Join the discussion about Charlie Hebdo - closed

796 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Obviously they didn't have enough bus fare to get to the cop shop and had to pick a random  second target

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/german-newspaper-muhammad-c...

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Pondering wrote:
There is a moral responsibility not to add to the burden of abused groups or incite more violence against them.

What do you suppose has incited more of the violence against French Muslims in the past few days?  Some cartoons of the Prophet?  Or the actions of a couple of Muslims?  To answer, you might consider life in France as it was a week ago -- how many Mosques were firebombed that day?

I think the reason Charlie Hebdo was targeted was to increase violence against Muslims in western nations not to prevent cartoonists from printing whatever they like. The ultimate goal is to increase radicalization of Muslims so that they will hit western targets.

I think oligarchs and ISIL are also pleased and that while not directly involved they expect these low level incidents to keep occuring in order to continue strengthening the surveillence rights of the state. It gave Harper an opportunity to declare that extremists had declared war against Canada too. We've got a new terrorist law all set to go.

I don't see how any of that justifies cartoonists or anyone else adding to the burden of abused groups or inciting more violence against them for personal profit. Your sole objection seems to be that I am criticizing the cartoons as counter-productive cheap shots.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Of course I'm not endorsing that, or any, violence.  But to suggest that people's attitude to Islam is primarily dicated by what amount to some Mohammed knock-knock jokes,...

Then it's a good thing I didn't do that. One clue is that I said add to the burden of. Notice that implies a pre-existing burden which rules out cartoons as being the primary factor.

So far you don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I've said.

NDPP

Le Pen at the Elysee Palace  -  by Alex Lantier

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/10/pers-j10.html

"French President Francois Hollande's decision to invite Marine Le Pen, the leader of the ne-fascist National Front (FN), to the Elysee Presidential Palace to discuss the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo marks a turning point in French politics with far-reaching consequences.

A party closely associated since its foundation in 1972 with the worst crimes of European fascism in the 20th century is being elevated to the status of a legitimate, even indispensible component of French political life.

Leaving the Elysee yesterday morning, Le Pen said that Hollande had promised to launch a national 'debate' on Islamic fundamentalism. This presages an escalation of the campaign to vilify France's five million Muslims. Already on Thursday, Le Pen called for reinstating the death penalty which France abolished in 1981, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks.

The right wing Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) is also promoting the FN, pressing for it to join the 'rally for national unity' called for Sunday, by Hollande's Socialist Party (PS) and the UMP. After UMP leader and former president Nicolas Sarkozy met with Hollande on Thursday, the UMP's political committee echoed Le Pen's demands that the FN be allowed to participate.

'It is a unanimous decision. It is unacceptable for the National Front to be excluded from a march for national unity,' declared Laurent Wauquiez the general secretary of the UMP.

The current turn to promoting the FN is a sign of a deep crisis of capitalist rule n Europe. Beset by economic slump, international conflicts and rising class tensions for which it sees no solution, the European bourgeoisie is turning towards fascistic methods of rule. It is seizing on the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo to legitimize the FN and fascism and proceed as far as possible with the erection of a police state..."

 

Australian Government Exploits Paris Attacks  -  by Mike Head

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/10/abbo-j10.html

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott immediately seized upon the attack on the Charlie Hebdo editorial offices  to foreshadow further boosting the vast powers of Australia's police-intelligence apparatus and expanding the country's frontline participation in the US-led war in Iraq and Syria.

While claiming to speak in defence of free speech and other supposed 'precious values' of 'western civilization', Abbott sought to justify a barrage of measures that abrogate free speech and other fundamental democratic rights, along with stepped up involvement in the renewed drive by American imperialists to establish their hegemony over the Middle East. Abbott not only echoed, but amplified the responses from the US, British and French governments, declaring that a global 'war' had been launched against the 'freedom' of the Western world..."

lagatta

No friend of Hollande or the PS, and not making any excuses for him, but I was under the impression that his meeting with Marine Le Pen was a way of politely telling her to bugger off.

Of course I'm dubious of anyone quoting the viciously anti-Québécois wsws... they do nothing but shit on any struggles here.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Charlie Hebdo and the Hypocrisy of Pencils

Corey Oakley wrote:

It is well past time to call bullshit. Knight’s cartoon made the point exceptionally clear, but every image that invoked the idea that Western culture could and would defend itself from Islamist extremism by waging a battle of ideas demonstrated the same historical and political amnesia.

Reality could not be more at odds with this ludicrous narrative.

For the last decade and a half the United States, backed to varying degrees by the governments of other Western countries, has rained violence and destruction on the Arab and Muslim world with a ferocity that has few parallels in the history of modern warfare.

It was not pencils and pens – let alone ideas – that left Iraq, Gaza and Afghanistan shattered and hundreds of thousands of human beings dead. Not twelve. Hundreds of thousands. All with stories, with lives, with families. Tens of millions who have lost friends, family, homes and watched their country be torn apart.

 

... and so on. Oakley also deals with the history, with the past and present, with the use of pen as an instrument of oppression, with the predictability of "blowback", etc.

Pondering

Red Winnipeg wrote:
Pondering: "Political satire is elevated by it's attempt to communicate some message beyond simply insulting people." When is speech an "attempt to communicate some message" versus "simply insulting people"? If I say, "Fuck the Pope!" should I be barred from doing so because it is "simplying insulting people" or can I say it because I have attempted "to communicate some message"?

Nope. Has anyone made the suggestion that anyone should be barred from doing something?

Just because I am not barred from picking my nose on the bus doesn't mean I can't be criticized for choosing to do so.

Do you think the entire media should be immune to criticism or just cartoonists?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

... and, according to Pepe Escobar, the following has gone viral in the Arab world ...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

Well why DID you reprint them? Just for fun or dramatic effect? It's a pretty clear statement, even if the demand is competely unclear. If it isn't advice you think we should be taking you might have explained why you felt the need to reprint it.

Because it gives us clues to his motivation. I suppose you think nothing the States did had anything to do with 9/11 either.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
He never actually explains what he means by "leave Muslims alone" but considering it involved murdering a roomfull of people for drawing pictures, I'd say we might want to think twice about going along with it just because it is the stirring last words of some fellow who claims to be avenging his prophet.

You are talking about different people. The shooter in the market did not claim to be avenging his prophet. Apparently you need to reread his words again to digest them.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And yes, I do find it odd that the fact they murdered people gives his words more weight  for some than the far greater majority of people who have no such values, and in fact oppose them.

I think he is the most informed person on his own motivations so I do give them a lot of weight although experts can have insights about people that give more context to their behavior.

I understand we can't just suddenly withdraw from the Mid-East and pretend we were never there so we can't just "leave Muslims alone" but I think we could make some improvements that would de-escalate radicalization of western youth.

Pondering

ygtbk wrote:
5) Stating that we need a lot of time to analyze the motivation of people who yell "Allahu Akbar!" when they are killing people is at best disingenuous.

There is no need to be in denial about this. Given world events over the past decade or so, the most obvious explanation is also the most plausible: the fate of Muslims in foreign conflicts played a role in radicalising these young men. Working-class Parisians don’t go to Yemen for military training on a whim. Since their teens these young men have been raised on a nightly diet of illegal wars, torture and civilian massacres in the Gulf and the Middle East in which the victims have usually been Muslim.

In a court deposition in 2007, Chérif Kouachi, the younger of the brothers affiliated with al-Qaida who shot the journalists at Charlie Hebdo, was explicit about this. “I got this idea when I saw the injustices shown by television on what was going on over there. I am speaking about the torture that the Americans have inflicted on the Iraqis.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/charie-hebdo-danger...

I think it's a tad more complicated than some cartoons crappy or otherwise. I think if he had not attacked Charlie Hebdo, probably at the instruction of others, he would have attacked something else. I think if he had not been raised on a nightly diet of illegal wars, torture and civilian massacres in the Gulf and the Middle East he wouldn't have gone to Syria for training. I think he would rather have had American soldiers at his mercy to torture.

I don't think we need a lot of time to analyze the motives of terrorist attacks in the west and I think it is incredibly naive to claim that it has nothing to do with our activities in the Mid-East and this is all about some cartoonists that were rude to religous extremists.

NDPP

Paris Shooting Suspects Under French Radar For YEARS  -  by Tony Cartalucci

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.ca/2015/01/paris-shooting-suspects-under-f...

"...It is almost certain that the suspects have not only been tracked by French and US intelligence, but selected as prime candidates for pulling off the provocative attack in Paris last week - as part of a greater agenda of manipulating public perception to further crush civil liberties at home and expand hegemonic wars overseas.

In fact, it is now confirmed that France had provided weapons to terrorists fighting the Syrian government since 2011. France 24 would report last year in an article titled, 'France delivered arms to Syrian rebels, Hollande confirms,' that : 'President Hollande said on Thursday that France had delivered weapons to rebels battling the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad 'a few months ago.'

It is lkely that if the Paris shooters were indeed in Syria, they would likely have been holding French supplied weapons as they honed their skills, later to be used to spill French blood in Paris.

There are really only three possibilities left for France, NATO and the greater Western World. First, the attacks were known to be impending and were willfully allowed to be carried out with an insidious agenda lined up to fully exploit the public hysteria to follow.

Second, the attacks were prodded along by French, US or other Western and Western-aligned intelligence agencies. Or third, the global-spanning surveillance state the West is erecting with the promise of making the world safe at the expense of our freedoms has left us both unsafe and without our freedoms.

Indeed, even as Western politicians wring their hands over the loss of life in Paris this week, the Military Times would report astoundingly, that the US is going ahead with a plan to train, arm, equip and back, a new 'rebel army' in an article titled 'Syria rebel training could start in early spring'..."

The_Fifth_Column

Why did the terrorist intentionally miss shooting the cop, instead shoots the sidewalk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og 

 

 

KenS

DaveW wrote:

Charlie staffer outraged at false friends:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/we-vomit-on-charlies-sudden-friends-s...

 

staff cartoonist wrote:
“We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh,” Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant in an interview published Saturday.

He added: “We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends.” 

 

NDPP

A Message From the Dispossessed  - by Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_message_from_the_dispossessed_2015...

"The terrorist attack in France that took place at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was not about free speech. It was not about radical Islam. It did not illustrate the fictitious clash of civilizations. It was a harbinger of an emerging dystopia where the wretched of the earth, deprived of resources to survive, devoid of hope, brutally controlled, belittled and mocked by the privileged who live in the splendor and indolence of the industrial West, lash out in nihilistic fury.

...This is not about justice. It is not about the war on terror. It is not about liberty or democracy. It is not about freedom of expression. It is about the mad scramble by the privileged to survive at the expense of the poor. And the poor know it..."

 

Paris - A Photo Op For the Hypocrites (photos)

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/01/paris-a-photo-op-for-the-hypocrits....

"Many people marched in Paris to express solidarity with those killed in attacks there last week. As often happens in big marches, a small, violent minority hijacked the event for their own twisted ends..."

 

Brainwashed Zombies and Hypocrites

http://www.vineyardsaker.net/brainwashed-zombies-and-hypocrites

So what would make more sense: to fear Muslims or the western security agencies which carefully manipulate the Takfiri freaks?

So what can we do? Simple! Our imperial overlords want us to do exactly three things: - Be terrified - Hate - Stop thinking.

So all we need to do is: Not fear - Love - Think

If we fear, hate and stop thinking - they win. If we refuse to fear, if we love and if we think - we win. Their entire empire has been built on fear, hate and stupidity.

Let's bring it down by courage, love and intelligence!"

Pondering

Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and perspective Jerry (post 343). I am responding in a different thread because it is too far off topic.

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/expanding-discussion#comment-14...

 

6079_Smith_W

From your post at #337, Pondering:

Quote:

Some of us question the motivation behind reprinting crap just because the crap producers were tragically murdered.

So media which reprint those editorial cartoons have questionable motives, but those who do so here out of context and for shock value don't mean it that way.

And it's okay to reprint the demands of a mass murderer without any clarification or commentary, then when you get asked why claim it is just so we can "have clues to his motivation" and to go further and suggest that they might be a good idea even though his actions indicate he means something quite different than your sanitized spin on it.

I know who he was. They were part of the same gang, Pondering. He was calling for their release and more than just accessory to the very same crime. You expect us to believe he was calling for LESS radicalization? How dumb do you think we are?

I call bullshit.

(edit)

I read that article a few days ago too, KenS. He also said he wasn't at the editorial meeting because he didn't like those guys. And he also said that standing up for free speech is always a good thing. I thought his perspective was refreshing, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

MegB

Hey folks, this is an excellent discussion - intelligent and informative (well, informative to me at least) and I'd hate to see it derailed by snarkiness and excessive drama.

The_Fifth_Column

BBC admits killing was faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPy6aOpPbTk 

 

Durrutix

Chomsky (two years ago!): 

"'Free Speech' in France is 'Complete Fakery and Fraud': 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x-FD6leCKU

Chomsky discusses Charlie Habdo's hate speech against Muslims, and why similar caricatures would not be tolerated toward Jews.   "If they did that they'd be in jail."  

 

Durrutix

Orwell rolls in his grave: 

Attack on "Free speech" to be met with...attack on Free speech.  

"In the wake of this week’s terrorist attacks in Paris, which began with the killing of 12 people at the offices of satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, the interior ministers of 12 EU countries have called for a limited increase in internet censorship.

The interior ministers of France, Germany, Latvia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the U.K. said in a statement (PDF) that, while the internet must remain “in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” ISPs need to help “create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible.”

https://gigaom.com/2015/01/11/eu-response-to-free-speech-killings-more-i...

Red Winnipeg

I've been following the social media commentary of Anjem Choudary, a prominent radical Muslim cleric in the UK, and he advocates for a social and political structure that is antithetical to a open, free, and secular society. Much of what he says is hateful and frightening. Yet, I want him to be free to say the things he says, just like I want CH to be free to write and draw whatever they wish to express, however much I may disagree with what AC or CH may say. The appropriate response is to criticize ideas a person disagrees with or finds repugnant -- it is not to censor speech.

6079_Smith_W

@ Red Winnipeg

Yup. To censor it is to give it more power, whether you like it or not.

6079_Smith_W

MegB wrote:

Hey folks, this is an excellent discussion - intelligent and informative (well, informative to me at least) and I'd hate to see it derailed by snarkiness and excessive drama.

Sorry. I'll try to tone it down.

I suppose I should be used to people accusing me of being ignorant of things which I have read and understand just fine. I have to admit they (like other personal accusations) do get under my skin, because I do try hard to hold my tongue in that regard and not insult others' intelligence, even if I do get harsh now and then in holding them to the things they say.

(edit)

except, Durrutix, it isn't true. There have been accusaitons of discrimination against Jews by CH.

I saw quite aways back in this thread there was no point in getting into the quagmire of people's personal opinions about absurdist and irreverent shock satire. I simply point to the fact that the accusation that they are racists and have no political analysis isn't shared by everyone, even outside the white European community.

But resorting to cherrypicking? Come on. I don't care that it is Noam Chomsky saying it. That would be the secular lefty equivalent of going against the word of god, after all, so why should I accept it any more just because someone invokes the name of Chomsky?

 

Unionist

The_Fifth_Column wrote:

BBC admits killing was faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPy6aOpPbTk 

 

You enjoy posting fake videos, fake "admissions" - you think it enhances the conversation to plant hoaxes here?

 

Paladin1

The_Fifth_Column wrote:

Why did the terrorist intentionally miss shooting the cop, instead shoots the sidewalk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og 

 

 

 

Ah the ol' calm voiced enquizical Youtube video proving something didn't happen.

 

The exploding watermelon is a great viual effect but people actually get shot in the head and survive quite a bit. Their head doesn't always explode. I've had coffee with someone who was shot in the forhead, guy was perfectly fine.

Full metal jacketed bullets don't explode or expand on impact like expensive hunting bullets do so if the shooter was using those common bullets thats why.

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

The_Fifth_Column wrote:

BBC admits killing was faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPy6aOpPbTk 

 

You enjoy posting fake videos, fake "admissions" - you think it enhances the conversation to plant hoaxes here?

 

Beat me to it.  There should be a rule about trying to pass off fake news stories and videos.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:

I don’t know if it’s possible to make a caricature of Mohammed or of Islamist extremism that would be acceptable to those who condemn Charlie Hebdo as racist, although I’m fairly sure that both should be open to such ridicule. I don’t really know how the racial politics of Charlie Hebdo have been understood in France, but I suspect that Weissman and Canfield don’t either.

I do know that France’s citizens have to sort out a way to live together in which everyone enjoys civil and human rights and no one has to fear being slaughtered for their beliefs or their art. They’re going to have to find a common ground between the longstanding secular ideal of free speech and the newcomers’ desire to see their religion treated with respect. It’s the sort of problem all multicultural societies need to solve. It’s not going to be simple or easy, and it certainly isn’t going to be made any easier by the imposition of false certainties based on insufficient knowledge or appreciation of life’s complexity — because when, really, has that ever worked? But maybe, if we’re all lucky, they’ll end up teaching us a thing or two.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/is_charlie_hebdo_racist_or_have_critics_...

I found the above interesting.  There's been a lot of sturm and drang over whether the dead "brought it on themselves" and that they were racist and therefore indefensible...  I tend to disagree with the position that satire must be clean and tidy and on the side of the angels in order to be worthy.  Or that people necessarily need to be "worthy" by our personal moral and ethical codes for us to loudly and unequivocally decry their execution. 

Canfield's article was linked to earlier in the thread.  I disagree with him.  I think, fundamentally, he misunderstands - or rather, refuses to account for - that French culture differs from Canadian and American culture and that we are processing CH's satire through our own cultural filters and much of it simply does not translate.  NS's posts are most evocative of this in the context of this thread.

I also heartily agree with ygbtk at post #348.  For the gunmen, this is far less about race than it is about religious and theocratic extremism.  They were very clear on that point.

bekayne
6079_Smith_W

http://67-tardis-street.tumblr.com/post/107589955860/dear-us-followers

Quote:

 

But, as much as we do love make fun and ridicule everyone, including our very secular politicians, we do have laws, and very strict ones, against hate speech. The Front National elected representative who posted the two pictures of Taubira and a monkey was prosecuted. Charlie Hebdo wasn’t, because they were not attacking Taubira, but the racist bullshit of the FN.

To conclude, in France even the people who think these cartoons are vulgar and tasteless think that they have a right to be drawn and published. 

We prefer an equilibrium of mockery, rather than an equilibrium of terror and censorship.

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

It’s been four years since Molly Norris left her cartoonist job at the Seattle Weekly and went underground in 2010 after an Islamic extremist put her on a hit list for creating ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.’

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cartoonist-hiding-islamic-death...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

From your post at #337, Pondering:

Quote:

Some of us question the motivation behind reprinting crap just because the crap producers were tragically murdered.

So media which reprint those editorial cartoons have questionable motives, but those who do so here out of context and for shock value don't mean it that way.

I don't agree with the motives you assigned to people on this message board. I don't agree that babble members reposted here for shock value or out of context and I don't believe Radio Canada reprinted for shock value either so we are posting from different perspectives.

I  also make a distinction between the babble message board and the MSM (of which Charlie Hebdo was not a part of either).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And it's okay to reprint the demands of a mass murderer without any clarification or commentary, then when you get asked why claim it is just so we can "have clues to his motivation" and to go further and suggest that they might be a good idea even though his actions indicate he means something quite different than your sanitized spin on it.

I didn't santitize his words I quoted him directly. His only demand was for the Charlie Hebdo shooters to be allowed to escape. They were dead by the time I was posting so it would not have been possible for us to comply. His comments spoke to the reason for his radicalization to begin with.  The demand "to leave Muslims alone" is too broad to comply with in an immediate sense. From other comments he made it's apparent that he was radicalized by the violence in the Mid-East perpetrated by western governments and the disproportionate response to deaths based on who the victims are. He is guilty of a heineous crime, murder, but so are we. By our own standards we don't only hold the person with the smoking gun responsible for murder, we also hold the people who pay for the murder responsible. If anything is being sanitized it is our own complicity in what our governments do.

I believe there are many activists frustrated by the difficultly of getting 3.7 million people to take to the streets in protest over any number of issues. The US government bombed journalists. Israel bombed a refugee centre. Neither generated demonstrations of even 100 thousand as far as I know.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I know who he was. They were part of the same gang, Pondering. He was calling for their release and more than just accessory to the very same crime.

There is no indication that the market shooter had any prior association with the Charlie Hebdo killers or any military training. He was demanding their release but so far it seems he acted independently.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You expect us to believe he was calling for LESS radicalization? How dumb do you think we are?

I call bullshit.

No, he wasn't calling for less radicalization. He was accusing us of complicity in the invasions and mass murder in the Mid East. I guess that explains why you are so upset that I didn't interpret what he said for you.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I read that article a few days ago too, KenS. He also said he wasn't at the editorial meeting because he didn't like those guys. And he also said that standing up for free speech is always a good thing. I thought his perspective was refreshing, but I wouldn't read too much into it.

No that isn't what he said. It's editorial meetings he doesn't like.

He told Liberation: “I never come to the editorial meetings because I don’t like them. I guess that saved my life.”

I'm pretty sure he was not saying he didn't like his murdered co-workers but feel free to defend your interpretation.

A prominent Dutch cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo heaped scorn on the French satirical weekly’s “new friends” since the massacre at its Paris offices on Wednesday.

“We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh,” Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant in an interview published Saturday.

France’s far-right National Front leader “Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place,” said Willem, 73, a longtime Paris resident who also draws for the French leftist daily Liberation.

He added: “We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends.”

Commenting on the global outpouring of support for the weekly, Willem scoffed: “They’ve never seen Charlie Hebdo.”

You say we shouldn't read anything into his words but it's not necessary. He wasn't subtle. It seems like you are trying to minimize his statement. At this point I don't think you are capable of having a rational discussion with me on this topic so you can go ahead and have the last word in this exchange.

6079_Smith_W

I'll just say that the way you are spinning this to fit your narrative beggars belief, in my opinion.

How's that for your saying I am incapable of a rational discussion? I haven't accused you of being irrational,  misunderstanding, or not reading properly.

 

Durrutix

Theresa May Wants Database To Track All EU-Passengers

May said after the meeting: “There was firm support at the meeting for new action to share intelligence, track the movement of terrorists and defeat their ideology. It is important that we now deliver on these talks so we can keep all our citizens safe from the very serious threat we all face.”

http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/theresa-may-wants-data...

People better start speaking out against these measures NOW (or never).  The plutocracy is moving at a rapid pace.   

6079_Smith_W

From VOTD over in the other place. I guess they are sexist too,  discriminatory against drunken tax dodgers, and supportive of the fascists in Ukraine.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/parading-caricatures-hypocritical.html

 

Durrutix

The_Fifth_Column wrote:

Why did the terrorist intentionally miss shooting the cop, instead shoots the sidewalk?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og 

 

 

 

You gotta be careful about this kind of stuff.   Some of it is clickbait quackery, some of it may be intentional disinformation designed to descredit the view that intelligence networks are frequently involved in these sorts of attacks.   

It's suprising that the left is so reluctant to acknowledge the latter, considering the history of terrorism in Europe under Gladio.   It's pretty common for intelligence agencies to use patsies and "radical militants" (whose fury may be completely justified) to advance a broader agenda.  

6079_Smith_W
Durrutix

Murdoch: All Muslims “Must Be Held Responsible” for Paris Attack

http://shareverything.com/2015/01/12/murdoch-all-muslims-must-be-held-re...

Durrutix

6079_Smith_W wrote:

More cartoons. Look at them:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cart...

Not exactly Honore Daumier we're dealing with here.  Looks like pretty second rate stuff.  

Anyway I'm not sure what the point is.  If they had a drawn a whole bunch of cartoons of "hook-nosed Jews" sacrificing babies or cartoons questioning the gas chambers under Nazi Germany then it might be comparable to the Mohammed caricatures.   But of course they wouldn't do such a thing -- it would get them locked up for anti-semitism.   Hence the laughable notion that France has a uniform standard on hate speech laws, or that Charlie was an "equal opportunity offender."  The comparison still wouldn't really work, as Jews are not a persecuted minority in France, or currently being subjected to genocidal policies in the Mid East.  

The "free speech" debate is a red herring anyway.  Whether or not these attacks were carried out solely by two angry young Muslims with no help from the intelligence services, they are being used -- as we speak -- to implement new "anti-terror" legislation that will curtail free speech and other civil liberties.  You don't need to worry about Muslims stealing your free speech (such as it is) and implementing Sharia Law -- the threat comes from your own government.  

 

6079_Smith_W

Well my first question is why you consider a portrait of Mohammed the standard of insult that everything falls short of here. It this about alleged racism, or kowtowing ot others' religious dogma?

Those images aren't about the free speech question. They are about the accusations of Imperialism. And as has been pointed out already, you are begging the question.I posted them in answer to those who claim that the paper printed nothing but gratuitous insult, and did not address real issues of racism, fascism, and xenophobia in French culture.

For that matter, it isn't about using this as a foil to leapfrog to another issue either. I think we have a "Police State" thread already.

And yeah, people have always looked down their noses at comic scribblers, pornographers, cabaret artists and standup comics. Too bad for the armchair revolutionaries that they wind up doing most of the heavy lifting for the rest of us in in the free speech department AND the social and politicla commentary department.

 

 

The_Fifth_Column

Natanyahu - freedom fighter!

6079_Smith_W

Just to clarify, this is blasphemy, according to the standard being waved around in this thread:

The Angel Gabriel and the Prophet Mohammed

The_Fifth_Column

Watch the video portion of the Officer being shot while on the ground, it's obviously a fake.

- no head movement

- no blood splatter

- bullet hits sidewalk a foot away, causing a dust spray.

Here is the vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og 

The_Fifth_Column

Watch the video portion of the Officer being shot while on the ground, it's obviously a fake.

- no head movement

- no blood splatter

- bullet hits sidewalk a foot away, causing a dust spray.

Here is the vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEvlKKm6og 

Durrutix

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well my first question is why you consider a portrait of Mohammed he standard of insult that everything falls short of here. It this about alleged racism, or kowtowing ot others' religious dogma?

I just don't see the point, beyond increasing the persecution of Muslims in France.  I guess I would agree with Deepa Kumar:

"As I have stated above, if Islam has come under fire in European nations and the United States, it is because the political elite in these countries have found it useful to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria.  There can be no healthy dialogue in this context about the role of Islam in the Middle East.  What my critics need to recognize is that there are times when debate about religion is both healthy and vital to the wellbeing of society and other times when this debate is politically motivated to serve larger agendas.  For instance, it would have been quite foolish for the left to engage in a discussion of the flaws of Judaism in the midst of the holocaust, as this would only have strengthened the Nazi regime." 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Those images aren't about the free speech question. They are about the accusations of Imperialism. And as has been pointed out already, you are begging the question.I posted them in answer to those who claim that the paper printed nothing but gratuitous insult, and did not address real issues of racism, fascism, and xenophobia in French culture.

You can add all the sugar you want, it's still a shit sandwhich.  

6079_Smith_W wrote:
For that matter, it isn't about using this as a foil to leapfrog to another issue either. I think we have a "Police State" thread already.

The police state IS the issue.  If people honestly care about the curtailment of free speech, they would do best to stop worrying about Muslims in the west -- who have virtually no power -- and start looking at the legislation their governments are preparing in the wake of these attacks.