Charlie Hebdo - new!

188 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
Charlie Hebdo - new!

Continued from here.

Issues Pages: 
NDPP

Ali Abunimah: French President's Holocaust Day Speech Presages Crackdown on Palestine Supporters

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40824.htm

"...The planned crackdown raises concerns that French authorities will use their powers to further censor speech critical of Israel under the guise of combatting anti-Semitism. 'Anti-Semitism has changed its face, but has not lost its age-old roots,' Hollande said at a Paris commemoration of the seventieth anniversary of the Soviet Army's liberation of Auschwitz. 'Today he said, 'it is also nourished by hatred of Israel,' and imports the conflicts of the Middle East.'

This conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel presages ever harsher efforts in France to suppress the Palestine solidarity movement. Hollande's speech comes in the wake of a broad crackdown in France that has seen dozens of people sentenced to prison for things they have said or written since 3 French gunmen murdered 17 people earlier this month in attacks on the offices of the racist magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve also announced that 'surveillance of the Internet, particularly social networks would be entrusted' to France's internal and overseas intelligence and spy agencies..."

Islamophobia good - Anti-zionism = thoughtcrime   Je suis silenced

6079_Smith_W

One of the old white racist Imperialist guys:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/26/charlie-hebdo-journalist-u...

Quote:

According to El-Rhazoui, the most elementary defence against the rise of fundamentalism is to hammer home the point that religion holds no sway with the state .

“Secularism as far as I know, is the only way to permit everyone to live in the same society, even if people are different,” said El-Rhazoui.

“Islam needs to submit to secularism and it also needs to get a sense of humour.”

Pondering

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/16/rape-cartoons-are-a-riot-arent-th... Cartoons are a Riot, Aren’t They?

by SHAILJA PATEL

Nairobi, Kenya.

AIDS jokes are funny if you’ve never loved someone who died of AIDS. If you live in a bubble that allows you not to know that millions of Africans died, thousands of gay men died, of criminal state indifference and denialism. Because they were, after all, only blacks and queers. Comedy material, not lives worth grieving.

Ebola cartoons are funny. Unless your partner is a public health doctor, forced to choose every day between treating patients without protective clothing or abandoning them to save her own life.

Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed naked, on all fours, anus presented as target, are anti-clerical snigger fodder. Unless you and half the men and boys and boy children and baby boys you know and love are named Mohammed.

Unless you and your brothers, cousins, fathers, sons, friends are at daily risk of random causeless stop-and-frisks, patdown-gropes, strip-searches, cavity-searches inside Enlightened Fortress Europe. Because they can.

Unless your grandfather Mohammed was raped and castrated by the French in their concentration camps in Algeria.

Unless your mother survives daily harassment and threats of violence by Front National thugs in her banlieue by invoking the mercy of the Prophet on the ignorant.

Unless all the naked bodies in the Abu Ghraib torture photos look like you. Naked prone men, trailing blood, dragged on leashes by grinning US soldiers. Naked men piled in flesh sculptures by thumbs-up flashing, beaming young GIs. Naked brown Mohammed buttocks branded with cigarette burns like pointillist skin canvases. Mohammeds hooded and wired, bleeding from mouth and ears and anus, as their torturers laugh and strike poses. Naked violated men who look like you, like your brother, like your father, like the man your sweet baby boy will grow up to be.

Secularism is so much more civilized.

NDPP

 Malevolent mumbo-jumbo is everywhere. Here's some real funky shit from a true Canucklehead Con-man, Tubby Black, demonstrating just how dangerous and destructive even a little bit of Trinity College can be...Still, he's definitely caught the spirit of the thing. Fuck you Conrad, Charlie, French Intelligence, al cia-duh, and all their zio dupes and running je suis doggies too! What a set-up. What a scam..

Radical Islam Poses A Real Direct Threat To The West - Including Canada  -  by Conrad Black

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/24/conrad-black-radical-islam-poses...

"The associate publisher of the influential Paris newspaper Le Figaro wrote last week in an uplifting 'Declaration' that a 'new religious war on a planetary scale' has been declared. (The piece evokes Emile Zola's seminal 'J'Accuse' in George Clemenceau's L'Aurore in 1898 during the Dreyfuss Affair)

'Islamists massacre Christians in Egpt, Iraq, Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, all over, in fact,' he wrote. He predicted a 'pitiless unleashing of a renascent Islam...by the immense Islamized masses of the Third World and our great metropolises,' motivated by a 'hatred of Christianity that vastly exceeds all problems of faith.

Attacking churches, priests, other religious personnel, and the faithful, Islamists wish to destroy Western civilization, democracy, capitalism, what they call 'neo-colonialism', equality of the sexes, the Rights of Man, all progress as we conceive it. Marx, Lenin, and Stalin have been replaced (as enemies of the West) by Allah and the Prophet. Bellicose imams have taken the place of the political commisars.'

This elegant and fiery French polemical writer reached his apotheosis with the dmand for an end to nauseating platitudes about 'Islamo-Christian amity...and the harmonious co-habitation of our three monotheisms, the avoidance of absurd and sometimes odious references to the 'most sober hours in our history,' and the cessation of the repentances and cowardices' of the West.'

6079_Smith_W

Didn't that over-the-top piece get posted here already?

and "pointillist skin canvasses"? "Bleeding from mouth and ears and anus as their torturers laugh and strike poses"?

When its the editorial that makes you want to take the shower, not the original material you know it's begging the question. Did anything even remotely like that ever appear in the pages of CH?

And "secularism is so much more civilized"? Care to clarify what you mean there?

 

6079_Smith_W

"Tubby Black"?

Just thought I should point out you have an irresponsible juvenile satirical rag to thank for that epithet.

Be thankful that they probably aren't litigious.

 

NDPP

Just the thought of it gets me right where I live. It would make my day..

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Didn't that over-the-top piece get posted here already?

and "pointillist skin canvasses"? "Bleeding from mouth and ears and anus as their torturers laugh and strike poses"?

When its the editorial that makes you want to take the shower, not the original material you know it's begging the question. Did anything even remotely like that ever appear in the pages of CH?

And "secularism is so much more civilized"? Care to clarify what you mean there?

The original events make me despair for humankind. I don't think there is any language too disgusting or too vivid to describe the acts that occurred. The description can't compare to the lived reality and the visceral reaction of people who identify with the victims.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wow.  Torture porn for the visually impaired.  Or else a sneak preview of the new novel "Fifty Shades of Brown".

Anyway, I guess you're going to hold tight to the idea that this is the "real" story behind a cartoon of a guy with a bomb in his hat, yes?

6079_Smith_W

Sorry, but I haven't a clue what you are talking about now. Slaughterhouses? The new johnny Depp movie? And what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?

I repeat:

Did anything even remotely like the purple (and gratuitous, and exploitative) prose in that opinion piece ever appear in the pages of CH?

And since I'm not getting an answer I'll ante up and say yes, secularism is more civilized - that is to say, more fair to everyone, religious and non. If you can think of religious state alternative that works better I'm interested to hear about it.

(edit)

cross posted with you Magoo. Funny that we both went for the cinematic reaction.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Sorry, but I haven't a clue what you are talking about now. Slaughterhouses? The new johnny Depp movie? And what does it have to do with the subject of this thread?

You have no respect for the suffering of the victims of western aggression. If you can't figure out the connection between the shooters and that then you will never see it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Did anything even remotely like the purple (and gratuitous, and exploitative) prose in that opinion piece ever appear in the pages of CH?

Yes. Pregnant kidnapped schoolgirls. I doubt they would have found that cartoon amusing.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And since I'm not getting an answer I'll ante up and say yes, secularism is more civilized - that is to say, more fair to everyone, religious and non. If you can think of religious state alternative that works better I'm interested to hear about it.

Not when it becomes a religion onto itself. Then it becomes just like any other religion.

6079_Smith_W

Here.

Found it myself:

Rape apology? Making fun of torture?

If you want a more gruesome one... more along the lines of that article, go find the cover about torture by the Chilean and Greek armies. I don't think that fits quite with the narrative of that piece, though.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed naked, on all fours, anus presented as target, are anti-clerical snigger fodder. Unless you and half the men and boys and boy children and baby boys you know and love are named Mohammed.

WTF kind of nonsense is this, even?  Seriously?  Because someone today shares the same (clearly) common name with a religious figure who died over a millenium ago, it's a source of tremendous trauma for them if someone ridicules that religious figure??

Good thing nobody anywhere in, say, Latin America ever names their kid Jesus, eh??  How would they have survived The Last Temptation of Christ??

6079_Smith_W

(cross posted with you)

Secularism? A religion? Sorry, but you are going to have to spell that one out for me, and again, in the context of what you think would be better.

Here's an exercise: how would you go about implementing the snowman fatwa so as to not offend anyone? No need to deal with heavier stuff like women driving and getting an education.

And are we reading the same article? The one I read was some wild extrapolation on the name "Mohammed", with some VERY lurid writing. Not to be rude, but when it is to the point that you can imagine the drool on the page I start to wonder where the writer is actually coming from.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Secularism? A religion? Sorry, but you are going to have to spell that one out for me, and again, in the context of what you think would be better.

Banning hijabs is one example of secularism as a religion.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/paris-warning-no-insulation-wars-arab-muslim-world

The absurdity was there for all to see at the “Je suis Charlie” demonstration in Paris on Sunday. A march supposedly to defend freedom of expression was led by serried ranks of warmongers and autocrats: from Nato war leaders and Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu to Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egypt’s foreign minister, who between them have jailed, killed and flogged any number of journalists while staging massacres and interventions that have left hundreds of thousands dead, bombing TV stations from Serbia to Afghanistan as they go.

The scene was beyond satire. But it also highlighted the central role of the war on terror in the Paris atrocities, and how the serried ranks are likely to use them for their own ends. Of course, the cocktail of causes and motivations for the attacks are complex: from an inheritance of savage colonial brutality in Algeria via poverty, racism, criminality and takfiri jihadist ideology.

But without the war waged by western powers, including France, to bring to heel and reoccupy the Arab and Muslim world, last week’s attacks clearly wouldn’t have taken place. That war on terror has lasted 13 years – even if attempts to control the region long predate it – unleashing brutality and destruction on a vast scale.

It’s what the killers say themselves. The Kouachi brothers were radicalised by the Iraq war and trained in Yemen by al-Qaida. Cherif Kouachi insisted the attacks had been carried out in revenge for the “children of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria”. Ahmed Coulibaly said they were a response to France’s attacks on Isis, while claiming the supermarket slaughter was revenge for the deaths of Muslims in Palestine.

Yeah yeah, I know, they just hate us for our freedoms. They must have been lying about what drove them.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Here.

Found it myself:

Rape apology? Making fun of torture?

If you want a more gruesome one... more along the lines of that article, go find the cover about torture by the Chilean and Greek armies. I don't think that fits quite with the narrative of that piece, though.

Link please and what's your point?

6079_Smith_W

No, banning hijabs is taking secularism to the point where it is an imposition on personal freedom. Not a religion. And also, not the same thing at all as not being able to draw pictures of mohammed, or criticize religion.

And my point? Just trying to find any example from CH as bloody as the entrails in that article you posted. THis is one of the few examples Icould find (along with a few animal vivisection ones. None of them make fun of torture or rape; quite the opposite.

 

 

NDPP

Not Charlie Hebdo: Why Anti-Muslim 'Jokes' Are Often War Propaganda 

http://blackagendareport.com/node/14634

"If you actually want to understand why some fraction of Muslims saw gratuitous insult instead of satire when the French magzine Charlie Hebdo depicted the prophet Muhammed doing things you wouldn't want your own small children to see, or pregnant Muslims as 'Boko Haram sex slaves' howling for welfare checks, all you've got to do is look at two bits of history...

Unlike jokes exposing the foibles of the powerful, which are real satire, Charlie Hebdo, which is now subsidized by the French government is engaged in something much like War propaganda. And Bill Maher, the pencil wavers and the rest of the 'Je suis Charlie' crowd are smug, self congratulatory, chauvinist bullies..."

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
No, banning hijabs is taking secularism to the point where it is an imposition on personal freedom.

Exactly, that is what religions seek to do. Impose limitations on personal freedoms. Not a religion. France's secularism is imposing on personal freedoms in the same way that religions do.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=define+religion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=...

re·li·gionrəˈlijən/nounnoun: religion

  1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."ideas about the relationship between science and religion"synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; Moresect, church, cult, denomination "the freedom to practice their own religion"

    • a particular system of faith and worship.plural noun: religions"the world's great religions"
    • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."consumerism is the new religion"

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  And also, not the same thing at all as not being able to draw pictures of mohammed, or criticize religion.

I am not aware of any laws in the western world against drawing pictures of mohammed or against criticizing religion nor any proposed laws against either.

Likewise we are free to criticize the work of cartoonists.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And my point? Just trying to find any example from CH as bloody as the entrails in that article you posted. THis is one of the few examples Icould find (along with a few animal vivisection ones. None of them make fun of torture or rape; quite the opposite.

The article wasn't making fun of anything either. Just because the cartoons were not "making fun" doesn't mean they were not experienced as humiliating.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
France's secularism is imposing on personal freedoms in the same way that religions do.

In one way or another, every one of our or anyone else's laws impose on personal freedoms.

So that makes them religions now??

Quote:
Likewise we are free to criticize the work of cartoonists.

Where in this or the previous thread has ANYONE told you you cannot criticize cartoonists? 

And what have YOU suffered for criticizing a cartoonist?  See how the secular world really IS different?  Go ahead, criticize cartoonists.  Criticize science.  Criticize math.  Criticize adorable puppies.  You're safe!

6079_Smith_W

dp

 

6079_Smith_W

None of that makes any sense, Pondering.

Not all people who believe in the principle of separation of church and state support bans on hijabs. It has no direct connection at all with the question of people's freedom to criticize religion or not follow dogma if they choose not to. And it certainly has no connection with these murders.

Again, I really am curious what problem you have with he separation of church and state, which is all secularism is, and what you see as a viable alternative.

For the umpteenth time, I don't have any problem with people not liking certain kinds of satire, or criticising it. But I do expect that criticism to have a bit of connection to the subject matter, and if it doesn't I reserve the right to call it out as nonsense.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
France's secularism is imposing on personal freedoms in the same way that religions do.

In one way or another, every one of our or anyone else's laws impose on personal freedoms.

So that makes them religions now??

No. Preventing women from wearing hijabs is not separation of church and state. It is secularism taken to extremes.

  • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."consumerism is the new religion"

Likewise, the ill-fated Quebec Charter of Values was turning secularism into a new religion. Secularism taken to extremes is not merely separation of church and state it is anti-religion.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Likewise we are free to criticize the work of cartoonists.

Where in this or the previous thread has ANYONE told you you cannot criticize cartoonists? 

And what have YOU suffered for criticizing a cartoonist?  See how the secular world really IS different?  Go ahead, criticize cartoonists.  Criticize science.  Criticize math.  Criticize adorable puppies.  You're safe!

Good job taking my comment out of context. Congratulations on making sure this conversation isn't about actually understanding each other's perspectives.

NDPP

French Police Question 8 Year Old Boy Over Terrorism Comments

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/29/french-police-terrorism-com...

"Father and son are deeply shocked by their treatment which illustrates the collective hysteria that has engulfed France since early January,' said the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) in a statement."

 

"The war is not meant to be won; deep state terrorism is designed to re-order society at the most fundamental level."

Hebdo's Hangover and the Globalist Jihad

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/23/hebdos-hangover-and-the-globalist-...

lagatta

Frankly, communism as a "religion"? That is ridiculous. You could say the samed damned thing about the Liberal Party, and especially Justin-worship.

In no way does banning hijabs (many people mentioning this don't mention the specific context; dress codes in schools for one) make "secularism" a religion. I do think it is wrong-headed (sorry, bad pun). The STATE has to be neutral, not individual citizens.

By the way, many Frenchpeople of Maghrebi origin supported the hijab - and other religious symbols - ban in schools. Why? Because self-appointed guardians of morality were harassing - and worse - schoolgirls who dressed like any other French teen.

Amnesty International has used many "bloody" explicit pictures of the horrors of torture similar to that Guantanamo one in campaigns. Just recently there was one on Raif Badawi (a take on anti-smoking and other "health" campaigns) saying "flogging is bad for your health" with an explicit drawing of a man with his back bloodied.  None of that is supporting torture, far from it.

NDPP

lagatta, to me it is quite clear what the overall agenda is and it has nothing to do with freedom of expression quite the opposite. Welcome to the next 're-ordering' and manufacture of consent for the next level -  more fascism, more war, more hegemony and more denial.

The ease with which the sheeple-people are being propagandized and manipulated into supporting this fascist agenda is quite depressing. Especially here in Canada where, just as they did with Libya, Syria and now Ukraine,  I again watch supposed 'progressives' lead the way...Just watch the Palestinian struggle drop off the radar as Israel readies itself for a re-demonization of Iran and more war...

lagatta

Well, it is up to us to make sure that doesn't happen to the Palestinian struggle. Fortunately here in Québec there is a good level of mobilization on that issue. Perhaps because it is a matter of national oppression?

6079_Smith_W

No. I am sure these dastardly irreverent cartoonists have magical powers from beyond the grave to make hypocritical politicians crash their party and crack down on REAL free speech.

Those cartoons in the post-murder issue making fun of Hollande, et al? Obviously just a ruse to lure gullible lefties into their imperialist plot.

Slumberjack

Quote:
Not all people who believe in the principle of separation of church and state support bans on hijabs.

I would support it if all other vestiges of religion in the public domain were also banned, concurrently.  Let's set a day for that in the not too distant future and be done with it.  It would mean, among many other fundamental changes, that any politician wearing religion on the sleeve so to speak, as part of their electoral appeal to the base, would automatically disqualify themselves from running for any type of public office.  Until something like that happens, there is no common cause to be found with anti-hijabists and their selective outrage about which religious practice offends the most.

NDPP

I see nothing but growing zionist influence and control here and the Palestinians are worse off than ever.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Frankly, communism as a "religion"? That is ridiculous. You could say the samed damned thing about the Liberal Party, and especially Justin-worship.

Not communism, consumerism.

NDPP

Anti-Terror Bill Could Undermine Academic Freedom - Ex MI5 Chief

http://rt.com/uk/227375-academic-freedom-terrorism-law/

"...Professor Mark Hall said the new legislation could 'be used against opponents of fracking, or animal rights activists or anti-nuclear movements or any radical opposition to the status quo. There is a danger of us being turned into a thought police,' he said."

endless variations of this are coming thick and fast including Canada. While we discuss hijabs, satire and the right to racist provocation, they are moving the fences ever closer...

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Frankly, communism as a "religion"? That is ridiculous. You could say the samed damned thing about the Liberal Party, and especially Justin-worship.

Not communism, consumerism.


reply...

voice of the damned

Pondering:

"Consumerism" was used in an example sentence, illustrating what I assume was intended as a secodnary definition for the word "religion". When someone says "Golf is a religion for my family", they are almost certainly not using the word with the same meaning as when they say "Hinduism is the main religion of India".

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:
Pondering: "Consumerism" was used in an example sentence, illustrating what I assume was intended as a secodnary definition for the word "religion". When someone says "Golf is a religion for my family", they are almost certainly not using the word with the same meaning as when they say "Hinduism is the main religion of India".

Correct. When secularism is treated like a religion rather than promoting separation of church and state it attempts to actively suppress religious expression.

That some women are forced to wear a hijab doesn't justify forcing other women not to wear a hijab.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
Not all people who believe in the principle of separation of church and state support bans on hijabs.

I would support it if all other vestiges of religion in the public domain were also banned, concurrently.

I don't support it under any conditions. there is no "some day" for me.

In fact, in her talk in Toronto (posted in the last thread) Zineb El-Rhazoui pointed out that only secularism protects everyone's right to personal religious practice. The same point made in the CH editorial following the massacre. Same point made by Sadikur Rahman of the British Lawyer's Secular Society.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
In fact, in her talk in Toronto (posted in the last thread) Zineb El-Rhazoui pointed out that only secularism protects everyone's right to personal religious practice. The same point made in the CH editorial following the massacre. Same point made by Sadikur Rahman of the British Lawyer's Secular Society.

Personal religious practice is a different thing than religious practice in the public domain.  When you provide for some, it doesn't make sense to not provide for all unless there are other considerations such as a cultural, gendered, or racial bias.  Then the rationale, even if it still doesn't make sense, begins to take on a form that we can at least begin to recognize for what it is.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

Personal religious practice is a different thing than religious practice in the public domain.  When you provide for some, it doesn't make sense to not provide for all unless there are other considerations such as a cultural, gendered, or racial bias.  Then the rationale, even if it still doesn't make sense, begins to take on a form that we can at least begin to recognize for what it is.

Not sure what you mean. If you are talking about removing references to someone's god from oaths and anthems, and not letting public servants use their belief as an excuse to not do their jobs,  I support it. If it means not letting someone have that job  because they wear a hijab, I disagree.

 But we have hashed this out in another thread. No need to repeat it all here. My point is that despite some of the claims here, secularism isn't in principle in opposition to anyone's personal practice of their religion.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 My point is that despite some of the claims here, secularism isn't in principle in opposition to anyone's personal practice of their religion.

Please quote where someone made that claim.

6079_Smith_W

You just equated secularism with banning hijabs.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You just equated secularism with banning hijabs.

I equated it with taking secularism to extremes which changes it into a religion in itself. Forbiding people from wearing religious symbols is anti-religion masquerading as secularism, it is turning secularism into a religion.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well so what? It still has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

Taking religion to extremes winds up with stuff far worse than preventing people from wearing hijab. The topic of this thread is one example of that.That doesn't mean we should tar all religious people with the deeds of extremists. It is no different than secularism, which isn't by definition extremist; it isn't by definition even anti-religious.

Still don't get your "religion" charge. Actual "extreme" or strict secularism isn't a bad thing at all to my mind, though I do see some practical barriers to it - church-run institutions, for example. It is when some think it gives them license to interfere with personal freedom that it becomes a problem. In fact, that is something else entirely.

That would be because the only part you feel is relevant to this entire event is that an Islamic cleric put a fatwa on Charlie Hebdo. As far as you are concerned that is the sole reason the cartoonists were killed.

6079_Smith_W

Well so what? It still has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

Taking religion to extremes winds up with stuff far worse than preventing people from wearing hijab. The topic of this thread is one example of that.That doesn't mean we should tar all religious people with the deeds of extremists. It is no different than secularism, which isn't by definition extremist; it isn't by definition even anti-religious.

Still don't get your "religion" charge. Actual "extreme" or strict secularism isn't a bad thing at all to my mind, though I do see some practical barriers to it - church-run institutions, for example. It is when some think it gives them license to interfere with personal freedom that it becomes a problem. In fact, that is something else entirely.

 

6079_Smith_W

It certainly is the only part that has any relevance to anything they were doing, much as some seem to be falling all over themselves to blame the victims here.

Or again, does anyone actually believe Charb and his colleagues are running the French and Israeli governments, and the whole of western Imperialism from beyond the grave?

I notice there haven't been any editorials about the shopkeepers in the market that was attacked selling stale food. Why aren't we criticizing their work too?

 

6079_Smith_W

Iran announces Holocaust denial joke competition:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/iran.holocaust.cartoon.competition...

Problem with these guys is they should get some new material. Iran held the same Holocaust joke competition after the 2006 CH bombing. Guess what happened:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/jewish-caricature-contest-kosher-ant...

*rimshot*

 

lagatta

I'm not surprised at all. And yes, Jews, Roma and politicals DID tell Holocaust jokes. Even in the camps. Gulag and Stalin jokes were common in the USSR. As for AIDS jokes, at the height of the tragedy here, I had gay friends who had lost many friends telling them. It can be a survival mechanism.

As for the kosher superette, the gunman didn't seem to find anything wrong with the food. He made himself a sandwich after gunning down his victims. Handy, as of course kosher food is pretty much halal...

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. And yes, Jews, Roma and politicals DID tell Holocaust jokes. Even in the camps. Gulag and Stalin jokes were common in the USSR. As for AIDS jokes, at the height of the tragedy here, I had gay friends who had lost many friends telling them. It can be a survival mechanism.

Got any examples of AIDS jokes? Holocaust jokes?

How about snappy one-liners about missing and murdered indigenous women?

Or the Polytechnique?

I think you're trying to make some kind of point, lagatta, but it went right over my head.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well there's a pretty snappy Abu Ghraib joke in this episode of The Simpsons.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/G.I._%28Annoyed_Grunt%29

to wit... a pile of naked bodies and a redneck female soldier as someone's christmas card. I don't think anyone got shot over that one. Nor was there a thread posted in babble over it.

But if there is a problem with the theme (and I can see why), talk to the ayatollahs. Seems to me the Jewish cartoonists (including Spiegelman) were just calling the angry faux-comedians on their bluff. What they weren't doing was stamping their feet in outrage, which is exactly the reaction that sort of shit is made to incite.

And really, you could take it up with Glen Greenwald too, since he was circulating the same crap.

Here's Mel Brooks talking to a German magazine about how far he thinks you can go.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-mel-b...

 

NDPP

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And really, you could take it up with Glen Greenwald too, since he was circulating the same crap.

"...When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebo did to Muslims.

But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least.

It is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo 'were equal opportunity offenders.' Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris [6079 Smith W] and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely if ever do.

Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Islam messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging - this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech - just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture..."  - Glen Greenwald

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-c...

 

6079_Smith_W

Now I'm an anti-Islam obsessive who would never mock Israel? That's nice. I know I am such a fan of Maher and Harris.

Didn't you post this already, NDPP? I know someone did. Is there some reason to haul this drum out and bang it some more? 

Here's one of the pics Greenwald saw fit to reprint and equate with Charlie Hebdo's Mohammed pics:

Sure they have a right to print it. No, it isn't quite the same thing as criticism of religion. And yes, it is one reason why, as I said already, Greenwald's decision to run this has taken him down a few pegs when it comes to my respect.

 

 

 

Pages