Breaking News - Allegedly 10 people killed at office of satirical magazine in Paris

Enough about moderate muslims, by Padraig Reidy.

"It is a good and honourable thing that so many people’s instinct, when confronted with aggression, is conciliation. But loathe though my conciliatory soul is to admit it, there is nothing I can concede that will appease the ideology that led to the carnage in France. To quote Hitchens once more, what the murderers and their co-thinkers hate are the parts of liberal democracy that are worth defending: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state."

@sundersays: "I know a lot of people who are not offended by this cartoon. Obviously we won't hear from those people" - Shazia Mirza on #bbctw

Probably the vast majority.

And here is an article from today's Independent about Raif Badawi who has been sentenced to 1000 lashes because he wrote a blog criticising Islam]]. Inquisition, anyone? Torture for heresy, anyone? Barbarism, anyone? Europe has been here. Then we had a Reformation. I think a Reformation is due in some other places.

Here is the latest editorial from Charlie Hebdo, translated into English.

I didn't understand it. I've been thinking over the past few days that a lot of the cartoons may have been deliberately provocative which [imo] isn't at all constructive. But I haven't seen them so I don't really know. We have to stand up to terrorism but we mustn't fuel it either [as that's what they want].

I took it that the prophet was forgiving the magazine and aligning himself with free speech; and showing sorrow at what had been done in his name.

Not a good cartoon.

" Is it an expression of mutual forgiveness, with Prophet Muhammad weeping in sorrow and proclaiming his solidarity with the newspaper, and the newspaper replying by forgiving everyone?" "Luz, the artist, has indicated that this last interpretation is his own," (from Bags' article.)

Well, they haven't got any bloody right to forgive them that easily. Arrogance or what?!

The point of cartoons is that they do not need explanation, otherwise you might just as well write an article. As a former picture editor of a magazine I had to find/take photos that made the point visually and instantly.

soontobe You decide where you want to post and I shall decide where I want to post. May I remind you, as politely as possible, that you have not been granted editorial responsibility for Gransnet postings.

Yes, but he explained his thinking in the other article...Gah! I give up.

in this article which I linked to yesterday morning Luz practically admits that he doodled it by accident.

Did anyone actually read that link?

Well, if you'd read it to the end you'd have read the bloke who made the current cover's cartoon's explanation as to what he meant by it.

Presumably he, and the writer of the article, realised that some of us aren't as intuitively knowledgeable as the likes of whitewave.

Not me, jingl. I think it was Mishap's post.

Sorry. That was Mishap, not merlot.

Ana I started to. Surprisingly Silent Witness on catch-up was more interesting.

merlot I think a lot of young boys would. (remembering an incident in my son's schooldays ) I'm surprised the Pope hasn't got past that stage though.

Did you read bags's link, jingl?

I need something more substantial. I don't think those people are capable of coming up with that.

The Charlie people are saying "All is forgiven". The prophet is saying Je suis etc. (He's not saying 'not in my name')

Are the Charlie people forgiving the terrorists?

I think this "artist" took about three minutes flat to compile that picture and it's been accepted because of the emotional appeal. But when you look behind the surface appeal, there is nothing there.

It's crap.

jing Sometimes in art - it is enough if you are happy with your interpretation of what you are looking at. So I would go with what you are happy with, which is why I said what I said because that for me was my interpretation of what I was looking at. It is obviously sad, and for me forgiving, thoughtful and clever. You don't necessarily need another's (like mine) interpretation.

Gosh, whitewave, I feel so belittled by your dismissal of my opinions...

Whitewave I've been thinking about this on and off ever since you said this yesterday morning. (Wed 14-Jan-15 09:26:04.) For a moment there I had a lightbulb moment and I understood what you meant. But now, I'm not at all sure that's what it means.

Oh dear I do seem to have touched some sensibilities! Don't be so touchy ladies, there is nothing personal in my ramblings and we all undoubtedly say stuff that others may not like. However, obvious or not I am entitled to my opinion.

I do think that the exact meaning of the front page cartoon is not clear, and this article bears that out.

By definition a cartoon should encapsulate a message clearly in a drawing. It therefore fails as a cartoon.

I see that the pope has thrown his contribution in to the debate, saying that religions should not be mocked; but then went on to say that if someone insults your mother, you punch them! I would not punch someone who insulted my mother - would you?