Attack in Paris

Thought I’d post this link from CNN on some of the responses to this attack…I especially like the one where there is a cartoon of a hand holding a pen and giving the terrorists who did this the bird.

I thought it was done with two fingers in Europe.

I think it was an American journal and they might not have gotten the word. Besides, I believe that the middle finger gesture is also used in the ME by folks like ISIS/ISIL (I think it’s pointed down like it’s limp, though that might be in Africa…hard to remember, though I’m sure they get the picture even if they don’t use it), and that’s where this was aimed at no doubt.

The illustration in question is attributed to the (UK) Independent.

England only. The rest of Europe flips the singular bird, drives to the right and uses metric ;).

I gotta say, while the whole “I am Charlie” thing annoys me to no end for different reasons, I’m fond of the one Boulet drew - “Les canards voleront toujours plus haut que les fusils” is both a nice sentiment and a nice pun (“Ducks will always fly higher than rifles”. “Canard” is also French slang for “newspaper”, and “voler haut” is another idiom that is used in both the figurative and literal sense), with the shooter being covered in bird shit as the *Charlie *touch. This guy gets it.

What you are describing is the sort of thing that occurs among many immigrant groups, regardless of either side’s religious beliefs.

You also distort what has actually happened when you include the word “Muslim” in your depictions. We went over this pretty thoroughly at the time of the “youth riots.” The kids who were rioting were second and third generation immigrants. However, they were rioting in response to their perceived lack of opportunity, (the sort of perceived lack that many immigrants in many nations face). There was no religious significance to their outbursts and the overwhelming majority of them were not practicing Muslims, as they had already adopted the basic secular attitudes of their fellow citizens.

Actually, there are small groups of loud protesters who are behaving the way that small groups of loud protesters have always behaved. Germany pretty much overwhelmingly has rejected the noisemakers in Dresden. Of course, Dresden is both the home of the noisiest “protesters” and is simultaneously a city with among the lowest percentage of immigrants in Germany. It is rather like a riot in Inkster, Michigan (Hispanic population 2.25%) protesting the Hispanic “invasion” of the U.S. while Pontiac, Michigan (Hispanic population 15.7%) simply accepts them.

(Cities chosen for relative population. I have never heard of any anti-Hispanic actions out of Inkster.)

There’s a saying, often misattributed to Gandhi: “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Germany’s Pegida movement is obviously through the “ignore” and “laugh” stages. The mainstream now considers it worthy of a serious response.

That said, Germany stands out in western Europe for having relatively few problems with Muslim immigrants. In France there is the Front National movement. In Britain there is the UKIP. The latter won elections for the European parliament last year, the former would probably win the presidency if an election were held today. Both parties have risen thanks to multiple issues, but a willingness to deal with Islamic extremism is near the top. Such results would have been unthinkable a short while ago. To claim that only “small groups of loud protesters” care about the issue of Islamic extremism is just not true.

The police officer was murdered, plain and simple . He was not executed.

The current penchant of the media for using the word “executed” instead of “murdered” is to be deplored.

Equally deplorable is their appalling habit of reporting that some gang of criminals had “claimed responsibility” for some outrage or other. The correct phrase is “admitted guilt”.

If you’re going to be a nitpicker, be correct. “Admitted guilt” is a term of art describing a criminal defendant’s plea, not a midnight phone call to a newspaper.

Thanks for your efforts to protect me from incorrect word usage, but I, and I think most people, recognize that what was being said was the cop was murdered in the style of an execution.

As for “claimed responsibility”, that’s rock-solid correct. Any anonymous mook can claim responsibility for something over the phone or Internet. I claim responsibility for hiding that sock of yours that went missing last week, even though I’ve never met you, don’t have any idea where you live, and have enough trouble keeping track of my own socks. Have I admitted guilt?

You play with definitions. Murders of that sort effect (or is it affect?) us in different ways. I too am offended by “Execution” which implies being sentenced to death by legal means. But yes, if you claim that you are the one that swiped my sock, I would say that you have admitted guilt, and I’m getting my Louisville Slugger out of the closet. :slight_smile:

OK, let’s split the difference … they admit responsibility … howzat?

No, “claimed responsibility” is the term for a reason: not all of those making such claims are telling the truth. Sometimes a single incident will be claimed by multiple groups; they aren’t all guilty.

Sorry, what is the problem “admit responsibility” is correcting again?

Well, actually, I took that too.

Three terrorists dead, one on the run, and four hostages killed.

At least you didn’t get into the liquor cabinet. Absinthe is really bad stuff.

How about “claimed guilt”? Everybody happy with that?

Well, that’s a relief. Sort of. Poor hostages. :frowning: