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.


@*pepe wrote:

@gleee58 wrote:

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Well it kind of did, because it's rallied the anti-muslim forces to a man.

 

I think you mean anti-terrorist , don't you.?

 

A post further back referred to a Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting a caricature of a naked Mohammed. What purpose could there have been in publishing that other tthan to deliberately offend any every Muslim who saw it.?

if a magazine  wanted to express disgust over paedophiles priests, would a caricature of a naked Jeus be an appropriate comment?


Charlie Hebdo did that too. They are not fussy about who they send up with their satire.  


christian nutjobs generally tend to not be as trigger happy as muslim nutjobs


Muslim is a religion................not to be confused with 'nutjobs' of all walks and religions of life.

 

The 'nutjob' terrorists simply Claim the Muslim faith and call on Muhamed to justify the actions of murder.

 

If a terrorist decided to hold hostages in the name of Jesus as the Christian saviour, would we all call Christians nutjobs?

 

 

___________________________________________________________________
Map out your future, But do it in pencil, The road ahead is as long as you make it.
Make it worth the trip.
Jon Bon Jovi
Message 41 of 93
Latest reply

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


@*julia*2010 wrote:

did you not understand my question?

 

so - what's the difference?


I didn't bother to answer it as it had absolutely no bearing on on my post and merely demonstrated your inability fo distinguish between cause and effect. In both the the scenarios I mentioned the cause of the offence (the publishng of the cartoons) was exactly the same,  it was only the effect (which was not the subject of my post)  that was different.

 

The horror of the effect does not make the cause any less reprehensible.

Message 42 of 93
Latest reply

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

If a terrorist decided to hold hostages in the name of Jesus as the Christian saviour, would we all call Christians nutjobs?

 

Let's not forget abortion clinic have been torched and doctors shot in the name of Jesus.

Message 43 of 93
Latest reply

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

Anonymous
Not applicable

The horror of the effect does not make the cause any less reprehensible.

 

 

when you questioned their right to

publish the cartoons - what right were

you talking about?

 

they were not actually breaking any

laws, as far as i know. (no blasphemy 

laws in france)

 

if any content was found to be libelous -

there is the option of taking legal action.

 

 

 

 

In September 2012, despite the ongoing global furor over the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims," the magazine published an issue featuring a cartoon that appeared to depict a naked Mohammed, along with a cover that appeared to depict Mohammed being pushed in a wheelchair by an Orthodox Jew. French and American officials expressed dismay with the decision, and France closed embassies and schools in about 20 countries temporarily as a precaution.

 

Charlie Hebdo journalist Laurent Leger defended the magazine at the time, saying the cartoons were not intended to provoke anger or violence.

 

 

"The aim is to laugh," Leger told BFM-TV in 2012. "We want to laugh at the extremists -- every extremist. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept."

 

"In France, we always have the right to write and draw. And if some people are not happy with this, they can sue us and we can defend ourselves. That's democracy," Leger said. "You don't throw bombs, you discuss, you debate. But you don't act violently. We have to stand and resist pressure from extremism."

 

cnn

 

Message 44 of 93
Latest reply

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

but the extremists don't play by the same rules, they do respond with violence, so knowing this is it wise to continue to deliberately provoke them?

Message 45 of 93
Latest reply

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

Anonymous
Not applicable

@*pepe wrote:

but the extremists don't play by the same rules, they do respond with violence, so knowing this is it wise to continue to deliberately provoke them?


extremists would like to impose their

ideology on many other aspects of our

lives.   where do you draw the line?

 

do you think it is ok to criticise the religion

on public forums or using derogatory terms

to describe its followers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 46 of 93
Latest reply

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

So calling out a poster on false accusations means having posts removed but the false accusations stay. It is sad to see ignorance and cowardice win. Perhaps some people need to spend some time away from the obvious hours they spend being keyboard warriers and learn some social skills. 

 

 

Photobucket

Message 47 of 93
Latest reply

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

I do not think it is necessary to insult someone's prophet, be it Mohamed or Jesus to make a point.  It upsets people for whom these figures have meaning; it also serves to incite hatred in people who previously may have lived in our society perfectly content, and therefore it can serve as a powerful recruiting tool for the extremists.  It is nothing new that young men have this urge to go and fight somewhere for something. 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 48 of 93
Latest reply

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


@alexander*beetle wrote:

So calling out a poster on false accusations means having posts removed but the false accusations stay. It is sad to see ignorance and cowardice win. Perhaps some people need to spend some time away from the obvious hours they spend being keyboard warriers and learn some social skills. 

 

 


Well said a*b

If you dare to question the reaction to a terrorist attack, you are ipso facto a terrorist sympathiser.

 

Intellectually moribund.

 

prostate cancer ribbon Pictures, Images and Photos
Message 49 of 93
Latest reply

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


@*julia*2010 wrote:

@*pepe wrote:

but the extremists don't play by the same rules, they do respond with violence, so knowing this is it wise to continue to deliberately provoke them?


extremists would like to impose their

ideology on many other aspects of our

lives.   where do you draw the line?

 

do you think it is ok to criticise the religion

on public forums or using derogatory terms

to describe its followers?

 

 

 

 

 

 


when the issue is others trying to impose their will on our lives then of course something has to be done, we have the right to protect our way of life, but my understanding of this particular event is that it was retaliation for prolonged and deliberately offensive ridicule of the beliefs and idols of a group known to violently react.

 

Those 12 people weren't murdered because these extremists wanted them to stop wearing skimpy clothing or to not eat pig (yes I know that is a simplistic example but its sufficient for what I am getting at) - they died because of the arrogance of charlie publishing whatever they chose to publish regardless of the consequences.

In my unpopular opinion in this particular event the magazine has blood on their hands too.

Message 50 of 93
Latest reply