Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Akratus, Jan 7, 2015.

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yes, I am pretty worried about the current evolution to say the least. Thing is, the Ukraine is burning, literaly, and the Ukraine is how far away from us? I mean Europe, Germany, France etc. And yet people spend their fucking time to debate about the Islam, PEGIDA how Muslims overrun us and all that stuff.
     
  2. Brunzer

    Brunzer First time out of the vault

    83
    Apr 9, 2010
    I suppose that is where our opinions differ. I think terrorist attacks are scary because they force a reaction, with often undesirable results for the population as a whole, which in turn changes our society.

    Easy there, I wasn’t making a case for Pegida. I used their cancelled demonstration as an example how the result of a terrorist attack goes beyond direct casualties. The collateral damage, so to speak, affects society as a whole. I could’ve used other examples like the temporary closing of Jewish schools, French embassies etc.
     
  3. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Yup, Ukraine is pretty close to us. Slovakia is one of the states bordering with Ukraine in the east, first wave of refugees took shelter here in our country already. The same goes for some Baltic countries too, there are NATO units operating ATM, protecting the east border of EU. Anyway, I don't think that Putin is planning to invade Europe, so don't worry and keep fighting those pesky terrorists meanwhile. :smile:
     
  4. Nas92

    Nas92 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    198
    Sep 8, 2012
    As a Hungarian I feel the need to correct you. Our prime minister is not an extreme right winger. He is incompetent, corrupt, and a liar, that much is true, but I wouldn't call him extreme right wing. He just cares about his own interests, he doesn't really have an ideology. Whatever statements he makes he only makes them to placate the actual extreme right (Jobbik) or the left.

    Also, I thought I'd mention that it's pretty funny someone from Finland should say how racism is a problem in Eastern Europe. The Hungarian extreme right wing news site I read from time to time, at one point brought Finnish people up as a positive example, about how the community sticks together and tries to make life hell for the gypsies that continue to commit crimes. Not saying it's true (you tell me if it is), just that it gave me a chuckle
     
  5. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Jul 28, 2006
    so...

    charlie hebdo is jewish...

    offended muslims protest by burning christian churches in africa...

    fuck logic?
     
  6. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    You could argue that's not a result of the publications or anything THEY specifically stated or portrayed or whatnot, and that it's simply what those Muslim radicals DO; destroy churches wherever they go.
     
  7. Brunzer

    Brunzer First time out of the vault

    83
    Apr 9, 2010
    Charlie Hebdo has had several contributors, only a few of them were Jewish.

    As for the violence in Niger. Like SnapSlav said, it's what radical Muslims do. Christians, Jews, Atheists, French people, to them they are infidels anyway, and according to the Quran and Boko Haram's interpretation, killing infidels is the way to go.
     
  8. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Except that's not what radical Muslims in the area did before that. It is what Boko Haram does, but Boko Haram is from Nigeria, not from Niger.

    Charlie Hebdo is not Jewish. But, BBC explains:
    Similar demonstrations in the past have been conducted peacefully, and even the authorities could not come up with an answer as to why the latest riots turned ugly.
    One school of thought is that protesters were angry about their president attending the solidarity march of world leaders in Paris after the attack on Charlie Hebdo's office.
    A second theory is that the violence was fuelled as much by politics as religious grievance - an idea given credence by the fact that protests started in the opposition stronghold of Zinder.
    The last and the most complex theory relates to Boko Haram, the Islamist militant group from neighbouring Nigeria.
    Officials are reportedly investigating whether the group were involved in stoking the protests - they say a Boko Haram flag was seen - though whether the government is merely exploiting the group to gain outside sympathy remains to be seen.​
     
  9. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    except that PEGIDA was not a movement born out of some terroristic attack like in France, not directly. Again, a lot of the people are simply frustrated and instead of educating themself and actually making a real statement they just decide to act like spoiled children.

    All I am saying is, they are mostly idiots. They might have some good points, but those are burried under bullshit.
     
  10. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009
    Ok, bro. Being as the Hungarians and Finnish belong to the same language family and I think we even have some ethnic/genetic links (Fenno-Ugric language family), I call you "bro". Hope you don't mind. :grin:

    And sorry, don't know much about Hungarian politics. I read on a Finnish news paper where they said that your PM belongs to a "national conservative party" and I figured he must be extreme right. We have our own trouble makers here in the form of The Finns Party (formely The True Finns Party). Even Nigel Farage of England admired their meteoric rise to the top of the Finnish politics. It's funny though how The Finns Party got a huge success in parliamentary elections but elected to not go be a government party because that would have exposed how inadequate they really are in actually fixing problems. They like to 'snipe' from the opposition and boast about conservative values.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  11. Brunzer

    Brunzer First time out of the vault

    83
    Apr 9, 2010
    I didn’t say Pegida was formed after the attacks in France, or any particular terrorist attack, for that matter. I used it as an example, since their demonstration was called off after threats made by terrorists, which, in the light of the recent attack in France, were taken very seriously. I also stated that the reaction to this threat was not inspired by an irrational fear, it was a sensible thing to do.

    I’m getting the feeling that I should’ve used another example, as the mere mentioning of Pegida seems to obfuscate the point I’m trying to make. So let’s recap, shall we?

    A few post back You and Sander made a post which went along the lines of: It’s irrational to fear terrorist attacks, there’s a far greater chance to die in traffic than from some nutjob blowing himself up. While this statement is true in itself, I responded by pointing out that terrorist attacks have far reaching consequences for society, not just for the victims and their relatives.

    Sander responded by saying it’s not terrorists who change society, it changes through responding out of fear. Where you said that for society to be truly free, it sometimes has to endure.

    To both of you I replied by saying that a terrorist threat forces the authorities to act. There is no real option to endure, and even responding in a sensible manner still has repercussions, and thus changes society.

    Although I’d love to discuss Pegida with you, to hear the perspective of a German on this, it wasn’t directly relevant to the point I was trying to bring across.
     
  12. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I think you're overreacting by equating the stopping of a single demonstration to the changing of a society by authorities. In fact, I'd say that's exactly the kind of fear-driven reaction to relatively banal events that I was talking about earlier. Pegida isn't being silenced. They just had a single event called off, a fairly commonplace occurrence. Protests are often called off when safety is in question.

    Other than that, your framing is curious. You keep referring to "authorities" as a passive, purely reactive institution that is "forced" to behave a certain way by the actions of terrorists. But there's no law of nature that says we must instate more oppressive security measures after a terrorist attack. There's no law of nature that says we must be more afraid of Muslims after someone executes a terrorist attack in Paris. There's no law of nature that says we must restrict immigration in reaction to violence in the Middle East. These are all choices we make, as societies -- and those choices are driven by the way we view people and events.

    Your framing removes any and all agency on the part of the institutions whose actions you actually fear.
     
  13. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yes, that would be the best, because PEGIDA is a very bad example. For example some of their promoters are ex-criminals and questionable characters, many of the people demonstrating do not even follow PEGIDAs name and so on.

    Does that also include terroristic attacks like from Breivik? Don't forget, he killed 77 people after all, but I don't see people being worried about Christianity, even though it is pretty obvious that Christianity as religion contains a lot of crazy lunatics as well - see the ones that have nothing better to do than attacking abortion clinics, protesting against homosexuals etc. The fact that Russia for example is very homophobic and also using Orthodox religion as reason does not spawn the question in the European Union if Christianity is inherently dangerous or changing society.

    And the reason for this is rather simply.

    Because we ARE mostly Christian societies. We do not connect situations like the terrorism by Breivik or actions in Russia - violence against Homosexuals, with Christianity as whole. It would give us the feeling that those attacks would come from us, from the inside and that is something that makes us feel very uncomfortable, so the mass media is avoiding it. People don't want to identify their view or religion with lunatics. In other words, they don't want to question the things they believe in.

    However, Muslims make only a very small part of our western world, like Germany, 2,5% of the population are Muslims. It is more in France, somewhere between 8%-10%, but still very low compared to the clearly Christian confessions, at least if you can believe Wikipedia. So most people in the European Union or the US will see the Islam as a foreign religion and see it as a foreign culture. This makes it very easy for the media to connect attacks by lunatics with the Islam as whole, painting it as inherently violent religion, even though the exact same violence can be found in nations mostly dominated by Christian confessions - see Russia.

    Considering historical and geographic circumstances the Islam is the dominant religion in many poor nations with either no or limited education which have usually no or a very poor infrastructure, like Afghanistan. It is no surprise that you will find more violence and places of extremism in such situations. It is also no surprise in my opinion that people, like some Muslims, in Europe which eventually face only resentment, xenophobia or poverty will be eventually easier to influence by radical and extreme views. This is not unique to the Islam or Muslims. This also counts for young Jewish people in Israel facing extreme conditions, or Christians in Germany moving to the far right because of poverty and frustration. It is simply a human condition. In the past people made it a habit to blame the Jews for everything. In the US they did it with the Chinese or Irish, xenophobia goes hand in hand with times of high immigration. People see their old and known values in danger by cultures they don't know and understand.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  14. Brunzer

    Brunzer First time out of the vault

    83
    Apr 9, 2010
    For the last time, I used Pegida as an example to showcase my point, not as the main subject of my post.

    After nearly every terrorist threat or attack there are long-term changes to society, new legislation is being pushed, new rules are imposed and more authority is given to law enforcement and government agencies. Short term changes would be the temporarily closing of schools, embassies, prohibiting soldiers to wear uniforms, cancelling demonstrations etc. etc. the list goes on.

    I assume you agree with me that terrorist are de facto changing our society? And that, although the chance of dying due to terrorism is negligible, there are a great many things to worry about, even be fearful of, when it comes to terrorist attacks, right?

    Fair point, of course the authorities have a variety of options. I suppose I have adopted a rather cynical outlook to these events. I understand the reasoning behind the actions of said authorities, I understand (most) of the restrictions and laws imposed on society, and every time another terrorist attack or even threat hits the news, I grow weary, knowing that every politician and his mother will be stating on camera that they’re shocked, condemn the attack and firm action will be taken.

    I’d be giving terrorists to much credit, if I say they are able to predict the exact course of action that will be taken after their attack. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter, they're messing with our society no matter the outcome, which leaves them at a huge advantage.

    The scary part, for me at least, is when I find there seems to be no desirable solution. Ignoring them is not an option, blaming all Muslims as a group is ridiculous and putting each and every person under surveillance can only lead to corruption.
     
  15. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Why is ignoring them not an option? Or rather, why can't we note that while terrorist attacks are a threat, instating abusive practices in an attempt to stop that threat is worse than having those terrorist threats realized? The world can't be solved, and violence is a fact of life. But we've become oddly obsessed with preventing very specific forms of violence as a threat, while ignoring that that threat is much less of a problem for people's lives than many, many other issues. That's the irrational fear talking.

    One of many problems is that we've allowed fascists and Islamophobes to frame the conversation. This article by Jim Wolfreys is an outstanding breakdown of how this happened in France, but the basic story is fairly simple: rather than repudiating the tendency to blame specific groups for society's problems at large, Europe has been embracing that tendency in ways large and small. It should not be surprising that the resulting discrimination and marginalization leads to resentment, but it should also not be surprising that the resulting fear of that specific group then leads to overreactions to relatively small instances of violence.
     
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Isn't France already rather strict and harsh when it comes to laws and controlls? Yet it still could not prevent it. I guess the issue is, if someone REALLY feels like he has to do it, for what ever reason, than he will find some way, unless we are really talking about some kind of Orwellian state where every part of your life is governed and under controll.

    That's somewhat normal though. Everything is constantly changing society as whole. But some of it more than others and I would say the Islam is not changing our society, at least not or in the way as some people want us to believe, where they seriously say that we will all be forced to hail to Allah in a few years and following the Sharia.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2015
  17. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    sorry guys, i took a few days off of NMA, but lets continue this:

    see sander, this is why you will never be able to "solve" any problems, you do not understand root causes. you really should pay attention more.


    ugh, ran out of time before work.

    lets do something simple.

    what was the cause of world war 1?

    if you are sander, you say the assassination of archduke ferdinand.

    and you would still be wrong. you are confusing the triggering event with the cause.

    the root cause was feudalistic aristocracy.

    how? because of the aristocratic habit of marrying sons/daughters with other kings/queens/princes/princesses they ended up with a situation where there was a huge chain of peace/defense agreements, mostly due to the aristocratic inter-marriage due to their feudal setup.

    when archduke ferdinand was assassinated, that prompted declarations of war from the first country to the home country of the assassin, triggering all those peace/defense agreements forcing those countries to declare war on each other. and they had to go to the defense of their sister or mother or aunt or uncle didnt they!

    thusly WW1 was TRIGGERED by the assassination, but it was not CAUSED by the assassination.
     
  18. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Anyone above age 8 understands the difference between root causes and the last event in a causal chain, dude. I wasn't taking issue with your (incredibly condescending) explanation of what root causes are, but with the actual root causes you were describing. That is, your crackpot theories that massively over-simplify events and focus on largely marginal issues.

    Like, say, your contention that World War I happened because of "feudalistic aristocracy." Which is goddamn hilarious because it's wrong on almost every level. The major blocs of alliances had fuck-all to do with aristocratic marriage. Instead, those alliances were largely the result of conscious efforts to maintain a balance of power through actual alliances rather than marriage after the rise of the nation state. If you want to talk about root causes of World War I, you have to at minimum discuss the rise of the nation state, industrialization, the creation of (colonial) Empires and German nationalism. There are many other factors, too, like the revolutionary pressures created by an impoverished working class.

    I mean Jesus Fuck there's a huge Wikipedia page dedicated to the causes of World War I and another one to the historiography of said causes and neither one even mentions marriage.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    See, and that is why I said that you should stop smoking stuff Wes. Colonialism, Nationalism and Industrialisation is at least one thing they even teach our kidz here in school about WW1. Marriage? Aristocracy? It isnt even mentioned as footnote. While I am sure that there are a fuckton more reasons behind it, just like Sander said correctly, I think it's not needed to teach 15 year old teenagers every detail, just the more important reasons. After all you can always go and educate your self.
     
  20. Ceratisa

    Ceratisa Sarcastic SOB

    229
    Nov 4, 2013
    Seems silly regardless of your own personal beliefs to try to suggest that your own way of thinking is in any way superior.


    About Muslims in general though, it seems like their biggest issue is their respect for each other's equality, being a relatively newer religion they haven't had the comparable growing pains that even Christianity had with the Crusades.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2