# Charlie Hebdo Attacks



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 7, 2015)

My spontaneous thought was this:

Every single newspaper in Europe should print the Mohammed and Sharia caricatures from Charlie Hebdot on their front page tomorrow!


----------



## AC986 (Jan 7, 2015)

My spontaneous thought was hello Marine Le Penn.


----------



## cc64 (Jan 7, 2015)

They've used social media to radicalize mentally ill people and used these "lone-wolves" to attack soldiers here in Quebec, the parliament in Ottawa and innocent people in a Café in Australia.

Now a commando of trained/organized and cold-blooded professionals to attack artists?!?

Claude

Bon courage à nos amis français.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 7, 2015)

G.R. Baumann @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> My spontaneous thought was this:
> 
> Every single newspaper in Europe should print the Mohammed and Sharia caricatures from Charlie Hebdot on their front page tomorrow!



Well, BK of Berlin lead the way

http://twitter.com/PeterHuth/status/552 ... 41/photo/1

A very black day. But some of the images from Paris tonight genuinely moving. Je suis Charlie indeed.


----------



## rpaillot (Jan 7, 2015)

We're all shocked but we'll win against those extremists.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 7, 2015)

I just hope we don't invade the wrong country again.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 7, 2015)

+1 to everything said here. Je suis Charlie. Special +1 to G.R.- so right.

We need moderate Islam to step up bigtime.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 8, 2015)

I like this.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 8, 2015)

G.R. Baumann @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> My spontaneous thought was this:
> 
> Every single newspaper in Europe should print the Mohammed and Sharia caricatures from Charlie Hebdot on their front page tomorrow!



That's what I wad hoping for too.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 9, 2015)

I am not certain about the UK, but I think it was the same! Adrian?

Not a single paper in Ireland published a Charlie Hebdo caricature, not one! 

Why?

Because they not only had gunned down the entire Charlie Hebdo staff, even worse, they had succeeded in muzzling them in death. 

Shame on the Irish Media and the politicos who enacted legislation to nurture such a climate! Shame on them! 

In 2009 Fianna Fail then justice minister Dermot Ahern enacted legislation which clearly sets out the offence of blasphemy, along with a €25,000 fine. Yes, in the year 2009!!!! 

As a result, Dr Ali Selim, commenting on the Charlie Hebdo attack, has said he would seek legal advice if any newspaper in Ireland published the cartoons.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...to-republish-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-1.2058244


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2015)

The AP isn't showing any Charlie Hebdo stuff either.


----------



## bupper (Jan 9, 2015)

The guys have taken hostages in a printers. It seems the killing yesterday by one guy who trained at the same time with these brothers. I fear there will be more radical fuckwits coming out of the woodwork to join in


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 9, 2015)

The UK press bravely put the moment the police officer was shot dead on their front pages.

And when I say 'bravely', obviously I mean callously and pathetically.

There is little greater cowardice than in the British print media.


----------



## Tatu (Jan 9, 2015)

Most of the mainstream media all around EU seem to root for "Freedom of Speech" and all alike, but fail to act.. it's a sad and cowardice act in the fear of islam-extremists.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 9, 2015)

The police officer shot dead was also a Muslim btw. That's how pathetic these psychopaths are. Never be frightened of a psycho. There's more frightening things in the world than them.

And has anyone ever read a newspaper anywhere worth a damn.


----------



## Walid F. (Jan 9, 2015)

G.R. Baumann @ Wed Jan 07 said:


> My spontaneous thought was this:
> 
> Every single newspaper in Europe should print the Mohammed and Sharia caricatures from Charlie Hebdot on their front page tomorrow!





Wooloomooloo @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> That's what I wad hoping for too.



Yeah, let's disrespect and ridicule decent people's culture and beliefs all over, that seems the way to go. 

Everyone has a right to do so, but capitalization on this shouldn't be "Fuck islam, let's ridicule all of these guys by mass-sharing caricatures", it should be on the RIGHT to speak and express and on how deeply psychopathic some people are - regardless of religion or culture.

Don't you see that this will only cause further separation and play into extremists hands?

W.


----------



## H.R. (Jan 9, 2015)

This is Madness!

I live in Iran and I read Quran, Bible and Torah deeply and in our universities we have countless classes of religion and other courses related to it. I'm 24 now and after years of being exposed to all this, I've come to this conclusion that mixing superstition with real life will cause madness and loyalty to that.

STAY STRONG FRANCE!


----------



## AC986 (Jan 9, 2015)

Have you any idea of how extremist the west can be when it finally goes over the edge?

That's a lot more disturbing than 3 guys with guns against unarmed civilians.

I lunch occassionally with a Persian and he's taking his wife and himself back to Iran because his nerve has gone. The mood here is slowly changing.


----------



## H.R. (Jan 9, 2015)

adriancook @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> Have you any idea of how extremist the west can be when it finally goes over the edge?
> 
> That's a lot more disturbing than 3 guys with guns against unarmed civilians.
> 
> I lunch occassionally with a Persian and he's taking his wife and himself back to Iran because his nerve has gone. The mood here is slowly changing.



Problem is, these fuckers have no rules and political limits. They are like Joker, they just do their craziness solo.

But I think the world must use these events as a license to go extreme on such groups.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 9, 2015)

H.R. @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> But I think the world must use these events as a license to go extreme on such groups.



Yes that's right. It's a central gathering point for nutters that want to play with guns. Religion has nothing to do with it. That's just an excuse.


----------



## thebob (Jan 9, 2015)

Walid, I don't think that it is what was meant by the authors you quoted (neither by charlie hebdo itself btw).
I don't think they targeted Muslims, as Muslims, at all, but only extremists that want to impose their own morals to others, which means reducing, controlling and destroying other's autonomy as conscious beings, which is a negation of life (a fundamental point both believers and non-believers should agree on). 

However, I'm totally with you on this, this might bring further confusion, and more peaceful solutions should be found. that's why I reply : let us not separate. let's speak and understand what each other mean and think. 

I also agree that this would play into extremists hands.. and it already did, but not necessarily in perpetrators' organization hands, if you catch my drift..

- from Paris.


----------



## Phil C. (Jan 9, 2015)

It happened close to where I'm living, but too far to allow me to witness something.
A few pics of the tribute Place de la République that I took this afternoon :


















this is the front of Le palais des glaces, a Parisian Theater.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 9, 2015)

Walid F. @ 9th January 2015 said:


> G.R. Baumann @ Wed Jan 07 said:
> 
> 
> > My spontaneous thought was this:
> ...



Walid, I respectfully disagree. In my humble opinion, having a discussion about the right to print these things is not nearly as effective as actually _using_ the constitutional law of freedom of speech and print. To me the caricatures themselves are not interesting and I wouldn't give them a second look if I came across them. But today, they are symbols of freedom of speech and print.

The non-extremist muslims will simply have to accept this, and I'm sure most of them do.

Just my 5 cents.


----------



## Walid F. (Jan 9, 2015)

Resoded @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> Walid, I respectfully disagree. In my humble opinion, having a discussion about the right to print these things is not nearly as effective as actually _using_ the constitutional law of freedom of speech and print. To me the caricatures themselves are not interesting and I wouldn't give them a second look if I came across them. But today, they are symbols of freedom of speech and print.
> 
> The non-extremist muslims will simply have to accept this, and I'm sure most of them do.
> 
> Just my 5 cents.



But if to speak up about it, to use the freedom of speech law is what is effective, why use -this- ridiculing and disrespecting caricature as a symbol for it? It will only aggravate more people, and play into the hands of the extreme-Islamist separatists. 

Accepting it? People should except being deeply hurt? You have to understand, for some, their belief is everything to them, their culture is what they have known all their life - so why use a method of ridicule and disrespect to achieve peace and freedom among people? 

I think what is happening right now is great - "Je suis Charlie" movement, and "Je suis Ahmed" (the muslim cop that died defending the paper), that capitalizes on freedom of speech and solidarity among liberal people. Using caricatures as a symbol for that would be detrimental because it would tie too much with anti-Islam, you surely see that?

W.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 9, 2015)

Walid F. @ 9th January 2015 said:


> Resoded @ Fri Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Walid, I respectfully disagree. In my humble opinion, having a discussion about the right to print these things is not nearly as effective as actually _using_ the constitutional law of freedom of speech and print. To me the caricatures themselves are not interesting and I wouldn't give them a second look if I came across them. But today, they are symbols of freedom of speech and print.
> ...



Yeah, I think muslims have to accept that citizens of democracies have the right to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of print.

Freedom of speech is pointless if you don't get to aggravate religious and political groups from time to time. It's pointless if you only get to say nice things, because who decides what's nice?

Perhaps these satirical images are originally intended to bring attention to the hurt feelings on it's own? Why be so hurt and offended by an image in the first place? Provocation can stir emotions, but also thoughts and contemplation.


----------



## Walid F. (Jan 9, 2015)

I agree with you - everyone has to accept that freedom of speech means all have the right to say whatever they want, and most of these islamistic communities do! Many news shows and prints in Middle east are going with this subject as well after the shootings, but they aren't using the caricature _for the symbol of promoting_ freedom of speech. 

What I am simply saying is why choose an aggravating symbol pointed straight at anti-Islam for campaigning this right? This right is something positive, let's use a powerful and positive symbol for it - not a ridiculing caricature. That's what people are saying in here.

This right is for muslims as well. You think they will stand behind a banner of a disrespecting picture of their faith, when they are promoting this freedom of speech with the rest of us? They like freedom of speech as well! Let's choose something all can fight for and be proud of, and with a symbol that shows solidarity...

W.


----------



## Wooloomooloo (Jan 9, 2015)

Walid F. @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> G.R. Baumann @ Wed Jan 07 said:
> 
> 
> > My spontaneous thought was this:
> ...



This outcry would be more palatable if it were equally applied, but it isn't. Islam is host to a lot of people with some rather despicable beliefs (as is Christianity and other religions). They absolutely should be ridiculed, and the right of people to believe and express that should be defended.

It has always somewhat amused me that liberals (small 'l') are the ones that need to tolerate and swallow the dogma and intolerance of the most irrational and hate-ridden people on the planet (people of 'faith'). Why? Because it's apparently the moral high-ground.

No one gets shot or blown up when people make fun of the Pope, or the Buddha... who wants to live in fear of offending those who are looking to be offended?

Besides, it does not say anywhere in the Koran, that you cannot represent the Prophet Mohhammed pictorially - nowhere at all. Sure, some bonkers Sunni clerics a few hundred years later said that, but it's not in the Koran. Shia's don't even care.


----------



## Walid F. (Jan 9, 2015)

To ridicule people solves nothing though, wooloo, it may even make their beliefs stronger and become even more separated from the rest. The right of people to believe and express their disliking and opinion, how ever much it can offend others, is definitely something that should be defended like you say. But so is also the religious ones rights to believe what they want without the consequence of having to be mocked for it over the actions of lunatic extremists.

Me personally, I really dislike religion in its whole and it's more destructive than helpful, especially when it seeps into politics. But I believe to unite everyone, muslims, christians, atheists, mountain yoddlers, we need to promote the issue of freedom of speech and safety without attacking one specific group of people (which by using caricatures and similar expression specific towards Islam does).

W.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 9, 2015)

Let's say it simply:

If you believe that a slight to your god or religion is a justifiable provocation for the death penalty for the person who did it, you should be put down like a rabid dog.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2015)

Never heard of Charlie Hebdo before all this, never have seen any of their cartoons depicting Mohammed. Now, I've seen every picture depicting Mohammed, and Charlie Hebdo is permanently etched into my brain. So, if these terrorist were trying to silence Charlie Hebdo they've failed spectacularly. Charlie Hebdo went from obscurity to immortal.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 9, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> Let's say it simply:
> 
> If you believe that a slight to your god or religion is a justifiable provocation for the death penalty for the person who did it, you should be put down like a rabid dog.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 9, 2015)

marclawsonmusic @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's say it simply:
> ...



Far too gentle a fate. Rabid dogs are usually put down quickly and humanely. No such courtesy should be extended to these kinds of extremist.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 9, 2015)

To try to muzzle down satire has been attempted throughout the centuries. Satire goes further than pure freedom of speech, and it takes the artistic approach of ridiculing chosen targets, be it a person, belief institution or society, and as such satire performs an important part of culture.

There is a cartoon in my head about God, Allah, ___ fill in whatever all powerful deity you see fit, sitting on his thrown pouting like a child and throwing tantrums because some graphic artist took the mickey. LOL

The catholic church, not under the current pope, tried numerous times to shut down Charlie Hebdo and some of their satiric caricatures of catholic oddities. They took them to court over their percieved blasphemic depicting of representatives and they lost, every single time.

To assume that by showing their work we would risk to infuriate more perpetrators, hence we should refrain from it is plain wrong, this has nothing to do with respect, but all with censorship. 

Back in the 80s there was a case in Germany where the urinals in a newly build school had to be repositioned due to a complain of some rich and influcencial import/export parents who insisted that their son can not piss towards the direction of Mekka, where the urinals coincidently pointed to. It is such demands on their chosen society where they live that are risible to say the least.

Today they insist that their deity, representatives and institutions are to be excluded from satire, which is even more risible. The moment where you give in to such demands, you castrated your own hard earned cultural inheritance inevitably.

Never!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2015)

Walid- what plays into the hands of terrorists, in my opinion, is allowing them to change your way of life, which to some extent is what happened in the U.S. after 9/11. I despise that. It is unfortunate that people will kill to protest satire, that they don't understand it, that they feel disrespected, but feeling disrespected is one of the weaker arguments for murder that I've heard, and I think that a strong response is called for. As an associated incident in the kosher market proved, there are apparently all kinds of cultural justifications for murder. Cowardly murders don't put me in a peaceful place-they make me sad, they make me angry, but peaceful, no.

As a Jew here in the states, though fairly horrified by it, I supported the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie, Illinois in front of Holocaust survivors. I didn't pick up a gun and shoot the bastards. I am as passionate about the right to free speech as the murderers in France were passionate about suppressing it. 

My concession is this-I think every news organization should publish, on their front pages, the satires that so inflamed radical Islamic passions, along with a number of other Charlie Hebdo cartoons lampooning other religions, making the point that general SATIRE covers a lot of different bases.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 10, 2015)

Walid F. @ 9th January 2015 said:


> What I am simply saying is why choose an aggravating symbol pointed straight at anti-Islam for campaigning this right? This right is something positive, let's use a powerful and positive symbol for it - not a ridiculing caricature. That's what people are saying in here.
> 
> W.



To me, it's only natural for the caricatures to be symbols since the whole point of the attack was because of the existence of these caricatures.



Walid F. @ 9th January 2015 said:


> But I believe to unite everyone, muslims, christians, atheists, mountain yoddlers, we need to promote the issue of freedom of speech and safety without attacking one specific group of people (which by using caricatures and similar expression specific towards Islam does).
> 
> W.



I think tolerance does not go well with terms and conditions or ultimatums. Promoting peace and unity with the term that non-muslims abide by muslim rules and superstitions is unreasonable. I get what you're saying though, sort of the catch more flies with honey-approach, but sometimes the world needs some vinegar.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 10, 2015)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jan 09 said:


> Let's say it simply:
> 
> If you believe that a slight to your god or religion is a justifiable provocation for the death penalty for the person who did it, you should be put down like a rabid dog.



:lol: 

That's one of your better quotes Jay.

Going into a Jewish supermarket and shooting 4 innocents is wayyy beyond the pale. Sadly, France has been far too liberal and indeed, let's say, generous over too long a period with it's open door policy. It has the largest Jewish and Muslim population in Europe for example. That will stop for sure in future times because Marine Le Penn is looking over everyone's shoulder. We watch from Great Britain (40 miles away) with great interest as to how the politics will play out over this.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 10, 2015)

Yes, "we" wait and hope that our politician's won't leap to infantile, flag waving, knee-jerk decisions in the name of populism and take advantage of a terrible incident in another country.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 10, 2015)

TheUnfinished @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> Yes, "we" wait and hope that our politician's won't leap to infantile, flag waving, knee-jerk decisions in the name of populism and take advantage of a terrible incident in another country.



They already have. And will continue do so because every jackass one of them wants to win the next election any way they can.

You're in a vast minority. You need to understand that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 10, 2015)

I don't want that either Matt, but I do want well trained counterterrorism forces with their ears to the ground, to be on and stay on high alert. These attacks are getting less and less random. Every one of these plots that can be foiled saves civilian lives.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 10, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> I don't want that either Matt, but I do want well trained counterterrorism forces with their ears to the ground, to be on and stay on high alert. These attacks are getting less and less random. Every one of these plots that can be foiled saves civilian lives.



I don't want that either Larry. But here's the thing that really gets me.

I can't buy a Kalashnikov. I am unable to protect myself. I do not have a constitutional right because we do not have a constitution.

Ergo, under the present system, the only way forward in terms of civilian security, which is any governments number one priority, is to to take extreme measures. 

If people are seen to be appeasers, such as Cameron for example, they will have some serious explaining to do in the future. What really makes me cross about that cunt, is the way his political stance changed the second UKIP won two bye-elections.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 10, 2015)

Well, I spent a bit of time looking at all the drawings of Mohammad done at Charlie Hebdo. Though they of course shouldn't have died for them, for anybody to think it's satire is mistaken. If Mohammad was alive he could sue for defamation in the US. These drawings are actually mocking hatred much the same as drawings of Jews done by the Nazi.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 10, 2015)

Amen, brothers. (spoken as a devout atheist). 




adriancook @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Sat Jan 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, "we" wait and hope that our politician's won't leap to infantile, flag waving, knee-jerk decisions in the name of populism and take advantage of a terrible incident in another country.
> ...


----------



## Markus S (Jan 11, 2015)

We felt very affected by what happened, the terrorists escapes from Paris and ended up right in the corner where I live (before they went back to Paris for their "showdown"). I have been petrified for three days until it was over.

It is such a sad and shocking thing that happened. 

But what shocks me now are people saying thing in the direction of "Charlie Hebdo were looking for trouble" as if the cartoonist and the other victims somehow had a responsible for the terrorist act.

Let's be clear about this : responsible is the person pulling the trigger. And the people behind it organizing it and pulling strings.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> Well, I spent a bit of time looking at all the drawings of Mohammad done at Charlie Hebdo. Though they of course shouldn't have died for them, for anybody to think it's satire is mistaken. If Mohammad was alive he could sue for defamation in the US. These drawings are actually mocking hatred much the same as drawings of Jews done by the Nazi.



There are mocking cartoons of Jews. There are mocking cartoons of Jesus, the Pope, Jean Sarkozy, foreign leaders. None of those (to my knowledge) mudered anyone over them nor incited their co-religionists to do so.


----------



## Markus S (Jan 11, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> Well, I spent a bit of time looking at all the drawings of Mohammad done at Charlie Hebdo. Though they of course shouldn't have died for them, for anybody to think it's satire is mistaken. If Mohammad was alive he could sue for defamation in the US. These drawings are actually mocking hatred much the same as drawings of Jews done by the Nazi.



As written above I really don't like this way of thinking, because it lets room for the idea that Charlie Hebdo could be somehow responsible for what happened.

Charlie Hebdo mocked everything and everyone, there was no differentiation.

You have on one side people making drawings (and no I don't like the drawings either  ) and on the other side people shooting them for it. This is dangerous and if someone can be compared to Nazis then it's the people with the guns.

So who decides what is Satire and what goes beyond it? The courts do and Charlie Hebdos drawing were not against the laws of France. If they were anyone has the possibility to go to court and fight for their rights in legal way.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 11, 2015)

josejherring @ Sat Jan 10 said:


> for anybody to think it's satire is mistaken.



I disagree. It is satire by the very definition. Most people think of satire as a diluted form because not all countries allow for real satire in Europe hence some mild and watered down form is understood as satire.

France is not such a country, also due to it's deeply secular character. In contrast, see my post above about Ireland for example, where in the year 2009 a blasphemy law was enacted. 

Satire is crude, has to be! Satire is ridiculing, has to be! 

Let me make an example: If i say that Islam is a religion loving and respecting women as the catholic church loves little boys, this is satire.

Bad taste? 

Taste is a matter of Zeitgeist, and satire is not concerned with it, on the contrary, it always makes use of the hypocrite aspects of socially accepted taste and moral standards, ridiculing them to the maximum possible, and by that exposing them for what they are!

If you allow representatives of the current Zeitgeist, be it from institutions, religion, or politics, to muzzle satire in any form, you are essentially on the same page like Khomeini calling a fatwa, ordering muslims to kill Salman Rushdie in 1989.


----------



## Resoded (Jan 11, 2015)

Markus S @ 11th January 2015 said:


> But what shocks me now are people saying thing in the direction of "Charlie Hebdo were looking for trouble" as if the cartoonist and the other victims somehow had a responsible for the terrorist act.



I agree, it's surprising. The Swedish public service journalist Alice Petrén said on the air about Hebdo:



> "It's not innocent people (Hedbo) in this case, it (the terrorist attack) is directed at an editorial staff that attacked with caricatures of the prophet Mohammed"



After some criticism on twitter she later backed down from this statement.

I was quite shocked by that indeed when I heard it.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 11, 2015)

The definition of satire.

This sketch is satirical. But what is this sketch satiring? And if the one legged man had also been a Muslim, would they have tried to kill either of these two protagonists? 

Satire and it's definitions are tricky ones. And does satire always need to be entertaining?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbnkY1tBvMU


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2015)

Greenwald wrote an article in The Intercept essentially trashing the idea of Je suis Charlie as inherently racist because of all the terrible things foisted on Muslims throughout the world. He also posts bunches of Anti-Semitic cartoons to make his point, to challenge peoples ideas of free speech and satire.

I agree with a lot of things he writes, but this struck me as more ideological than logical, and I think murders matter more than finding moral equivalencies.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 11, 2015)

Interesting, and necessary I think, discussion. Is there a distinction to be made between satire and hate speech? The former being open criticism of ideas through humor, the later made with intent to harm with words and/or to incite actual physical violence or legal pressure against the targeted idea? Not sure.

This not well defined line exists in a time when backward looking fundamentalism (radical Islam, far right religious and political movements in the U.S.) is at odds with inevitable modernism and progressivism. The combination is incredibly flammable. Charlie Hebdo was not responsible for the west's imperialist treatment of the Middle East, they were caught in the crossfire. 

I don't mean to condone what happened in any way, it's horrible and chilling. Just trying to tease apart how it happened.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 11, 2015)

Markus S @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Jan 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I spent a bit of time looking at all the drawings of Mohammad done at Charlie Hebdo. Though they of course shouldn't have died for them, for anybody to think it's satire is mistaken. If Mohammad was alive he could sue for defamation in the US. These drawings are actually mocking hatred much the same as drawings of Jews done by the Nazi.
> ...



Please don't misunderstand. And, I have the deepest of sympathy for your situation. I really do. And, I don't think that people deserved to die of these drawings. They're just little pictures for God's sake!

But, I'm sorry what Charlie Hebdo was doing wasn't satire. Satire points out ironies in a society, politcal system, ect... to bring about an improvement in that society. Kind of a good natured ribbing. The photos I saw of Mohammad weren't good natured and had no other purpose other than to mock and ridicule in the most unflattering vicious way. Charlie Hebdo is just another propaganda paper. Should they have died for it? NO!!!!! But unfortunately it is hate speech and hate begets violent actions.

And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost.  That's a bad way for me to be thinking.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 11, 2015)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost. That's a bad way for me to be thinking.



Yes Jose, it really is s bad way to be thinking.

If, as Rupert Murdoch suggested, all Muslims bear responsibility for the crimes of some psychopaths, all Muslims should share the heroism of the Muslim who risked his own life to save some Jews (including a baby) caught up in the kosher supermarket.

Do we blame atheism for Stalin or the Tamil Tigers? Christianity for the Crusades?

Meanwhile, found today's images from Paris really moving.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 11, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:
> 
> 
> > And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost. That's a bad way for me to be thinking.
> ...



I know. Knee jerk reaction. But, I'm so sick of this shit. I'm reacting from the emotions today. I'll be more reasonable later, but for now, that's just how I feel.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2015)

The far left (or at least Glen Greenwald) is not so Charlie:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I personally thought the article was beside the point and a red herring, but at least it's thought provoking.


----------



## juliansader (Jan 11, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Sun 11 Jan said:


> josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:
> 
> 
> > And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost. That's a bad way for me to be thinking.
> ...


If the so-called moderate muslim says "The quran is a holy book that should be your guide in life", and the islamic terrorist then goes ahead and actually does what the quran tells muslims to do, then yes, that so-called moderate muslim should bear partial responsibility.

Same goes for any catholic christian that said "The pope is holy and you should believe his every word", or any atheist (or non-atheist) that supported Stalin.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 11, 2015)

It seems a big problem here is that terrorists are clearly able to exploit exoticising factors. Terrorists would like the west to see Islam as a religion of absolutes, of warfare and jihad. Because it sets up a dichotomy in which the terrorists are key players, and sets up a narrative in which they are heroic opposition to greater, evil forces.

The truth is quite simply that Islam is as much a religion of peace as its cousin churches in the West. A number of Muslim clerics have denounced the attacks, pointing to the prophet's staunch advocacy against vengeance while he was alive as evidence of Islam's "real" values.

There's a tendency in looking at events to see the importance of factors differently depending on how close we are to the person involved. (They're attribution biases, if you want to google away!) Actors (and those who see themselves in the shoes of the actors involved) tend to see situational factors, while outside observers see dispositional ones. The classic example is that the person who trips and falls knows that the reason was that he was running desperately late, while the observer assumes that the person fell because of their clumsiness and awkwardness.

Unfortunately, we apply this to international politics. Catholic IRA bombers, Basque separatists, or Balkan terrorists have always put religion at the heart of their attacks, but western observers (many, tellingly, of the same faith) attribute their attacks to their situation, politically or geographically.

A group of teens seriously assaulted a gay man in Philadelphia recently; all were students (or, alarmingly, faculty!) at a Catholic High School. Presumably at least part of their motives were founded in their religious beliefs, but the response is not that violence is a part of Catholicism, that Catholicism is a religion of violent thugs; no response was demanded from the Pope to condemn the attacks. Because western observers see a group of deranged, marauding youth, not Catholic crusaders against gays.

Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It had everything to do with 'advertising' for a terrorist group. Something along the lines of "Are you fundamentalist, dogmatic and Islamic, and feel like you wish there was something you could do about it? -- Join Us!" I don't even think the word "Islamist" is a particulary apt word. No - ISIS and the rest are cut from the same horrid cloth as far-far-right despots always have been. We didn't call the Soviets "Atheismists." We didn't call the Nazis "Catholicismists." 

Far-right dogmatic reactionaries in the Islamic world are a problem, yes...but painting them other than as they are just advances their interests by setting up a dichotomy of opposition; just look at North Korea - the best way for their despot to stay in power is to try to paint a picture for his citizens of a brave leader standing up bravely against a world against them. Every once in a while he has to go piss people off somewhere to get a rise, and get a reaction, so that he can pose in front of some computer screens and look brave. Sound familiar?


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jan 11, 2015)

This is a truly bizarre piece of scaremongering. Yes, it's Fox News... but it's off the scale crazy. Even for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwq8Bwr9wUg (Fox News suggests Birmingham, UK is a place non Muslims 'do not go'.)


----------



## bbunker (Jan 11, 2015)

Wow. That is actually breathtakingly bad journalism. Nice one, Fox News.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 11, 2015)

CNN political commentator isn't Charlie Hebdo either-

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/10/opinions/ ... index.html

The basic contrarian view on the left seems to be "okay, well, murdering people is wrong, but satirists and political cartoonists and publishers should self-censor to be more respectful."


----------



## juliansader (Jan 11, 2015)

bbunker @ Sun 11 Jan said:


> A group of teens seriously assaulted a gay man in Philadelphia recently; all were students (or, alarmingly, faculty!) at a Catholic High School. Presumably at least part of their motives were founded in their religious beliefs, but the response is not that violence is a part of Catholicism, that Catholicism is a religion of violent thugs; no response was demanded from the Pope to condemn the attacks. Because western observers see a group of deranged, marauding youth, not Catholic crusaders against gays.


1) You are probably not reading the right newspapers and websites. In the secular humanist press there are lots of calls for the pope to denounce such violence, for the pope to accept gays - and even for the pope to be arrested. The catholic church is regularly denounced as an evil religion of violent thuggery.
2) In the case of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the christian media is happy to denounce islam because most christians support free speech. In the case of christian violence against gays (or against doctors that perform abortions, for example) the islamic media can not reciprocate the denouncements since muslims support such violence to a much greater extent than christians.
3) The connection between Jesus' preachings and violence against gays is much more tenuous than the connection between Mohammed's preachings and violence against satirists. 
4) Western observers are familiar with catholicism's history of savagery, but they also know that the war against catholic extremism has already been fought and won - at least for the time being.



> Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It had everything to do with 'advertising' for a terrorist group.


Question: what must these terrorists do to convince you that they *were* motivated by their religion? Can you give an example of something they can do? They are shouting it from the rooftops but you (and many others) simply say "you are lying" or "no, you don't really know your own motivations". I wonder if the terrorists find it frustrating.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 11, 2015)

Julian, are you really suggesting in the same post that "the Catholic Church is regularly denounced as an evil religion of violent thuggery." and that "they also know that the war against catholic extremism has already been fought and won - at least for the time being?"

As for your final question, of "what must terrorists do to convince you that they were motivated by religion?" Well...motivation is a complicated thing. George W. Bush said after the fact that god told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think most people would suggest that the motivation was religion, despite his claims otherwise. I ordered a chicken sandwich for lunch today. I was motivated by a desire to eat healthily (although clearly there are better choices,) a desire to not spend too much money, a desire to eat less red meat, a desire to reduce saturated fat intake, and a desire not to get the kitchen dirty by having to cook. What was my motivation? If I had religious restrictions too, would you say that I ate a chicken sandwich "because" of religion?

It's complicated.


----------



## juliansader (Jan 11, 2015)

bbunker @ Mon 12 Jan said:


> Julian, are you really suggesting in the same post that "the Catholic Church is regularly denounced as an evil religion of violent thuggery." and that "they also know that the war against catholic extremism has already been fought and won - at least for the time being?"


Indeed I am. (You seem to be implying that these statements are contradictory?)

For an interesting introduction to the debates and viewpoints within the secular humanist media on the matter of islamic violence and religion in general, you can take a look at the recent discussion between Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU


----------



## AC986 (Jan 12, 2015)

bbunker @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> Julian, are you really suggesting in the same post that "the Catholic Church is regularly denounced as an evil religion of violent thuggery." and that "they also know that the war against catholic extremism has already been fought and won - at least for the time being?"
> .




:lol: :lol: :lol: 


1539.


----------



## Markus S (Jan 12, 2015)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> Markus S @ Sun Jan 11 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sat Jan 10 said:
> ...



José, it is good to have a discussion about it and I may have misunderstood your statement indeed.

I do respect and understand your negative opinion of Charlie Hebdo and personally I never liked their drawings either.

However they are considered satire here in France and I do not think they qualify as propaganda, since their "humor" is not directed at anything or anyone in specific - they mock everything and everyone. Whereas propaganda is (quoting from Wikipedia) :

"Propaganda is information that is not impartial (..)"

Charlie Hebdo are impartial in their way.



josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost. That's a bad way for me to be thinking.



Sadly this is quite the effect the terrorist act was aiming at : hardening the fronts between Occident and Orient and separating people.

Please try to resist to this. Here is the best prove of how wrong this is :

The police man that was killed in cold blood (filmed and shown on the internet) was a Muslim himself.

The man who worked at the supermarket and saved the life of 6 people (not quite sure of the number) by hiding them when the terrorist entered is a Muslim also.

Here is a random google result about it to document : http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/tw ... percasher/


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 12, 2015)

Markus S @ Mon Jan 12 said:


> Sadly this is quite the effect the terrorist act was aiming at : hardening the fronts between Occident and Orient and separating people.



Absolutely. Of course I'd never read Charlie Hebdo and I'd argue I didn't need to to unequivocally condemn the massacre, but from one who does / did, this is a terrific article correcting some of points made of late:

http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier- ... sh-friends

The author makes a vitally important distinction between Islam and fundamentalism. The latter, in pretty much any form or flavour of any religion or political creed, is exceptionally dangerous and the enemy of free society. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I don't think there's a significant difference between Boko Haram (who, incidentally , massacred 2,000 this week which went pretty much and inexplicably unreported), Isis and the Nazi party, all of whom sought or seek to impose their own values and judgements on entire groups of people using extreme violence. It is extremism which should be our focus, not some empty-headed Murdoch style condemnation of an entire faith which, as you point out, plays directly into the hands of those who seek nothing but isolation and more violence.


----------



## damstraversaz (Jan 12, 2015)

Sorry for my poor english, but I think I have to give details about this paper

charlie is a satirical weekly newspaper, deeply anti dogmatic and atheist. they was involved in a lawsuit more than 14 times with the Catholic church in the past 30 years. This is absolutely not just an anti Islam newspaper, like some people could believe from an external vision, they laugh about everything ( politic, religion , business ..) For exemple in 1970,the French government forbade the newspaper after a title mocking the death of General de Gaulle (former French President). 

The France is not affected for their political choices, but because it affects a fundamental freedom of every french citizen, of every people leaving in this country, regardless of creed, origin etc.
In my town ( lyon) 300,000 people me included were on the streets yesterday for this (33% of Lyon's population), and absolutely not for defending the ideas of this newspaper.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 12, 2015)

TheUnfinished @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> This is a truly bizarre piece of scaremongering. Yes, it's Fox News... but it's off the scale crazy. Even for them.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwq8Bwr9wUg (Fox News suggests Birmingham, UK is a place non Muslims 'do not go'.)



Hahaha! That's awesome.

It is fucking shithole though.


----------



## blougui (Jan 13, 2015)

Dear fellow musicians.
let's not forget the murderers were French and not immigrants. 2 of them are related to Jihad in Irak - training and/or sending potential fighters over there. And before that they were involved in delinquency,a violent one.

Indeed, Charlie is a satyrical paper and has "attacked" every single religion of the Book - and every form of power.

One of the murderer was not aiming at Charlie but at the Jews as a community and at police officers - he went for it and shot down an unarmed young police officer in the back. 

I'm afraid we've entered darker ages - not last week but years ago. If blasphema has entered legislation then we're trapped and doomed. Right, Ireland is polarized, religion wise.

In France, no president/head of state/minister whatsoever has to take oath on the Bible and we've officially separated State and Religion back in 1905. But Sarkozyhas expressed in the past, even during his presidency, his will (and so called "need") to kind of go back and introduce christianity in public education and morals and even the Constitution. 

let's not forget Merrah who killed 7 persons, soldiers and Jews, 3 years ago.

Let's not forget the huge demonstrations in France against gay marriage - sure it was not the majoriy of the population but clearly religiously focused.

To point at the obvious : the problem is an economical one, first and foremost. The gap between the wealthy and the middle class is widening at an increasing rate and morality is not following suite. School is not following suite, education neither. We have big ghettos. Places of non-right with a black-market/parallel economy. 

The West conducts/initiate some retaliation wars and in the meantime lets flourishes some dictatures...

Rampant racism that keeps some french of maghrebian origins from finding a job...

Some are always condemned, some never are. A disturbing feeling of great injustice have risen in the past 2 decade and has accelerated since the fall of the iron Curtain.

Resentment grows rapidly on these grounds. And resentment fuels extremism. it's just the begining.

Sorry for the waffle...
Erik from Paris


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 13, 2015)

Front cover of Charlie Hebdo this week - Mohammed saying "Je Suis Charlie". Very simple, very smart, very moving, provocative for the right reasons. And most of all - astonishingly brave.


----------



## Lex (Jan 13, 2015)

josejherring @ Sun Jan 11 said:


> Charlie Hebdo is just another propaganda paper. Should they have died for it? NO!!!!! But unfortunately it is hate speech and hate begets violent actions.
> 
> And, these acts of terror in Paris, turned me from a tolerant person to a person that feels that Islam must be wiped out at all cost. That's a bad way for me to be thinking.



So to sum this up:

1. They were asking for it?
2. We should wipe out Islam?

This is shocking, cause it sounds that at least with you the terrorists achieved exactly what they hoped for. :( 

Last time I checked in a secular state governed by laws if you feel that an organisation or an individual is committing hate crime you sue them in the court of law. There is no gray area here.

Depressive..

alex


----------



## blougui (Jan 13, 2015)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Front cover of Charlie Hebdo this week - Mohammed saying "Je Suis Charlie". Very simple, very smart, very moving, provocative for the right reasons. And most of all - astonishingly brave.


Dear Guy,
It's more ambiguous :
it's written "All is forgiven" above the portrait of Mohamed holding a "Je suis Charlie" cartoon.
"All is forgiven" could come from character or from the people or from the team - I guess Charlie's team will clear it up but may be not.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2015)

It was nice of AQAP to take credit. It's such a banquet of terrorist organizations out there- I'm sure everyone wanted a piece of this great victory.

What d'ya think - did al-Awlaki really plan this, or are the just shining up his martyrdom?
If he was the actual planner, guess we were a little late with our drone.

At this point, I think it's really clear- the big orgs WANT to draw us into their strongholds with these operations. They want the West IN this thing, fully and physically engaged, where they can fight and kill our soldiers and die in glory. That's what the beheadings and atrocities are about, at least partially. Sadly, I think they're going to get their wish pretty soon.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> At this point, I think it's really clear- the big orgs WANT to draw us into their strongholds with these operations. They want the West Sadly, I think they're going to get their wish pretty soon.


Told you that last year. Bad news for them when that happens of course.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 14, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> It was nice of AQAP to take credit. It's such a banquet of terrorist organizations out there- I'm sure everyone wanted a piece of this great victory.
> 
> What d'ya think - did al-Awlaki really plan this, or are the just shining up his martyrdom?
> If he was the actual planner, guess we were a little late with our drone.
> ...



There was no planning really. I mean everybody calls it terrorism because it was religiously motivated. But, this kind of crime takes no planning beyond getting some guns and going to town.

Was the massacre at the movie theater terrorism? Was the subway shooter in New York in the 90's terrorism? It's just brutal mass shooting. Everybody wants a motive. Everybody thinks that there should have been a plan. For people that are inclined to murder, they're just looking for an excuse to justify their vicious actions. If radical Islam gives them that excuse they'll take it. Oppressive government they take that. 

But I contend that there's really no reason to look for a reason or some sort of plan. A crime like this has no reason, only justifications, and is decidedly lacking a plan, or they wouldn't have gone down in a shower of bullets. They would have left with an escape in mind.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 14, 2015)

^ correctomundo.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 14, 2015)

This friday liberal blogger Raif Badawi is supposed to receive his next 50 lashes from the 1,000 lashes (plus 10 years prison) he was sentenced to in the Kingdom. This is supposed to continue for 19 weeks every Friday in front of a mosque in Riadh. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

I am confident that 2015 will be another profitable year exporting arms to the Kingdom. 

Cheers!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 14, 2015)

I do not trust any western news! Sorry... .


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2015)

josejherring @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > It was nice of AQAP to take credit. It's such a banquet of terrorist organizations out there- I'm sure everyone wanted a piece of this great victory.
> ...



Sorry, Jose. The only thing I agree with in your post is that these acts were murder..

1. "No planning"? Really? "Getting some guns and going to town"- this is your analysis of what was essentially a military-style operation to kill the staff of a magazine, which by the way was guarded (not well enough, obviously)? Where did they get the money for this weaponry, which btw included a damn RPG? Where did they receive their weapons training? Do you reject the fact that they had left the country and been trained overseas?
Do you reject the fact that they were obviously radicalized?

In general, terrorism has a different goal than simple murder. It's a calculated act to impose fear on civilian populations. In this case, it was targeted at "blasphemers", Jews and cops. There was nothing random about it, and it absolutely had a plan, including the final shooutout and subsequent martyrdom at the venue they had chosen.

How do you equate the Colorado massacre by a schizophrenic in a movie theater with this very deliberate effort to send a message? I find that baffling.

My point about AQAP taking credit and reflecting it on al-Awlaki was simple musing. Motive in this instance was completely clear. The why is easy- the who would be minimally instructive. The U.S. has been in a semi-covert war with AQAP in Yemen for years now. We've been droning dudes over there for a good while. Many operations come out of there.

Yep, murder. Targeted, deliberate, operational. There are lone wolf attacks, sure. This wasn't one. They had help.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 14, 2015)

NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Wed Jan 14 said:
> ...



My point is that people look for reason. Reasons, reasons, reasons. I look at results. The result is that 14 were murdered. In Colorado 12 people died. ect....

I could care one wit if they were trained, untrained, radicalized, not radicalized, sociopaths. Those are just terms to try to explain it. Those terms are meaningless. Utterly bullshit imo. These are just murderous thugs. And no trying to understand it or categorize it is going to change, justify the result. They kill people. What does it matter your inquiry? What does it matter if they were trained, why they did it, or who trained them? Is that going to bring the dead back? Or even put a dent in terrorism? 

So quick to jump on the terrorist bandwagon and what has it gotten us? Less terrorism? Nah, until people wake up and realize that these people are just criminals. No matter what the cause, if they weren't radicalized, they'd be killing under some other cause.

Fix man's propensity to become criminal and you'll finally end terrorism. Fighting terrorism just gives the "terrorist" more resolve.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 14, 2015)

You're suggesting people not look for reasons and not bother "fighting terrorism", while at the same time try to change the murderous part of human nature that has been inherent in a small faction since the beginning of time. I think the former task would be easier than the latter.

We ARE fighting terrorism with counterterrorism, both defensive and aggressive. This is not war, nor is it simple murder. I know you react from the heart, but I'm sorry, there really is more cultural, religious and military nuance here than you'd like there to be.

I am analytical by nature, but these issues are visceral for me as well. My city's been bombed twice, the second time causing more casualties than any foreign attack since Pearl Harbor. My wife was a few hundred feet away both times and the first time, my son was put at serious risk. My son is in the Army, and I believe that's a direct result of our family's experiences. 

None of all that gives me any more information than you have nor makes me any smarter. That said, it might engage more of my time and my thoughts.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 15, 2015)

QUESTIONING SANITY

I just saw something about the youngsters from Germany, UK etc. joining camps to be trained in use of weapons, then parroting jihadist prop and preparing themselves for suicide attacks.

From a psychiatric point of view, and from the material on offer, I have very little doubts that the youngsters presented show clear evidence of severe cluster B mental disorders. 

One of them was filmed short before blowing himself up with a car bomb. 

Media plays the most important role in the recruitment of these perverted psychopaths. We hear over and over again that social media and videos play an important role in this process. What can also be said is that there are very professional media productions behind this. Much more than just a few psycho-kiddos with a GoPro cam, they are profesionally produced videos that appear over and over again in the social media and video sites. Some of them are publishing this stuff since may years.

Excuse me for being a bit lengthy, so where am I going with all this now?

We are being told that our every move and trail on the Internet is watched and data mined, and I do not doubt that for a second.

Someone explain to me how it can be that a group calling themselves Salafimedia, are posting undisturbed since 2009 on Youtube.

Some here may speak arabic as well, but even those who can not sure are able to get an impression. At first I struggled whether I should post this link here, but I think it is right to do so for the above said.

It is a mix of english and arabic.

https://www.youtube.com/user/SALAFIMEDIAUK


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 15, 2015)

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/19/1969176_-ct-salafimedia-website-revamped-to-include-radicalization.html

and not only that, if you look to the right of the "discussion" video on the page, where it subscribe to and states read more, and click on read more, a list of people is presented and amongst them the name ANWAR AL-AWLAKI. ( In case that name doesn't tell you something, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

Excuse me? Why is no one shutting that shit down? :evil:


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 15, 2015)

I rest my case!

http://www.studentrights.org.uk/article/1928/extremist_website_shared_with_students_at_university_of_manchester_update_material_also_shared_with_students_at_liverpool_john_moores_university_

It is known since many years, but they are allowed to continue publishing their ideological poison intended to recruit youngsters. 

Utterly risible. :evil:


----------



## AC986 (Jan 15, 2015)

G.R. Baumann @ Thu Jan 15 said:


> I have very little doubts that the youngsters presented show clear evidence of severe cluster B mental disorders.



Clusterfucks to the uninitiated.


----------



## thebob (Jan 15, 2015)

I've just heard of the so-called "no-go zones" in Paris that Fox news pointed out... 
:lol: :lol: :lol: 

there is the zone where I live, the zone where I work, and overall, these are almost the only zones where I go out in Paris. 
Do I miss something everyday ? 

I found this accurate comment on the internet : 
"In several of these "no-go zones", most bearded people you will meet are dangerous hipsters".


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2015)

Outside of Victorville, CA.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 17, 2015)

Hahahaha! That one made me LOL!!


----------

