It seems like France stands out among terrorist attacks in the news. Is it because they are more likely to be critical of Muslim culture than other European nations? Is it because there is a security failure allowing terrorist to come in and organize better?
Alright, the real reason why you see terrorism in France more than others, is from what we in Denmark call the Muhammad Crisis.
A Danish satire drawing of Muhammad with a bomb was published in a Danish newspaper. The papers HQ got attacked. A small one, but still significant in Denmark.
France newspaper L’Equipe then reprinted the drawing more than once as a protest for free speech. After that France became a prime target for these kind of terrorists.
The driving terrorism in Nice, bombings in Paris and at L’Equipes HQ, it all happened after that.
This created alot of bad blood between these cultures, and that long going hate is what keeps France a prime target.
To blame the terrorist attacks France has suffered on a cartoon by a niche newspaper is a rather blinded look at the situation, and ignores pretty much everything about the state of the world in the past few hundred years as well as modern times.
I hope no one walks away thinking this comment is correct.
I hope no one thinks this is the whole explanation, but it’s part of history that is not known by many.
It’s a tiny part that doesn’t have much relevance today. And it’s not a hidden history it was big news for years.
I totally agree with you on this. I can somehow sense that the law against Islamic practitioners has been tightened more and more, e.g. regarding hijab, after that. It’s like if you cant be us, you can no longer be tolerated; you’re not one of us.
L’équipe ? The sport journal read by football circle jerkers ?
You probably meant Charly Hebdo.
And France is a though subject, it is historically a welcoming country for northern Africa and Muslim population (former protectorat or colonies, same language) but France partly failed mixing its population with the boom of huge ugly suburbs in the 60/70s. They ended up being poor class zone, that became foreigners zones, that became forgotten by politics leading to their population growing poorer and angry (with a right to be). Some of those were targeted by extremism advocate as they make a good place to cultivate anger and recruit new peoples.
So France is often a target because it is historically close to Muslim populations of Africa and often the final destination when migrating to Europe because it has good social security and no language barrier, unlike Italy, Greece or UK where you have to learn a new language. France is also still very present in Africa (language, industry, politics even money bills for some) so maybe if you ask a poor lost angry boy to name one Euro country, he will probably say France.
Then of course Charly drawing Muhammad or the gov forbidding religious clothes in schools was just another easy justification to attack the country.
The Hebdo drawing wasn’t light hearted fun though, it was right wingers trying to wind up religious people. Obviously there’s never any excuse for murder but publicly attacking a whole religion will upset a lot of people, and things can lead on from that.
Dude, ten years earlier they drew Jesus, Mohammad, Buddah etc having group sex together.
France stands for the right to express yourself. Fuck those idiots thinking they were somewhat responsible for any kind of terrorist attack.
They’ve done many many offensive things. They’re an awful publication and it’s disgusting that they’re allowed to exist.
I’m not sure the rest of France reflects your support as there’s been both local and worldwide protests about them over the years.
Who should decide that someone has the right to draw an image and not another one? That’s how dictatorships starts, by limiting criticism.
If you think we should limit criticism (it’s not like believing in Jesus, Mohammed etc haven’t got millions killed and worse) you could start by limiting your own criticism. You know, to show how good it is to do it.
It’s not that simple is it? If you set a church on fire then should you go free because of past issues by the church?
On drawing, should you be able to draw your friends child being shot? Again, these are not issues you should kill for, but you can understand why people are mad.
Dude, stop changing the subject.
sHoUlD yOu haVe ThE rIgHt tO KILL cHildReN
I do not relate to people getting violent over non violent speech. You are self reporting.
Not supporting people and murdering them are two distinct things, are they not?
Her clothing wasn’t tasteful, though. It was a woman’s attempt to wind up men. Obviously there’s no excuse for rape, but wearing clothing in public designed to be provocative will attract attention from a lot of people, and things can lead on from that.
What a wild false equivelency!
A persons clothing is a personal choice.
Ripping off a strangers clothing in the street is an attack.
But making a drawing isn’t (a personal choice), how interesting.
Well actually not interesting at all, because you seemt just to be trolling (you just invented the part of ripping clothes off in the streets, talk of false equivalence) how boring.
A lot of people misunderstand who Charlie Hebdo are. So this -
https://twitter.com/AkyolinEnglish/status/1622980163817336834?lang=en
Is their reaction to the Turkey earthquake, There were roughly 51k killed, and their cartoon was that this was good because that was less muslims they had to kill.
Their ‘Mohammed edition’ was a full comic about how much they hated muslims. It was pure racism and in many countries they would have been prosecuted for hate speech.
They are a hate group.
This is the meaning of two wrongs don’t make a right. Charlie Hebdo are disgusting, the people who attacked them so severely were absolutely wrong, but neither act makes either of them right.
I don’t think Charlie Hebdo is very funny often, but you just grasping at straws here. You willfully misinterpret, no actually you just blindly follow a twitter that misinterpret something.
You know, they do this to anger people. To get followers. Etc.
This is not a twitter I follow, I had to search out the cartoon to explain the issue and this was the first result.
But I do agree with your second point, Charlie Hebdo do this to anger people, to get followers. They are looking to recruit the far right and create backlash against certain groups.
Lol get a life.
Meanwhile, the Onion published this: image and as they said, nobody was shot.
They were not right winger by any way, quite the opposite, they were100% anticlerical far left. Maybe stop talking about something you know nothing about?
Since when are racists far left? Are you drunk?