Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

idlewhile
Community Member

PROTESTERS around the West, horrified by the massacre in Paris, have held up pens and chanted “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie.

 

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdomagazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

 

Al-Qaeda in Yemen didn’t attack Charlie Hebdo because we are all Charlie Hebdo.

 

The opposite. It sent in the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi because Charlie Hebdo was almost alone.

Unlike most politicians, journalists, lawyers and other members of our ruling classes, this fearless magazine dared to mock Islam in the way the Left routinely mocks Christianity. Unlike much of our ruling class, it refused to sell out our freedom to speak.

Its greatest sin — to the Islamists — was to republish the infamous cartoons of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten which mocked Mohammed, and then to publish even more of its own, including one showing the Muslim prophet naked.

Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no.

 

No Australian newspaper dared published those pictures, too, bar one which did so in error.

The Obama administration three years ago even attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing the naked Mohammed cartoon, saying it was “deeply offensive”.

 

President Barack Obama even told the United Nations “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” and damned a YouTube clip “Innocence of Muslims” which did just that. The filmmaker was thrown in jail.

We are all Charlie?

 

In Australia, Charlie Hebdo would almost certainly be sued into silence, to the cheers of some of the very protesters now claiming to be its great defenders.

 

Victoria now has absurd religious vilification laws, thanks to Labor, that were first used to punish two Christian preachers who at a seminar quoted the Koran’s teaching on jihad and — complained the judge — made their audience laugh.

 

Australia also has oppressive racial vilification laws which Prime Minister Tony Abbott had promised to relax but last year decided to keep, saying changing them would become a “complication” in making Muslim Australians side with the rest of us against jihadists.

One more surrender, and did you note how most “serious” journalists brayed for this muzzle? Celebrated when two of my own articles were banned?

 

But our journalists haven’t really needed a muzzle. They have been only too eager to shut themselves up rather than call out the growing threat of jihadism, brought to us by insanely stupid programs of mass immigration from the Third World.

 

When Dutch political leader Geert Wilders toured Australia to warn against the danger Islamism posed to our physical safety and our freedom, he was treated as a pariah and the protesters who pushed and heckled his audience were handed the microphone instead.

When jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” shot dead US soldiers at Fort Hood or coffee shop patrons in Sydney, ABC and Fairfax journalists pretended they had no idea what ideology could have motivated such slaughter.

 

When Boko Haram jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” kidnapped nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls, forcing them to convert to Islam and selling them to be raped, Islamist apologist and terrorism lecturer Waleed Aly refused even to acknowledge on Channel 10 that Boko Haram actually had an Islamist agenda, describing it merely as a group of vigilantes.

 

 

An armed police officer in Paris.

An armed police officer in Paris.

 

And when SBS filmed the then Mufti of Australia, Sheik Hilaly, praising suicide bombers as heroes in the Lakemba mosque just days before the September 11 attacks, it refused to air the footage for fear we might get the “wrong idea”.

This will go on. Be sure of it. Your ruling classes will not easily admit to having made an error that cannot now be fixed. It will prefer oppression to freedom, if that brings at least the illusion of peace — and many may even think they are right.

Hear already the lies.

 

You are told Muslim groups condemn the killings as unIslamic. Yet the Koran and Hadith preach death to unbelievers who mock Islam, and tell of Mohammed killing poets, singing girls and others who made fun of him.

No greater authority than the Ayatollah Khomeini, the then spiritual ruler of Iran, ordered the killing of writer Salman Rushdie for making mock of Islam in his The Satanic Verses.

 

We are also told the pen is mightier than the sword, but tell that to the people in the Charlie Hebdo office who found their fistfuls of pens no match for two Kalashnikovs.

 

Tell that now to even the brave leaders of Jyllands-Posten, who, after years of jihadist plots against their staff have had enough, refusing now to republish cartoons from Charlie Hebdo for fear of yet more attacks.

“It shows that violence works,” it admitted.

Everywhere you will find other papers making the same call.

We are all Charlie?

Bull. Absolute self-serving rubbish. The sell-outs are everywhere and will grow stronger.

The West’s political leaders have already told Muslim leaders they agree that mocking Islam is a sin, and have even passed laws — in France, too — making it unlawful.

 

They have attacked the very few journalists and politicians who dared warn against the Islamist threat.

Some now back Muslim demands for a boycott of Israel or at least greater recognition for the terrorists who run large parts of Palestinian territory.

 

Anything for peace, even if it means 
submission.

And for all the protests this past week, submission is what you must expect.

 
Message 1 of 93
Latest reply
92 REPLIES 92

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

  1. Maybe most Ruperts peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy cancerous media dinosaur @rupertmurdoch they must be held responsible.

@hrtbps I'd like to offer an apology on behalf of us all. Murdoch's comments don't represent the views of mainstream Rupert community

Message 21 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

oh hang on...

 

No Australian newspaper dared published those pictures, too, bar one which did so in error.

The Obama administration three years ago even attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing the naked Mohammed cartoon, saying it was “deeply offensive

 

 

 

where was Bolt when Mike Carlton was attacked for publishing a cartoon in his column.  Oh, I remember now, he was one of those doing the attacking... so much for free press lol

Message 22 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

J.K. Rowling ✔ @jk_rowling
Follow


I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I'll auto-excommunicate. http://ow.ly/H7Eps


9:52 PM - 11 Jan 2015
14,554 RETWEETS 13,059 FAVORITES ReplyRetweetFavorite

Message 23 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

14,554 RETWEETS 13,059 FAVORITES ReplyRetweetFavorite

 

 

WoW! that's a lot of retweets!

 

Message 24 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.


@alexander*beetle wrote:

@nero_bolt wrote:

@boris1gary wrote:

March for Peace, led by hypocritesWoman Mad

 

 
 

So many supports of Islamic TERRORISTS  on this forum...... Very disturbing and has to make you wonder 

 

I wonder if the security forces monitor this forum..... 🙂  

 

Maybe they should... maybe they would get a lot of intel on some


Once again an unmitigated accusation against people where there has been absolutely nothing said in support of the terrorists at all. 

 

What gives you and others of your ilk the right to throw out baseless accusations full of venom and never have to answer to them. It's getting beyond a joke and is extremely offensive. 

 

 


stephen fry.png

Message 25 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.


@alexander*beetle wrote:

@icyfroth wrote:

@alexander*beetle wrote:

@nero_bolt wrote:

@boris1gary wrote:

March for Peace, led by hypocritesWoman Mad

 

 
 

So many supports of Islamic TERRORISTS  on this forum...... Very disturbing and has to make you wonder 

 

I wonder if the security forces monitor this forum..... 🙂  

 

Maybe they should... maybe they would get a lot of intel on some


Once again an unmitigated accusation against people where there has been absolutely nothing said in support of the terrorists at all. 

 

What gives you and others of your ilk the right to throw out baseless accusations full of venom and never have to answer to them. It's getting beyond a joke and is extremely offensive. 

 

 


stephen fry.png


You do realise the irony of that don't you Icyfroth?  You accused me yesterday of being an apologist for paedophiles because you argued that gays are more likely to be paedophiles. And even after I asked you a number of times to point out where I had said that I was an apologist for paedophiles, you wouldn't answer.

Sorry about that. Can you direct me to there and I will answer.

 

You do know, don't you, that Stephen Fry is gay! 
What has that got to do with anything?

 

So using the same argument that I'm whinging, if I were to accuse you of being a child basher, does that mean that by challenging that accusation, then you would simply be a whinger? 

I would probably be a whinger, but nobody would care. As Mr Fry would say "so effing what?"


 

Message 26 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

General comment - not directed at any particular poster.

 

I am not familiar with the cartoons published in Charlie Hebdo, so I can only speak general terms, but  it seems to me that in all these accusations of hypocrisy one fundamental truth appears to have been overlooked:

 

The right to remain safe from assassination despite  posting insulting, derogatory, racist or libellous cartoons DOES NOT imply a right to publish that kind of material in the first place. 

 

For example:  Larry Pickering gets away with his revolting cartoons because he publishes them on his own website - if one or two  that I have seen had been published in one of the daily papers he would quite likely have been charged with obscenity and/or  inciting hatred and I would have agreed wholeheartedly  with that decision. If, however,  one of his victims had  walked into his office and shot him I would have  been as  outraged as anyone else in Australia.

 

 

Whether I could acutally have brought myself to declare "I am Larry". is another matter of course. 

Message 27 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

Quote:  If one is afraid, one has let the terrorists win.

 

 

 

If one isn't at least a little afraid (worried, concerrned and taking safety precautions) One is an Idiot of the highest order.

 

These coward terrorosts can strike whenever, wherever, and at their discretion (or so it would seem).

 

No matter the name/claim/cause of what they do, they are simply murderers, but they do need to be feared, make no mistake.

_________________________________________________________

You can't please all the people all the time, so now I just please myself


Message 28 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

I am not charlie and I feel no shame in saying so.

If you continually poke the bear then the bear is going to bite you.

Whilst I do not agree with the murders I think their sheer arrogance in continually publishing that rubbish was their downfall.

Message 29 of 93
Latest reply

Re: Are we all Charlie? no no and shamefully no.

People should not be shot because they offend somebody.  And that is why I am part of the "Je suis Charlie" campaign.  I support free speech, and free artistic expression, even if it pushed the boundaries.  BUT there is a difference between biting political satire, which may offend, and something that is deliberately offensive, without any other purpose than to offend.

And too many people do not seem to know which is which.  

 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 30 of 93
Latest reply