post 13 here seems pretty clear to me

post 11:

big one: The life of muhammed: the beginnings of a prophet

next row: basically saying they must hide/conceal/veil the magazine, true story of baby jesus, and both saying they must not mock the other

next row: love stronger than hate essentially, mohammed overwhelmed by fundamentalists - with him saying 'it's hard to be loved by idiots', and the koran: it's **** - it doesn't stop bullets!

rough translations from a french student and translate.google.com

They got the third guy.

Yes.

Apparently the 18th year old guy went to the police office with his father , but it's a namesake whose first name and last name were reversed.
The guy (according to twitter and the #MouradHamydInnocent) was apparently at school when the people got killed.

This # was created a few hours ago (in top trends) and apparently lots of people from his class tweeted that they could witness that he was at school.

Apparently one was Hamyd MOURAD and the other was Mourad HAMYD, one was homeless and the other one was student (high school) and was apparently in class this morning.

WTF ...

If the Westboro Church morons loudly threatened to blow up and kill any newspaper editors who ran gay wedding announcements in their paper, and then a paper defiantly ran gay wedding announcements, and the Westboro idiots made good on their threat killing the people at the paper, would anyone remotely sane say "Well, the newspapers shouldn't have run such inflammatory and offensive material that might have stirred up trouble."

People need to stop bending over backwards to defend or excuse Islam based attrocities when they wouldn't' even come close to doing the same in another case.

Religious beliefs should not sacred and off limits, you're allowed to say "Yeah, what offends you is f'ing stupid and we're gonna ignore you and do it anyway."

So presumably we already have the Muslims who aren't offended on our side, and we want the Muslims who would be offended by depictions of the prophet on our side so we...........

The Muslims on our side are still going to be offended by crass depictions of Mohammed.

Gay wedding announcements have a purpose (in fact, it is their main purpose: announcing a wedding) separate from trying to rile up the intolerant. A world in newspapers self-censor gay wedding announcements is a world where people with no desire to cause controversy are adversely affected by chilling effects. There's no-one just kinda innocently drawing Muhammad for funsies getting caught in the crossfire here. A better analogy would be like making faked hardcore gay pornography "starring" a notoriously violent anti-gay bigot. Oh noes, think of the chilling effect on faked hardcore gay pornography!

Since this is a satyrical newspaper used to poke fun.

How about comedians that use insensitive humour to poke fun at people? We laugh at it all the time.

They should shut up to so that we don't hurt feelings?

Dunno if that is true. Their cause is not peaceful coexistence and respect. If the gunmen kill blasphemers, that's their cause. If they alienate or cause a negative reaction against moderate Muslims? Moderate Muslims are also their enemies.

You'd be the only one needing it so I won't bother but I think somebody else did a few posts down from the one we're talking about.

Was switching between news channels and it seems all of the cable news networks aren't showing any of the offensive cartoons.

On Rachel Maddow she showed examples of offensive cartoons done by the paper in the past. They had no problem showing a negative Christian/Jewish cartoon, but no Islam.

It seems the terrorist attack achieved it's desired effect.

Well presumably they know the phrase "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And if they take exception to that they're not really "on our side" are they? (assuming 'our side' means liberal democracy)

I've got a satyrical cartoon for you:

I like it when two sentences hit the nail on the head so well.

"I'll defend your right to insult my religion" isn't equivalent to "I won't take offense to you insulting my religion." Like, that's the whole "I may not like what you say" part.

I don't know, I feel like we've locked ourselves in a weird mode where we have to all post offensive pictures of Mohammed or else "the terrorists have won." There's got to be a smarter way to respond to this in a way that skirts the middle ground between capitulating to terror and going out of our way to offend people purely for the sake of offending people.

Dvault has been in top form even by Dvault standards ITT; I think some of it bears reposting:

you are missing the point

I think the hidden issue here is a lot of people kind of really want to insult muslims. But they're not *******s so without an excuse they would feel pretty scummy doing it because they know logically most muslims are peaceful and all that jazz, but the lizard brain wants to rage. So if they get to insult muslims because they are fighting for free speech that's different, that's sort of noble in a way. Like if the government banned ben and jerry's cookie dough ice cream and I could protest it and feel like a hero by eating ben and jerry's cookie dough ice cream I'd be all over that ****.

Cop didn't have a gun, what kind of BS is that. France apparently has quite restrictive gun laws. Then the other day in NYC two cops get shot up in a robbery in another place with restrictive gun laws. Criminals obviously have no problem with violating gun laws.

Paris Killings Show Rise of Banned French 'Weapons of War'

Quote:

The masked, black-clad killers whose Paris attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo today took 12 lives were carrying Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles. The scary thing in France, where gun-control laws are far stricter than in the U.S., is that their weapons choice wasn’t surprising.

Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned, but that hasn’t stopped drug dealers and terrorists from acquiring them in increasing numbers, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a state body created in 2003 by then-Interior Minister and later President Nicolas Sarkozy. The numbers of illegal weapons in France have increased by double digits for years, the body says.

Did I say they shouldn't be offended? Spoiler alert; I didn't. What I said was that if people think legal (or extralegal) action should be taken against someone for offending their religion they're not on 'our side'. Or at least they're not on my side.

Remember I was responding to your concern that this alienates Muslims "on our side". I don't think it should alienate them, because if they believe in free speech they understand that they have a right to be offended and cartoonists/satirists have a right to offend them without getting shot. If someone doesn't believe that they're rejecting one of the foundations of liberal democracy.

The French have a way higher percentage of armed cops than we do in the UK and both the police and public like it that way.

The toxic relationship between the citizenry and police in the US is incredible to the outside observer.

Maybe you should consult with the minority populations in Europe first to see how fond they are of their treatment by police in comparison to White Europeans...