Tbh It was only a matter of time before some nut job attacked Charlie Hebdo, sadly it will give other copy cats ideas.
Hats of to the French people for how they are reacting, having a protest and saying screw you terrorists.
And that's just it, actually. Only a matter of time. It just shows the type of world that live in where such a thing could be considered inevitable. I'd like to point out, actually that this wouldn't even be the first time that they have faced danger due to their arguably offensive portrayals of Muslim culture--
their office was fire-bombed back in 2011 over their portrayal Islamic prophet Mohammed. I'd like to stress that this does signal that I think we should condone the actions of these men or the implication that our freedom of speech should be hindered out of fear of violence.
Rest in peace to those who were killed, but my thoughts are with those who are currently scared for the backlash of millions of angry Islamophobic French citizens.
Yes, this is going to be a huge problem, and with the slaying of the unarmed police officer, I can see officials being slow to aid followers of Islam who have proven themselves to be in real danger. Only time can tell if that prediction will come true, but considering the
entire world is so eager to use what these men did as a means to judge all Muslim/Islamic
peoples.
I agree with you on everything except we all value all human life. But seriously. But all kidding aside I don't value all life important. A human beings life loses value if you do horrible things. And society has taught me that Women and children are worth more than Men. After all, it's ALWAYS women and children first right? And don't be a hypocrite, none of us truly value all life the same. If two men, both the same age, same financial class, and similar lives, were going die and you could only save one of them who would you choose? The only catch is that the 2nd man Murdered 47 people and showed no remorse. Who would you save?
I don't think it is so black and gray as you are making it out to be. If both of those men were strangers, I couldn't choose either of them to save. Sure, the one who murdered 47 people with no remorse seems like the obvious choice to let die here, but can you really say that he is? What if that man is a soldier? Sure, murder is specified as unlawful, but what if he was conscripted into the army and they then begun an illegal offensive and he was merely killing before he got killed? I could explain the example in more depth, but I think it should suffice.
Or what if that person that murdered 47 people is a relative, or a friend of mine? If I was particularly close with them I'd be inclined to let the other person die simply because of my fondness with the murderer. Let's say they were strangers though. There might be a number of things that make me more inclined to choose one person over the other; what if the murderer was more attractive? Or what if he promised to give me a bunch of cash or some other reward for saving him as opposed to the other guy? What if the other guy looked at me funny? Hell, maybe I'm just curious and want to sit down with the murderer and find out every last detail about his slayings?
I don't think you have to be Muslim specifically to be a psychopath, so it is my opinion that the thread title may be a tad harsh; but don't be confused with my saying it's a tad harsh and my caring. Regardless, people are seldom reminded that weapons can be made in a garage by hand or bought illegally for no regard for the laws laid down. I'm actually thankful that this wasn't as bad as it could have been. Don't get the wrong idea, but I much prefer criminals to using firearms over fertilizer.
I agree about the thread title it seems a bit harsh for my tastes. Sure they were Muslim and sure they were psychopaths, but there are plenty of the former that would never do such a thing and plenty of the latter that would easily do such a thing without being Muslim.
That aside, while it wasn't as bad as it could have been, could it not have been better? As I mentioned above Charlie Hebdo was no stranger to being attacked due to the offensive nature of the satire that they produce. They had increased security, but clearly it was not enough to protect its employees. They were supposed to be under some sort of police watch, but the first police officers on scene were unarmed and as a result died like sheep. I'm not saying it would have gone any different had the officers been armed, but its always a possibility that if stronger precautions were taken this could have ended with much less blood shed. I'm also not saying this would be the best solution, but from what I understand gun control is relatively tight over there. What if, the employees were licensed to carry a firearm and trained in the use of it?
A criminal who is intent on murdering someone is not going to care one bit if they obtained a gun legally or not--in fact, they're likely to obtain it illegally so that it doesn't have any traces back to them should they need to abandon it. A citizen who is trying to protect themselves, on the other hand, will most definitely care if the gun they have is obtained legally--they are not a criminal, and they do not want to be charged with illegal possession of a firearm where even if they use it to save their life, still could get them in trouble. Just something to think about.