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.

But it also contains the caption (in translation) "The film which inflames the Muslim world."

 

The cartoon is about something more. It is a comment about a reaction to a film. or at least, it seems to be.

 

Cartoons in foreign languages relating to events about which we know little are not to be dismissed as being just offensive for offence's sake until or unless we  understand the background story; the context.

 

 

 

 Islam, by it's very nature, is offensive to anyone who has a regard and a respect for the ideal of personal liberty/freedom.

 

Islam demands an abject submission to its tenets and contains an intimidating threat to those who have the courage to disagree.

 

If I were a cartoonist,  better able to express my point of view in caricatures than in text, I would do so. as I cannot, I must confine myself to labour my point with many words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 81 of 93
Latest reply

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

It is also worth noting that the anti-islamic themes at Charlie had stepped up quite drastically in the past few years. Not just cartoons but also articles mocking sensible talk about Islam. The paper was often criticised by the general and academic community for pushing a one topic barrow.

 

I agree with she-el that no one deserves to be executed for poor satirical taste.

 

But I also agree with the French Minister who asked if is really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on a burning flame?

 

 

Message 82 of 93
Latest reply

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


@*pepe wrote:

they are not making social commetary though,


Yes, some of their cartoons are not making social commentary, but many others do.  And they do make social commentary about things that nobody else dares to go into.  In principle that is good; in reality ............ ?  I think people need to think carefully what they do and HOW they do it. 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 83 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.


If these cartoons were posted here they would contravene the board rule, and in any case I do not want to propagate them.  Basically they are just various insulting, often naked, pics of the prophet.  But if you google Charlie Hebdo, you should find what we are talking about.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Voltaire: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” .
Message 84 of 93
Latest reply

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

I've seen a few "false flag" rumblings on the internet while reading around:

 

Here's one link:

 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/11/suspicions-growing-french-shootings-false-flag-operation/

 

"Considering the number of real journalists on war fronts, not cartoonists in Paris, killed by Washington funded and organized ISIS, including filmed beheadings, the uproar over the cartoonists’ deaths has the appearance of orchestration.

 

Whether or not it is a false flag operation, the shootings are being used for a wider purpose or purposes.

 

Among these purposes is bringing France back into Washington’s orbit. The French president had recently said that the sanctions against Russia should be terminated.


Hollande was allying himself with French economic interests instead of with Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy.

 

Another purpose is to stifle the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians and to realign Europe with Israel.

 

Another purpose is to counter the rising opposition in Europe to more Middle Eastern wars. The American neoconservatives have not completed their agenda. Syria, Iran,Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia are still standing.

 

And there can be other purposes not apparent to me.

My recommendation is that you not believe the print and TV media, but think. The failure of Americans to think is why they are 13 years into war and live in a police state.

 

 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.
 

False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation. Geraint Hughes uses the term to refer to those acts carried out by "military or security force personnel, which are then blamed on terrorists."

 
 

 

 

Message 85 of 93
Latest reply

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

Interesting.  I couldn't understand the "baiting" by Charlie Hebdo.  I likened it to poking a stick in the rib of a hungry lion.

 

I also don't agree with all the media attention and spotlight on the wrong doings of certain types.  It's prodding.  It's allowing "misfits" to be the centre of attention.   It is all dubious to me.  

 

Why should the public know every action of the investigators, the perpetrators, etc?  Then again,  we (the public) are only being "fed" certain information; because the "opponents" would be "informed' as well.

 

What Isis and others do is atrocious.  But it is being "highlighted" so much, that I wonder what the Media/politics is hiding or preparing us for, to be "united" (marches) to such a degree.

 

DEB 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 86 of 93
Latest reply

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

The march in Paris with those politicians leading so many 000s of people.  How foolish was that, unless they knew there was not going to be a "lone wolf" bomber or some such.

 

DEB

Message 87 of 93
Latest reply

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


@lloydslights wrote:

The march in Paris with those politicians leading so many 000s of people.  How foolish was that, unless they knew there was not going to be a "lone wolf" bomber or some such.

 

DEB


doubt it.

 

the security concerns were the reasons

for obama or biden not attending.

 

 

Message 88 of 93
Latest reply

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


@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Were you to plot a perfect satirical novel of the contemporary world, you might end it with a mass public march, led by a series of oligarchical leaders holding a banner saying "Freedom and Democracy" -- at the end of which everyone who participated would be arrested because they may well be enemies of such freedom and you can't be too careful.
We are well on the way to that. Yesterday in Paris there was a march for "free speech", occasioned by the evisceration of a satire/outrage magazine whose repeated focus gag was **bleep**-takes of Muhammad, and to a lesser extent of Jesus, the Pope, rabbis, etc. The march was led by, led by, a group of characters including:
* The Prime Minister of Turkey, the country which has jailed more journalists than anyone in the world
* The Foreign Minister of Egypt, which has Peter Greste and two other Al Jazeera staff serving 10-year prison terms on absurd charges/convictions
* Putin’s Foreign Minister, a government whose shadowy affiliated gangs have murdered dozens of journalists in the past decade and a half
* The Foreign Minister of Bahrain ('nuff said).
* The Prime Minister of Poland, whose government raided the Polish Charlie Hebdo equivalent when it "embarrassed" the government
* The Prime Minister of Ireland, where blasphemy remains an enforced criminal offence
* A sheikh from Qatar, where people are serving 15-year terms for "blasphemous" poetry
* Leaders of Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and the Palestinian territories, who all jailed journos
* Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Israel Defence Force lethally targeted journos during the Gaza invasion
* UK Prime Minister David Cameron, where Defence Advisory Notices and super-injunctions keep a host of live information from the public
* The Saudi ambassador to France, whose country has handed out a thousand lashes to a man convicted of blasphemy
* The Secretary-General of NATO, which deliberately bombed the Belgrade station of Yugoslav public TV during the Kosovo operation, killing 16 journalists
* The US Attorney-General, who works for a government which has cracked down harder onwhistleblowers than any other.

@am*3 wrote:

 

"It is kind of expected on discussion boards, that any articles are quoted, the source of the article is to be included in the post. Not fair on any author to copy & paste blog articles and not give them credit for their work."

 

 

 

personally i don't blame you for

not revealing the source    Woman Frustrated

 

 

 

 

Message 89 of 93
Latest reply

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

interesting also was this news item that largely went unnoticed:

 

https://www.intellihub.com/police-commissioner-investigating-charlie-hebdo-attack-commits-suicide-wr...

 

 

Although reports claim that Helric Fredou suffered from “depression” and “burn out” some remain skeptical that Fredou was ‘suicided’, murdered, by a third-party in an attempt to quell information he gained after speaking with key individuals during his investigation.

Message 90 of 93
Latest reply