Support NeoGAF

[Audioboxer]

Charlie Hebdo threads need a explanation of the joke/context or GAF's humor-challenged members will end up derailing the thread for understanding the comic as saying the exact opposite of what it's saying. This thread is more about death threats than the comic and yet here we are.

I fully expected the cartoon graphic and meaning to be discussed and I mean I would rather have that anyway than having to make the post the threat turned into a reality.

They most likely get many threats, but for local papers to run this and alert everyone I'm sure they'll be being very security conscious right now. Especially given the last 6 months in France. The more publicity in local French media the better as it should mean all civilians in the area are on alert. Hopefully Facebook and the authorities are actually handling it though.

 

[Aselith]

If it was anti-Muslim I'd understand but it's just silly.

Really?

 

[radios shipping overview]

The joke wasn't at the expense of the LGBT community and the victims, it was taking the piss out of Trump and the GOP being caught between their hatred of gay and trans people and their hatred of Muslims and non-whites.

In that case, the cartoon is clearly punching upward at Trump, and there is no way to mistake its intent, even if he's shown using nasty words in the comic. There's no way you could misinterpret the comic in the absence of its context.

 

[walking fiend]

Can't say I entirely agree. That article focuses almost exclusively on Hebdo's criticisms of Islam. They've had way harsher criticisms of other religions and it's written by a disgruntled former employee. Take it with many grains of salt. Makes it seem like Hebdo are specifically on an anti-Islam crusade, which they're not.

But put that in the context that every other Muslim country in the middle-east has been invaded in the past couple of decades, that the media and political discourse is filled with anti-Muslim rhetoric, etc. and you will find a very compelling argument to believe there is an anti-Muslim crusade going on.

Just because Charle Hebdo doesn't want to do anything with this anti-Muslim campaign doesn't mean they won't become an unwilling participant.

 

[fatchris]

As usual the first page of a Charlie Hebdo thread here on Neogaf reacting to an image without thinking and calling it hateful, racist.

They are just as much mocking the ban and the mayor of Cannes for the ban, as they are mocking the far right beliefs of Muslims.

Reminder- Charlie Hebdo is a far left newspaper.

Let's repeat this.

CHARLIE HEBDO IS A FAR LEFT (LIBERAL, ANTI-RACIST, SOCIALIST) NEWSPAPER.

They love immigrants and brown people; not so much religious fundamentalism nor public hysteria over terrorism or government-sanctioned discrimination of "Muslims".

There is no hope for humanity when people on Neogaf - highly educated, liberal atheists - do not have the intellectual, emotional or cultural tools to understand this commentary. Hey, if you're not French nor a citizen of Europe with with a degree in literary criticism, political science or journalism, I understand that the cultural context might make it confusing, but how do you expect poorly educated poor people (incidentally, the majority of criminals or religious fundamentalists no matter what creed) to understand free speech?

 

[Buzzati]

But put that in the context that every other Muslim country in the middle-east has been invaded in the past couple of decades, that the media and political discourse is filled with anti-Muslim rhetoric, etc. and you will find a very compelling argument to believe there is an anti-Muslim crusade going on.

Just because Charle Hebdo doesn't want to do anything with this anti-Muslim campaign doesn't mean they won't become an unwilling participant.

Anti-Muslim crusade in France? Are you serious? France?

 

[ClosingADoor]

The cartoonist is only one participant in the whole process. The other players are: Muslims, French people, extremists.

The victim here is not only the cartoonist, which in all probability is protected by heavy security and safe, but also the other innocent people who die in extremists attack. The Muslims are also a victim, because the racist message that is portrayed in the media by a. the spread of the cartoon, b. the reportage of the reaction to the cartoon, marginalizes them even more.

There was an interesting article posted earlier in the thread, which showed that the extremists actually are less familiar with Islam than the average Muslim. It isn't too far fetched to assume that they are generally less literate than the average person. Knowing this and publishing that cartoon, is not so different that kicking a dog and saying that you had no responsibility for it snapping back.

People should accept the existence of extremists as a reality that needs to be dealt with pragmatically. Just saying that they are evil bastards [which they are] will not make them go away.

But put that in the context that every other Muslim country in the middle-east has been invaded in the past couple of decades, that the media and political discourse is filled with anti-Muslim rhetoric, etc. and you will find a very compelling argument to believe there is an anti-Muslim crusade going on.

Just because Charle Hebdo doesn't want to do anything with this anti-Muslim campaign doesn't mean they won't become an unwilling participant.

With this talk you make it seem like Charlie Hebdo is somehow partially responsible for terrorist attacks killing innocent people. That is simply not the case. They are not responsible for the reactions of extremists towards these things. They are not politicians, they are not calling for any action, they are simply making a joke. That some people read other things in that or find it in bad taste, that is not their responsibility. And if they cross the line and do something against the law, someone can sue them and see how it goes.

Yes, we sadly need to accept that there are extremists and they can commit terrible acts. But we should not change our lives for them. When you give in to that extremism, where does it end?

 

[G.ZZZ]

Let's repeat this.

CHARLIE HEBDO IS A FAR LEFT (LIBERAL, ANTI-RACIST, SOCIALIST) NEWSPAPER.

They love immigrants and brown people; not so much religious fundamentalism nor public hysteria over terrorism or government-sanctioned discrimination of "Muslims".

There is no hope for humanity when people on Neogaf - highly educated, liberal atheists - do not have the intellectual, emotional or cultural tools to understand this commentary. Hey, if you're not French nor a citizen of Europe with with a degree in literary criticism, political science or journalism, I understand that the cultural context might make it confusing, but how do you expect poorly educated poor people (incidentally, the majority of criminals or religious fundamentalists no matter what creed) to understand free speech?

Amen.

 

[gutter_trash]

Anglosphere Liberals don't understand European Secular Liberalism

Religious Conservatism of all faiths are to be distrusted by Secular Liberals.

Once Religious Conservatives (of any religion) get a foot hold into power; they will be quick to dial back the rights grained by women, LGBTs, ect. (Turkey's Edrogan is the perfect example of going backwards)

That is what European Secular Liberals are fighting against and what the Anglosphere don't get.

 

[walking fiend]

Yes, we sadly need to accept that there are extremists and they can commit terrible acts. But we should not change our lives for them. When you give in to that extremism, where does it end?

There is a point that you 'cause' extremism and racism, their cartoons are doing that judging by the evidence. They are, unwittingly, promoting extremism and racism. They are not fighting against it anymore. You can't claim you fighting against something only if what you do just exacerbates it. You can say you intend to fight it, but that is not the same as what you actually are doing.

Anti-Muslim crusade in France? Are you serious? France?

France is an active participant in every war in the middle-east. The Muslim community are also facing racism. I posted a link describing racist attacks against Muslims in one of my previous posts.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Let's repeat this.

CHARLIE HEBDO IS A FAR LEFT (LIBERAL, ANTI-RACIST, SOCIALIST) NEWSPAPER.

They love immigrants and brown people; not so much religious fundamentalism nor public hysteria over terrorism or government-sanctioned discrimination of "Muslims".

There is no hope for humanity when people on Neogaf - highly educated, liberal atheists - do not have the intellectual, emotional or cultural tools to understand this commentary. Hey, if you're not French nor a citizen of Europe with with a degree in literary criticism, political science or journalism, I understand that the cultural context might make it confusing, but how do you expect poorly educated poor people (incidentally, the majority of criminals or religious fundamentalists no matter what creed) to understand free speech?

They fully supported the ban of the hijab in school and the niqab in all public space, those laws were denounced by the Council of Europe and by Amnesty International.

It's also safe that they hate religion and religious people as a whole, and they have every right to do so.
The issue of bombing and assassinations have nothing to do with the fact that their are racist, bigoted or liberals, it's ok to discuss this issue i think and it could explain why so many people feel unease to identify with "Je suis Charlie" even in France.

And yes, the "Muslim Question" is rising in France since the 90's. I don't think it would be exaggerated to say that France is the most islamophobic country of Europe, institutionally. And the right is always searching to find ways to invent new way to be even more bigoted. They may end to ban even the hijab in the public space, they are already speaking about university. The left is not doing so much to stop that neither, nor the far left.

 

[1871]

Let's repeat this.

CHARLIE HEBDO IS A FAR LEFT (LIBERAL, ANTI-RACIST, SOCIALIST) NEWSPAPER.

No it's not any more. It has changed a lot, especially under Philippe Val's leadership, years and years ago.

 

[Aikidoka]

Googling the question yielded this thread which is very interesting: https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-...ting-Boko-Harams-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens

I think really the worst you can say about Charlie Hebdo is that they can be too inflammatory, but that may just come down to a person's own taste. None of their jokes seem to "punch down" so-to-speak. I like the analogy with Stephen Colbert's character.

 

[walking fiend]

No it's not any more. It has changed a lot, especially under Philippe Val's leadership, years and years ago.

The fact that the political leaning of Charlie Hebdo has become so important in this discussion [which apparently doesn't seem to be so clear as some people like to shout out in capital letters], is a proof that their cartoon, out of its context, can easily be interpreted as a racist piece of work.

 

[ClosingADoor]

There is a point that you 'cause' extremism and racism, their cartoons are doing that judging by the evidence. They are, unwittingly, promoting extremism and racism. They are not fighting against it anymore. You can't claim you fighting against something only if what you do just exacerbates it. You can say you intend to fight it, but that is not the same as what you actually are doing.

So you're saying Charlie Hebdo is responsible for the extremism that attacked them and killed 10 of their coworkers? That's actually the line you are going with here?

 

[dh4niel]

Really?

Of course, I wouldn't understand an terrorist attack but that goes without saying.

 

[Kurtofan]

No it's not any more. It has changed a lot, especially under Philippe Val's leadership, years and years ago.

val's not at the paper anymore...

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

val's not at the paper anymore...

It didn't change since then, Fourest is always writing in it for now more than a decade and she is actively promoting that islamophobia don't even exist.
They also made the promotion of the book of Oriana Fallaci who compare muslims to rats.

 

[walking fiend]

So you're saying Charlie Hebdo is responsible for the extremism that attacked them and killed 10 of their coworkers? That's actually the line you are going with here?

Not at that point; they didn't know what was going to happen. However, right now, that the extent of the issue has become clear, they, among many other media outlets, are responsible for the spread of extremism. If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something. In this case, they are even promoting it.

To be perfectly honest with you, I find the whole criminal system flawed; they [the judiciary system] only implicate the final agent of the action. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that people have much less freedom of will that what was believed we posses at the time that those criminal codes were solidified.

Essentially, my point is that if you too were born into a fundamentalist religion family in a poor neighborhood, in all likely hood you would end up being a religious fundamentalist too.

 

[tuxfool]

Essentially, my point is that if you too were born into a fundamentalist religion family in a poor neighborhood, in all likely hood you would end up being a religious fundamentalist too.

Yet a lot of the people perpetrating these attacks haven't been living as fundamentalists. They got turned late in life.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Not at that point; they didn't know what was going to happen. However, right now, that the extent of the issue has become clear, they, among many other media outlets, are responsible for the spread of extremism. If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something. In this case, they are even promoting it.

To be perfectly honest with you, I found the whole criminal system flawed; they only implicate the final agent of the action. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that people have much less freedom of will that what was believed we posses at the time that those criminal codes were solidified.

Essentially, my point is that if you too were born into a fundamentalist religion family in a poor neighborhood, in all likely hood you would end up being a religious fundamentalist too.

The criminal system is flawed in this. So what you are saying is that people become extremist because of the media outlets. And then those media outlets should also be fined or people from there sent to jail if someone commits a terrorist act? I don't get it.

And note that the extremists are not always poor or growing up in fundamentalist families. They radicalize because of people influencing them - over the internet, in extremist groups or mosques - with their families being just as surprised about it sometimes. The guy doing the Brussels attack had a pretty decent government job. Your narrative doesn't fit the reality.

 

[remist]

Not at that point; they didn't know what was going to happen. However, right now, that the extent of the issue has become clear, they, among many other media outlets, are responsible for the spread of extremism. If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something. In this case, they are even promoting it.

To be perfectly honest with you, I find the whole criminal system flawed; they [the judiciary system] only implicate the final agent of the action. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that people have much less freedom of will that what was believed we posses at the time that those criminal codes were solidified.

Essentially, my point is that if you too were born into a fundamentalist religion family in a poor neighborhood, in all likely hood you would end up being a religious fundamentalist too.

This is lunacy. What needs to happen is that any time an image like this causes an outburst of violence, every major newspaper in the world needs to plaster it onto their front pages in order to spread the risk around and let these nutjobs know that majority of sane people are not going to put up with their bullshit.

 

[Aselith]

Of course, I wouldn't understand an terrorist attack but that goes without saying.

Not sure what you "would" understand then

 

[Buzzati]

Not at that point; they didn't know what was going to happen. However, right now, that the extent of the issue has become clear, they, among many other media outlets, are responsible for the spread of extremism. If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something. In this case, they are even promoting it.

To be perfectly honest with you, I find the whole criminal system flawed; they [the judiciary system] only implicate the final agent of the action. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that people have much less freedom of will that what was believed we posses at the time that those criminal codes were solidified.

Essentially, my point is that if you too were born into a fundamentalist religion family in a poor neighborhood, in all likely hood you would end up being a religious fundamentalist too.

That's nice. You're about 400 years too late when Western liberalism decided that the values of society would reflect the freedom of the people to speak without persecution. So, either develop a time machine to go back in time to your fictional world where cartoonists are rightfully barred from drawing Mohammed or find a different country to victim blame.

If the Enlightenment is responsible for Islamist extremism, your conclusion is to redact the Enlightenment?

 

[walking fiend]

Yet a lot of the people perpetrating these attacks haven't been living as fundamentalists. They got turned late in life.

The exact configuration of the starting condition doesn't matter too much. Pick up a book on social psychology, and there are numerous examples of how normal people can become ruthless in a matter of days under the right circumstances. The most famous example is probably Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

The criminal system is flawed in this. So what you are saying is that people become extremist because of the media outlets. And then those media outlets should also be fined or people from there sent to jail if someone commits a terrorist act? I don't get it.

And note that the extremists are not always poor or growing up in fundamentalist families. They radicalize because of people influencing them - over the internet, in extremist groups or mosques - with their families being just as surprised about it sometimes. The guy doing the Brussels attack had a pretty decent government job. Your narrative doesn't fit the reality.

That is true. I just used one example of a possible situation that could turn you into an extremist, without you having much choice but just become one.

 

[Tiberius]

It didn't change since then, Fourest is always writing in it for now more than a decade and she is actively promoting that islamophobia don't even exist.
They also made the promotion of the book of Oriana Fallaci who compare muslims to rats.

Fourest left charlie in 2009

 

[CyclopsRock]

If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something. In this case, they are even promoting it.

This is absolute nonsense. It's victim blaming at its absolute worst.

Women shouldn't go outside at night if they don't want to get raped. After all, that's something they can do about the problem of rape. If they don't, they're responsible for the rise in rape.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That is true. I just used one example of a possible situation that could turn you into an extremist, without you having much choice but just become one.

Becoming an extremist and committing terrorist acts is not something these people are forced into. They are living in Europe, they grew up here probably. It is very much a choice.

Can you address the first part about the justice system and if media should be held responsible in your view then?

 

[walking fiend]

This is absolute nonsense. It's victim blaming at its absolute worst.

Women shouldn't go outside at night if they don't want to get raped. After all, that's something they can do about the problem of rape. If they don't, they're responsible for the rise in rape.

A famous magazine that is known by almost everyone on the internet is not the same as a single women individual. They have vastly more power than than any single individual.

Your comparison is also flawed on another front: I said if what you do promote extremism and racism, that is irresponsible of you. Basically, for your comparison, a woman who goes out somehow should promote rape culture for your comparison to become at least partially similar to my case.

 

[tuxfool]

A famous magazine that is known by almost everyone on the internet is not the same as a single women individual. They have vastly more power than than any single individual.

Your comparison is also flawed on another front: I said if what you do promote extremism and racism, that is irresponsible of you. Basically, for your comparison, a woman who goes out somehow should promote rape culture for your comparison to become at least partially similar to my case.

A woman that goes out in a skimpy dress is clearly asking for it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

A famous magazine that is known by almost everyone on the internet is not the same as a single women individual. They have vastly more power than than any single individual.

Your comparison is also flawed on another front: I said if what you do promote extremism and racism, that is irresponsible of you. Basically, for your comparison, a woman who goes out somehow should promote rape culture for your comparison to become at least partially similar to my case.

But they don't promote extremism and racism...

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

It's difficult to pinpoint the causes of extremism when their family and everyone they knew are shocked and would never have expected them to do it because they showed no signs of it. Muslim countries were better for women's rights in the 1920s-1970s for some reason. I saw pictures of 1960s Afghanistan and I was shocked at how western the people looked. The European fear of radicals taking over and influencing people isn't so far fetched when you consider how they've helped ruin the entire Middle East.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Fourest left charlie in 2009

Even so, i don't see what really changed since then in their editorial policies.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A famous magazine that is known by almost everyone on the internet is not the same as a single women individual. They have vastly more power than than any single individual.

Your comparison is also flawed on another front: I said if what you do promote extremism and racism, that is irresponsible of you. Basically, for your comparison, a woman who goes out somehow should promote rape culture for your comparison to become at least partially similar to my case.

Nope. You said that if you have the power to stop something happening and you don't, you're responsible for its rise. You might not have meant that, but that's what you said. More likely, though, I think you're just tying yourself in knots because you keep moving the goal posts.

Quite aside from the fact that they *don't* promote extremism and racism, the argument you're putting forward is basically "if you don't say anything to annoy anyone, you'll be fine." Which is a pathetic and cowardly approach to have. In the grown up, adult world most people appreciate that sometimes the truth, or what's right, isn't the same thing as that which doesn't annoy anyone. Those two goals may occasionally align but, by and large, they have no relationship to one another. The solution cannot possibly be to kowtow to the misguided views of idiots, especially when - by your own admission - it's only offensive when taken out of context or otherwise deliverable misconstrued. These fuckheads on GAF have the excuse that they're basically here for the internet points and fundamentally don't understand anything about France or its culture. What do the French Muslims issuing death threats have for an excuse? We have to very firmly say "No. You don't get to do that." Anything short of that is a dereliction of our duty to ourselves, each other and the next generation.

 

[fierrotlepou]

I think it's brave that they still continue doing this. I can still hear that piece of shit terrorist scum yell "On à tué Charlie Hebdo!" in that video.

He couldn't be more wrong. It still exists but he's dead.

 

[radios shipping overview]

It's difficult to pinpoint the causes of extremism when their family and everyone they knew are shocked and would never have expected them to do it because they showed no signs of it. Muslim countries were better for women's rights in the 1920s-1970s for some reason. I saw pictures of 1960s Afghanistan and I was shocked at how western the people looked. The European fear of radicals taking over and influencing people isn't so far fetched when you consider how they've helped ruin the entire Middle East.

Wikipedia sez:

The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th century. The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the Cold War following World War II, some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the Soviet Union, and as a means to prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable toward the interests of the Western nations. By the 1970s the Islamists had become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were friendly to U.S. interests. By the late 1970s, however, some fundamentalist groups had become militaristic leading to threats and changes to existing regimes. The overthrow of the Shah in Iran and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the most significant signs of this shift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

So... well, here we are again.

 

[walking fiend]

Nope. You said that if you have the power to stop something happening and you don't, you're responsible for its rise. You might not have meant that, but that's what you said. More likely, though, I think you're just tying yourself in knots because you keep moving the goal posts.

And that something was promotion of extremism and racism; don't get fired up before reading my whole post.

But they don't promote extremism and racism...

These are some of the reportage from the media:

Charlie Hebdo magazine is warned of an imminent attack after latest edition mocks Muslims over the Cannes burka ban

Charlie Hebdo is receiving a new series of death threats after their latest cartoon satirized Muslims by saying they should just get naked whenever they go to the beach.

Office spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre said the investigation for “written death threats” follows about a dozen postings in July and August on the paper’s Facebook page, which carried a cover cartoon mocking Muslims at the beach.

Even media is reporting this as a satire/mockery of Muslims, and you say it is not promoting racism? They don't say it is a satire of Muslim fundamentalists, or hardliner's policies, but just simply Muslims.

Some of them dont't even mention it is related to the Burkini ban:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/15/charl...t-of-imminent-attack-after-new-cover-6069569/

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Wikipedia sez:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

So... well, here we are again.

The Wahhabi movement was put in power in Arabia by Britain, to destroy the Ottoman Empire from inside. Yes, the hero celebrated in the west as Lawrence of Arabia was basically somebody who put a theocratic and fanatical regime in power to get rid off an infinitely more sophisticated and open society the Ottoman Empire was. For instance, homosexuality was depenalized in the Ottoman Empire in the mid 19th century and philosophy, sciences and arts was the basic curriculum of every religious school.

So don't start wondering why Saudi seem like a medieval place if the West install the same regime that made it that way.

 

[Tiberius]

So media misreporting their cartoon is charlie hebdo fault ?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Just because you're allowed to do something, it doesn't mean you should!

Will this be the go to statement when more and more colleges allow concealed carry in classrooms?

 

[walking fiend]

So media misreporting their cartoon is charlie hebdo fault ?

Why do you say it is 'misrepresenting' their cartoon? Why can't I say they simply have produced a racist cartoon and Media is reporting it just as it is?

My whole participation in this thread started by saying that defending Charlie Hebdo's cartoon is similar to defending Trumps comments. Each time one of his comments causes controversy, he says that it is media which is twisting his messages.

 

[remist]

And that something was promotion of extremism and racism; don't get fired up before reading my whole post.


These are some of the reportage from the media:

Charlie Hebdo magazine is warned of an imminent attack after latest edition mocks Muslims over the Cannes burka ban

Charlie Hebdo is receiving a new series of death threats after their latest cartoon satirized Muslims by saying they should just get naked whenever they go to the beach.

Office spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre said the investigation for “written death threats” follows about a dozen postings in July and August on the paper’s Facebook page, which carried a cover cartoon mocking Muslims at the beach.

Even media is reporting this as a satire/mockery of Muslims, and you say it is not promoting racism? They don't say it is a satire of Muslim fundamentalists, or hardliner's policies, but just simply Muslims.

Some of them dont't even mention it is related to the Burkini ban:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/15/charl...t-of-imminent-attack-after-new-cover-6069569/

You are holding Charlie Hebdo responsible, not for their own actions and intentions, but other people's misunderstandings and ignorance. You don't understand why that is problematic?

Why do you say it is 'misrepresenting' their cartoon? Why can't I say they simply have produced a racist cartoon and Media is reporting it just as it is?

My whole participation in this thread started by saying that defending Charlie Hebdo's cartoon is similar to defending Trumps comments. Each time one of his comments causes controversy, he says that it is media which is twisting his messages.

You could say that if you could defend it logically. You can't and haven't. That's the difference between this and Trump.

 

[LyleLanley]

Is Walking Fiend saying that Charlie Hebdo should be prosecuted because their cartoons are radicalizing people?

 

[Not]

This comic can induce people to violence?

The world has gone insane.

Nah. We were born into the sanest world it's ever been. Isn't that saying something?

 

[Tiberius]

The Wahhabi movement was put in power in Arabia by Britain, to destroy the Ottoman Empire from inside. Yes, the hero celebrated in the west as Lawrence of Arabia was basically somebody who put a theocratic and fanatical regime in power to get rid off an infinitely more sophisticated and open society the Ottoman Empire was. For instance, homosexuality was depenalized in the Ottoman Empire in the mid 19th century and philosophy, sciences and arts was the basic curriculum of every religious school.

So don't start wondering why Saudi seem like a medieval place if the West install the same regime that made it that way.

From the wiki page

Many Sunni and Shia Muslims disagree with the Wahhabi movement, and a widely circulated conspiracy theory holds it to have been a product of British secret service efforts for causing the demise of the Ottoman empire.[34]

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The Wahhabi movement was put in power in Arabia by Britain, to destroy the Ottoman Empire from inside. Yes, the hero celebrated in the west as Lawrence of Arabia was basically somebody who put a theocratic and fanatical regime in power to get rid off an infinitely more sophisticated and open society the Ottoman Empire was. For instance, homosexuality was depenalized in the Ottoman Empire in the mid 19th century and philosophy, sciences and arts was the basic curriculum of every religious school.

So don't start wondering why Saudi seem like a medieval place if the West install the same regime that made it that way.

Never knew about this. And I wouldn't call the Ottomans sophisticated and open when they genocided the Armenians and Turkey denies it to this day.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

From the wiki page

It's just common historical knowledge:

Now you go to separate the idea that wahhabism was created by english (which i certainly don't believe) and the fact that T.E Lawrence was an english agent who put the Saud tribe in power to break the Ottoman rule.

 

[walking fiend]

You are holding Charlie Hebdo responsible, not for their own actions and intentions, but other people's misunderstandings and ignorance. You don't understand why that is problematic?

Refer to my previous comment. Basically, you are saying Charlie Hebdo has said 'day', and media is hearing it saying 'night'.

Well, what kind of amateurish cartoonist is working in Charlie Hebdo that has produced something that so many people are getting wrong? Well, maybe they are not really racist or irresponsible, but simply stupid and incompetent?

Never knew about this. And I wouldn't call the Ottomans sophisticated and open when they genocided the Armenians and Turkey denies it to this day.

US hasn't apologized to Japanese people for nuclear bombing their cities yet. Japanese government, in their own context, haven't apologized for Nanking massacre yet either.

 

[Koren]

Even media is reporting this as a satire/mockery of Muslims, and you say it is not promoting racism?

Well, it is not.

You may accuse them of attacking religions, all of them, but "promoting racism" is a stupid accusation.

I'm personally not fan of their work, but I think we should defend the right of satyre, as long it's not racism (and no, I'm convinced it's not, and justice too)

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Will this be the go to statement when more and more colleges allow concealed carry in classrooms?

The way things are going Europe should legalize concealed carry for everyone who's been threatened by extremists and has genuine cause to fear for their safety.