Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

The Charlie Hebdo isn't really any worse than American humor about 9/11 that was fairly common right after the attacks. But there's a political message in the Charlie Hebdo version, that's entirely absent from the American 9/11 humor i just linked. Charlie Hebdo's cartoon draws attention to the fact that Russia is bombing people rather than drawing attention to the air crash. The message is that you don't get a free pass on the bombings because one bad thing happens to you.

I don't like this narrative, too easy for Russians to point at us and say "you too"

[boki]

Not sure whats funny about it, as innocent people died, and they are mocking them, just show how crappy Charlie Hebdo are.

Top lel and do you say this when someone makes a 9/11 joke?

They did the same crap for 9/11? Man, they should get shit on (in non aggressive way) for doing crap like this. Worst kind of filth.

He was talking about 9/11 jokes in general, nothing to do with Charlie Hebdo. For example, The Onion filled their entire newspaper with 9/11-related jokes on September 26th, 2001, which was basically their first issue they wrote after the attacks. The first headline is about how Bush Senior apologized to Bush Junior for funding Osama Bin Laden in the first place. That's pretty much up there with the Charlie Hebdo / Russian bombing cartoon in terms of bluntness and offensiveness to the victims.

The Charlie Hebdo isn't really any worse than American humor about 9/11 that was fairly common right after the attacks. But there's a political message in the Charlie Hebdo version, that's entirely absent from the American 9/11 humor i just linked. Charlie Hebdo's cartoon draws attention to the fact that Russia is bombing people rather than drawing attention to the air crash. The message is that you don't get a free pass on the bombings because one bad thing happens to you.

You can have a political message  in everything, you can draw a shit on a plate, and it will have a message  , or how the joke "Bush Senior apologized to Bush Junior for funding Osama Bin Laden " is a political message that you don't get a free pass if you support terrorism.

No this is a pure click bate, bullshit to get more attention and buzz, and that's why i hate when people get so low for getting some benefit/exposure.

[Loud Whispers]

You can have a political message  in everything, you can draw a shit on a plate, and it will have a message  , or how the joke "Bush Senior apologized to Bush Junior for funding Osama Bin Laden " is a political message that you don't get a free pass if you support terrorism.
No this is a pure click bate, bullshit to get more attention and buzz, and that's why i hate when people get so low for getting some benefit/exposure.

No clickbait is buzzfeed saying "YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS" whilst this is called making a joke

[martinuzz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

While you don't have to agree with satire, or the possible bluntness of it, do know that satire is an integral part of free society.

[Sheb]

Yeah, mostly Charlie Hebdo's caricatures are the newpaper equivalent of our Terrible Jokes thread. And that is perfectly fine.

I just found it funny how Russia dispatched people to support CH's right to offend muslims, but now that they're the target it's bad. :p

[Morrigi]

It's ridiculous that anyone feels like it's a good idea to complain that Russia is bombing people because everyone is bombing people in Syria these days, and Russia is the only country doing it within the bounds of international law. They were the only ones with the courtesy to refrain from bombing people until they were invited by the Syrian government to do so.

[Sheb]

I'm fairly certain the coalition bombing falls under the right to protect clause of international law, given that they've only targeted ISIS which doesn't shy from genocide.

[Sergarr]

Then there's Israel, who currently occupies a part of Syria (the Golan Heights). While it's understandable that they would do it, I'm pretty sure it's not within the bounds of international law.

[Helgoland]

I'm fairly certain the coalition bombing falls under the responsibility to protect clause of international law, given that they've only targeted ISIS which doesn't shy from genocide.

FTFY. It's an important difference.

[miljan]

I'm fairly certain the coalition bombing falls under the right to protect clause of international law, given that they've only targeted ISIS which doesn't shy from genocide.

Actually, its full against the law and illegal. The only way you have foreign military operation on a territory is to get permssion form them or through UN, witch in both cases did not happen with west intervention in syria. But I really dont think its a big deal, as they already did a lot of worst  illegal stuff in past so nothing new.

[Descan]

I might be a little unpopular for saying this, but I'm... okay with Israel occupying the Golan Heights. It's not perfect, but Israel is a very tiny country, with the whole Right of Return meaning they have a very high potential population. To me, it's better that they settle the Golan Heights than the West Bank, though I'd rather neither.

Of course, the Golan Heights only has 20k Druze, which is the main sticking point for me, as I don't entirely know how they're treated and it's very possible that in fifty years, people will be saying "I'm okay with Israel in the West Bank because only 20k Palestinians are still there."

[Helgoland]

I don't entirely know how they're treated

Rather well, actually. While the Druze are very insistent on being Syrian due to religious reasons, they and the Israelis get on just fine. In fact the one known trigger for Israeli involvement in the Syrian civil war is Druze-related: If someone starts fucking over the Syrian Druze population, they'll get the Six Day treatment.

[Sheb]

I don't entirely know how they're treated

Rather well, actually. While the Druze are very insistent on being Syrian due to religious reasons, they and the Israelis get on just fine. In fact the one known trigger for Israeli involvement in the Syrian civil war is Druze-related: If someone starts fucking over the Syrian Druze population, they'll get the Six Day treatment.

Well, that and arming Hizbullah. So far, all the Israeli strikes have been on arms convoy to Hizbullah.

[Helgoland]

Well yeah, but those actions aren't really intended to influence the course of the war but instead are taken to keep those weapons from being used against Israel. I wouldn't call that 'involvement in the civil war' - it's closer to 'bombing someone who happens to be engaged in a war at the time'.

[Sheb]

Well, the Druze redline isn't really involvement either. They never said they'd do anything beyond maybe establishing some kind of Druze safe zone.