10+ dead during shooting at the paper that ran Muhammad cartoon

[Blue_Max]

I keep seeing the adjective "cowardly" being used in reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Can someone please explain to me how in any way what the Kouachi brothers did was cowardly?

I mean, what they did was an act of surpassing evil and ignorance and intolerance and brutality and heartlessness. But how - in any way - was it "cowardly?" It seems to me that these two knew for sure that a consequence of their act was that there was no way they would live out the week. In a different context, that would be called "courageous."

I'm not in any way trying to make these two out to be anything other than monsters, but those using "cowardly" to describe the Charlie Hebdo attack are engaging in cheap emotionalism.

One way to see it to make "cowardly" work, is that they weren't in a fair fight in the least. They were well-trained, heavily armed, and rushed in to surprise unarmed civilians. The cops at least were armed, which is why they were taken first by complete surprise.

Both pure evil AND cowardly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Probably within the top 10% of all Americans in terms of intelligence and knowledge.

What would you read if you were more intelligent than 99.998% of the population?

 

[Chaotic42]

I keep seeing the adjective "cowardly" being used in reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Can someone please explain to me how in any way what the Kouachi brothers did was cowardly?

I mean, what they did was an act of surpassing evil and ignorance and intolerance and brutality and heartlessness. But how - in any way - was it "cowardly?" It seems to me that these two knew for sure that a consequence of their act was that there was no way they would live out the week. In a different context, that would be called "courageous."

I'm not in any way trying to make these two out to be anything other than monsters, but those using "cowardly" to describe the Charlie Hebdo attack are engaging in cheap emotionalism.

It's cowardly in that they attacked people who could not fight back. If they had attempted to storm some French military installation, that would have been different. Yes, they knew they'd die, but they also knew that their victims could offer no real resistance.

 

[Blue_Max]

gabbagabbaallahallaalla

*snerk* YOUR idea of "freedom" means the 'right' to kill anyone you want, usually whoever is perceived to have offended islam that day. Someone comes in and says, "You can't do that and we're going to stop you from doing it" -- yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.

Infringing on your freedom to be evil.

 

[norseamd]

Buddhist fundamentalists

Freedom of religion in Sri Lanka

Freedom of religion in Bhutan

Freedom of religion in Burma

Freedom of religion in Vietnam

 

[norseamd]

So then would dropping bombs from B-52s be just as cowardly?

 

[Blue_Max]

So then would dropping bombs from B-52s be just as cowardly?

Depends... are you dropping firebombs on civilian population, or strategic bombs against a military installation with flak cannons and Surface-to-Air missiles?

...or how about a target confirmed to be doing terrible, evil things? Even if unarmed, sometimes "greater good" overrides "bravery"... probably the same logic the terrorists used, since they undoubtedly thought they were doing "greater good" in their muslim view.

 

[Blanky]

Freedom of religion in Sri Lanka

Freedom of religion in Bhutan

Freedom of religion in Burma

Freedom of religion in Vietnam

Thanks, so just as I had said these Buddhist fundamentalists aren't even in the same ballpark of violence compared to the Islamic kind if we're keeping score.

 

[f1sherman]

I keep seeing the adjective "cowardly" being used in reference to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Can someone please explain to me how in any way what the Kouachi brothers did was cowardly?

I mean, what they did was an act of surpassing evil and ignorance and intolerance and brutality and heartlessness. But how - in any way - was it "cowardly?" It seems to me that these two knew for sure that a consequence of their act was that there was no way they would live out the week. In a different context, that would be called "courageous."

I'm not in any way trying to make these two out to be anything other than monsters, but those using "cowardly" to describe the Charlie Hebdo attack are engaging in cheap emotionalism.

• afraid to deal with their issues in a civilized manner
• shooting unarmed civilians
• afraid to face the consequences of their act ALIVE
• and instead going out with a blaze of glory when they have nothing to lose and plenty to get (virgins for one)

Yeah I'd say these are cowardly acts

 

[Abwx]

*snerk* YOUR idea of "freedom" means the 'right' to kill anyone you want, usually whoever is perceived to have offended islam that day. Someone comes in and says, "You can't do that and we're going to stop you from doing it" -- yeah, I can see why you'd hate that.

Infringing on your freedom to be evil.

Of course you have to create some straws since nowwhere i said that killing people is right, quite the contrary, i m saying that killing innocent people is evil, thing is that for some people a muslim civilian is not a civilian, actualy he s not even an human, this is your poor opinion, that is to deshumanize muslims as a mean to cancel your nation obvious crimes, also in case you didnt notice i m no believer but i guess that once one consider muslims as humans, well, he s forcibly a killer supporter.

Now i think that offending believers by ridiculising their prophets and beliefs is not freedom of expression, real freedom of expression is to build valuable argumentations that negate thoses religions, ridiculing them is a prove of poor IQ and certainly of some wickness that consist to take pleasure from voluntarly humiliating them.

Also notice that i have treated the islamophobic above the same way he treats muslims, that s why i returned him the shitead insult, a safe rule is to treat others the way they themselves treat other people.

 

[Abwx]

Depends... are you dropping firebombs on civilian population, or strategic bombs against a military installation with flak cannons and Surface-to-Air missiles?

...or how about a target confirmed to be doing terrible, evil things? Even if unarmed, sometimes "greater good" overrides "bravery"... probably the same logic the terrorists used, since they undoubtedly thought they were doing "greater good" in their muslim view.

You means the same way Bush refered to religion to make "greater good" by killing iraqis by the truck load.?

Now according to you i can hold this despicable men actions and thoughts as the typical christian ideology, that is , to murder innocent muslims as vengence for the alleged acts of a few where there was no Iraqi..?

 

[shira]

One way to see it to make "cowardly" work, is that they weren't in a fair fight in the least. They were well-trained, heavily armed, and rushed in to surprise unarmed civilians. The cops at least were armed, which is why they were taken first by complete surprise.

Both pure evil AND cowardly.

But the entire point of the attack was to silence an "infidel" voice that (according to Islamist values) committed an offense that warranted a death sentence. In the minds of the attackers, they were the executioners carrying out that sentence, much in the same way that Texas prisons execute prisoners (who cannot "fight back") for committing heinous crimes.

Does a strong majority of the American public think that capital punishment as practiced in the U.S. is "cowardly?" I very much doubt it. All that's different for the Charlie Hebdo attack is what is considered to be a "capital offense."

So I can't agree with you that the attack was cowardly. It was internally consistent with the Kouachi's values.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So let's get back to France and the current "score".

How many civilians, police and terrorists were killed and wounded?

 

[bshole]

What would you read if you were more intelligent than 99.998% of the population?

anandtech forums->social->politics and news

 

[Abwx]

So let's get back to France and the current "score".

How many civilians, police and terrorists were killed and wounded?

14 civilians, 3 policemen killed as well as the so called djihadists that are apparently 3, news is that some policeman were slightly wounded during the assault but the number is unkown at this point, rumour is 2, there s also 4 civilians wounded but they are no more in dangerous situation, particularly the webmaster who was seriously wounded but is no more in a dangerous state.

 

[f1sherman]

Now i think that offending believers by ridiculising their prophets and beliefs is not freedom of expression, real freedom of expression is to build valuable argumentations that negate thoses religions, ridiculing them is a prove of poor IQ and certainly of some wickness that consist to take pleasure from voluntarly humiliating them.

Coming to France and contrary to all land customs and tradition saying this offends me and this also offends me, means you are the one with the problem.
Not millions living there and adhering to "no one has the right not to be offended"

Taking offense is a personal issue.
We have no control over someone's emotional response.
Every lunatic has his rationale. And if there wasn't for cartoons of middle-eastern paedophile, he'd find another "reason".
That's why we call him the lunatic - for his abominable act. Not because we can't follow his logic.
Please quit saying it's our fault for not adhering to lunatics rationale

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

• afraid to deal with their issues in a civilized manner
• shooting unarmed civilians
• afraid to face the consequences of their act ALIVE
• and instead going out with a blaze of glory when they have nothing to lose and plenty to get (virgins for one)

Yeah I'd say these are cowardly acts

I see them as people dying for what they believed. I strongly disagree with what they did and how they did it so don't take that as support of actions, but unless one is suicidal people do die for the "greater good". We do it all the time but I wouldn't use "coward" as a fitting word.

George Patton would not have described these people as cowards, but perhaps this paraphrase of something he said applies.

The object of war is not to die for your beliefs but to make the other bastard die for his

 

[Nebor]

But the entire point of the attack was to silence an "infidel" voice that (according to Islamist values) committed an offense that warranted a death sentence. In the minds of the attackers, they were the executioners carrying out that sentence, much in the same way that Texas prisons execute prisoners (who cannot "fight back") for committing heinous crimes.

Does a strong majority of the American public think that capital punishment as practiced in the U.S. is "cowardly?" I very much doubt it. All that's different for the Charlie Hebdo attack is what is considered to be a "capital offense."

So I can't agree with you that the attack was cowardly. It was internally consistent with the Kouachi's values.

I absolutely agree. I find this behavior far more honorable and understandable than discreetly moving into foreign nations, and slowly increasing your population and influence while secretly hating everything about your hosts, waiting until you are stronger than them to strike.

This is the face of Islam that I like to see, because it's what will wake people up to the truth of the situation: Islam is not compatible with the Western world, and we are at war.

 

[bshole]

I absolutely agree. I find this behavior far more honorable and understandable than discreetly moving into foreign nations, and slowly increasing your population and influence while secretly hating everything about your hosts, waiting until you are stronger than them to strike.

This is the face of Islam that I like to see, because it's what will wake people up to the truth of the situation: Islam is not compatible with the Western world, and we are at war.

Tell that to Turkey.... lol.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I absolutely agree. I find this behavior far more honorable and understandable than discreetly moving into foreign nations, and slowly increasing your population and influence while secretly hating everything about your hosts, waiting until you are stronger than them to strike.

This is the face of Islam that I like to see, because it's what will wake people up to the truth of the situation: Islam is not compatible with the Western world, and we are at war.

lol the old Muslims are all secretly conspiring against us...
Meanwhile Nebor makes death threats against those and their families who don't agree with him.
Oh and the US Military actually agrees with him and promoting a Holy War against Islam

 

[Abwx]

Coming to France and contrary to all land customs and tradition saying this offends me and this also offends me, means you are the one with the problem.
Not millions living there and adhering to "no one has the right not to be offended"

Taking offense is a personal issue.
We have no control over someone's emotional response.
Every lunatic has his rationale. And if there wasn't for cartoons of middle-eastern paedophile, he'd find another "reason".
That's why we call him the lunatic - for his abominable act. Not because we can't follow his logic.
Please quit saying it's our fault for not adhering to lunatics rationale

As said i m no believer but i would be an unworthy man if in a debate with a believer i would ridicule his beliefs as a mean to be right, actualy i would be lying since ridiculing is not always compatible with a prove by the absurd, if i want to negate his beliefs as being relevant i should use valuable argumentations, you seems unable to realize that ridiculing is not an acceptable critic, it s the lack of valuable argument that would make me ressort to such a dishonnest strategy when arguing about such issues, as such it would to be unrespectfull of the other side by deliberatly negating him any intelligence, this is the very argument used here by score of supremacists, they negate the human status being to people they hate as a mean to, patheticaly, try to legitimate the killing of innocent people.

 

[Screech]

As said i m no believer but i would be an unworthy man if in a debate with a believer i would ridicule his beliefs as a mean to be right, actualy i would be lying since ridiculing is not always compatible with a prove by the absurd, if i want to negate his beliefs as being relevant i should use valuable argumentations, you seems unable to realize that ridiculing is not an acceptable critic, it s the lack of valuable argument that would make me ressort to such a dishonnest strategy when arguing about such issues, as such it would to be unrespectfull of the other side by deliberatly negating him any intelligence, this is the very argument used here by score of supremacists, they negate the human status being to people they hate as a mean to, patheticaly, try to legitimate the killing of innocent people.

So what qualifies as a legitimate criticism and what qualifies as ridicule?

For some people, to question anything Mohammed said/did/suggested/ etc is 'ridicule' and worthy of death.

Just for clarity, because it is unclear where you stand from my very vague understanding of this thread: do you think people should have the legal freedom to ridicule religion or religious beliefs? I don't mean 'is it a valuable debate tactic' i mean should people be banned by law from doing so. The value of drawing a penis on Mohammed's head with respect to a debate on religion is certainly into the 'lol' territory.

edit: and some beliefs deserve to be ridiculed

 

[Victorian Gray]

That's just a flat out wrong statement. There are tens of millions of Muslims that hate you. Its liberal ignorance that blinds you to that reality.

It must be terrible to spend your life living in fear of people who don't even know or care that you exist.

 

[Abwx]

I absolutely agree. I find this behavior far more honorable and understandable than discreetly moving into foreign nations, and slowly increasing your population and influence while secretly hating everything about your hosts, waiting until you are stronger than them to strike.

This is the face of Islam that I like to see, because it's what will wake people up to the truth of the situation: Islam is not compatible with the Western world, and we are at war.

You didnt express yourself accurately, first you are implying that all muslims are terrorists, as such you re already lying, second is that it s not the face of islam that you like to see but like you would want to see, as you need deseperatly to justify your supremacism and racism, keep on living on your rotten bubble, surely that it stinks good for haters like the zionists who are the continuator of nazism.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It appears that Al Qaeda is taking responsibility for organizing the attack.