The manner in which 12 innocent lives were cut short at the Paris headquarters of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on January 7 has sent shock waves across the globe. The world is together in grief, disgust and anguish, and condemns brutal massacre as a form to justify ideological points of view. What hurts the most is that the political and cultural consequences of a tragedy of this magnitude, when individual ideological points of view are attached to radical Islam, lead to gross generalizations and Islamophobia. A tweet from Iyad el-Baghdadi, Palestinian blogger and human rights activist, who shot to fame during the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, captures the troubling implications:
As a Muslim, killing innocent people in the name of Islam is much, much more offensive to me than any cartoon can ever be. #CharlieHebdo
— Iyad El-Baghdadi (@iyad_elbaghdadi) 7. Januar 2015
Iyad el-Baghdadi’s words are a powerful rejection of those who use religion to justify cruelty; they’re a reminder that the Paris terror attack does not reflect the values of Muslims worldwide. He found support in the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah who on January 9 addressed a gathering in southern Beirut via video link and said, “Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion”.
While he and Hassan try their best to remind people of this ‘reality’, fear looms large as Paris shooting can spur a slight increase in anti-Muslim sentiment and add to the rising tide of Islamophobia in France and elsewhere. In a chilling video footage, taken by terrified onlookers, screams of ‘Allahu Akbar’ or ‘God is great’ could be heard amid the gunfire. The attackers were heard shouting, “We have killed Charlie Hebdo. We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad,” sending strong signals that the masked gunmen acted as part of a religious vendetta against the magazine known for printing offensive cartoons of the Prophet.
Daniel Trilling at the New Humanist sums it up perfectly:
“It’s worth stating that journalist should have the right to publish offensive material without fear of violence retribution. They should have the freedom to publish it, and others should have the freedom to criticize it. Let’s defend those rights. One effect that terrorism can have is that it scares large groups of people into hating each other, into endorsing stereotypes and restrictive laws they might otherwise not. Let’s resist that too”.
Let’s just hope that the horror of this massacre does not breed more hatred, xenophobia and brutality. Else, the gunmen would win even if they lost the plot completely.
Related Articles:
Catholic League Defends Murders at Charlie Hebdo
#JESUISAHMED|Story Of The French Police Officer Who Was Gunned Down While Saving Charlie Hebdo
Terrorists’ Slaughter of French Journalists Boosts Europe’s Racist Far-Right
Here’s How Arab Newspapers Reacted to The #CharlieHebdo Massacre
___________________________________________________________________________
Source:
http://mic.com/articles/107898/one-tweet-sums-up-what-s-really-offensive-about-the-paris-shooting
hello anon mod.
i got a question for u guys 🙂
since u guys can figure out allot of the truth of the most things.
i was wondering if this in Paris is a false flag?
cuz everyday it become stranger and stranger.
maybe u guys did some research.
this is not meant to be rude or respectless. ( RIP for the ones who may died)
i hope i will get soon an answer back 🙂
Hello,
we are investigating it.
Ty 🙂 i hope u will find some answers keep up the good work. 🙂
Respect !
my last post otherwise it will be seen maybe as spam 🙂
We Are Anonymous.
We Are Legion.
We Ae An Idea.
United As One.
Divided By Zero.
We Do Not Forgive.
We Do Not Forget.
Expect Us.
Hello, if you look at the video you can see a man shot in the HEAD at POINT BLANK RANGE and there is still no blood, you may still believe but for myself, I kind of think it’s a hoax.
I have seen that video too. It is on the account “StormCloudsGathering”. Interesting to see what trail of dumbness they have left this time. xx
Why the hell would you call yourself a WHITE history teacher, and not just a history teacher?
The poilceman who “died” wasn’t even shot. Check out later Anon news.
…or see MrReply’s comment. If you do not believe what your eyes tell you, then you are already controlled.
I will pray that those who are have their eyes opened.
Not trying to take sides. But when people talk about extreme Islam, they forget about the other extreme religions out there that are doing harm that are not reported. And I am including western religions.
thats what im thinking.
Muslims are so privileged.
I can’t just take them seriously anymore.
What’s even more offensive is the fact that it’s all faked. O_o
Its even more offensive that your brain makes that conclusion even though its the least likely scenario.
A Holy War ,,in my opinion would be a war of the mind ,for the mind ,,
There is a thin line between humor and propaganda. Charlie Hebdo has had the destruction of the Islamic religion as it’s prime raison d’être for several years. While the Muslim clerics see the depiction of the Prophet as a serious crime, Hebdo has depicted the holy Prophet in the most disgusting poses and positions. Some might think the French publishers were proving the pen mightier than the sword in ending a religion (and system of laws) that dates back (with the ancient Arabian religions) to the beginning of law, civilization, and culture.
Would Christians sit idly by if the Man from Jerusalem were so depicted, daily, and with impudence?
France is anti-Muslim, making laws that apply only to the practitioners of Islam. Females are in a constant battle to be permitted to wear their accustomed wraps and garments.
While the terrorist response (as categorized in the world media)was brutal and barbaric, never-the-less it was provoked. Believers can be slow to anger, but eventually they must respond or they are cowards among brothers. I’m only saying that both sides share the blame. And that the media is strictly one-sided.
Agree with you 100%. Media is always one sided. And people are like sheeps they follow media without using their brains.
Nonsense. Charlie Hebdo has featured the mockery of all sorts of religions. But by all means, let’s come to Anonymous’page to advocate not doing anything to anger those who try to stifle freedom of expression, freedom of any kind.
The unjustifiable tripe from Charlie Hebdo goes far beyond the boundaries of ‘free speech.” I agree, other religions have also felt the sting, but no so much as have the Islamic believers. “Intentional baiting” comes to mind. Really.
You may nor like their material, however, it is their right to do so, and you don’t get to set the boundaries of free speech. Charlie Hebdo represented no threat, and their humor, while it might be considered dubious or crass at time is in fact well within what is allowed for free speech. Hell, WBC’s hate speech is protected free speech. That’s the thing about free speech. People don’t have to like what you say. You can’t just shut someone up because you don’t like the content of their conversation. Free speech means we can say what we want, we still have to live with the consequences. Charb knew this when he said he’d rather die standing than live on his knees. Also, “intentional baiting” absolutely. A fuck you in the face of extremists who would impose their law on French citizens? Oh yes. You’re damn right.
“Muslim Activist Tweets What’s Most Offensive About The Paris Shooting”. There is nothing more offensive than the shooting itself. I should *hope* that most Muslims deplore the shooting more than the cartoons!
But the underlying problem is that the teachings and traditions of mainstream Islam include ideas contrary to civilised values. Such as death for blasphemy, apostasy and adultery. Such as keeping women in a bag. Such as denying women an equal education to men.
These are mainstream tenets of Islam, so although the majority of Muslims wouldn’t ACT on the most extreme beliefs, it is to be EXPECTED that a significant number of followers will take those teachings literally and seriously.
The problem is with Islam itself, not with Muslims in general.
And what of the same Christian values contained in the Bible? Your comments show a complete lack of knowledge regarding Islam and Muslims in general. Your use of the term “civilised values” is itself outdated and considered bigoted today in the mainstream West. Further, one need look no further than the Western record to see that women in the United States are also subject to unequal pay, domestic abuse, etc. The majority of the Middle East does not conform to what you believe is Islam. These terrorists depicted in the media are usually from the hardline Salafi and Wahhabi sects, funded by the Al-Saud family in Saudi Arabia since the 1960s. Please read up on Islam’s history, instead of regurgitating “liberal” views that are actually racist, as espoused by “liberal heroes” such as Bill Maher, a hardcore closet zionist. A good introductory text is Tariq Ali’s “Clashes of Fundamentalisms” regarding Christianity vs Islam since the early days.
What i find the most amazing is how everyone is defending “free speech” as in it only covers mocking religions. Ever tried mocking your own country for whatever differences? You are a traitor. Ever tried mocking same sex people? You are a homohpobe and derserve to have your career ruined. Ever mocked a religin? Oh gee, you are such a champion of freedom.
Bunch of sheep all over the world. Free speech? Hah.
You’re so right.
To Michael (Comments:January 11, 2015 at 5:36 pm)
Its worrisome when we hear people like Michael – his illiteracy on a subject that others read and they may be led to form an opinion which was based on fallacy. . . and thus there is a need for an introduction in legislation and civic law to limit “free speech” which should not be offensive and hurt feelings, emotions of a large population.