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.

Idlewhile, I don't know if the post is from an article or your words.

 

If they are your words, I say well said.

I am also interested in hearing whether you have given any thought to solutions and if you feel there are one or two immediate steps that need to be taken to curb the "misunderstandings" , "interpretations" of certain religions or whether you think the root of the problems is entirely different.

image host
Message 71 of 93
Latest reply

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

Um, don't tell me; tell Icyfroth. Smiley LOL

Message 72 of 93
Latest reply

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


@iapetus_rocks wrote:

Are you saying that Mohammed is a deity then? you'd be mistaken, as I am sure some black-flag-waving people would explain to you if you gave them the opportunity.


No. I know the prophet is not a deity.

If you read back you'll see I didn't specify any religion.

 

Message 73 of 93
Latest reply

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


@kopenhagen5 wrote:

Idlewhile, I don't know if the post is from an article or your words.

 

If they are your words, I say well said.

I am also interested in hearing whether you have given any thought to solutions and if you feel there are one or two immediate steps that need to be taken to curb the "misunderstandings" , "interpretations" of certain religions or whether you think the root of the problems is entirely different.


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.

 

It is an article by Andrew Bolt (The Daily Telegraph, Bolt Blog) Not attributed to source and it should have been.

 

Me personally, don't agree with anything much at all that Andrew Bolt writes. 

On 28 September 2011, Bolt was found to have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

 

Message 74 of 93
Latest reply

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

Thanks am, don't keep up with so much in media these days. I feel happier without it.

 

Perhaps A.Bolt has retrieved bits n pieces for that article but it is as though the underlying thought in the article has a certain truth and deeper understanding of where the problems stem.

(Re-2011, Maybe he also needs to grow up a little).

image host
Message 75 of 93
Latest reply

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

general reply (not to kopenhagen in particular):

 

i feel offended and insulted by the content of many posts here because of their lack of insight/grasp of reality and their inability to understand simple things. i therefore deduce that those who posted them must be of inferior intelligence and therefore insult my understanding of humans selecting for intellect.

 

my logical action of course is therefore to turn up on your doorstep some time soon with an axe or a gun or both and clean the gene pool of your inferior dna. your children and grandchildren will have to perish as well for obvious reasons.

 

you shouldn't have offended me! you brought it all onto yourself, it's not my fault at all.

 

 

Message 76 of 93
Latest reply

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

I am not sure if you are just giving a different rendition as an example of current issues.

 

If not, I will say, if you consider yourself as a being with more than inferior intellect, one of the basics of that intellect is to realize there are people with a lesser intellect contributing to a discussion, feeling a sense of worth and not necessarily offering anything to the issue but their innocence, as a reminder to the rest the reason for our intellectual discussions in the first place.

Hence you should probably start with your own door step!

 

Lets not forget how basic genes are, in comparison to nature and our home planet.

 

It's not what ya got, but how you use it!    Bam!!!!!!!!!!

 

image host
Message 77 of 93
Latest reply

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

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

 

Spot on Pepe.  Can you imagine the same reaction to the Monty Python mob when they released The Life of Brian.

 

 

 

Message 78 of 93
Latest reply

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


@freshwater-2 wrote:

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

 

Spot on Pepe.  Can you imagine the same reaction to the Monty Python mob when they released The Life of Brian.

 

 

 


yes i remember. they killed the whole crew didn't they? they shouldn't have offended jebus! they brought it onto themselves, fools they were.

 

i can still remember the news back then "crazy catholics fire bombing monty python killing every single member of the crew".

 

sheesh! they really shouldn't have made that movie or they would be still alive.

Message 79 of 93
Latest reply

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


@iapetus_rocks wrote:

"What about their gratuitously insulting cartoons that had no other purpose than to offend large groups of people who had never been violent themselves of incited  others to violence? - should we applaud them too"

 

Examples, please? or links to examples to illustrate your point, otherwise I cannot respond with an informed opinion. Satire is social commentary and it is commentary about either actions or about ideas and attitudes which inform actions.


How about the one in this article. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

 

What purpose did this serve than to gratuitously insult every Muslim who saw it? And let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in France have never committed any act of violencein the name of their religion or incited anyone else to do so.

 

the caption translates as My a r s e, don't you just love my a r s e.

Message 80 of 93
Latest reply