• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Charlie Hebdo issue 1178 impossible to find anywhere - 5 millions printed

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's always the biggest piss off with these murderers and terrorists. They get the easy way out and don't have to live with their consequences. I bet it never even entered their stupid head that a newspaper which was barely circulated outside France has now gone global with copies being sold all over. That the denigration that they wanted to stop, was only amplified. Not only that, they singlehandedly will contribute to more anti-islam sentiment worldwide, not just Europe.
We can be happy their 'bosses' do have to live with it.
 
So people got offended, right.
I for myself feel pretty offended by the sheer amount of stupidity we see on TV everyday. I won't kill any Real TV star. I just don't watch and sigh.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but blasphemy only applies to people who are part of the religion. Catholic people have to eat fish on fridays. Jewish people have shabbath on saturday. Muslim people don't eat pork.
Each religion has its little things you have to do to be a good bigot. Right.

But theses rules are not meant to apply to people outside of the religion. It would mean that you consider your religion is above the others.

Catholic people got offended by some pieces of art recently (pisschrist for examle, which was just a dumb art piece but whatever, who cares if some people are just stupid enough to consider that putting a crucifix in piss is art). They have the right to feel offended. They can go to court for that.
Muslim people went to court back in the days in France against Charlie Hebdo. There was a trial. They lost.

My point is, religious rules have not to be forced to people who are not part of the said religion. I cannot commit blasphemy if I am atheistic.
 
Comparing pictures of extreme violence or pornography to pictures of Muhammed is not valid.

Because at one side you got an actual age restriction rating and means of censoring extreme violence as a law, in said country. While the depiction of Muhammed is only a religious censorship, which has no law over a non believer, person of different religion, or a country, where the state and religion are separated.

Religion is a choice, not a law, not a skin colour, not a birth certificate, not a gender, not a citizenship.
 

OMG. UK journalism is a disgrace.

Comparing pictures of extreme violence or pornography to pictures of Muhammed is not valid.

Because at one side you got an actual age restriction rating and means of censoring extreme violence as a law, in said country. While the depiction of Muhammed is only a religious censorship, which has no law over a non believer, person of different religion, or a country, where the state and religion are separated.

Religion is a choice, not a law, not a skin colour, not a birth certificate, not a gender, not a citizenship.

This.

So much.
 
Comparing pictures of extreme violence or pornography to pictures of Muhammed is not valid.

Because at one side you got an actual age restriction rating and means of censoring extreme violence as a law, in said country. While the depiction of Muhammed is only a religious censorship, which has no law over a non believer, person of different religion, or a country, where the state and religion are separated.

Religion is a choice, not a law, not a skin colour, not a birth certificate, not a gender, not a citizenship.
Religion is a choice. Except for the one religion of Islam. It isn't much of a choice when you are born to it and they fucking kill if you choose to leave it.
 
Religion is a choice. Except for the one religion of Islam. It isn't much of a choice when you are born to it and they fucking kill if you choose to leave it.

That doesn't disqualify it from being criticised, though. In fat, it should be more criticised because of it.
 
Religion is a choice. Except for the one religion of Islam. It isn't much of a choice when you are born to it and they fucking kill if you choose to leave it.

I know, which is why I wrote it, to indirectly point out the flaw in said religion.

It is still a choice though, so the argument stands.
 
When you're reporting on the image, the image is a pretty important thing to publish. It's just journalism.
Objective journalism should not concern itself about causing offence. It should only concern itself with objectively covering the story.

When you're reporting that someone is beheaded in the Middle East, should you also show the video?
 
I wonder is there were any incidents this morning at newsstands over here.
Since yesterday several Belgium news stand owners got threatening letters or phone calls warning not to sell the paper or else...
One of the owners went on record to say a person threatened to burn down her store if she was going to sell it.
WTF people?! :-/
 
What is wrong with this country. Am I right in saying the Guardian is the only one that has shown the cover?

No. The BBC did as well. Ironically the two news organisations stereotyped as being "loony liberals bowing down to Muslims." The news organisations that reinforce this type of mentality haven't showed them hahaha.
 
Wow...

No more Sky News for me then.

It was already like that for me. Sky News has always given me a tabloid vibe, whereas the BBC more of a broadsheet. Plus it doesn't help Sky News that they aren't HD on freeview and are now really far back in the channel listings.
 
The culture in Islam disdains any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). With current events, this cultural aspect of Islam has come under serious questioning. The spirit of Islam is captured in Prophet's last sermon delivered ages back - a piece of which is "an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action." Islam disallows the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as society tends to get involved with the physical features of the Prophet - was he white, or black? Those physical features may get attributed with superiority - something which Islam has completely avoided.
There have also been tendencies in societies to build monuments after their heroes/leaders - In contrast Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has himself discouraged such a legacy because importance solely has been given to the message of Islam than to his own person. To divert attention from the physical and to focus truly on the ideals, depiction of the Prophet has not been a part of the artistic culture in Islam.

Why do you keep writing (PBUH)? are you spitting on him? That's disrespectful.
 
It was already like that for me. Sky News has always given me a tabloid vibe, whereas the BBC more of a broadsheet. Plus it doesn't help Sky News that they aren't HD on freeview and are now really far back in the channel listings.

I found Sky News handling in that footage incredibly spineless, given the events and given what the Charlie Hebdo writer was actually saying. She had some good words that might be lost on some viewers as they just wait to see how the event in the video occurs. Even if you take that side of it away, remove the thoughts of last week from your mind, its so incredibly pathetic it left me somewhere between an awkward silence and laughter. Somebody should pass it along to Judd Apatow as there is an Anchorman 3 sketch in there somewhere. I cant believe in England we saw the top of a cartoon drawing of a turban and got the most sincere apology for it. To think these people covered the march on Sunday...
 
The German media didn't seem to have a problem at all with showing it. Saw it on multiple channels and not a single one censored it.

Political correctness is a disease of the Anglosphere, evidenced by the fact that even some media organisations in Muslim majority countries are showing them.
 
Issues seem easier to find now by the way. A colleague of mine could get his this morning. Each buyer was only allowed to get one copy, though.
 
Ouest France newspaper reports that the digital version should be be available in 48 hours. This digital version is prepared by the LeMonde.fr team, with some help from Reporters Without Borders and Courrier International for the translations.

Still no information on how it will be available. The article says "application", but with no other detail, it's hard to guess if it will be a web, mobile app or something else.
 
Have you read the book? It's anything but Islamic scaremongering. From what my friends in France have told me, it's more of a conceding, almost romantic view of an Islamic France. Houellebecq has said negative things in the past about Islam. But it seems to me he has embraced it now.

THis is 100% untrue.

He's basically saying that all muslims want Sharia law, that French non-muslims are weak and obedient and that one day a muslim party will rise to power, not because muslims will outnumber non-muslims but because left and right win parties will agree to a coalition with the muslim to party in order to beat the right-wing candidate in a presidential election. Thus helping a muslim president getting elected. And this muslim president will impose Islam on evryone. In this dystopian future, one will have to embrace Islam in order to keep his job, women will stay at home etc... etc...

It's an utterly dumb book and badly written, and yet it's a fiction. There's is an underlying message which is : muslims aren't our ennemies but WE (french non-muslims) are our bigger ennemies. We've been giving up on our culture, we've elected opportunists who have given up on the people and we've stopped believing that we were right about our values and our way of doing things. We've been too " soft ".

The author is a marketing-whore though, there's already a vast majority (last polls said +70%) who think Islam isn't compatible with the value of our Republic. The author is just using this at his advantage to sell shitloads of books. These days, shitting on Islam and muslims is as common as it can get. Nothing transgressive about that.
 
I haven't read the book, but I thought the author was known for making wild predictions about the future as the basis for the anti-Islam views he expressed?

I thought the cover was mocking that, although it's good if his stance has changed and this book has adopted a more conciliatory tone.

He didn't.

But let's say that he used to say that " Islam is the most idiotic religion on earth ". Now he has adopted a more " moderate " stance on Islam. He still sees it as a danger and he thinks that our politicians have submitted to Islam. But let's say he went from holding muslims accountable for that " decline " to holding our politicians and institutions accountable for it.
 
That's always the biggest piss off with these murderers and terrorists. They get the easy way out and don't have to live with their consequences. I bet it never even entered their stupid head that a newspaper which was barely circulated outside France has now gone global with copies being sold all over. That the denigration that they wanted to stop, was only amplified. Not only that, they singlehandedly will contribute to more anti-islam sentiment worldwide, not just Europe.

How come you don't understand that it's exactly what they want ? Anti-islam hatred and Europeans turning their back on their muslim countrymen ?

Why do people keep thinking that these terrorists want to defend muslims and Islam ? They don't. Please tell me one single action by radical islamists that helped muslims all around the globe live a better life ? None. Zero. I know a lot of bigots who think all muslims should be killed can't understand this, or worse, they DO understand this but they willingly ignore it. But when you just think about it for a second, you understand that radical islamists are muslim's biggest ennemies.
 
Comparing pictures of extreme violence or pornography to pictures of Muhammed is not valid.

Because at one side you got an actual age restriction rating and means of censoring extreme violence as a law, in said country. While the depiction of Muhammed is only a religious censorship, which has no law over a non believer, person of different religion, or a country, where the state and religion are separated.

Religion is a choice, not a law, not a skin colour, not a birth certificate, not a gender, not a citizenship.

I haven't heard anyone in this thread saying that depictions of Muhammed should be made illegal (though given France's anti-hate laws, I think an argument could be made that they already should be according to the letter of the law, but I'm not a French lawyer). Primarily I think it's just an extremely disrespectful and offensive thing to do. In that sense, shoving unwanted images of extreme violence in someone's face is pretty similar.

I don't see how the "choice" aspect make this less offensive. I get that "These intentionally offensive caricatures aren't technically racist, because Muslim isn't a race", but it seems like a minor distinction to me.
 
Comparing pictures of extreme violence or pornography to pictures of Muhammed is not valid.

Because at one side you got an actual age restriction rating and means of censoring extreme violence as a law, in said country. While the depiction of Muhammed is only a religious censorship, which has no law over a non believer, person of different religion, or a country, where the state and religion are separated.

Religion is a choice, not a law, not a skin colour, not a birth certificate, not a gender, not a citizenship.

Not Islam. If you are born to a muslim father, you're automatically muslim. If you grew up as a muslim, and if you leave Islam, well guess what ? You're going to hell. Apostasy is forbidden.

But yeah, I have muslim friends who don't care about religion. They drink, they don't fast, they don't prey. Some of them even became agnostics or aheists. But they keep it private. When they meet their families, they still act muslim. And by that i don't mean they display proofs of their faith, just the general attitude, using religious " sentences " (i don't know how to say it) to greet someone for example etc...

And the funniest thing is that, most of my ex-muslim friends, even though they don't consider themselves muslims anymore or they see themselves as " not-practicing " muslims, still have to endure bigotry because of their names. They're automatically considered muslims by most people or institutions, either because of the way they look or because of their names or both.

So nah, it's not a choice. It's far very far from being one.
 
Ouest France newspaper reports that the digital version should be be available in 48 hours. This digital version is prepared by the LeMonde.fr team, with some help from Reporters Without Borders and Courrier International for the translations.

Still no information on how it will be available. The article says "application", but with no other detail, it's hard to guess if it will be a web, mobile app or something else.

Maybe it's a mobile app or something. As it seems to be the only chance to get this issue, I'm looking forward to it.
 
Here's the Turkish digital version:

http://t24.com.tr/foto-haber/iste-c...dan-sonra-cikan-ilk-sayisi-turkce-metini,4740

Not Islam. If you are born to a muslim father, you're automatically muslim. If you grew up as a muslim, and if you leave Islam, well guess what ? You're going to hell. Apostasy is forbidden.

But yeah, I have muslim friends who don't care about religion. They drink, they don't fast, they don't prey. Some of them even became agnostics or aheists. But they keep it private. When they meet their families, they still act muslim. And by that i don't mean they display proofs of their faith, just the general attitude, using religious " sentences " (i don't know how to say it) to greet someone for example etc...

And the funniest thing is that, most of my ex-muslim friends, even though they don't consider themselves muslims anymore or they see themselves as " not-practicing " muslims, still have to endure bigotry because of their names. They're automatically considered muslims by most people or institutions, either because of the way they look or because of their names or both.

So nah, it's not a choice. It's far very far from being one.

Exactly, there are people who discriminate against people of Muslim background REGARDLESS of religiosity. This should be kept in mind.
 
THis is 100% untrue.

He's basically saying that all muslims want Sharia law, that French non-muslims are weak and obedient and that one day a muslim party will rise to power, not because muslims will outnumber non-muslims but because left and right win parties will agree to a coalition with the muslim to party in order to beat the right-wing candidate in a presidential election. Thus helping a muslim president getting elected. And this muslim president will impose Islam on evryone. In this dystopian future, one will have to embrace Islam in order to keep his job, women will stay at home etc... etc...

It's an utterly dumb book and badly written, and yet it's a fiction. There's is an underlying message which is : muslims aren't our ennemies but WE (french non-muslims) are our bigger ennemies. We've been giving up on our culture, we've elected opportunists who have given up on the people and we've stopped believing that we were right about our values and our way of doing things. We've been too " soft ".

The author is a marketing-whore though, there's already a vast majority (last polls said +70%) who think Islam isn't compatible with the value of our Republic. The author is just using this at his advantage to sell shitloads of books. These days, shitting on Islam and muslims is as common as it can get. Nothing transgressive about that.

It's a novel, not an essay.
 
It's a novel, not an essay.

Yes i know. That's why i said in my post that it was a " fiction ". I never said it was an essay.

But again, I feel like everyone should read the book. My problem with the book isn't the subject of the book, it's the very weak writing and the easy shortcuts the author is using. There's not much " reflexion " behind, but yeah it expresses a sentiment that is shared by an important part of the population.
 
Yes i know. That's why i said in my post that it was a " fiction ". I never said it was an essay.

But again, I feel like everyone should read the book. My problem with the book isn't the subject of the book, it's the very weak writing and the easy shortcuts the author is using. There's not much " reflexion " behind, but yeah it expresses a sentiment that is shared by an important part of the population.

I am surprised to read this as "Les particules élémentaires" is in my top 10 GOAT books, easily.
 
I am surprised to read this as "Les particules élémentaires" is in my top 10 GOAT books, easily.

I liked many of his previous books. I think this is his weakest book. By a mile. I expected more of him. There's so much to say on such an inflammatory subject. I expected to either get slaped in the face, or to get scared or to ... I don't know ... But nothing happened. I thought it was a lame-ass book. He too to easy route. He already knew he was going to sell shitloads thanks to the subject of the book.

I got a better kick from Eric Zemmour's last book, even though it's an essay.
 
Not Islam. If you are born to a muslim father, you're automatically muslim. If you grew up as a muslim, and if you leave Islam, well guess what ? You're going to hell. Apostasy is forbidden.

But yeah, I have muslim friends who don't care about religion. They drink, they don't fast, they don't prey. Some of them even became agnostics or aheists. But they keep it private. When they meet their families, they still act muslim. And by that i don't mean they display proofs of their faith, just the general attitude, using religious " sentences " (i don't know how to say it) to greet someone for example etc...

And the funniest thing is that, most of my ex-muslim friends, even though they don't consider themselves muslims anymore or they see themselves as " not-practicing " muslims, still have to endure bigotry because of their names. They're automatically considered muslims by most people or institutions, either because of the way they look or because of their names or both.

So nah, it's not a choice. It's far very far from being one.


What I don't understand is how after writing that, you still act like Islam culture isn't dangerous and toxic? (among other things obviously)

The issue with Islam culture in France is that you got a free card to act like an asshole, because no matter what you do, it's never you fault. I could sympathize with people who are discriminated and grew up in terrible condition (that was the case for a lot of French people), where I'm totally baffled is when people of dubious intent use those discriminations and horrible acts as an armor for any criticism again the bigoted and hateful culture who pollute lot of Muslims home, like you said so.
You add to that the cult of money and advertising, and you got a generation of drones who can't think for themselves and can't act freely.

Lot of people have made huge sacrifices to be free, like rejecting families and friends, it's hard and you're going to get hurt. It's the price of freedom. You can't claim you're an atheist and drink alcohol with friends and hide it from your family and act like you're part of the discriminated Muslim community with them. Either you believe in your religion and you should be respected for that, or you chose to not believe anymore and then you fight your bigoted and intolerant family. You can't act as a free man and then perpetuate the oppression and bigoted thoughts who run rampant in your family.

The youths should emancipate from this bullshit instead of perpetuating it. Someone culture and tradition should never be used as an excuse to bigotry.
 
What I don't understand is how after writing that, you still act like Islam culture isn't dangerous and toxic? (among other things obviously)

The issue with Islam culture in France is that you got a free card to act like an asshole, because no matter what you do, it's never you fault. I could sympathize with people who are discriminated and grew up in terrible condition (that was the case for a lot of French people), where I'm totally baffled is when people of dubious intent use those discriminations and horrible acts as an armor for any criticism again the bigoted and hateful culture who pollute lot of Muslims home, like you said so.
You add to that the cult of money and advertising, and you got a generation of drones who can't think for themselves and can't act freely.

Lot of people have made huge sacrifices to be free, like rejecting families and friends, it's hard and you're going to get hurt. It's the price of freedom. You can't claim you're an atheist and drink alcohol with friends and hide it from your family and act like you're part of the discriminated Muslim community with them. Either you believe in your religion and you should be respected for that, or you chose to not believe anymore and then you fight your bigoted and intolerant family. You can't act as a free man and then perpetuate the oppression and bigoted thoughts who run rampant in your family.

The youths should emancipate from this bullshit instead of perpetuating it. Someone culture and tradition should never be used as an excuse to bigotry.

I'm not muslim.

And i actually agree with you.

i was just putting into words what my muslim friends used to tell me about their relation to religion and the impact it had on their lives. The key point you're missing is that the tradition inside muslim communities is that those who " left " islam should be ashamed of themselves and have no say whatsoever on the matter of religion. They are almost a threat to the youth and could lead them onto a wrong path. They allow you to live freely, not practice Islam, but you shouldn't be boasting about it. You're a " lost " soul, and they say they'll pray for you to find the true path of God once again. It's the EXACT same thing that happens in some christian communities, not much in Europe, but in America.

But again, my friends didn't get threaths or whatever for leaving Islam. They didn't get banned by their families. In fact they were still considered muslims, even though their families knew they didn't care about religion. Their families were still proud of them because they were good students who later landed good jobs. But this is another story.

I agree with you though. You make very valid points.

Edit : typos.
 
I misunderstood your post and thought you were saying "that's the way it is and we should deal with it". I'm glad we're on the same page and I also agree with your posts on Dieudonne (even if I'm still very weak to stupid humor and he still make me laugh)
 
Wow a lot of hate for muslims in this thread, I guess this will be trend going forward unfortunately due to actions of the few.

Can't say I blame anyone at all, but a lot of it is mis-directed in my opinion. It's difficult to project where the blame should lie as in the end the argument ends up the same.

My answer is poverty combined with a lack of real education is what sets these morons on the killing path. I've said this before and I'll say it again. The only people that can rectify these types of people from emerging in modern society are genuine, educated and modern Muslims themselves. No amount of hatred or killing from any side of the globe will solve this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom