a different thing for an outsider to tell the same group the same joke.
I do like freedom, but just not the kind that allows me to hurt others. To me that's not really freedom, especially if I seek a healthy community. In a healthy community people should not just look out for what's theirs alone.
Yes, it's my freedom, but what about the hurt it instills in others? Is this freedom really worth a healthy community? I don't think it is.
1
"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."
Napoleon
NYT publish the cartoons.
Napoleon
NYT publish the cartoons.
6
This brutal and barbaric attack on democracy and freedom against France, the country that gave us the Statue of Liberty, is an insult to all Americans and all freedom loving people around the world. In a free and democratic society, no ideology, no opinion, and yes, no religion is above criticism. Freedom of religion is a basic human right, but if a Muslim chooses to abandon his religion, according to Sharia he has to die! In most Islamic countries today, there are blasphemy laws that will punish you and even kill you if you “offend” the Islamic religion, and yet you are free to offend any other religion! We all should speak up against these fascist doctrines of any ideology that poisons the minds of young people and converts them to cold blooded murderers “in the name of God”! We should demand change from the leaders of this religion. They have to amend their doctrines, so that they are in line with the civilized world where all religions are respected, and none is above criticism.
6
The terrorists have already won. We live in fear every minute of every day. We find ourselves being groped in airports and train stations for security purposes. We've traded more of our freedoms for poorly written security theater and cannot let our children play in the streets. We guard our words they must be politically correct for fear of offending. We can't publish this or that because it may also offend some arcane sensibility. Fundamentalist organizations demand their rights to murder in Allah's name and denounce the existence of Israel. We won't fly on planes with Arabs or what we think are Arab people for fear of bombs. We can't stop looking for that next explosive situation. Our media are full of examples that bolster this fear...
Face it boys and girls... they've won.
Now... when do we take back our society?
Face it boys and girls... they've won.
Now... when do we take back our society?
6
I am tired of tolerance being a one way street. I am tired of having to apologize to those who hate me. I am tired of elites like the NY Times being gutless and weak. I am tired.
7
Je Suis Charlie!
3
Our leaders and much of our media tell us this is an isolated incidence done by extremist who do not represent the many of their religion. The problem is;
1. The few with these heinous acts are becoming the many re an ever growing frequency in these isolated events.
2. Islam is antithetical to Western Liberalism because in Islam there is no separation of church and state, they are one in the same, and no where in the Koran is tolerance of other religions / minorities taught.
Google the radicals message and they will tell you, out of their own mouth's, what their objective is and they are carrying it out.
1. The few with these heinous acts are becoming the many re an ever growing frequency in these isolated events.
2. Islam is antithetical to Western Liberalism because in Islam there is no separation of church and state, they are one in the same, and no where in the Koran is tolerance of other religions / minorities taught.
Google the radicals message and they will tell you, out of their own mouth's, what their objective is and they are carrying it out.
3
Per Fareed Zacharia and Wikipedia:
"Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things. The Quran and the hadith do not speak about any worldy punishment for blasphemy. Jurists created the offence, and they made it part of Sharia."
This business of killing off "blasphemers" is a self-appointed enabling of power grabs by plain down and dirty gangsters. Not one word of "blasphemy" was ever mentioned in the Koran...who are they kidding?
"Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things. The Quran and the hadith do not speak about any worldy punishment for blasphemy. Jurists created the offence, and they made it part of Sharia."
This business of killing off "blasphemers" is a self-appointed enabling of power grabs by plain down and dirty gangsters. Not one word of "blasphemy" was ever mentioned in the Koran...who are they kidding?
7
I agree we should not smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush and the vast majority of Muslims live quiet non-violent lives. But what version of Islam do all of these other kind of Muslims subscribe to? Is it just a fringe few? Or are we talking millions? If the latter (which seems to be the case), then how exactly do we deal with that threat? And if there are so many who believe in this form of Jihad, how does the larger, peaceful community separate themselves from that group and educate the rest of us? Or do they just say not my problem?
4
It is interesting how the commenters here use this tragic episode to advance their own little pet causes or to vent their political animosities. If I keep reading, I'm pretty sure I will learn that this attack by three mentally challenged thugs was Barack Obama's fault!
3
Shortly before the Charlie Hebdo attack, The New York Times' Editorial Board published a highly-critical article, "The Marches in Dresden." This article strongly implied that many Europeans who feared the tide of Muslim immigrants were irrationally overreacting. Worse, the article resorted to the "Godwin's Law" smear-tactic and hinted the anti-immigration protestors were closeted Nazis.
Within hours after the attack, this particular editorial was demoted in prominence on the front page of the NYT website. Perhaps someone at NYT thought: "Uh-oh! Do you think anyone will notice if we bury that article quickly? We will look kinda silly now, won't we?" Tsk. Tsk.
In the future, I hope The New York Times' Editorial Board realizes that its readers are not easily distracted hipsters. We carefully read each editorial you publish. In light of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, your previous op-ed should be restored to its former prominence and held up for public scrutiny.
Within hours after the attack, this particular editorial was demoted in prominence on the front page of the NYT website. Perhaps someone at NYT thought: "Uh-oh! Do you think anyone will notice if we bury that article quickly? We will look kinda silly now, won't we?" Tsk. Tsk.
In the future, I hope The New York Times' Editorial Board realizes that its readers are not easily distracted hipsters. We carefully read each editorial you publish. In light of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, your previous op-ed should be restored to its former prominence and held up for public scrutiny.
3
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," , Patrick Henry. Clear message to all radial islamists !
2
But who really is to blame? If you think about it all we learn here is that for every action there is a reaction. It may be delayed a bit but it has a very long shelf life.
Remember when there was hope for a real middle east peace? What happened after Ronald Raygun took power? Now that may be simplifying it a bit but any comments section has it limits and we all need to it back and do some research into those actions that produce a reaction.
Remember when there was hope for a real middle east peace? What happened after Ronald Raygun took power? Now that may be simplifying it a bit but any comments section has it limits and we all need to it back and do some research into those actions that produce a reaction.
did the NY Times publish those cartoons? if not, put up--or shut up
5
On 12/02/14 the French National Assembly voted 339 to 151 in favor of recognizing the Palestinian Territories as a state.
Unfortunately such a pro Muslim act was not enough to cause the killers to think twice before murdering innocent French people.
Unfortunately such a pro Muslim act was not enough to cause the killers to think twice before murdering innocent French people.
3
"... as if coldblooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. "
This would seem to be the case when confronting medieval mindedness, intractable recidivism. The pen allows for rebuttal. The other only finality. It is a cop out to attempt to crush discourse. It is defeatism incarnate. It is the antithesis of the heroic which is bound up with adaptation.
This would seem to be the case when confronting medieval mindedness, intractable recidivism. The pen allows for rebuttal. The other only finality. It is a cop out to attempt to crush discourse. It is defeatism incarnate. It is the antithesis of the heroic which is bound up with adaptation.
2
These attacks were terrible. All of the terrorist attacks in the last 48 hours, many of which killed dozens of innocent people (eg. Yemen) are terrible. I hope they find these men quickly and bring them to justice.
Free speech is essential. Freedom of the press is essential. Living without fear is essential. However, I am NOT Charlie. They published some really vulgar, sick, mocking cartoons of religions (all of them) that people hold dearly. Do they have a right to do that? Yes. Do people have a right to seek it out and support it? Yes. Do I support that? No. It's vulgar.
Free speech is essential. Freedom of the press is essential. Living without fear is essential. However, I am NOT Charlie. They published some really vulgar, sick, mocking cartoons of religions (all of them) that people hold dearly. Do they have a right to do that? Yes. Do people have a right to seek it out and support it? Yes. Do I support that? No. It's vulgar.
By all means, defend your freedoms. Defend your culture as well. The French, more than most cultures, 'get' sarcasm. The various hand wringing Americans, Chinese and other nationalities writing in about this tragedy, wishing that Charlie Hebdo did not poke fun at religion at all, don't 'get' the French. We need that French attitude. It afflicts the comfortable, vitally necessary in the world. Let the rest of the world comfort the afflicted, and let the French be the glorious French.
2
These terrorists have attacked the idea of free press. Now I am interested to see how the free press will respond to this outrage. Will it take the form of a few tsk,tsk editorials, or will we see bold action. Like all the newspapers of the world publishing the offending Cartoons on their front pages , all on the same day. Or will we see the kind of meek response, that implies fear.
Back during the Holocaust, the press, even the new York times would report on the murder camps, in small type on page 15, and the killing continued unabated.
Silence is complicity. Its time to be loud. The time has come for it.
Back during the Holocaust, the press, even the new York times would report on the murder camps, in small type on page 15, and the killing continued unabated.
Silence is complicity. Its time to be loud. The time has come for it.
26
"It is a shame that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which has made political gains stoking anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fears, immediately sought political advantage with talk of “denial and hypocrisy” about “Islamic fundamentalism.”"
It may be a shame in the eyes of the NYT, but it doesn't alter the fact that she is correct to focus on the threat that Islam and its followers pose to Europe's liberal, secular societies.
It may be a shame in the eyes of the NYT, but it doesn't alter the fact that she is correct to focus on the threat that Islam and its followers pose to Europe's liberal, secular societies.
12
every newspaper and broadcast outlet on the planet should have run those 'offensive' images on their front pages/local broadcasts.
instead the representatives of that great beacon of exceptionalism cower in their highly secured executive suites, scared of the boogie man. disgraceful.
instead the representatives of that great beacon of exceptionalism cower in their highly secured executive suites, scared of the boogie man. disgraceful.
2
Who would ever have imagined that we would be tumbling into a global religious war in the 21st Century? Wasn't this century to herald in a new age of science and technology?
It appears that most readers/commenters are ready for the fight. But don't forget that the cities of Europe celebrated at the beginning of the 1st World War only 100 years ago.
It's hard to imagine how the Western values of free speech and expression can co-exist with fundamentalist Islam. But there are millions of conservative Muslims in a world that is increasingly connected and integrated. We should not surrender our values, but neither should we allow a relatively small number of violent radicals within the Islamic faith to bait us into war with an entire religion.
This is a time for dispassionate thinkers who can take the long view.
It appears that most readers/commenters are ready for the fight. But don't forget that the cities of Europe celebrated at the beginning of the 1st World War only 100 years ago.
It's hard to imagine how the Western values of free speech and expression can co-exist with fundamentalist Islam. But there are millions of conservative Muslims in a world that is increasingly connected and integrated. We should not surrender our values, but neither should we allow a relatively small number of violent radicals within the Islamic faith to bait us into war with an entire religion.
This is a time for dispassionate thinkers who can take the long view.
1
Political scientists, for a long time, have claimed that people tend to to support freedom of speech in theory more than in practice. Essentially, this boils down to the belief that "everyone should have the right to free speech, unless they disagree with me."
The NYT is correct to identify and condemn this attack as motivated by hate, and that free societies should not change their behavior to suit the haters. But we should also remember that this was a case of extreme speech being met by extreme hate. For those of us who don't occupy either of these positions in our lives, this moment should serve as an opportunity to consider the ways in which we censor ourselves to avoid conflict, and expect others to censor themselves to avoid questioning our own world view, regarding political/religious opinions in particular. In this context, even the most tolerant of us can be intolerant when faced with people who would insult us or our views to make a point.
If we are able to do this, then a greater appreciation for the tolerance required by a democratic society may develop, and this act of terror will have truly failed.
The NYT is correct to identify and condemn this attack as motivated by hate, and that free societies should not change their behavior to suit the haters. But we should also remember that this was a case of extreme speech being met by extreme hate. For those of us who don't occupy either of these positions in our lives, this moment should serve as an opportunity to consider the ways in which we censor ourselves to avoid conflict, and expect others to censor themselves to avoid questioning our own world view, regarding political/religious opinions in particular. In this context, even the most tolerant of us can be intolerant when faced with people who would insult us or our views to make a point.
If we are able to do this, then a greater appreciation for the tolerance required by a democratic society may develop, and this act of terror will have truly failed.
1
The New York Times should publish the cartoons. Instead, the paper hides behind the falsehood that they don't publish items that might offend religious sensibilities.
I say falsehood because on March 28, 2013, the Times published a photograph of a painting of the Virgin Mary made of animal dung and containing images of genitalia that greatly offended Roman Catholics and other Christians in New York and beyond.
Does the Times feel that Muslims should not be offended, but Christians can be, or is the Times simply afraid of the possible consequences of offending a ruthless barbarism?
I say falsehood because on March 28, 2013, the Times published a photograph of a painting of the Virgin Mary made of animal dung and containing images of genitalia that greatly offended Roman Catholics and other Christians in New York and beyond.
Does the Times feel that Muslims should not be offended, but Christians can be, or is the Times simply afraid of the possible consequences of offending a ruthless barbarism?
7
The U.S. could use more offending satire in addition to the Onion, SNL and Mad Magazine. An unfortunate decline in newspaper editorial cartoonists, like Herblock, Oliphant and Marlette, hasn't helped matters.
One thing's for sure: there would be much to skewer, starting with Congress.
One thing's for sure: there would be much to skewer, starting with Congress.
2
There's never going to be any "fun" in Islamic fundamentalism. Je suis Charlie.
1
Islam has a problem. The problem is Islam.
The problem is the that from among all the ignorance and intolerance that all religions teach, preach and spread,causing hatred and wickedness, Islam's particular ignorance and intolerance first confuses former commercial colonial regimes with religious suppression and then demands self-pity -- a self-pity exercised in the form of brutal murder by those left adrift by the end of colonialism.
So Islam has a problem. And the rest of us have a problem with it.
The problem is the that from among all the ignorance and intolerance that all religions teach, preach and spread,causing hatred and wickedness, Islam's particular ignorance and intolerance first confuses former commercial colonial regimes with religious suppression and then demands self-pity -- a self-pity exercised in the form of brutal murder by those left adrift by the end of colonialism.
So Islam has a problem. And the rest of us have a problem with it.
3
There are no words. But here's what caused the death of twelve people who just went to work one day to do their jobs:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507729/the-satirical-cartoon-cover-that-def...
Pass it on.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507729/the-satirical-cartoon-cover-that-def...
Pass it on.
2
NYT -- if "Je suis Charlie" indeed, then print some of those cartoons.
6
You're not Charlie unless you have the guts to publish the cartoons. The best way to honor the Charlie Hebdo staff is to make sure their speech doesn't die with them.
4
Whether it were the nazi book burnings, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, totalitarianism would remove any freedom of expression from society summarily and arbitrarily. For fundamentalist religious extremists, at their heart is a belief in totalitarianism. How ironic it is that in freedom loving societies we even tolerate religious views that would not tolerate those of the very people who enable these views to be expressed. May we remain steadfast in our determination to allow liberty despite the intolerant terrorists who would seek to deprive us of it. May we remain true to Jefferson's admonition "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
2
NYT should honor the victims and loudly stand for free speech. Print the cartoons!! Front page - top fold!!
5
The massive influx of immigrants from Middle Eastern conflict areas has imperiled Western society. These immigrants often bring their conflicts, hatreds, resentment, and radical religion with them. Radical Muslim "no-go" ghettoes are growing in Europe. Unless immigration is curbed and deportation becomes far more common you can expect this to continue. Terrorists would not be committing crimes in Western countries if they were not there. Failing to face this issue is suicidal for Western society.
Another issue needs to be clarified, however. The brutal killing of these cartoonists has been called an attack upon freedom of speech, and it is. The cartoonists have become folk heroes in some circles. One would get the impression that to satirize, ridicule or critique Islam is almost a moral duty in a free society.
But what about satirizing, ridiculing or critiquing other religions? Almost every week we learn about someone who has been arrested, fired, censured, penalized, fined or jailed in Europe for satirizing, ridiculing or condemning Israel or making “anti-Semitic” comments. Do we have a massive double standard here?
Is it bigotry, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, hatred, prejudice and a hate crime to speak freely about some religions but not others? We need to be honest about this. If we are to defend freedom of expression and condemn the persecution of writers and satirists we cannot justify forbidden topics, sacred cows and double standards. Think about it.
Another issue needs to be clarified, however. The brutal killing of these cartoonists has been called an attack upon freedom of speech, and it is. The cartoonists have become folk heroes in some circles. One would get the impression that to satirize, ridicule or critique Islam is almost a moral duty in a free society.
But what about satirizing, ridiculing or critiquing other religions? Almost every week we learn about someone who has been arrested, fired, censured, penalized, fined or jailed in Europe for satirizing, ridiculing or condemning Israel or making “anti-Semitic” comments. Do we have a massive double standard here?
Is it bigotry, anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, hatred, prejudice and a hate crime to speak freely about some religions but not others? We need to be honest about this. If we are to defend freedom of expression and condemn the persecution of writers and satirists we cannot justify forbidden topics, sacred cows and double standards. Think about it.
1
Those guys weren't Presbyterians and you know that we'll find a mosque and an imam that supported their radicalization in some form while shielded by Western notions of religious freedom and tolerance. There's rot at the core of Islam and the question is how many of these incidents does the civilized world have to endure before we're allowed to say it with a unified voice. If Muslims can't expunge terror from their cultures they should reconcile themselves to the consequences. Our constitutions aren't suicide pacts.
3
"It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy".
I couldn't agree with you more. And yet, by refusing to publish the cartoons these terrorists found offensive, that's exactly what you're doing. As a French expatriate and a great admirer of the American press, especially the NYT, I feel deeply disappointed today.
I couldn't agree with you more. And yet, by refusing to publish the cartoons these terrorists found offensive, that's exactly what you're doing. As a French expatriate and a great admirer of the American press, especially the NYT, I feel deeply disappointed today.
5
Publish the cartoons!
7
I'm glad to see a local Imam paying tribute, at the scene of the attack, this morning. There need to be much more of this. And Mosque leaders should keep an eye on their young people, and take action when it become necessary.
1
NYT, if you're really serious about supporting press freedoms please publish a Charlie cartoon once a week in order to show us what you want to protect. Anything else is hipocrisy.
5
It'll change in France when the 6,000 Imans tell their disciples to accept and respect other religions. That will of course be a cold day in hell. We've been waiting a thousand years for the Muslim clerics to guide their flocks to accept other religions, it won't happen.
4
What sort of effective pressure can be brought to bear on the editors and owners of the NYT and other major media outlets to force them to confront the hypocrisy of these editorials. They have allowed the Islamists to censor content while claiming that the motive is other than what it obviously is.
It is time for courage.
It is time for courage.
6
NYT. Show some courage. Do not hide behind your political correctness. Stand for freedom of the press and the west. Publish the cartoons, front page, one a day for a month.
7
Publish "Piss Christ." I dare you.
2
Satire and even blasphemy are not capital offenses, and however insulted someone feels by someone else's sense of humor, one cannot address the problem with violence. Voltaire is (?wrongly) credited wit having said "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it."
It needs to be asked, though - just because we have the right to be offensive, do we have a need (or as some seem to be suggesting) even a responsibility to be so? If we had a Muslim or North Korean or Catholic family as a neighbor, would we write insulting graffiti about their religious leaders or political heroes on their wall? Is offensiveness really "the foundation of our society?" Does it really help the journalist to make their point or win any hearts and minds? Is it possible that we sometimes abuse our freedom of speech?
It needs to be asked, though - just because we have the right to be offensive, do we have a need (or as some seem to be suggesting) even a responsibility to be so? If we had a Muslim or North Korean or Catholic family as a neighbor, would we write insulting graffiti about their religious leaders or political heroes on their wall? Is offensiveness really "the foundation of our society?" Does it really help the journalist to make their point or win any hearts and minds? Is it possible that we sometimes abuse our freedom of speech?
The French comedian Dieudonne has built a successful career by hatefully mocking Jews and the Holocaust, drawing huge, enthusiastic followers wherever he chooses to perform. Although his freedom to perform has occasionally been clipped by French authorities, he generally enjoys a freedom of expression that is presently being championed. Those who are offended by Charlie Hebdo might want to consider the ways in which humor and satire are used on their behalf to disparage their perceived enemies.
1
New York Times should indeed reprint the Charlie Hedbro cartoon.
Words, words, are one thing but you must show a little courage.
Words, words, are one thing but you must show a little courage.
4
I am concerned that pitting one sacred *free speech* against another sacred *depiction of the Prophet* obscures and antagonizes the underlying conflict that will remain in France well after the outrage has died down. Free speech in France does not extend to religious expression under their doctrine of Laicite. They are aggressively secular and defensive of Francophone dominance in a way that refuses recognition to the sacred of religious minorities. So adolescent satirical disrespect and murderous response are symptoms of a deeper conflict. What we have is a conflict of the sacred that will not be resolved by asserting one sacred against the other. It will be reconciled only with concerted bridge building between hegemonic secularists, and Muslims that leads to a French identity that is open to being changed by the newcomer, the alien and the *other.* While this crime must be punished it is a very small part of the work ahead. (I would also point out that folks who hold to *free speech* as sacred often have as much or more trouble explaining their position even though they reflexively assume that it is the religious sacred that is the irrational position.) Islam is a fact of life in France and they need to find ways to weave it into French identity which, while a good in itself, will also serve to de-fang the extremists. The *right* of free speech is not the end of the ethical argument.
1
The NYT and other major publications must publish the cartoons. The NYT is always espousing freedom of the press. Young Americans are fighting and dying for this freedom and the NYT editorial board frequently advocates these efforts. People are in the streets supporting freedom of the press.
As a leading American publication, it is the obligation of the NYT to publish these cartoons.
As a leading American publication, it is the obligation of the NYT to publish these cartoons.
5
Whether it is the assassination of two cops lunching in the patrol car or journalists sitting at their weekly meeting, we must confront the reality that these are acts of the demented not political or religious activities. When you have long term youth unemployment coupled with exposure to radical Islam and mental illness the result is predictable. Likewise, the killer of the two NY officers had previously exhibited significant antisocial behavior and clearly was in need of treatment. I am not excusing these killers but merely trying to explain their behaviors. Mental health treatment and institutionalization must be made more widely available the world over.
1
Generally speaking, I find it ironic when some people, knowing from current and fluid history that they risk death if they desecrate other religious symbols, insist on testing the limits of that little piece of information. Would you walk into a blazing fire thinking that the fire has no legal right to burn you?
I share Mark Thomason's criticism of double standards when it comes to antisemitism despite being aware of the reasons in the Western world behind the extra protection afforded to Jews. Muslims are not offered any international legal protection against discrimination. I'm not saying that they should. But that is not how zealots and crazed individuals see it. They, often encouraged by misguided clergy, take it as their duty to defend their religion by committing murder.
I noticed that Robert Dana of NY Wrote:
" I support a view of the First Amendment that is near absolute. That is one of the things that makes our country exceptional. I would gladly give my life to defend it. "
Me, too! That's great, Robert, and as a U.S. citizen I think you should. However, please remember that the first amendment has no jurisdiction outside our borders. So, I hope you do not vacation anywhere abroad and claim your first amendment rights and legal protection by offending other people's faith. That would not be a recommended recipe for a happy vacation.
I share Mark Thomason's criticism of double standards when it comes to antisemitism despite being aware of the reasons in the Western world behind the extra protection afforded to Jews. Muslims are not offered any international legal protection against discrimination. I'm not saying that they should. But that is not how zealots and crazed individuals see it. They, often encouraged by misguided clergy, take it as their duty to defend their religion by committing murder.
I noticed that Robert Dana of NY Wrote:
" I support a view of the First Amendment that is near absolute. That is one of the things that makes our country exceptional. I would gladly give my life to defend it. "
Me, too! That's great, Robert, and as a U.S. citizen I think you should. However, please remember that the first amendment has no jurisdiction outside our borders. So, I hope you do not vacation anywhere abroad and claim your first amendment rights and legal protection by offending other people's faith. That would not be a recommended recipe for a happy vacation.
2
I was most impressed by the gatherings in NYC, Washington, and elsewhere--in frigid cold--expressing silent solidarity with the French.
This morning I watched a full list of those killed, and their journalistic credentials. Many were quite old, but considered the light of satire and cartooning for an entire generation. It's heartbreaking to see such a loss of creativity, in a country and culture that so worshipped satire as an art and mirror of society.
My heart goes out to France, as well as to the families of these creative artists. I stand with France, as so many of us do, to reject any notion that terrorism can lead to self-censorship or color the way feelings and political views are expressed.
Any attempt to silence free expression is an attempt to stamp out liberty and freedom and the very spirit of life on the continent, one that a mere 70 years ago was fighting a war to end all wars to preserve freedom against an ethnic, social, and political zealot.
This morning I watched a full list of those killed, and their journalistic credentials. Many were quite old, but considered the light of satire and cartooning for an entire generation. It's heartbreaking to see such a loss of creativity, in a country and culture that so worshipped satire as an art and mirror of society.
My heart goes out to France, as well as to the families of these creative artists. I stand with France, as so many of us do, to reject any notion that terrorism can lead to self-censorship or color the way feelings and political views are expressed.
Any attempt to silence free expression is an attempt to stamp out liberty and freedom and the very spirit of life on the continent, one that a mere 70 years ago was fighting a war to end all wars to preserve freedom against an ethnic, social, and political zealot.
3
Print the cartoons. Period.
6
One of the comics is published on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal this morning. The editorial board of the NYT should resign.
6
Words, words, words. Put your money where your mouth is and print the Hebdo cartoons.
6
Last night, I was flipping the news channels. The MSNBC host said, "Before, I thought such cartoons were offensive, even racist. Now, I'm retroactively changing my view." CNN ran old tape of former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney saying, "Of course, nothing justifies murder, but these kinds of cartoon are offensive," prompting its host to challenge him, "I'll bet you don't think that now."
If Charlie Hebdo's pornographic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed were offensive and racist before (and they were), they are offensive and racist now, notwithstanding the murder of the cartoonists.
I, for one, am not Charlie.
If Charlie Hebdo's pornographic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed were offensive and racist before (and they were), they are offensive and racist now, notwithstanding the murder of the cartoonists.
I, for one, am not Charlie.
13
print the cartoons
4
This will all end when the 6000 Imans in France teach their pupils and congregants and followers to respect other religions besides Islam. Still waiting for that day. We're paying the price for orthodox Saudi Imans spreading the word of intolerance and hatred and violence since the 1980's.
The contrast between the French reaction to this attack and George W. Bush's response to 9/11 is telling. The French are standing up for free speech and defying those who would curtail it. Bush hatched the USA Patriot Act that gave the terrorists everything they wanted. Je suis Charlie.
2
The editorial refers to "buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons that push every hot button with glee." shouldn't we, the readers, be given the opportunity to reach our own conclusions? Readers deserve, at the very least, the courtesy of a clear explanation from the Times either when it will let us see what its Editorial Board was looking at or why it refuses to do so.
3
Posting these images on the Times web site would bring honesty to this editorial.
2
Print the cartoons
2
It is humankind's great shame that charlatans like prophet Mohammad, Joseph Smith and others who claim to have received divine revelation, are taken so seriously.
Yes, most faithful followers refrain from killing others when offended, but the world would be a better place if irrational belief systems disappeared.
Literal religious belief, particularly when inspiring such mindless horror, deserves to be ridiculed, parodied, criticized and satirized.
Publish the cartoons, NYT.
Yes, most faithful followers refrain from killing others when offended, but the world would be a better place if irrational belief systems disappeared.
Literal religious belief, particularly when inspiring such mindless horror, deserves to be ridiculed, parodied, criticized and satirized.
Publish the cartoons, NYT.
2
How ironic is it that these people died because of their belief in free speech but so many of us are afraid to speak our minds because our views don't align with so many of our fellow citizens?
How many people die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, and on and on every day? Why don't their lives get the same attention? I'm confident the children dying weren't publishing inflammatory articles or expressing unpopular opinions.
How many people die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, and on and on every day? Why don't their lives get the same attention? I'm confident the children dying weren't publishing inflammatory articles or expressing unpopular opinions.
1
The Times says, 'this is no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush."
In fairness, perhaps that is true. But, who is responsible for the vast majority of terrorist incidents across the globe? Muslims. And do we hear Muslim leaders decrying violence. Not very loudly or at all.
And do Muslims who have immigrated into western Europe and the US want to assimilate into western society, to put the western democratic values that we all live by ahead of their religion? I'm sure some do, but a vast number do not.
Until we see Muslim leaders across the globe condemn terrorist acts -- rather than celebrating them -- then what are we to think?
Certainly, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all agreed with Nazi politics and goals. However, those who opposed Nazism did not, for the most part, speak out against it, or seek to undermine it. And when Nazi tanks rolled across Europe the German people as a whole cheered.
So I'm not convinced that we should give the majority of Muslims a pass on terrorism until we see concerted action on the part of all Muslims to put a stop to Muslim terrorism. You don't have to throw a bomb or shot a gun or blow yourself up to be a terrorist. Words, or the lack of words, matter. While only a handful of muslims have engaged in terrorist acts, they do not operate in a vacuum. They receive encouragement, training, money and other forms of support from other Muslims.
In fairness, perhaps that is true. But, who is responsible for the vast majority of terrorist incidents across the globe? Muslims. And do we hear Muslim leaders decrying violence. Not very loudly or at all.
And do Muslims who have immigrated into western Europe and the US want to assimilate into western society, to put the western democratic values that we all live by ahead of their religion? I'm sure some do, but a vast number do not.
Until we see Muslim leaders across the globe condemn terrorist acts -- rather than celebrating them -- then what are we to think?
Certainly, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all agreed with Nazi politics and goals. However, those who opposed Nazism did not, for the most part, speak out against it, or seek to undermine it. And when Nazi tanks rolled across Europe the German people as a whole cheered.
So I'm not convinced that we should give the majority of Muslims a pass on terrorism until we see concerted action on the part of all Muslims to put a stop to Muslim terrorism. You don't have to throw a bomb or shot a gun or blow yourself up to be a terrorist. Words, or the lack of words, matter. While only a handful of muslims have engaged in terrorist acts, they do not operate in a vacuum. They receive encouragement, training, money and other forms of support from other Muslims.
3
"The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy."
Really? Haven't they already? The Times went so far as to publish a link to the "offending" cartoons but not them directly. The NY Daily News published a pixelated version of the magazine's cover. So, I guess shar'ia is already here. And I don't wonder why. I commend publications which show offensive art or write offensive articles. I am gay and Jewish and while I don't like anti-gay rhetoric or anti-Semitic articles and pictures. I am glad I live in a country where they can be published. More information is always better.
Having said that, I believe the reason the anti-Muslim pictures or cartoons are not usually published here (and in much of Europe and the rest of the West) is a well-founded fear. In many parts of the world, a majority of Muslims are in favor of shar'ia punishments:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
In this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Musl...
40% of U.K. muslims sympathized with the 7/7 bombers. These are not comforting statistics and the trend is not good. So while I understand the Times' policy of not antagonizing Muslims, I just wish it would be more honest about it. You are afraid and you should be.
Really? Haven't they already? The Times went so far as to publish a link to the "offending" cartoons but not them directly. The NY Daily News published a pixelated version of the magazine's cover. So, I guess shar'ia is already here. And I don't wonder why. I commend publications which show offensive art or write offensive articles. I am gay and Jewish and while I don't like anti-gay rhetoric or anti-Semitic articles and pictures. I am glad I live in a country where they can be published. More information is always better.
Having said that, I believe the reason the anti-Muslim pictures or cartoons are not usually published here (and in much of Europe and the rest of the West) is a well-founded fear. In many parts of the world, a majority of Muslims are in favor of shar'ia punishments:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-...
In this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Musl...
40% of U.K. muslims sympathized with the 7/7 bombers. These are not comforting statistics and the trend is not good. So while I understand the Times' policy of not antagonizing Muslims, I just wish it would be more honest about it. You are afraid and you should be.
1
In a nutshell: How do we accept the private conscience part of Islam while condemning its decidedly undemocratic political aspirations? The two are deeply intertwined. While our values support the first, they condemn the absolutist dictates of the latter. We need to separate the political from the religious and realize that they both do not fit under the banner of religious freedom. Islam needs a renaissance. Until then, it remains the same threatening 7th century creed.
1
With the global spread of Islamic extremism, can we all now quietly admit that some degree of racial profiling and surveillance helps to keep us safe?
3
Although I believe in freedom of the press, I do believe depicting another's prophet naked and in sexual positions is over the top. Do, I believe such a response was appropriate, of course not. But, why is it we teach our children not to bully and torment others, but it doesn't apply in adult life, where the lack of stableness can be seen all around us, also?
14
It is not enough to simply condemn the attacks. That's easy and accomplishes nothing. It is time to honestly state the cause. The attacks were perpetrated by radical islamic terrorists whose views are antithetical to a free society. These are the same individuals who perpetrated 911 and recently slaughtered over 100 school children in Pakistan. Their goal is to suppress and/or exterminate all those who don't adhere to their beliefs. The first step necessary to combat this enemy is to clearly identify and state who they are.
1
Despicable as it might sound, I'm beginning to agree with Bill Maher.
I'm actually surprised to SEE the large anti-NYT bias as frequently my comments that might tilt towards the view the NYT wishes to promote do not see the light of day. It happened again yesterday.
With respect to this particular incident, these extremists are essentially punks. The equivalent of gang members like the Bloods and Crips who seek to control their environment through violence and intimidation. They are not "religious" in any sense of the imagination.
With respect to this editorial, I am with many of the commentators. So, to the editors; Are you Charlie? Something tells me you are not.
With respect to this particular incident, these extremists are essentially punks. The equivalent of gang members like the Bloods and Crips who seek to control their environment through violence and intimidation. They are not "religious" in any sense of the imagination.
With respect to this editorial, I am with many of the commentators. So, to the editors; Are you Charlie? Something tells me you are not.
1
Le New York Times n'est pas Charlie!!
1
The PEN will always and forever be mightier than the sword!
These acts of brutality and cowardice will never stop the truly brave from showing the folly and stupidity of fundamentalist thought and actions.
They will expose the hypocrisy and may pay the ultimate price but 100 will rise together for every one that falls!
It's the 21st century and we move forward....towards justice!
Je suis Charlie!
These acts of brutality and cowardice will never stop the truly brave from showing the folly and stupidity of fundamentalist thought and actions.
They will expose the hypocrisy and may pay the ultimate price but 100 will rise together for every one that falls!
It's the 21st century and we move forward....towards justice!
Je suis Charlie!
1
More often, crimes are committed in the name of religion by precarious zealots , which goes to prove how organized religion compromises freedom of speech and society at large. Albeit, those zealots see no harm in murdering humans ostensibly for opposing their beliefs.
When a basic tenet of a religion is that killing non-believers is a good thing, an honorable act, then there is no place on earth where we can live together in a blended community of mixed faiths and non-believers. The Islamic equivalent of Pope Francis needs to issue a couple of amendments (or whatever they call them) to his faith that rid the world of these assembly line killers. While he's at it, how about bringing the overall culture's treatment of women into the 21st century as well?
1
The Times' lead editorial should
read, "Yes, we are afraid to publish words or images offensive to Muslims, and we are ashamed."
read, "Yes, we are afraid to publish words or images offensive to Muslims, and we are ashamed."
5
Their goal is to bring their medieval elements together.
1
Every newspaper should publish at least one of the cartoons on its front page. If the paper it too cowardly to publish a picture of the cartoons, it has allowed radical ISLAM to win and to silence the press.
2
why haven't the american papers published the cartoons? that would be a true expression of support. charlie hebdos' cartoons were not limited to satirial observations on islam as one can see if one goes to the huffington post piece on the killings. i hope the times and other papers will not follow the cowardly path they chose after the publication of cartoons "offensive to the prophet" in denmark.
je suis charlie. et je suis ahmed merabet.
je suis charlie. et je suis ahmed merabet.
2
As per the Simon Weisenthal Center;
'When the 6,000 Imans in France change their sermons from one of violence to respect for their fellow citizens their people will listen and stop killing.
'When the 6,000 Imans in France change their sermons from one of violence to respect for their fellow citizens their people will listen and stop killing.
2
"This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush." Might I suggest it isn't the xenophobes smearing all Muslims with a terrorist brush, but the Muslim terrorists themselves, who are doing a better job smearing all Muslims than the anyone else ever could.
3
"It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy."
Nice words but look at page A7 of today's NYT. Two images of Charlie Hebdo covers are printed to accompany a page 1 story headlined:
"Proud to Offend, Paper Carries Torch of Political Provocation".
The cover images the NYT saw fit to print? One depicting immigration critics and one depicting President Francois Hollande. I guess they just couldn't find a cover depicting a Muslim figure.
"We are Charlie" indeed.
Nice words but look at page A7 of today's NYT. Two images of Charlie Hebdo covers are printed to accompany a page 1 story headlined:
"Proud to Offend, Paper Carries Torch of Political Provocation".
The cover images the NYT saw fit to print? One depicting immigration critics and one depicting President Francois Hollande. I guess they just couldn't find a cover depicting a Muslim figure.
"We are Charlie" indeed.
4
The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post (I know they have said they'd publish one of the cartoons) The Guardian, Al Jazeera, NBC, CBS, all of our major media should publish and/or show these cartoons in prominent positions on their papers and media outlets. This would be in tribute to the courageous cartoonists who poked fun and all people..not just Muslims. Show those cartoons everywhere..as a tribute..let these lunatics target us all.
2
Ain't religion grand?
3
Our Statue of Liberty was a gift from France. I am Charlie, also!
1
The San Francisco Chronicle has the courage to publish these cartoons. Why doesn't the NY Times stand shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity by following suit? To self servingly blather on about offending others' religious sensitivities seems cowardly. I AM CHARLIE!
And yet Obama and Holder wrote off the Fort Hood massacre as "workplace violence" instead of terrorism. Obama and Susan Rice blamed the Benghazi attack on an anti-Muslim video, not terrorism, and Obama refused to defend the right of the maker of the video to freedom of speech. Amazing how things have changed at The Times.
What a laugh! You sought to silence these dedicated and unique voices but because of your actions today they ring out louder and more clearly around the world. We are Charlie and we will never be you!
.
.
Journalists died to protect the right to speak. Journalism matters.
In 2009, there was world wide reaction to the "Danish Cartoons". Nobody would publish the cartoons out of respect. These "disrespectful" cartoons provoked the murder of innocent people.
What no one knew, because no one was allowed to see these cartoons, was that a few people from the Islamic Society of Denmark decided that the original images were not offensive enough to raise the ire they wanted. Three images were added when they took the images to the Middle East that the danish cartoonist never saw .
One of these extra images was a depiction of Mohammed in a pig snout. Very offensive, right? Only it wasn't a cartoon, it was a photo. And it wasn't Danish. It was a photo of an American sports fan in a pig snout. The photo had nothing to do with Mohammed. It had nothing to do with religion whatsoever. The other 2 added images were equally offensive and equally fake, included by a few people determined to create anger.
No one could counter these lies because no one knew that lies were being spread. Because no one was allowed to see the actual images. Because every major news organization on the planet was more interested in appeasement than truth.
Journalism matters. If the NYT shows leadership and courage, every other reputable news organization with scramble to be the first to join you.
Saying "Je Suis Charlie" while refusing to show the cartoons is hypocrisy.
Journalism matters.
In 2009, there was world wide reaction to the "Danish Cartoons". Nobody would publish the cartoons out of respect. These "disrespectful" cartoons provoked the murder of innocent people.
What no one knew, because no one was allowed to see these cartoons, was that a few people from the Islamic Society of Denmark decided that the original images were not offensive enough to raise the ire they wanted. Three images were added when they took the images to the Middle East that the danish cartoonist never saw .
One of these extra images was a depiction of Mohammed in a pig snout. Very offensive, right? Only it wasn't a cartoon, it was a photo. And it wasn't Danish. It was a photo of an American sports fan in a pig snout. The photo had nothing to do with Mohammed. It had nothing to do with religion whatsoever. The other 2 added images were equally offensive and equally fake, included by a few people determined to create anger.
No one could counter these lies because no one knew that lies were being spread. Because no one was allowed to see the actual images. Because every major news organization on the planet was more interested in appeasement than truth.
Journalism matters. If the NYT shows leadership and courage, every other reputable news organization with scramble to be the first to join you.
Saying "Je Suis Charlie" while refusing to show the cartoons is hypocrisy.
Journalism matters.
>
The vibes that I'm picking up are that the French see this as a threat to free speech rather than a demand for guarantee safety, which is the correct view. I believe the French editor said he'd rather die than give up free speech. Few Americans would say this, which is why we lost so many rights since 9/11.
How different the French are than us and in a better way. We, or most of the American people, are more than willing to exchange freedom for neurotic safety. A famous Justice, I forget whom, once said: that the Government does not have to take away the peoples rights, they'll give them away. If you read the fine print in the Patriot Act, the rights that the American people gave away are substantial.
As I listen to the panic on the morning TV wind-bag shows, which are Americans, not French, the over reaction outlines the hopelessness that stupidity burdens Man with.
In 2012, 33,561 Americans lost their lives in car accidents. This translates to 91 per day and 2,796 per month. Google it.
Yes what happened in France was horrific, terrible and a tragedy, but it is no reason to lose your mind. Tragedy defines life. Life is full of risks and tragedy, nothing new, read the ancients. Freedom is expensive.
If this happened in NY, I pretty sure our response would have not been as good as the French. One does not have to be clarvoiynat to imagine the hysteria that would have been the U.S. reaction.
The vibes that I'm picking up are that the French see this as a threat to free speech rather than a demand for guarantee safety, which is the correct view. I believe the French editor said he'd rather die than give up free speech. Few Americans would say this, which is why we lost so many rights since 9/11.
How different the French are than us and in a better way. We, or most of the American people, are more than willing to exchange freedom for neurotic safety. A famous Justice, I forget whom, once said: that the Government does not have to take away the peoples rights, they'll give them away. If you read the fine print in the Patriot Act, the rights that the American people gave away are substantial.
As I listen to the panic on the morning TV wind-bag shows, which are Americans, not French, the over reaction outlines the hopelessness that stupidity burdens Man with.
In 2012, 33,561 Americans lost their lives in car accidents. This translates to 91 per day and 2,796 per month. Google it.
Yes what happened in France was horrific, terrible and a tragedy, but it is no reason to lose your mind. Tragedy defines life. Life is full of risks and tragedy, nothing new, read the ancients. Freedom is expensive.
If this happened in NY, I pretty sure our response would have not been as good as the French. One does not have to be clarvoiynat to imagine the hysteria that would have been the U.S. reaction.
2
No! It is not 'tarring all muslims with the terrorist brush' to ask why hardly a day goes by without innocent people being killed somewhere in the world, sometimes with horrible cruelty, in the name of Allah. Not Christ, Jahweh or Buddha, but Allah. Islam is NOT 'the religion of peace'!
1
Look, people. The Grey Lady does not do cartoons; it rocked their world to add color. They gave you the CH cover, which is a fabulous piece of French sarcasm, and you have the internet. We don't need the Times to publish cartoons to show its freedom - iness. That is all; carry on.
1
Put your money where your mouth is EB and publish the cartoons.
I should have woken up today to all media's front page / homepage displaying these cartoons.
I should have woken up today to all media's front page / homepage displaying these cartoons.
3
Where was this brilliant defense of freedom when an anti-Muslim film was produced in America? Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to imprison the producer and blamed the Benghazi attack on it.
NYT decries the murders as well it should. BUT is never has and never will show the courage of Charlie Hebdo by publishing the (offensive) cartoons.
The afterthought that not all Muslims are terrorists may be true but we will all begin to scratch our heads and question the above whenever we now see a burka, hijab, or skullcap
The afterthought that not all Muslims are terrorists may be true but we will all begin to scratch our heads and question the above whenever we now see a burka, hijab, or skullcap
2
Didn't the NY Times refuse to publish the Danish cartoons lampooning Islam several years ago? I'm not sure we ever saw a justification for that omission. It certaintly couldn't be that it was immaterial to the story. When the crux of the story is 'cartoons incite violent reaction from extremists', the content of those cartoons is central to the story. So what gives? The Editorial Board can't on the one hand criticize extremists for violently acting out over objectionable material, while at the same time refusing to reproduce that same material...for fear of a violent reaction.
3
The massacre is France's 9/11. Then, the US moved too quickly, without an entrance or exit strategy. With 15% of the population living apart in every aspect of their lives, can France ever be French again? Will France act aggressively against its citizens as the police did in Ferguson? Will accommodation bring more brazen terror? Questions, questions. I"m thinking, are you?
1
less than 6% not 15%. French are 60% Catholics, 30% atheists, 6% Muslims, 1% Jewish ...
And most of the 6% are fully integrated in the society, the extremist radicals are thousands not millions.
And most of the 6% are fully integrated in the society, the extremist radicals are thousands not millions.
Trigger warning: the following includes a critique of liberal cerebral paralysis. The most recent spate of terrorist attacks culminating in the atrocity yesterday in Paris is a direct result of the ineffective, read passive, responses coming from the governments of the Western democracies. We in the United States and Europe fail to comprehend that terror is not the "means" of expressing the core Ideas of Islam, it is the content. There are over 140 references to the ideal of killing infidels in the Quran, and as this is read as the literal word of Allah there is no room for dissent. Yes, that is hard to get our minds around, but as long as we continue to believe that terrorists represent some kind of aberration in Muslim thought we will remain sheep. Fire away.
1
A number of responses to the massacre in Paris have implored us all to respect other people's religions - as if this were an unimpeachable virtue. I have been thinking about this injunction, and have concluded that it is group think at its worst. In a free, pluralistic society it is everyone's absolute right to worship as they see fit, or not all, assuming they do not impose themselves on others or are not being coerced. Others need to respect that right, but they don't need to respect the religious expression itself. In my case, I don't respect the belief that women are unfit for the priesthood, or that gay people are evil, or that cartoon depictions of Muhammad deserve the death penalty. I resent being told what I must think, feel and value by well-meaning sympathizers. In our zeal not to offend, we have forgotten how to discern.
3
If the New York Times were really interested in making a principled stand against terrorism they would fully publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons versus hiding in their ivory tower.
2
Obama calls it "the senseless violence of a few". but the radical Islam's are very strong in at least 12 countries. This president and the liberal left refuse to admit or even mention "terrorism". We need to profile Muslims the way we profiled Italians. I don't recall any complaints about the FBI infiltrating the Italian social clubs and bugging places to catch Gotti.
1
Print the cartoon. Above the fold, page one. Killed for a cartoon, that's the whole truth. For the honor of their memory, those who now lie dead for printing it, do not pull a coward's lamentation by failing to print it,, and printing it with out cropping or blurring. What tears do you have that are real should you fail to do so?
What unfortunately is not being analyzed at such moments is the obvious lack of adequate prevention on the side of the authorities, police etc. How come that in a country which had been expecting this kind of attack for a while two or three amateurs (for they were amateurs even though possibly having some training) can without being hurt kill two policemen of whom at least one already knew that some mad shooting is happening ? How come that the site of the journal which is notoriously known for being hated by Islamic murderous thugs was not protected more intensively? I think that EU citizens should start asking questions whether their tax money on security is being spent properly. I do not think that one can just dismiss such doubts with answers that such acts are unpredictable and inevitable.
The coverage in the mainstream media including the Times has purposely ignored a primary part of the story, namely the offensive cartoons themselves. The Times today published two unrelated cartoons ridiculing Hollande and Le Pen, but nothing directly connected, not even a link. Since the cartoons are now a major element of important news, and no longer "merely" satire, is this not a victory for the terrorists? These are cartoons, not images of a beheading, and it is impossible for the reader to understand the story without seeing them. I think they should be everywhere, impossible to not see, not hidden in some dark corner of the internet.
1
While condemning Muslim fundamental fanatics, people should not forget that such fanaticism - particularly state sponsored ones - occurs in other religions as well.
Case in point is Buddhist hegemony in countries such as Sri Lanka (previously Ceylon) and Myanmar (previously Burma). In both countries people are being prosecuted for blasphemy. In Burma the authorities have turned a blind eye at the atrocities committed by Buddhist majority on Rohingyas. Aung San Suu Kyi - a Nobel Laureate for Peace no less - did NOT condemn it unequivocally. Instead of acting as a peace activist, for which she received the Nobel Prize, she acted as a callous politician.
When organizations, communities, countries or even individuals commit acts against free and civil expression, in whatever form it may be, they MUST be roundly condemned. If and when individuals commit an act of violence against such expressions, the FULL force of law and then some should come down on them.
Case in point is Buddhist hegemony in countries such as Sri Lanka (previously Ceylon) and Myanmar (previously Burma). In both countries people are being prosecuted for blasphemy. In Burma the authorities have turned a blind eye at the atrocities committed by Buddhist majority on Rohingyas. Aung San Suu Kyi - a Nobel Laureate for Peace no less - did NOT condemn it unequivocally. Instead of acting as a peace activist, for which she received the Nobel Prize, she acted as a callous politician.
When organizations, communities, countries or even individuals commit acts against free and civil expression, in whatever form it may be, they MUST be roundly condemned. If and when individuals commit an act of violence against such expressions, the FULL force of law and then some should come down on them.
I suppose that if the Mohammed cartoons are A-OK, those funny anti-Semitic cartoons from WW2 or those amusing pickaninny images from a century ago are also perfectly acceptable, and should be praised for their boldness of opinion.
1
Antisemitic cartoons are illegal in France, but cartoons mocking god and/or rabbis are legal, and Charlie Hebdo published tons of those every week.
Antiislamic cartoons are illegal in France, but cartoons mocking Mohammed and/or Imams are legal.
French laws are secular and don't make any difference between God, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Ganesha ....
Antiislamic cartoons are illegal in France, but cartoons mocking Mohammed and/or Imams are legal.
French laws are secular and don't make any difference between God, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Ganesha ....
1
At this point, I'd like to put in a plug for Israel, not the country of the settlements, but the country of press freedom. I'm often astounded by the severity of the anti-government diatribes in Haaretz, and while these may not rise to the take no prisoners level of Charle Hebdo, they exceed in vitriol anything normally seen in the NY Times. None of its Muslim adversaries can hold a candle to the level of press freedom in Israel. This of course doesn't give a pass to Israel for the settlements etc, but the events of the last few days show how much this freedom is to be cherished.
2
This is outrageously sad in so many ways.
I just want to say that I agree with those who say publish the cartoons. Publish them, discuss them, analyze them. Discuss satire and its function in a free society. Inform the public about the tradition in which Charlie Hebdo is situated.
While the blame for this heinous act rests with its perpetrators, we can't forget that without the climate created by the war on terror and the wrongheaded US response to 9/11, this may never have happened (one of the killers cited Abu Ghraib). Rather than containing the threat of al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Bush admin through gasoline on the flame and initiated an unjustified global war that could only be seen as a "crusade" by extremist and other Muslims.
But this is the situation we are in. People who resisted the Afghan and Iraq wars are now feeling the ire that drove the post-9/11 response. There is something so barbaric about assassinating these artists. This is starting to look like a truly endless conflict. What can be done? Perhaps starting with war crimes trials for US torturers would help reestablish rule of law, the sense that Enlightenment values (like habeas corpus, right to a fair trial, ban on torture, free expression, secularism) are "real" and not just window dressing? This seems like a time for all societies, Muslim and Christian, to examine their collective souls and actions, and to measure whether their actions are in alignment with their proclaimed values.
I just want to say that I agree with those who say publish the cartoons. Publish them, discuss them, analyze them. Discuss satire and its function in a free society. Inform the public about the tradition in which Charlie Hebdo is situated.
While the blame for this heinous act rests with its perpetrators, we can't forget that without the climate created by the war on terror and the wrongheaded US response to 9/11, this may never have happened (one of the killers cited Abu Ghraib). Rather than containing the threat of al Qaeda and the Taliban, the Bush admin through gasoline on the flame and initiated an unjustified global war that could only be seen as a "crusade" by extremist and other Muslims.
But this is the situation we are in. People who resisted the Afghan and Iraq wars are now feeling the ire that drove the post-9/11 response. There is something so barbaric about assassinating these artists. This is starting to look like a truly endless conflict. What can be done? Perhaps starting with war crimes trials for US torturers would help reestablish rule of law, the sense that Enlightenment values (like habeas corpus, right to a fair trial, ban on torture, free expression, secularism) are "real" and not just window dressing? This seems like a time for all societies, Muslim and Christian, to examine their collective souls and actions, and to measure whether their actions are in alignment with their proclaimed values.
14
The 'offending' images drawn by Charlie Hedbo cartoonists are shown all over most every news website I've looked at since the news of this horrific shooting occurred.
The NY Times photo that strikes me as outrageous is that of the masked gunman shooting dead the French police officer.
The NY Times isn't afraid to show this image…but a cartoon?
The NY Times photo that strikes me as outrageous is that of the masked gunman shooting dead the French police officer.
The NY Times isn't afraid to show this image…but a cartoon?
3
Comments attacking Islam and calling for the NYT to publish the caricatures of Mohammed are misguided.
Charlie Hebdo has fought injustice through a particularly French form of satire and ridicule. The aim of the caricatures was not to mock Islam, but to mock the hypocrisy of extremists who claim to follow Islam while committing heinous acts, including against fellow Muslims. Most people in France, including Muslims, understood this. Without this context, reprinting the caricatures only helps extremists foment hatred. There are better ways of showing solidarity.
As for Islam, every Muslim I know has expressed shock and outrage over the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. The police officer brutally executed on the street yesterday was Ahmed Merabet. Mustapha Ourad was one of the slain Charlie editors. Muslims are fighting and dying in Syria and Iraq in battles against ISIS. In 2012, the first victim of Mohammed Merah’s killing spree was Imad Ibn Ziaten, a French Muslim solider.
The problem is not Islam. Islam does not prevent Muslims from being good citizens. Just read the NYT article on Fordson High School in Michigan (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/sports/football/all-nighters-keep-foot....
The problem is extremism. And we cannot fight extremism with prejudice and bigotry. Neither does this honor yesterday’s slain who were gathered to plan the next issue of Charlie Hebdo. It was to be devoted to attacking racism.
Charlie Hebdo has fought injustice through a particularly French form of satire and ridicule. The aim of the caricatures was not to mock Islam, but to mock the hypocrisy of extremists who claim to follow Islam while committing heinous acts, including against fellow Muslims. Most people in France, including Muslims, understood this. Without this context, reprinting the caricatures only helps extremists foment hatred. There are better ways of showing solidarity.
As for Islam, every Muslim I know has expressed shock and outrage over the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. The police officer brutally executed on the street yesterday was Ahmed Merabet. Mustapha Ourad was one of the slain Charlie editors. Muslims are fighting and dying in Syria and Iraq in battles against ISIS. In 2012, the first victim of Mohammed Merah’s killing spree was Imad Ibn Ziaten, a French Muslim solider.
The problem is not Islam. Islam does not prevent Muslims from being good citizens. Just read the NYT article on Fordson High School in Michigan (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/sports/football/all-nighters-keep-foot....
The problem is extremism. And we cannot fight extremism with prejudice and bigotry. Neither does this honor yesterday’s slain who were gathered to plan the next issue of Charlie Hebdo. It was to be devoted to attacking racism.
23
Here is a test to your defence of freedom of expression - re print the hebdo cartoons and the jyllands posten cartoons.
3
Really think what happened in Paris is barbaric. Saying that would we be as forgiving if the ugliest humor imaginable was directed at one of our untouchables. Would Sony make a movie about the assassination of a sitting head of state of a western country? Would we forgive anyone putting out lewd cartoons of our messiah. Sure you should have the right of free speech. You still can't yell fire in a theater. Sometimes we forget the whole world does not have to be as enlightened as we are. Calling an obese child fatty is in the right of everyone but few would do it. Sometimes rights must be tempered with taste. For any people to think the way to show your anger at an affront to your religious sensibilities is to kill the offender is barbaric. The sorrow of what happened in Paris is felt worldwide. Maybe a little more understanding on both sides of the coin is needed. One year its a movie next year its a cartoon. When does it end?
1
What - no call for tougher gun control laws?
Isn't that the automatic response by the NYT to any mass shootings?
Or is that only when it happens in America?
Isn't that the automatic response by the NYT to any mass shootings?
Or is that only when it happens in America?
2
The Egyptian president yesterday called for a "reformation" of Islam, as they are 600 years behind the times.
He is a very brave man who is taking a stand. Muslims all over the world need to follow him and not these murderous nut jobs.
He is a very brave man who is taking a stand. Muslims all over the world need to follow him and not these murderous nut jobs.
6
I see careful discretion by the editorial board (EB) in this politically, and religiously, correct editorial. Charlie Hebdo cartoons were often "vulgar" and "buffoonish" even as the EB endorses French President's defense of press freedom. Great deference shown by the EB to Islam by upper and lower-casing "Prophet Muhammad" -- a deference missing in reference to other non-Christian religions in stories in the Times (and other Western publications) where their deities are simply referred to as "god", as in "god Shiva," not "God Shiva" in Hinduism, for example. Readers do notice these sorts of "small" things, you know.
According to the publishers of Charlie Hebdo " free expression was nothing without the right to offend."
Free speech is worth to be preserved, fought and defended in the Western world. The inevitable question is whether free speech can and should be used to any subject.
For example, the Charlie Hebdo was introduced in 1970 after another publication, Hara-Kiri, was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.
Making fun of Prophet Muhammad is OK. Making fun of Charles de Gaulle death was not.
Free speech is worth to be preserved, fought and defended in the Western world. The inevitable question is whether free speech can and should be used to any subject.
For example, the Charlie Hebdo was introduced in 1970 after another publication, Hara-Kiri, was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.
Making fun of Prophet Muhammad is OK. Making fun of Charles de Gaulle death was not.
2
This attack can be read as having any meaning people want to connect to it. The attack is brutal, and counterproductive but still it should be investigated with an unorthodox mindset. Is it an attack on freedom of speech? How do you know? Or is it an attack on the power of the West to do anything they like in muslem territory? If I were a muslem I could understand the feeling of powerlessness many radical muslems have in relation to the military situation in many muslem countries. When defense against Western drones and F16's is impossible, some radical people design other ways to retaliate. The problem is not to reject these other ways, we all do, but to allow ourselves an analysis from the perspective of the attacker.
“There are some who will say that Charlie Hebdo tempted the ire of Islamists one too many times, as if coldblooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.”
This is much too simplistic, as if a satirical newspaper should be free to act without consequences. That is an irresponsible notion of freedom. Anybody with any knowledge of Islam would know that ANY representations of the prophet are regarded as blasphemous. Provocative blasphemy is less a demonstration of courage than a show of distain and insult.
Freedom is a precious ideal but the casual liberal cry for unlimited freedom is juvenile.
If France, or any Western country, were true democracies then it might be appropriate to peddle the high moral tone of this editorial. But so called Western Democracy carries too large a burden of hypocrisy and too large a baggage of casual interference in the lives of others to wash it’s hands of consequences.
This is much too simplistic, as if a satirical newspaper should be free to act without consequences. That is an irresponsible notion of freedom. Anybody with any knowledge of Islam would know that ANY representations of the prophet are regarded as blasphemous. Provocative blasphemy is less a demonstration of courage than a show of distain and insult.
Freedom is a precious ideal but the casual liberal cry for unlimited freedom is juvenile.
If France, or any Western country, were true democracies then it might be appropriate to peddle the high moral tone of this editorial. But so called Western Democracy carries too large a burden of hypocrisy and too large a baggage of casual interference in the lives of others to wash it’s hands of consequences.
1
Several years ago the local newspaper here stopped publishing the cartoon Doonesbury because the content and depictions were determined to be offensive to local readers and there was no alternative cartoon to present a "balanced view". That should sound familiar to advocates of Fox News.
The popularity of cartoons is that virtually every newspaper carries a whole page of them daily. For many it's the only way they understand satire.
The popularity of cartoons is that virtually every newspaper carries a whole page of them daily. For many it's the only way they understand satire.
1
Thanks for this editorial. Everyone is in a state of shock in France and now we have to defend freedom of speech and guard against the trap that the murderers laid: the killers do not represent the muslim community. The few extremists on the right who want to fight a war of civilizations must be countered. Freedom of speech and no ethnic demonization! All decent people are united on this and shout it in the streets. "I am Charlie" means we oppose murder and bigotry.
29
I think we should stand back, and think for minute, as the host of a MSNBC show said tonight, "Should we allow offensive speech just for the sake of offending?" I will expand on this thought.
A professor(A) at Marquette University wouldn't allow a student during a debate on gay marriage to offer his opinion disagreeing on the grounds that his position might offend a gay student in the class. Then, when another professor(B) reported this incident on his blog (Google Marquette Warrior) he was accused of harassing professor (A) and banned from coming on campus. Did the New York Times report that?
How about Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter, or Ayaan Hirsi, not allowed to speak at American colleges because their beliefs did not fit liberal politically correct ideas, that they might offend someone on the left?
Or a silent anti abortion protest on the campus of the U of C, Santa Barbara was attacked by a professor and several students who ripped down posters and carried them away. The administration did not condemn the unnecessary and spiteful attack by a member of its faculty. Instead, it attacked the anti-abortion crusaders and evangelical types who came to campus to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another.
I think those who are outraged by these terrorists-who hold up ink pens, send angry hashtags as their activism need to remember just what free speech they allow in their politically correct world they created. Hypocrisy is a difficult drink to swallow
A professor(A) at Marquette University wouldn't allow a student during a debate on gay marriage to offer his opinion disagreeing on the grounds that his position might offend a gay student in the class. Then, when another professor(B) reported this incident on his blog (Google Marquette Warrior) he was accused of harassing professor (A) and banned from coming on campus. Did the New York Times report that?
How about Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter, or Ayaan Hirsi, not allowed to speak at American colleges because their beliefs did not fit liberal politically correct ideas, that they might offend someone on the left?
Or a silent anti abortion protest on the campus of the U of C, Santa Barbara was attacked by a professor and several students who ripped down posters and carried them away. The administration did not condemn the unnecessary and spiteful attack by a member of its faculty. Instead, it attacked the anti-abortion crusaders and evangelical types who came to campus to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another.
I think those who are outraged by these terrorists-who hold up ink pens, send angry hashtags as their activism need to remember just what free speech they allow in their politically correct world they created. Hypocrisy is a difficult drink to swallow
1
Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for an anti-Semitic cartoon - so let's not paint them as the heroes here. They censor themselves, too: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/03/france.pressandpublishing
2
I'd like to point out that, at this point, the man who surrendered yesterday is merely a suspect( who says he surrendered because he saw his name on social media) and should therefore not be referred to as "one of the three". What happened yesterday was a heinous attack on our values and freedoms but we should be weary of jumping to conclusions about the identity of the killers.
3
This horrific massacre has no justification, nor does any other act of violence, ever, against any human being. Let us not fall, yet again, into placing the guilty, and the victims, into categories, as if that mattered. Every day, every hour, every minute, every second, humans die everywhere from crimes against humanity, or from the quirks of Nature. And we pay no attention--it doesn't concern us. We have to have some dramatic event, which touches our national pride, our personal identity, in order to react vigorously--for a time, with words, slogans, demonstrations of solidarity--but to whom, and for what? We are all human beings on the same planet. Will we not begin to take care of each other, all of us, everywhere, all the time? Without having to crow about it?
Unfortunately, calling a spade a spade is not one of the NYT's hallmarks, despite its repeated pathetic attempts to portray itself as the champion of 'liberté, egalité and fraternité' .
Skirting the real problems by resorting to highfalutin language is its recourse. The NYT has the courage to cover things only when it feels safe. In this regard, Charlie Hebdo is infinitely more a champion of free speech than the NYT has ever been.
Skirting the real problems by resorting to highfalutin language is its recourse. The NYT has the courage to cover things only when it feels safe. In this regard, Charlie Hebdo is infinitely more a champion of free speech than the NYT has ever been.
3
freedom is the religion of life and humanity. without it, there is no life' and no humanity, for sure! . tolerance is the virtue of the God. so any act of intolerance in the name of god is anti god.hope, freedom lives forever. and for that the entire humanity must say :'' I a charlie''
14
In a free and democratic society,any religion or group that threatens others for having differing beliefs needs to be outlawed.
2
If you truly believe that, "It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy." then why haven't you printed the cartoons that are at the heart of the story?
I suspect that you fear the consequences to the institution and to yourselves. In other words you've been terrorized. Your choice is understandable, but let's see it for what it is.
I suspect that you fear the consequences to the institution and to yourselves. In other words you've been terrorized. Your choice is understandable, but let's see it for what it is.
3
Anyone who uses this horrific crime to vilify all Muslims and the Islamic religion is practicing a uniquely ignorant form of tribalism. There are millions and millions of decent, peaceful, law-abiding, honorable Muslims all over the world, and they are condemning these attacks just as much as anyone else. Blaming Islam for these attacks is like blaming all Christians for Timothy McVeigh's bombing of Oklahoma City or Eric Rudolph for bombing the Olympics. McViegh and Rudolph both called themselves Christians - they were part of the ultra-extremist far right Christian Identity Movement. Stop condemning all of Islam for the sick acts of a few extremists.
1
If more moderate Muslims have spoken out against the acts of the fanatical ones, I have yet to read of it. Give me some evidence, please.
1
New York Times, why don't you publish some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, in solidarity? You can start with the most blasphemous ones. It may be true that some of the provocative and occasionally mean-spirited satire that Charlie Hebdo has published in the past can be, shall we say, less than helpful for the public discourse. But at the moment, that is entirely irrelevant. When a worldwide group of thugs is willing to kill you for publishing something, that's when publishing it--widely, boldly, fearlessly--is all the more important.
3
In France , the emotion is intense. In Clermont -Ferrand , 3 hours from Paris by train, we lost two people. Two journalists . Last night , a large silent demonstration was held in Clermont -Ferrand . 3000 people. We raised our pens into the sky to defend freedom of expression. Then we filed pens ground one by one . Wonderful tribute . The next few days will be difficult but we will recover . It can make us bend but never break us.
21
After being sickened all yesterday (I know well the section of Paris where the Charlie Hebdo offices are), I wept reading your post. We are fighting a battle for journalists here too. Thank you for being part of it and for being so brave.
1
The terrorist attack on the Charlie Hebdo is an attack on human civilisation. It's time the civilised world puts its collective mind and act together to confront this scourge of terrorism.
10
Another tragic obscene act. Another cold blooded murder. Suspects are again violent Islamic extremists. The world comes together in mourning the deaths.
But something very important is missing. After 9/11 the popular phrase "an attack on our way of life" was the echoed throughout the land. After the attack in Paris we are hearing it was "an attack on our freedom of speech". These are half-truths ...... and very shallow responses. Once again no one is prepared to go further and try to really pursue answers to the question "WHY?". No one is willing to delve into root causes, because somehow this would be disrespectful, unpatriotic, or politically incorrect.
But we fail miserably if we as a society keep avoiding the question "WHY?". Why is it that in the past couple of decades the numbers of violent extremists has grown into the current plague? If we understand what has fed the extremists, we have a chance of starving the cancer in our midst. If we fail to understand, our response will continue to be nearsighted and handicapped.
But something very important is missing. After 9/11 the popular phrase "an attack on our way of life" was the echoed throughout the land. After the attack in Paris we are hearing it was "an attack on our freedom of speech". These are half-truths ...... and very shallow responses. Once again no one is prepared to go further and try to really pursue answers to the question "WHY?". No one is willing to delve into root causes, because somehow this would be disrespectful, unpatriotic, or politically incorrect.
But we fail miserably if we as a society keep avoiding the question "WHY?". Why is it that in the past couple of decades the numbers of violent extremists has grown into the current plague? If we understand what has fed the extremists, we have a chance of starving the cancer in our midst. If we fail to understand, our response will continue to be nearsighted and handicapped.
6
Here is why Muslim don't get to claim that Islamic terrorists don't represent them:if you raise somebody in your religion and indoctrinate into them that anyone who is not a member is somehow a lesser being before your deity, then you've laid the groundwork for the results. If your "holy book" includes over 100 verses that call your adherents to wage war on non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule, then don't be surprised when some of them go ahead and do that, particularly when you've convinced them that a book or the mere image of a prophet is more sacred than the life of another human being.
Those extremists that most Muslims now deny as their own were in their mosques, listened to their imams and learned from their fellow Muslims about right and wrong. If they later went off kilter, then shame on the Muslim community that was raising them because they failed to inoculate them from evils of extremism. You want to take back your religion? Well, start with zero tolerance of intolerance from imams and even the koran. Teach over and over that the life of even a non-believer is more sacred than any insult you perceive to your religion from the way someone speaks, writes, dresses, has sex, or decides to express his/her beliefs, including about your deity. Anything less, and you'll continue to become more and more complicit in the horrific results like yesterday's.
Those extremists that most Muslims now deny as their own were in their mosques, listened to their imams and learned from their fellow Muslims about right and wrong. If they later went off kilter, then shame on the Muslim community that was raising them because they failed to inoculate them from evils of extremism. You want to take back your religion? Well, start with zero tolerance of intolerance from imams and even the koran. Teach over and over that the life of even a non-believer is more sacred than any insult you perceive to your religion from the way someone speaks, writes, dresses, has sex, or decides to express his/her beliefs, including about your deity. Anything less, and you'll continue to become more and more complicit in the horrific results like yesterday's.
12
Please publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons! We need to see ourselves what angered Muslim so much. Protect free speech. More, the writing was on the Paris walls as appeasement of Muslims all overt Europe takes place. Israel must be better understood given the fact that killing of Israeli civilians by radical Jihadists is so common.
5
remember, they USED to publush a cartoonn (way back whan) entitled, "The Urge To Kill." i remember that cartoon.
If we all always recognized and remembered that there is only one biological evolutionary natural neutral sexual selected fit race that began in East Africa about 180-200 thousand year ago then perhaps we would always be our brother and sister's keeper. We would recall and accept that we are all divinely created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In such a world any person who kills and wounds innocent civilians would be equally condemned, captured and punished. All innocent civilians who are killed or wounded by persons, organizations or nations would be equally known, mourned and remembered. Every innocent's grief and misery would be a bell tolling for ourselves, our family and friends.
While we so easily see and identify with our fellow tribesmen by race, color, ethnicity, faith, socioeconomics, politics, education and nationality, it is not natural nor normal to see the other as equally worthy moral and just.
Imagine that you are from and live in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Mali, South Sudan, Sudan, West Bank, East Jerusalem, America, Russia, China, France, Honduras, Mexico, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Oman, Qatar, UAE.
Imagine if we knew the name, face, age and history of every killed and wounded terrorist victim and mourned together. Universal scorn for terrorists.
In such a world any person who kills and wounds innocent civilians would be equally condemned, captured and punished. All innocent civilians who are killed or wounded by persons, organizations or nations would be equally known, mourned and remembered. Every innocent's grief and misery would be a bell tolling for ourselves, our family and friends.
While we so easily see and identify with our fellow tribesmen by race, color, ethnicity, faith, socioeconomics, politics, education and nationality, it is not natural nor normal to see the other as equally worthy moral and just.
Imagine that you are from and live in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Mali, South Sudan, Sudan, West Bank, East Jerusalem, America, Russia, China, France, Honduras, Mexico, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Oman, Qatar, UAE.
Imagine if we knew the name, face, age and history of every killed and wounded terrorist victim and mourned together. Universal scorn for terrorists.
1
...Israel, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Central African Republic, Guinea, El Salvador, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Japan, Germany. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Australia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Madagascar, Bolivia.....
Marine Le Pen will be the next president of France, and with good reasons!
1
God forbid!
Islam is not to blame. Only a tiny fraction of Muslims would be willing to fly planes into a skyscraper. But there's this base rate problem (a statistical term). The absolute number would be no more than 20 million or so. In percentage terms, a trivial fraction in a large ocean.
I hope the French charge and try these miserable excuses for human beings as the common criminals they are. May they rot in prison for the rest of their lives.
1
Now that they have been identified and are being hunted, I hope the don't take it upon their miserable selves to blow themselves up taking more innocent lives with them. They now have nothing to lose. Let's hope they are as cowardly in that respect as we all know them to be.
All western newspapers, in solidarity with one another and the concept of freedom of speech, should run a huge banner across the top of the front page of every western newspaper stating "Je suis Charlie" and use the rest of the front page one of the provocative satirical cartoons from Charlie Hebdo.
4
The culprits are really the weapons that these criminals used in the shootings.
Trace these weapons and make sure that they are hard to obtain. It is very hard to kill 12 people with a knife.
Trace these weapons and make sure that they are hard to obtain. It is very hard to kill 12 people with a knife.
1
The most productive response would be for the media to collectively publish all the images immediately. The Times' refusal to do so is craven and cowardly. The fear of offense is outweighed by the need to assert freedom of expression. Not dissimilar to defending the 1977 Neo-Nazis march in Skokie. In this world, silence is complicity.
10
Why doesn't the Times print the cartoons so distasteful to these violent, stupid fanatics? Why have we forgotten that when certain people like Julian Assange published things found offensive by the United State's Secret Government, they are essentially threatened with imprisonment, perhaps "rendering"(i.e. Cheney-Boarding" in some undisclosed dungeon.
Let freedom of expression reign!!!
Let freedom of expression reign!!!
3
Let me see. NYPD cops turn away from a mayor who makes incendiary remarks before two cops are killed and this is an assault on public order - not free speech. When cartoonisst are killed for a religious satire in Paris, it is a admirable expression of free speech and they are martyrs for a free press. What exactly is the edirorial balancing test?
1
An fanatical obsession with abstract principles usually leads to a departure from common sense, and frequently from common decency--something both the murderers and the newspaper were guilty of.
You may not like Roman Catholicism, but you would encounter general disapproval if you put a sign on your lawn showing the Pope in a sexual pose, just to exercise your "freedom of speech" on your Catholic neighbour. This has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy; it's about how to live with one another.
We're talking about the tension between the right to exercise one's "freedom of speech" and knowing when it's unwise to do so. How many times in your life have you refrained from blurting something out because you know that it would either be gratuitously insulting or even destructive in the long run?
Slavish adherence to so-called "principles" is often just dumb--especially when it makes others hurt and angry. I don't know why people don't apply the experience of their own lives to the larger scenarios; there is no difference.
You may not like Roman Catholicism, but you would encounter general disapproval if you put a sign on your lawn showing the Pope in a sexual pose, just to exercise your "freedom of speech" on your Catholic neighbour. This has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy; it's about how to live with one another.
We're talking about the tension between the right to exercise one's "freedom of speech" and knowing when it's unwise to do so. How many times in your life have you refrained from blurting something out because you know that it would either be gratuitously insulting or even destructive in the long run?
Slavish adherence to so-called "principles" is often just dumb--especially when it makes others hurt and angry. I don't know why people don't apply the experience of their own lives to the larger scenarios; there is no difference.
5
@Nick Wright: Charlie Hebdo has also posted cartoons ridiculing the Pope, but inflamed Catholics didn't rise up and murder the editorial staff.
3
"Fighting words" are not protected under the First Amendment (or the French equivalent). What constitutes fighting words depends on the circumstances. Clearly, the words used here were viewed as fighting words by the terrorists, but not by Charlie Hebdo. Whether they were fighting words in fact is a matter for the Courts. One news source defending another news source, as here, is free to state its opinion. But this opinion is clearly biased and not necessarily a good indication of how a court would rule.
Please print the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, all of them. So much talk about the wars, you don't need to defend freedom now yourselves, just exercise it.
11
Unfortunately, I don't think it matters much what newspapers or presidents think about terrorism. We can all hope that denouncing these actions will somehow prevent future attacks, but I don't think they will.
As I peruse the other news sites, I see that there's been a growing coagulation of Islamist isolationism in France. It seems like this global war of terror has backfired in a very big way. It was caused mostly by US actions in Iraq.
World citizens are smarter than US politicians think they are. Dick Cheney's lies don't have an effect on them because they don't watch Meet the Press and other morning shows of propaganda. Instead, they watch their own shows of similar propaganda.
These are people to start with. They become radicalized, not because there's something wrong with them, but because the world has taken a pretty radical turn away from human rights and justice. Even many of those in the Muslim world who denounce the US today used to look upon us with hope, even if they didn't dare mention it to their peers. That is gone.
I think the French government is doing the right thing in the way it is handling this. I think that free speech has to be defended. But will it work? Against this, I don't think so.
So what will work? Unfortunately, I don't see hope on the horizon. There is no beacon of hope in the world anymore. We blew it, big time, and in more ways than one.
I think we have to hope for a new world order that is still under the horizon.
As I peruse the other news sites, I see that there's been a growing coagulation of Islamist isolationism in France. It seems like this global war of terror has backfired in a very big way. It was caused mostly by US actions in Iraq.
World citizens are smarter than US politicians think they are. Dick Cheney's lies don't have an effect on them because they don't watch Meet the Press and other morning shows of propaganda. Instead, they watch their own shows of similar propaganda.
These are people to start with. They become radicalized, not because there's something wrong with them, but because the world has taken a pretty radical turn away from human rights and justice. Even many of those in the Muslim world who denounce the US today used to look upon us with hope, even if they didn't dare mention it to their peers. That is gone.
I think the French government is doing the right thing in the way it is handling this. I think that free speech has to be defended. But will it work? Against this, I don't think so.
So what will work? Unfortunately, I don't see hope on the horizon. There is no beacon of hope in the world anymore. We blew it, big time, and in more ways than one.
I think we have to hope for a new world order that is still under the horizon.
1
The Times, which in general I love and read every day, is not nearly as brave as Chsrlie Hebdo. Have we decided to let some murderers and hackers rule us and decide what we read and watch? We have a right to offend without being killed. Let's be clear, and not make excuses for radical Islamic murderers. Let's stop calling them lone wolves or making excuses for them, saying they are marginalized or despairing. Why do we need to say what is the real Islam? Why don't more Muslims speak up? The murderous radical islamists say their religion is the basis of what they do, and represent an unfortunately numerous minority of Muslims. It would be great to see 10,000 or more Muslims demonstrate in Paris in solidarity with the truly brave martyred staff of Charlie Hebdo in support of the right to offend!
5
I am dismayed that so many readers think the NY Times should republish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Certainly people should have freedom of expression, including the freedom to be offensive, without being murdered for it. The murderers must be hunted down and prosecuted. But when there is so much hatred and misunderstanding already, when thousands of innocents on both sides have been slaughtered, when readers even say things like "Islam is a disgrace to modern civilization," why should the Times pour gasoline on the fire?
7
And those saying the NYTimes should print the cartoons don't work at the NYTimes offices. So much easier said than done when you are not the one responsible for peoples' lives.
1
In your opinion, when would be a better time? Is it not news? When the violently offended no longer feel violently offended by a news report? When will that be? Will I, a nonreligious bystander, always be forbidden to view images which others, calling themselves devout, say offends them? Will there ever come a time, in your opinion, when the fire goes out?
1
The cowardice displayed by the NY Times (and almost every other major newspaper in the U.S.) in deciding to refrain from publishing the "Danish cartoons" in 2005-2006 is a disgraceful example of the self-censorship Martha urges now be repeated. Perhaps what I have just written will "pour gasoline on the fire"; perhaps the NY Times personnel editing this comment section should be judicious and delete my remarks.
Why are you so avid in urging a capitulation to a regressive mentality that aims to deprive you of a liberty that you should cherish?!
Why are you so avid in urging a capitulation to a regressive mentality that aims to deprive you of a liberty that you should cherish?!
1
It's a very, very sad day when anyone anywhere feels free to kill someone merely because they disagree with their sense of humor, because they made fun of their religion, or anything else. All too often in today's world, any words can be taken as insulting or fighting words. However, to escalate to killing is uncivilized to say the least. Killing another person because you disagree with them denies them life, makes it impossible for others to want to hear the opposing point of view, and denies the validity of the claim that the humor or the point of view was disrespectful. All these criminals proved was that their version of Islam is violent, cannot handle anything other than blind reverence, and that it's fanatic. In a global, interconnected world that sort of religion is not a force for good.
5
"It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy."
In that case, the NYT should put its money where its mouth is: Publish the cartoons.
In that case, the NYT should put its money where its mouth is: Publish the cartoons.
13
Charlie Hebdo was completely free to print offensive material. It was assaulted for distributing its profound disrespect of others. If I shouted offensive epithets in a Washington, D.C. subway, I would expect to be assaulted. The assault is independent of my freedom of speech. Moreover, as my disrespectful speech is protected by law, the resulting assaults are crimes. So. I have free speech. My offensive speech provokes violence. I am dead. The person who killed me is in prison or shot trying to escape. Free speech wins. Je Suis Charlie.
2
The Muslim extremists have already won. If I recall correctly, the USA media (NYT, WP, and CNN) caved into the extremist at the time of the Danish Muhammad cartoons by not showing them. So the freedom of the press and of expression went down the toilet. Everyday in the world something is published that is offensive to someone but, in general, those offended seldom kill anyone.
11
Yes sirree! Freedom anywhere is freedom everywhere. Every attack on freedom represents one more attack on freedom. Let's not be intimidated by attacks on our freedom. Let's be free.
Yrs sincerely,
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
Yrs sincerely,
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
1
As someone stated an hour ago (Peter), this newspaper should have the courage to reprint some of Charlie Hebdo's covers - not the real nasty ones - but the ones we ALL can laugh at. All American mainstream TV outlets are guilty of the same thing.
10
There have been non-stop anti-Semitic attacks in France perpetrated by (extremist?) Muslims. The French response has always been we will not abide anti-Semitic attacks like this, but they do not reflect a trend, just the acts of individuals, probably deranged. It is doubtful that anybody believed this; certainly French Jews do not.
But now the attack is not against Jews although Georges Wolinski was a Jew born in Tunisia to a Polish father and Tunisian mother.
Perhaps now the French will wake up to the reality of Islamic extremism not in their backyard but in the very center of their existence and particularly ideological existence.
But now the attack is not against Jews although Georges Wolinski was a Jew born in Tunisia to a Polish father and Tunisian mother.
Perhaps now the French will wake up to the reality of Islamic extremism not in their backyard but in the very center of their existence and particularly ideological existence.
15
A Sad Day for all the world and especially France.
All the world has a choice from China to the Champs Elysees. Terrorism must be rejected as an instrument of policy on any level by any faction for any reason.
Clearly and fundamentally it cannot be used to silence freedom of expression or thought in the West or anywhere else. Any attempt to do so is act of enslavement and abhorrent to all our concepts of freedom.
Today's events in Paris make this choice startlingly clear.
Make no mistake we are in a war, whether we have declared it today or not.
Je suis Charlie.
All the world has a choice from China to the Champs Elysees. Terrorism must be rejected as an instrument of policy on any level by any faction for any reason.
Clearly and fundamentally it cannot be used to silence freedom of expression or thought in the West or anywhere else. Any attempt to do so is act of enslavement and abhorrent to all our concepts of freedom.
Today's events in Paris make this choice startlingly clear.
Make no mistake we are in a war, whether we have declared it today or not.
Je suis Charlie.
9
Question: have any Islamic leaders come out and condemned this murder?
10
you think this was about islam? it isn't. this is about people who believe they can impose their faith, (opinions, politics, sexual preferences, etc.) on others. it's not about Islam, but about us.
13
Yes. Google and you will find many. Twitter is full of them.
Probably, but I guess instead of looking into it we can toss out rhetorical questions.
I didn't find the sample cartoons that were widely available today particularly astute, funny, or even artistically drawn. There's no law against bad art. And bad art should not have a death sentence.
When I saw the samples, my first thought was the cartoons from 19th century America depicting newly emancipated slaves with big lips and as dumb animals. Illegal? No. But its like visual bullying, because the person doing it has all the power, and they are doing it to someone or a group with none. An empathetic individual might have the idea to degrade the weak...and let it pass unfulfilled. The cartoonists here couldn't do that. They couldn't let it pass.
The sample cartoons were something I would imagine seeing in a KKK newsletter if done by the US equivalent organization.
When I saw the samples, my first thought was the cartoons from 19th century America depicting newly emancipated slaves with big lips and as dumb animals. Illegal? No. But its like visual bullying, because the person doing it has all the power, and they are doing it to someone or a group with none. An empathetic individual might have the idea to degrade the weak...and let it pass unfulfilled. The cartoonists here couldn't do that. They couldn't let it pass.
The sample cartoons were something I would imagine seeing in a KKK newsletter if done by the US equivalent organization.
11
I'd like to say as clearly as I can, in their memory, that all of the slain cartoonists and journalists were strongly committed to peace, justice and inclusion. They were humanists, not the KKK. Read their bios before you go around calling them racists. They despised Le Pen and the forces of anti-immigration and nationalism. And what do you mean by saying that they make fun of people who are weaker? The cartoons I saw made fun of Hollande, of Le Pen and other right-wing politicians, and radical Islam. As yesterday illustrated all too well, the latter isn't weak at all. Stupid, evil and vicious, yes, but quite powerful.
1
You have missed, to use a French expression, an opportunity to keep quiet. Charlie Hebdo doesn't go after "the weak", it goes after powerful people and organizations. And everybody looks terrible in caricatures. That's the whole point of that particular genre, which has a long and distinguished tradition that also flourished in eighteenth-century Britain.
1
Except, that unlike the KKK, Charlie's Hebdo aimed at EVERY RELIGION, EVERY politician, no sacred cow; that's the difference. I am surprised by most comments asking for the publishing of these cartoons. I just finished reading my 2 morning papers and it was full of these cartoos. I know Charlie Hebdo; it can be bought anywhere in Montréal. The only cartoons I did not like, were the scatological ones, because it cuts my appetite. However, what is scary by some comments read this morning, is it is implying that we can KILL somoene because we feel offended by a cartoon. Misère, mes voisins me font peur!!!!!!
1
All of this pro free speech hypocrisy appears to be a not so thinly veiled attack on Muslims/Islam.
Back inn 2009, a writer for Hebdo was fired and charged with inciting racial hatred by comments he made about Sarkozy's son converting to Judaism. The satire was considered anti-semitic. I don't recall any free speech outrage over that firing. Not even a mention of it in the current news cycle.
Check out the story from 2009: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartooni...
Back inn 2009, a writer for Hebdo was fired and charged with inciting racial hatred by comments he made about Sarkozy's son converting to Judaism. The satire was considered anti-semitic. I don't recall any free speech outrage over that firing. Not even a mention of it in the current news cycle.
Check out the story from 2009: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartooni...
6
The difference between those two events is: in one instance, one guy lost his job. In the second instance, 12 people lost their lives and 10 people were seriously wounded!
1
It is very well to write "This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush ... or [to seek] political advantage with talk of 'denial and hypocrisy' about 'Islamic fundamentalism.'” But at the same time it is incorrect to minimize the problem of, yes, Islamic fundamentalism. With over one billion Muslims around the world, it takes only a small percentage to generate a large number of people who support these terrorist acts. Unfortunately no one has suggested a workable solution to this problem, other than to pretend that if we are "decent enough" it will somehow go away. But this is a clash of cultures which will not simply disappear because we would like it to. These are the values of ISIS, of the Taliban, of Boko Haram, of Al Quaida, and we Western Liberals can't simply wish them away, or pretend that they haven't reached our shores.
97
Shocking demonstration of violence against the proverbial "pen" in Paris. However, NYTs eight paragraph editorial writeup had seven paragraphs of news and is not an editorial at a level expected from the mighty wielder of the "pen" in the USA. A lot of conviction missing in the editorial.
12
"In France, “Je suis Charlie” — “I am Charlie” — has gone viral as the words to show solidarity with the victims at Charlie Hebdo."
Words are cheap. You want to show solidarity with the victims at Charlie Hebdo? Publish the cartoons they did. Satirize the subjects they did. Take up the free speech mantle they were willing to carry. I am not holding my breath. If I recall correctly the NYT refused to publish the cartoon images a Danish newspaper did in 2006 because you found them a 'gratuitous assault on religious symbols'. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/opinion/07tue2.html
We can disagree on which religions you apply that standard but the basic fact remains: words are cheap.
Words are cheap. You want to show solidarity with the victims at Charlie Hebdo? Publish the cartoons they did. Satirize the subjects they did. Take up the free speech mantle they were willing to carry. I am not holding my breath. If I recall correctly the NYT refused to publish the cartoon images a Danish newspaper did in 2006 because you found them a 'gratuitous assault on religious symbols'. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/opinion/07tue2.html
We can disagree on which religions you apply that standard but the basic fact remains: words are cheap.
14
It would be encouraging to see the Times publish some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons the fundamentalists found so offensive as a show of solidarity with journalists and advocates of free speech everywhere.
16
I am an atheist, for whatever that is worth.
That being said, the maligning of 1.7 billion Muslims by the Western press is uncomfortable and distressing. And it is happening over and over with increasing regularity. The idea that among the 1.7 billion Muslims, most of them would have found the cartoon in question so offensive as to justify mass murder is ludicrous.
Would we openly and tolerantly allow overtly anti-Semitic cartoons in our media, say of the Jewish Prophets, as easily as we tolerate cartoons that in some Islamic eyes debase the Prophet, Muhammed? We don't even tolerate cartoons depicting the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians in the establishment media or even the next tier.
Would we tolerate cartoons that debase Jesus? Imagine the cartoon that could be drawn depicting Jesus's relationship with John, the Beloved Disciple, or even with Mary Magdalene.
We wouldn't even consider publishing something like that in any of our medias.
And let's not forget the plays or the books or the movies that have cast Jesus in an unflattering light that have been shut down all over this country over many decades.
The vileness of these Islamic extremists has to be confronted, but let's confront all the religious extremists, Christian, Jewish and Islamic and not pretend that Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than Christian or Jewish extremists.
That being said, the maligning of 1.7 billion Muslims by the Western press is uncomfortable and distressing. And it is happening over and over with increasing regularity. The idea that among the 1.7 billion Muslims, most of them would have found the cartoon in question so offensive as to justify mass murder is ludicrous.
Would we openly and tolerantly allow overtly anti-Semitic cartoons in our media, say of the Jewish Prophets, as easily as we tolerate cartoons that in some Islamic eyes debase the Prophet, Muhammed? We don't even tolerate cartoons depicting the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians in the establishment media or even the next tier.
Would we tolerate cartoons that debase Jesus? Imagine the cartoon that could be drawn depicting Jesus's relationship with John, the Beloved Disciple, or even with Mary Magdalene.
We wouldn't even consider publishing something like that in any of our medias.
And let's not forget the plays or the books or the movies that have cast Jesus in an unflattering light that have been shut down all over this country over many decades.
The vileness of these Islamic extremists has to be confronted, but let's confront all the religious extremists, Christian, Jewish and Islamic and not pretend that Islamic extremists are far more dangerous than Christian or Jewish extremists.
12
Would we tolerate Anti Semetic and Anti- Christian independent publications?? Are you joking? Yes. Yes we would and do. We can ( and do) bring pressure on those in the chain of distribution. But we don't do anything about the independently produced speech itself ( white power blogs etc...) We certainly don't physically harm those who publish it. Because once we do we give up all rights to confront what has offended us. It no longer matters. The act of violence is so wrong that the violent lose all grounds on which to explain their grievance.
3
I guess you never saw Monty Pythons Life of Brian
There are a lot of beautiful words by media outlets across America, yet I have yet to see reprints of the cartoons deemed most offensive, either those published in Denmark or France. I know it's scary, but everyone needs to publish these cartoons, often and everywhere. There's a message for you. It's not a question of content; it's a question of rights.
15
" but everyone needs to publish these cartoons, often and everywhere."
Why? Newspapers have a freedom to choose what to publish and when. If they decide the cartoons are actually tasteless, they will not publish them. We're already exercising our freedom of speech by commenting here... publishing the cartoons will not change the case either way.
Why? Newspapers have a freedom to choose what to publish and when. If they decide the cartoons are actually tasteless, they will not publish them. We're already exercising our freedom of speech by commenting here... publishing the cartoons will not change the case either way.
1
Publish the cartoons, newspaper of record. It's news now.
Some people might just be even more offended by the live video on your front page of Muslim extremists, having just killed 10 journalists and another officer (not perpetrated by the tooth fairies, Kristoff) returning to execute a police officer who of course published nothing.
Beheadings photos, before shots anyway, are pretty offensive too. But maybe not as much as cartoonish drawings of the pedophile prophet?
Some people might just be even more offended by the live video on your front page of Muslim extremists, having just killed 10 journalists and another officer (not perpetrated by the tooth fairies, Kristoff) returning to execute a police officer who of course published nothing.
Beheadings photos, before shots anyway, are pretty offensive too. But maybe not as much as cartoonish drawings of the pedophile prophet?
18
Isn't it time we recognize for all the greatness that was once the Islamic world that was many centuries ago. Now the Islamic world, especially the Arab world has nothing anyone else wants but oi. This long failure has caused, not the West, not the United States, not Israel, a multi-sided rift within Islam. The rest of us are caught in the crossfire of Muslims demonstrating who is on the right path. Even as many Muslims have condemned this attack what are they doing to stop future ones?
2
The only reaction to this kind of incident should be to publish the cartoons, daily, in every newspaper and on every public space, buses and billboards, etc, until those that would justify killing people over cartoons (even if only through their silence) come to their senses and admit how wrong they were to have ever taken such a ludicrous position.
21
It feels like the NYT has to write this same editorial every sixty days.
Look: If the deaths of two African-American men at the hands of the American police is sufficient to spark a national conversation about race and the forces of order, one would think that the deaths of tens of thousands -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- at the hands of Islamists should be sufficient to spark an international conversation in the Muslim ummah about the nature of Islam. The fact is, the "This is not Islam, they are not real Muslims" rejoinder loses its potency after the ten thousandth victim, whether the perpetrators are ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or the butchers of Paris.
Look: If the deaths of two African-American men at the hands of the American police is sufficient to spark a national conversation about race and the forces of order, one would think that the deaths of tens of thousands -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- at the hands of Islamists should be sufficient to spark an international conversation in the Muslim ummah about the nature of Islam. The fact is, the "This is not Islam, they are not real Muslims" rejoinder loses its potency after the ten thousandth victim, whether the perpetrators are ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or the butchers of Paris.
21
Perhaps the New York Times remembers its editorial in which it referred to the extremely talented African-French humorist Dieudonné Mbala as a "French Clown" in protest to his particular brand of abrasive, often hilarious satiric sketches. His mockery targets every ethnic group on this planet; but some listeners, including many among the media, have decided that in his case freedom of expression should not be allowed, and that he should be silenced. Freedom of expression should be a right of everyone; it should not just exist for those who think like we do -- or those from our group,-- and we should always speak up and defend it no matter who the speakers are or whether we agree with them or not. We seek objective reasoning and peace.
9
There is a huge difference between silencing someone through court, and silencing somoene with a machine gun: barbarism.
"We seek objective reasoning and peace."
In fact, your post indicates that you seek anything but. To label this adulator of a Holocaust Denier like Faurisson a "French Clown" is letting him off easy: "evil racist" is more like. Notice I don't call for banning his speech, any more than I do banning the words of those who speak against him. "Objective reasoning" seems to imply to you, however, that your hero not only is entitled to free speech, but also should be spared any criticism by others exercising their right of free speech.
In fact, your post indicates that you seek anything but. To label this adulator of a Holocaust Denier like Faurisson a "French Clown" is letting him off easy: "evil racist" is more like. Notice I don't call for banning his speech, any more than I do banning the words of those who speak against him. "Objective reasoning" seems to imply to you, however, that your hero not only is entitled to free speech, but also should be spared any criticism by others exercising their right of free speech.
Sociopaths, barbarians and Islamic fundamentalists have decided that humor and satire (especially directed against them) are sins punishable by death and mutilation. It's time to fight them, not just with force but with ridicule. They don't speak for religion, but for stupidity, cruelty and primitivism - how utterly ridiculous can you get. People who argue for "respect" miss the point. You come to the West - the freedom to guffaw is part of the deal. Don't like it? Feel free to go back to some wretched place in the Middle East where humor and women's faces and thinking for yourself are all outlawed.
Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.
17
How can you NOT provoke Islamic radicals - they are basically the religious equivalent to a straight man in a comedic team.
5
This action was certainly heinous and terrible and every other adjective you an think of. It is curious, though, why the editors of the Times choose to call this action a "terrorist' act committed by "terrorists"; and dozens if not 100s of other acts committed around the globe are committed by 'mere'(sic) "gunmen". Why aren't they called by what they truly are- TERRORISTS?
3
The Times casually jumped on the Bush Administration's propaganda word train by using the phrase "war on terror." The phrase was and is intentionally vague. Just like the word "terrorism," it is a large linguistic vat into which just about anyone can be dropped.
Why not report the act for what it is, which is one of religious vengeance and senseless violence. Let's give this reporting some linguistic specificity, which is what it deserves.
Calling this "terrorism" is just jingoistic and lazy reporting.
We deserve better from the Times.
Why not report the act for what it is, which is one of religious vengeance and senseless violence. Let's give this reporting some linguistic specificity, which is what it deserves.
Calling this "terrorism" is just jingoistic and lazy reporting.
We deserve better from the Times.
6
A terrorist is one who acts in a way intended to provoke terror in order to force others to do what he wants. If the attack on Charlie Hebdo to attempt to force publications to not print 'offensive' cartoons does not meet that description, I do not know what would. If the perpetrators are terrorists, the action is terrorism. If one wants "linguistic specificity", then refer to it as religious terrorism or Islamic terrorism, but terrorism it is and remains.
2
Freedom is not an act of cowardice. I urge all free thinking journalists to understand the strength of freedom by Googling " Axis of Evil WWII " then select images.
Never back down to cowards and their ideology, threats and intent to minimize freedom. It is your job as journalists it shine a light for the rest of us to see exactly how small minded these cowards are. Think bigger than those who oppose you.
Never back down to cowards and their ideology, threats and intent to minimize freedom. It is your job as journalists it shine a light for the rest of us to see exactly how small minded these cowards are. Think bigger than those who oppose you.
1
Isn't it about time the European Union took strong action against the Islamic extremist groups that are the wellspring for these terriosts? If The EU countries would take the necessary military action against ISIS, Al Qada, etc. and the countries that harbor and support them, they (the EU), with the support of the United States, could effectively end organized Islamic terrorism. If such action is coupled with an appropriate crackdown on home grown radicals, who advocate and support terrorism, and with encouraging, or imposing if necessary, a fair settlement of the Palestine/Israel issues, perhaps we can see the end of this sad period of world history. The power exists - all that is wanted is the will to use it!
2
We can expect more of these attacks by angry young men who see no future in their own countries and blame it on their religion. Seems Islam itself needs to police these outlaws and try them for murder---but not even Saudi Arabia is doing that. The extremists see the West as killing them in droves in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and many are willing to blow themselves up to kill a few of us.
I don't know how we fight that, and we can't deny our part in stoking their anger with our ME policies of invasion, war, torture, drones. But we have to find a way to live together with regular Muslims.
Fight on, France! Je suis Charlie aussi.
I don't know how we fight that, and we can't deny our part in stoking their anger with our ME policies of invasion, war, torture, drones. But we have to find a way to live together with regular Muslims.
Fight on, France! Je suis Charlie aussi.
24
The first step to peace is putting down your gun.
1
You're very much missing the point of 'standing with' Charlie. Charlie Hebdo refuses to mollify anyone on the basis of their religion, and takes no blame whatsoever in the fascistic violence of others. That's why those cartoonists are dead. And I invite you to read the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject of 'regular' Islam.
1
Our media is cowardly. The NYT should publish those cartoons and stand up for Charlie Hebdo. We should not bow down to Islamic radicals by refusing to publish the cartoons. When a paper is too cowardly to publish the cartoon, then radical Islam has won.
43
How often do we walk on the streets or in the malls, or ride on the subway while singing or shouting out loud the N word, or wearing swastikas?
Aren't we free to do so?
Aren't we free to do so?
All major newspapers in the world should immediately print the cartoons these barbarians found offensive. We can not be intimated.
Go ahead Le Monde. Go ahead NY Times. Have the cartoons seen by hundreds of millions around the world. I'm looking forward to laughing at the cartoons. It will be the best revenge for the death of those journalists.
Go ahead Le Monde. Go ahead NY Times. Have the cartoons seen by hundreds of millions around the world. I'm looking forward to laughing at the cartoons. It will be the best revenge for the death of those journalists.
47
I think every newspaper in the the United States should publish those cartoons on their front pages tomorrow.
47
Why is Rupert Murdoch the only one to do this? What a sad response from liberals.
i agree completely. i made a similar suggestion in an as yet unpublished comment which i submitted. the cartoons can be seen at the huffinton post right now. they appear to be the only ones brave enough to publish them in the west.
1
r u kidding quiet in ny, anything that's impossible will happen before the media wimps standup to radical islam.
I hope the Times and other top newspapers shows courage and solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and reprints the cartoons. Commentators in the Times and many other organizations properly criticized Sony for pulling The Interview because doing so was allowing the terrorists in. North Korea to win.
If the Times and other papers and media outlets of its caliber reprints the cartoons, no matter how offensive to some, it will prove these Islamic terrorists cannot prevail over Western Freedom of Expression. We need to demonstrate the courage of our convictions.
If the Times and other papers and media outlets of its caliber reprints the cartoons, no matter how offensive to some, it will prove these Islamic terrorists cannot prevail over Western Freedom of Expression. We need to demonstrate the courage of our convictions.
30
I know it's easy for me to sit here in Oakland and make this request, but I call upon the New York Times to show courage and honor the lives and courage of those killed at Charlie Hebdo by supporting their vision and values by publishing the same cartoons they did. It's time that major Western media demonstrated its commitment to free speech and stop its self-censorship. Publish the cartoons!!
27
There is no moral authority for such acts.
A reliance on the so called divine is a form of madness that is practiced by all believers of all supernatural faith based religions.
Nothing to do with life and everything to do with death.
A reliance on the so called divine is a form of madness that is practiced by all believers of all supernatural faith based religions.
Nothing to do with life and everything to do with death.
7
Meanwhile French police effective and swift operation is already gave its fruit, they are honing on them. Bravo.
They can run but they cannot get away with it.
They can run but they cannot get away with it.
11
If we as a generation don't rein in Islamic Terror, our future generations will live like slaves with no freedom of expression whatsoever. How long does it take the world to rise up against it?
18
In a free society, editorial standards have to be self-imposed and cannot be dictated by anybody – not by church, not by state, and least of all, by terrorists. Also, it seems particularly galling to me that people from all over the world migrate into western societies, where they are allowed to freely practice their religion, and yet some of them are not satisfied.
In the post-9/11 era, some of these first and second generation migrants have begun to impose some of the harsher dictates of their native religion on their adopted homeland, even when these violate core constitutional principles of western societies, such as freedom of the press and separation of church and state.
If practitioners of Islam, who have settled in the west, continue to have an insurmountable problem with free speech, they do not need to resort to violence and murder. They can simply, as Beatle Paul McCartney once satirically crooned, “Get back to where you once belonged.” As a migrant to the west myself, I do not want any religion dictating what I can read, say or write. More importantly, none of us want to be killed because we do.
In the post-9/11 era, some of these first and second generation migrants have begun to impose some of the harsher dictates of their native religion on their adopted homeland, even when these violate core constitutional principles of western societies, such as freedom of the press and separation of church and state.
If practitioners of Islam, who have settled in the west, continue to have an insurmountable problem with free speech, they do not need to resort to violence and murder. They can simply, as Beatle Paul McCartney once satirically crooned, “Get back to where you once belonged.” As a migrant to the west myself, I do not want any religion dictating what I can read, say or write. More importantly, none of us want to be killed because we do.
19
To Boubakeur's great credit, he has finally done what must be done. The core of Islam needs to rise up everywhere and in unceasing, clear language denounce all - ALL - of these attacks done in its name. If that majority does not actively and continually and perpetually reject these terrorist acts by a perverse few, the results will be catastrophe for people on all sides of this issue.
12
Yes. Islamic leaders for the most part have been deafeningly silent around the world in condeming these attacks. No wonder many believe the extremeists are allowe to operate and are tolerated by mainstream Muslims. Thisis about Islamic fundamentalism.
1
It seems to me that no journalist can claim, " Je suis Charlie", unless one is willing to publish the cartoons that the assassins found so offensive, and to maybe keep publishing them for maybe 5 years from this and any subsequent attack. Otherwise the assassins win.
So NYTimes. Show you have some guts and publish the cartoons and keep doing it until these attacks have clearly stopped. maybe if you publish the cartoons so called moderate Muslims will do what they have to do to cleanse their religion of these abominable fanatics.
So NYTimes. Show you have some guts and publish the cartoons and keep doing it until these attacks have clearly stopped. maybe if you publish the cartoons so called moderate Muslims will do what they have to do to cleanse their religion of these abominable fanatics.
33
"Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-sha...
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-sha...
9
Anyone who has to kill for "faith," has no confidence in his/her faith. As well, no courage, no honor.
2
I understand the point, but what must be considered is that, just as American law applies only to America and Jewish laws apply only to Jews, Sharia law applies only to Muslims. To the best of my knowledge (obtained only from the media, admittedly) none of the victims were Muslim, therefore they were not subject to Sharia law.
de Blasio stopped the surveillance of radical Mosques that had been quite successful in gathering intelligence to prevent terror attacks.
There is nothing wrong with this much needed technique. If you wish to prevent terror, look where the terror is most likely to be propagated.
But de Blasio is too politically correct to protect New York.
God forbid, we have another attack here. De Blasio would have to answer for this, too!
There is nothing wrong with this much needed technique. If you wish to prevent terror, look where the terror is most likely to be propagated.
But de Blasio is too politically correct to protect New York.
God forbid, we have another attack here. De Blasio would have to answer for this, too!
27
If you truly believe in the rights and values expressed in the US constitution you do not defend these rights and values by violating them. The most powerful weapon against this evil is the uncompromised application of our constitutional values. If you violate the rights of any group then you are aiding and abetting the terrorist.
Laughter can be a legitimate path to enlightenment. As we learn to laugh at ourselves, and at our foibles and pretensions, we become ever more capable of experiencing those moments of clarity and illumination most closely associated with the experience of authentic Enlightenment.
Any Being that would instruct his or her followers to kill those whom laugh or ridicule archaic conceptions of Him, Her, or It is not, never was, and never shall be God.
Muslims need to get beyond the illusion that the Koran, even if authentic, was intended as God's final revelation to humanity.
If God is truly beyond all understanding, then He, She, It is surely beyond the immature conceptions of Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other religion.
I live on the 3rd planet revolving around a star whose name I do not know, which is only 1 of billions of stars in this galaxy. If the God who set this motion this cosmos truly exists, then all of us, even our holiest human prophets, are but an a toddler in His, Her or Its sight.
To laugh at human pretensions to knowledge is perhaps the best means we have to piercing illusions, and truly achieving a measure of authentic, enduring Enlightenment.
Any Being that would instruct his or her followers to kill those whom laugh or ridicule archaic conceptions of Him, Her, or It is not, never was, and never shall be God.
Muslims need to get beyond the illusion that the Koran, even if authentic, was intended as God's final revelation to humanity.
If God is truly beyond all understanding, then He, She, It is surely beyond the immature conceptions of Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other religion.
I live on the 3rd planet revolving around a star whose name I do not know, which is only 1 of billions of stars in this galaxy. If the God who set this motion this cosmos truly exists, then all of us, even our holiest human prophets, are but an a toddler in His, Her or Its sight.
To laugh at human pretensions to knowledge is perhaps the best means we have to piercing illusions, and truly achieving a measure of authentic, enduring Enlightenment.
15
God apparently wills that I seed a few typos in every post every day, just to keep me humble...
Today's typos: the 5th paragraph should read, "If the God who set in motion".
The 6th paragraph should read: "To laugh at human pretensions to knowledge is perhaps the best means we have of piercing illusions."
Today's typos: the 5th paragraph should read, "If the God who set in motion".
The 6th paragraph should read: "To laugh at human pretensions to knowledge is perhaps the best means we have of piercing illusions."
2
Yours is the most eloquent, brilliant piece I have seen in some time. What a beautiful response to such an abhorrent assault on the victims and on our freedom. Blessings to you.
Our star is called 'Sol' and our moon is called 'Luna', as in solar system and lunar landing. From the Latin names for those bodies.
France is a country that has been embroiled in a struggle against Muslim influence. Already Charlemagne fought the Moors during his reign in the eighth century.
In recent years, France's involvement in Africa fighting Islamists, the burka ban etc. had enraged hardliners among the Muslims. The Charlie Hébdo offered them an excuse to vent their anger on the French Republic.
In recent years, France's involvement in Africa fighting Islamists, the burka ban etc. had enraged hardliners among the Muslims. The Charlie Hébdo offered them an excuse to vent their anger on the French Republic.
11
An attack on the free press is an attack on everyone everywhere. We really are all Charlie Hebdo.
38
We are Charlie .
9
Wonderful. You are so brave.
Enough with the "equal-opportunity offender" excuse. Just because somebody publishes "buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons" that allegedly satirize "Muslums, Jews and Christians" makes whatever they printed no more -- and no less -- valuable. All that matters is the nature of the commentary, not who the target was. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon that showed Muhammad crying and lamenting, "It's hard to be loved by idiots," hits close to the mark. (Does it matter that Max von Sydow said something similar in Woody Allen's 1986 "Hannah and Her Sisters": "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."?) It would be idiotic to hold any religion or a philosophy fully responsible for the actions of its craziest "adherents."
The most effective and meaningful response to this atrocity would be for all media outlets (starting with you, FOX News), everywhere in the world, to publish the cartoons and satire that the staff of Charlie Hebdo died for. Not to ridicule Islam, but to show the meaning of free speech in a society that honors a separation between church and state (even if many Americans still don't know what that means, where it comes from, or why it matters).
The most effective and meaningful response to this atrocity would be for all media outlets (starting with you, FOX News), everywhere in the world, to publish the cartoons and satire that the staff of Charlie Hebdo died for. Not to ridicule Islam, but to show the meaning of free speech in a society that honors a separation between church and state (even if many Americans still don't know what that means, where it comes from, or why it matters).
39
Fox has broadcast the Mohammad cartoons.
This attack happened in the most liberal and welcoming neighborhood in Paris. I was born in North Africa and became French citizen before moving to America. I used to live in the 11th and it's one of the most diverse and open neighborhoods in Paris. I felt home in the 11th and today I'm very sad.
Now, I think we should stop blaming the society, the French integration system and argue that this is a minority. Enough is enough! It may be true that only a minority of extremists are perpetrating these terrorists acts but they have got the indirect and direct support of ignorant "religious leaders" as well as rich Golf countries supporting this heinous ideology. Furthermore, the judicial system gives too much credit to the supposedly marginalization of these terrorists.
As the French expression goes: "il faut appeler un chat un chat"
Now, I think we should stop blaming the society, the French integration system and argue that this is a minority. Enough is enough! It may be true that only a minority of extremists are perpetrating these terrorists acts but they have got the indirect and direct support of ignorant "religious leaders" as well as rich Golf countries supporting this heinous ideology. Furthermore, the judicial system gives too much credit to the supposedly marginalization of these terrorists.
As the French expression goes: "il faut appeler un chat un chat"
36
Merci, madame. Vous avez bien raison. Je souffre avec vous. Peut-être cet horrible événement va faire plus courageuse là presse américaine.
"But the French have reacted with a fierce determination to defend their freedoms." French and American reactions to terrorism are quite different. In the U.S. we got the Patriot Act.
32
Forget something?
Two questionable, bloody, and immeasurably dysfunctional U.S. led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter now reignited ostensibly to “destroy” ISIS, likely another endless slog that will produce no fundamental changes of the causes of the proliferation of violent Muslim extremist movements worldwide.
Over six thousand American KIAs and nearly 60 thousand wounded.
Two questionable, bloody, and immeasurably dysfunctional U.S. led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter now reignited ostensibly to “destroy” ISIS, likely another endless slog that will produce no fundamental changes of the causes of the proliferation of violent Muslim extremist movements worldwide.
Over six thousand American KIAs and nearly 60 thousand wounded.
We also got a buncha wars that have cost us trillions of dollars, gotten untold hundreds of thousands killed, destroyed Iraq, birthed ISIS, and a surveillance state that tracks every thing we do in our electronic life.
All in all, I'd prefer the French reaction.
All in all, I'd prefer the French reaction.
Satirical French political cartoons are not new, and were prevalent prior to the French Revolution, depicting, true or false, the weaknesses of Louis XVI and the extravagances of Marie Antoinette. In contrast to today, the victims then were not the creators of the cartoons, but their subjects. Can we infer or learn anything from this?
4
French Jews were apparently not the target here, but they are the ones for whom European clocks are ticking most loudly these days, not to mention Holland, Sweden and other countries throughout Europe that are heavily populated by Muslims. What does it really matter to Jewish families that most European Muslims oppose terror attacks, if many or some, or even a few of them, do support it and are capable of carrying it out? When you and your co-religionists can't wear a yarmulke on the street or attend synagogue or speak out on behalf of Israel without feeling fear; and experience difficulty obtaining kosher meat and getting your infant son circumcised; and have occasional terror attacks thrown in your direction; and have little reason to believe that things are ever going to get better, then you are no longer living in a country guided by the precepts of Western Civilization and should have left yesterday for friendlier climes. European history is already littered with the bodies of far too many Jewish people who made the mistake of believing that civilization was a place called Europe.
30
And yet I think the French would be much happier with French Jews among them than Muslims who won't assimilate. Why the French go to so much trouble to court the Islamic immigrants and not protect their tax paying, well behaved native Jewish population is completely beyond me.
4
This is exactly why there must always be a sovereign and defensible Israel. Well said, my brother!
It is equivalent of wiping out the staff of Mad Magazine. And makes just as little sense.
27
Shame on US mainstream media outlets (NY Times, CNN, AP, NBC, etc.) for refusing to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that triggered the worst mass assassination of journalists since WWII. (Notice the main German papers seem to have reached the opposite conclusion, knowing a thing or two about voluntarily surrendering freedoms for expediency sake.) There is no serious question the cartoons themselves are newsworthy, having allegedly provoked the attacks themselves. In any other context, those images would have led the coverage. They were held back for only one reason - to protect
journalists and bureaus in Muslim countries. While understandable, the net result is that news outlets are now knowingly skewing their coverage so as not offend violent, extremist elements. I don't want to live in a society where Abu Bakr al Baghdadi determines what I can read or see. I never thought I would live to see the day where Fox News shows more journalistic integrity than the New York Times.
journalists and bureaus in Muslim countries. While understandable, the net result is that news outlets are now knowingly skewing their coverage so as not offend violent, extremist elements. I don't want to live in a society where Abu Bakr al Baghdadi determines what I can read or see. I never thought I would live to see the day where Fox News shows more journalistic integrity than the New York Times.
154
MSNBC has been publishing the cartoons between segments. I am proud of them.
20
NYT Editorial Board - Very good words.
Now let's see some action. Print those cartoons or better yet take the lead and get other newspapers to also devote front page space for these cartoons. Imagine all newspapers around the world taking one day to make such a statement.
If the NYT won't take such an action I think you owe an explanation to your readers as to why not.
Now let's see some action. Print those cartoons or better yet take the lead and get other newspapers to also devote front page space for these cartoons. Imagine all newspapers around the world taking one day to make such a statement.
If the NYT won't take such an action I think you owe an explanation to your readers as to why not.
176
Not all Muslims are murderers but percent wise (compared to other faiths) they are more dangerous than all Christians, Jews and others.
I do not think much about ANY religion but since 9/11 I am quite mistrustful of Muslims in particular.
I think we all should be and we should watch them very closely.
I do not think much about ANY religion but since 9/11 I am quite mistrustful of Muslims in particular.
I think we all should be and we should watch them very closely.
61
"percent wise": You would think otherwise should you have lived during the crusades war... (and I'm a Christian)
If you fear Muslims then religious fanatics (of any religion) have won
If you fear Muslims then religious fanatics (of any religion) have won
1
As you spend your days distrusting Muslims you encounter, ask yourself "what percent of the time am I right to mistrust this person?"
1
Unless you have the figures to back up such a statement (which a world of billions is impossible) it should be condemned as ignorant and dangerous. Now is not the time to revert to tribalism.
1
"Je suis Charlie?"
If we truly mean this then we should tweet, share, send and display those "offending" cartoons to as many people as we can.
Just like we asked Sony to stand up to the North Korean dictator, every media outlet should publish those cartoons, on their front pages, in unison.
Otherwise, it's just words, and the terrorists will have won.
If we truly mean this then we should tweet, share, send and display those "offending" cartoons to as many people as we can.
Just like we asked Sony to stand up to the North Korean dictator, every media outlet should publish those cartoons, on their front pages, in unison.
Otherwise, it's just words, and the terrorists will have won.
253
Censorship, in any form, is always a sign of weakness. Moral weakness, intellectual weakness. It doesn't matter how many guns or bombs you have, or if there's a whole army behind you, or if your flag flies over every capital. If you can't take a joke, or criticism, or even blasphemy, then you rest on the weakest foundation. Terrorists have yet to learn this, but the rest of us would do well to remember it.
109
Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Mao nor Pope _ nor King_ nor Queen_ nor President_ were joking.
And they had the armed might to "reason" with those who thought they were and did not "get" that the "joke" was on them before it was too late.
And they had the armed might to "reason" with those who thought they were and did not "get" that the "joke" was on them before it was too late.
All this is good but I think the New York Times should man up and publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons as an homage to those who were brutally assassinated today. That would bring a smile to the Charlie Hebdo victims, wherever they are now.
Today, je suis Charlie. I hope the New York Times had what it takes to be Charlie too.
Today, je suis Charlie. I hope the New York Times had what it takes to be Charlie too.
57
Forget about that ever happening. The NY Times, with its blinders firmly set in the Leftist focus, is part of the problem.
What do we expect when one, in the name of satire, degrades an historically venerated religious figure? Every one knows that he is entering into a cage of lions waiting for him. When we invoke legal or political claims of free speech and expression in justification of the attack upon those who harm him, what has been achieved? Will it inhibit others? Would it not have been better to address whatever claims motivated the attackers? When in our courts we deal with the common case of a defendant who has administered a beating to someone who has befouled the reputation of one's family or wife , do we not take into account the provocative nature of the speech of the victim? In short, as in the case of our raising of our children, do we not advance them in their growth by cautioning them to take every opportunity to keep their mouths shut? If you were the mother of one of the victims shot to death at that Paris newspaper, would you want to congratulate the people in it whose caused the attack? Or would you wonder, as days fold into months and years, what had been gained by it all.
11
Wow! You cannot be saying that murder is an acceptable response.
ye who call yourself Harry, Provocative words or images is absolutely no excuse for murder, sir.
Ah, yes, it was the fault of the journalists.
No human being can avenge any desecration of the divine. We are neither great enough nor wise enough to assume that retribution in answer to sacrilege is a service to goodness. God intended for us to laugh. Many years ago, the Italian scholar and author Umberto Eco proved this in his delightful novel The Name of the Rose. Several killings at a medieval monastery were the result of the premise "did Christ laugh?" An overzealous monk, who thought Christ did not smile, disobeyed his Savior by trashing the Seventh Commandment. Humor can be cruel, but it should never take a dozen lives as the price of a laugh.
72
Which God or gods are you talking about? And whose scripture and prophets and interpretations?
Some God or gods seem to be pretty petty peevish and prideful in the demands that they seek from their flock. There is nothing funny about human misery.
Did Christ cry is the better question in the Garden at Gethsemane and on the cross at Golgotha?
Who was laughing and crying at both places? The Three Mary's? The disciples? The Roman centurions? Another man on a cross?
Some God or gods seem to be pretty petty peevish and prideful in the demands that they seek from their flock. There is nothing funny about human misery.
Did Christ cry is the better question in the Garden at Gethsemane and on the cross at Golgotha?
Who was laughing and crying at both places? The Three Mary's? The disciples? The Roman centurions? Another man on a cross?
And furthermore, how can one desecrate something for which there is no evidence and no ability to reasonably prove its existence? As with so-called 'blasphemy', desecration of the divine is absolutely laughable.
The very foundations of our society are being attacked like the Sony/North Korea incident and again another cartoon reprisal. Granted, the film and the cartoons are in the poorest taste but that's not the point.
The question really is what the response of the New York Times and its brethren will do to preserve freedom of expression.
Will it take a pass as it did with the Danish cartoons or will it publish the Hebdo covers, just like Bloomberg did online?
The question really is what the response of the New York Times and its brethren will do to preserve freedom of expression.
Will it take a pass as it did with the Danish cartoons or will it publish the Hebdo covers, just like Bloomberg did online?
25
The cartoons are vulgar towards all religions. The author has a right publish vulgarity, and people have a right to purchase the cartoons and laugh at them (if they are so inclined.) I see no reason why the NYT has an obligation to splash the cartoons on the front page. They are available to anyone with a computer. The NYT could do thoughtful pieces on why a religion that purports to be peaceful is perpetuating so much terrorism all around the world.
1
Newspapers in Europe have printed examples of the satiric cartoons Charlie Hebdo published in solidarity with those who died expressing their right of free speech. Le Monde has announced that they will provide the means for the magazine to continue. Thousands are in the streets in Paris while the killers are still free choosing to ignore the danger in order to uphold the values those at Charlie Hebdo died for. Yet, here the NYT as well as others in MSM have only alluded to these caricatures. Even the president two years ago in a UN speech and his press secretary chided those that printed controversial cartoons offensive to some Muslims.
And so where does Freedom of Speech stand here? Have our media already acquiesced to the demands of these Islamic terrorists or are we still able to stand in solidarity with those who died unapologetic for exerting their inalienable right of this freedom?
And so where does Freedom of Speech stand here? Have our media already acquiesced to the demands of these Islamic terrorists or are we still able to stand in solidarity with those who died unapologetic for exerting their inalienable right of this freedom?
33
The New York Times should print those cartoons. If we are really the leader of the "free world", they will. But if we're not, then the torch should be passed. As one of the commenters noted, the people of France are out on the street demonstrating, insisting on freedom of speech, the people of the US got the Patriot Act after a terrorist attack - trying to stop free speech here in America. Just where do we stand on these very important ideals?
The eloquent, deeply moving response of the people of France--the defense of freedom of expression as a cardinal human right--is too important to be confined as a response to the vicious murders at Charlie Hebdo. This must also be a wake-up call for the people of America, which, unlike the French, do NOT have a heightened value for the expression of free thought.
In America it is not Muslim extremists who are trying to curtail intellectual and political freedoms, it is we ourselves--not with AK rifles, but with Patriot Acts and other manifestations of thought control. I cannot imagine Pres. Obama saying what Pres. Hollande has said in defense of free thought. For Obama and AG Holder have used the Espionage Act to prevent not only freedom of discussion but also revelations of war criminality.
Imagine Americans massed in a giant public square affirming freedom of speech. To most of us, that specific freedom is not worth caring about. The whole thrust of counterterrorism is acquiescence, submission to authority, on matters increasingly far afield from the putative subject matter within its scope.
We are now the National Security State, McCarthyism Redux, to what should be our everlasting shame--and is not. I therefore reach out in solidarity with the French people who still find the freedom to think among the most precious of human gifts. Je suis... Yes, to all the critics of war, intervention, assassination, I honor you. Stand fearlessly for reason and the right.
In America it is not Muslim extremists who are trying to curtail intellectual and political freedoms, it is we ourselves--not with AK rifles, but with Patriot Acts and other manifestations of thought control. I cannot imagine Pres. Obama saying what Pres. Hollande has said in defense of free thought. For Obama and AG Holder have used the Espionage Act to prevent not only freedom of discussion but also revelations of war criminality.
Imagine Americans massed in a giant public square affirming freedom of speech. To most of us, that specific freedom is not worth caring about. The whole thrust of counterterrorism is acquiescence, submission to authority, on matters increasingly far afield from the putative subject matter within its scope.
We are now the National Security State, McCarthyism Redux, to what should be our everlasting shame--and is not. I therefore reach out in solidarity with the French people who still find the freedom to think among the most precious of human gifts. Je suis... Yes, to all the critics of war, intervention, assassination, I honor you. Stand fearlessly for reason and the right.
47
You mean submit.
That which we take for granted (freedom of speech, in this case) is easy to take from us.
I write a column in a small town newspaper in the rural Midwest. I am so careful not to offend in this world of extremist militias, climate change deniers, and blatant racism. Frankly, in our democracy I am just as afraid of speaking out - just as afraid of physical action against me if I take real stands on issues... for I am not Christian and am quite certain that though the community loves the columns, one misstep and it will be because I am not of "them." There is no question that violent extremism is growing all over the world. I am an older woman who has such a committed life of activism and because I am alone, I am afraid to write of anything other than sweeping sweet commonality. Am I cowardly or am I wise? Today I am feeling I am wise. The assault on the French newspaper is frightening not only because of growing Moslem extremism. We need to look at our homegrown violent bigots... No kidding. Don't be naive...
131
Paula, beautifully, movingly said. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. But you have reason to be cautious, for beneath the surface America is a seething cauldron of fear, intolerance, hate. We must cherish freedom if we are to preserve it: Keep to your own inner voice. Speak out. Shame potential detractors through your own courage.
In truth, "a committed life of activism" hardly exists in America anymore. I too go back to picketing on Boston Common in the 50s, to Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964, to silent vigils on freezing winter nights in the early 70s--to what avail? We have to live with our own consciences. Your NYT Comment makes me proud of you--a saving remnant seeking to restore America's freedom.
In truth, "a committed life of activism" hardly exists in America anymore. I too go back to picketing on Boston Common in the 50s, to Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964, to silent vigils on freezing winter nights in the early 70s--to what avail? We have to live with our own consciences. Your NYT Comment makes me proud of you--a saving remnant seeking to restore America's freedom.
34
It is so easy to mouth platitudes like “We are all Charlie now”. Paula has stood for freedom in a real manner not with blather but with ‘boots on the ground’. Paula has a true understanding of the concept freedom and it includes the belief that we should try to act responsibly in a deeply connected world. The USA is not in a position to cry freedom except the freedom of the Hegemon.
1
In France it is only the "far right" who are condemning all of Islam, but here in the US it seems, if these comments are any reflection, the US is predominantly far right. The prospects are deeply sobering, because while the French understand that there is no benefit to condemning an entire religion, Americans seem completely oblivious to the implications and how poorly it reflects on our national character. And yes, it also means that a very scary and very large segment of our country listens to right-wing radio and right-wing legislators who are themselves, routinely, preaching hate and incitement to violence. In this case it is directed as Muslims. Evidently, American torture in Abu Ghraib inspired these particular men to join the militant Islamist jihad, but most Americans still support torture. I fear the rest of right-wing anti-immigrant vitriol, too. Just after a Republican Congressman "predicted" violence after the executive order to legalize long-term immigrants, a right-winger in Texas shot at Latinos and the Mexican embassy. Anti-immigrant thought is disturbingly mainstream. Sure, we can debate immigration policy, but I think they cross the line when they demonize our immigrant neighbors. I heard a group of Texas Republicans joking about killing people on the Interstate with California plates. It was not too long ago they bombed a federal building and hundreds died. But of course, they say we cannot condemn all right-wingers, like they condemn all of Islam.
1
Okay, then put your money - and most importantly, your ink - where your mouth is.
Print the cartoons yourselves.
Print the cartoons yourselves.
67
Exactly, and thanks for saying it, knockatize.
But of course, we all realize that the NYT will *not* print the cartoons, will *not* write anything provocative enough to invite attack, and will *not* exercise the free speech and free press it expects others to express.
Take the risk, NYT, and be a part of our democracy, not just a champion for it. Let's see you BE Charlie.
But of course, we all realize that the NYT will *not* print the cartoons, will *not* write anything provocative enough to invite attack, and will *not* exercise the free speech and free press it expects others to express.
Take the risk, NYT, and be a part of our democracy, not just a champion for it. Let's see you BE Charlie.
70
All newspapers throughout Europe, the US , and Australia should print the cartoons daily . Then who will be targeted? But we are a society of cowards submitting to barbarians. I watch with dismay as our way of life is being dismantled.
I don't blame the Muslims per se. I blame all religions. When we will be mature enough to shed our fairy tales. In the former Yugoslavia in the the 90s, it was Christians against Christians, and Christians against Muskims.
I have no idea whether Jesus existed, but if he did, it was not due to virgin birth, and he was human. Do Christians really believe that Jesus would approve of murder in his name? I think the message of Jesus is remarkable and immortal. Why can't Christians understand it?
For God's sake, Hitler was a Christian, and Stalin once studied in a monastery.
I have no idea whether Jesus existed, but if he did, it was not due to virgin birth, and he was human. Do Christians really believe that Jesus would approve of murder in his name? I think the message of Jesus is remarkable and immortal. Why can't Christians understand it?
For God's sake, Hitler was a Christian, and Stalin once studied in a monastery.
16
Hitler was Catholic in name only. And it's not religion per se that causes violence, but rather the age-old, inbred proclivity toward tribalism. People will kill (and are currently killing) one another over race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and nationality.
1
Jimbo, you are right that Christians also commit murder, but these days it is far too often that Islamic extremists are murdering and terrorizing in the name of their religion. That is the point, those are the facts. Few are killing these days in the names of Christianity, but Christians are indeed being killed in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq and France...
2
This all about medieval inquisitors vs post renaissance mind set.
Those murderers can call their act on behalf or in response to anything, but the deep down issue, Islam's long stalled transformation according to Renaissance transformation.
We forced and changed the Christianity with a very long battle, we shall do the same fro Islam.
Moderates, open minded, civilized and tolerant people shall overcome these zealots medieval back stepping. Sooner or later.
Those murderers can call their act on behalf or in response to anything, but the deep down issue, Islam's long stalled transformation according to Renaissance transformation.
We forced and changed the Christianity with a very long battle, we shall do the same fro Islam.
Moderates, open minded, civilized and tolerant people shall overcome these zealots medieval back stepping. Sooner or later.
6
"There are some who will say that Charlie Hebdo tempted the ire of Islamists one too many times, as if coldblooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. The massacre was motivated by hate."
Thank you, editorial board of the NYTimes for capturing the truth of this so well and so succinctly.
It broke my heart to see all the regular citizens in various cities in France come outside in the freezing cold to hold up signs saying "Je Suis Charlie," people obviously from many walks of life.
The most powerful symbol was, of course, all the French citizens holding up pens to show their solidarity in the belief that the pen is always mightier than the sword. The unity within the country was clear - they will not be dictated to by terrorists.
Thank you again.
Thank you, editorial board of the NYTimes for capturing the truth of this so well and so succinctly.
It broke my heart to see all the regular citizens in various cities in France come outside in the freezing cold to hold up signs saying "Je Suis Charlie," people obviously from many walks of life.
The most powerful symbol was, of course, all the French citizens holding up pens to show their solidarity in the belief that the pen is always mightier than the sword. The unity within the country was clear - they will not be dictated to by terrorists.
Thank you again.
20
Actually they are being dictated to by terrorists. They and you are in denial.
Political and satirical cartoons have been around since the early 1700s, and undoubtedly before that, graffitied on walls in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt. From the English lithographers Hogarth and Rowlandson in the 18th Century, all the way through our last century (Tom Nast, Herblock, and all the dreaded "Der Spiegel" cartoonists who carried out the nasty work of turning an entire people into fodder for ovens during the Third Reich in Germany) - we stopped smiling at Aryan cartoons till 1945. The pens of political cartoonists - the "Charlie Hebdos" and the cartoons of America's finest political cartoonists - are mightier than the sword. But the new Islamic revolutionaries are mowing down those cartoonists who depict their particular God in a way that shows the idiocy of zealots' beliefs. Social Media has exploded in this 21st Century and we are on a new hinge of history where cartoonists - artists! - are targets of fundamentalists' wrath and so easily obtained AK-47s. Did the two wars initiated by an American President in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s start the hideous rampage of the New Caliphate against any unwelcome depiction or caricature of their Prophet? "Charlie Hebdo's" slain artists were the moving fingers of our time, and as Omar Khayyam wrote - "The Moving Finger, having writ, moves on..." Are we going to be held hostage by terrorist gunsels and Jihadists? Democracy and zealotry cannot co-exist.
9
Ah, but they do co-exist - right here in America. And killing doctors who perform abortions is even defended and justified by you know which religious zealots.
Point of fact - Mohammed is not the God of Islam. Mohammed was only a prophet, like Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, and, yes, even Jesus. Human prophet, but since he was the most recent one, he is the most authoritative (in their eyes).
How inspiring that the American Embassy put "I am Charlie" on its social media accounts. This is likely to have as much impact as Michelle Obama's twitter campaign to get back the Christian girls kidnapped by Islamic terrorists in Africa. As one youare likely to consider one of the "xenophobes," might I suggest that appeals to unity will do little to stop the slaughter. Why, you even have a Boston poster, Padman, below, willing to restrict speech about Islam to prevent "more people getting killed." I assure you, there will be no stop to more people getting killed unless people wake up to what "the religion of peace" really promises us.
14
Exactly. Your wisdom is a rarity.
It seems like humanity is at war over three basic issues:
The autonomy of women.
The purpose of education.
The ability to take a joke.
Just think of how much could be resolved if we all could just come to an understanding, or even agree to disagree, about those three things.
Of course, there's nothing new about the controversy over these issues, or even violent conflicts over them. And there's also nothing new about these issues acting as a cover or distraction from the real issue at the heart of every conflict, a competition for resources and economic opportunity.
Remember that the Islamic terrorists who have been wreaking so much havoc for the last quarter century were bred much the same way as killer bees. The United States deliberately trained, armed and organized young militant Muslims to help repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When we left them twisting in the wind after they essentially won the Cold War for us, they naturally turned against the West. (It didn't help that we did that whole thing with the Shah back in 1953, and then, of, course, there's our support of Israel....) So if you're looking for some original sin, some institution at which to unleash your anger, you might want to take a look at your dollar bill and your thermostat. Do not blame Islam, which is no more susceptible to violence, oppression and ignorance than any other religion.
The autonomy of women.
The purpose of education.
The ability to take a joke.
Just think of how much could be resolved if we all could just come to an understanding, or even agree to disagree, about those three things.
Of course, there's nothing new about the controversy over these issues, or even violent conflicts over them. And there's also nothing new about these issues acting as a cover or distraction from the real issue at the heart of every conflict, a competition for resources and economic opportunity.
Remember that the Islamic terrorists who have been wreaking so much havoc for the last quarter century were bred much the same way as killer bees. The United States deliberately trained, armed and organized young militant Muslims to help repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. When we left them twisting in the wind after they essentially won the Cold War for us, they naturally turned against the West. (It didn't help that we did that whole thing with the Shah back in 1953, and then, of, course, there's our support of Israel....) So if you're looking for some original sin, some institution at which to unleash your anger, you might want to take a look at your dollar bill and your thermostat. Do not blame Islam, which is no more susceptible to violence, oppression and ignorance than any other religion.
61
There is also the fact that in France there are virtually no career pathways for poor children, virtually no training programs that can make them useful members of society, so they resort to political fanaticism due to extreme marginalization. The same is true in Italy—44% unemployment among the young, probably double that among immigrants. "The idle mind is the devil's playground" a rather quaint admonition by a 5th grade nun, actually still resonates today. Terrorists are not religious people, who are peacemakers. They are sociopaths who are alienated from and rejected by a culture that has been increasingly hostile toward immigrants. There is always a reason for insanity.
13
Fundamentalism whether it is in religion or say your views on the environment is the issue. When you cannot tolerate a view other than your own you live in a barren and cold world devoid of humanity.
Sorry Charlie, Islam is much more susceptible to violence, oppression & ignorance. Try checking the number of Muslim Nobel Prize winners as opposed to the Jewish ones. 'Islam' means submission, not free inquiry.
The cartoons may not have been drawn out of respect for Islam, but to murder human beings over a perceived insult is utterly despicable and tiptoeing around those sensitivities will only, on some level, send the message that we will give up our freedom of speech at the first sound of gunfire. I seem to recall that there was a different level of courage in the face of oppression in the late 1700s, both here and in France. The Muslims will get the respect that Europeans feel they deserve in the near future and I would hope that the response would be along the lines of Mohammed billboards and cartoons covering the Metro and not something much more dire. I truly fear the latter--the Fascists will go nuts with this.
5
freedom of worship includes the right of a religious group to dictate anything they can get their flock to follow but when the dictation spills out of its own lane and into the paths of nonbelieivers, no dice.
9
Cartoons rhyme lies with truth. They're rarely fatal. Until you tug upon Superman's cape, Allah or America.
1
Difficult to comprehend such an attack, which clearly was not provoked in any way -- for example, by torturing, humiliating and depriving detainees of their human rights -- such hypothetical acts would surely be 'barbaric' and something the French would never participate in or support in any way, right?
2
You're right: none of the cartoonists, policemen and other people murdered yesterday participated in any "torturing, humiliating and depriving detainees of their human rights". This is murder plain and simple. All religious authorities in France have said so. All.
Should someone round you up and question you for your comment here? Why should French satirists pay for anyone else's acts?
Perhaps the mission is too great to accomplish: The expectation that the Muslim community will police itself. It is a Herculean task for non-Muslims to present any ‘plan of attack’ to counter (or prevent) this abhorrent and intolerable conduct that has unfolded inside the offices of Charlie Hebdo that does not reek of Islamophobia. If the Nation of Islam believes what it in fact broadcasts; that they too, as a community, seek peace and harmony with the planet’s cohabitants, then a heavy burden and special onus is placed back on them to help their partners in peace (the non-Muslim world) clean this intractable mess up by introspection and internal policing.
3
We will ask the muslim for that -
right after the pope has condemned guantanamo bay.
right after the pope has condemned guantanamo bay.
3
If the NY Times had any guts they would repeatedly and prominently publish the supposedly "offensive" cartoons to show the monsters who perpetrated this crime that we still have some backbone and will not be intimidated into submitting to their Shariah rules about the death penalty for those who "blaspheme" Mohammed. How about it, NYT?
29
I'm afraid the Times sides too much with what's "gentlemanly" and "proper" to publish anything vulgar or obscene (read: anything that challenges political correctness). We can always hope.
1
Right on. The media all over the worlds need to publish these cartoon in solidarity, and show everyone how insane it is that cartoons should be the cause for jihad.
21
Totally agree. Some of the cartoons were printed today in a regional Italian newspaper. It's sort of like "Put your cartoons where your mouth is!"
10
Today we are mourn with Charlie Hebdo.
Tomorrow we will pick up the spirit of Charlie Hebdo.
Show these barbarians, the didn't intimidated us, they unleashed us.
Show them, with their russian made assult rifles and their toyotas and twitter accounts, that they are nothing but filthy primitives without the culture we do provide. We can rub it in.
Tomorrow we will pick up the spirit of Charlie Hebdo.
Show these barbarians, the didn't intimidated us, they unleashed us.
Show them, with their russian made assult rifles and their toyotas and twitter accounts, that they are nothing but filthy primitives without the culture we do provide. We can rub it in.
13
Charlie Hebdo's most controversial cover about Islam depicted Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists, weeping, and expressing grief that it was hard being loved by idiots.
Does this provoke discussion? Yes. Is it exhorting physical attacks on Muslims? No.
If a Nazi symbol is painted on a synagogue, that is exhorting physical threats against Jews. If a tabloid prints Nazi symbols in a condemnation of Jewish practices, is that exhorting threats of physical attacks on Jews? No.
A few decades ago when a U.S. artist, using taxpayer money, displayed a crucifix in urine, there was public outrage. Arts funding was reduced and more supervision required. If a private group had funded that display, little would have been done.
Those who feel offended by an expression can reply or they can organize the community to condemn what they deem offensive. That's how freedom of speech/expression works.
Satire, especially through political cartoons, is widely used in Europe and has been for centuries. Such cartoons have also been used in U.S. history, were powerful tools during our Revolution, and have been powerful, memorable expressions whenever we've had war or social turmoil. Done well, such a cartoon uses readily recognized symbols to almost instantly deliver a potent comment.
The idiots in Paris yesterday proved the point Charlie Hebdo's staff was illuminating with that cover cartoon featuring Muhammad.
Does this provoke discussion? Yes. Is it exhorting physical attacks on Muslims? No.
If a Nazi symbol is painted on a synagogue, that is exhorting physical threats against Jews. If a tabloid prints Nazi symbols in a condemnation of Jewish practices, is that exhorting threats of physical attacks on Jews? No.
A few decades ago when a U.S. artist, using taxpayer money, displayed a crucifix in urine, there was public outrage. Arts funding was reduced and more supervision required. If a private group had funded that display, little would have been done.
Those who feel offended by an expression can reply or they can organize the community to condemn what they deem offensive. That's how freedom of speech/expression works.
Satire, especially through political cartoons, is widely used in Europe and has been for centuries. Such cartoons have also been used in U.S. history, were powerful tools during our Revolution, and have been powerful, memorable expressions whenever we've had war or social turmoil. Done well, such a cartoon uses readily recognized symbols to almost instantly deliver a potent comment.
The idiots in Paris yesterday proved the point Charlie Hebdo's staff was illuminating with that cover cartoon featuring Muhammad.
41
Please don't simply call them "idiots" because this was an act of intentional evil
idiots cannot accomplishment
idiots cannot accomplishment
1
Reactions in the mainstream media to these latest Islamist revenge murders are an unwholesome mélange of cognitive dissonance. Standard-issue progressive "Bad America, Bad West" conditioning firmly installs Muslims as all-purpose geopolitical victims, so we invariably see the sad rationalizations and blame-shifting offered by battered partners still mired in the cycle of violence. "I should have known this would have made him so angry! Of course it's not right when he does what he does, but it's not as if I can claim I wasn't asking for it by getting on his nerves this way, by doing the things he's warned me he hates. Appeasing him is always better for everybody than pushing the envelope, much less challenging him openly".
Yet in their heart of hearts, many decent and enlightened "Bad America, Bad West" and "Muslims Are America's Victims" progressives just want to call it like it is after repugnant Islamist atrocities like this one in Paris, the very seedbed of free artistic and intellectual expression. They understand and fear the logical extension of appeasing self-righteous, self-referential abusers, but yet they're still more afraid to admit in sophisticated Western company that the late, great Christopher Hitchens, no conservative, was spot-on with his characterization of the insatiable "Islamic rage-boy collective". Their common sense tells them that grievance-driven Islamist violence is like a gas which expands to fill any container.
Yet in their heart of hearts, many decent and enlightened "Bad America, Bad West" and "Muslims Are America's Victims" progressives just want to call it like it is after repugnant Islamist atrocities like this one in Paris, the very seedbed of free artistic and intellectual expression. They understand and fear the logical extension of appeasing self-righteous, self-referential abusers, but yet they're still more afraid to admit in sophisticated Western company that the late, great Christopher Hitchens, no conservative, was spot-on with his characterization of the insatiable "Islamic rage-boy collective". Their common sense tells them that grievance-driven Islamist violence is like a gas which expands to fill any container.
38
Fundamentalist intolerance should be rejected everywhere NOW. Europe has been too lax on this issue and will have to take very hard decisions immediately. About a decade ago an Imam did not want to talk to the female major of his city, Premia de Mar in Catalunya. A year later he was out of Spain, rejected by his community.
32
No quarter for Islamic fascist Terrorists!,
No limits on free speech!
This American Citizen and the United State of America says to our Allie, France, "Ce Suis Charlie"!
No limits on free speech!
This American Citizen and the United State of America says to our Allie, France, "Ce Suis Charlie"!
8
It seem the childhood tome "Sticks and stones may hurt my bones...." has never been translated into Arabic.
1
How big is the leap (backwards) from "parodies" of religious beliefs to "satire" based on race, sexual orientation, gender?
Where is the humor in marginalization, hatred and bigotry?
Where is the humor in marginalization, hatred and bigotry?
9
Liberals and the NYT don't like religion, so lampooning religion is freedom of speech. But any other kind of lampooning (of minorities) is bigotry.
21
When you identify the humor in religiously based mass murder, write back and let us know.
Your comments amount to a false equivalence - religion and minorities are not the same. Religion is an abstract whereas minorities are real and existential.
Je Suis Charlie
11
When the CIA torture report was released recently, there were fears of a backlash from the Middle East about this. As far as I know, there wasn't a peep out of Moslems about how Guantanamo detainees were tortured and held for years without legal representation. However whenever objects/subjects like the Koran or religious figures are defaced or lampooned, all hell breaks loose. This shows that human life means nothing and religious symbolism means everything.
47
There wasn't a peep out of the American people either.
1
Extremists are just the tip. In many nations, reporting can cost journalists their freedom. Governments must show more respect for freedom of press. Including ours! Sadly, under this administration we are nowhere near the top of the world index
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php#
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php#
9
These murderers should be deported to 13th century.
58
Nah...they'd flourish there. They should have been forced to live in Saudi Arabia as an unconnected commoner...
Deported, or are their minds living in it?! They might as well be sent to the border of Germany and Poland, and arrive there at dawn, on September 1, 1939?!!!
1
Je suis Charlie
20
Resist Islamic extremism or perish.
Pultzer prize winning author, Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage. p. 459. writes
" The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Pultzer prize winning author, Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage. p. 459. writes
" The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
111
I'm a historian and I'd advise not taking Will Durant's opinions as gospel no matter what prizes he won. Did he have a similar aversion to the European conquest of the Americas and its genocidal extermination of millions? Were these European mass murderers "barbarians?" Durant reserves that word just for Muslims who did not exterminate their Indians and import millions of stolen people to slave for centuries. His blatant biases removes his statement from the ranks of legitimate opinions.
1
And the Crusades weren't barbaric? We have to look at ourselves first. We have too much historic guilt to do that easily, but that's how we have to meet the East.
1
For those who are against racial profiling or monitoring of certain minorities that have exhibited hate in past, perhaps we all need to wake up and realize that we must defend our society and democracy. I'm so tired of being asked to show super-tolerance to the intolerant.
218
I doubt that anyone has asked you to be tolerant of criminals and murderers.
1
This is a wake up call, this is 1939, our 9/11.
Im not sure how we can deal with Islam but the reality is that this religion is now in the hands of fanatics no matter how peacefull some would describe Islam. Tolerance, humanisme or humor..yes... have failed to keep in check radical Islam from impose Charria, the islamic law on western society.The values for what millions of western Mens and Women over a dozen of generation have fought for are now directly at risk of succombing to some backward religious Ideology. Gloves off, time to get our stuff together and act.
Im not sure how we can deal with Islam but the reality is that this religion is now in the hands of fanatics no matter how peacefull some would describe Islam. Tolerance, humanisme or humor..yes... have failed to keep in check radical Islam from impose Charria, the islamic law on western society.The values for what millions of western Mens and Women over a dozen of generation have fought for are now directly at risk of succombing to some backward religious Ideology. Gloves off, time to get our stuff together and act.
How about gender profiling? I'm so tired of society's blanket pass for the deadliest segment of the population on the planet: men
1
Once again, more terrorism, more broken hearts, and more well-deserved sympathy for the victims. I'd like to see us use this moment to recognize that terrorism, fundamentalism and threats to a free press are not limited to any one nation or any one nationality. On Monday, New York Times reporter James Risen was in federal court under pressure to reveal his sources; today, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted that torture advocates outnumbered torture critics 2-to-1 on recent mainstream media shows in the U.S.; President Obama has used the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and journalists more than every other president combined; there are growing ranks of expatriate journalists who can no longer set foot in the U.S. without facing prosecution for doing their Constitutionally-protected jobs; there are nationwide protests over instances of police racism and brutality; the list goes on. And these same issues are present in nations all over the world. So yes, let’s honor and mourn the victims in France, but let’s also recognize that these problems are not limited to one group or one nationality.
14
Honestly - why tempt lunatics? Why draw them out when there is no chance of justice, or dialogue, or change of heart or mind? The cartoons - the "humour" who is supposed" to get it" and laugh? Who's laughing tonight?
I don't agree that the Buddha, or Christ, or Mohammad is grist for satire - not in the way of those cartoons. The "followers" - (the non-followers )- maybe , but not the great teachers and definitely not infused with any sexual reference. That's my own personal, subjective, individual opinion. If anyone is my immediate environment made fun of a deeply held belief I would just view them as a boor and let it go. I certainly wouldn't taunt them.
I don't agree that the Buddha, or Christ, or Mohammad is grist for satire - not in the way of those cartoons. The "followers" - (the non-followers )- maybe , but not the great teachers and definitely not infused with any sexual reference. That's my own personal, subjective, individual opinion. If anyone is my immediate environment made fun of a deeply held belief I would just view them as a boor and let it go. I certainly wouldn't taunt them.
6
Freedom of speech needs to be defended, even if it's speech you don't agree with. Even if it's a joke in bad taste, or a lie, or the speech of people with bad intentions. It is protected all the same. I'm not sure what you are implying ("who's laughing tonight"?) but it sounds as though you're suggesting that they were asking for it. Which would be a terrible thing to say.
2
Right. Let's all blame the victims.
Je Suis Charlie
Je Suis Charlie
1
When you let them set your agenda, even once, you lose and they win. That is why you need to tempt lunatics: so that you don't become one.
1
There is a very thin line between religious extremism and mental illness. A fanatic who will not tolerate criticism of his god or gods reveals an insecurity in his beliefs. And a god that cannot withstand criticism from mere mortals appears to be a very flimsy god.
58
Yes. Thank you
To continue the concept that Islam is "religion" is to deny its basic foundations, it created by a" single" individual for the purpose of conquest and territorial gain. It is no different than a great many other cults or political movements. It should not be" protected" from critical review especially when its pronouncements call for the death of " non believers" and the conquest of other nation states. Islam is an old and new version of Nazism.
49
I suggest you go back and read up on Nazism, you evidently don't know what that word means if you think Islam is an old and new version of it.
Excellent point, as Dalil Boubake was quoted in the article, I will quote him further, having made the point the past, that "LIslam est une ideologie d'agression."
It would seem certainly more an ideologie cloaked in a religion.
Je suis Charlie.
It would seem certainly more an ideologie cloaked in a religion.
Je suis Charlie.
1
i can check, but I could swear that Christianity was created by some particular guy who said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."
As a further statement about iconoclasm and the right to depict Mohammed, Charb, editor and cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo, made, in collaboration with Zineb (a scholar working on religion), a serious and highly respectful, historically accurate, comic book illustrating the life of the Prophet: "La Vie de Mahommet" (157 pages, published in September 2013 by Les Echapés). The content of that book was literally based on sacred Muslim texts. Nobody was shocked and the comic book was actually very instructive.
In his other cartoons, who were mocking islamists rather than Mohammed, the point of Charb was to enable the right to blasphemy - a vital right in a functioning democracy. His goal was to make Islam "as banal as Christianism".
In his other cartoons, who were mocking islamists rather than Mohammed, the point of Charb was to enable the right to blasphemy - a vital right in a functioning democracy. His goal was to make Islam "as banal as Christianism".
15
I think the challenge is to reduce the anger to manageable proportions -- to the kind that result in lawsuits rather than murders. Maybe because I have been reading about it for other reasons, I am reminded of anti-social personality disorder. That the anger and violence may become channeled through a particular religion I don't think makes the religion the crux of the problem.
2
No but it sure gives comfort to those whose violence needs a rationale.
It is sad that it would take this for me to be in near complete agreement with the editorial board but it really is boiler plate isn't it? A few hours before this was posted the Times on line published an article under which was listed the number of cartoonists and editors that had been killed. I ask myself why if the Times has the courage of the convictions on display in this statement would it feel the need to highlight how many victims of a terror attack were it's primary or intended targets. Were they in some way culpable an unspoken question infered- were they somehow deserving of their fate? By "lumping" the victims into various catagories have you not already begun to dissemble from the truth and started the by now very tired kibuki dance of mitigation and apologetics.
The truth is what must begin to be examined is that the terrorists found ample succor for their lost lives and plenty of motivation in any but the most servile interpretation of their scripture. And I do not suggest that a large percentage of muslims are prone to violence but it is a fact that an astonishing number in the Nation of France consider death for apostacy acceptable and the second class status of Christians Jews gays and women in Muslim countries normal. It runs counter to the desired narrative so it will take some courage to do it but it is real and getting ever harder to ignore.
The truth is what must begin to be examined is that the terrorists found ample succor for their lost lives and plenty of motivation in any but the most servile interpretation of their scripture. And I do not suggest that a large percentage of muslims are prone to violence but it is a fact that an astonishing number in the Nation of France consider death for apostacy acceptable and the second class status of Christians Jews gays and women in Muslim countries normal. It runs counter to the desired narrative so it will take some courage to do it but it is real and getting ever harder to ignore.
4
Enough with the "equal-opportunity offender" excuse. Just because somebody publishes "buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons" that allegedly satirize "Muslums, Jews and Christians" makes whatever they printed no more -- and no less -- valuable. All that matters is the nature of the commentary, not who the target was. The Charlie Hebdo cartoon that showed Muhammad crying and lamenting, "It's hard to be loved by idiots," hits close to the mark. (Does it matter that Max von Sydow said something similar in Woody Allen's 1986 "Hannah and Her Sisters": "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."?) It would be idiotic to hold any religion or a philosophy fully responsible for the actions of its craziest "adherents," whether it's Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, Benjamin Netanyahu or Bill Maher.
The most effective and meaningful response to this atrocity would be for all media outlets, everywhere in the world, to publish the cartoons and satire that the staff of Charlie Hebdo died for. Not to ridicule Islam, but to show the meaning of a free speech in a society that honors a separation between church and state (even if many Americans -- like Sarah Palin, for example -- don't know what that means, where it comes from, or why it matters).
The most effective and meaningful response to this atrocity would be for all media outlets, everywhere in the world, to publish the cartoons and satire that the staff of Charlie Hebdo died for. Not to ridicule Islam, but to show the meaning of a free speech in a society that honors a separation between church and state (even if many Americans -- like Sarah Palin, for example -- don't know what that means, where it comes from, or why it matters).
20
"In 2006, Charlie Hebdo reprinted controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper. "
However, the NYT refused to print the Danish cartoons and allow its readership to make its own judgment on the cartoons. The Times, which reveled in self-congratulations on possibly comprising national security by printing "the pentagon papers" and other US intel documents, caved on free press in the face of Islamic fascism and the assault on Western values of free speech and expression, even if that expression is offensive.
I heard that security at the Times, in the aftermath of the Parisian attack, was intensified. Why? The only NY paper which has consistently had the courage to print articles on the true nature of Islamic fascism, is the NY Post.
The Times has nothing to worry about. The Times approved of the Obama administrations's false labeling of the Fort Hood massacre of US soldiers by a lone wolf Jihadist doctor, as merely "workplace violence" instead of a terrorist attack, lest we offend.
Thus far, the Times has been cowed by Islamic fascism. Maybe tomorrow, in the aftermath of its murdered colleagues, it will display a bit more courage in defense of our freedom.
But at least the Times Editorial Board should have the honesty, and decency, not to pollute the memory of a true journalistic heroes, like the dead at Charlie Hebdo, by displaying temporary outrage while previously participating in self-censorship of satire.
However, the NYT refused to print the Danish cartoons and allow its readership to make its own judgment on the cartoons. The Times, which reveled in self-congratulations on possibly comprising national security by printing "the pentagon papers" and other US intel documents, caved on free press in the face of Islamic fascism and the assault on Western values of free speech and expression, even if that expression is offensive.
I heard that security at the Times, in the aftermath of the Parisian attack, was intensified. Why? The only NY paper which has consistently had the courage to print articles on the true nature of Islamic fascism, is the NY Post.
The Times has nothing to worry about. The Times approved of the Obama administrations's false labeling of the Fort Hood massacre of US soldiers by a lone wolf Jihadist doctor, as merely "workplace violence" instead of a terrorist attack, lest we offend.
Thus far, the Times has been cowed by Islamic fascism. Maybe tomorrow, in the aftermath of its murdered colleagues, it will display a bit more courage in defense of our freedom.
But at least the Times Editorial Board should have the honesty, and decency, not to pollute the memory of a true journalistic heroes, like the dead at Charlie Hebdo, by displaying temporary outrage while previously participating in self-censorship of satire.
126
The Times's Editorial Board's commitment to principle is often abrogated in the face of partisanship.
1
I don't want to see those cartoons. And it's not "self-censorship" to pick and choose. That's what the media does every day, all day.
"workplace violence," now tha;ts a term i haven;t heard since the previous cowardice educated us.
A very incisive editorial. Bu thow long will the world media focus on this atrocity, or the recent atrocities in Yemen, Pakistan and Ottowa, before returning to blaming the US and Israel for terrorists acts and running frequent columns on the injustice of suggesting Muslims are any more prone to terror than Quakers?
8
Coldblooded murder is appalling, no matter the "reason."
What is the Islamic community doing about these extremists?
What is the Islamic community doing about these extremists?
24
Nothing.
Nothing as usual.I really would like to know when we will start to face this state of affairs seriously and get to the roots of this madness.I have a proposal for the NYTimes to translate what they are teaching in the schools in Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps the people of Europe and France will now realize the logic of
Israel's PM Netanyau who won't commit suicide by United Nations.
Why would any sovereign nation like Israel want to surrender indefensible borders to a Palestinian Islamic State who's citizens and Charter subscribe to the same ethos and logic of today's attackers, with no true guarantees of security or peace for Israel.
Keep in mind that today's attackers in Paris organized their attack and escaped to an area which would be greater than the distance from Israel's capital to it's borders with the Islamic Palestinian State suggested and supported by France.
Israel's PM Netanyau who won't commit suicide by United Nations.
Why would any sovereign nation like Israel want to surrender indefensible borders to a Palestinian Islamic State who's citizens and Charter subscribe to the same ethos and logic of today's attackers, with no true guarantees of security or peace for Israel.
Keep in mind that today's attackers in Paris organized their attack and escaped to an area which would be greater than the distance from Israel's capital to it's borders with the Islamic Palestinian State suggested and supported by France.
35
You fail to understand why the palestinians do what they do. If you want to stop that terrorism, give them tanks and planes - and your suicide bombers will disappear.
This is not a parallel situation. For one of many things, many Palestinians are Christians.
I am really sick of some Israel supporters who can't stop themselves from defending atrocities committed by Netanyahu whenever a Muslim terrorist commits a massacre by equating Palestinians with Islamic extremists. The two are not the same nor do they have the same beefs or motives. One has legitimate issues with being occupied by Israel and the other are just plain murderers. This is not about you!
Je ne suis pas Charlie. Non, non, non. The magazine used its freedom to be vulgar and bigoted in a very creative way. Someone explain how that helps society in the world today.
34
geno,
There is no requirement that free speech "helps" in any way. It is the right to express yourself. Period. Without justification, reasonable restriction, and certainly without reference to what others feel it means to be "helpful."
The reasons for this should be clear. Whose standards would we apply? Who gets to determine, for instance, if a newspaper or magazine (or art, or a book, or music, etc.) is being "helpful?" How does one measure or even know "helpfulness?"
The default position is, and ought to be, free speech, free press.
There is no requirement that free speech "helps" in any way. It is the right to express yourself. Period. Without justification, reasonable restriction, and certainly without reference to what others feel it means to be "helpful."
The reasons for this should be clear. Whose standards would we apply? Who gets to determine, for instance, if a newspaper or magazine (or art, or a book, or music, etc.) is being "helpful?" How does one measure or even know "helpfulness?"
The default position is, and ought to be, free speech, free press.
11
Because it's free speech, that's how it helps society today. You don't have to like it for it to be something to value. The cartoons were largely crude and annoying. So what?
2
Well--because it is free speech. Freedom includes the freedom to be vulgar.
It doesn't help all people but it may be illuminating for others.
It doesn't help all people but it may be illuminating for others.
1
I have not read any posts on this yet, but I guarantee there will be a full measure of crocodile tears for the murdered journalists, followed quickly by a 'but' and a 'however' to start the process of making this outrage seem just a little bit more understandable, even excusable.
13
I wonder if they did this to shock the public because they succeeded, since it was the largest terrorist attack in France since the Algerian war. Keeping in mind the target and the intensity and the number of victims and right when people are not even finished celebrating a new year this attack is tend to make people less and less safer
12
Let's wake up.
The issue is directly goes, are we going let these Islamic inquisitors to reign supreme in Muslim world, I am not saying that this Christian world evolved and left behind medieval Inquisition.
Because In Muslim worlds Hundred of millions are also suffering because of these Murderers. They were expecting some support from the Rest of the world, But west because of oil , gives value only these murderers main money suppliers and ideological masters ( i.e. Saudi Arabia, Gulf emirates,Iran etc.)
Watch the deep down fight in Turkey, Islamist Erdogan day after day utterances and belligerence against secular republic pillars.
This war is between us and them but the Muslims, between us and those who live for the power of religious exploitation. It is exactly same footsteps they are following Christian inquisitors, they are in human, aggressive, disrespectful and irreconcilable.
They are getting more and more frustrated and murderous because they knew that this age is not for them.
RENAISSENCE IS NOT A HISTORIC EVENT, IT IS A LIVING EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN CIVILZATION PROGRESS, FRANCE IS THE CORE PART OF IT.
WE SHALL OVERCOME.
The issue is directly goes, are we going let these Islamic inquisitors to reign supreme in Muslim world, I am not saying that this Christian world evolved and left behind medieval Inquisition.
Because In Muslim worlds Hundred of millions are also suffering because of these Murderers. They were expecting some support from the Rest of the world, But west because of oil , gives value only these murderers main money suppliers and ideological masters ( i.e. Saudi Arabia, Gulf emirates,Iran etc.)
Watch the deep down fight in Turkey, Islamist Erdogan day after day utterances and belligerence against secular republic pillars.
This war is between us and them but the Muslims, between us and those who live for the power of religious exploitation. It is exactly same footsteps they are following Christian inquisitors, they are in human, aggressive, disrespectful and irreconcilable.
They are getting more and more frustrated and murderous because they knew that this age is not for them.
RENAISSENCE IS NOT A HISTORIC EVENT, IT IS A LIVING EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN CIVILZATION PROGRESS, FRANCE IS THE CORE PART OF IT.
WE SHALL OVERCOME.
4
If the Times wishes to endorse the slogan, "Je suis Charlie," then it should have the courage to reprint the cartoons Charlie Hedbo had the guts to publish.
413
The people who ask the NY times to print the Charlie Hebdo cartoons should first put them on their own Facebook pages. I know I wouldnt put them on mine, for a number of reasons including not to be inflammatory and also for personal fear.
Taunting others into potentially dangerous behavior - whether based on a moral belief or not - is bullying, Sorry, Peter, while I share the sentiment of your comment, bullying is bullying is bullying. If YOU want to post and publish such images, go for it...but to push others into it is not appropriate.
The terrorists who committed these acts remind me of the Nazis. The Nazis murdered their enemies before 1933 and murdered their opposition to the very end of the war. Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Moslems are represented by these killers but where were the Germans who stood by while the Nazis create their New Order and where are the Moslems who condemn such acts? There are far too few followers of Islam who condemn and many who silently cheer them on.
30
Somehow you must have missed the immediate and unconditional condemnation of the attacks by Muslim groups and Islamic governments around the world. Funny how we see what we want to see.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/07/what-fox-wont-show-you-musli...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/07/what-fox-wont-show-you-musli...
How many Americans who steadfastly defend Charlie Hebdo and "The Interview" were comfortable with threats made against the Metropolitan Opera for staging "The Death of Klinghoffer"? The truth is, we all have things that offend us deeply, but are we strong enough to let the offenders have their say, or are we tempted to react violently and have them shut down? I'd prefer we choose the former.
22
The Klinghoffer protestors tried to get the opera shut down. They harassed the Met and performers with nasty e mails calling them evil. They threatened they would be branded as such for life. I think they were wrong but They did not attempt to do physical violence to anyone. If the terrorists wanted to yell and scream outside Charlie Hedbos offices and send nasty e mails and tried to get the magazine shut down they would have created a situation where we could at least discuss the propriety of what the magazine was publishing. But with their murders of those who had done nothing but speak the terrorists created a situation in which what was published is irrelevent to the discussion and in which all right minded people must offer full support for the right to publish it.
2
Excellent point. The protests of Klinghoffer were preposterous and shameful. And the irony is no doubt lost on them.
1
I am not aware of any death threats made against the Metropolitan Opera. The Metropolitan Opera was criticized. There was a protest against it. And some donors threatened to reduce or stop their contributions to the Metropolitan Opera. I don't believe that these Islamist terrorists would have been accused of terrorism if all they had done was hold a peaceful protest and cancel their subscriptions to Charlie Hebdo. unfortunately, that's not what they did. Instead of a peaceful protest and canceling subscriptions, they murdered 12 innocent people. Perhaps this terrible event in Paris will give the French a bit more empathy for the terrorism to which Israelis (Jewish, Muslim, and Christian) have been subject by the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.
4
There is just a problem with some interpretations is Islam. It is a significant problem. Fundamentalist Christianity here had Timothy McVeigh, but they haven't risen into a global murder machine (maybe in the past, but we are in the present).
For some Muslims, Allah justifies terror. Politically correct people here will state that we do the same thing. Their guilt feelings affect their ability to think rationally. A good quote from the article by Dan Bilefski no Maia de la Baume is:
"Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque in Paris, one of France’s largest, expressed horror at the assault on Charlie Hebdo. “We are shocked and surprised that something like this could happen in the center of Paris. But where are we?” he was quoted as saying by Europe1, a radio broadcaster.
“We strongly condemn these kinds of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures.” He added: “This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation""
Rector Boubakeur is correct. We are now entering a new era of confrontation. That entry dramatically occurred with the vile attack on our World Trade Center, Pentagon and United Flight 93. The violent Islamists want a religious war. The rest of us can only respond. They offer no rational solution.
For some Muslims, Allah justifies terror. Politically correct people here will state that we do the same thing. Their guilt feelings affect their ability to think rationally. A good quote from the article by Dan Bilefski no Maia de la Baume is:
"Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Grand Mosque in Paris, one of France’s largest, expressed horror at the assault on Charlie Hebdo. “We are shocked and surprised that something like this could happen in the center of Paris. But where are we?” he was quoted as saying by Europe1, a radio broadcaster.
“We strongly condemn these kinds of acts and we expect the authorities to take the most appropriate measures.” He added: “This is a deafening declaration of war. Times have changed, and we are now entering a new era of confrontation""
Rector Boubakeur is correct. We are now entering a new era of confrontation. That entry dramatically occurred with the vile attack on our World Trade Center, Pentagon and United Flight 93. The violent Islamists want a religious war. The rest of us can only respond. They offer no rational solution.
6
I hear offensive speech and see offensive acts every day and night, assaulting my ears and my eyes, and making me very angry. I can honestly say that I hate any number of right wig extreme politicians and media personalities, and rant back at the screen or speaker whenever they appear making their horrible, wrong headed, idiotic claims about this and that. I hate them.
But I would never think to kill one of them or even stifle their right their twisted views. As long as their thoughts don't intrude on my freedom to hold my own odd and singular views, the world is in equilibrium. It is as it should be. Different people think differently about all kinds of things.
What happened in Paris is an affront to free speech and free thought. Those who fomented it, and who supported it, and who carried it out are wrong and plainly afraid. We need to root them out, lock them up, and throw away the key. They are bad seeds, weeds growing in our universe, and they have no place in it.
But I would never think to kill one of them or even stifle their right their twisted views. As long as their thoughts don't intrude on my freedom to hold my own odd and singular views, the world is in equilibrium. It is as it should be. Different people think differently about all kinds of things.
What happened in Paris is an affront to free speech and free thought. Those who fomented it, and who supported it, and who carried it out are wrong and plainly afraid. We need to root them out, lock them up, and throw away the key. They are bad seeds, weeds growing in our universe, and they have no place in it.
96
And will the august NY Times publish the Mohammad cartoons, peace be upon him, in solidarity? That's what I thought.
20
The New York Times does not publish content it considers vulgar - that's its own style guide. There was a public editor piece a little while back on the trouble that sometimes gets writers into - one writer had to do a story on a website with a curse in the title ... without mentioning that curse.
The most intelligent response would be to patiently and professionally mount a massive police detective-type investigation and search for the perpetrators, identifying all individuals and groups involved. The 9/11 perpetrators would have been more quickly and thoroughly brought to justice if we had not over-reacted by going to war against two entire nations.
3
Je suis Charlie. Vive la France Libre!
18
I call on the NYTimes and other major newspapers across the world to publish the cartoons for which these people gave their lives ie. were murdered so savagely.
As a church going Catholic I certainly would not appreciate my faith being made fun of. However, as distasteful as I might find it, I cannot imagine savagely gunning down the people who did so.
It is more than high time for the moderate forces of Islam to come out of the shadows and to Not be cowed by this kind of medieval barbarism. They need to take sustained steps to educate their people that go beyond the platitudes of "expressing (our) sympathies." There needs to be real change.
One should not be able to have the "benefits" of living in the West and at the same time impose one's neanderthal interpretation of faith and expect everyone else to follow that.
Deepest condolences to the families of those whose lives were taken so savagely.
As a church going Catholic I certainly would not appreciate my faith being made fun of. However, as distasteful as I might find it, I cannot imagine savagely gunning down the people who did so.
It is more than high time for the moderate forces of Islam to come out of the shadows and to Not be cowed by this kind of medieval barbarism. They need to take sustained steps to educate their people that go beyond the platitudes of "expressing (our) sympathies." There needs to be real change.
One should not be able to have the "benefits" of living in the West and at the same time impose one's neanderthal interpretation of faith and expect everyone else to follow that.
Deepest condolences to the families of those whose lives were taken so savagely.
198
if the French (or West for that matter) wants to end Islamic fundamentalism, then they need to do what Arab governments need to do - end horrible discriminatory policies towards their Muslim citizens, and stop the very dangerous US policy of arming/funding good terrorists while bombing bad terrorists. They didn't kill because prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was insulted. They killed because THEY felt insulted. Good or bad, the prophet has become a symbol of identity for Muslims. The only thing left for the poor youth is pride in their past. When you mock the only thing that gives them some meaning in life, they feel the rage inside. The Muslim France is no different than Black America of the past.
3
French Muslims are more than welcome to move to any Islam theocracy more to their liking.
3
France was one of the countries which supported sanctions against Iraq which killed 500,000-plus Muslim children. For the French to play holier-than-thou with respect to the Muslims is like the United States playing holier-than-thou with respect to the Muslims, since the U.S. supported those same sanctions, even though they knew they were killing hundreds of thousands of children. It's too bad the U.S. mainstream media has had no free speech on that subject, but instead has covered up the deaths of all those children. But, one must be impressed by the ability of the U.S. and French media to deceive their people.
4
This is a nonsensical, and almost obviously false statistic. How many children do you believe there to be in Iraq, and what percentage of all children would 500,000 deaths have represented? The UN estimate of total annual deaths in Iraq in the 1990's was around 110,000 people (compared with approximately 800,000 annual births). Note that the figure of 110,000 is total deaths per year of the entire population. Unless everyone other than children somehow managed to evade the Grim Reaper for the entire period of sanctions, the number you state is simply malicious nonsense.
Moreover, the suggestion that our sanctions of Iraq make us somehow unfit to pass moral judgement on people who gunned down a dozen people for publishing a cartoon is simply perverse.
Moreover, the suggestion that our sanctions of Iraq make us somehow unfit to pass moral judgement on people who gunned down a dozen people for publishing a cartoon is simply perverse.
1
I suggest that, the issue of depictions of the Prophet Mohammad being so volatile, the world Muslim community would do well to engage in an open dialogue and its leaders definitively agree that illustrations of Mohammad are permissible in societies where freedom of expression is the rule. Let Muslims join other religions in permitting depictions of venerated holy figures from God Himself to Jesus to Shiva to the Buddha. No harm will come to Muslims or to the spiritual force of the Koran, and at the least, one reason for destroying lives in the name of the Prophet will be put to rest.
1
What happened today was not only a crime against humanity, but a stab in the heart of free expression, and this pain has reverberated world-wide, as people have poured out into the streets in protest, and in support of the victims who used humor and satire, instead of bombs and guns to express their beliefs. Without doubt there will be those who call for violence to avenge these senseless murders, but one can only hope that a higher moral stance might prevail, lest we fall to the level of those whose ideologies warrant such indefensible behavior. Condolences to the people of France. Stay strong. You are not alone. Nous sommes Charlie.
3
Time to end political correctness and force assimilation.
10
How come every time that Muslim terrorists sabotage their host country, the first words out of the NYT's mouth is a call for "tolerance?" Why do we have to "tolerate" this kind of disgusting violence and calls for self-censorship?
And where, oh where, are all of the "moderate Muslims" openly protesting the evil done in their name? Absent as usual.
Now all we need is someone to blame Israel.
And where, oh where, are all of the "moderate Muslims" openly protesting the evil done in their name? Absent as usual.
Now all we need is someone to blame Israel.
34
If you read through the comments, Bush has already been blamed.
Up next, global warming.
Up next, global warming.
2
My thoughts exactly, Jen.
1
"And where, oh where, are all of the "moderate Muslims" openly protesting the evil done in their name? Absent as usual."
It would be helpful if you actually had accurate information.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n...
It would be helpful if you actually had accurate information.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n...
10
The New York Times has yet to publish the Danish cartoons of Muhammed.
And here I thought the USA was still a functioning democracy..
And here I thought the USA was still a functioning democracy..
26
What the NYT's blatant refusal to print the cartoons demonstrates is a callous and hypocritical position with regard to its responsibility as partaking in the free press. It is urging on others to exercise their rights in the face of violence, but refuses to do so itself. If the newspapers around the world really are "Charlie," they would all agree to print the cartoons and continue to treat Islam under the same standards as the other religions.
If Islamic fundamentalists want a fight, then we'll give them one. There are a great many more of us than there are of them. That fight should continue in the newspapers and magazines around the world.
If Islamic fundamentalists want a fight, then we'll give them one. There are a great many more of us than there are of them. That fight should continue in the newspapers and magazines around the world.
1
... You know the government doesn't own the New York Times, right? It's an independent newspaper that is free to set its own content standards. There was a public editor story about how they also avoid curse words not too long ago.
Blatant refusal? Okay. They also "blatantly refused" to show Anthony Weiner's tweets, or the Kim Kardashian-Ray J sex tape. If you want a news aggregator without content standards try TMZ. Also stop pretending like printing the comics would be a victory over Islamic fundamentalists. If anything it would be encouraged; it would be used in a recruiting pitch.
We must, of course, protect freedom of expression and condemn any violence (or other oppression) against anyone in retaliation for what that person has expressed.
That said, we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves about freedom of expression in France. Expression is not free in France. France has no First Amendment. People in France are not free to express certain kinds of wrong or morally reprehensible opinions, such as ones that are racist or anti-semitic. In France, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust or to make light of it. In France, Muslim women are not free to express themselves by dressing as they choose.
We should support France in this time of a terrorist attack. We should also support France in broadening and deepening freedom expression there beyond the limited extent to which it is currently free. And in expressing our solidarity with and sympathy for what the French people are enduring, we should avoid pretensions that are not true, such as that France is a beacon for freedom of expression. It isn't.
That said, we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves about freedom of expression in France. Expression is not free in France. France has no First Amendment. People in France are not free to express certain kinds of wrong or morally reprehensible opinions, such as ones that are racist or anti-semitic. In France, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust or to make light of it. In France, Muslim women are not free to express themselves by dressing as they choose.
We should support France in this time of a terrorist attack. We should also support France in broadening and deepening freedom expression there beyond the limited extent to which it is currently free. And in expressing our solidarity with and sympathy for what the French people are enduring, we should avoid pretensions that are not true, such as that France is a beacon for freedom of expression. It isn't.
5
That's ridiculous. Every country has restrictions on what you can print, including the United States. Just because France has laws against group libel doesn't mean that it doesn't have free speech. The Supreme Court has never overturned Beauharnais v Illinois, so as it stands, it's not clear that there are currently constitutional barriers to group libel laws in the US either. At worst, such laws just restrict the scope of freedom of speech more narrowly than you're suggesting is justified.
Also, France does have a system of constitutional review that can check legislation when it interferes with citizens' fundamental rights. The Constitutional Council has ruled that several historic documents, including the Declaration of the Rights of Man, restrict what kinds of legislation in France can be constitutionally permissible.
Also, France does have a system of constitutional review that can check legislation when it interferes with citizens' fundamental rights. The Constitutional Council has ruled that several historic documents, including the Declaration of the Rights of Man, restrict what kinds of legislation in France can be constitutionally permissible.
7
'...In France, Muslim women are not free to express themselves by dressing as they choose...'
The French culture is thousands of years old and they have every right to protect it, especially since there are many Muslim countries in the Middle East where women can wear burkas any time they choose.
And even if they don't choose.
The French culture is thousands of years old and they have every right to protect it, especially since there are many Muslim countries in the Middle East where women can wear burkas any time they choose.
And even if they don't choose.
2
Is it a movement for or against free speech to limit unpopular POV's about the Holocaust? Would you want to see such laws enacted in America?
8
Why shouldn't Muslims finally get asked to take a long hard look at their beliefs? If the killers had been Christian fundies, would you lecture us about how don't dare ask any Christian fundies to take such a look? The notion that Islam is to be off limits from criticism is most of the problem here. Muslims need to adopt western standards or leave western societies. It is not up to the rest of us to pat them on the head and treat them like children.
112
Re: Ordinary Person "Muslims need to adopt western standards or leave western societies."
Your opinion contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of UN.
Your opinion contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of UN.
If Dalil Boubakeur is sincere that today's murders are in fact a deafening declaration of war, then his followers should be in the forefront of identifying not just the terrorists, but the people who sheltered them, funded them and supported them.
Otherwise, Marine Le Pen will be the next PM of France and French Muslims will be dealt with in a manner not seen since the 1940s'.
Vengeance is cruel and westerners are just as vengeful as Muslims.
Otherwise, Marine Le Pen will be the next PM of France and French Muslims will be dealt with in a manner not seen since the 1940s'.
Vengeance is cruel and westerners are just as vengeful as Muslims.
6
Well, you have to admit that the attacks on 9/11 here and yesterday in Paris are pretty severe, yes? And some Westerners are Muslims. Are you saying that Muslims live only in the East? And are you saying that Muslims as a group are violent? Are all Westerners vengeful? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner recently put down rebellions in their party, but I would not say that they were violently vengeful on the rebels. They just lost some committee seats.
Ironic how quickly our Government was to label this an act of Muslim terrorism yet fails to see the massacre at Ft. Bliss in the same way!
8
Why is that even a consideration? Who cares if a crime is or is not "terrorism?" It's a crime regardless.
1
Perhaps the backdrop of this tragedy that needs more attention is the machine that creates such monstrous insecurity as to foment these three to orchestrate this shameful act. How is this machine oiled and cajoled and fed and repaired; how does it gain momentum and compound into action; how does it mold whole sects to rally together in such ignorance and hatred? It's a toxic mixture of extremist ideology rooted in faith, poverty, little education, isolation--and, most notably, lack of a female power.
The cartoonists and Journalists are created by a completely different machine--one that values a liberal arts education, one that values freedom of speech, artistic expression, provocative challenges, empowerment of women, social justice, and equality.
The challenge is to influence the machine that creates such monsters by slowly deconstructing it from the inside by Islamic moderates. Like the Catholic pope, a positive voice for Islamic change needs to rise from the ashes. Someone that poor, young Islamic men look up to and want to emulate. For too many, that person has been bin Laden. That is a big problem.
The cartoonists and Journalists are created by a completely different machine--one that values a liberal arts education, one that values freedom of speech, artistic expression, provocative challenges, empowerment of women, social justice, and equality.
The challenge is to influence the machine that creates such monsters by slowly deconstructing it from the inside by Islamic moderates. Like the Catholic pope, a positive voice for Islamic change needs to rise from the ashes. Someone that poor, young Islamic men look up to and want to emulate. For too many, that person has been bin Laden. That is a big problem.
7
M. Thompson - Mocking religion is not illegal in the US or France. Antisemitism is not mocking religion. It is racism. The mere depiction of Mohammed is not racism, nor does it advocate violence.
22
'...It is racism...'
And that too is legal, as far as free speech is concerned.
And that too is legal, as far as free speech is concerned.
Racism is free speech. Icky, but free.
The murder of 12 journalists is criminal and must be condemned. But if we are going to condemn all Muslims, or the Islamic faith, for the deaths, how do we reconcile our own Country's killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent foreign civilians over the past 5 decades, without so much as an apology?
There is an irony to so many Americans jumping on the support Hebdo bandwagon. Most had never heard of Hebdo prior to today. Most would have condemned the anti-Bush/Chenney, anti-American invasion of Iraq, Hebdo cartoons. We couldn't even stomach France's opposition to our illegal invasion of Iraq, calling for a boycott of Belgium French Fries. Remember "Freedom Fries"?
My guess is that while many would find the anti-Muslim and Islamic cartoons funny, many would find the anti-American imperialism cartoons offensive. Especially back in '02-'03 when we were gearing up for war.
No, an American did not kill the journalists at Hebdo back in '02-'03, but our Government did kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (who knows how many, we don't keep count), based upon a lie.
And last time I checked, I don't remember any leader of our Government issuing an apology for the deaths of innocents.
We cannot control radical Islamists who decide to kill, but are we able to control our leaders who authorize the killing of innocent civilians abroad? Oh, I forgot. Collateral damage, all in the name of the fill in the blank virtuous cause.
There is an irony to so many Americans jumping on the support Hebdo bandwagon. Most had never heard of Hebdo prior to today. Most would have condemned the anti-Bush/Chenney, anti-American invasion of Iraq, Hebdo cartoons. We couldn't even stomach France's opposition to our illegal invasion of Iraq, calling for a boycott of Belgium French Fries. Remember "Freedom Fries"?
My guess is that while many would find the anti-Muslim and Islamic cartoons funny, many would find the anti-American imperialism cartoons offensive. Especially back in '02-'03 when we were gearing up for war.
No, an American did not kill the journalists at Hebdo back in '02-'03, but our Government did kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (who knows how many, we don't keep count), based upon a lie.
And last time I checked, I don't remember any leader of our Government issuing an apology for the deaths of innocents.
We cannot control radical Islamists who decide to kill, but are we able to control our leaders who authorize the killing of innocent civilians abroad? Oh, I forgot. Collateral damage, all in the name of the fill in the blank virtuous cause.
16
Please show some courage - and publish the cartoons that provoked such a heinous attack.
14
When Elie Wiesel remarked to Samantha Power (on the issues of Islamism and anti-Semitism) last year that, "...the winds of madness are blowing" he was just a bit shy of the mark. The winds are actually gale-force and they are blowing from radical Islam directly west. While the mantra about avoiding a (currently non-existent) "war against Islam" is very fashionable, one might wonder if just such a conflict is being deliberately provoked...by Islamists. The problem isn't that they hate the West; rather, it's that they no longer fear us.
11
Shortly after 9/11, I remember seeing a pickup truck bumper sticker saying "Kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out." Even a significant number of reasonable feel that US torture was justified. In WW II, Truman's dropping of A-bomb caused many innocents dying. These examples show the darker side that comes from exasperation from long-running attacks on us. We solve the problem no matter what the costs. Nothing much has been accomplished since 9/11 to dissuade radical Islamic hostility and now we have Charlie Hebo. Even I am getting exasperated. I think WW III is coming and that trucker may get his wish.
2
Print the cartoons. All the cartoons.
211
Which will accomplish what? You think if the hated media organizations of the hated West prints the cartoons the terrorists will give up? Okay. Instead, you'd just be offending the vast majority of Muslims who are not extremists.
1
My guess is that the attackers will be dead at best or in custody at least within 72 hours. And I also guess that France will not invade and occupy Afghanistan, Iraq, or Bolivia for 13 years.
Je Suis Charlie.
Je Suis Charlie.
5
This day of grief reminds all people that we are French.
We are also reminded that the sons of immigrants often drift back to their Islamic roots despite all the heartfelt, noble, ideals of the New York Times editorial board, and more often than not innocents die, or are brutally mutilated.
The French statue of liberty that graces New York harbor is a reminder that all peoples across the globe are welcomed to America, but not those who preach hatred and slaughter innocents in Boston, New York City, or Washington.
This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush
We are also reminded that the sons of immigrants often drift back to their Islamic roots despite all the heartfelt, noble, ideals of the New York Times editorial board, and more often than not innocents die, or are brutally mutilated.
The French statue of liberty that graces New York harbor is a reminder that all peoples across the globe are welcomed to America, but not those who preach hatred and slaughter innocents in Boston, New York City, or Washington.
This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush
5
To the French - We are all watching your determination and bravery in the face of blatant terrorism. Deepest respects. I am not a soldier but as a citizen and for what it is worth, je suis Charlie.
To the editorial board - Imagine if we could get the terrorists to behave like the cops and just turn their backs? Puts the enemy into perspective, imo.
To the editorial board - Imagine if we could get the terrorists to behave like the cops and just turn their backs? Puts the enemy into perspective, imo.
1
OK NY Times, step up to the plate and show a picture of Mohammed.
You won't let the terrorists dictate to you will you?
You won't let the terrorists dictate to you will you?
108
Well, doesn't it seem that we may inadvertently encouage acts of terror and social/economic disruption by our passivity? I mean with the recent blackmail and attempted intimidation of Sony by North Korea and this latest attempt at silencing journalistic freedom and dissent by violent means in France arn't we giving the impression that our Western Society gives the impression to rouge or totalitiarian states and nasent terrorist cells that we are too weak, narrsistic and complacent to respond vigorously with a united front. I mean look how far Putin, the dictator of Russia, has gotten with his attempts at anexing Ukraine by naked force despite all the howling and threatening noises from the US and NATO.
2
Je suis Charlie!
2
Nous sommes Charlie - all of us, potential victims of murderous, relentless, religious hatred. God, I am so tired of this, and the only way I want to respond - with hatred and revenge - is JUST what those murderers want to provoke, so that we can all go to war and kill each other. Muslim leaders, please, please, speak out against this filth!
6
"the only way I want to respond - with hatred and revenge - is JUST what those murderers want to provoke, so that we can all go to war and kill each other."
That's not what they want. They want a Caliphate and Sharia law.
That's not what they want. They want a Caliphate and Sharia law.
1
Je suis Charlie
3
How long will drama of carnage continue? Will sanity prevail? The world appears to be so divided. The hope is dwindling.
2
I have commented on other articles today and I will say again that it is one thing to talk about freedom of the press and another thing to talk about reprisal for insult. Politicians and other public persona seem to be fair game for lampooning without fear of the lampooner's life. However, common sense, particularly after a bombing, should have informed these folks that they were playing a dangerous game. One can say that he or she has the right of way in a crosswalk but this is of no avail if a driver approaching the crosswalk does not recognize that right. I abhor what happened to these folks but we need to remind ourselves that not everyone shares our values even to the death
2
The NYT should publish the offending material, as should every other newspaper condemning these heinous attacks. The stakes are high. This is how we beat terror.
27
I'm not sure how anyone thinks that would beat terror. As if these radicals would ever say "oh, man, guys it didn't work ... now other newspapers are publishing the pictures. guess we should give up on this whole thing".
Completely agree.
I was surprised, though, to find the cartoons so dumb when I looked at the samples displayed around the web in various places. Just really, truly simple and dumb. Nothing incisive about them. With the number of fora available for writing on the internet, a blog would have been a better forum for communicating whatever message was of interest.
I was surprised, though, to find the cartoons so dumb when I looked at the samples displayed around the web in various places. Just really, truly simple and dumb. Nothing incisive about them. With the number of fora available for writing on the internet, a blog would have been a better forum for communicating whatever message was of interest.
1
Multiple Pope(s) - said the equivalent of the Editor - Stéphane Charbonnier - Mohammad doesn't matter - 800 years ago and multiple crusades over hundreds of years - the same result in lost treasure and blood. why not recognize that Mohammad inspires serious people to the same degree today as a long time ago.
The USA in the middle east has cost $6 Trillion, millions of lives, plus thousands of Americans dead and wounded. Ron Paul has recognized these exploitation and harassment policies don't work - nothing has been gained for 90% of Americans in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria or Afghanistan
End the modern day crusades and ridicule and leave their religious figures alone! There is no upside!
The USA in the middle east has cost $6 Trillion, millions of lives, plus thousands of Americans dead and wounded. Ron Paul has recognized these exploitation and harassment policies don't work - nothing has been gained for 90% of Americans in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria or Afghanistan
End the modern day crusades and ridicule and leave their religious figures alone! There is no upside!
2
The editorial is completely right, when it says, "This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush."
However, to an extent, what killers such as these are engaging in is guerrilla warfare, doing their deeds, then melting back into a broader population which, while not necessarily in support of their actions, often passively excuses them and refuses to expel them. In some ways it is more like the I.R.A. than like I.S.I.S.
For the masses of Muslims in France (and other parts of Europe), the burden will fall on them to deal with this by not providing a community from which attackers can operate and then disappear.
For Europe, which has been on the economic and intellectual decline in recent years, the trick will be how to revive its spirit and revitalize its sense of purpose. Only if it can do that, will it be able to face challenges, such as the current one, without denying and then destroying those very values and institutions, which have been Europe's gift to the world in past centuries.
However, to an extent, what killers such as these are engaging in is guerrilla warfare, doing their deeds, then melting back into a broader population which, while not necessarily in support of their actions, often passively excuses them and refuses to expel them. In some ways it is more like the I.R.A. than like I.S.I.S.
For the masses of Muslims in France (and other parts of Europe), the burden will fall on them to deal with this by not providing a community from which attackers can operate and then disappear.
For Europe, which has been on the economic and intellectual decline in recent years, the trick will be how to revive its spirit and revitalize its sense of purpose. Only if it can do that, will it be able to face challenges, such as the current one, without denying and then destroying those very values and institutions, which have been Europe's gift to the world in past centuries.
5
I stand with the French and freedom of speech against all attackers.
5
Je Suis Charlie Aussi.
2
Murder has no excuses, especially not here.
Meanwhile, let us think about respect and whether something is always truly funny and worth the disrespect it may express. That is, it had better be really funny. If humor is to be defended it should be defended on its own terms. Violence can never be defended on any terms whatsoever.
Meanwhile, let us think about respect and whether something is always truly funny and worth the disrespect it may express. That is, it had better be really funny. If humor is to be defended it should be defended on its own terms. Violence can never be defended on any terms whatsoever.
1
Say what you will, as you must know Mme. LePen will greatly benefit from this incident.
1
No doubt there will be calls to double down on the Global War on Terror, a phrase that's been fading from public view since Bush and Cheney left office. Calls for more regime-change operations, more drone strikes! More anti-terror laws, more eavesdropping, more attacks on civil liberties! A million killed in Iraq is not enough, apparently! Nor are the thousands killed in Gaza last winter! Or the thousands in killed Libya since 2011! Or the hundred-thousands in killed Syria! How many Muslims must be killed to stop these terrorists?
Alas, for the past 20 years, the US & its NATO sidekicks have made killing Muslims a permanent part of foreign policy. And then we're shocked when the wars come home and the tables are turned!
Alas, for the past 20 years, the US & its NATO sidekicks have made killing Muslims a permanent part of foreign policy. And then we're shocked when the wars come home and the tables are turned!
1
American news outlets and papers should have enough journalistic integrity and solidarity to publish the cartoons, or at least not crop the images of Charb holding Charlie Hebdo rather than the terrorporn video of the officer being executed.
Our idea of freedom of speech is greedy cowardice.
Our idea of freedom of speech is greedy cowardice.
97
Je Suis Hebdo
A moment of silence for the murdered artists, and then, a moment of rage for the murderers.
Remember, to murder people for speech, is to re-enforce that Speech is Powerful, and that the god, in which who's name you kill, is utterly impotent and false.
A moment of silence for the murdered artists, and then, a moment of rage for the murderers.
Remember, to murder people for speech, is to re-enforce that Speech is Powerful, and that the god, in which who's name you kill, is utterly impotent and false.
7
My suggestion
1. All newspapers should print the comics in respect of the paper attacked...NYT head that effort
2. link a donation place to that small publication
3. Support a massive effort for French to meet each other; to cross the divide and meet, talk, educate and see the humanity of each other. Require each imam to help and support this effort for all. If not they can be shut down or live with increased surveillance.
4. Continue to promote the necessity and power of free speech, humor, critique and above all communicating consciously with those that seem "other" but are in fact us.
Thanks for a great paper
1. All newspapers should print the comics in respect of the paper attacked...NYT head that effort
2. link a donation place to that small publication
3. Support a massive effort for French to meet each other; to cross the divide and meet, talk, educate and see the humanity of each other. Require each imam to help and support this effort for all. If not they can be shut down or live with increased surveillance.
4. Continue to promote the necessity and power of free speech, humor, critique and above all communicating consciously with those that seem "other" but are in fact us.
Thanks for a great paper
15
"Support a massive effort for French to meet each other; to cross the divide and meet, talk, educate and see the humanity of each other."... do you think that would have worked with Hitler, the SS or the guards at death camps ?
1
I don't think this is an attack on "freedom of speech". Only a totalitarian powered institution, like a government or a big company, could attack freedom of speech because it can only be attacked through systematic, constant standardized and planned enforcement. A couple of poor, random guys do not have this kind of power. The New York Times, for example, has much more power to attack freedom of speech than those ISIL freedom fighters: it has the power, for example, to fool the American people into believing there are WMD in Iraq by channeling CIA's info through it's jornalists' pens, like it did, alongside it's brother in arms, the Washington Post, back in 2001. Those three guys used a much more cheap, less effective, way of controling the public opinion. Also, it was an isolated case; the first on jornalists since Bush jr. screwd it up in 2002.
What I agree is that, on the trenches of the poor, working class of the First World (G7 countries), there's a cultural war, a clash of civilizations, between the Western, christian population and it's oil source population that's desperately emigrating from the ME to those lands. In this war, the only winners are the American oil business, that retain their monopoly over the main oil fields of the ME by constantly toppling governments; and François Hollande and his gang, who will take a break from the constant drop in approval rates and, to top it off, get a window to oppress the muslim French population even more.
What I agree is that, on the trenches of the poor, working class of the First World (G7 countries), there's a cultural war, a clash of civilizations, between the Western, christian population and it's oil source population that's desperately emigrating from the ME to those lands. In this war, the only winners are the American oil business, that retain their monopoly over the main oil fields of the ME by constantly toppling governments; and François Hollande and his gang, who will take a break from the constant drop in approval rates and, to top it off, get a window to oppress the muslim French population even more.
1
As hard as it is not to blame Islamic teaching on this, I really wonder if the religion can exist is a 'free society" at least the hard line devotees. But then again I could say this about other religious groups. It really quite maddening. God gives us free will but corrupt men try to take the choice away from us.
1
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but this emphasis on social media seems utterly trivial and pointless. Retweeting some hashtag is about as superficial a gesture as putting a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker on the back of your V8 SUV. It's the act of somebody who wants to join in a movement without actually putting any skin in the game.
The 1963 March on Washington, for one example, was so important precisely because so many people made the trip to DC to show, by their presence, where their convictions lay. These days the coverage of any outrage or atrocity seems to focus as much on what people say about the event as about what they are actually *doing* about it. I don't care what the American Embassy in Paris puts on its social media account. It's meaningless.
The 1963 March on Washington, for one example, was so important precisely because so many people made the trip to DC to show, by their presence, where their convictions lay. These days the coverage of any outrage or atrocity seems to focus as much on what people say about the event as about what they are actually *doing* about it. I don't care what the American Embassy in Paris puts on its social media account. It's meaningless.
13
Andrew, do you have specifics on what essential actions have been left undone by people in this, the first 24 hours after the attack?
There was a sizable rally in Union Square a few hours ago.
What are you *doing* about the atrocity? What should we all be *doing*?
There was a sizable rally in Union Square a few hours ago.
What are you *doing* about the atrocity? What should we all be *doing*?
1
San Franciscans are doing something about it by taking to the streets tonight in support of free speech, a lot more than just whining about it in social media.
1
Fanaticism and guns, an awful lethal combination. Religious dogma and intolerance. Fundamentalist extremists in the midst of loud silence of a majority, currently Muslim-related, but potentially any other self-glorifying cult, proclaiming their savage aims. And adding insult to injury, all this mayhem in the name of an all-loving god. Incomprehensible, and totally irrational.
6
The NY Times needs to step up to the plate and reprint (with English translations please) as many of the "offensive" Charlie Hebdo cartoons that you can obtain legal permission to reprint. How 'bout in this Sunday Times?
We need to show the world that the US stands with its allies, and that the US press stands with its worldwide brother and sister journalists that believe in freedom of the press.
Vive la France!
We need to show the world that the US stands with its allies, and that the US press stands with its worldwide brother and sister journalists that believe in freedom of the press.
Vive la France!
266
Difficult to be calm about this, but seems to me that it's long overdue to have a serious, multi-national effort to crush jihadist extremism in all its forms. Not just militarily, although that will help, but socially, in all the nations afflicted with reactionary jihadists.
A lot of different tactics will be useful. Make advocating terrorism a criminal offense, track down the clerics who are radicalizing young men, and throw them in jail for good. Make the burkha and all other misogynistic fundamentalist garb illegal. Save youths from their fundamentalist teachers in any possible way; home-schooling should be illegal, public education should include a course on current terrorism and why it's so evil and ultimately self-defeating.
These kids are being brainwashed by their fundamentalist elders, so they must be brainwashed back the other way, towards sanity, and their elders must be jailed, deported, or in extreme cases, terminated.
This must be worked on because until the jihadist movement has fully expired these attacks will not stop. What's most awful about today's attacks in Paris is that this has grabbed everyone's attention, despite the fact that the daily terrorist death toll is far higher than a dozen. Terrorists just usually kill their neighbors, Muslims, and so the Western world tunes it out. The attack in Paris is very small-scale compared to what goes on every day.
So please world, wake up and destroy this evil, by any means necessary.
A lot of different tactics will be useful. Make advocating terrorism a criminal offense, track down the clerics who are radicalizing young men, and throw them in jail for good. Make the burkha and all other misogynistic fundamentalist garb illegal. Save youths from their fundamentalist teachers in any possible way; home-schooling should be illegal, public education should include a course on current terrorism and why it's so evil and ultimately self-defeating.
These kids are being brainwashed by their fundamentalist elders, so they must be brainwashed back the other way, towards sanity, and their elders must be jailed, deported, or in extreme cases, terminated.
This must be worked on because until the jihadist movement has fully expired these attacks will not stop. What's most awful about today's attacks in Paris is that this has grabbed everyone's attention, despite the fact that the daily terrorist death toll is far higher than a dozen. Terrorists just usually kill their neighbors, Muslims, and so the Western world tunes it out. The attack in Paris is very small-scale compared to what goes on every day.
So please world, wake up and destroy this evil, by any means necessary.
6
Let The Times republish all the cartoons in question, or do they lack the courage, a word that's the same in both French and English? Go for page one.
17
No cartoon or article could inflict damage on Islam such as today's attack.
11
While I agree we ought to avoid the temptation to "lump together" terrorists with Muslims, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that most people's patience is wearing thin. Why have we avoided a conversation, a likely painful one, about the causes of violence and their roots in much of Islamic belief? Why must we continue to genuflect at the alter of tolerance when doing so inhibits our ability to see things as they are?
140
Why is Le Pen, leader of the National Front party, seen as the NYT editorial board as a man seeking "political advantage," instead of as a man who believes that this event is simply obvious evidence of a trend he has been, in good faith, trying to warn his nation about for some time?
Oh. Because they disagree with his politics.
Ok.
Oh. Because they disagree with his politics.
Ok.
16
Well said the NYT as most of the European and America leadership can't deal with reality and we are the new victims of there collective stupidity.
2
MARINE Le Pen is a woman, not a "he".
4
Truly amazing how the acts in Paris are quickly labeled terrorism while the innocents gunned down at an Army base is labeled workplace violence. Ironic both triggered by Muslim extremists yet the Administration fails to recognize the difference!
11
I call on the NY Times to run the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and prove that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed by terror.
313
I am willing to assist in guarding the NYTimes offices if they do.
1
Europe can absorb a limited number if Muslims if there is work for them but the question is can they absorb hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants if there is no productive work for them and therefore limited chance of integrating them into European society.
4
Every newspaper in the world should run the cartoons on their front covers. Je suis Charlie
85
All these people are calling for newspapers to run the cartoons. And put their lives at risk? Its easy to call on someone else to take the risk. If you think the cartoons should be displayed, create a website and post them. Or post them to your facebook account, where the great Mr. Zuckerberg will delete them.
1
They like to do twitter #tags. This is a lot safer but still feels so transgressive and righteous. You must know this?
1
This is a litmus test - Islam does not tolerate freedom. Any freedom, not only that of expression. In Islam, women are serfs, non-believers are the same or worse. We are close to a showdown between Islam and Western civilzation, built on democracy and freedom...
68
Terror, just call it and link it to Islamist. Nothing else needs to be said.
9
It is time that every cartoonist, every newspaper, every journal and every magazine in the entire free world print the identical cartoon that these terrorists think they can suppress with violent repercussions. It should be printed on e-mail blogs and newcasts and every medium possible.
If you agree; pass this suggestion into a viral spiral frenzy to demand that this act of freedom and defiance be enacted ...immediately and continuously beyond reproach! LET us not use bombings to create awe,...let us simply speak with an abundance of clarity that we will not be suppressed and that we support our media's freedom in every respect!
If you agree; pass this suggestion into a viral spiral frenzy to demand that this act of freedom and defiance be enacted ...immediately and continuously beyond reproach! LET us not use bombings to create awe,...let us simply speak with an abundance of clarity that we will not be suppressed and that we support our media's freedom in every respect!
125
The cartoons are widely available now online, and the terrorists surely realize the cartoons will be searched for now. Printing them does nothing; this is such a dumb idea. You pretend as if their goal was to suppress the content - the content had already been printed. Their goal was to punish. Printing the content again doesn't mean that they didn't achieve their goal. It 1) potentially gives them more targets; 2) upsets even moderate Muslims.
10
Great idea--Al jazeera should go first.
1
You preach appeasement , we tried that before in the 1930's, it didn't work.
This an attack on freedom. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press.
this was not an act of revenge it was an act of terrorism.
This an attack on freedom. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press.
this was not an act of revenge it was an act of terrorism.
2
Heaven help us all if this pattern of assault on freedom of expression continues to mushroom. Problem is that this is not a nation-to-nation attack in which the perpetrating nation is identified; in many ways it was easier to fight Hitler and Hirohito than facing these hydra-headed barbarians.
3
I just read that NYT has decided not to republish any of the cartoons. As the nation's leading paper, I hope its editors will reconsider.
343
The Times is too afraid to publish the cartoons.
However, they are not too afraid to sharply criticize the police, whom they'd call in a second if their building high security were penetrated!
However, they are not too afraid to sharply criticize the police, whom they'd call in a second if their building high security were penetrated!
11
But they have no issues with publishing a picture of the police officer begging for his life, moments before being executed.
5
The cartoons need to be published. The police need to be criticized and yet, they'd need to respond if the security of of the Times or any other building we to be breached. Is this too complicated?
2
" It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy."
The terrorists do not have to dictate standards in a democracy but decent people can. The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Islam does not accept that. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. According Islamic law it is a criminal offense to speak ill of Islam, its prophets and its holy Scriptures. Islam and "freedom of speech" do not go together just like western democracy and Islam. With the increasing Muslim population in the Western countries, these kinds of attacks will happen more and more. Does the "Freedom of speech" need to be restricted in the West to please the Muslims and to maintain law and order at the cost of losing freedom of Speech"? I think so, Is there is any other option? more people getting killed?
The terrorists do not have to dictate standards in a democracy but decent people can. The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Islam does not accept that. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. According Islamic law it is a criminal offense to speak ill of Islam, its prophets and its holy Scriptures. Islam and "freedom of speech" do not go together just like western democracy and Islam. With the increasing Muslim population in the Western countries, these kinds of attacks will happen more and more. Does the "Freedom of speech" need to be restricted in the West to please the Muslims and to maintain law and order at the cost of losing freedom of Speech"? I think so, Is there is any other option? more people getting killed?
28
quoting Padman
"Does the "Freedom of speech" need to be restricted in the West to please the Muslims and to maintain law and order at the cost of losing freedom of Speech"? I think so, Is there is any other option? more people getting killed?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very slippery slope of solid glass ice. While inciting a riot does not fall under free speech, the arts and artistic license to criticize and satirize certainly does. Islamic Law and Order does not play here as crime. Violent revenge is a crime. There is no watering down the separation of church and state in the free world.
"Does the "Freedom of speech" need to be restricted in the West to please the Muslims and to maintain law and order at the cost of losing freedom of Speech"? I think so, Is there is any other option? more people getting killed?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very slippery slope of solid glass ice. While inciting a riot does not fall under free speech, the arts and artistic license to criticize and satirize certainly does. Islamic Law and Order does not play here as crime. Violent revenge is a crime. There is no watering down the separation of church and state in the free world.
11
You seem to overlook the other possibility - that free speech be maintained in the face of violence until those who would squelch it themselves diminish. This is exactly what happened to Christian zealots and the autocrats and plutocrats who used the veneer of Christian faiths to suppress and oppress in Europe. The ugly attitudes we face today are not all that different from those faced by, for example, Voltaire. It was not very many years ago that many, many people maintained that "freedom of speech" did not go together with Christianity (and not many centuries since it was a nearly unchallenged view.)
Are we to forfeit now the victories of the Enlightenment, purchased with the lives and suffering of so many over so many generations? What kind of people would that make us?
Are we to forfeit now the victories of the Enlightenment, purchased with the lives and suffering of so many over so many generations? What kind of people would that make us?
11
You can take your fairy tales about Gods, religions, prophets and your Religious Law etc. and stuff them up a sock.
The Opiate of the Masses, as Marx called it.
If more people need die to defeat your way of thinking, then they will not have died in vain.
The Opiate of the Masses, as Marx called it.
If more people need die to defeat your way of thinking, then they will not have died in vain.
7
Extremists have unwittingly identified their greatest vulnerability, their greatest fear--Humor !
Comics everywhere now have their marching orders--spread the laughter.
The most corrosive humor will be profoundly un-extreme. It should be tasteful, repeatable and true to produce maximum damage.
Parody that is True and Funny will melt Fundamentalist ideology into a silly puddle.
Comics everywhere now have their marching orders--spread the laughter.
The most corrosive humor will be profoundly un-extreme. It should be tasteful, repeatable and true to produce maximum damage.
Parody that is True and Funny will melt Fundamentalist ideology into a silly puddle.
126
I think you have an excellent idea there.
How about taking the wall where the ancient giant Buddhas that the Taliban blasted into rubble and plastering it with all the images of Mohammed that exist on the internet.
Or where the minarets were destroyed.
Those Muslims in France will not see that.
That shaming needs to come from the locals.
France is at a crossroads.
We will see how many of the "moderate" Muslims step up.
How about taking the wall where the ancient giant Buddhas that the Taliban blasted into rubble and plastering it with all the images of Mohammed that exist on the internet.
Or where the minarets were destroyed.
Those Muslims in France will not see that.
That shaming needs to come from the locals.
France is at a crossroads.
We will see how many of the "moderate" Muslims step up.
Perceived injustices survive from one generation to the next, so who can ever know what violent or extreme actions in the long chain of human history lead to violent reactions? That said, I can't help wondering how much the invasion of Iraq had to do with the terrorism in Paris; it's pretty clear that it created the conditions for ISIS which has in turn inspired other groups and individuals to act on their grudges.
17
It's America's fault.
1
According to your argument, you don't know and can never know what caused these murders. But then it is "pretty clear" that...(wait for it)...the U.S. is to blame. Of course!
6
The invasion of Iraq undermined that country's institutions, impoverished its middle class and forced its neighbors to absorb far more refugees than they could handle. In short, it destabilized the region. That's fact, not conjecture. So you have a region in ferment, teeming with young men without hope of work, and you have a perfect recipe for the rise of ISIS.
No, I didn't blame the US for the Paris murders. But if you deny very plausible links in the chain of events you are fooling yourself.
No, I didn't blame the US for the Paris murders. But if you deny very plausible links in the chain of events you are fooling yourself.
8
Of course terrorists ought not to set the standards. However, there should be some standards.
Cartoon antisemitism is outside any sensible standards, and illegal in most places. That is because it is so extremely offensive that it is not remotely funny. Notice any similarity? Laughing now?
So are cartoons urging attacks on the police or other criminal violence. Urging hatred of Jews or their symbols would be the same. So is depicting Mohammed. They did this BECAUSE it was the most offensive thing they could think of, the most likely to inspire rage. That is what they wanted.
Killing people is a newspaper is beyond defense. Still, they did something wrong, and the two are different subjects. We ought not to be defending what they did any more than we'd defend antisemitism or urging assassination of police officers. We can do both, it isn't defend murder or defend the deliberately offensive. That is past free speech, even if killing a speaker is an offense against free speech, not matter what the spreaker said.
I'd like our genuine sympathy not spill over into hate and making things worse. It is bad enough as it is.
Cartoon antisemitism is outside any sensible standards, and illegal in most places. That is because it is so extremely offensive that it is not remotely funny. Notice any similarity? Laughing now?
So are cartoons urging attacks on the police or other criminal violence. Urging hatred of Jews or their symbols would be the same. So is depicting Mohammed. They did this BECAUSE it was the most offensive thing they could think of, the most likely to inspire rage. That is what they wanted.
Killing people is a newspaper is beyond defense. Still, they did something wrong, and the two are different subjects. We ought not to be defending what they did any more than we'd defend antisemitism or urging assassination of police officers. We can do both, it isn't defend murder or defend the deliberately offensive. That is past free speech, even if killing a speaker is an offense against free speech, not matter what the spreaker said.
I'd like our genuine sympathy not spill over into hate and making things worse. It is bad enough as it is.
51
How about artistic depictions of a crucifix in urine? Oh I forgot - that was art and a different religion.
113
Bill -- "How about artistic depictions of a crucifix in urine?"
That too was in bad taste and done to offend, for the purpose of causing the controversy it caused.
It was however done by a nominal Christian, meant of other Christians, and purported to express a religious idea that Christianity had been commercialized. Hence, it was claimed to be a protest at disrespect by others.
It was not a message of hate, from someone of another religion, as for example would be overt anti-semitism expressed just to offend by for example laughing at and denying the Holocaust.
Even in tastelessness, there are degrees.
That too was in bad taste and done to offend, for the purpose of causing the controversy it caused.
It was however done by a nominal Christian, meant of other Christians, and purported to express a religious idea that Christianity had been commercialized. Hence, it was claimed to be a protest at disrespect by others.
It was not a message of hate, from someone of another religion, as for example would be overt anti-semitism expressed just to offend by for example laughing at and denying the Holocaust.
Even in tastelessness, there are degrees.
10
Far from being illegal "cartoon antisemitism" is very popular all over the world, particularly in Muslim countries.
35