Why I am not Charlie

Middle East
on 472 Comments

There is no “but” about what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed them for it.  Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence, whether you want to call that plane spirit or imagination or culture, and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity. There will be time to analyze why the killers did it, time to parse their backgrounds, their ideologies, their beliefs, time for sociologists and psychologists to add to understanding. There will be explanations, and the explanations will be important, but explanations aren’t the same as excuses. Words don’t kill, they must not be met by killing, and they will not make the killers’ culpability go away.

To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else’s selfhood, share someone else’s death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience, and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn’t be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie overwhelms distinctions and elides the point. “We must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day,” the New Yorker pontificates. What the hell does that mean? In real life, solidarity takes many forms, almost all of them hard. This kind of low-cost, risk-free, E-Z solidarity is only possible in a social-media age, where you can strike a pose and somebody sees it on their timeline for 15 seconds and then they move on and it’s forgotten except for the feeling of accomplishment it gave you. Solidarity is hard because it isn’t about imaginary identifications, it’s about struggling across the canyon of not being someone else: it’s about recognizing, for instance, that somebody died because they were different from you, in what they did or believed or were or wore, not because they were the same. If people who are feeling concrete loss or abstract shock or indignation take comfort in proclaiming a oneness that seems to fill the void, then it serves an emotional end. But these Cartesian credos on Facebook and Twitter — I am Charlie, therefore I am — shouldn’t be mistaken for political acts.

Among the dead at Charlie Hebdo: Deputy chief editor Bernard Maris and cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut (aka Cabu), Stephane Charbonnier, who was also editor-in-chief, and Bernard Verlhac (aka Tignous)

Among the dead at Charlie Hebdo: Deputy chief editor Bernard Maris and cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut (aka Cabu), Stephane Charbonnier, who was also editor-in-chief, and Bernard Verlhac (aka Tignous)

Erasing differences that actually exist seems to be the purpose here: and it’s perhaps appropriate to the Charlie cartoons, which drew their force from a considered contempt for people with the temerity to be different. For the last 48 hours, everybody’s been quoting Voltaire. The same line is all over my several timelines:

“Those 21 words circling the globe speak louder than gunfire and represent every pen being wielded by an outstretched arm,” an Australian news site says. (Never mind that Voltaire never wrote them; one of his biographers did.) But most people who mouth them don’t mean them. Instead, they’re subtly altering the Voltairean clarion cry: the message today is, have to agree with what you say, in order to defend it. Why else the insistence that condemning the killings isn’t enough? No: we all have to endorse the cartoons, and not just that, but republish them ourselves. Thus Index on Censorship, a journal that used to oppose censorship but now is in the business of telling people what they can and cannot say, called for all newspapers to reprint the drawings: “We believe that only through solidarity – in showing that we truly defend all those who exercise their right to speak freely – can we defeat those who would use violence to silence free speech.” But is repeating you the same as defending you? And is it really “solidarity” when, instead of engaging across our differences, I just mindlessly parrot what you say?

But no, if you don’t copy the cartoons, you’re colluding with the killers, you’re a coward. Thus the right-wing Daily Caller posted a list of craven media minions of jihad who oppose free speech by not doing as they’re ordered. Punish these censors, till they say what we tell them to!

If you don’t agree with what Charlie Hebdo said, the terrorists win.

You’re not just kowtowing to terrorists with your silence. According to Tarek Fatah, a Canadian columnist with an evident fascist streak, silence is terrorism.

Of course, any Muslim in the West would know that being called “our enemy” is a direct threat; you’ve drawn the go-to-GItmo card. But consider: This idiot thinks he is defending free speech. How? By telling people exactly what they have to say, and menacing the holdouts with treason. The Ministry of Truth has a new office in Toronto.

There’s a perfectly good reason not to republish the cartoons that has nothing to do with cowardice or caution. I refuse to post them because I think they’re racist and offensive. I can support your right to publish something, and still condemn what you publish. I can defend what you say, and still say it’s wrong — isn’t that the point of the quote (that wasn’t) from Voltaire? I can hold that governments shouldn’t imprison Holocaust deniers, but that doesn’t oblige me to deny the Holocaust myself.

It’s true, as Salman Rushdie says, that “Nobody has the right to not be offended.” You should not get to invoke the law to censor or shut down speech just because it insults you or strikes at your pet convictions. You certainly don’t get to kill because you heard something you don’t like. Yet, manhandled by these moments of mass outrage, this truism also morphs into a different kind of claim: That nobody has the right to be offended at all.

am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. I don’t want to participate. This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do. Yet this means rejecting the only authorized reaction to the atrocity. Oddly, this peer pressure seems to gear up exclusively where Islam’s involved. When a racist bombed a chapter of a US civil rights organization this week, the media didn’t insist I give to the NAACP in solidarity. When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77 Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party’s youth camp, I didn’t notice many #IAmNorway hashtags, or impassioned calls to join the Norwegian Labor Party. But Islam is there for us, it unites us against Islam. Only cowards or traitors turn down membership in the Charlie club. The demand to join, endorse, agree is all about crowding us into a herd where no one is permitted to cavil or condemn: an indifferent mob, where differing from one another is Thoughtcrime, while indifference to the pain of others  beyond the pale is compulsory.

We’ve heard a lot about satire in the last couple of days. We’ve heard that satire shouldn’t cause offense because it’s a weapon of the weak: “Satire-writers always point out the foibles and fables of those higher up the food chain.” And we’ve heard that if the satire aims at everybody, those forays into racism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism can be excused away. Charlie Hebdo “has been a continual celebration of the freedom to make fun of everyone and everything….it practiced a freewheeling, dyspeptic satire without clear ideological lines.” Of course, satire that attacks any and all targets is by definition not just targeting the top of the food chain. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges,” Anatole France wrote; satire that wounds both the powerful and the weak does so with different effect. Saying the President of the Republic is a randy satyr is not the same as accusing nameless Muslim immigrants of bestiality. What merely annoys the one may deepen the other’s systematic oppression. To defend satire because it’s indiscriminate is to admit that it discriminates against the defenseless.

Funny little man: Contemporary Danish cartoon of Kierkegaard

Funny little man: Contemporary Danish cartoon of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the greatest satirist of his century, famously recounted his  dream: “I was rapt into the Seventh Heaven. There sat all the gods assembled.” They granted him one wish: “Most honorable contemporaries, I choose one thing — that I may always have the laughter on my side.” Kierkegaard knew what he meant: Children used to laugh and throw stones at him on Copenhagen streets, for his gangling gait and monkey torso. His table-turning fantasy is the truth about satire. It’s an exercise in power. It claims superiority, it aspires to win, and hence it always looms over the weak, in judgment. If it attacks the powerful, that’s because there is appetite underneath its asperity: it wants what they have. As Adorno wrote: “He who has laughter on his side has no need of proof. Historically, therefore, satire has for thousands of years, up to Voltaire’s age, preferred to side with the stronger party which could be relied on: with authority.” Irony, he added, “never entirely divested itself of its authoritarian inheritance, its unrebellious malice.”

Satire allies with the self-evident, the Idées reçues, the armory of the strong. It puts itself on the team of the juggernaut future against the endangered past, the successful opinion over the superseded one. Satire has always fed on distaste for minorities, marginal peoples, traditional or fading ways of life. Adorno said: “All satire is blind to the forces liberated by decay.”

Voltaire

Voltaire

Charlie Hebdo, the New Yorker now claims, “followed in the tradition of Voltaire.” Voltaire stands as the god of satire; any godless Frenchman with a bon mot is measured against him. Everyone remembers his diatribes against the power of the Catholic Church: Écrasez l’InfâmeBut what’s often conveniently omitted amid the adulation of his wit is how Voltaire loathed a powerless religion, the outsiders of his own era, the “medieval,” “barbaric” immigrant minority that afflicted Europe: the Jews.

Voltaire’s anti-Semitism was comprehensive. In its contempt for the putatively “primitive,” it anticipates much that is said about Muslims in Europe and the US today. “The Jews never were natural philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers,” Voltaire declared. That would do head Islamophobe Richard Dawkins proud:

screen-shot-2015-01-09-at-3-01-25-am

The Jews, Voltaire wrote, are “only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.” When some American right-wing yahoo calls Muslims “goatfuckers,” you might think he’s reciting old Appalachian invective. In fact, he’s repeating Voltaire’s jokes about the Jews. “You assert that your mothers had no commerce with he-goats, nor your fathers with she-goats,” Voltaire demanded of them. “But pray, gentlemen, why are you the only people upon earth whose laws have forbidden such commerce? Would any legislator ever have thought of promulgating this extraordinary law if the offence had not been common?”

Nobody wishes Voltaire had been killed for his slanders. If some indignant Jew or Muslim (he didn’t care for the “Mohammedans” much either) had murdered him mid-career, the whole world would lament the abomination. In his most Judeophobic passages, I can take pleasure in his scalpel phrasing — though even 250 years after, some might find this hard. Still, liking the style doesn’t mean I swallow the message. #JeSuisPasVoltaire. Most of the man’s admirers avoid or veil his anti-Semitism. They know that while his contempt amuses when directed at the potent and impervious Pope, it turns dark and sour when defaming a weak and despised community. Satire can sometimes liberate us, but it is not immune from our prejudices or untainted by our hatreds. It shouldn’t douse our critical capacities; calling something “satire” doesn’t exempt it from judgment. The superiority the satirist claims over the helpless can be both smug and sinister. Last year a former Charlie Hebdo writer, accusing the editors of indulging racism, warned that “The conviction of being a superior being, empowered to look down on ordinary mortals from on high, is the surest way to sabotage your own intellectual defenses.”

Of course, Voltaire didn’t realize that his Jewish victims were weak or powerless. Already, in the 18th century, he saw them as tentacles of a financial conspiracy; his propensity for overspending and getting hopelessly in debt to Jewish moneylenders did a great deal to shape his anti-Semitism. In the same way, Charlie Hebdo and its like never treated Muslim immigrants as individuals, but as agents of some larger force. They weren’t strivers doing the best they could in an unfriendly country, but shorthand for mass religious ignorance, or tribal terrorist fanaticism, or obscene oil wealth. Satire subsumes the human person in an inhuman generalization. The Muslim isn’t just a Muslim, but a symbol of Islam.

Cartoon by Sudanese artist Khalid Albaih, from Aljazeera.com

Cartoon by Sudanese artist Khalid Albaih, from Aljazeera.com

This is where political Islamists and Islamophobes unite. They cling to agglutinative ideologies; they melt people into a mass; they erase individuals’ attributes and aspirations under a totalizing vision of what identity means. A Muslim is his religion. You can hold every Muslim responsible for what any Muslim does. (And one Danish cartoonist makes all Danes guilty.) So all Muslims have to post #JeSuisCharlie obsessively as penance, or apologize for what all the other billion are up to. Yesterday Aamer Rahman, an Australian comic and social critic, tweeted:

A few hours later he had to add:

This insistence on contagious responsibility, collective guilt, is the flip side of #JeSuisCharlie. It’s #VousÊtesISIS; #VousÊtesAlQaeda. Our solidarity, our ability to melt into a warm mindless oneness and feel we’re doing something, is contingent on your involuntary solidarity, your losing who you claim to be in a menacing mass. We can’t stand together here unless we imagine you together over there in enmity. The antagonists are fake but they’re entangled, inevitable. The language hardens. Geert Wilders, the racist right-wing leader in the Netherlands, said the shootings mean it’s time to “de-Islamize our country.” Nigel Farage, his counterpart in the UK, called Muslims a “fifth column, holding our passports, that hate us.” Juan Cole writes that the Charlie Hebdo attack was “a strategic strike, aiming at polarizing the French and European public” — at “sharpening the contradictions.” The knives are sharpening too, on both sides.

We lose our ability to imagine political solutions when we stop thinking critically, when we let emotional identifications sweep us into factitious substitutes for solidarity and action. We lose our ability to respond to atrocity when we start seeing people not as individuals, but as symbols. Changing avatars on social media is a pathetic distraction from changing realities in society. To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won’t stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen that neither risk nor alter anything. To protect expression that’s endangered you have to engage with the substance of what was said, not deny it. That means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure. I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killingsI mourn the dead. I am not Charlie.

This post originally appeared on Scott Long’s website A Paper Bird

About Scott Long

Scott Long, a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, served as founding director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. He has been a human rights activist campaigning for sexual rights for over twenty years, working in countries including Albania, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, Jamaica, Romania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and the United States. He blogs on human rights issues at www.paper-bird.net

Other posts by .


Posted In:

472 Responses

  1. seafoid
    January 9, 2015, 11:04 am

    We have to draw the line between satire and blasphemy. I don’t think cartoons of Mohammed in pornographic poses are satirical.
    I don’t believe those people deserved to die mais je ne suis pas Charlie.

    And Dawkins’ Nobel comment is stupid. Did anyone in Trinity College Cambridge ever write as well as Hafez or invent anything as delicious as Tabbouleh or have the ability to move people like Um Kulthum ?

    • tokyobk
      January 9, 2015, 12:38 pm

      What is blasphemy? And who decides the answer to this and how its enforced.

      Most of what is written on MW is considered blasphemous in the mainstream press.

      Chris Hedges was uninvited to Penn on the grounds of blasphemy. etc…

      Its very true of course that Charlie cartoons are Hustler Magazine creepy so its elevation to a moral standard shows a double standard– that its ok to poke fun at Muslims in ways that would never be done to other groups in polite society.

      Lastly, we live in an officially post-911 world. Every single Muslim organisation, most of which like CAIR or MPAC can be called socially and religiously conservative, has condemned this in the starkest terms, Juan Cole has a good article about this with comments about Sisis recent speech) while many Western liberal writers have been parsing and also insistent that Muslims as a group need not apologise.

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 12:50 pm

        Tokyobk, I feel absolutely no need to apologize. I had nothing to do with these cold-blooded killers and no one can make me feel guilty for their vile actions. Moslem organizations had no business apologizing, but explaining that the community did not condone these killings was most necessary.

      • American
        January 9, 2015, 1:16 pm

        tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 12:38 pm

        What is blasphemy? And who decides the answer to this and how its enforced..>>>>>>>

        Its like the SC definition of porn…..’you cant define it but you can recognize it when you see it.’
        As for who decides…whoever is offended by it decides whether they are right or not.
        There are no rules now–even if the rule makers think there are—its the wild wild west.
        Start a fight and draw your gun at your own risk.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 2:30 pm

        “Lastly, we live in an officially post-911 world. Every single Muslim organisation, most of which like CAIR or MPAC can be called socially and religiously conservative, has condemned this in the starkest terms, Juan Cole has a good article about this with comments about Sisis recent speech) while many Western liberal writers have been parsing and also insistent that Muslims as a group need not apologise.”

        Wow, I see your point “tokyobk”.
        Things are quite a bit different when Israel does something, and every Jewish organization must condemn it, and every Jew in the world has to explain it, and is called on to apologize for it! It’s not fair, we can’t get away with anything like the Muslims can, thanks to 9-11 (if you says so, bk, if you says so)

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 2:45 pm

        “Its very true of course that Charlie cartoons are Hustler Magazine creepy”

        Nothing lascivious for “tokyobk”! When he wants to illustrate the depths of graphic ugliness, he knows right where to go; to a women with a staple in her navel!

      • tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 4:59 pm

        “Its very true of course that Charlie cartoons are Hustler Magazine creepy”

        Nothing lascivious for “tokyobk”! When he wants to illustrate the depths of graphic ugliness, he knows right where to go; to a women with a staple in her navel!

        So Mooser, you do know that the Larry Flint case has been the test case of free speech in the US right?

        And you do know that the subject was really racist cartoons (which were also often sexual) right?

      • tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 5:05 pm

        Wow, I see your point “tokyobk”. Things are quite a bit different when Israel does something, and every Jewish organization must condemn it, and every Jew in the world has to explain it, and is called on to apologize for it! It’s not fair, we can’t get away with anything like the Muslims can, thanks to 9-11 (if you says so, bk, if you says so)

        Hi Mooser:

        Happy 2015. I am happy to engage with you or any other adult and certainly happy to be either right or corrected if someone has better info ration to share.

        The problem with playing chess with a pigeon is that the pigeon is going to knock over the pieces pretending its playing, crap on the board and then strut off as if it won.

        You don’t see my point, of course (on purpose because your 3 – 5 hours a day here are about you and your ability to toss a good zinger).

        What I said and what Juan Cole said and what is clearly true is that every single Muslim organisation in the world has condemned this act and there is no way to say, as after 9/11, “where are the Muslims who condemn this.”

        As for Jews and Israel? I happen to think that yeah Jews do have some responsibility to comment, as Jews, on events done in the name of Judaism. Of course no more or no less than Muslims who are the subject of many double standards including here.

      • tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 5:06 pm

        American January 9, 2015, 1:16 pm
        tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 12:38 pm

        What is blasphemy? And who decides the answer to this and how its enforced..>>>>>>>

        Its like the SC definition of porn…

        Well said, American.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 9, 2015, 6:02 pm

        @ tokyobk,

        Q: And who decides the answer to this and how its enforced.

        R: Let’s test the waters, shall we?

        You can’t have open, burning pits next to a river…

        [for those of you without survival training/skills, that’s how you get fresh and drinkable water. Dig a hole a few feet away from whatever waterway you’re close at, toss out the first muddy water that comes up and you should be able to drink the next bit. Cheers.].

      • tokyobk
        January 9, 2015, 6:06 pm

        Walid January 9, 2015, 12:50 pm
        Tokyobk, I feel absolutely no need to apologize.

        Makes sense to me , though I think they have done the right thing on several levels. Certainly, my original point, the notion that Muslims are not condemning this is impossible to take seriously as it was by many people after 9/11.

      • tokyobk
        January 10, 2015, 3:12 am

        Q: And who decides the answer to this and how its enforced.

        R: Let’s test the waters, shall we?

        You can’t have open, burning pits next to a river…

        Daniel Rich, intriguing but cryptic. Care to elaborate?

      • CigarGod
        January 10, 2015, 9:29 am

        I’d like to see the USA…and the christian churches or organizations…participate in this little condemnation ritual…every time a small group of christians bomb abortion clinics, doctors and nurses. I’d like christian organizations to be blamed for the bundy ranch hostilities. How about christians apologize for the militant little nest of christian military officers/christian madrassa (school) in colorado, used to train these crusaders that we send into muslim countries around the globe?

      • Mayhem
        January 12, 2015, 11:31 pm

        @tokyobk, take a reality check

        its ok to poke fun at Muslims in ways that would never be done to other groups in polite society.
        Muslims SHOULD be just like the rest of us (no special treatment for deceptively alleged victimhood), but their religion (political ideology) prevents that.

    • bilal a
      January 9, 2015, 10:20 pm

      In the USA, In wartime both sedition and treason are capital offenses, both for the military and civilians. These are speech crimes against the state.

      I don’t see the difference between these democratic principles and te shariah’s prohibition against sedition treason (blasphemy in a non secular constitution ).

      Moreover, there are very real consequences to non-seditious speech in the USA if that speech means criticism of Israel. Ask Normon Finkelstein.

    • Mooser
      January 10, 2015, 10:29 am

      Good old ‘tokyobk’! There’s one man who knows that being a Zionist means never saying “I’m sorry”.

      • talknic
        January 10, 2015, 10:43 am

        @ Mooser ” being a Zionist means never saying “I’m sorry””

        Enough puzzles. What’s that? Speak English.

      • tokyobk
        January 10, 2015, 1:41 pm

        Yeah, talknic, I genuinely have no idea why Mooser thinks I have any interest in defending Zionism since as I have made clear repeatedly, I don’t. I think he actually doesn’t even care as long as people think he is the supreme jokester of the MW comment section.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:09 pm

        “I genuinely have no idea why Mooser thinks I have any interest in defending Zionism since as I have made clear repeatedly, I don’t.”

        Yes, I must have jumped to a conclusion, and gotten it wrong. In that case, tokyobk, welcome to the ranks (so to speak) of anti-Zionism, and I’m glad we won’t have any more of the “people” stuff to contend with.
        Sorry for misunderstanding you.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:14 pm

        “Enough puzzles. What’s that? Speak English.”

        Well, since I’m wrong about tokyobk, the comment I made can be nothing short of nonsensical. My misapprehension is nothing short of astonishing and complete, and very embarrassing. I must have jumped to a conclusion, instead of away from it.

    • piotr
      January 10, 2015, 1:30 pm

      “or have the ability to move people like Um Kulthum ?”

      Nothing moves people as effectively as a bullet train (or a good subway system).

    • Thomas Comeau
      January 10, 2015, 2:18 pm

      Like so many others, you’re guilty of nit-picking Dawkins. Dawkins treats with equal disdain ALL religions! Just because Islam is currently being skewered, as it should be, doesn’t make him strictly an islamophobe; and freedom of speech doesn’t recognize individual sensitivities, it operates in spite of them. Those who truly believe in free speech accept that it will offend as well as enlighten. What seafoid and others want, while not specifically labeling it , is special treatment for their view of ‘free speech’ which would forbid ‘blasphemy’, a religious concept.
      All religions deserve and should undergo close examination and criticism given their influence on humanity;
      NOTHING is “sacred” which, not surprisingly, is another religious concept used to curb inquiry. It is well past time for the world to rid itself of the ignorance of all religions and the misery the encourage. That is Dawkins’ message!

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 5:20 pm

        Has Dawkins ever explicitly condemned Judaism?

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 6:14 pm

        “Has Dawkins ever explicitly condemned Judaism?”

        No, but he has reportedly done some experiments with an oil lamp and very accurately measured amounts of fuel that point towards inescapable conclusions. Perhaps they will only be published posthumorously, they are that shocking.

    • bilal a
      January 10, 2015, 8:31 pm

      Its another religion, albeit secularized, which is the main threat to global free speech:

      WAPO- The biggest threat to French free speech isn’t terrorism. It’s the [[zionist run \ government.
      By[Law Professor ] Jonathan Turley
      Notably, among the demonstrators this past week at the Place de la Republique was Sasha Reingewirtz, president of the Union of Jewish Students, who told NBC News, “We are here to remind [the terrorists] that religion can be freely criticized.” The Union of Jewish Students apparently didn’t feel as magnanimous in 2013, when it successfully sued Twitter over posts deemed anti-Semitic. The student president at the time dismissed objections from civil libertarians, saying the social networking site was “making itself an accomplice and offering a highway for racists and anti-Semites.” The government declared the tweets illegal, and a French court ordered Twitter to reveal the identities of anti-Semitic posters.
      ..
      The cases have been wide-ranging and bizarre. In 2008, for example, Brigitte Bardot was convicted for writing a letter to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy about how she thought Muslims and homosexuals were ruining France. In 2011, fashion designer John Galliano was found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments against at least three people in a Paris cafe. In 2012, the government criminalized denial of the Armenian genocide (a law later overturned by the courts, but Holocaust denial remains a crime). In 2013, a French mother was sentenced for “glorifying a crime” after she allowed her son, named Jihad, to go to school wearing a shirt that said “I am a bomb.” Last year, Interior Minister Manuel Valls moved to ban performances by comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, declaring that he was “no longer a comedian” but was rather an “anti-Semite and racist.” It is easy to silence speakers who spew hate or obnoxious words, but censorship rarely ends with those on the margins of our society.
      link to washingtonpost.com

      • traintosiberia
        January 11, 2015, 10:48 am

        One set of dogma is replaced by another set .

  2. Scott
    January 9, 2015, 11:14 am

    Thanks for the lucid short essay.

  3. Taxi
    January 9, 2015, 11:14 am

    With freedom comes responsibility.

    Hate-speech merchants need to understand this. Governments need to lay down equitable laws.

    For some people, their prophets are as precious to them as their own children, and in the kind of world we live in, f*ck with that and you could be f*cked with back.

    In France, you can go to prison for mere antisemitic speech, but you’re allowed to publish materials deeply offensive to both christians and moslems.

    No I am not a frigging Charlie whatever! Islamophobes inciting and clashing with islamic zealots is NOT my problem! I would not want to be stuck on a desert island with either!

    No I do not care for the drunk at the bar cussing and picking a fight with another drunken psycho. I see them both antisocial pillocks.

    As far as I’m concerned both islamists and islamphobes are an equal grave danger to the world. I don’t feel sorry for either.

    • ritzl
      January 9, 2015, 12:32 pm

      +1, Taxi.

      • Shingo
        January 9, 2015, 5:44 pm

        +1

    • bintbiba
      January 9, 2015, 2:57 pm

      Yes … Taxi !!

    • Daniel Rich
      January 9, 2015, 6:04 pm

      @ Taxi,

      Q: With freedom comes responsibility.

      R: Is that why the holocasut [sorry, I work for a movie company] is cemented in law/s?

    • bilal a
      January 9, 2015, 10:22 pm

      the real danger is from new atheism –

      With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.

      link to firstlook.org

    • Mayhem
      January 10, 2015, 7:03 pm

      @taxi, have you got some statistics on the number of people killed by islamophobes compared to islamists? And you contend that they are each an “equal grave danger”. Amazing logic!

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 8:38 am

        I’d say “amazing” brainwash or willful ignorance on your part.

        You really shouldn’t have asked this question cuz you’re gonna be eating crow while reading.

        Off the top of my head, here’s a list of the moslem countries that have been attacked specifically because they are Arab/moslem countries who posed a threat to islmophobic israel – attacked, I may add, by a global cabal of zionist-islamophobic policy makers who sent their armies and mercenaries forth to mass-murder moslems:

        Sudan
        Yemen
        Libya
        Iraq
        Syria
        Lebanon
        Palestine

        Without even needing to rely on further statistics, I’m pretty sure that the above combined deaths would by far out-number Alqaida’ murder total since 9/11.

        Iraqi deaths alone would instantly tip the scales. And in the case of Iraq, it was death due to a racist/islamophobic occupation.

  4. raincatsgalore
    January 9, 2015, 11:24 am

    Says it all for me. Beautifully reasoned.

  5. American
    January 9, 2015, 11:36 am

    Just get rid of all the hypocrites.

    Anyone who can stand the Orwellianness, the monkey see monkey do chatter babble, the pilpul, the retarded imbecilic blather of today’s media and the parts of society they influence has a stronger stomach than me.

    link to ibtimes.co.in

    “EDITOR’S NOTE: A story reporting on conspiracy theorists who allege a link between Israeli intelligence and the Paris shootings should never have been published and we have therefore removed it from our site. The story was beneath our standards and we apologize for this basic lapse in judgement.”

    Title of deleted article: “Charlie Hebdo Attack and Mossad Link: Is Israel Venting Its Fury For France’s Recognition of Palestine State?”

    • ritzl
      January 9, 2015, 12:37 pm

      American, the IBT should have called it satire and the world would have rushed to their defense.

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 12:42 pm

      “nyone who can stand the Orwellianness, the monkey see monkey do chatter babble, the pilpul, the retarded imbecilic blather of today’s media and the parts of society they influence has a stronger stomach than me. ”

      American, if you’re in the mood for theatre, watch CNN now where Anderson Cooper is having a field day exploring what or why things happened at the Jewish kosher supermarket. He is wondering if the terrorists landed there by design because the place was Jewish and could they have actually planned to land there just before shabbat when the place woud be busy with Jews and thereby kill many more people and half a dozen other probabable eventualities. I’m watching it now for pure entertainement value. Can’t wait for Blitzer to come on to hear his Islamophobic analyses of what the terrorists really wanted to accomplish.

      • American
        January 9, 2015, 1:23 pm

        @ Walid

        I would, but I’ve already vomited once this am when my screen got stuck on one of Robert in Israel zionist comments.
        So I dont want to make myself sick again…and that would surely do it.

      • flamestar
        January 10, 2015, 5:03 am

        I do not own a TV because I have better thing to do. I was never a listener to cable news stations because they are stupid. You listen to it all to make fun of the listeners. Too bad you don’t realize you are a listen too. You are like the Howard Stern listeners who never miss a broadcast who say they do it because they hate him.

      • Taxi
        January 10, 2015, 8:22 am

        flamestar,

        There is a difference between a news monitor and a TV junkie.

        Grownups can tell the difference.

        And apparently on your Lahdeehah planet, the news is positively obsolete.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:22 pm

        “And apparently on your Lahdeehah planet, the news is positively obsolete.”

        Well, “Taxi” he is apparently, reading Mondo! It’s a start.

    • ivri
      January 9, 2015, 12:55 pm

      @American
      To all those that see the hands of the Mossad here:
      Some made similar claims after Sep 11
      Some claimed that the ISIL is a CIA/Mossad creation to deepen the Sunni-Shia rift, engage Iran/Hezbollah (away from Israel) and throw Syria into chaos
      Some claimed that the Iraq war was intended to neutralize a major country/army that threatened Israel and create a major problem in the region so as to deflect attention from Israel, which was until then the main focus (and likewise now with Syria)
      Some claimed that it was Israel`s wars that destabilized Lebanon
      Some claimed, including explicitly Erdogan, that Israel was complicit in removing Morsi in favor of El-Sisi
      Some claimed….

      • American
        January 9, 2015, 1:33 pm

        ivir

        Some may be right about some things or not.
        Meanwhile my policy is to not believe anything that comes out a Zionist’s or the GOI’s or the media’s or the US government’s mouth.
        Unless of course I could water board and torture them for 96 hours to get the truth. (;

      • seafoid
        January 9, 2015, 1:42 pm

        Israel’s wars did destabilize Lebanon, Ivri. Why does Judaism need so much war anyway?

        Mossad is overrated. A bit like Bar Refaeli.

      • ivri
        January 9, 2015, 2:13 pm

        @seafoid
        For a change we agree on something – Israel may be benefitting from a general trend but for the most of it, it is a bystander. We don`t agree though on the wars: they have all been a result of the initial rejection of Israel, which gradually, without really wanting or planning to be so, turned it into a mini-Sparta. Once transformed you just continue on the new track in an automatic manner.
        It was a grand miscalculation and an optical failure on the side of the Arab world – they figured out that Israel is so small in number (it had 700,000 pop at its establishment) and size (11 km width in my hometown) that if just push hard enough and persevere they will prevail in no time. The rest is History – but that`s the story in a nutshell.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 2:34 pm

        Gosh, those are some fantastic claims, “ivri”! Who on earth do you think puts any credence in those claims. You keep on saying “Some claimed”. Well, who is “some”?

        Or does just intoning “Some claimed” over and over make you feel like a Prophet?

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 3:28 pm

        ” which gradually, without really wanting or planning to be so, turned it into a mini-Sparta.”

        Of course, Israel being in, operating in and colonizing “areas in Palestine outside the State of Israel” since the freakin’ day it was created didn’t have anything to do with it, nor the murder and ethnic cleansing Zionist did to get to that point, and ever since.

        But don’t worry, “ivri”, it just confirms my faith that we, the Jews are moving forward into an entirely new religious era, with a Goddess, a female deity! And apparently, a woman you can pray to by screeching “Mommeeee, they made me do it!” Apparently She’s quite compassionate.

        A modern Dayenu! It isn’t enough, they made us do this! And as if that isn’t enough, they made us do that! Yes, it’s always enough.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 9, 2015, 6:10 pm

        @ American,

        Q: Some may be right about some things or not. Meanwhile my policy is to not believe anything that comes out a Zionist’s or the GOI’s or the media’s or the US government’s mouth.

        R: A dire needed breath of fresh air. Kudos to you, sir and here are some fresh mentos…

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 6:32 pm

        “a mini-Sparta”

        Not even close. Sparta had a much higher birth-rate, very few walk-aways, and intermarriage was strictly controlled. And I don’t think they had many daul-passporters.

      • RoHa
        January 10, 2015, 12:13 am

        American, why do you limit your scepticism to the US and Israeli Governments?

        Do you believe the others are paragons of veracity?

        I usually take the more general line of “never believe anything until it has been officially denied.”

    • Mayhem
      January 10, 2015, 7:30 pm

      Notwithstanding that the disgraceful article was pulled by the IBT is the fact that Greta Berlin, BDS Leader, spokesperson for the Free Gaza Movement responsible for the Gaza flotillas, actually declared this on her Facebook feed:
      “MOSSAD just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France…Here’s hoping the French police will be able to tell a well executed hit by a well trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their freind (sic.) Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four year old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack.”
      “Berlin’s remarks about the Charlie Hebdo slaughter are not the first time she has promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In 2012, even some Jewish anti-Zionists were angered by her endorsement of a video featuring an obscure anti-Semite named Eustace Mullins, who charged, in the words of Berlin’s tweet at the time, that “Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews.”

      Refer http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/01/08/bds-leaders-promote-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theory-linking-mossad-to-charlie-hebdo-atrocity/
      These kind of remarks demonstrate that the accusations that the BDS is fundamentally driven by anti-semitic precepts are proven.

      • traintosiberia
        January 11, 2015, 3:30 pm

        Some conspiracy theorist exist to infiltrate genuine disbelievers .That was the policy based homework behind the Cognitive Infiltration theories and practices outlined by Samantha Power’s Husband neo interventionist husband-,the other side of the same ethically challengd and morally degraded discarded penny embossed with the logo of the logo of the neocons on the other side of the coin.

        Hariri killing was investigated by UN. Why not 911? Rawanda killing by international bodies why not the American wars against Iraq and Libya and Somalia?
        I will discard the worst conspiracy theories on the grounds of the evidences not on some kind of references to alleged intrinsic idiocy,ethnicity,country of origin,or past affiliations with some organizations ,or dress,or smell of food or unsightly nature of the garb ,or the habit to call people to prayers on certain times of the day .

  6. lysias
    January 9, 2015, 11:42 am

    Why did Obama call the Charlie killings “cowardly”? Very evil they undoubtedly were, but why do politicians feel obliged to call despicable acts also “cowardly”, however brave their perpetrators may have shown themselves to be in their very acts? The same thing happened over 9/11.

    They’re dead now, by the way, which may be convenient for some people, like bin Laden’s death. I wonder how difficult it would have been to take them alive (say, by using some incapacitating gas).

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 9, 2015, 11:49 am

      Agree. The 9/11 hijackers were many bad things, but cowardly they were not. In fact, cowardly was about the last thing they were. And given that the Charlie Hebdo killers must have know they’d likely be killed – either on the spot or shortly afterwards, as now appears to be the case – then I wouldn’t call them ‘cowardly’ either.

      I think it’s a very American thing – courage is considered a Good Thing, and bravery its opposite, when in fact courage is a morally neutral characteristic.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 12:34 pm

        I sometimes wonder if we know very much at all about the 9-11 hijackers.

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 1:04 pm

        “I sometimes wonder if we know very much at all about the 9-11 hijackers. ”

        When “they” don’t want you know, the terrorists are killed on the spot. When “they” do, they are simply injured to allow their interrogation and for you to know . That part I found most fascinating about the 911 story was the passport of one of the terrorists found intact among the tons of debris and ash on the sidewalk.

        Makes you wonder why Merah that was surrounded by about 300 policemen was shot dead. Same question about Bin Ladin. Same about Oswald and later Ruby’s sudden cancer. And now the Charlie Hebdo killers. You’re going to have to rely on what Anderson Cooper or Blitzer tell you what you need to know.

      • seafoid
        January 9, 2015, 1:45 pm

        And ISIS are very good at restoring municipal electricity systems and internet databases- who are the people behind them, another mystery.

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 2:19 pm

        “who are the people behind them, another mystery.”

        Let me count the ways…

        Turkey, that’s fencing the pirated oil from Iraq and Syria and thereby providing ISIS with a daily cash flow from the proceeds of $6 million. Turkey also provides them with free passage into and out of Turkey at will.

        Kurdistan al-Iraq, that’s paying them $1 /barrel transit fees on all Kurdish oil being pipelined through ISIS held territory in North Iraq and into Turkey’s port of Ceyhan where its loaded on tankers headed for Ashdod and Houston.

        The USA, that keeps “accidently” air-dropping supplies and arms to them that is supposedly destined for the Free Syria Army that no longer exists. The $400 million in arms that the Congress approved not long ago for the FSA ended up in the hands of ISIS.

        Then there’s France’s and the UK’s, Qatar’s and Saudia’s help but they are too tiring to list.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 2:20 pm

        “That part I found most fascinating about the 911 story”

        Is how the building collapsed into their own footprint, almost at free-fall speed, and created hundreds of tons of powdered concrete in the process. Those were some jets. And the delayed reaction was a nice touch, along with the third building.
        But really, I’ve mostly forgotten about it. I can’t find out, and nobody seems very curious about it, so if they don’t want to tell me a story that makes sense, about something that happened in the biggest US city (one of them). I’m not taking their word for anything else, including how it was done and who did it, and why we should blame them. If it wasn’t worth a real forensic investigation, it can’t be that important.
        Sorry.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 2:42 pm

        And that is strictly a tangent, and not the beginning of a discussion, and I wouldn’t blame the moderators one bit if they struck it. I don’t want to start it any more than they do but I opened my big mouth and didn’t think better of it til “edit” was over

      • lysias
        January 9, 2015, 3:13 pm

        I thoroughly sympathize, Mooser. I often have difficulty restraining myself from saying on this forum what I think really went on and what I know did not happen on 9/11.

      • Bumblebye
        January 9, 2015, 3:14 pm

        “The Report” yesterday on bbcR4 was on ISIS – loads of info/analysis, speaking mostly with a Saudi who joined them for a time as a UK intelligence asset. Very informative about the hows whys and wherefores of their success, Turkish fears, how the ideology taps into Muslim equivalents of endtimes theology, etc.
        link to bbc.co.uk

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 3:35 pm

        ” saying on this forum what I think really went on and what I know did not happen on 9/11.”

        I know nothing about it, and so can’t discuss it. But I’ll be damned if I predicate any strong feelings (except sorrow for the victims) on something nobody will give me a satisfactory explanation for.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 9, 2015, 6:14 pm

        @ Maximus Decimus Meridius,

        I would argue that courage is the outcome of condensed fear.

        or

        I will die fighting, but don’t have the courage to commit suicide…

      • MRW
        January 9, 2015, 7:25 pm

        @ Mooser January 9, 2015, 2:20 pm and 3:35 PM,

        I could not agree with you more. Who knew Snap-Crackle-n’-Pop kerosene/Jet Fuel A could vaporize two buildings in the time it takes to count your ten fingers, and from the top down, too. They taught us wrong, Mooser, I tell you they taught us wrong: heat descends.

      • RoHa
        January 9, 2015, 9:13 pm

        ISIS is getting seriously nasty. Now recruiting bankers!

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 10:04 pm

        MRW, about heat travelling downwards, for the 3rd tower to have come down, there had to be a third plane intended for it but that failed to make it.

      • straightline
        January 10, 2015, 12:11 am

        Damned cunning those Chinese:

        link to gizmodo.com

        They built a tall building that did not collapse at the first hint of fire! Maybe they learned to do it by looking at all of the steel that was shipped there from the WTC buildings immediately after 911.

      • Danaa
        January 10, 2015, 1:28 am

        Walid, to add to your list – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, shot dead, as was the friend (Todashev?) in Florida – was it? (yes, we heard that tale of the grabbing for the gun, and the threatening with the table, etc. etc.). In fact, some of the similarities with the Boston marathon events are chilling. A known threat, Tamerlan was. But strangely enough, he was off the hook for those three dead in a supposed drug related killing. Not even subject to surveillance after returning from Dagestan On the hook (as was Tobashev) off again, whatever is convenient whenever.

        The younger Tsarnaev was caught alive – just barely – a decision must have been made that this would be more useful than killing him. By somebodies somewhere.

        The similarities with the Boston case don’t end up there. Just like the similarities with 9/11. Funny how the terrorists knew to leave behind their IDs in the stolen car. it definitely brings to mind the 9/11 terrorist guy’s passport materializing, well worn but intact.

        Not all of these incidents were false flags, perhaps. But the “let it just happen” seems all too plausible, especially when one looks at the cui Bono. Sometimes, it’s OK to state the obvious, as inconvenient as it is.

    • American
      January 9, 2015, 2:07 pm

      Its pretty cowardly to sit in an office and churn out dirty cartoons about various groups of people and religions.
      Reminds me of the radio shock jocks who insult people on the air waves from their little cubicles .
      They are sick personalities to begin if they enjoy that kind of thing or want to be in that trade.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 9, 2015, 6:22 pm

        @ American,

        Q: Its pretty cowardly to sit in an office and churn out dirty cartoons about various groups of people and religions.

        R: A good comedian/cartoonist should make his/her audience think. That means the entire world is fair game. Once some segments of societies are excluded from one’s verbal wrath [or especially targeted] the lopsidedness distresses the natural balance and mayhem will ensue.

        The truth does not a single law to be true and it doesn’t need a single death either.

      • flamestar
        January 10, 2015, 4:57 am

        Its pretty cowardly to sit in an office sit and make fun of murder victims.

      • Taxi
        January 10, 2015, 8:30 am

        Not half as cowardly as pulling up deckchairs on occupied hilltops to watch the raging infanticide of 500+ Gaza children.

        I bet you or at least one person you know was yelling “am chai yisrael’ with every fallen toddler.

      • American
        January 10, 2015, 10:43 am

        @ Rich & flamestar

        There is a difference between satirizing and blaspheming imo.
        As much as I despise and am against the Zio cult and religious fanatics I don’t go around calling their mothers whores and their religion a Satanic club.
        I dont hold back on what I am against, but when someone gets that low and sleazy all they are doing is trying to incite and provoke some kind of reaction.

      • RoHa
        January 11, 2015, 11:45 pm

        “Not half as cowardly as pulling up deckchairs on occupied hilltops to watch the raging infanticide of 500+ Gaza children.”

        But don’t publish a cartoon about that. Freedom has limits.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 8:46 pm

      Well, this is one of the oldest tricks in the unwritten propaganda rulebook: Always call your enemies cowards and imply yourself to be the knight in shining armor. Heroes don’t stab people in the back, so by calling them cowards they basically want to prevent that people heroize them.

      • American
        January 12, 2015, 5:21 pm

        ” Always call your enemies cowards and imply yourself to be the knight in shining armor. Heroes don’t stab people in the back, so by calling them cowards they basically want to prevent that people heroize them. …..OyVeyoo

        Simple minded bs. People like you are constantly trying to lower the bar for the lowly.

        A terrorist trying to kill me with a suicide bomb might be my enemy but he’s hardly a coward if he’s willing to die for it.

      • lysias
        January 12, 2015, 5:46 pm

        Isn’t calling someone a coward who is obviously anything but likely to backfire and provoke distrust in one’s audience?

  7. eljay
    January 9, 2015, 11:43 am

    “Those 21 words circling the globe speak louder than gunfire and represent every pen being wielded by an outstretched arm,” an Australian news site says. … But most people who mouth them don’t mean them. Instead, they’re subtly altering the Voltairean clarion cry: the message today is, I have to agree with what you say, in order to defend it. Why else the insistence that condemning the killings isn’t enough? No: we all have to endorse the cartoons, and not just that, but republish them ourselves.

    I agree that defending the right to free speech doesn’t imply agreeing with all speech that is defended. But this, to me, is the most important point:

    Words and pictures can be beautiful or vile, pleasing or enraging, inspiring or offensive; but they exist on a different plane from physical violence … and to meet them with violence is an offense against the spirit and imagination and culture that distinguish humans. Nothing mitigates this monstrosity.

  8. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    January 9, 2015, 11:46 am

    The hypocrisy and self-righteousness surrounding this incident is astounding.

    This is the same France where a comedian, Dieudonne Mbala Mbala, had performances cancelled due to ‘anti-semitism’, and where fashion designer John Galliano lost his job at Dior for an – admittedly nasty – drunken rant in what he thought was a private conversation. And Charlie Hebdo, the same magazine being sanctified for its courageous stance on free speech sacked a journalist 5 years ago for a – yes you’ve guessed it – ‘anti-semitic’ article about Nicholas Sarkozy’s son’s marriage to a Jewish woman. One of the public figures campaigning for his sacking was the ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henry Levy, seen last night on TV pontificating on the virtues of free speech.

    It seems the ‘right not to be offended’ does exist, but only for certain groups. Offend Muslims in the most crude and deliberately nasty manner, and you’re a hero. Offend Jews and you’re a criminal. Which of course is not for one second to excuse the murder of the cartoonists – just in case that needed to be said.

    • German Lefty
      January 9, 2015, 12:58 pm

      Maximus, I totally agree with you! These double standards are outrageous.

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 10:37 pm

      “It seems the ‘right not to be offended’ does exist, but only for certain groups. ”

      Maximus, Charlie Hebdo fired the guy not because of any special treatment for Jews, but because the target had been Sarkozy using his Jewish roots. If you’d go through past magazine covers of Charlie Hebdo, yiu’d see many many by which the floor gets wiped with the Jews and even the shoa too. There’s one parodying the life of Elie Weisel leaving the camps. Likewise with the Catholics and the Pope. Mbala a racist himself having made a career of mocking the shoa, made the cover over 20 times.

      The magazine is essentially trash that treats all religions and ethnic groups with the same irreverence.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 10, 2015, 5:25 am

        ”Maximus, Charlie Hebdo fired the guy not because of any special treatment for Jews, but because the target had been Sarkozy using his Jewish roots.”

        That could be true, but the official reason given was ‘anti-semitism’. I believe the writer later successfully sued the magazine for wrongful dismissal and got €40000.

        In any case, what’s the point of a ‘satirical magazine’ if you can’t offend the powerful? Isn’t that why they’re there, not to rile up some taxi driver in the banliues?

        ” If you’d go through past magazine covers of Charlie Hebdo, yiu’d see many many by which the floor gets wiped with the Jews and even the shoa too.”

        Is that true though? I had heard that they mocked Jews and other groups much, much less than they mocked Muslims, and in a much less gratuitously offensive manner.

        ”Mbala a racist himself having made a career of mocking the shoa, made the cover over 20 times.”

        I don’t know enough about Dieudonne to have an informed opinion about his alleged racism. However, I do suspect that had his target been Muslims rather than Jews, we’d have the chattering classes praise him as a brave proponent of freedom of speech, and he certainly would not have had his career damaged. Same with John Galliano.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 12:52 am

      Indeed. Jews have been lobbying for hate speech legislation since the end of WWII. Passing laws to protect you from being criticized is a privilege of the powerful. Muslims do not have this kind of power.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:28 pm

        “Passing laws to protect you from being criticized is a privilege of the powerful.”

        There are hate-speech laws specifically designed to protect Jews, to the exception of other people or groups? I did not know that, could you point me towards one?

      • OyVey00
        January 11, 2015, 9:11 pm

        Holocaust denial?

        Moreover, even general hate speech laws are heavily biased towards Jews in their legal interpretation. You cannot talk about Jews in the way you can about Muslims, Asians or other minorities in Europe and Australia. There are multiple outspoken anti-Islam parties and movements here. In contrast, a party who’d openly declare they’re against Judaism or Jewry would never be permitted.

  9. pabelmont
    January 9, 2015, 11:57 am

    A USA supreme court decision instructs us that the right to free speech does not carry over to yelling “FIRE!” (presumably when there is no fire) in a crowded theater.

    What this means to me is that one must expect words uttered to have the anticipated consequences and when those anticipated consequences include violence, the utterances create a “clear and present danger” and are no longer “protected speech”.

    A lot of people, men usually I dare say, display hair-trigger violent responses to certain kinds of utterance (or publication). Some macho folks don’t respond well to challenges to their “manhood” or “sexuality”. Some folks react badly to “antisemitism”. Some folks react with violence to slurs on their religion, Mohammad, etc.

    We all know this after we reach the age of discretion.

    My guess is that, if the matter ever came before a USA court, the court would not paper-over such utterances with the rubric of “free speech” but would choose, instead, something like “hate speech”.

    In the Charlie Hebdo case, the violent response had been shown likely to occur — here and there — several times before. And now (among others) two policemen are dead as a result of the Charlie Hebdo utterances. In effect, C.H. killed them by incitement to violence.

    This, at least, is part of my “take” on this. I should also say the obvious — that I do not condone lethal violence not done for a great purpose, whether by police, armies, ordinary criminals, or Islamic avengers. I am not persuaded that the C.H. killings were done for a great purpose.

    • JeffB
      January 9, 2015, 2:39 pm

      @Pablemont

      I don’t know where you live but that’s not USA law at all. Hate speech is perfectly legal in the United States. People who respond to insult with violence are charged in very serious ways.

      Now what the USA does have is financial pressure away from being rude and offensive but when we’ve had people use violence to try and suppress speech in the USA it gets trampled hard.

      Fire in a crowded theater is banned because of a clear and present danger meeting both the where and when criteria, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” In other words the government has the ability to censor only in the most extreme circumstances.

      That’s not the case in France as they have all sorts of restrictions. But for the USA the situation would be even more clear cut. In France though there is a position that the state has a compelling interest in encourage secularization, anti-clericalism. Charlie Hebdo is in line with the state’s “religion” and thus has a much wider degree of protection.

      • traintosiberia
        January 11, 2015, 11:08 am

        Are they charged? Have the neocons been charged for inciting wars? Are the warmongers against Iran being charged? Have the bomb ,bomb crowd of Sheldon, Daniel Pipes, Mc Cain, been charged!
        Have the Fox and CNNcrew been charged? Has the person on Fox demanding the shooting of Muslim been?

    • traintosiberia
      January 11, 2015, 11:04 am

      Thank you for the exposition . This simple explanation behind the Supreme Court decision to ban the uttering of ” fire” in the crowded theater should have provided the grounds to jail those who used the post 911 shock to propel the countries to war against Afghanistan and Iraq and labeled countries as Evil and changed the decade’s old attitude to the Palestine Israel conflicts.
      They abused the vulnerabilities of the citizen. They abused the shocked paralysis of the citizen. The offered knowingly wrong advice,suggestion e to the confused,angry,frightened ,and revenge hungry citizen and dismissed ,ridiculed,suppressed any alternative. The country was in worse situation of vulnerability than someone in a theater would find him or herself in.

  10. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    January 9, 2015, 12:06 pm

    We saw a sort of similar situation with ”The Interview”. President Obama took to the airwaves to defend a film which made a joke out of portraying the assassination of a fellow head of state. If that head of state had been Netanyahu, would any cinema in the US have dared show it? Would it even have been made? One thing is absolutely certain – Obama would never ever have defended it as an example of ‘free speech’.

    • John O
      January 9, 2015, 1:30 pm

      Agreed. Almost no one has addressed outright racism of that film. Same goes for the “I’m so ronery” song from the earlier film whose title escapes me that everyone seems to love.

    • lysias
      January 9, 2015, 3:11 pm

      And “The Interview” was apparently made with CIA assistance and approval. (At least that’s what I heard reported on Democracy Now!).

      • Pixel
        January 10, 2015, 4:42 am

        Democacy Now, eh?

        Well, I’ll be dad-gummed.

        Still, Lysias, you know the CIA wouldn’t be involved in any nonsense.

  11. Walid
    January 9, 2015, 12:22 pm

    A super great essay, especially the reminder to all the ignorants hanging on to the coattails of Voltaire that had no clue what he really thought of Jews.

    I condemn the killing, but I’m most definitely not Charlie.

    Charlie Hebdo is yello journalism trash masquerading as satire and we shouldn’t lose sight of that fact. As I mentioned yesterday, with the coming days, we will be seeing more criticisms of what Charlie Hebdo was really about and the French government’s responsability in what happened.

  12. ritzl
    January 9, 2015, 12:28 pm

    Molly Ivins:

    • There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity — like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule — that’s what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel — it’s vulgar.

    (h/t Clint Sharpe on Twitter)

    And as Max Blumenthal pointed out, Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist (Maurice Sinet/Siné) for ONE allegedly anti-semitic article and cartoons; link to en.wikipedia.org (for which he received death threats from the JDL).

    The rag was definitely not an equal opportunity offender.

    I’m so not Charlie.

    • a blah chick
      January 9, 2015, 12:59 pm

      Thanks for quoting the late great Molly Ivins.

      And she’s right, satire in the hands of the powerful or privileged is just cruel.

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 4:46 am

      Siné’s lucky he was fired.

      It may have kept him alive.

  13. lysias
    January 9, 2015, 12:54 pm

    Israeli officials use Paris attack to target Hamas:

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made use of the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to call on the West to support the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and to undermine the EU vote on a Palestinian state in the name of the “war on terror”.

    Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, has also called on the West not to remain weak before the “Islamic” terror, which he claims Israel is already fighting. Several Israeli writers also used the Paris attack as an opportunity to incite hatred against Palestinians, rather than one to come together in the mutual fight against extremism.

    Netanyahu prominently called for the West to intensify its support for Israel in its war against Islamists, mainly the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, which resists the ongoing occupation of Palestine.

    “The attacks of radical Islam know no boundaries,” Netanyahu told French President François Hollande over the telephone, “these are international attacks and the response has to be international.”

    Netanyahu also expressed the sympathy “that all the citizens of Israel feel for the people of France and for the grieving families,” reminding the world that Israel has experienced similar attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Yet another reminder of 9/11.

    And Dershowitz has been taking the same line. Lawrence O’Donnell and Alan Dershowitz Explode over Whether ‘France Reaped What They Sowed’.

    • MHughes976
      January 9, 2015, 12:59 pm

      The people who say that France reaped a whirlwind of its own sowing would doubtless emit a whirlwind of steam from their ears if anything similar were said about attacks on the United States.

      • JeffB
        January 9, 2015, 2:44 pm

        @MHughes976

        Your British. People most certainly did say that about the USA in the USA both at the time and later. Many Americans were quite willing to understand that we had cultivated Islamic extremism to combat pan-Arab Soviet Socialist. They understand that Al Qaeda were “our terrorists” that we had used in Afghanistan and Kosovo among other places prior to 9/11.

        That’s one of the reasons George Bush had to switch over to “Global war on terror” and “evil doers” and other such nonsense to counter a more broad based reassessment that was occurring.

      • flamestar
        January 10, 2015, 4:55 am

        The people who say that France reaped a whirlwind of its own sowing would doubtless emit a whirlwind of steam from their ears if anything similar were said about attacks on the United States. First of all I do not blame the French in any way because no one really knows what happened But the comment is as ignorant as a comment can be. People said and are still are saying that America’s lax security caused 9/11. It was the only thing that people were saying for months after the attack. No, I didn’t like 9/11 I saw it happen because my daughter was involved. It is clear that you probably couldn’t find the USA is on a map or have ever talked to an American to make that assertion.

      • Walid
        January 10, 2015, 9:08 am

        MHughes, not being discussed are the roles of the madrassas that being financed and run by Gulf countries in the banlieus such as the one where the Charlie shooters came from. France knows about them and is turning a deaf ear o what’s happening in them. Lots of monies and ideologies are being dumped on dirt-poor people that are very open to new ideas being taught them. In a way, I can understand France’s position vying for billions in Gulf contracts not being in a position to tell these people that the banlieus are off-limits. France wants it both ways, which is a nonsense.

      • seafoid
        January 10, 2015, 9:22 am

        Walid

        I think you have a lot of dangerous trends coalescing – the Euro deflation crisis- Muslim suburbs in Paris like Sarcelles have 40% youth unemployment, the ISIS war which is really about the broken post WW1 political settlement in the Middle East, Muslim reaction to Israeli brutality in Gaza, Saudi meddling and general political incoherence. Plus Le Pen in the background as Hollande ‘s poll ratings are around 15%. And people like Freedland in the Guardian whine about savagery but turn a blind eye to it when it’s Jews in uniform doing the killing.

        But the Jews vs Muslims thing seems to be the most worrying.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 10, 2015, 11:23 am

        @seafoid,

        I saw the headline for Freedland’s latest Guardian screed, but didn’t bother to click on it. More of the same, I’m sure – tribalism with a liberal veneer.

        Did you know Freedland is now the ‘gatekeeper’ for The Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ pages? That tells you everything you need to know about the direction the Guardian’s comment and censorship has been moving over the past few years.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 9, 2015, 1:03 pm

      Is there ANY tragedy that Israel won’t try to cynically manipulate for its own wretched purposes? They did it with 9/11, and now this. Israel’s narcissism just can’t help itself – it’s ALWAYS about them.

      I wish Hollande had told Bibi to STFU and stop exploiting the deaths of innocent French men and women for his nefarious ends. And then slammed the phone down.

    • seafoid
      January 9, 2015, 2:06 pm

      “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made use of the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to call on the West to support the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and to undermine the EU vote on a Palestinian state in the name of the “war on terror”. -”

      PFO Bibi

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 2:46 pm

      ““these are international attacks and the response has to be international.” (Hollande)

      Great, now he can have his own Patriot Act and can start attacking other countries suspected of harboring terrorists that could someday attack France.

      Has Israel already been given security management contract for France’s airports and ports or not yet?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 9, 2015, 3:43 pm

        Hollande has apparently called for a conference of various European countries including the UK and Germany (how much do you bet Israel will be invited?) to discuss further measures to prevent terrorism. Never mind that all 3 of the perpetrators of these attacks were well known to the police and could easily have been dealt with using existing laws.

        But no, any excuse to further curtail our liberties in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’.

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 11:04 pm

        “But no, any excuse to further curtail our liberties in the name of ‘fighting terrorism’. ”

        It worked marvelously for the neocons, Maximum. You can also bet that the Crif’s Roger Cukierman will also be invited since antisemitism is one of the driving forces of terrorism.

      • Pixel
        January 10, 2015, 5:00 am

        “Has Israel already been given security management contract for France’s airports and ports or not yet?”

        LOL!

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 4:49 am

      “Israeli officials use Paris attack to target Hamas”

      In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle:

      “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”

  14. MHughes976
    January 9, 2015, 12:56 pm

    I have some reservations about this essay.
    Scott considers that silence cannot be terrorism. I think that silence, even just by itself, can be a terrifying thing: to say nothing and to walk away from someone in danger or distress can be a shocking act and in some circumstances a very hostile one. So ‘Break your silence!’ can be a morally justified demand. However, Scott is quite right to say ‘Break your silence in terms dictated by me!’ is not a defence of free speech but an assault on it.
    ‘Agglutinative thinking’ about Muslims or Danes is surely dangerous and misleading but I don’t think it can be dismissed so entirely out of hand. It’s appropriate for me, as what Aamer Rahman would call a random British person, to show some cultural gluten by saying that the Balfour Declaration, from many years before my birth, distresses me and causes some painful, or at least sad, reflections on the British and Christian culture that gave rise to it.
    I was at a meeting in a Church of England stronghold yesterday and mentioned that people of Muslim religion were being killed on something like a daily basis by others. I was afraid of getting into a real row but didn’t. However, we can’t begin to address all these problems if we don’t sometimes say what others find painful to the core of their beings.

  15. Taxi
    January 9, 2015, 12:57 pm

    Our western governments spend billions of dollars on their own brand of colonial/imperial terrorism around the world, especially in the mideast in moslem countries.

    We saw with our own eyes the violent death then rape of the corpse that is Libya. It was no other than France that led this atrocity in Libya. France has raped and is killing Mali too. We won’t even start with what France has tried to do in Syria.

    Seems obvious that if western nations wanted to find a solution to ‘islamic terrorism’, they should first stop their dirty deeds in moslem counties.

    Can’t have it both ways anymore: either stop the violent dicking around moslem countries or stfu when moslem zealots respond violently.

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Taxi, France with NATO’s help is not in Mali to bring democracy or to take out Islamists. Its about Mali’s rich uranium, gold, bauxite, diamonds and precious stnes deposists among other goodies there for the taking.

      link to globalresearch.ca

      • Pixel
        January 10, 2015, 5:07 am

        +1

        Forget death and taxes,
        nothing is certain except…

        1. Follow the money

        2. Everything’s connected

  16. justicewillprevail
    January 9, 2015, 1:01 pm

    The great Joe Sacco on the limits of satire:

    link to theguardian.com

  17. a blah chick
    January 9, 2015, 1:04 pm

    Lest anyone forget Yair Rosenberg, one of the individuals quoted above, was one of the first to spread the lie about Mohammed Abu Khdeir being gay. So he is well acquainted with irresponsible journalism.

  18. Theo
    January 9, 2015, 1:15 pm

    I believe in freedom of speech, however I also believe in respect of others and good manners! My freedom of opinion and speech is limited to the point where it intrudes on the rights of others and is insulting to a great number of humans or a religion.
    The caricaturists of Charlie Hebda had ample warnings that what they do will eventually lead to violent reactions. Their offices were burned down during 2011 and several of them were since under police protection, yet they disregarded all signs of warning and now paid with their lives. This should also be a warning to all of us, the century of surpression and humiliation of arabs is coming to a screeching halt, they fight back.

    This hypocracy turns my stomuck! It is sad that over 20 people had to pay with their lives for what a few irresponsible journalist did, however we the west with Israel kill that many of them every day or two. Where is the outrage over those killings?

    We do not have to limit our observation to Charlie, the MSM does the same practically every single day with negative reports and remarks on the muslims. It seems there are only bad muslims and only a dead muslim is a good muslim. The same song we had for the american natives. Perhaps it is time we deal with that part of the world eye to eye and stop bombing their cities and do not support their dictators and despots. What is good for us should also be good for them!

  19. John O
    January 9, 2015, 1:24 pm

    Thanks, Scott. I resisted the temptation to change my Facebook pic, as so many of my friends had done, to “Je suis Charlie”, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on the source of my discomfort. You’ve pretty much done it for me.

  20. Mooser
    January 9, 2015, 1:44 pm

    And I’m not Josh Marshall At least I’ve got that.

  21. seafoid
    January 9, 2015, 2:18 pm

    4 hostages killed in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.
    The killer was interviewed by a TV station and said he attacked the place because it was Jewish.

    4 more to add to the tally for Cast Lead. What is good for the goose is kosher for the gander.

    • Mooser
      January 9, 2015, 2:26 pm

      I am not sure if Jewish people eat goose very much, but I’m pretty sure there’s no distinction, for kosher purposes, between a goose and a gander. I am prepared to bow to more detailed knowledge, if offered.

      • seafoid
        January 9, 2015, 4:44 pm

        link to haaretz.com

        “During a brief period in the 1980s of government-supported pluriculturalism (a term that, in the case of France, referred to the active bridging of differences between groups) and the rise of a common enemy in the far right, Muslims and Jews cooperated in organizing SOS Racisme, the movement to counter discrimination. Mandel suggests that the coalition between Jewish and Muslim youth organizations was always unstable, because Jews could separate the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians from the struggle for religious tolerance in France, whereas the Muslim groups could not. The first Gulf War, in 1991, marked an end to the idea of pluriculturalism among Jewish and Muslim youth and the final triumph of the binary narrative of Jews versus Muslims — of us versus them. ”

        Freedland

        link to theguardian.com

        Nothing to do with this of course

        “On August 20, Mr. Netanyahu was recorded on film expressing his deep shock at the beheading of an American journalist by the knife of an Islamic State murderer. Truly, a wicked deed.
        On August 19, just one day before that horrific execution, the prime minister approved the killing of an 8-month-old baby together with his mother, in the hope that the father would be with them and also be killed. ”

        Israel is ultra dangerous for Jews now. Either life is sacred for everyone or for nobody.
        And I can’t see that many wanting to move to the kip either.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 6:00 pm

        “Either life is sacred for everyone or for nobody.”

        Seafoid remember who we are dealing with. Most people gain their compassion from some conception of what it is to be the loser in a situation. Why would we know anything about that?

        Besides, how do you know if your life is sacred unless somebody else’s isn’t? After the Holocaust, we deserve a demonstration of just how sacred the world thinks our lives are!

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 10, 2015, 11:29 am

        @Seafoid,

        OK So I forced myself to read a bit of Freedland’s rant.

        ”Witness the Iranian newspaper that in 2006 responded to the Danish cartoons affair with a competition for “the best Holocaust caricatures”, as if the most efficient way to hit back at Europe was by attacking … Jews.”

        Eh….no. The point of the holocaust cartoons competition, vulgar and idiotic though it was, was to show the West’s hypocrisy. It was basically saying ”OK so you think it’s fine to trample all over our most sacred taboos in the name of ‘free speech’. Fine, we’re going to do the same with your most precious taboo – you know, the one that some o f your freedom loving nations ban all dissent about. See how you like it now.”

        Trust Freedland to miss the point.

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 2:34 pm

      Anderson Cooper will be proud of his predictions.

    • traintosiberia
      January 11, 2015, 11:20 am

      It was Mali Muslim immigrant who saved anywhere from 6 to 16 French by hiding them in the freezer . He was held later by police to the ground until they realized he was not a terrorist ( how the police can confuse a worker presumably in a normal outfit with the terrorist? ) . He gave them the layout inside the building and the whereabouts of the people inside.
      FOX or CNN won’t cover just like it before when an African Muslim’s action which prevented the NY terrorism by a Pakistani was not coveted.
      Reason for not covering is that it dilutes the hateful messages and revengeful emotion against the Muslim. Fox and CNN don’t want the possibility of understanding and development of common shared concerns or nurturing of shared joint activities against terrorism.
      Why will they anyway? They are part of the problem created by the neocons .

  22. Brewer
    January 9, 2015, 2:32 pm

    Lets try an experiment shall we?

    1. Invade Israel to bring about “regime change”.
    2. Arrest and/or assassinate Israeli political leaders and Rabbis who object.
    3. Deploy drones to eliminate any opposition to regime change (issue apologies for “collateral damage” to schools, hospitals etc).
    4. Repeal all European laws outlawing anti-Semitism in Europe and set up a magazine specializing in cartoons of big-nosed rabbis in obscene poses characterising Judaism as a violent, nihilistic religion.
    5. Count the days until said magazine is attacked.

    • JeffB
      January 9, 2015, 2:49 pm

      @Brewer

      These attacks were conducted by people born and raised in France. Their loyalty should have been to France not Iraq. If your argument is that Muslims are intrinsically untrustworthy as French citizens because they are likely to put Muslim interests as they see them ahead of French interests; then you are supporting the most rightwing positions regarding Muslims not refuting them.

      • Brewer
        January 9, 2015, 3:31 pm

        It seems to me that context is important to understanding controversy.
        The overwhelming reaction to atrocities such as the Hebdo massacre is to place responsibility on Islam, a notion you seem to be buying into. My point is as simple one.
        I assert that any group identity subjected to attack by powerful forces will react asymmetrically.
        I do not assert “Muslims are intrinsically untrustworthy as French citizens”. I maintain that the religion of the perpetrators is secondary to their outrage at the on-going slaughter of innocents in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc who may or may not be co-religionists.

      • Shingo
        January 9, 2015, 5:49 pm

        These attacks were conducted by people born and raised in France. Their loyalty should have been to France not Iraq.

        There are many Jews born and raised all over the world, but they are expected to be loyal to Israel first and foremost.

      • talknic
        January 10, 2015, 10:54 am

        @ JeffB “These attacks were conducted by people born and raised in France

        Quite a number of Israel’s illegal settlers in the occupied territories were born and raised in the USA. Murderers even.

        “Their loyalty should have been to France not Iraq”

        Best not to expect Jews in the diaspora to support Israel’s illegal facts on the ground and the illegal settlers who were born and raised in the USA and elsewhere

        “If your argument is that Muslims are intrinsically untrustworthy as French citizens because they are likely to put Muslim interests as they see them ahead of French interests”

        What happened to “Iraq”?

    • Mooser
      January 9, 2015, 2:56 pm

      Mr. Brewer, I take your point, but steps 1 through 4 seem so drastic and why make a magazine like that? Making a magazine is hard work, and with vile subject matter? Why not simply replace steps 1-4 with ‘Set up and bring into operation, a non- or anti-Zionist Jewish denomination, which starts to attract people to it and even gets media attention?’

      • Brewer
        January 9, 2015, 4:07 pm

        My post was originally composed for a blog with a readership of less subtle minds than yours dear Mooser – but you are correct as is usual.
        It seems to me that the difference between the perpetrators of atrocity such as these fellows (or IRA, Irgun, Mossad etc) and such as myself lies simply in the attitude to violence. I do not believe in it, not only on moral grounds but also practically – I don’t think it is productive in the long term.
        These so-called “terrorists” are of a different mind. Their outrage is similar to mine but we differ in method of expression. Their methods mirror those of the current leaders of the Western World, Christian and Judaic, who also subscribe to violence as an instrument of policy.

      • Mooser
        January 9, 2015, 7:21 pm

        “I do not believe in it, not only on moral grounds but also practically”

        Oh, I believe whole heartedly in violence, I’m just too cowardly to use it. Nor do I have the skills to make it work for me. It’s actually one of my better qualities.

  23. HarryLaw
    January 9, 2015, 2:40 pm

    According to the US, France and the UK the murders in France were carried out by bad terrorists [which I agree they undoubtedly were] whereas the ones we are training in Jordan and Turkey [who they admit partner and share arms with Al Qaeda to attack Assad] are the good terrorists. What hypocrisy.

    • Walid
      January 9, 2015, 3:00 pm

      Nobody wants to talk about the American SAM that ISIS used to bring down a Jordanian F16 last week. Poor Jordanian pilot that parachuted is still held by ISIS and nobody is talking about him either.

      • lysias
        January 9, 2015, 3:08 pm

        It didn’t occur to me that the SAM might have been American. Where did you see it reported? Captured when they captured Mosul? I suppose that, when they overran that Syrian air base, they could have captured Russian SAM’s.

        But, if it was an American one, that would explain why the Pentagon was so quick to deny that the plane had been shot down.

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 3:39 pm

        Lysias, from FOX news last July although it should be noted that ISIS also got a hold of Chinese ones from seized Syrian military bases as you mentioned:

        “US-made Stinger missiles have likely fallen into ISIS hands, officials say
        Published June 16, 2014FoxNews.com
        Facebook1803 Twitter795 livefyre197 Email Print
        U.S. officials with access to the latest U.S. intelligence on Iraq told Fox News it “appears likely/probable” that U.S.-made Stinger missiles have fallen into the hands of Sunni insurgents.

        It is possible that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters acquired them from army bases they have taken over in recent days, the sources said.

        The Stinger missile is a shoulder-fired surface-to-air weapon that is used against aircraft.

        As ISIS forces have advanced through Iraq, concerns have increased that more U.S.-made weaponry could fall into the hands of the radical group.

        Iraqi intelligence officials said ISIS fighters managed to take control of two big weapons depots late last week holding some 400,000 items, including AK-47 rifles, rockets and rocket-propelled grenades, artillery shells and mortars. A quarter of the stockpiles were quickly sent to Syria in order to help the group’s comrades there, they said.

        Also last week, according to a report from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center, the ISIS “now possesses scores of Iraqi military equipment originally provided by the United States, from Humvees and cargo vehicles to small arms.”

        Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin, Jonathan Wachtel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.”

        link to foxnews.com

      • Keith
        January 9, 2015, 8:51 pm

        WALID- “Nobody wants to talk about the American SAM that ISIS used to bring down a Jordanian F16 last week.”

        Take it a step further. How is it possible for this terrorist group to be so well equipped with American made weapons if the US didn’t want them to be well equipped with American weapons?

  24. JLewisDickerson
    January 9, 2015, 3:19 pm

    WHY I ALSO AM NOT CHARLIE: I’m an atheist, and I can be quite critical of religions, but I personally try to avoid gratuitously deprecating religions and/or their adherents. That said, I virtually always oppose efforts by governments to restrict the “right of free speech”, including the right to be “offensive”. If someone wants to make an ass of themselves, I have no interest in impeding their efforts (except perhaps where it is strictly a consequence of their being uncharacteristically intoxicated).
    I am not really familiar with Charlie Hebdo’s work*, but in the abstract, I pretty much leave it to people to decide what endeavors they find rewarding (spiritually, psychologically, materially, financially, etc.). Needless to say, I abhor the murder/execution of Charlie Hebdo.
    Nonetheless, I can’t participate in the seemingly obligatory hero worship of Mr. Hebdo, because I cannot acquiesce to the apparently prevailing view that Hebdo had absolutely no responsibility for anyone other than himself.
    The terrorists gained entry to Hebdo’s workplace, because an employee (a cartoonist for Hebdo) entered the code to unlock the door because she and her young daughter had been threatened. She was returning from having picked up her daughter at daycare. So I just can’t accept that Hebdo can exercise his “right of free speech” (vis-à-vis government) no matter what the implications were for those around him. If he was determined to fully exercise his unfettered “right of free speech” knowing that it significantly increased the possibility of a vengeful reprisal, should he have allowed a young child to be brought to the premises under such circumstances, even if the workplace had an ostensibly locked door? That seems to me to arguably be child abuse/endangerment. I really do hate to be a party-pooper, but . . .

    SEE: “Charlie Hebdo building after threat against daughter”, By Michael Walsh, Yahoo News, January 7, 2015

    Masked terrorists entered the office building in Paris where they murdered 12 people Wednesday by threatening a young mother and her daughter, she said.
    Corinne Rey, a cartoonist for the weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, says she was forced to enter the security code after returning from picking up her child at daycare, according to a local report.

    “I just went to get my daughter from daycare. As I got to the front door of the building, two masked, armed gunmen brutally threatened us,” she told L’Humanité. “They wanted to enter, go up. I typed the code.”
    Rey, who goes by “Coco,” said she hid under a desk while the gunmen shot and killed a dozen staffers inside the office.
    While crouched down on the ground, she saw the men kill fellow cartoonists Georges Wolinski and Jean Cabut, the French paper reported.
    “They shot Wolinski and Cabut,” she said. “It lasted five minutes.”
    The terrorists, claiming to be with al-Qaida, spoke fluent, unaccented French, according to Rey.
    The Charlie Hebdo newspaper regularly satirizes religious and political figures.
    Terrorists have threatened the publication’s staff with violence numerous times for its depictions of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
    Its offices were firebombed in 2011 after an issue featured a caricature of the prophet on its cover, the Associated Press reported.
    Undeterred, Charlie Hebdo published another illustration of Muhammad a year later and a cartoon titled “Still No Attacks in France” featuring a jihadist this week.

    SOURCE – link to news.yahoo.com

    • JLewisDickerson
      January 9, 2015, 3:28 pm

      P.S. THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Would Charlie Hebdo’s conduct have violated Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise’s civility standard for the University of Illinois, thereby disqualifying him from employment at her institution?

      “What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” ~ Phyllis M. Wise, Chancellor

      • bintbiba
        January 9, 2015, 6:21 pm

        JLDickerson… There is no Mr. Charlie Hebdo !! ‘ hebdomadaire’ . is the French word for ‘weekly’…
        as in Charlie’s Weekly (.magazine).

        Otherwise, excellent comment.

      • JLewisDickerson
        January 10, 2015, 12:59 am

        RE: “There is no Mr. Charlie Hebdo !!” ~ bintbiba

        MY COMMENT: Thanks for the clarification. I wish I could say I had been using some kind of really clever personification or something, but actually I had somehow thought Charlie Hebdo was both the name of the magazine and its editor. I should have instead referred to Stéphane Charbonnier (a/k/a Charb). Looking at his photo and the video below, that is clearly who I had in mind.
        In the following video, Charbonnier says he would rather be dead than censor his cartoons. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with his exposing a young child to the possibility of being a casualty in the event of a vengeful reprisal as a consequence his exercising his unfettered “right of free speech”. That strikes me as somewhat akin to “yelling fire in a crowded theatre”.

        link to youtube.com

      • flamestar
        January 10, 2015, 4:33 am

        But Charlie Hebda were not hired. Are you lamenting the fact that they weren’t at the University of Illinois and therefore safe from attack? You realize your thought experiment argues that Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise ’was correct. The people who wrote for Charlie Hebda were buffoons. There are different requirements for different jobs. What might be considered a virtue for teaching at Clown College can equally be considered a detriment for teaching at a place of higher learning.

      • JLewisDickerson
        January 10, 2015, 10:04 am

        P.S. RE: “I do have a problem with his [Charbonnier’s] exposing a young child to the possibility of being a casualty in the event of a vengeful reprisal as a consequence his exercising his unfettered ‘right of free speech. That strikes me as somewhat akin to ‘yelling fire in a crowded theatre’.” ~ me (above)

        MY COMMENT: Dare I say it can even be argued that it is tantamount to using a young child as a “human shield”?

  25. JLewisDickerson
    January 9, 2015, 3:28 pm

    HERE ARE TWO NICE FORIEGN FILMS THAT WILL BE DELETED FROM NETFLIX STREAMING ON 1-11-15:

    Parque Via 2008 NR 1hr 26m (Mexico)
    Serving as caretaker for an estate, elderly misanthrope Beto has little human contact. But when the house is sold, he’s forced back into the world.
    link to netflix.com

    Shanghai Dreams (Qing Hong) 2005 NR 2hr 1m (China)
    In the 1980s, encouraged by the government, a large number of families leave Chinese cities to settle in the poorer regions of the country, in order to develop local industry. The film’s main character is a 19 years old girl who lives in the Guizhou province, where her parents have settled. That’s where she has grown up, where her friends are and where she first experiences love. But her father believes that their future lies in Shanghai. How can they all keep on living together when they don’t share the same dreams ?
    link to netflix.com

  26. Taxi
    January 9, 2015, 3:31 pm

    The west, including France, supported the islamist and their wanton mass murder, mass kidnapping and mass rape in Libya, Syria and Iraq. They supported the mass destruction of ancient historic sites and houses of worship,; the west supported and enabled the mass destruction of peaceful villages and cities alike: factories and schools and hospitals and yes, even the destruction of publications and radio stations. Syria warned the West that training and supplying islamists with weapons was a failed and dangerous policy that will eventually backfire up-close-and-personal in their faces. Time and time again, Syria asked the West to stop the madness and the West just brushed off the warming and talked more of “regime change” in Syria instead – and even upped the ante for support and training while they huffed and hissed at Doctor Bashar in Damascus.

    Well it turns out Syria was right. It was gonna be a lose-lose situation for both Syria and the arrogant West. And as the Arab Syrian Army successfully carries on its sweep of foreign islamist terrorists, regaining more and more control of its territory, defeated and humiliated western islmists are returning home like ticking time-bombs on legs.

    What is occurring right now is the spectacular failure of Western foreign policies based on imperialist and colonial warmongering configurations.

    Prepare yourself folks for more of these kinds of attacks on western targets. It’s kinda too late to stop the current incoming trend.

    Goddammit! Can our leaders be any more stupid for training and arming vengeful killers?!

    We need to vote these repeated failed policies and their supporters out of existence. The only winners in this expanding orgy of fear and loathing and death are the movers and shakers of the military industrial complex.

    • Shingo
      January 9, 2015, 5:47 pm

      . Syria warned the West that training and supplying islamists with weapons was a failed and dangerous policy that will eventually backfire up-close-and-personal in their faces –

      So did Muammar Gaddafi, and his predictions came to be realized. Lybia is now a basket case.

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 5:27 am

      Taxi, I SO hear your pain.

      I don’t know whether that pain would be greater or lesser to realize that all politics is political theatre.

      My pain was greater.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 10, 2015, 1:47 pm

      when i heard about this attack in france the first thing i thought of was the US bombing al jazeera in both kabul and baghdad.

      On the morning of 8 April 2003, Ayyoub, along with his second cameraman, an Iraqi named Zuheir, was covering a pitched battle between the American and Iraqi troops from the roof of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad office.[2] At approximately 7:45 a.m., an American A-10 Warthog ground-attack aircraft turned toward Al-Jazeera’s office and began to descend upon it. Maher Abdullah, the station’s Baghdad correspondent, witnessed the A-10’s attack run and gave the following description, “The plane was flying so low that those of us downstairs thought it would land – that’s how close it was. We actually heard the rocket being launched. It was a direct hit – the missile actually exploded against our electrical generator and. Tareq died almost at once. Zuheir was injured.”[2]

      what’s the difference? more sophisticated weapons?

  27. RobertB
    January 9, 2015, 3:33 pm

    It seems that the US Media Networks/European also & their propagandists have been peddling the following:

    *** If people offend black people, its called racism/racists.

    *** If people offend Jewish people, its called anti-semitism/Jew haters.

    *** If people offend Moslems/Islam, its called “freedom of speech”.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 12:42 am

      ***If people offend Christians, it’s called being progressive.

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 10:37 am

        “***If people offend Christians, it’s called being progressive.”

        Awww, isn’t that awful! Actually, most Christians I know don’t get offended, and couldn’t care less. Are Christians worried about being herded into Progressive concentration camps?

      • Theo
        January 10, 2015, 1:36 pm

        ” Are christians worried about being herded into Progressive concentration camps?”

        During history it happened many times, although with less propaganda afterwards.
        Around 1914 the turks marched christian armeniens through the desert without sufficient water or food and so killed about 1.5 million of them.
        Russian communists sent a lot more christians into gulags without any cause, tens of millions died between 1917 and 1945.
        Even the nazis locked up christian priest, ministers and others who did not agree with their takeover as early as 1933, before they turned to the jews, and in those concentration camps there were also millions of christians.
        Not to forget the romans who loved to crucify the early christians, or the barbarians in Europe who had for them fine methods to die.
        As you see, no religion is safe when their enemies are in power.

      • seanmcbride
        January 10, 2015, 1:45 pm

        Theo,

        Regarding the mass murder of Christians by “progressives” during the early decades of the 20th century:

        [Google; communism christians killed link to google.com ]

        Hardly a trivial or light-hearted issue.

        Tens of millions is rather a large number.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:38 pm

        “Regarding the mass murder of Christians by “progressives” during the early decades of the 20th century: Tens of millions is rather a large number.” good ol’ Seanmcbride

        I see, Sean: Russian Bolsheviks and Communists in Russia, and American self-proclaimed progressives (oh, and why the quotes around “progressive”. Is there even a Progressive Party in the US? Maybe that’s why?) hey, pretty much the same thing, and American progressives can be blamed for the murder of Christians in Lenin’s and Stalin’s Russia. Okay! I don’t know how I missed the direct, and murderous, connection!

      • seanmcbride
        January 11, 2015, 6:47 pm

        Mooser,

        Many leading political activists on the left in American politics supported the crimes of the Soviet Union during the early and middle decades of the 20th century. It’s a major chapter in American history and the history of 20th century left-wing politics.

        Yes — the Soviets actually managed to murder many more human beings than the Nazis — and before Nazism rose to power in Germany. Many of those human beings were targeted for the crime of being Christians.

        Try Googling:

        [Google; new york times stalin link to google.com ]

        Particularly take a good look at Walter Duranty.

        Many of these pro-Soviet Americans on the left actually defined themselves as being “progressive” — they used that specific word.

  28. Taxi
    January 9, 2015, 3:50 pm

    OMG and islamic leader is being logical:

    Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons:

    link to trust.org

    • Brewer
      January 9, 2015, 4:15 pm

      Anyone who hasn’t yet recognised Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah as one of the most rational actors in this tragedy needs to read more. Here’s a start:
      link to electronicintifada.net

      • Walid
        January 9, 2015, 4:25 pm

        Not reported about Nasrallah in the Reuters article is that today he has also re-assured the people of Lebanon that they have nothing to fear from the ISIS militants massing at Lebanon’s northeast border to prepare an invasion of Lebanon. He said between the Lebanese army and the Lebanese men and women backing it, ISIS doesn’t stand a chance of entering Lebanon.

    • Shingo
      January 9, 2015, 7:05 pm

      Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons:

      Iran is putting out a similar message.

      They are calling for Muslim unity and condemning the Sunni Shia divide.
      link to irna.ir

    • RoHa
      January 9, 2015, 9:36 pm

      “Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons: ”

      Of course. Why do you think Mossad keeps staging these “Islamic terrorists” attacks?

  29. Walid
    January 9, 2015, 4:36 pm

    Another journalist who is not Charlie, from al-Akhbar:

    “… There are a few points that need to be addressed about the public discussions after the deaths of at least 12 people in Paris yesterday.

    First, and most notable for me, I take issue with the argument made by some that Charlie Hebdo’s staff are “heroic” because of their past publishing cartoons and articles that attack and mock Islam. While it is true they also have a history of publishing material that mocks other religions and ideologies, I highly doubt Charlie Hebdo would have been as “courageous” in mocking Judaism with the same robustness they do in mocking Islam, for example. In fact, looking at its history, the magazine fired one of its cartoonists in 2008 over a satirical statement that it argued was ‘anti-semitic’.

    There is a fine line between satire and offensive material that Charlie Hebdo willfully dances around. I think much of their material is offensive, Islamophobic (and anti-Semitic, as well as racist, sexist, and homophobic), and the argument that is “freedom of speech” is a very crude way to allow offensive material to be published. “Freedom of speech” gets thrown around quite easily during events like yesterday’s, but serious public debate about the parameters and nature of “freedom of speech” are few and far between.

    I see nothing heroic about a bunch of elite white writers and artists picking on the identities and beliefs of minorities. Satire is supposed to be an act that punches up to power, and not down to the weak. The argument for “freedom of speech” and freedom of the press should not, and must not, place aside the question and understanding of privileges and differing power dynamics that are at work. By acknowledging and understanding that, perhaps we can all work to refine and develop a notion of freedoms that is truly universal and conscious of its role and duties. What is common today is that freedom of speech and freedom of press is brought up to espouse Islamophobic sentiments, and maintaining power, but is ignored when facing issues of immigrant rights at home or wars fought abroad. In other words, “freedom of speech” is already restricted in many ways.

    Muslim communities, immigrants, and “others” will pay dearly, and already are in France and elsewhere. French (and European) politics will sway more to the right. French support of repressive states and its military ‘adventures’ in North Africa and West Asia will continue.

    The knee-jerking romanticizing and mythologizing of victims, particularly if the perpetrators are Black, Brown, or Muslim, that occurs after such acts allows the perpetuation of this cycle of violence. Anyone who dares to mention facts, make critical assessments, or initiate a thoughtful debate is quickly chastised, and accused of siding with “terrorists” which, in effect, silences them. Yet, it is rare for free speech advocates to come to the aid of those raising serious questions; instead, this freedom of speech is used, time and again, to vilify such individuals.

    After the launch of the American “Global War on Terror” 14 years ago, the level of the debate has stagnated as a righteous binary, and absolutist statements reign supreme. Much needed nuances, contexts, and depth are quickly swept aside.

    This leads to the second point.

    I find it absolutely interesting how there is an almost immediate expectation that Muslims apologize and take responsibility for the horrible attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is interesting because not once is there an equal expectation in regards to Westerners (shall we shall say Christian or Jewish?) to take responsibility or apologize for the killing of Al-Jazeera’s staff by US forces in Iraq (as well as a number of other Arab journalists later on during that horrendous war) or the killing of tens of Palestinian journalists by the Zionist forces over the past decade. This is never expected, nor demanded, or even ever considered by the mainstream press.

    But Muslims, especially in France, have nothing to apologize for. This does not mean they shouldn’t take a stance and condemn these acts of violence as individuals. Collectively, however, apologizing implies responsibility – one that is not theirs to bear….”

    Full article:

    link to english.al-akhbar.com

  30. philadelphialawyer
    January 9, 2015, 4:40 pm

    Could not agree more. I am NOT Charlie. And I would not and will not republish the cartoons at issue. And, no, that does not mean that I condemn the attack any less than anyone else. Nor that I am a “coward.”

    I will say what I want to say, not what someone else tells me to say, nor merely to repeat what someone who has been killed for what they said, said. After all, a person with the worst views in the world and whose views I do not for one second agree with, might be killed for expressing those views. Of course, the killing is wrong, but that is another issue entirely.

    Beyond that, even, I resent like all hell attempts to coerce my behavior by appeal to an allegedly good cause. I will NOT do without “art” for a day, even if some AIDS activist says I must or should. And that does not mean that I agree with the AIDS policy being protested. I will not refrain from celebrating my mother on Mothers’ Day, even though celebrity/actress/model Christy Turlington says I must or should. And that does not mean that I don’t care about the lack of health care for women (and men, and children) in the Third World.

    I will, and do, boycott, disinvest from and support sanctions on Israel because I not only agree with the cause, but agree with the tactic as well. But, even there, I will not say that “I am Such and Such Victim” of Israel, or be forced to repeat accusations about Israel that I do not believe are true or express sentiments that I do not agree with, and so on.

    I would not attack or mock in print someone’s religion, and I am not going to do so simply because of this attack. My practice is based on what I think is right, not on the misdeeds of others. And that does not make me a “coward.” And, frankly, I couldn’t care less if some moron says it does.

  31. German Lefty
    January 9, 2015, 5:17 pm

    I disagree with most of the article. The article is a clear case of overanalyzing.

    “To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them.”
    -> I assume the author is aware that the length of tweets is limited. Because of this limited length, hashtags need to be short. Therefore, it really doesn’t make sense that the author places such disproportionate emphasis on the literal meaning of the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie. I wonder: Why does the author have such a strong desire to badmouth a simple expression of solidarity? The hashtag figuratively expresses that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on our value of press freedom. This is as clear as daylight. When JFK gave his famous speech in Berlin, the author of the above article would probably have taken the phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner” literally and complained about the fact that JFK wasn’t ACTUALLY a citizen of Berlin.

    “The message today is, I have to agree with what you say, in order to defend it. Why else the insistence that condemning the killings isn’t enough? No: we all have to endorse the cartoons, and not just that, but republish them ourselves. […] If you don’t agree with what Charlie Hebdo said, the terrorists win.”
    -> Nope. You misinterpret the message. Nobody demands from you to endorse the cartoons. People just ask you to republish them as a symbolic act against censorship. Republication of a content does not imply approval of that content. Or as some Twitter users would say, “RTs are not endorsements.”

    “I refuse to post them because I think they’re racist and offensive. I can support your right to publish something, and still condemn what you publish.”
    -> The author understands that supporting the right to Holocaust denial is not the same as denying the Holocaust. However, he fails to see that ridiculing god bothering is not the same as denying god botherers equal rights. As far as I know, Charlie Hebdo has never advocated denying Muslims equal rights. Therefore, the newspaper is not islamophobic (or racist). Freedom of religion does not mean that everyone is obligated to like religion. God botherers have to respect my right to dislike their religion and to express my dislike of their religion in speech and writing. Charlie Hebdo has never denied Muslims any rights. It’s the Muslim perpetrators who denied Charlie Hebdo its rights. So, clearly, the author’s indignation is directed at the wrong people. Before I get accused by the political correctness police, let me remind you: Mentioning that the perpetrators are Muslims does NOT mean that I blame all Muslims.

    “I am offended when those already oppressed in a society are deliberately insulted. […] This crime in Paris does not suspend my political or ethical judgment, or persuade me that scatologically smearing a marginal minority’s identity and beliefs is a reasonable thing to do.”
    -> France is not Israel. In France, Muslims are NOT oppressed. Also, I am a supporter of equal rights and equal treatment. Equality of Muslims includes that their religion is ridiculed in the same way as other people’s religion. You have to take the bad with the good. You can’t pick and choose. Muslims who can’t deal with this should leave France and move to a country that rejects equal treatment and that gives their religion preferential treatment.

    “When a rabid Islamophobic rightist killed 77 Norwegians in 2011, most of them at a political party’s youth camp, I didn’t notice many #IAmNorway hashtags.”
    -> As you said, this was in 2011. I assume that back then Twitter was less widespread and/or used in a different way than nowadays. When it comes to the Internet, 3 to 4 years are a long time. Therefore, the Twitter reactions to these two incidents are not comparable.

    “Charlie Hebdo and its like never treated Muslim immigrants as individuals, but as agents of some larger force.”
    -> Well, god botherers view THEMSELVES as agents of a larger force, i.e. as servants of god. If anything, Charlie Hebdo simply adopted their viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that. I would say that god botherers are indeed agents of their respective sky daddy. However, they are also individuals, because they interpret the words of their respective god and prophet differently. Christians disagree greatly on what it means to be a good Christian. Likewise, Muslims disagree greatly on what it means to be a good Muslim.

    “So all Muslims have to post #JeSuisCharlie obsessively as penance, or apologize for what all the other billion are up to.”
    -> From the article, I can see that there is only one person who actually expects Muslims to distance themselves from crimes committed by other Muslims. And this person, Tarek Fatah, is a Muslim himself. So, the author’s claim that (non-Muslim) people demand from Muslims to speak out against the attack is pretty much made-up. And he uses this made-up claim to distract from the actual crime (= the attack on Charlie Hebdo) and the actual problem (= Islamic fundamentalism). Very disappointing.

    Aamer Rahman: “As a random Muslim I’ll apologise for this Paris incident if random white ppl will apologise for imperialism, drone attacks and Iggy Azalea.”
    -> The killer drones are NOT sent by a white person.

    For the record, I did not post any “Je suis Charlie” messages or pictures online. Not because I disapprove of this symbolic act but simply for reasons of laziness.

    • MHughes976
      January 10, 2015, 10:35 am

      I second your sentiments, GL, though I think it’s perhaps a bit excessive to demand that everyone uses a prescribed form of words.
      Scorn directed at weak and deprived members of society because of their deprivation is distasteful but there is no simple distinction between the weak and the strong in this matter. We may say that Voltaire was helpful in satirising the Church because the Church was strong and powerful and the Pope rich and ‘impervious’. But the same religion linked the Pope, Louis XV and many rich men with millions of deprived people who held its message in the utmost affection and to whom it was the core of their identity in this heartless world: much the same is true now. Even the rich and powerful have human feelings so that there may sometimes be an element of unfairness and cruelty in mocking them. Even the poor and deprived may have profoundly mistaken beliefs, even beliefs which contribute to their own oppression, which need to be challenged.

    • housedoc
      January 10, 2015, 11:02 am

      +1

      • philadelphialawyer
        January 10, 2015, 8:35 pm

        GL:

        “I don’t mind at all that the author has no desire to say or write ‘Je suis Charlie’. ”

        Well, since that is his main point, I fail to see why you felt the need to write a long critique of his post.

        “However, his reasoning is ridiculous, i.e. taking the slogan literally when it’s clearly meant figuratively. ”

        Please. He knows it is meant figuratively. But he disagrees with the use of the metaphor, both in terms of its general import (ie that to support someone is akin to being them, even in a non literal sense) and with its specific import here (ie that he supports Charlie’s actions in this case)

        ” Nope. As I already stated in my previous comment, this notion doesn’t actually exist. ”

        Sure. And repetition is no more persuasive than bald assertion. To republish the cartoon, in this instance, when there is no reason to, except to show support of it, is to support it.

        “Of course, you can condemn the attack without agreeing with Charlie. Nobody expects you to agree with Charlie. Again, the hashtag or slogan “#JeSuisCharlie” is NOT supposed to be taken literally. Using the hashtag does NOT mean that you actually are Charlie or that you agree with everything that Charlie has ever published. It simply means that you condemn the attack on Charlie. Some person who condemned the attack came up with that hashtag and then it was adopted by others who condemn the attack. This hashtag is just a simple tool to make the condemnations trackable. The literal meaning of the hashtag is pretty much irrelevant. So, there’s no reason to bitch about it.”

        But, again, your mere assertion of a point does not make it so. I am NOT Charlie. Not literally, and not figuratively, either. Similarly, I am NOT a Palestinian, or a gay person, or an African American, or a Holocaust or Nabka victim. Not as a matter of fact nor as a matter of metaphor. But I do condemn the attack on Charlie, and so does the author. We just think it is important to draw that distinction, to avoid meaningless, in your own words, “slogans,” and to stick to what is true.

        And, if you think it is OK to condemn the attack without adopting the metaphor, why do take such umbrage at the author for refusing to adopt it? Based on what you say now, the main point is to condemn the attack. Well, the author does so, so what are you bitching about? If the hashtag is just a convention, a convenient tool, then why get all bent out of shape because someone doesn’t like it?

        PL: “To repost the cartoons does, in fact, show that one agrees with them.”

        GL: “No, it doesn’t! You can republish the cartoons and then explain in the accompanying article that you disagree with the content and only republish it as a symbolic act against censorship. “

        You can, perhaps. But, merely republishing them, without that disclaimer, is to agree with them. Moreover, in this case, the mere publishing is itself an insult, and so even with a disclaimer, you are reproducing the harm done by the offensive material. Furthermore, one need not agree with the “symbolic act” and still be against censorship in general, and in this case, and the attack as well. So, if there is no real, compelling reason TO publish the cartoons, and you don’t agree with them, and you don’t agree with employing them as “symbolism,” why should you have to republish them? And why should the only accredited reasons for refusing to do so be “cowardice” or, worse yet, agreement with the attack?

        “Republication of offensive material can have an educational purpose. It can help the reader understand the situation better. It can also allow the reader to make up his own mind.”

        Again, perhaps it can, in some instances. But that hardly means it does in every instance, or that its republication is somehow mandatory in any instance. The “reader,” if he or she is truly interested, can certainly access the cartoons at issue here. So the alleged “educational” purpose does not apply in this case. But the insulting nature of the cartoons will always be present, no matter the context.

        “This analogy doesn’t work. A book is very different from a cartoon. Besides, as far as I know, the book is anti-Semitic and not satirical.”

        Bah! Red herring. How about a short, allegedly “satirical” anti Semitic work? Anyway, the cartoons are anti Islamic, whether they are meant “satirically” or not. Simply invoking “satire” does not immunize one from the racist/sexist/bigoted/etc import of the content of one’s published material.

        “The cartoons, however, are satirical and not islamophobic.”

        Total non sequitur and false dichotomy. They can be, and are, both.

        “Also, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not comparable…..[etc]”

        This is so preposterous that it merits no further comment.

        PL: “Why can’t the author support the right to offend Muslims without offending Muslims himself?”

        GL:”As I already said, republication of a content does not imply approval of that content.”

        Yeah, you said it, but it holds no water. The content ITSELF is offensive. To publish it, or republish it, is to offend. And, again, there is no actual reason, viz a viz the main point, ie condemning the attack, to republish it. Thus, the secondary offense of republishing is merely gratuitous, and gratuitously offensive.

        “Also, if you condemn the attack on grounds of press freedom and then engage in self-censorship, you contradict yourself.”

        LOL! So, any decision on anyone’s part not to publish something, for whatever reason, including (1) not agreeing with it, (2) considering it offensive, and (3) seeing no real reason to publish it, constitutes “self censorship?! You are making the very same ridiculous argument condemned in the article. Freedom of the press, somehow in your convoluted world, means that folks are compelled to publish what they don’t want to, and what they are told to by self appointed guardians of PC.

        PL: “No one is obligated to say ‘I am Charlie’ nor is anyone obligated to publish the cartoons in question. And not doing so is in no way indicative of support for the attacks or inconsistent with condemnation of them.” –

        GL: “We agree on that. So, what’s your point?”

        Again, that was the author’s main contention, so, if you agree with it, why all the fuss and bother on your part?

        “Besides, deference to religious feelings is ridiculous because religion is ridiculous.”

        I think this is the real reason you are carrying on like this. Because you actually agree with the cartoons, with intentionally offending people on the basis of their religion, and, that being the case, you, along with those you defend, demand that everyone else do the same. It is not enough that folks merely condemn the attacks. No, they too must offend folks just like the publication in question did. And, if they refuse to do so, they must be “ridiculous” people engaging in “self censorship,” because, in your world, mocking folks’ religion is a great thing to do.

        Well, guess what, not everyone agrees with that, and us folks have the right to follow our own lights, even if that is not to your liking.

      • German Lefty
        January 11, 2015, 6:10 pm

        @ philadelphialawyer

        “Well, since that is his main point, I fail to see why you felt the need to write a long critique of his post.”
        -> I already explained all this in my previous posts. Just because I agree with what you call his “main point” doesn’t mean that I agree with his reasoning.

        “I am NOT a Palestinian, or a gay person, or an African American, or a Holocaust or Nabka victim. Not as a matter of fact nor as a matter of metaphor.”
        -> If you don’t want to side with the victims of injustice in form of a metaphor, then you are free to refrain from it.

        “But, merely republishing them, without that disclaimer, is to agree with them.”
        -> Nobody republishes Charlie’s cartoons without any context. The cartoons are always attached to an article that explains the author’s opinion.

        “Moreover, in this case, the mere publishing is itself an insult, and so even with a disclaimer, you are reproducing the harm done by the offensive material.”
        -> Your statement implies that offensive material is inherently harmful, but that’s not the case. For example: If you publish a cartoon that hightlights Christian homophobia, then homophobic Christians feel offended. If you publish a cartoon that addresses Jewish settler-colonialism, then Zionist Jews feel offended. So, offending people’s feelings is inevitable in order to achieve justice. Censoring yourself for fear of offending someone’s feelings is indeed cowardice. As soon as you speak your mind, you are at risk of offending someone’s feelings. If you want to consider everyone’s feelings, then you can’t say anything anymore.
        Respecting people’s rights is more important than respecting people’s feelings. So, standing up for the right to press freedom (in form of republishing the cartoons) has priority over the feelings of Muslims.

        “I think this is the real reason you are carrying on like this. Because you actually agree with the cartoons, with intentionally offending people on the basis of their religion, and, that being the case, you, along with those you defend, demand that everyone else do the same.”
        -> I neither agree nor disgree with the cartoons. Actually, I don’t find them good or funny. Also, I have no desire to INTENTIONALLY offend people on the basis of their religion. What I have a problem with is when god botherers use their religion as justification for denying other people equal rights, e.g. Christian homophobia, Jewish settler-colonialism, or Muslim misogyny. And the Muslim terrorists denied Charlie equal rights. That’s a huge problem. I am so sick of all those religious nutjobs who think that their own religious FEELINGS are more important than other people’s RIGHTS.

      • German Lefty
        January 12, 2015, 4:33 am

        @ philadelphialawyer

        “The ‘reader,’ if he or she is truly interested, can certainly access the cartoons at issue here.”
        -> If you believe that Islamophobia is like anti-Semitism, then you should understand that this is a serious accusation that must not be made lightly. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of you to simply claim in an article that these cartoons are islamophobic and not provide any evidence. And the best evidence are the cartoons themselves. Besides, you should give your readers the possibility to judge for themselves by at least linking to the cartoons. Otherwise, your readers have to suspect that you have something to hide, that the cartoons aren’t actually islamophobic, and that your accusation is just a smear campaign.
        So many people have become victims of smear campaigns that no accusation can be taken at face value anymore, whether it’s the accustion of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism, or homophobia. A credible author provides evidence for his accusation and at least links to the material that his article refers to.
        Without any republication or links, the cartoons would NOT be easy to find for people who don’t speak French. And most people in the USA or Germany either don’t speak French at all or don’t speak it well enough. And even most of those people who can speak French well enough are probably too lazy or not interested enough to search for the cartoons themselves. Instead, if they are gullible, they simply believe the accusation of Islamophobia without even having seen the cartoons in question.

      • OyVey00
        January 12, 2015, 10:59 am

        @GermanLefty

        There is no universally accepted definition for racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia and the like. They are merely more than buzzwords in which one can insert their personal subjective meaning.

        Which is why the enforcement of hate speech laws based on any of these vague terms gives nearly unlimited legal leeway for the prosecutors to indict someone if they want to.

      • German Lefty
        January 12, 2015, 11:51 am

        @ philadelphialawyer

        As the author of the above article correctly points out, you can support Charlie Hebdo’s right to press freedom and at the same time reject Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.
        Likewise, you can support equal rights for Muslims and at the same time reject Islam. Islamophobia = denying Muslims equal rights/treatment. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, however, merely mock Islam. They do not advocate denying Muslims equal rights/treatment. Therefore, they are not islamophobic.

        What makes me angry is that a lot of self-declared progressives have double standards. For example, when you bash Christians for their homophobia, the progressive replies, “I totally agree with you!” However, when you bash Muslims for their homophobia, the progressive replies, “How dare you say that!? That’s islamophobic!” As a true progressive, I understand that homophobia is always wrong, no matter which god is used to justify it. The problem is that there are so many faux progressives, who let Muslims get away with virtually everything – under the pretext of protecting them from Islamophobia. These faux progressives are just like PEPs, who let Jews get away with settler-colonialism – under the pretext of protecting them from anti-Semitism.

    • philadelphialawyer
      January 10, 2015, 12:39 pm

      “Why does the author have such a strong desire to badmouth a simple expression of solidarity?”

      Because, um, he doesn’t agree with it? And because folks are more or less demanding that he say he does? Because he does not feel that he is, in fact, in solidarity, with Charlie and would be a hypocrite and a liar to say he is? I can and do condemn the attempted assassinations of Reagan and John Paul II, and yet I would never claim to be in solidarity with either of them.

      Moreover, the real condemnation here is on the notion that one HAS to say “I am Charlie,” or else, by implication, one agrees with the attack or is a coward, etc. I am not Charlie, or Reagan, or JPII, and don’t, actually, like any of them very much. And I am not going to pretend I do merely because they were attacked. And yet I condemn the attacks as well and as much as anyone.

      “The hashtag figuratively expresses that the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on our value of press freedom. This is as clear as daylight.”

      Is it? It seems to me that one can condemn the attack while not at all agreeing with Charlie, much less claiming to actually “being” him.

      “When JFK gave his famous speech in Berlin, the author of the above article would probably have taken the phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner” literally and complained about the fact that JFK wasn’t ACTUALLY a citizen of Berlin. ”

      Begging the question. JFK actually was not a Berliner, and it was indeed an appropriation of other people’s experience, not to mention an act of imperialism, to claim that he was.

      “Nope. You misinterpret the message. Nobody demands from you to endorse the cartoons. People just ask you to republish them as a symbolic act against censorship. Republication of a content does not imply approval of that content. Or as some Twitter users would say, ‘RTs are not endorsements.'”

      Nope. Just because you and “some Twitter users” say (or “would say”) something doesn’t make it true. To repost the cartoons does, in fact, show that one agrees with them, unless one is a reporter or a historian, etc. I can discuss the cartoons without reposting them. I can condemn the attacks without reposting the cartoons. I can explain why I disagree with the cartoons and the publishing of them without reposting them. There is actually no need to repost them at all, unless one agrees with them. Well, I don’t agree with them, and the fact that some folks were killed for publishing them doesn’t change that. If someone were killed for publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, am I obliged to repost those protocols? I think not.

      “The author understands that supporting the right to Holocaust denial is not the same as denying the Holocaust.”

      But you don’t seem to. Why can’t the author support the right to offend Muslims without offending Muslims himself?

      “However, he fails to see that ridiculing god bothering is not the same as denying god botherers equal rights. ”

      As has been amply demonstrated, there is a question of equal rights. Indeed, the very example you bring up show it. In France, one can legally ridicule Islam, but one cannot legally question the Holocaust.

      In conclusion, you are wrong about just about everything factual, and your arguments are completely unpersuasive. No one is obligated to say “I am Charlie” nor is anyone obligated to publish the cartoons in question. And not doing so is in no way indicative of support for the attacks or inconsistent with condemnation of them.

      • German Lefty
        January 10, 2015, 4:14 pm

        @ philadelphialawyer

        “Because, um, he doesn’t agree with it? And because folks are more or less demanding that he say he does?”
        -> I don’t mind at all that the author has no desire to say or write “Je suis Charlie”. However, his reasoning is ridiculous, i.e. taking the slogan literally when it’s clearly meant figuratively.

        “Moreover, the real condemnation here is on the notion that one HAS to say ‘I am Charlie,’ or else, by implication, one agrees with the attack or is a coward, etc.”
        -> Nope. As I already stated in my previous comment, this notion doesn’t actually exist.

        “It seems to me that one can condemn the attack while not at all agreeing with Charlie, much less claiming to actually ‘being’ him.”
        -> Of course, you can condemn the attack without agreeing with Charlie. Nobody expects you to agree with Charlie. Again, the hashtag or slogan “#JeSuisCharlie” is NOT supposed to be taken literally. Using the hashtag does NOT mean that you actually are Charlie or that you agree with everything that Charlie has ever published. It simply means that you condemn the attack on Charlie. Some person who condemned the attack came up with that hashtag and then it was adopted by others who condemn the attack. This hashtag is just a simple tool to make the condemnations trackable. The literal meaning of the hashtag is pretty much irrelevant. So, there’s no reason to bitch about it.

        “To repost the cartoons does, in fact, show that one agrees with them.”
        -> No, it doesn’t! You can republish the cartoons and then explain in the accompanying article that you disagree with the content and only republish it as a symbolic act against censorship.

        “If someone were killed for publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, am I obliged to repost those protocols?”
        -> This analogy doesn’t work. A book is very different from a cartoon. Besides, as far as I know, the book is anti-Semitic and not satirical. The cartoons, however, are satirical and not islamophobic. Also, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not comparable. Hating Jews as a “racial group” is not the same as hating Muslims as a “religious group”. Your race or ethnicity is not a choice. Therefore, it’s not okay to hold it against you. Religion, however, is a choice. Therefore, you can be held accountable for your religious beliefs. Also, there are rational reasons to reject (a certain) religion, but there are no rational reasons to reject a certain race. Making fun of a religious group is justifiable, whereas making fun of a racial group is unjustifiable.

        “Why can’t the author support the right to offend Muslims without offending Muslims himself?”
        -> As I already said, republication of a content does not imply approval of that content. Also, if you condemn the attack on grounds of press freedom and then engage in self-censorship, you contradict yourself. Besides, deference to religious feelings is ridiculous because religion is ridiculous.

        “In France, one can legally ridicule Islam, but one cannot legally question the Holocaust.”
        -> Correct! However, that’s a different problem. Also, these two things are not comparable. The Holocaust was not about Jews as a religious group but about Jews as a racial group.

        “No one is obligated to say ‘I am Charlie’ nor is anyone obligated to publish the cartoons in question. And not doing so is in no way indicative of support for the attacks or inconsistent with condemnation of them.”
        -> We agree on that. So, what’s your point?

      • German Lefty
        January 10, 2015, 5:37 pm

        @ philadelphialawyer
        Regarding republication of “offensive content”: I just remembered that Mondoweiss too republished an offensive cartoon despite disagreeing with its content. Here it is:
        link to mondoweiss.net
        So, clearly, republication does not imply approval. Republication of offensive material can have an educational purpose. It can help the reader understand the situation better. It can also allow the reader to make up his own mind. For example, I am always upset when I read in an article that someone “shouted anti-Semitic slurs”. I am upset because this is a very vague phrasing. Who knows how the author defines “anti-Semitic”? Therefore, I would prefer a republication of these so-called “anti-Semitic slurs”. Then I can form my own opinion about the situation and don’t need to rely on the author’s assessment. As we all know, there are people who even categorise the statement “Israel commits war crimes” as anti-Semitic.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 6:15 pm

        german lefty, i agree with you that republishing offensive material doesn’t mean someone supports or agrees with it, but i do not agree: “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not comparable. Hating Jews as a “racial group” is not the same as hating Muslims as a “religious group”. Your race or ethnicity is not a choice ” for reasons oyvey explains below.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 5:56 pm

        GermanLefty,

        This analogy doesn’t work. A book is very different from a cartoon. Besides, as far as I know, the book is anti-Semitic and not satirical. The cartoons, however, are satirical and not islamophobic. Also, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are not comparable. Hating Jews as a “racial group” is not the same as hating Muslims as a “religious group”. Your race or ethnicity is not a choice. Therefore, it’s not okay to hold it against you. Religion, however, is a choice. Therefore, you can be held accountable for your religious beliefs. Also, there are rational reasons to reject (a certain) religion, but there are no rational reasons to reject a certain race. Making fun of a religious group is justifiable, whereas making fun of a racial group is unjustifiable.

        Your logic is flawed. Religion is not just about belief, it is also about culture. Most people in any religion are not actually religious. They get born into the religion and see it as part of their cultural heritage, but are indifferent about the belief in God. If you mock a religion, you don’t just mock the true believers, you also mock those who culturally identify with this religion. And identity is something you acquire during childhood and cannot simply change later.

        Moreover, the belief that racists and anti-semites generally hate everyone of a racial group is a myth. Let me tell you this as a self-professed racist: “Racism” is about disliking patterns of behavior in a certain race or ethnic group. Noticing that such patterns exist makes me a racist, but I have no ill will whatsoever against individuals of said race who do not display the behavioral patterns I dislike. And judging from my internet contacts, many other “racists” feel the same.

        Also btw, the Protocols are based on a fictional 19th century novel.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 10, 2015, 8:39 pm

        @ German Lefty,

        Q: Religion, however, is a choice. Therefore, you can be held accountable for your religious beliefs.

        R: But no child chooses its family. S/he is the outcome of 2 people having had sex, the rest is the end result of the indoctrination of the ‘environment’ [family/friends/education/work/relationships/etc.] one grows up in.

        I also agree with PL in that one can [f.e.] link to offensive material and explain why one thinks it’s offensive without the need to rehash/publish it again.

        But how can Europeans claim to be all about ‘Freedom of Speech’ when certain things can’t be mentioned and are punishable by law?

        When you use tracers in your clip, you can see where your bullets are going… I, on the other hand, know exactly where you’re shooting from. You see, it works both ways, that’s the perfect nature of balance.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:43 pm

        And I always thought that freedom-of-speech issues are best centered around somebody being prevented from or penalized for publishing facts, information.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:48 pm

        ” Let me tell you this as a self-professed racist:”

        Oh, I can’t wait! No doubt, as a “self-professed racist” you have a well-thought-out viewpoint, which will aid immeasurably in finding solutions, and besides, is probably sooooo original, and a voice we desperately need to hear. So please, don’t stint, let the flow of soul and feast of reason commence.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 6:57 pm

        “And judging from my internet contacts, many other “racists” feel the same.”

        Well, there you go!
        Your ideas have held up against the most vigorous and stringent questioning and analysis, and proved good!

        I mean, if you can’t depend on fellow “self-professed” racists on the Internet to point out the flaws in a racist’s argument, what can you depend on? Now, I ask you, I really do!

      • German Lefty
        January 12, 2015, 12:12 pm

        @ Daniel Rich

        “But no child chooses its family.”
        -> True! However, we don’t talk about children here. This is about adults. And adults are able to overcome former parental indoctrination and choose their own religion.

        “one can [f.e.] link to offensive material and explain why one thinks it’s offensive”
        -> Linking to it serves the same purpose as republishing it. So, that’s fine by me. I only have a problem with the claim that republication of a content implies approval of that content.

        “But how can Europeans claim to be all about ‘Freedom of Speech’ when certain things can’t be mentioned and are punishable by law?”
        -> Well, these laws were made by the politicians, not by the people. The politicians are the hypocrites. The people are not. If you asked the people about their opinion on a law against Holocaust denial, I am sure that most of them would disapprove of such a law.

        “When you use tracers in your clip, you can see where your bullets are going… I, on the other hand, know exactly where you’re shooting from. You see, it works both ways, that’s the perfect nature of balance.”
        -> I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you talk about guns?

      • eljay
        January 13, 2015, 6:51 pm

        OyVey00: … Your logic is flawed. … identity is something you acquire during childhood and cannot simply change later.

        Incorrect: Identity can be changed. I’m first-generation Canadian, raised with Croatian, Italian and Roman Catholic “identities”, but I do not identify as Croatian, Italian or Roman Catholic. I’m Canadian and atheist.

      • OyVey00
        January 14, 2015, 3:56 am

        eljay,

        that might be true for some, but most people don’t completely break with their “roots”.

      • eljay
        January 14, 2015, 11:02 am

        >> OyVey00: eljay, that might be true for some, but most people don’t completely break with their “roots”.

        Fair enough. My dispute was strictly with your assertion that an identity is “something you acquire during childhood and cannot simply change later”.

    • Teapot
      January 10, 2015, 6:28 pm

      Hating Jews as a “racial group” is not the same as hating Muslims as a “religious group”. Your race or ethnicity is not a choice. Therefore, it’s not okay to hold it against you. Religion, however, is a choice. Therefore, you can be held accountable for your religious beliefs.

      But are Muslims truly only seen as a religious group? To me it seems that there is a lot of racism going around disguising itself as religious criticism. I am Muslim, but I am also white. I’ve experienced not even half as many islamophobic incidents as some of my Arab and Desi friends have. I wasn’t actually born a Muslim, so according to the logic in your statement, I should be attacked the most over my religion, because being a Muslim was a 100% my own choice. But even though it’s been many years since I converted, to some people I am still not a “real Muslim”. Someone with an Arab name on the other hand is often automatically considered a Muslim, even if they’re Christian or Atheist.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 7:17 pm

        exactly, thanks teapot

      • JeffB
        January 11, 2015, 6:30 am

        @Teapot

        To me it seems that there is a lot of racism going around disguising itself as religious criticism.

        I think it is clearly true in Europe, though there you see class issues mixed with racial issues which more closely mirrors the USA with respect to Hispanics and Blacks. I think the USA is a nice comparison because in most of the USA Muslims are a privileged economic group where there are local patches where they are also underclass. So it allows these things to be broken apart.

      • German Lefty
        January 12, 2015, 5:52 am

        @ Teapot

        I understand what you mean, but I disagree with you.

        “To me it seems that there is a lot of racism going around disguising itself as religious criticism.”
        -> You argue like a Zionist. Many Zionists claim that anti-Semites disguise their hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel and that therefore criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. However, this logic doesn’t work.
        Even if there are some Jew haters who disguise their hatred of Jews as criticism of Israel, this doesn’t make criticism of Israel anti-Semitic.
        Even if there are some Arab haters who disguise their hatred of Arabs as criticism of Islam, this doesn’t make criticism of Islam racist.
        Misusing accusations of racism to silence criticism of Islam is as wrong as misusing accusations of anti-Semitism to silence criticism of Israel.

        “I’ve experienced not even half as many islamophobic incidents as some of my Arab and Desi friends have.”
        -> That’s not necessarily because you are white. Correlation does not imply causation.
        In Germany, there’s the white Salafist Pierre Vogel. And he is just as unpopular as his Arab counterparts.
        link to abendblatt.de
        When the German TV presenter Kristiane Backer converted to Islam, she got a lot of negative reactions.
        link to welt.de
        This shows that negative reactions are caused by rejection of the religion, not the race.
        I am an atheist who rejects all religions equally. I prefer a moderate Muslim to a fundamentalist Christian and a moderate Christian to a fundamentalist Muslim. I prefer whoever is more moderate. The thing is this: A female Muslim without a headscarf LOOKS more moderate than a female Muslim with a headscarf. A male Muslim without a “Salafist beard” and without Muslim head covering LOOKS more moderate than a male Muslim who wears these things. So, when you get fewer negative reactions than your friends, this could be a reason.

        “But even though it’s been many years since I converted, to some people I am still not a real Muslim.”
        -> In my opinion, converted god botherers are even “creepier” than native god botherers, because converting to a religion requires more determination than simply keeping the religion your parents chose for you.

        “Someone with an Arab name on the other hand is often automatically considered a Muslim.”
        -> Well, most Arabs are Muslims. So, it’s just a logical assumption based on statistical probability. It does not mean that people equate Arabs with Muslims.
        When I tell non-Germans that I am German, they often assume that I am a Christian, simply because most Germans (60%) are Christians. There’s nothing wrong with making logical assumptions. I don’t get angry when people mistake me for a Christian. I just correct them.
        When I meet new people, I assume they are non-religious unless they wear religious clothing or symbols or mention their imaginary friend.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 6:28 pm

        “To me it seems that there is a lot of racism going around disguising itself as religious criticism.”

        Bingo! I agree. And an awful lot of religious bigotry and anti-Muslim incitement disguising itself as “religious criticism”, too.

    • Daniel Rich
      January 10, 2015, 7:55 pm

      @ German Lefty,

      Q: “Ich bin ein Berliner” literally and complained about the fact that JFK wasn’t ACTUALLY a citizen of Berlin.

      R: I think the author would have complained about JFK’s thick Bostonian accent that turned the word into a ‘Bear-leener’. and accused him of verbal animal cruelty…

    • Teapot
      January 12, 2015, 5:35 pm

      @German Lefty

      You argue like a Zionist.

      Ouch, that one hurt.

      this doesn’t make criticism of Islam racist

      I completely agree that criticism is not racist. The problem is when people project their negative views of Islam on any person that looks Muslim to them without even knowing anything about this person. And my point was that this doesn’t happen to me, because I don’t look “Muslim” enough. And it’s not just about wearing a headscarf or having a beard. If you look Arab and your name is Muhammad, you can’t escape from this, even if Islam means absolutely nothing to you.

      In Germany, there’s the white Salafist Pierre Vogel. And he is just as unpopular as his Arab counterparts.

      Yes, but he’s a Salafist and has some very extreme views. I can’t stand that guy. Actually, he scares me. But as a moderate Muslim, I think your chances of getting mistaken for a Salafist are much higher when you look Arab. There’s been a lot of effort in the media over decades now to make Arabs look violent and unreasonable. Therefore a lot of people in Europe find it easy to believe that Arabs would readily endorse Salafi ideology. As a white European, I don’t have to deal with this prejudice.

      Well, most Arabs are Muslims. So, it’s just a logical assumption based on statistical probability. It does not mean that people equate Arabs with Muslims.

      If it’s a logical assumption that most Arabs are Muslims, then that means that all Arabs are at risk of experiencing Islamophobia. Most people don’t walk up to you and go: “Excuse me, I see that you are Arab, so there is a high statistical probability that you are a Muslim, but before I draw any conclusions about you, might I inquire about your religious beliefs?” And originally you said that hating Jews as a “racial group” is not the same as hating Muslims as a “religious group because they can walk away from their religion. But clearly not everyone can just walk away from people’s assumptions about their religion based on their ethnicity.

  32. OyVey00
    January 9, 2015, 5:34 pm

    The most hypocritical aspect of this “I am Charlie” fad is that those who stand up for the freedom to mock the prophet of a religion of 1.5 billion people would bat no eye to throw you in jail for questioning the authencity of a certain historical event. Apparently a certain group’s sensibilities are more important than others. Or – to paraphrase Animal Farm: Some people are more equal than others.

    And here’s another quote from Voltaire: “To find out who rules over you, see who you may not criticize.”

    • Mooser
      January 9, 2015, 6:45 pm

      “Bat no eye to throw you in jail for questioning the authencity of a certain historical event.”

      I see. And you think there is great doubt about the “authencity (sic) of a certain historical event”, OyVey00? Why on earth would you think that? I presume you are “questioning the authencity of a certain historical event” usually called “The Holocaust”?
      Do you think possibly doubting the historical authenticity of the Holocaust has something to do with the “anti-Jewish sentiment” you are so proud of, (need a link?) and seem to think identifies you as an anti-Zionist.

      • DaBakr
        January 9, 2015, 8:45 pm

        @mssr

        there you go, making sense. what gives?

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 12:34 am

        I didn’t even address the unspeakable and yet my post got censored. Wut?

        Hey, Moosie. Tell me if you believe that Jewish sensibilities are more important than Muslim ones in the Western world!

        Yes or No? Waiting for your reply~

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 12:38 am

        Zionists and Anti-Zionists agree: Down with the Holodeniers!

        Maybe you guys can become synagogue buddies after all?

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 10:39 am

        Oh shut up, DaBakr. If anti-Semites didn’t exist, you would invent them.

      • MHughes976
        January 10, 2015, 11:03 am

        To criminalise holocaust denial is a restriction on free speech. Perhaps it’s a justified restriction but it’s not consistent to say that free speech must be absolute while imposing restrictions on it. If there are justified restrictions we need to know what the justification is. For what it’s worth I wouldn’t accept a justification based on the need to protect religious belief or operated by the ‘I know what’s unacceptable when I see it’ criterion.

      • Daniel Rich
        January 10, 2015, 7:45 pm

        @ Mooser,

        Q: Oh shut up, DaBakr. If anti-Semites didn’t exist, you would invent them.

        R: Man, you ff-ing rock.

        One word – Brilliant.

    • flamestar
      January 10, 2015, 4:41 am

      And what record is that? One of the points of the story is how dancing around words is intellectually dishonest and used to deceive. That is why you would have mentioned the event if one actually existed.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 2:29 pm

        Yeah, you got me. I was beating around the bush to avoid the ban hammer. Since this issue is explicitly prohibited to talk about on this site.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 4:34 pm

        i think it’s irrelevant to the broader topic we’re discussing whether someone denies the holocaust or the nakba. but in france one will land you in jail, the other won’t. when speech and thought is criminalized surrounding certain historical events it creates a ripple effect in the wider society. all subjects are not “fair game” or treated the same. i’m not stating that to advocate or denounce free speech. i’m stating it because clearly, in france as in most of europe i presume, an unequal treatment of speech (weird phrasing/sorry) is embedded into the law and has been for decades.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 5:25 pm

        @Annie

        Yes, indeed. And it’s not just an issue in Europe. There might be no hate speech laws in the US (yet), but certain Jewish organizations will use all their political leverage to destroy the existence of those who they accuse of anti-semitism.

        Although, to be fair, it’s not just Jews doing this. There’s also Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 6:07 pm

        certain Jewish organizations will use all their political leverage to destroy the existence of those who they accuse … not just Jews doing this. There’s also Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

        but comparing the political leverage (and supporting resources) of abe foxman/jewish orgs to al sharpton and NAACP is akin to saying ‘yeah we give foreign aid to both Israel and palestine’

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 6:11 pm

        Well, Sharpton got enough influence to dine in the White House and extort money from global players like Sony for not sueing them over racially insensitive emails. But I agree, the ADL definitely got more power than the NAACP.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 6:29 pm

        But I agree, the ADL definitely got more power than the NAACP.

        and the jewish lobby in the US has a lot more political power than the black community, without a doubt.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 8:56 pm

        Yeah, but the Jewish lobby actually gives a lot of support (and money) to the black lobby. At least in matters not concerning Israel, they’re usually on the same side. Ironically, these same Jewish activists do everything in their might to keep Israel free of black “infiltrators”. They actually just deported a bunch of them to Sweden lol

      • Annie Robbins
        January 10, 2015, 9:28 pm

        oyvey, i’m not clear how the jewish lobby giving money to NAACP is germane to the discussion. i said all subjects are not “fair game” or treated the same, some were embedded into the law.

        you said “certain Jewish organizations will use all their political leverage to destroy the existence of those who they accuse of anti-semitism. ….. to be fair, it’s not just Jews doing this. There’s also Al Sharpton and the NAACP ”

        so i pointed out there was a vast difference in political power. the jewish lobby, rather renowned for their bribing generosity towards interests groups to do their bidding, might donates money to members of the african american community, is sort of beside the point. (i think).

        and when you say “the black lobby” who do you mean? besides NAACP? just curious.

        anyway, i guess my point here to be fair, is that comparing Jewish organizations’ political leverage to destroy the existence of those whom they disagree, with al sharpton or the NAACP, is not a fair comparison at all, relatively speaking.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 9:54 pm

        Well, African-Americans don’t have much economic power since they are usually found at the bottom of the social ladder (as opposed to Jews who are at the top). In our society, money equals power. So it is kinda curious that people like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have so much power, while the people they lobby for are so poor. Don’t you think?

        I think that the Jewish lobby and other minority lobby groups who jumped on the civil rights bandwagon play a big role in lobbying for the African-American cause, since their interests are in alignment. Just think of the Ferguson or Trayvon Martin cases. I don’t know a single big media outlet owned by a black person, but virtually all American media supported the pro-Black narrative (“Gentle Giant”, “innocent black bodies” etc). I do not believe the media is acting out of ideological conviction, but rather that there are financial and ethnic (for Jews) interests at stake for the media owners.

        See this quote from Ann Schaffer for example: “The Jewish community has always worked on the premise that as a minority, our security, our strength, our well being in America is interdependent with those of other minorities. This is a Jewish issue. It’s very much a Jewish issue.

        What I want to say is that a lot of the lobbying for African-American causes is not actually done by Blacks and thus their influence is stronger than one might think.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 7:04 pm

        Wow, I’ve got to get out more. I didn’t even know that not wanting young people shot down in the street by police is a “pro-black narrative”.

        I’m getting suspicious, is there some kind of bullet-proofing I was supposed to get, but didn’t? Did I get cheated again?

  33. Daniel Rich
    January 9, 2015, 5:54 pm

    12 French individuals are slaughtered [in either a blowback or false flag operation], so…

    Netanyahu asks France to keep high security at Jewish sites

    Rabbi Boteach: ‘Jews in France are in peril’

    Dennis Ross has done it again. In “Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass” (New York Times, January 4, 2015), he blames the Palestinians for the lack of peace with Israel.

    Aka, you do not suffer. We do! Oh, and they are guilty, not us. We do not occupy anything or kill anyone…

    Nobody should die because of what s/he thinks or says.

    Qui bono?

    Palestinians?

  34. German Lefty
    January 9, 2015, 6:01 pm

    Tweet by Ben Shapiro ‏(@benshapiro):

    “If you tweeted #JeSuisCharlie but won’t tweet #JeSuisJuif today, I think we can all figure out the reason.”

    link to twitter.com

  35. Shingo
    January 9, 2015, 6:05 pm

    This is indeed a superb article and I agree with everything said.

    Last night on the 7:30 reports (ABC Australia) they had Ayaan Hirsi Ali on as a guest. She was uncahracteristially restrained, but she kept laboring the point that the media has been intimidated into not publishing anti Islamic cartoons. She especially criticised the media for not publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

    I seriously cannot understand what point she was trying to make, other than the explanation given here by Scott. That, according to Ali, the media has an obligation to publish what they themselves deem to be offensive for the sake of principal?

    If freedom of speech means having the right to publish these cartoons (and I believe it does) then it also means having he right not to.

    • Daniel Rich
      January 10, 2015, 2:18 am

      @ Shingo,

      Q: …that the media has been intimidated into not publishing anti Islamic cartoons.

      R: OMFG! Europe has laws in place to throw you in jail when you publish certain things.

      The ff-ing hypocrisy is nauseating.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 10, 2015, 11:57 am

      Ms. Hirsi Ali has never had an original thought in her life – except for her notion that Deuteronomy was a person and that Catholics have no concept of hell – so it’s no surprise that tons of people have been making the same argument as she has here.

      I don’t get it either. The cartoons were vulgar, infantile and gratuitiously offensive. They have the artistic merit of toilet humour. Why should anyone have to publish these ugly cartoons to prove they’re ”in solidarity” with Charlie? One can be utterly appalled at the Paris killings, and staunchly defend freedom of speech (including the right for the Sydney Morning Herald to publish this cartoon, even though it apologised for doing so link to honestreporting.com ) without having to publish those adolescent scribblings.

    • philadelphialawyer
      January 10, 2015, 1:58 pm

      I wonder if AHA thinks that “the media” routinely publishes cartoons and suchlike that mock Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus, Saint Paul, Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, the Buddha, Confucius, and so on. And, if she does realize that “the media” does no such thing, if she understands why it doesn’t.

  36. German Lefty
    January 9, 2015, 6:18 pm

    Tweets by Anthony Shaw ‏(@AnthonyShaw_):
    “This is why Israel exists. #Paris #JeSuisJuif”
    link to twitter.com
    “If you tweeted #JeSuisCharlie but won’t tweet #JeSuisJuif today, I think we can all work out why.”
    link to twitter.com

  37. John Douglas
    January 9, 2015, 6:20 pm

    I’m not Charlie either. And though I was standing directly across from the second Boston Marathon bomb until an hour before it went off, I don’t have a”Boston Strong” bumper sticker. These clever and hollow phrases impede rational thought with nonsensical expressions and rallying slogans.

    Having written that, I don’t get the criticisms of Charlie, as if all the opponents and victims of Israeli behavior, the ones whom we of M-W support, are perfect in their virtue. I admire the cartoonists of Charlie in their willingness to take on religion with humor. I understand that they they take on the other two of the Abrahamic fairy tales as well, but I’ll settle for just one. Religions perpetuate ancient forms of hatred and undermine the use of reason. Fundamentalist Christianity is a plague on the U.S., undermining education and building a culture of anger. The Catholic Church’s politics of sexuality, birth control, abortion and reasonable sex education is just as bad. The American Jewish use of Hitler’s atrocities to shut down discussion corrupts American politics and costs innumerable American lives.

    The use of rational argument against religion has severe limitations once the religious demagogues corrupt the confidence in reason. It’s here that humor, biting, hard hitting satire, satire not restricted by rules of niceness, satire that does not stop to separate the good guys from the bad since that parsing destroys its sting. We need more Charlies, not fewer and we shouldn’t expect them to be perfect in accord with our biases.

  38. JeffB
    January 9, 2015, 6:22 pm

    @Brewer

    The overwhelming reaction to atrocities such as the Hebdo massacre is to place responsibility on Islam, a notion you seem to be buying into. My point is as simple one. I assert that any group identity subjected to attack by powerful forces will react asymmetrically. I do not assert “Muslims are intrinsically untrustworthy as French citizens”. I maintain that the religion of the perpetrators is secondary to their outrage at the on-going slaughter of innocents in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc who may or may not be co-religionists

    No I get that. The issue is though those people were French. As Frenchmen they weren’t the ones being attacked they were the ones doing the attacking. France took the lead on Libya. France has been active in breaking Syria. If you are arguing that French Muslims should view this as an attack on them rather than by them, then you are arguing that French Muslims are incapable of being loyal to France.

    The entire argument of the National Front is that France is inherently Catholic and that while secular Muslims can be French religious muslims cannot. I’m just pointing out you are agreeing with the National Front’s position here.

    • Brewer
      January 10, 2015, 7:52 pm

      JeffB.

      I kept thinking there is another fallacy in your argument but I couldn’t quite figure it until now. I think it lies here:
      “The issue is though those people were French.”

      In my view, this does not make any difference. What would you say if this attack had been perpetrated by a Gallic or Norman Frenchman? Would you say he was disloyal to France or simply criminal?
      The victim of the attack was a publication that fosters Islamophobia. That particular prejudice is a detriment to French society. The attack is not therefore, in my view, an attack on France per se. If one held the extreme view that Charlie Hebdo’s activities were endangering France, quite the opposite conclusion might be drawn. In other words, criminality and loyalty are separate issues.

      • JeffB
        January 11, 2015, 12:40 pm

        @Brewer

        Your point before was, “My point is as simple one. I assert that any group identity subjected to attack by powerful forces will react asymmetrically”. Forgetting the asymmetrically part, the question is which group identity. For French muslims their french identity is the one doing the attacking, their muslim identity is the one being attacked. The core of loyalty is which they pick.

        Now you are making a slightly different case that Charlie Hebdo isn’t helping but rather harming France. A core component France’s identity since the 1789 is anti-clericalism / secularism. The sort of bullying that Charlie Hebd was engaging is was trying to create Muslims that view their religious heritage as a flavoring in their personality but not core to their being. The way for example Americans view Baseball as part of the American heritage but when the Japanese mocked us with “Babe Ruth sucks” we treated that insult as disproportionately mild in the context of war.

        A Gallic or Norman Frenchman has in a cultural sense gone through the cultural transformation in response to the revolution. Even they are a traditionalist Catholic who supports reinstate of Catholicism as a state religion with all the associated perks they understand the context they live in is one where that is a minority belief and understand they need to convince 95% of the countrymen to become more Catholic before such an event could take place. A Gallic or a Norman Frenchmen are incapable of committing that sort of act in that context because they don’t have the same context. So if they were just shoot up the magazine there wouldn’t be any question that they are speaking for anything like a substantial chunk of opinion.

        They would be looked upon like a Charles Manson. Hippies didn’t have to soul search after the Manson murders he was just too far removed from their thinking.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 8:59 pm

      Well, that applies to Jews too.

      Also, I think France has been pretty much a secular country since the French Revolution.

  39. Daniel Rich
    January 9, 2015, 6:45 pm

    Freedom of speech?

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    France Bans Pro-Palestine Demonstrations

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 5:34 am

      Daniel, that’s rich.

    • HarryLaw
      January 10, 2015, 6:22 am

      Daniel Rich, “France Bans Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations” Slightly misleading, the Daily Mail article your piece links to is dated 19th July 2014. But no doubt that ban is still in place, and will be enforced by Madam Guillotine.

  40. Daniel Rich
    January 9, 2015, 7:18 pm

    Netanyahu calls to fight radical Islam.

    Fair enough.

    While we’re at it, let’s also fight radical Judaism, the one that kills thousands of Palestinian women and children and watches the butchering from hilltops…

  41. Keith
    January 9, 2015, 8:15 pm

    “There is no “but” about what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Some people published some cartoons, and some other people killed them for it.” (Scott Long)

    To see this as merely a one-off reaction to some cartoons is to miss the forest for the trees. This is being manipulated into the French 911, with the same implications and ramifications. Whether this is a case of blow-back or false flag or some combination of the two, make no mistake that the media frenzy surrounding this is a huge propaganda offensive to solidify the “clash of civilizations” meme being utilized to justify imperial warfare. Isn’t that obvious? Below I provide a quote and a link from the Saker who adds needed perspective to this.

    “Second, there is absolutely zero doubt, none whatsoever, that the AngloZionist Empire is behind the “transnational Takfiri infection” of our planet. It all began during the Cold War and the “brilliant” Brzezinski/CIA plan to unleash the crazies against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. This is when the US literally financed, organized, trained, equipped and, most importantly, federated the Wahabi freaks for the first time. Since, we saw them in action in Chechina, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and many other places and now we see them “in action” in Paris. Hollande, Sarko and his “unofficial Foreign Minister” Bernard Henri-Levi played a key role in unleashing these monsters against Libya and Syria just as the French “New (pseudo-) Philosophers” like Alain Finkelkraut played a key role in unleashing these monsters against Bosnia. So here is the key point I will stress in bold: the Takfiri maniacs who committed all the murders in France are NOT “children” of the “Islamic Umma” but of the French deep-state and the Anglo-Zionist Empire. They “own” these freaks, not Hassan Nasrallah or Ramzan Kadyrov!” (The Saker)
    link to vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    • Bornajoo
      January 10, 2015, 12:09 pm

      Spot on Keith
      This is all part of a greater game and a much bigger agenda which you have succinctly summarised

      And no I’m not a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The whole thing stinks. It was either an inside job or it was allowed to happen in order to achieve the reaction we see now across the world media.

    • Danaa
      January 11, 2015, 1:18 pm

      Keith – I also agree with the need for perspective and the obvious intent to manipulate what happened by TPTB to further their own goals. Glad to see you quote The saker. He doesn’t always state things most elegantly but the words he chooses, more often than not, cut to the core.

      I saw the photos of the heads of state marching in France todays. Looking ever so solemn. Commemorating those who died in France and supposedly extolling free speech. MoA pointed out that on the very same day, 40 would-be police recruits – patriots all – got bombed and killed in Yemen. Where was the march for them? over the past weeks Bahrain, one of SA’s lap dogs, stepped up the persecution of the freedom fighters there (yes, why don’t we call them freedom fighters? why are the MSM mouthpieces referring to them as “shiite activists”?), including some of turned up dead, tortured and/or sentenced to long jail time. Where is the march for the brave Bahrainis who are agitating for freedom of speech?

      BTW, some good pieces you put up on your blog, Keith. You should direct traffic there.

      • Keith
        January 11, 2015, 7:31 pm

        DANAA- “BTW, some good pieces you put up on your blog, Keith. You should direct traffic there.”

        Thanks for the kind words! So you are the reason that my page views for the last year doubled? (just kidding) Actually, I am not particularly interested in high readership. I write my little mini-essays to clarify my own thinking, as only writing can do. If folks want to read them, fine. If not, I’m not concerned. I suppose I could promote them by pointing out that, for some, they may function as a free sleep aid. As for the rest of your comment, I see that once again we are in agreement.

  42. RoHa
    January 9, 2015, 9:40 pm

    What is “I am Charlie” supposed to mean?

    • Walid
      January 10, 2015, 6:47 am

      “What is “I am Charlie” supposed to mean?”

      Something silly along the lines of “Toys R Us”. With the French government, Google and the Guardian people donating 1.5 million euros to the Charlie cause; we must be missing something. The magazine deserves to be shut down if it continues in its slanderous ways of attacking Jews, Christians and Moslems and especially Africans.

      • HarryLaw
        January 10, 2015, 8:03 am

        Is this racist? A cover from Charlie Hebdo. link to islametinfo.fr

      • Walid
        January 10, 2015, 8:14 am

        Harry, you didn’t eleaborate. For those that don’t know, this is a picture of France’s Minister of Justice and Guardian of the Seal, Her Excellency Madame Christiane Taubira.

        In typical Charlie Hebdo yellow journalism, they made her into a tree-climbing monkey that eats bananas. And this representation of Christiane Taubira that appears on a Moslem sicko site is rather mild in comparisn to other shit published at Charlie Hebdo. Yes, Moslems have sick people too, but they picked up this one from Charlie Hebdo..

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 10:44 am

        “In typical Charlie Hebdo yellow journalism, they made her into a tree-climbing monkey that eats bananas.”

        Okay, I haven’t been upset until now, but this is too much! I eat bananas, and like them. I also climb trees, and if somebody said, “You climb like a monkey” I’d be flattered!

        I will not stand for this!

    • housedoc
      January 10, 2015, 10:51 am

      support of freedom of expression, opposition to hatred, and solidarity with those, like me, who are grieving the loss of people they cared for, people like Wolinski who shaped the way I view the world. Reiser died as a young man, but he, if still alive, would have been there. Those who have read and remember HaraKiri (journal bête et méchant) – same guys more or less and same magazine (more or less) felt and feel tremendous affection.

      I am 67 Wolinski was 80. I never met him but I cared for him and I grieve him. His contribution to the progressive movement all his life is much to be praised and his loss is to be mourned. That is what “I am Charlie” means.

      I am Charlie

  43. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 1:57 am
    • Walid
      January 10, 2015, 5:43 am

      Wow, that Slate piece mentions that Google donated $300,000, the Guardian Group 150,000 euros and the French Government a million euros to the Charlie Hebdo magazine.

      Not bad for a yellow journalism rag.,

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 10, 2015, 12:01 pm

        The academic and writer Will Self – don’t know if anyone here has heard of him but he’s well known in the UK – yesterday made the point that a satirical magazine really shouldn’t be in the business of accepting money from the government. Aren’t they supposed to be lampooning those in power, not taking handouts from them?

        link to channel4.com

  44. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 2:26 am

    “That part I found most fascinating about the 911 story was the passport of one of the terrorists found intact among the tons of debris and ash on the sidewalk.”

    Come on, Walid, hijackers’ passports dropping out of a blazing sky in pristine condition? Next thing you know, we’ll be hearing that one of the Charlie suspects’ IDs slipped out out of his wallet and was left behind!

    Never gonna happen.

    Prime suspects in Paris massacre identified after one leaves ID card in abandoned getaway car.

  45. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 2:48 am

    “Mossad is overrated. A bit like Bar Refaeli.”

    Love her name, though.

    Serious question…

    Is the oft-quoted Mossad motto, “By Way of Deception,” actually correct or is it a mistranslation?

    • Walid
      January 10, 2015, 5:12 am

      A bit of both, Pixel; An opinion about it on a net forum from 2007:

      “The Menorah As Mossad Symbol
      A commonly circulated internet myth incorrectly attributes the motto; “By way of deception, thou shalt do war”, to the Mossad.

      Mossad’s original motto was be-tahbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milkhamāh (Hebrew: בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה, “For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war.” – Proverbs XXIV, 6 or the more recognised translation “By way of deception thou shalt make war”). This was changed recently as part of the Mossad’s public ‘coming out’ to another Proverbs passage: be-‘éyn tahbūlōt yīpōl `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rōv yo’éts (Hebrew: באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ, “Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” – Proverbs XI, 14)

      Pixel, a former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky, wrote a 1994 supposedly tell-all book about the Mossad and gave it the title of “The Other Side of Deception” in which he capitalizes on the alleged motto of “By Way of Deception…”

      • Pixel
        January 10, 2015, 5:49 am

        That is – so – interesting, Walid.

        Thanks!

        I’m shocked you’re in here. At this hour (CST, +6), it’s usually just me talking to myself.

  46. Daniel Rich
    January 10, 2015, 2:57 am

    Passports and IDs must be the terrorists’ American Express card, because they never leave home without it

    Also, people ‘film’ the armed ‘terrorists’ going into the building and nobody calls the cops?

    That place should have been swamped by MIB.

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 5:52 am

      “Passports and IDs must be the terrorists’ American Express card, because they never leave home without it…

      Daniel, that is brilliantly hysterical

      … aka ROTFL

    • Walid
      January 10, 2015, 5:55 am

      … and the terrorist is so cool that he stops to pick up a shoe before jumping into the getaway car, but he forgets his ID in the abandoned car.

      The story is starting to smell

      • Whizdom
        January 10, 2015, 7:55 am

        and he had a “Fair play for Cuba” pamphlet in his pocket.

    • tree
      January 10, 2015, 11:30 pm

      and he had a “Fair play for Cuba” pamphlet in his pocket.

      LOL. I got that one. For those too young to know, it refers to Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK.

  47. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 3:18 am

    TO WHOMEVER IS THE MW BOSS OF US:

    There are a whole lot of “reply” buttons missing next to both Comments and Replies, these days.

    I hope the issue is short-listed on the “ToDo’s” because I’m worried.

    I haven’t seen a reply button next to anything Mooser’s written in a long time. Is that related to this issue or was it intentional?

    (by the way, MW, if I haven’t ricola-ed out a huge “THANK-YOU” for resurrecting the edit button recentlyy, may it resonantly echo, now, throughout the Basel-Landschaft Canon!)

    • Teapot
      January 10, 2015, 7:24 am

      by the way, MW, if I haven’t ricola-ed out a huge “THANK-YOU” for resurrecting the edit button recentlyy, may it resonantly echo, now, throughout the Basel-Landschaft Canon!

      I had to read this three times and I still think I must have misread. Could there really be a fellow MW commenter living next door to me?

      • Danaa
        January 11, 2015, 1:28 pm

        Teapot – there are many secret MW readers in all kinds of places. One could indeed be your next door neighbor! or the babysitter’s boyfriend. Or the supermarket checkout clerk.

        Sometimes I wish there could be, like, a virtual space reunion, of the MWs of the world. I think there would be quite a few surprises for many. Though alas, not many are likely to be nubile cheerleader types, or, busy hedge fund managers, or for that matter, people in the prime reproductive years. Just a hunch there. With all due exception to Mooser perhaps. Wherever he may be in his prime or primal years, something tells me his party invitations keep on coming, and his belts are hedged.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 7:17 pm

        “With all due exception to Mooser perhaps.”

        Oh, you’re ‘joshing’ me! I’m ancient!
        I’m past both ‘repro-‘ and just plain ‘pro-‘ when it comes to the ‘duction’. Actually, there’s some ‘re-‘ going on, too. No more “Left Turns at Albuquerque” for me.

    • Mooser
      January 10, 2015, 10:49 am

      “I haven’t seen a reply button next to anything Mooser’s written in a long time. Is that related to this issue or was it intentional?”

      I belong (and oh boy, does it cost!) to Mondoweiss Prime, and that’s one of the benefits. And when there is an reply button, I get to pass on all replies before they’re printed.
      You should join Pixel. For the price, it’s a bargain. And you get a nice basket different fruit each month, too.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 7:12 pm

        Nah, I’m only joking, of course. The new system doesn’t nest comments and replies like the old one, I think. But since I’m usually late to get to a comment thread, I’m way down the replies, and the “reply” button is way on top of the original comment, but sometimes it doesn’t do it like that, either, come to think of it!
        So I haven’t got it figured out. I’ve had comments end up in surprising places, as a result of what I thought was the right “reply” button.

  48. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 3:27 am

    Many of the comments, here, today, are truly interesting.

    I had no idea so many had a taste for rabbit.

  49. flamestar
    January 10, 2015, 3:58 am

    When someone complements you, you say thank you and move on. When you express sorrow you express it and move on. You do not assert your moral superiority to the other mourners. You can do that later. You are free to talk about the climate in which it happened and get you digs in that way but you should not directly refer back to the victims.

  50. Pixel
    January 10, 2015, 4:20 am

    “I can hold that governments shouldn’t imprison Holocaust deniers, but that doesn’t oblige me to deny the Holocaust myself.”

    Let’s see if I’ve got this right.

    What I think you mean is…

    “I can hold that governments shouldn’t imprison those who ask serious, intelligent questions about a significant historical event known as the Holocaust, but that doesn’t oblige me to ask serious, intelligent questions about a significant historical event known as the Holocaust, myself.”

    If so, that would be both respectful and correct.

    You see, the last time anyone saw an actual Holocaust > d_e_n_i_e_r < they had photobombed a selfie taken by BigFoot and a chupacabra.

    Don't worry, though. I didn't take it personally.

    I'm 100% — not — being facetious when I say that, sometimes unintended slurs slip out from the best of us, especially when we’re writing passionately about a topic for which we are trying to make a larger, more meaningful point.

    Great piece, Scott!

    No harm. No foul.

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 6:05 am

      I’m often misinformed, ill-informed, incorrect, off on a tangent, lost in the ether, and/or in over my head, here at MW — and I did mean what I just said to Scott a minute ago.

      But I can tell you one thing,
      this “Holocaust Denial/Denier” meme (slur)
      REALLY chaps my academic @ss!

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 10:52 am

        This “Holocaust Denial/Denier” meme (slur)
        REALLY chaps my academic @ss!”

        You should have a nice academic discussion with “OyVey00”. He is very interested in the denial of Holocaust denial.

  51. flamestar
    January 10, 2015, 4:20 am

    Erasing differences that actually exist seems to be the purpose here: and it’s perhaps appropriate to the Charlie cartoons, which drew their force from a considered contempt for people with the temerity to be different.

    No, they drew their force from a considered contempt for people with the temerity to be the same. We use to make fun of the idea of killing for Christ. Those who killed for Christ were not nonconformists. There is no serious intellectual choice on the part of a fanatic just a mental illness. Making fun of a mental illness is some times needed because there is no reasonable remedy. It is the only way to express frustration. Intelligent people move on rather quickly. Some people must have needed to read something like Charlie Hebda and where there is market people will continue to meet it.

  52. OyVey00
    January 10, 2015, 4:44 am

    Relevant: link to vdare.com

  53. just
    January 10, 2015, 5:09 am

    “Bibi’s vulgarity: Using the Paris shooting to justify Israeli colonialism

    Making Israel the focal point of his message of condolence was crass and vulgar. Sure, he correctly stated that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was an attack on the values of Western civilization, but he was wrong in assuming that Israel is a shining beacon of that civilization.

    Never one to miss a self-serving opportunity, Benjamin Netanyahu issued an extraordinarily pompous and inappropriate statement in response to the massacre in Paris on Wednesday.

    Being the lofty expert in terrorism that he is, Israel’s prime minister did not indulge in the regular human reactions of shock, horror and sadness that typically accompany an incident like the one in Paris. Such gawky emotions are for lesser beings who don’t grasp the big picture, as he does.

    Instead, Bibi took it upon himself to lecture France – and the rest of the world, while he was at it – about how to deal with Islamist terror; a prescription which seems to consist entirely of thinking as he does and supporting Israel, come hell or high water.

    “The terror of Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and Al-Qaida” won’t end “unless the West fights it physically, rather than fighting its false arguments,” the Great Thinker said. Note the order in which Netanyahu’s purveyors of terror are listed.

    The goal of Islamist terror, he continued, “is not agreement or borders or even Israel … not mainly Israel and not primarily Israel. The key goal of Islamic terror is to destroy our societies and our countries. To uproot our human culture, which is based on freedom and a culture of choice and to impose in its place a fundamentalist dictatorship which will return humanity to years long past.”

    That, after gunmen claiming affiliation with Al-Qaida in Yemen murdered left-wing journalists in Paris. Why bring Israel into the equation?”

    link to haaretz.com

    • seafoid
      January 10, 2015, 6:48 am

      All political responses to something like this have to be interpreted as leaders speaking to their bases. Bibi’s meanderings are meaningless to anyone who wasn’t indoctrinated in Hebrew in a Jewish school. He says nothing to me about my life.

      I think the attack on the Jewish deli is going to be more significant longer term. Israel’s “fuck you” only works if Arab governments can keep a lid on popular revulsion at Israel’s ways.
      And they can’t.

      So Israel can go postal in Gaza but the blowback means innocent Jews are going to die. And dreams that the diaspora will all move en masse to Israel are pie in the sky.

      Somebody needs to step in and defang Zionism before the house falls down.
      Zionism is a joke that has gone on for far too long.

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 10:55 am

        Seafoid, Judaism and Jews survived the Nazi Holocaust. I think we will survive Zionism, too.

      • seafoid
        January 10, 2015, 11:18 am

        Of course you will, Mooser. It will be a much more modest Judaism.

      • Danaa
        January 11, 2015, 1:53 pm

        Mooser: “Judaism and Jews survived the Nazi Holocaust. I think we will survive Zionism, too”. Jews will, but I am not sure in what form Judaism will survive. Zionism clawed its way rather deep into the heart of hearts and it is gobbling up the core, as we speak. I know you’ll say that Judaism survived Shabtai Zvi too. But Shabtai never got very far in his messianic aspirations and his movement crashed against the rocks of reality rather early on. By contrast, zionism got very far indeed. Like a particularly voracious plant species it gobbles all in its wake, leaving nothing but spiritual bareness behind. Furthermore, the craziest seem to multiply the fastest, and as they grow, they sow toxic mutations that will wreck havoc for generations to come. And I don’t mean that the toxicity is limited to the physical sphere.

        To clarify, I don’t think the religion per se will perish because religions never do. What I fear will ultimately be gone- that is once all is said and done – is the reputation of Judaism as a progressive world view. In time, after israel had its chance to commit all the heinous acts it plans, and after its friends and hangers-on did the damage far and wide, dragging the western world into abject, cowardly inaction, and the jews of the world into silence, if not tacit approval, what will be left will be smoking embers of the forward looking, beneficient bits of a culture, leaving only the backward looking skeletal remains of both culture and religion (which cannot be as readily separated as some think)>

        Of course, by the time all this will come to pass, global warming will make its more destructive effects felt far and wide, and perhaps the fate of one ancient religion will be the least of humanity’s worries.

        Today, I am Jeremiah.

      • RoHa
        January 11, 2015, 6:56 pm

        “I don’t think the religion per se will perish because religions never do.”

        Not a lot of Zeus worship these days.

        “by the time all this will come to pass, global warming will make its more destructive effects felt far and wide,”

        The scare stories about global warming were based on computer models. Real world observations show that every major prediction made by those models is false. The modellers are running around trying to find ways to patch this up, but so far there is no need to worry.

        The official data sets (RSS, GISS, HadCrut 3, etc.) show that there has been no increase in global temperatures for 12 to 18+(RSS) years.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 7:27 pm

        “both culture and religion (which cannot be as readily separated as some think)”

        I guess people (not sure I’ll live to see it) will have to see what’s left for them once the luxury of grafting a profitable and lawless colonial project (with the support of major powers) to the religion and culture is no longer an option. Or is perceived as bad option.

    • seafoid
      January 12, 2015, 9:48 am

      Roha

      So the modellers made everything up. Great news that Hurricane Sandy was imaginary
      and that California drought was a dream.

      • RoHa
        January 12, 2015, 5:58 pm

        “So the modellers made everything up. ”

        No, they used the data they had, a number of reasonable assumptions, and some best guesses. But they still got it wrong. That happens a lot in science.

        Hurricane Sandy and the California drought are the sort of things that happen from time to time. They do not change the fact that the major predictions are falsified, and and thus the models need to be rejected. That is how science works.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2015, 2:42 pm

        Climate models are better than finance models and getting better. Climate change goes on meanwhile.
        Never came across a credible Zionist or a credible denier.

      • seanmcbride
        January 13, 2015, 3:20 pm

        seafoid,

        “Climate models are better than finance models and getting better. Climate change goes on meanwhile.”

        Do a bit of data mining and you will notice that there is a close correlation between pro-Israel militancy and climate change denialism — why this is the case is open for speculation.

      • seanmcbride
        January 13, 2015, 3:41 pm

        # regarding Zionism and climate change denialism — some attitudes and positions that strongly tend to cluster together:

        1. anti-environmentalism
        2. pro-Afghanistan War
        3. pro-Afpak War
        4. pro-assassinations
        5. pro-Big Oil
        6. pro-carbon industry
        7. pro-Christian Zionism
        8. pro-Clash of Civilizations
        9. pro-climate change denialism
        10. pro-ethnic nationalism
        11. pro-Fox News
        12. pro-fracking
        13. pro-Global War on Terror
        14. pro-global warming denialism
        15. pro-Greater Israel
        16. pro-Iran War
        17. pro-Iraq War
        18. pro-Islamophobia
        19. pro-Israel
        20. pro-Judeo-Christian fascism
        21. pro-Libya War
        22. pro-mass surveillance
        23. pro-military-industrial complex
        24. pro-neoconservatism
        25. pro-neoliberalism
        26. pro-radical wealth inequality
        27. pro-religious nationalism
        28. pro-religious Zionism
        29. pro-Syria War
        30. pro-torture
        31. pro-war profiteering

      • RoHa
        January 14, 2015, 7:17 pm

        It matters not a jot whether those attitudes go together. The data shows that the models are wrong, so panic and policies based on those models are not justified.

        Climate change is natural phenomenon, and we have to adapt to it.

      • Philemon
        January 16, 2015, 9:28 pm

        Seafoid, as Roha says it matters not a jot, but if you look at who has been pushing the “carbon dioxide is poisonous” line, you get a lot of the usual suspects; just look at how they report on other topics you know about, with some conspicuous absentees. If you look at it that way, it’s a lot like a flimflam scam with some divide and conquer thrown in.

        I will admit I was suspicious of it from the start partly because Al Gore, the Senator from Likud, son of Gore, the Senator from Occidental, was all for it. The guys in that family don’t do anything if it’s not for the main chance.

        But, I thought, maybe it was just a harmless academic wheeze to milk some money out of the NSF, like Chomsky’s transformational-generative linguistics, which would eventually konk out on its own once serious people in the field got on to its methodological defects.

        Alas, nowadays, it looks more like Eugenics circa 1915, where all the people who want to be seen as scientifically-minded are gung-ho for it.

  54. Bornajoo
    January 10, 2015, 5:39 am

    One of our leading Tory politicians here in the UK is already calling for more snooping powers. Now there’s a surprise

    link to express.co.uk

    Oh and can’t help myself here having read the comments about 911 above (pet subject) . Here is a superb film that clarifies all the issues. Came out last year. Warning; 5 hours long but worth watching

    September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (2013) FULL: link to youtu.be

    • Pixel
      January 10, 2015, 6:19 am

      I’ll see your “worth watching.” and raise you an “imperative.”

      • Bornajoo
        January 10, 2015, 6:29 am

        @Pixel
        I have a feeling that after you finish watching you might raise your own imperative with MAKE THIS COMPULSORY!

    • Daniel Rich
      January 10, 2015, 10:33 pm

      @ Bornajoo,

      Q: One of our leading Tory politicians here in the UK is already calling for more snooping powers.

      R: The $1 trillion + invested in Homeland/Motherland/Fatherland security [after 9/11] brought us the Madrid bombing [March 11, 2004], the London bombing [July 7, 2005], the Boston bombing [April 15, 2013] and the Charlie Hebdo slaughter [January 7, 2015].

      I’m not good at numerological cohesiveness. but it seems the turrurists prefer to attack on ‘odd‘ days [11, 11, 7, 15, 7] and always in the first half of the month…

  55. Whizdom
    January 10, 2015, 5:55 am

    All this blather and bloviating on CNN and BBC and never is it mentioned that the base of operations for anti-AQAP operations is the French/US Military base in Djibouti. The goal of this operation was to erode French popular support for anti-AQAP operations from french bases, and France’s aggressive military policy in Francophone Africa.

    Netanyahu’s formulation that the PA=AQ is specious, simplistic, dangerous and stupid. They are very different conflicts, requiring very different approaches.

    Terror attacks are tactics with an objective by political actors, they aren’t simply spontaneous and random manifestations of evil.

    AQAP cynically uses cartoons of turban bombs to mobilize political forces, and Netanyahu uses terror attacks to mobilize political support. I don’t see much difference between them.

    But any discussion of the Hebdo attacks without consideration of the larger geopolitical context of the struggle for advantage for control of Africa’s extractable wealth, and France’s role in that is naive and incomplete.

    They really don’t hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we are trying to take away their stuff.

    • American
      January 10, 2015, 3:20 pm

      ” They really don’t hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we are trying to take away their stuff ——whizdom

      Ditto.
      I’ve never seen the slightest indication that Arabs or Islamist want to take over the US or our resources.
      They want to get us out of their countries.
      Who can blame them.

  56. just
    January 10, 2015, 6:22 am

    Scott~ many thanks for this truly intelligent and meaningful essay.

  57. MRW
    January 10, 2015, 9:08 am

    This isn’t anti-semitic, this is the truth. Disabuse me if I’m wrong by naming the experts I’m missing.

    The Jews never were natural philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers,” Voltaire declared.

    They weren’t. Neither were the Christians. Maimonides, Spinoza over 1,000 years? Big whoop. Between 700 AD and 1600 AD, the Muslims ruled in philosophy, geometry, and astronomy. They introduced the damn subjects to Europe.

    The Europeans sat in their dung heap homes struggling with Euclid’s fourth principle while the Moors were using calculus and trig as a matter of course. What is this ridiculous inability to accept that others were superior to us at one time? We were the Luddites. So were the Jews. They were parked in shtetls, bobbing and weaving to whatever the rebbe was saying until 1800 AD. The Christians only emerged from the Dark Ages as a result of visits to Cordoba and Toledo. To learn shit.

    François-Marie Arouet, aka Voltaire, lived at a time when Jews were still stuck in shtetls. And he was correct about them. They were, largely, ignorant, uneducated, and unworldly. “Voltaire” lived and breathed during the time when we Americans were still attached at the hip to Britain before we became a new country. To judge him with 21st C eyes is an insanity. The French, of course, had just discovered the seeds of nationality and thought their shit didn’t stink. It was a different time. But Voltaire’s reading of the Jews of the time was accurate. Read Shahak.

    • Mooser
      January 10, 2015, 12:53 pm

      But MRW, your missing the whole point! That’s what makes us Jews so charming! We’re all the same, wherever we are and we never change. Why, you could almost call us ‘eternal’, couldn’t you?

      But yes, I agree with you, the decision to live in Shetls and ghettos was a mistake. Personally, I think the Jewish plebiscite on the subject was manipulated by a lot of creamed herring delivered to the right pockets on election day, if you get my drift.
      But still, we could have left anytime, and we didn’t, so…

    • Taxi
      January 10, 2015, 1:16 pm

      Putting it nicely in perspective, as usual, MRW.

      And speaking of spent cultures with glorious pasts, little saddens me more in this respect than to see the glory of ancient Greece become now a mere begging nation in our modern times.

      Both Arab and Greek cultures have made fundamental and valuable contributions to our contemporary world. Yet in the West, there is a celebration of ancient Greek culture, but a visceral hostility towards Arab culture.

      Arabphobia didn’t just start on 9/11. It has roots going back centuries to the first wave of Western colonization of Africa and Asia Minor.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 9:05 pm

        Well, that’s because Greek culture became (through the Romans) the fundament of all later European cultures. Arab culture never influenced Europe to such a degree and in fact was always seen as the exotic “other”. Hence the distinction between orient and occident.

      • MRW
        January 10, 2015, 9:54 pm

        @Taxi,

        It has roots going back centuries to the first wave of Western colonization of Africa and Asia Minor.

        Actually, no. You can almost date it to when Queen Isabella conquered Granada in the 1480s. She was able to conquer all of Andalucia by the start of the 1500s. She kicked the Muslims out, and in the interest of uniting all of Spain under one religion, gave the 80,000 Jews the choice of converting or leaving. Half left. Half converted. She wanted the Pope to come to Spain. He was the former Spanish Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, the guy who came up with the Papal Bull that allowed Isabella to marry her second cousin Ferdinand four years after *that* Pope had died. Isabella was deeply religious, and I think she thought she could correct Borgia’s licentious ways if she had him under her thumb.

        When Isabella conquered all of Andalucia (one of my most favorite places to be in the world, the light, the food, flamenco, ah!), the Christians moved in and erased Muslim history. Her grandson Charles renamed the mosques as churches, deleted their origins, and the Inquisition did the rest in the common memory by rewriting Muslim achievements as their own, including the claim that the monk Copernicus came up with idea that the earth revolved around the sun. Fat chance. So you have the Wikipedia version of history and no one knows. Besides, who reads Arabic these days?

        Unless you read the late 19th C and early 20th C British historians who actually studied the stuff in the original source documents, our sloppy historians and academicians would tell you that ancient Greek culture died with the rise of Rome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Greek culture went east to Baghdad, Konya (Turkey), and Tehran. It also went south to Crete and Egypt and across the upper half of Africa producing the Moors who created the heavenly hub of Cordoba. It was the Arabs who inherited the glory of Greece, not us, and who kicked it up notches above what ancient Greece could ever attain. And this is documented.

        The interesting thing to me is that this will be known in about 10 years because of Google Translate. Kids will be able to read the original Arabic texts. And when you combine that with the Arabic-Chinese-African partnership that existed for centuries in trade, shipbuilding, philosophy, astronomy, science, universities, and mathematics, the history of the world will have to be rewritten for the progeny of everyone who reads this board.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 12:44 pm

        Ah, a very edifying conversation between “OyVey00” and “MRW”. It could go on forever, eternally.

        Look, I just want to say one thing. When all the Jews in Europe and Russia decided, in spite of all the invitations, and indeed, inducements to join European and Russian society, to live in “sealed enclaves” there were many of us Jews who said: “Like, Whoa, man! Don’t do it, Dad, it’s rad, not trad!”, but the vote was taken, “sealed enclaves” won, and with millions of Russians and Europeans weeping and begging us to return, we went off to our ghettos.
        Yup, that’s just how it happened, and don’t let nobody tell you no different. Christians wouldn’t do that to people, put them in ghettoes or “Pales of Settlement”. They kept on saying: “Here, take my daughter, please!” But not even that would keep us among them.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 6:07 pm

      Pssshhht.

      What’ll happen when it dawns on people, that probably about 80% of all famous Europeans from the High Middle Ages to the 19th century did not think kindly of Jews?

      Just imagine all those street and building names they’d have to change!

      • MRW
        January 10, 2015, 10:13 pm

        How would they have known them? Jews lived in sealed enclaves within other people’s countries. Only the rebbe talked to the host country’s monarch, or officials. It took Jew-friendly Napoleon to coax the Polish Jews from their shtetls out into the open, and into Warsaw.

        Look at the Ultra Orthodox in Israel and you’ll have some idea of what it was like back then. And Israel’s Ultra Orthodox are living in a Jew-centric country.

        So take the victimhood sword out of your heart, and start reading history.

      • MRW
        January 11, 2015, 12:52 am

        Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak on Jewish Fundamentalism at MIT in Nov. 1994. (Shahak starting around 1:00:00 on Napoleon in Part 1of 2) — (around 35 minutes, Shahak on Voltaire in Part 2 of 2. It actually starts much earlier with a question from the cantankerous student audience.)
        link to mondoweiss.net

    • Danaa
      January 11, 2015, 2:14 pm

      I would have to agree here MRW. The jewish people of late middle age, early enlightenement periods in Europe were persecuted – at times and in places. Not everywhere and hardly all the time (yes, Shahak, among others). The facts of the matter are not that they couldn’t easily get out of the shtetls. Most Europeans – mainstream and sects of all kind – remained enclosed in their own private “shtetls” for a long time after Voltaire, bound to a reactionary church and stale dogmas. Nothing unusual there – either about jews or non-Jews.

      The point I’d make is that INSIDE the shtetls, all through the 15th-18th century, when many jewish communities actually thrived (like the one in Holland) and when ideas of the enlightenment were starting to make themselves known widely, the jews still did not emerge from a religion-bound, dogmatic and oppressively authocracy respecting thought style.

      The universalist ideas of freedom, individuality and liberty were not forged in the midst of jewish communities (with a few exceptions noted – on the margins of Europe). These concepts were hardly contained within the jewish tenets of law that governed all behavior and thought for centuries. They came to the jews from without and did not emerge organically within. These are facts. And, as you pointed out – from maimonides to Spinoza – who else was there? uriel d’Acosta – who was literally stepped upon and driven to suicide?

      Yes, once Napoleon issued his emancipation decrees – there were takers among the jews and slowly but surely many emerged into the new haskala. Which is when Judaism – as a culture, rather than a religion – started to take hold. And once they emerged, jewish people made themselves heard and seen through many contributions. But that was because they were able to stand on the shoulders of giants. And one of those giants was Voltaire. Who, with all his accomplishments, was just another human. I am sure he would have torn into the Gypsies, were they around then. But as it was, for him, Jews and devout Christians were all of a cloth. perhaps it was safer to rant against one more than the other. We’ll never know.

      Disclaimer: the above comments about the late emergence of Jews into the enlightenment era are my opinions, formed in the course of reading much about the period. Exceptions to the rule are easy to find, I’m sure. But history is what it was, as much as some would like to rewrite portions thereof.

      • MRW
        January 11, 2015, 7:35 pm

        @Danaa, Mooser,

        None of that obviates my point: how would they have known? Oy Vey assumes that people were sitting around thinking of persecuting the Jews. No they weren’t. Nobody saw them. They were locked away in a shtetl living apart from the rest of society. It was the monarch or ruler of the country that the rebbe had the tax deal with. And he wonders what will happen when we in the 21st C realize that 80% of all famous Europeans from the High Middle Ages to the 19th C did not think kindly of Jews. Take a number. Nobody thought kindly of any group they weren’t married into, which was the reason why they were constantly at war with their neighbors or duchys. The nation state concept aimed to put an end to that. Being “persecuted” and living apart probably saved more Jewish lives than not during that time.

        Shahak makes the point in the MIT discussion I linked to above (at 35 min, Pt 2) that Voltaire said one thing but did another. He spoke ill of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, but he actively defended them against persecution and discrimination. Shahak is a real pisser. He goes on to read a Jerusalem Post article from 1994 about some Israeli guy’s manifesto in which he proclaims that Jewish law permits Jews to kill Gentiles with impunity. Napoleon had already made the Jews killing Jews behavior illegal.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 7:53 pm

        As for me, I’ll start thinking the segregated Jews of Europe wanted to be segregated (apart from those who used the set-up to their advantage, or found loop-holes in it) about the same time I start thinking the Africans were voluntarily kidnapped into slavery, and stayed slaves where they had to, because it suited them, or something, or about the same time I start thinking something about the Muslim religion is responsible for all their troubles.
        I don’t think that’ll be anytime soon.

      • seanmcbride
        January 11, 2015, 8:06 pm

        Mooser,

        There are hundreds or thousands of stories in contemporary Jewish and Israeli media outlets describing efforts by many religious Jews (mostly ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox) to self-segregate and self-ghettoize.

        It wouldn’t be surprising if these cultural attitudes weren’t much more prevalent among the Jewish community as a whole several hundred years ago — before there were Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and secular/humanist Jews.

        One could even argue that modern secular and humanist Jews often self-segregate to a degree, in terms of where they live and with whom they associate — they often tend to cluster in cliques and clearly defined social networks.

      • MRW
        January 11, 2015, 11:50 pm

        Mooser, you and I can assume and presume all we want, but the fact remain that both of us are ignorant of the history of that time. So are Oy Vey and Danaa (who admits it),

        From the moonofalabama.org site:

        Here is Prof Runciman’s description of the Frankish Crusaders sack of Alexandria in 1365.

        “The victory was celebrated with unparalleled savagery. Two and a half centuries of Holy Warfare had taught the Crusaders nothing of humanity. The massacres were only equaled by those of Jerusalem in 1099, and Constantinople in 1204. The Moslems had not been so ferocious at Antioch or at Acre. Alexandria’s wealth had been phenomenal; and the victors were maddened at the sight of so much booty. They spared no one. The native Christians and the Jews suffered as much as the Moslems, and even the European merchants settled in the city saw their factories and storehouses ruthlessly looted. Mosques and tombs were raided and their ornaments stolen or destroyed; churches too were sacked. Houses were entered, and householders who did not immediately hand over all their possessions were slaughtered with their families. Some five thousand prisoners, Christians, Jew as well as Moslems were taken to be sold as slaves. A long line of horses, asses, and camels carried the loot to the ships in the harbor and there having performed their task were killed. The whole city stank with the odour of human and animal corpses.”

      • MRW
        January 12, 2015, 2:32 am

        Don’t forget Danaa and Mooser, you are only referring to Ashkenazis. The Muslim world during their Golden Age was populated with Sephardic Jews, and they did not congregate in shtetls. The oldest mise-en-place group of Jews are the Iranian/Persian Jews, 3,000 years old according to their cemeteries. And they don’t live segregated from society today, nor did they then.

        Although some of the Jews of Queen Isabella’s time did live in Andalucia, the majority lived in NW Spain around Leon, where Queen Isabella was from. She grew up with them and liked them, according to historical records. Oy Vey was referring to the Ashkenazis, the European Jews who were as backward and uneducated and fearful as the Christians were. It wasn’t called The Dark Ages for nothing.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 6:46 pm

        “There are hundreds or thousands of stories in contemporary Jewish and Israeli media outlets describing efforts by many religious Jews (mostly ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox) to self-segregate and self-ghettoize.”

        No! Really? Look, you’re kidding me, right? This isn’t true, it’s some kind of a joke, right?
        It’s true?

        But wait a minute, Sean, I see what you are trying to pull, you….(calm down Mooser)
        I see what you’re up to!
        Sure all those references to “many religious Jews, (mostly Orthodox and Ultra orthodox)” efforts to “self-segregate and self-ghettoize” are there, but they are all presented as cautionary tales, showing how unhappy and screwed up those self-ghettoizers were.

      • seanmcbride
        January 13, 2015, 6:57 pm

        Mooser,

        Isn’t Israel itself — and the Zionist movement as a whole — trying to self-segregate? Why else define Israel officially as “a Jewish state”? This psychological temperament and syndrome isn’t limited to the ultra-Orthodox.

        All ethnic and religious nationalist movements and ideologies tend to be self-segregating, self-ghettoizing and xenophobic — that’s the name of the game. The Torah/Old Testament — which provides the core themes and memes for Zionism — is the world’s supreme model for enshrining and sacralizing this pattern of social organization.

      • seanmcbride
        January 13, 2015, 8:33 pm

        Mooser,

        An interesting article just published by the Jerusalem Post:

        “Netanyahu at Paris victims’ funeral: Time for civilized world to uproot enemies in our midst”
        link to jpost.com

        BEGIN QUOTE
        “These aren’t just enemies of the Jews, but all of humanity,” the prime minister said. “It’s about time that all of the civilized world unite and uproot these enemies from our midst.”….

        The prime minister praised “the spirit of the Jewish community in France,” which remains “totally connected with Am Yisrael (“the nation of Israel”), Eretz Yisrael (“the land of Israel”), and Torat Yisrael (“the Torah of Israel”).
        END QUOTE

        According to the current prime minister of Israel (“the King of the Jews” in the minds of some), Zionism is all about three key concepts: 1. Am Yisrael (“the nation of Israel”) 2. Eretz Yisrael (“the land of Israel”) 3. Torat Yisrael (“the Torah of Israel”).

        Which was precisely my point when our long-running discussion on these matters first began.

        As for “uprooting our enemies” — that sounds quite biblical in the genocidal sense.

  58. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 9:10 am

    KA says:
    January 10, 2015 at 3:25 am GMT • 300 Words
    “Cohen, by no means a war-crazed neocon, is ready for a blood purge, and a good chunk of the political class in this country and Western Europe is right behind him. The actual perpetrators of the horrific act of murder are soon to be forgotten as the hunt for the “enablers” and “fellow travelers” is taken up with glee. And the hunters will range far beyond their home terrain as “links” are discovered in the far corners of the globe: indeed, with this act, the mysterious “al-Qaeda” makes its reappearance in our collective nightmares. That amorphous ghost, which seems to be everywhere and nowhere, will be chased down from Toulouse to Timbuktu – and then on to Tehran, as the West gears up for a fresh rampage across the war-scarred Middle East.

    The ideologues of state terrorism are already sharpening their swords, which resemble pens, eager to slash their way into the kind of “moral clarity” their kind cannot find in peacetime. Over at the New Yorker, George Packer, an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq war – until it became unpopular – hones his blade: any attempt to “understand” (his scare quotes) what happened in Paris by reference to actual events in the real world is for sissies. The French immigration conundrum, French imperialism, and least of all the invasion of Iraq – all of this is irrelevant. Like all too many intellectuals, who deal in ideas, he is only concerned with “ideology,” as if such a thing could exist without a material basis.

    Justin Raimondo
    Antiwar.com

    I am still waiting to hear from Cohen and Packer for the punishment of equal degree to be meted out to those mass murderers who orchestrated Libyan war and Iraq war and to those who are instigating the war against Iran. I hope these two and so many other like them who populate the world of the mass media don’t forget to include themselves . They were the provocateurs,ideologue,cheer leaders,and gatekeeper . American army did not kill innocent innocent Iraqis barging sometime in the wrong doors .

    Reply

    • Whizdom
      January 10, 2015, 12:38 pm

      Well said and spot on. Any poll of Americans, when asked if they think another decade long war in Syria, or Ukraine or elsewhere, will say no. When asked “are you worried about the threat from Islamist extemists, a majority would say yes. The Elites want war, more sooner, more better, and the way to sell it is as a holy war, a crusade reworked for our times. Bu now, as then, it is about geopolitics, access to trade, trade routes, and theft of other people’s resources.

  59. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 9:24 am

    I shall include Rupert Murdoch as well. He and his empire have been busy providing the ideological underpinning, audio visual soundbites ,and the talking points to the war mongers for last 20 years.

    Here he holds all Muslim responsible.
    Rupert Murdoch: Muslims must be held responsible for France terror attacks
    http://www.theguardian.com 1/9/2015

    • Whizdom
      January 10, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Some glib tweet response was:

      Australians must be held responsible for producing such a pus sucking fart bag like Murdoch

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 6:54 pm

        1. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not an attack on Islamophobia.

        I hope that comforts the victims.

  60. housedoc
    January 10, 2015, 10:31 am

    1. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not an attack on Islamophobia.

    2. Charile Hebdo was/is a force against Islamophobia. It is easy to find many examples. Take for instance the cover showing a man (looking very like the artist Charb himself) kissing a Muslim man picture – a drooling wet kiss – with the caption “Love is stronger than Hate”. Its slogan (actually HaraKiri) was ‘un journal bête et méchant’ (a stupid malicious magazine).

    3. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was an attack again freedom of expression and an act of hate.

    Did CH or its predecesors ever publish drawings that offended and provoked? Of course. It has a long history of publishing crudely sexist drawings, pornographic images of priests and and those identifiably christian, rabbis and caricatured images of Jews (i.e. racist), of the elderly made out to look disgusting and stupid (i.e. agist). Did it ever publish caricatured images of Arabs and/or those identifiably Muslim. Of course.

    It’s mockery knew no bounds, explicitly rejected those bounds. But it was and is clear that it was on the side of liberty and against racism – certainly on balance. It was almost uniformly against religion and authoritarianism and demagoguery of all sorts. I honor it for that.

    4. The slogan “I am Charlie” is to identify oneself with freedom of expression and to be an enemy of hate.

    5. On of the drawings above shown in its original form (and below that blurred out) shows a caricature of a Muslim man saying “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter”. Yesterday there was an email (fund raiser of course) from Amnesty International which began:

    It goes on to describe the horrifying flogging of Raif who crime was blogging, expression and who sentence is the flogging and 10 years of jail.
    A donation is called for in the name of solidarity. I think reproduction of the words, the expression, would also be an admirable act of solidarity with Raif – however weak and ineffective.

    In a similar spirit, the acts of saying “I am Charlie” and the act of REPRODUCING THE OFFENDING MATERIAL IS, AT THIS TIME, an act of solidarity to be praised.

    If there is a time when it is good to reproduce offensive material, this is it.

    • eljay
      January 10, 2015, 11:13 am

      >> housedoc @ January 10, 2015, 10:31 am

      Good post, housedoc.

    • American
      January 10, 2015, 11:48 am

      ” In a similar spirit, the acts of saying “I am Charlie” and the act of REPRODUCING THE OFFENDING MATERIAL IS, AT THIS TIME, an act of solidarity to be praised. – – …housedoc>>>>

      I’ve seen a lot of pilpul on here but this takes the cake.

      “publishing crudely sexist drawings, pornographic images of priests and and those identifiably christian, rabbis and caricatured images of Jews (i.e. racist), of the elderly made out to look disgusting”

      Only a confused mind would consider disseminating to the public crude sex drawings, porno images and etc. of certain groups to be a a fight against racism.

      • Taxi
        January 10, 2015, 2:09 pm

        American,

        The doc is worshiping at the feet of Charlie – oh agenda, agenda, aganda!

        The upsidedownismof of doc: the motley Charlie were dedicated progressives.

        But in reality they’re as frigging fascist as they come: the sadistic pleasure of humiliating the brown-skinned other – man, that was Charlie’s bread and butter!!

        And here we got the doc blah-blahing Charlie’s great civilized contributions to our turbulent world.

        Yeah right! Charlie Alqaida. That’s all I gotta say.

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 6:53 pm

        Weeelll, there might be a sophisticated joke at the heart of Charlie. The joke is that the people who are doing it claim that they are doing it all for freedom of speech, when in fact, the only possible result, one way or another, is the opposite.
        Oh yes, that is a joke. But it’s one that wears very thin pretty goddam quickly.

    • traintosiberia
      January 10, 2015, 3:02 pm

      “terrorts” have killed person like Margaret Hassan in Iraq . They have killed Italian pro Palestinian activist ( ?journalist) in Gaza. They have killed the young philanthropic worker and muslim convert from US recently in around Syria .
      So I am not surprised to read your post . There could be many explanations but one is worth our time to ponder that raises the issue of false flag operation as well.

  61. JeffB
    January 10, 2015, 11:51 am

    @talknic

    @ JeffB “These attacks were conducted by people born and raised in France

    Quite a number of Israel’s illegal settlers in the occupied territories were born and raised in the USA. Murderers even.

    I’m going to ignore the illegal part. We’ve discussed that before. It means nothing more than a government you choose to recognize (the UN) as having some sort of supreme authority disagrees. I recognize the USA congress which rejects that assertion of illegality.

    If you ignore that then the rest isn’t the same. Almost all Israeli settlers are people who have taken Israeli citizenship that is people who have opened changed their allegiance. People have the right to swear a new allegiance to a new flag. It is only when they fail to do so that it becomes treachery.

    The analogy with Brewer’s hypothetical would be people acting against USA interests in favor of
    Israeli interests even while claiming loyalty to the United States. People like Pollard, Pollard is treated like a traitor by the United States.

    “Their loyalty should have been to France not Iraq”

    Best not to expect Jews in the diaspora to support Israel’s illegal facts on the ground and the illegal settlers who were born and raised in the USA and elsewhere

    The USA Jewish community has openly declared their position that they support those “facts on the ground” and have done so for generations. You may not like that they have done that but they have. The US government has indicated that this is within the range of acceptable political opinion within our democracy. The French Muslim population has not openly indicated that they
    intend to stand against the French military in Iraq, Libya, Syria much less that they intend to strike at French civilian targets.

    As an aside since Brewer published his experiment we learned from the terrorists themselves the issues are more about Al Qaeda in Yemen and Algeria so we don’t have to speculate about motives.

    • talknic
      January 10, 2015, 4:59 pm

      @ JeffB // Quite a number of Israel’s illegal settlers in the occupied territories were born and raised in the USA. Murderers even//

      “I’m going to ignore the illegal part. We’ve discussed that before. It means nothing more than a government you choose to recognize (the UN) as having some sort of supreme authority disagrees. I recognize the USA congress which rejects that assertion of illegality.”

      A) The majority of the UN tell us the Law and UN Charter say the settlements are illegal. The same laws and UN Charter Israel itself agreed to uphold.

      B) The US abstained from voting on UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of the law and UN Charter because it is illegal for any UN Member state to veto or vote against a resolution reminding the parties of existing law and/or the UN Charter and; the veto only prevents action being taken for having broken the law. It does not negate the fact that the law has been broken.

      “If you ignore that then the rest isn’t the same. Almost all Israeli settlers are people who have taken Israeli citizenship that is people who have opened changed their allegiance. “

      A) Why would or should anyone ignore the facts? B) They’re not in Israel C) Many of them have dual citizenship.

      “The USA Jewish community has openly declared their position that they support those “facts on the ground” and have done so for generations. “

      Problem. There is no one body representative of the Jewish community in the USA.

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 6:57 pm

        “I’m going to ignore the illegal part”

        Now I see why you think there isn’t a God, JeffyB. You are Him.

  62. JeffB
    January 10, 2015, 11:58 am

    @CigarGod

    I’d like to see the USA…and the christian churches or organizations…participate in this little condemnation ritual…every time a small group of christians bomb abortion clinics,

    Anti-abortion groups in the USA that encourage civil disobedience do have to go through this little ritual. Because their support against terrorism was ambiguous special laws were passed restricted their rights to assembly and protest both at state and federal levels. This has become less relevant since 2010-11 as they have gotten legal changes at the state level and protest is less needed. I’m not sure how this analogy helps you case.

    I’d like christian organizations to be blamed for the bundy ranch hostilities.

    What about Bundy was particularly Christian? Anti-tax and anti-government activists would be the relevant analogy and they were asked for their position. Most openly supported Bundy.

    How about christians apologize for the militant little nest of christian military officers/christian madrassa (school) in colorado, used to train these crusaders that we send into muslim countries around the globe?

    You are shifting from facts to fantasy. The military population draws pretty broadly (though with some statistical biases) geographically. It also draws fairly broadly along the spectrum of religious enthusiasm from disinterested to highly religious.

    • CigarGod
      January 10, 2015, 2:00 pm

      JeffB.
      1. You excuse, minimize, rationalize, point 1.
      2. You are not informed on Colorado Springs.
      3. You don’t know anything about Mormon’s.

      Your arrows just bounced off the walls, man.

      • Taxi
        January 10, 2015, 2:18 pm

        … And pinned his tongue to his chin.

  63. Taxi
    January 10, 2015, 12:35 pm

    Hamas condemns Charlie Hebdo attack:
    link to news.yahoo.com

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      January 10, 2015, 12:59 pm

      ”The Palestine Liberation Organisation called for a public rally to be held in Ramallah on Sunday “in solidarity with France against terrorism.”

      Ah the good old PA! Always eager to please and to show their ‘moderate’ credentials to the great and good of the West.

      In principle, I see nothing wrong with such a rally. However, given that France has all but criminalized pro-Palestinian protests in French cities, it’s a bit ironic that the PA is sponsoring official rallies to show solidarity with France. Seems the ‘solidarity’ is a one way street.

      • piotr
        January 10, 2015, 1:34 pm

        Look, Hezbollah condemned the terrorism in Paris as well, which is only natural. This also reminded me a singular lack of indignation in our media when car bombs were detonated in “Hezbollah bastions” like parking lots of supermarkets.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        January 10, 2015, 1:50 pm

        And if you look at the comments, it’s all “Oh, they’re only saying that for show. They don’t really mean it” and ”We remember those Palestinians dancing after 9/11″ and so on.

        There’s really no way for Muslims to win in these situations, is there? Even unambiguous condemnations provoke scorn, while Bibi gets to blatantly exploit the deaths of innocent people for his own wretched purposes.

        Hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese children are murdered, and at best the West will cough up a ‘both sides must exercise restraint’ platitude. Arab leaders condemn far less appalling atrocities – a strange turn of phrase I know – unreservedly, but still it isn’t enough. It never is.

      • Walid
        January 10, 2015, 2:22 pm

        Speaking of bombs detonated in Hizbullah bastions, a couple were just detonated in the densely populated Shia area of Tripoli in Lebanon (Jabal Mohsen district). 9 dead with 35 injured. ISIS claimed credit for the 2 suicide bombs, one of them being a Yemeni.

        Hit were mostly people sitting at a coffee shop. One suicide bomber blew himself up and when people rushed to the scene, the second bomber blew himself up.

      • piotr
        January 10, 2015, 8:39 pm

        And this is how NYT reports the bombing in Lebanon. Simply by posting AP news:

        A suicide bombing at a coffee shop in the northern city of Tripoli killed at least seven people and wounded more than 30 on Saturday, security officials and the Red Cross said. The Nusra Front, a militant group in Syria, claimed responsibility on Twitter for the attack in the mainly Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen. The group said the attack was carried out by two bombers. Violence from Syria’s civil war has been spilling into Lebanon.

        The perpetrators are not even called terrorists, just a “militant group”, which perhaps is getting American support.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 12:30 am

        “Look, Hezbollah condemned the terrorism in Paris as well…”

        CNN ,made this into a big production, only to use the opportunity to bring in anti-Hizbullah “experts” to claim that this is a PR stunt by the “terrorist-Hizbullah”. CNN is like al-Jazeera except that instead of being staffed wall-to-wall by brothers rooting for the cause, it’s staffed wall-to-wall by Zionists rooting for Israel.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 8:46 am

        Last time i checked, the only countries on the planet formally classifying hizbollah and hamas as terrorist, were some EU countries, canada, australia, usa…plus japan…the token nation of color. Around 26 nations out of 200. That ratio is reversed when the terrorism question is applied to the apartheid state of Israel.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 4:55 am

        A dead hero in last night’s bombing in Tripoli that probably saved 40 other people from certain death. When he heard one guy scream out “Allahu Akbar” in the coffee shop, he immediately understood what was about to happen and jumped on the screamer and covered his body with his attenuating the force of the bomb worn by the suicide bomber as it exploded. A great hero.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 8:57 am

        Walid,

        It’s truly heroic what the Lebanese man did (he’s not been named yet). This is how it happened:
        The first suicide bomber entered the cafe and detonated himself, causing instant death and mayhem – people rushed into the cafe to help the dying and injured and after seven minutes of this, a second suicide bomber in the cafe caught the eye of a Lebanese man and as soon as the suicide bomber uttered “allahu akbar”, this man instantly jumped on the suicide bomber, absorbing thus a initial impact of the explosion, which indeed saved tens of lives.

        R,I.P. to victims of yesterday’s double-suicide bombing in Tripoli, Lebanon. 9 dead, 35 injured.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 9:06 am

        Yes, Taxi.
        I wish for more.
        Prez Obama is meeting someone somewhere tomorrow to address “extremism”. I wish that meant the causes…and everyone’s part.
        Instead, he means the armament salesmen will be allowed into the oval office and he will throw more money at them…and tell them to fix it.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 9:06 am

        “Last time i checked, the only countries on the planet formally classifying hizbollah and hamas as terrorist, were some EU countries, canada, australia, usa…plus japan… :

        CigarGod, the 26 or so countries that consider Hizbullah a terrorist organization all take their marching orders from the US.

        If tomorrow morning Hizbullah was to forsake the Palestinian cause by accepting Israel, how many seconds do you think it would take for all these countries to take Hizbullah off their black list?

        Good news for the Jews of France, Netanyahu just announced to them that their home is Israel and they have nothing to worry about. I’m surprised France doesn’t kick him out of the country for that remark.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 9:10 am

        Good morning, Walid,
        1. Yes, of course.
        2. Good ol’ bibi…I’ll save you…jump into my frying pan.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 9:24 am

        Cigar,

        There are approximately 60.000 jihadi terrorists fighting in Syria – the more the Syria army kills them, the more they keep hoarding in through TURKEY! Of course, paid for by oily Arabs and armed, trained and given intelligence and medical succor by israel, usa, uk, france and even frigging canada and australia.

        Just watch how these pet terrorists eventually kill a few in all the above mentioned countries.

        And the more I think about it, the more I see a complete mosad set-up in the Charlie affair – some similarities here with the Boston bombing: young zealots with impressionable minds and a nasty axe to grind. Ripe for recruitment for mosad false-flag ops in the west.

        I mean israel knows very well it can’t fight the Arabs forever, so it just stirs up islamophobia across the western hemisphere so the christians can then step up and do the dirty deeds of the zionist jews.

        It’s israel’s dream to bring back fascism in europe and assert it’s footing in the usa.

        The big protest in Paris today is nothing but the likudization of western Europe.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 9:31 am

        Well, i love those spy books/films. Manchurian candidate, etc. A lot of it is true. Written by guys who used to do it…about guys who still do.

        The sad part…nah…the evil part…is the jujitsu move the israeli’s are using. The same strategies used against Jews…a blink of an eye ago.

      • eljay
        January 11, 2015, 6:11 pm

        The word “hero” has been overused to the point of triteness (e.g., Nathan Cirillo, victim of an Oct./2014 shooting in Ottawa, Canada). Which is a shame, because this guy is a f*cking hero!

        Abdelatif Saleh, the spokesperson for the Jabal Mohsen-based Arab Democratic Party, said one of the suicide bombers came into the cafe by himself and sat down before blowing himself up. “The second stood at the door, shouted religious slogans before blowing himself up.

        “One man in the cafe saw what was happening and jumped onto the second suicide bomber as soon as he shouted,” preventing a higher death toll, Saleh added, noting there were about 200 people in the cafe that night.

  64. American
    January 10, 2015, 2:31 pm

    Netanyahu….

    ”Maybe most Moslems are peaceful but until they recongize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible”

    Er?……well ok then Charlie ………”.maybe most Israelis and Jews are peaceful but until they recongize and destroy their their growing zionist cancer they must be held responsible.

    I swear the world is going to blow its own brains out with all this hypocrisy.

  65. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 3:12 pm

    FOX has been doing its utmost to add fuel to the fire of islamophobia for sometime .

    link to rightwingwatch.org

    http://www.salon.com/…/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_solve_it_with_a_bul..

    Now it is looking for some evidences of condemnation from muslim and islamic organizations but having difficulties in finding it
    despite

    “46 examples of Muslim outrage about Paris shooting that Fox News can’t seem..”

    “Not surprisingly, much of the “where is the Muslim outrage” outrage is coming from… Fox News, as Media Matters notes. Fox’s own Monica Crowley, for example, said that Muslims “should be condemning” the attack and that she hadn’t “heard any condemnation… from any groups.” Fox News’ America’s Newsroom guest Steve Emerson complained, “you don’t see denunciations of radical Islam, by name, by mainstream Islamic groups.” Bob Beckel, a host of Fox News’ The Five host said Muslims were “being quiet” about the shooting and accused the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of keeping “their mouth shut when things happen.” link to rawstory.com

    Like the wars to Iraq was no intelligence failure or eagerly awaiting war against Iran is nothing about real news and legitimate facts or threat – so is this yearning of FOX for moderate voices from among muslims . It is about establishing lies ,suppressing the truth,blaming the powerless,worshiping the violence,and whipping the hatred – FOX has mastered it all..

    • CigarGod
      January 11, 2015, 8:53 am

      FOX…i hope they someday find themselves in a glass box answering for their actions, as were previous ministers of propaganda.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 8:02 pm

        I remember I used to think: “FOX came in with Bush, it’ll go out with Bush.” At least I hoped it would.

  66. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 3:39 pm

    The world is a global village.This metaphor can be extended to ideas,feelings,identities ,and reactions to events . The event in France gives rise to fear of backlashes against muslims in Germany,Canada,and US.The events on Middle East or Pakistan give rise to same anger but misdirected against local Christians or sometimes against Yajids . But this is not new phenomenon . We have the capacity to interpret and internalize. We also have the capacity to misinterpret and project outward .But nothing usually happens until and unless an example is set up or an action is exhorted by the “expert” or the ” noble elite”. Media and the hosts on the show provide this ammunition to break the psychological boundaries. In US it is the bipartisan consensus for wars and the media composed of FOX and the CNN and WSJ .
    For the Islamic terrorists it is the preachers and the royals in Arab.

  67. German Lefty
    January 10, 2015, 4:37 pm

    I agree that Muslims should not be expected to distance themselves from crimes committed by other Muslims. However, I think that Muslims should voluntarily speak out against these crimes simply because they are crimes and speaking out against crimes is the right thing to do. Also: If Muslims don’t bother to speak out against the crimes committed by other Muslims, then they have no right to whine when non-Muslims don’t bother to speak out against the Islamophobia of fellow non-Muslims.
    Besides, speaking out against a crime is NOT the same as apologising for that crime. For example: I condemn the Holocaust. However, I will never apologise for the Holocaust or be ashamed of the Holocaust, because an apology or shame would imply culpability.

  68. talknic
    January 10, 2015, 4:42 pm

    “People just ask you to republish them as a symbolic act against censorship.”

    Better to not publish them as a far more honorable symbolic act against stupidly promoting hatred and bigotry

    • German Lefty
      January 10, 2015, 5:45 pm

      @ talknic
      stupidly promoting hatred and bigotry
      -> Actually, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons speak out against hatred and bigotry.

      • OyVey00
        January 10, 2015, 6:16 pm

        Maybe they do, but they’re so vulgar that this message is lost on me.

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2015, 7:01 pm

        >” Actually, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons speak out against hatred and bigotry.”

        Yes, I get it, it’s a joke (“satirical”). But it’s a joke that wears awfully thin very fast.

      • talknic
        January 25, 2015, 5:03 am

        @ German Lefty
        “Actually, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons speak out against hatred and bigotry”

        Is that what the Mohammad cartoons were doing?

  69. just
    January 10, 2015, 5:17 pm

    Many thanks to Netanyahu (and his minions) who has exploited this miserable disaster for his own gain. No class at all.

    RIP to the slain & their families and friends.

  70. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 6:14 pm

    “The people shot at Charlie Hebdo were innocent and didn’t deserve to die, and they also reinforced the status quo vis-a-vis Islamophobia, anti-semitism, and racism. There are no buts, there is no victim blaming, they were disrespectful and had a right to be and didn’t deserve to die for being rude. A lot of people struggle to see it this way so soon after the shootings but this is true.

    They shouldn’t be held as martyrs of freedom of speech, because it’s an insult to freedom of speech and the journalists and political prisoners who have actually braved their way around governments that severely punish you for speaking against them. Charlie Hebdo wrote and drew comfortably their office in Paris, not reporting on war crimes in the third world. ”
    link to counterpunch.org

  71. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 6:16 pm

    “Charlie Hebdo had made no secret of the fact that it intended to carry on provoking believing Muslims by targeting the Prophet. Most Muslims were angry about this, but ignored the insult. The paper had reprinted the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad in 2005 – the ones that depicted him as a Pakistani immigrant. The Danish newspaper admitted that it would never publish anything similar depicting Moses or the Jews (perhaps it had already done so: it certainly published articles supporting the Third Reich), but Charlie Hebdo sees itself as having a mission to defend republican secular values against all religions. It has occasionally attacked Catholicism, but it’s hardly ever taken on Judaism (though Israel’s numerous assaults on Palestinians have offered many opportunities) and has concentrated its mockery on Islam. French secularism today seems to encompass anything as long as it’s not Islamic. Denunciations of Islam have been relentless in France, with Michel Houellebecq’s new novel, Soumission (the word Islam means ‘submission’), the latest salvo. It predicts the country being ruled by a president from a group he calls the Muslim Fraternity. Charlie Hebdo, we should not forget, ran a cover lampooning Houellebecq on the day it was attacked. Defending its right to publish, regardless of consequences, is one thing, but sacralising a satirical paper that regularly targets those who are victims of a rampant Islamophobia is almost as foolish as justifying the acts of terror against it. Each feeds on the other.

    French law allows freedoms to be suspended under the threat of unrest or violence. Before now this provision has been invoked to forbid public appearances by the comedian Dieudonné (well known for making anti-Semitic jokes) and to ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations – France is the only Western country to do this. That such actions are not seen as problematic by a majority of the French people speaks volumes. It isn’t just the French: we didn’t see torchlight vigils or mass assemblies anywhere in Europe when it was revealed that the Muslim prisoners handed over to the US by many EU countries (with the plucky Poles and Labour-run Britain in the forefront) had been tortured by the CIA. There is a bit more at stake here than satire.” http://www.counterpunch.com

    Tariq Ali

    This essay originally appeared in the London Review of Books.

  72. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 6:18 pm

    Quoting a quote from Antiwar.com

    Turkicvoice 75p · 13 hours ago
    I just Google “Charlie hebdo cartoon” this stuff is disgusting almost cartoon porn!!!!

    cartoon 1. Turbaned man laying on his tummy fully naked backside exposed??

    cartoon 2. Turbaned man Naked on all fours bent over with penis and testicles and a star on the anus exposed.

    At first I Tried to defend this stuff but after doing a Google
    search I change my mind!!! people don’t deserve to die over this stuff
    but this stuff is idiotic, stupid,disgusting! and got 12 stupid innocent
    people murdered!

    I suggest everybody Google Charlie hebdo cartoons first then decide your opinion!! Do not fall for the game the Zionist media is playing!!!

    Ask your self what is the moral value or benefit to society of such images???? And if Main stream media is a tool for freedom of speech then why are none showing these images

    link to original.antiwar.com

  73. JeffB
    January 10, 2015, 6:21 pm

    @Talknic

    The same laws and UN Charter Israel itself agreed to uphold

    Israel has repeatedly indicated they don’t intend to uphold those laws. They have done so openly, and repeatedly for a long period of time. If the UN wanted to consider that repudiation of the treaty they could. They have not. Hence there is no agreement.

    • talknic
      January 12, 2015, 9:23 pm

      @ JeffB // The same laws and UN Charter Israel itself agreed to uphold //

      “Israel has repeatedly indicated they don’t intend to uphold those laws. They have done so openly, and repeatedly for a long period of time”

      Israel has not and the State of Israel does not have the right to persistent objection. Since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) Israel has officially obliged itself link to trumanlibrary.org and;
      officially confirmed that obligation over and over.

      Its obligation is still in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel link to pages.citebite.com and;
      in the Israeli Government’s plea for recognition, effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) (ibid) and;
      in Israel’s statement statement to the UNSC May 22 1948 link to pages.citebite.com and;
      in its statements to the UNSC in its plea for UN admission and;
      in 2015 according to Netanyahu link to google.com.au

      Now you’re telling us Netanyahu is a scummy &*&^%$ LIAR? WOW!!

      “the UN wanted to consider that repudiation of the treaty they could”

      You’re spouting more bullsh*t! It would take a UNSC Chapt VII resolution to take any such action against Israel. No one bothers to put a draft before the UNSC because under the current influence of the Zionist/Israeli lobby the US would veto it.

      Never the less all that does is allow the stupid frog to stay in the pot, where it crawled by purposefully creating illegal facts on the ground. Israel is still in breach of the binding Laws and UN Charter as re-affirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNSC affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the law. Instead Israel has chosen to purposefully continue its illegal activities in non-Israeli territory, in effect turning the heat up on itself.

      Your unsupported crappolla might work for you, but here it simply affords people the opportunity to refute your nonsense with facts, thereby showing readers just how pathetic and nonsensical Israel’s apologists are.

      • JeffB
        January 13, 2015, 7:06 am

        You’re spouting more bullsh*t! It would take a UNSC Chapt VII resolution to take any such action against Israel. No one bothers to put a draft before the UNSC because under the current influence of the Zionist/Israeli lobby the US would veto it.

        Yep. And the UN charter gives them that power. That’s politics. I can’t be in breach of a contract if you don’t agree I’m not in breach regardless of what some 3rd party thinks. If the UN does not declare Israel in breach they aren’t in breach.

        Never the less all that does is allow the stupid frog to stay in the pot, where it crawled by purposefully creating illegal facts on the ground. Israel is still in breach of the binding Laws and UN Charter as re-affirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNSC affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the law. Instead Israel has chosen to purposefully continue its illegal activities in non-Israeli territory, in effect turning the heat up on itself.

        What heat? The UN disagrees with Israeli policy and some countries agree with the UN and are annoying towards Israel. That’s the heat. The UN itself doesn’t take drastic action as you admitted, though I don’t buy into the problem being the all powerful mysterious “Zionist lobby”.

        The problem is very simple. Israel is now a strong country. Strong countries violate UN resolutions and no one does much about it. Israel is a hated country. Hated countries get mean things said about them in the UN.

        It is not about the occupation since there were tons of resolutions against Israel before the occupation. Heck there were tons of resolutions about Palestine going back to the 1930. The UN and its predecessors started with a position of a Jewish homeland in a British colony and by virtue of power (not law) they have had to roll back. The UN was part of the quartet which accepted the Clinton parameters of “what’s Jewish is Israeli” so you can continue to talk about the UN in theory but the actual UN disagrees with your oversimplified model.

      • talknic
        January 13, 2015, 12:12 pm

        @ JeffB ” I can’t be in breach of a contract if you don’t agree I’m not in breach regardless of what some 3rd party thinks. If the UN does not declare Israel in breach they aren’t in breach”

        They already have. Hundreds of Chapt VI UNSC resolutions emphasizing binding Laws and the UN Charter have been adopted, pleading with Israel to adhere to the law, showing clearly that Israel is in breach of the Laws and UN Charter as re-affirmed and emphasized by those resolutions. Try UNSC res 476 …. you have read a UNSC resolution?

        “What heat?

        BDS, diplomatic isolation, ICC, come to mind and the US veto vote is not the last port of call at the UN

        “The UN itself doesn’t take drastic action as you admitted,”

        LOL. It was an explanation of why your stupid assertion was bullsh*t! The UN cannot take ANY action via a Chapt VII resolution while the US congress mysteriously goes against the US international commitments to the law in respect to Israel. I.e., the US has never recognized one inch of territory outside of Israel’s self proclaimed boundaries of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) link to trumanlibrary.org because the US has a treaty from 1934 and was instrumental in the prohibition of acquiring territory by war link to pages.citebite.com now codified in the UN Charter

        “though I don’t buy into the problem being the all powerful mysterious “Zionist lobby””

        Nothing mysterious about money buying politicians pal.

        “The problem is very simple. Israel is now a strong country. Strong countries violate UN resolutions and no one does much about it.”

        Nonsense. Only some strong countries violate the UN charter with impunity we can count them on one hand and that in no way justifies what Israel does in violation on the UN Charter and International Law.

        As for Israel being a strong country … why does it rely on US military aid and monies from the diaspora and still have so many living in poverty? Why does it need to leach off of Germany, Israel wasn’t a holocaust victim.

        “Israel is a hated country. Hated countries get mean things said about them in the UN”

        Go kvetch to the Israeli Government and the Zionist Federation. Israel has had more opportunities to adhere to the Law and UN Charter afforded to it than any other country in the history of the UN. Instead of adhering to its obligations, it has INCREASED its illegal footprint in non-Israeli territories. The UN has been incredibly generous to Israel considering it has been operating in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” for 67 years

        “It is not about the occupation since there were tons of resolutions against Israel before the occupation”

        The occupation began in 1948 link to wp.me

        On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel answered questions put by the UNSC
        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
        “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestineoutside the territory of the State of Israel

        “international regulations”

        Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        “Heck there were tons of resolutions about Palestine going back to the 1930”

        I smell the familiar stench of Ziopoop wafting into the discussion

        . The UN and its predecessors started with a position of a Jewish homeland in a British colony”

        Didn’t take long for you to start the bullsh*t. It was not a British colony, the British did not claim it or colonize it. They administered it for the people of Palestine, ALL of them, including Jewish folk who immigrated there under the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 and gained Palestinian citizenship via the Palestine Nationality Law

        ” and by virtue of power (not law) they have had to roll back”

        More Ziopoop. You sure are full of it. The British had taken the Mandate role voluntarily and ended it voluntarily. The Mandate had to end so that either party could declare Independent statehood if they wished per UNGA res 181.

        “The UN was part of the quartet which accepted the Clinton parameters of “what’s Jewish is Israeli” so you can continue to talk about the UN in theory but the actual UN disagrees with your oversimplified model”

        Quote the UN … go ahead … I’ll wait … I’m used to waiting for answers and actual quotations from Israel’s apologists

  74. JeffB
    January 10, 2015, 6:39 pm

    @OyVey00

    Has Dawkins ever explicitly condemned Judaism

    Mostly he thinks Judaism isn’t worth the time too small a faith. Which BTW is exactly what people should think about Judaism and Israel, a level of attention proportionate to its size. But he thinks of Judaism what he thinks of other religions.

    There is a video called ” Why Judaism is Bad” which attacks Jewish day schools.

    Here are a few quotes which I think you could call condemnation:

    I am hard-pressed to name a pious Jew, dead or alive, who is a household name worldwide — except for Jesus.

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    Judaism, too, is a religion not a race. Complicated by a memetically inherited identity which leads many atheists to call themselves Jews.

    • RoHa
      January 10, 2015, 8:58 pm

      ““The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:”

      Meh. I would place him third. Dolores Umbrage comes first, followed by Lula from the Stephanie Plum novels.

      • Sibiriak
        January 11, 2015, 11:09 pm

        RoHa, in another thread you wrote:

        “I am always eager to lecture about grammatical issues, so I will support the first part of your correction. In “let’s go” the “let” is not permission but exhortation. The correct negation is “let’s not”

        The Oxford Modern English Grammar, however, seems to take a different view:

        —————-
        A special type of imperative is the let imperative, exemplified in (30) and (31). In these cases the speaker is included in the directive. Thus we can interpret (30) as ‘Let’s you and I have a look at the list’.

        The negated versions of let imperatives are formed with the negated dummy auxiliary verb DO.

        30 Let’s have a look at the list.

        31 Don’t let’s tell the police.

        Aarts, Bas (2011-02-10). Oxford Modern English Grammar (p.171).
        —————

        Perhaps that is a British variant. I wouldn’t use that construction myself.

    • OyVey00
      January 10, 2015, 9:07 pm

      I see, thanks.

    • traintosiberia
      January 10, 2015, 9:25 pm

      May be we move the dialogue to a different level and force to introduce a different perspective. For the Zionist it is not the Judaism but the entitlements and selective understanding of the history preceding and postdating the birth of Israel that what work as does the red flag for the raging bull before goring the the opposition .

      For the west (AKA American ) the ideas and the attributes that are given as self evident are as follow – the manifest destiny,the Founding Fathers ,the City on the Shining Hill ,the myth of Indispensable nation and the most notorious among those whoopers are the assertion that the Taxation Without Representation what drove the struggle for the separation from the Crown . Obviously there are other like the idea of “international community and the duty to protect ” and “spreading the democracy”
      . .These need to be debunked and dismantled from the conception .They are the reasons of so many ills that have ravaged and dehumanized the rest of the humanities starting from the Native and the Blacks from the inception of the Republic with the active participation of the slave owners land ( native Indian ) grabbing Founding fathers .

  75. traintosiberia
    January 10, 2015, 8:07 pm

    Richard Dawkins wonders and then answers why so fe Muslim noble laureate.
    He should delve into the Greek Geometry and try to find out why so many Greeks and no slave in the academy or painting,or in the innovation of new ideas in geometry and philosophy
    He should also focus same way why no Natives in US have got the noble prizes ( have they . I am not aware on science or Economics)
    He should also ask why so many Jewish are in Congress but not blacks,Latinos,or Asian or Chinese.
    Scientific studies and pursuits follow the same trend as politics ,trades,,business,and power projection of the ethnicities . It has always done . It will always .
    Sometimes one shall think of the world has missed out an entirely different set of development by restricting the trajectory of scientic opportunities to certain nationalities and ethnicities . It is easy to prove in history,social sciences and in case of economics to certain school
    Dawkins should also consider the vainglorious assertions of Lutwalk that by attacking Saddam (1991) the west was preempting any further scientific progress of Iraq .
    He should read the article in Guatdian( UK) on Tipu Sultan .

    • a blah chick
      January 11, 2015, 7:59 am

      I guess by that logic East Indian kids must be natural good spellers because so many have won the National Spelling Bee. I believe ten out of the past fourteen champs have Indian-American.
      Which proves that if you come from a community that encouages scholarship (and you have the facilities to see them educated) and a culture with a history of memorization you can dominate the spelling bee.

      Dawkins is an idiot.

  76. American
    January 10, 2015, 9:12 pm

    mj is having one of his good days……

    MJ Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg · 9h 9 hours ago

    If you supported Gaza massacre of unarmed defenseless civilians, shut the fuck up about Paris

    MJ Rosenberg [email protected]

    100’s of Muslim officials condemned killings. Not even J Street condemned killing of 200 kids in Gaza. Went to solidarity with IDF rallies

    MJ Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg · 7h 7 hours ago

    I hate the radical Islamists but THEY didn’t start war with us. We started it with the whole Muslim world. READ.

    ChristianChristensen @ChrChristensen · Jan 7

    Breivik killed 77 in Norway & no-one asked me as a white male of Nordic Christian background if I felt the need to condemn it. #CharlieHebdo

    MJ Rosenberg retweeted
    Pukkah Punjabi @PukkahPunjabi · 16h 16 hours ago

    Maybe not all white men are racist pricks but until they destroy @rupertmurdoch they must be held responsible

    MJ Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg · 9h 9 hours ago

    The dead kids on the beach in Gaza were no different than the dead of Paris, except they were CHILDREN, intentionally targeted

    MJ Rosenberg @MJayRosenberg · 9h 9 hours ago

    100’s of Muslim officials condemned killings. Not even J Street condemned killing of 200 kids in Gaza. Went to solidarity with IDF rallies

  77. RobertB
    January 10, 2015, 9:53 pm

    Anyone out there read that Paris police chief, Helric Fredou, who was investigating Charlie Hebdo, DIES MYSTERIOUSLY???

    • Walid
      January 11, 2015, 4:36 am

      Thanks to you, I just did.

      • Bornajoo
        January 11, 2015, 6:19 am

        @RobertB & Walid
        I read about it but you cannot find this story in the main stream media. Yet every single bit of the msm is covering every tiny aspect of the case in wall to wall coverage but this was left out.

        Apparently he shot himself with his service weapon in his office.

        And today Netanyahu and Lieberman will be up on the stage in the centre of Paris addressing around 700,000 people and many more more millions on TV. Think about where they were in relation to France just a week or so ago and look at the situation today. Amazing.

  78. Walid
    January 11, 2015, 4:17 am

    Absurdity of the day: it appears that the suspect that got way in the Kosher supermarket crime, made her way to Turkey by plane (!) and from there simply entered Syria in the same manner as any other terrorist transiting through Turkey unhindered. But Erdogan will be participating in Hollande’s jamboree on Sunday.

    The smell is getting stronger and stronger.

    • Walid
      January 11, 2015, 7:59 am

      Change in the jamboree program, David Oglu will be attending instead of Erdogan.

      Speaking of smells, ISIS just released a video of the kosher superette killer swearing allegiance to ISIS. How timely. Pepe Escobar is also catching the smell of something about this story:

      “Who Profits From Killing Charlie?

      By Pepe Escobar

      January 10, 2015 “ICH” – “Asia Times”- Putin did it. Sorry, he didn’t. In the end, it was not Russia “aggression” that attacked the heart of Europe. It was a pro-style jihadi commando. Cui bono?

      Careful planning and preparation; Kalashnikovs; rocket-propelled grenade launcher; balaclavas; sand-colored ammunition vest stuffed with spare magazines; army boots; piece of cake escape in a black Citroen. And the icing on the lethal cake; faultless Paris-based logistical support to pull that off. A former top French military commander, Frederic Gallois, has stressed the perfect application of “urban guerrilla technique” (where are those notorious Western counter-terrorism “experts” when one needs them?)

      They might have spoken perfect French; others said it was broken French. Anyway, what matters is that they uttered the magic word; “We’re al-Qaeda.” Better yet; they told a man in the street, “Tell the media that this is al-Qaeda in Yemen”, which means, in American terror terminology, al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP), which had Charlie Hebdo’s editor/cartoonist Stephane Charbonnier (“Charb”) on a hit list duly promoted by AQAP’s glossy magazine Inspire. Accusation: “Insulting the Prophet Mohammed.”

      And just to make sure everyone had the perpetrators implanted on their brain, the killers also said, “Allahu Akbar”; “We have killed Charlie Hebdo”; and “We have avenged the Prophet.”

      Case closed? Well, it took only a few hours for French police to identify the (usual?) suspects; French-Algerian brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi. The third man – the driver of the black Citroen, 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad – then turned himself in with an ironclad alibi. So the third man remains a cipher.

      They all wore balaclavas. The Kouachi brothers have not been captured. But the police seem to know very well who they are. Because they found an abandoned ID in the black Citroen (oh, the troubles of being a command in a rush …) How come they didn’t know anything before the carnage?

      Right on cue, Cherif Kouachi’s bio was splattered all over. He was on a global watch list. Along with six others, he was sentenced in May 2008 to 3 years in prison for “terrorism”; in fact unloading a dozen young Frenchmen via madrassas in Egypt and Syria to none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the killed-by-an-American-missile former head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the spiritual father of Daesh/ISIS/ISIL.

      Also right on clue, a full narrative was ready for mass consumption. The key point; French police privileges the hypothesis of “Islamic terrorism”. According to their “experts”, this could be an attack “ordered from abroad and executed by jihadis coming back from Syria that have escaped us”, or it could be “suburban idiots that radicalized themselves and concocted this military attack in the name of al-Qaeda… ”

      link to informationclearinghouse.info

      And Obama just announced a February 18th meeting of world leaders in Washington to discuss the problem of worldwide terrorism.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 9:11 am

        Walid,

        So the leaders of the so-called civilized West are gonna be mixing with riff-raff and protesting on the streets of Paris?

        LOL – I’m sorry but I just gotta chuckle a moment or two here – I mean doesn’t this show us that our leaders haven’t got a clue on what to do about terrorism (that they create)? They’re protesting in the streets when they’ve ALREADY got the frigging POWER to change dangerous foreign policies into safer ones.

        I don’t know whether to weep or cry at this disgusting warmongering theater of the absurd.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 9:24 am

        Taxi,
        I’m developing a couple radio programs for the owner of our local radio station. He’s 69 years old…and no one but dinosaurs listen. He wanted to scedule a time for us to sit down and pick some “modern” music. I had to tell him…Bob, what qualifies you and me to pick what music 13 – 30 year olds would like? He asked in response: Well, isnt Elvis and Jerry lee lewis, modern?

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 9:33 am

        Taxi, I’ve been watching the jamboree in Paris for the last 2 hours and getting very nauseated by everything the CNN journalists are saying. Amanpour can’t pronounce 2 consecutive sentences without pronouncing the word “Israel”. There’s a big Israeli flag that the camera keeps zooming in on and almost all comments revolve around Israel. They keep repeating how everyone in France today are Jews, especially Prime Minister Valls, who is practically Jewish for real on his wife’s side. The jamboree appears to have 2 objectives, to raise Islamophobia and to short-circuit Marine Le Pen’s current popularity. Hollande until today hels a popularity of 17% and even Sarkozy never dropped that low. Then you have CNN pushing the thried objective about the Jews of France being insafe and so on. Very nauseating. Netanyahu and Abbas came out of nowhere from within the crowd and pushed themselves on the front line with Hollande. There, Amanpour just repeated again that all the French are Jews. It’s a circus.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 9:43 am

        Very disturbing. Actually…depressing.
        Whivh of you two guys used the “paleo” phrase this morning?
        Perfect.

        I guess i should help counter this nonsense…
        But cant figure out how to say: I am not a Jew…in a way people will get the point.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 9:48 am

        Lol that’s hillarious, Cigar – your radio story!

        @Walid, thanks for reporting on the mass media’s mass brainwashing.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 10:13 am

        ‘I am not Charlie:” cracks in the unity after Paris attacks:
        link to news.yahoo.com

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 10:21 am

        Good link.
        New hashtag:
        I vomit on hypocrisy.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 10:22 am

        ‘Israel must balance encouraging French aliya with not wanting to be seen as dancing on blood’:
        link to jpost.com
        link to twitter.com

      • a blah chick
        January 11, 2015, 10:31 am

        Wow, I don’t go in much for conspiracy theories but that article does make me go hmmmm..

        It recalls something I read on a website 11 or 12 years ago. It was a quote from an anonymous Israeli security man who was alleging that some suicide bombers were allowed to get through to their targets because their acts galvanized the Israeli Jewish public against Arabs. I have not seen this idea echoed anywhere else so I poo poo it on the basis of evidence. Israel had demonstrated on a number of occasions that it is perfectly willing to sacrifice Jewish lives to further their ends.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 10:33 am

        More smelly stuff. French authorities after having released the swearing-in of the Kosher superette killer, have announced that a search of his apartmnent has come up with loads and loads of arms and explosives and that he had rented it for one week ending today. It was also announced the wife of the killer (Koubaily) had left France for Turkey a couple of days before the Wednesday attack on the magazine and that she is probably the one that mailed in the video of her husband swearing allegiance to ISIS. Amanpour is making a big fuss of Le Pen’s refusal to join the march. She’s definitely campaigning for Hollande.

        There doesn’t appear to be any people from the inner cities in the march. These poor people from the slums are the recruitment centers for future terrorists. BTW, France’s second largest city, Marseille, with a population of 850,000 is over 40% Muslim. France is going to have do more than hold a giant jamboree in Paris to fix its big problem.

        I won’t say what BHL just said; some people may be having breakfast or lunch and I wouldn’t want to cause an accident.

        Hollande just announced that he will be going to Paris’ Grand Synagogue with Netanyahu.

      • Bornajoo
        January 11, 2015, 11:49 am

        Walid
        a few things about the 2 main videos from the Paris shooting.
        1. How come someone was right up there on the roof in the perfect camera angle at that moment? How could that person so calmly film the whole shoot out and getaway?
        2. The other roof angle further away which looks straight down the street shows a man wearing a flak jacket up on the roof, yes wearing body armour!! what was he doing there??!!
        3. When he shoots the policeman at almost point blank range there is not even one spot of blood, nothing. You don’t even see any blood in the later shots either. I think that’s impossible. Now since yesterday ALL of those videos have been removed from Youtube and Vimeo. You can just about see them on some of the conspiracy websites but if you go there to see them then you are labelled as a weirdo, a conspiracy theorist or someone who’s lost the plot.
        4. One of the shooters just happens to leave his ID around
        5. They name the girlfriend as armed and dangerous but then it turns out she wasn’t even in France and now she might be in Syria. Probably she is another loose end that needs to be eliminated

        The interesting part is the 3rd one who handed himself in with a cast iron alibi. Still waiting for news about that but it’s been conveniently forgotten. He probably did so to prevent being eliminated. But there is absolutely nothing about him in the MSM for the last 3 days. Need to keep an eye on that one.

        By the way I was a master debunker of 911 until a few years ago when I met a structural engineer who explained that the only way those buildings could collapse at free fall was by controlled demolition. Now I realise that the only thing that prevented me from questioning the so called official version was the limitations of my own conditioned mind

        Now i question everything. And I cannot bear to watch that hypocritical crap going on in Paris

      • American
        January 11, 2015, 10:37 am

        Walid
        January 11, 2015, 9:33 am

        Taxi, I’ve been watching the jamboree in Paris for the last 2 hours and getting very nauseated by everything the CNN journalists are saying. Amanpour can’t pronounce 2 consecutive sentences without pronouncing the word “Israel”. There’s a big Israeli flag that the camera keeps zooming in on and almost all comments revolve around Israel”>>>>>>

        Straight out of the nazi playbook…the *Motherland is in danger from the Jews, the Jews are a *threat to the Aryan Germans. Just change Jews to Muslims and Ayran Germans to everyone.
        They may be successful in generating a holocaust of Muslims or starting WWIII, which is what they are trying to do, but Israel might also end up being turned to ash.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 11:14 am

        Yep.
        Sometimes i wonder if these guys are all “flock-shooters”. Hunters that think if they aim at the flock…they will surely bring down one duck. They might be “sound shooters”. Hunters who just fire into a bush on the chance that there is a buck in it…instead of a bird, a fellow hunter on-stand, or just a leaf reacting to a breeze gust.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 10:39 am

        Walid,

        A couple of analysts on Al Mayadeen TV late last night predicted escalating civil strife in France: leading to civil war if islamophobia is not classified as a hate crime under French law.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 12:55 pm

        “Well, isnt Elvis and Jerry lee lewis, modern?”

        They were, at their best always ahead of their time, and will always be.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 1:03 pm

        Well…they both did marry girls…before their time.
        But, maybe i should be more understanding…because, in my isolated, low population middle of nowhere…if you ain’t datin’ yer cuzin, you ain’t datin’.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 1:05 pm

        Bornajoo, thanks; I hadn’t noticed all these things. The whole thing is very fishy.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 1:06 pm

        “Hunters who just fire into a bush on the chance that there is a buck”

        Gee, Cigar God, where do you think most Americans get the biggest (and most incontrovertible, you watch it over and over and it’s never different) portion of the information on guns, how to handle them, when to draw them, and when to shoot?
        Not that sissy stuff you get at gun safety class, but the kind of information which assures you it’s quite all right to go to Walmart with a toddler in one hand and a loaded, cocked pistol in your purse.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 1:22 pm

        Well…Mooser, in my part of the vacuum… gun safety education is instantly acquired as you slip thru the birth canal. This is also the same moment and process in which a pioneer woman gains an instant Ph.D in child rearing…and olive grove uprooting, etc.

      • Walid
        January 11, 2015, 1:18 pm

        “A couple of analysts on Al Mayadeen TV late last night predicted escalating civil strife in France: -”

        Taxi, there are several forces at work in France trying to light things up between the authorities and the Moslem community. There are also Arab hands playing in there too working the slums bringing religion to poor people. Unless France wakes up and starts working the banlieus, the prediction might just happen. They don’t need more mosques or madrassas in those districts but more jobs for the people. If the French can’t be bothered doing it, maybe the oil Arabs should start investing in such job-creation projects. Just imagine Marseille with 40% of its population being Moslem what would happen if the crazies of ISIS decided to set up shop there.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 1:54 pm

        Walid,

        More and more, the world is dividing into East and West. For some time, the West has been taking advantage of the East’s weakness: religious dogma. Now the east is beginning to take advantage of the West’s weakness: racism. Religious dogma and racism, if left unchecked, will be the ruin of a society.

        Let us be mindful here that the race card in America is on the spinning table too.

        Everyone is vulnerable. Except for Denmark:
        ““discrimination at home is as criminal as Islamic State recruiting.””
        link to cnsnews.com

        Only the Danes understand that they must first win the ideological war – otherwise it’s just gory killing fields ad infinitum.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 2:12 pm

        Who knew the Danes were fans of Sun Tzu:

        “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”.

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 2:22 pm

        Cigar,

        You gotta defeat the ideology – no avoiding that task if you’re serious about eradicating the ills of a religious movement.

        The Danish rehab program works so why aren’t the ‘other’ worried Western countries adopting it? And surely it’s a lot cheaper to rehab than to lock-down a whole country after every terrorist act.

        Not surprising that Denmark is consistently voted as the most civilized country in the world.

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 2:38 pm

        Essential to a magic act…to have one distracting hand. This is their Muslim trick.

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2015, 2:40 pm

        Taxi

        2 very impressive counter mainstream systems to deal with big problems are

        1. the Danish returning jihadi program
        link to theguardian.com

        2. how spain deals with out of control kids
        link to theguardian.com

        Scott Atran on why default approaches are so shit

        link to theguardian.com

      • RoHa
        January 11, 2015, 7:03 pm

        Danmark er et dejligt land.

    • Taxi
      January 11, 2015, 10:04 am

      A more fun protest was had at Dick Cheney’s house – guest speakers were Code Pink lol:
      link to news.yahoo.com

      • seafoid
        January 11, 2015, 11:31 am

        French “aliya” down to Israel is not gonna happen. Bukra fi mishmish.
        The picture of the butcher Netanyahu standing arm in arm with Hollande is nauseating.

  79. jon s
    January 11, 2015, 4:52 am

    The terrorists targetted the democratic value of freedom of expression, and then went after the Jews.
    So these are the slogans for today:

    We are all Charlie.

    We are all French Jews.

    • seafoid
      January 11, 2015, 5:07 am

      Democratic values- what are they, Jon? I don’t think you know anything about democracy. Over in Israel you are all nuts.

      And “we are all French Jews”- no we aren’t.

      We are all human.

      Or else every woman, of course

      link to youtube.com

    • a blah chick
      January 11, 2015, 11:40 am

      Were the kids in Gaza French Jews too?

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2015, 4:45 am

        No. They are all Amalek in Gaza. And Israeli is truth and light and has to kill them all.

    • Danaa
      January 11, 2015, 5:14 pm

      jon S “we are all French jews”

      You peddling the jewish meme is nothing short of nauseating. We are no such thing. Not with photos of the murderer and war criminal Netanyahoo, hand in hand with Hollande, looking ever so sanctimonious, ever the manipulator and schemer. Even as the blood of 500 children drips all around him. You can almost see the pink glow in the Paris lights. Any ralley that would allow this horrid creature to march is hypocritical. I feel sad for all those french people, led through irony’s door, like sheep. having convinced themselves that this all has something to do with “freedom of speech”.

      may be we should say instead, “we are all Ahmed” for the Muslim policeman shot in the line of duty? like someone above suggested (was it you taxi?)

      Or, better yet, what was the name of the hero at the Lebanon cafe that gave his life to protect many more people from getting killed?

      That’s who we should be.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 6:57 pm

        Danaa, when it’s evasive sanctimony, pretentious piety and zio-fiction you want, “Jon s” is the go-to guy around here.

      • Danaa
        January 14, 2015, 11:34 pm

        Why, thanks Mooser. I’ll definitely try to remember next time who I’m dealing with. Darn, to think that I wasted that “pink glow” and the “drapes of blood” on our jon-es. I really need to relocate my soap-box. Know of any public squares that may rent some cheap ones out (preferrably by the hour)?

    • Daniel Rich
      January 11, 2015, 6:08 pm

      @ jons,

      Q: The terrorists targetted the democratic value of freedom of expression, and then went after the Jews. So these are the slogans for today…

      R: 1 of the slain cops was a Muslim, but that turns him into a nobody, right?

      What’s the difference between a tribe and a ‘murder?’

      Want to discuss certain aspects of the holocanut [sorry, I work in for the movies] industry and see how long it last before your precocious ‘freedom of expression’ is tossed out of the window?

      Can you spell ‘hypocrite?’

      • jon s
        January 13, 2015, 4:18 am

        Danaa, The “we are all French Jews” slogan is an admirable gesture of solidarity with the Jewish community there, which is experiencing such an increase in Anti-Semitism, culminating in the kosher supermarket attack. Maybe as an anti-Zionist you should be especially interested in finding a response to Anti -Semitism , as an alternative to aliyah.

        Daniel Rich, What makes you think that I regard the Muslim cop as a nobody? In my view all innocent human lives have the same value, whether Jew, Muslim, Christian or whatever. Any deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians is equally repugnant.
        Why don’t you say what you mean by “certain aspects of the holocanut(!)”? As far as I know many aspects of the Holocaust are discussed frequently, but maybe the movie industry is different. Please enlighten us.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2015, 4:25 am

        “Any deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians is equally repugnant.”

        Except if the world’s most moral army calls them terrorists and there are civilians living in the area and it’s the fog of war and it’s the khamas in which case it’s Manichean and unfortunately we do everything to minimize deaths including shooting to the head.

    • jon s
      January 13, 2015, 4:29 am

      Seafoid, Aliyah from France is already happening:

      link to tabletmag.com

      And this was before the most recent events. We’re at the point where we may not have enough housing and jobs for all Jews wishing to come.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2015, 5:00 am

        “Aliyah rates from Western Europe alone were up 88 percent since last year—with roughly 8,640 immigrants as compared to last year’s 4,600”

        And how many Israelis did reverse Aliyah/Yerida out of dodge to get away from the insufferable racism? Surely their houses are available. French Jews considering moving to Israel have to swap a multicultural modern society for a backward racist one. It’s a hard sell as the aliyah numbers show.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 7:02 pm

        “We’re at the point where we may not have enough housing and jobs for all Jews wishing to come.”

        Oh that won’t be a problem, “Jon s”! Just steal some more Palestinian land, put the French Jews on it, and tell them Israel will annex it one day, cause like, we wouldn’t other members of “the tribe” in the lurch, would we?

        Not enough housing? That’s a laugh “Jon s” There’s always more houses to steal, say better still, make those French Jews steal the houses themselves. Once they see how easy it is, with the backing of the IDF, they’ll never want a croissant again!

        So there’s “Jon s” for ya: ‘I am Charlie Hebdo, and would you like to buy some Occupied Territory?’
        Anyway “Jon s” I’m glad we know who this tragedy is ‘good for’.

      • Bornajoo
        January 14, 2015, 4:03 am

        “Oh that won’t be a problem, “Jon s”! Just steal some more Palestinian land, put the French Jews on it, and tell them Israel will annex it one day, cause like, we wouldn’t other members of “the tribe” in the lurch, would we?

        Not enough housing? That’s a laugh “Jon s” There’s always more houses to steal, say better still, make those French Jews steal the houses themselves. Once they see how easy it is, with the backing of the IDF, they’ll never want a croissant again.”

        I laughed my head off after reading your comment Mooser.
        Then I stopped laughing when I realised it was all true.

  80. marcherm
    January 11, 2015, 5:43 am

    The final test of ridicule is truth.

  81. American
    January 11, 2015, 8:20 am

    Hum…..Pastor Jones having second thoughts about his Koran burning rights…eh?

    U.S. News

    Koran-burning pastor pulls his image from mall french fry stand post-Charlie Hebdo

    link to rawstory.com

    ” A Florida pastor, notorious for publicly burning copies of the Koran, has removed his image from the front of a mall french fry stand he co-owns over concerns following the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in France, reports the Bradenton Herald.

    Pastor Terry Jones, part owner in Fry Guys Gourmet Fries located in a Bradenton mall, removed his image which sat on the counter beside pictures of the other two co-owners after the mall manager raised concerns.

    “At first I thought the pictures would not be so recognizable,” Jones said. “They were supposed to be more of a cartoon type of thing.”

    DeSoto Square Mall manager Robert Tackett was not previously aware of Jones history of burning copies of the Koran which landed him a spot on an al-Qaida ‘wanted dead or alive’ propaganda poster.

    Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier who was also on the poster that was re-circulated on Twitter this week with an X over Charbonnier’s face after he was murdered Wednesday in an attack that killed 12 in his Paris office.”

  82. CigarGod
    January 11, 2015, 10:25 am

    Here’s a better one, jons:
    We are not hypocrits.
    Ill give you a cigar if you put that slogan on your t-shirt.

  83. seanmcbride
    January 11, 2015, 11:12 am

    The fact that a major terrorist event smells funny doesn’t prove that it’s a false flag op or inside job. But it’s worth paying attention to the unfolding of any patterns of information and evidence that might lead to suspicions in that direction:

    1. [Google; charlie hebdo conspiracy link to google.com ]

    2. [Google; charlie hebdo false flag link to google.com ]

    3. [Google; charlie hebdo inside job link to google.com ]

    4. [Google; charlie hebdo mossad link to google.com ]

    Always reserve judgment on these matters until all the well-documented facts come together.

    My impression is that neoconservatives have engineered so many provocations directed at Islam and Muslims over the last decade that many of these incidents are now occurring spontaneously — mission accomplished, from the neocon standpoint. The flames are roaring nicely after being carefully lit and kindled.

  84. ricky23
    January 11, 2015, 11:20 am

    what is offensive about the cartoons? or can you not actually bear to look at them for fear they will hurt your eyes? were you also offended by “the life of brian” and “the last temptation of christ”. isn’t true that Islam is used a tool of oppression- keeping down women and gays. Explain what is so offensive.

    • seafoid
      January 11, 2015, 11:27 am

      They are as funny as jokes about hook nosed Jews counting money on the entrails of the working class.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 1:00 pm

        “They are as funny as jokes about hook nosed Jews counting money on the entrails of the working class.”

        And, I would think, nearly as effective. Did you see the conversation up-thread between “OyVey00” and “MRW”? It’s a doozy!

      • Taxi
        January 11, 2015, 1:07 pm

        Mooser,

        If you can directly debunk what MRW is saying then why don’t ya? I mean instead of all that slapstick: which is ticklish, yes, but not informative.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 8:13 pm

        “If you can directly debunk what MRW is saying”

        Wouldn’t think of it! Once I would have thought it important to do so, but now the evidence which might make someone think the only reason Jews were segregated and persecuted is because they wanted it so, is staring me in the face every day here.
        Perhaps I will have to revise my opinions on other the other great persecutions and genocides in the world in light of this, who knows.

        Can’t think of why I haven’t thought of this before. I must be dumb! Of course, when us Jews decided we would live in “sealed enclaves” of course we said “They (the Gentiles) made us do this!”

    • a blah chick
      January 11, 2015, 12:09 pm

      “Explain what is so offensive.”

      If I drew a picture of your mother having sex with a goat would you find that offensive? And if so why?

      • CigarGod
        January 11, 2015, 6:28 pm

        Ha!
        I think the phrase in the law that prohibits us from violence against those who insult us is: “…mere words…”. A picture of a Mother with a goat…isn’t…words…and i think more than…mere.
        However, it was written awhile ago…so im unclear on the meaning. But…i have always been cocked and loaded for such suggestions…about my mother…or yours. No @$!#ing warning need be given.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2015, 8:22 pm

        “If I drew a picture of your mother having sex with a goat would you find that offensive?”

        Wow, I can’t draw well enough for anybody to know the difference! Or what they are doing. Please, use your artistic skill in such a way that it degrades neither goats, nor Moms.

  85. a blah chick
    January 11, 2015, 11:39 am

    If the idea is to get away from Muslims why would any French Jew move to Israel were Muslims are an even higher percentage?

  86. Whizdom
    January 11, 2015, 11:54 am

    It isn’t funny because it invokes painful memories of centuries of persecution of a people by bigots, a history of centuries of expulsion, social and cultural marginalization and violence at the hands of Western Europeans. From Spain in the 15th Century, to the Balkans in the 20th, and the Fertile Crescent in the 21st the Muslims experienced death, displacement, slander and exploitation by bigoted Western Europeans. It is historical and inexorable. Today the majority of the world’s refugees are Muslim and it is getting worse.

  87. Taxi
    January 11, 2015, 1:29 pm

    There are the conspiracy theorists. And then there are conspiracies against conspiracy theorists:
    link to motherjones.com
    link to honestreporting.com

    Then there are conspiratists who just…. conspire to theorize the conspiracy theories of conspiracy theorists:
    link to rferl.org

    • Bornajoo
      January 11, 2015, 1:52 pm

      Taxi
      This is the whole problem. I actually can’t deal with the conspiracy websites. They seem to be there to create conspiracies out of everything. But in a situation like this, when facts are scarce, videos have been cleansed from public view, so many questions remain unanswered, this gives those conspiracy platforms more attention than they would get otherwise.

      But sometimes they grab stuff off the net before its removed and store it safely on their own sites so you end up having to go there for info. And when you do you are immediately labelled as a nut job.

      I like to see and analyse raw material myself but the establishment in charge doesn’t always let you do it. They hold all the cards and expect you to believe the official version, every time, without question. Well it’s exactly that attitude that makes me question everything twice… And when you do your just one of those nuts which in turn gives them another layer of protection.

      So many fishy things with this including the perfect timing and the sudden suicide of one of the police inspectors involved….. Let’s see if we get the full story. I doubt it

      • RoHa
        January 11, 2015, 6:47 pm

        If you don’t believe the official version, every time, without question, even when the official versions contradict each other simultaneously or serially, even when your daily experience or the empirical data shows the official version is false, you are a nut job.

        link to lewrockwell.com

        Get used to it.

      • Bornajoo
        January 11, 2015, 7:36 pm

        Thanks for the article RoHa.
        I can see the end game now. A white van will turn up, men with white coats will sedate me, stick a ODD sign on me, (oppositional defiant disorder) and whizz me off never to be seen again!
        That will be the fate of anyone who questions the original version.

      • Bornajoo
        January 11, 2015, 7:41 pm

        Or as Paul Craig Roberts says in his latest article

        “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.”

      • RoHa
        January 12, 2015, 1:21 am

        Won’t be the first time it’s been done.

        link to m.hrw.org
        link to washingtonsblog.com

        But I think I’ll be sent to the re-education camps in the North.

  88. Taxi
    January 11, 2015, 2:59 pm

    Well alright yeah!! J.K. Rowling chimes in on Charliegate:
    link to gawker.com
    link to twitter.com

    She can see a thick plot a mile away.

  89. JeffB
    January 11, 2015, 7:36 pm

    @piotr

    And this is how NYT reports the bombing in Lebanon. … The Nusra Front, a militant group in Syria, claimed responsibility on Twitter for the attack

    The perpetrators are not even called terrorists, just a “militant group”, which perhaps is getting American support.

    Jabhat al-Nusra is Al-Qaeda’s local branch. The NYTimes probably saw no need to call them a terrorist group. And no they aren’t getting American support.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 11, 2015, 8:07 pm

      . The NYTimes probably saw no need to call them a terrorist group.

      are you crazy? since when doesn’t the NYT call a suicide bomber a terrorist attack.

      And no they aren’t getting American support.

      it’s been a long day for me. i’ll find some supporting links later if someone doesn’t beat me to it. you are woefully misinformed.

      • JeffB
        January 11, 2015, 8:42 pm

        @Annie

        I think you were misunderstanding my point, Saying “Al Qaeda did X” where X is some sort of terrorism thing is saying it is a terrorist attack. I was just saying it would be redundant.

      • tree
        January 11, 2015, 8:43 pm

        i’ll find some supporting links later if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

        Here’s two of them after a quick 10 second search:

        “America is Losing its Covert Syria War: US Sponsored Al Nusra Rebels Defeated by Syrian Armed Forces”

        link to globalresearch.ca

        “Al Nusra makes gains in Syria with US support”

        link to communities.washingtontimes.com

      • Sibiriak
        January 11, 2015, 10:22 pm

        Regarding “The perpetrators are not even called terrorists, just a “militant group “

        This may or may not be relevant:

        As Bruce Hoffman has noted: “terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

        (…) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization ‘terrorist’ becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism.

        If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.”[3]

        For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like “bombers”, “militants”, etc “

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Sibiriak
        January 11, 2015, 11:33 pm

        Annie Robbins: it’s been a long day for me.

        Thanks for all the hard work. Your sharp intelligence and moral passion is greatly appreciated.

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2015, 12:58 pm

        Thanks, Tree. Nothing like a piece of reality to clear up the comment: “but it can’t be so!” The New York Times creates the perception that there is no way the U.S. funds Al-Q’adeh by exactly the kind of reporting Piotr referenced. Jeff’s logic is circular.

  90. JeffB
    January 11, 2015, 9:07 pm

    @tree

    globalresearch is a conspiracy site. washingtontimes is semi-legi but that’s a community and only says the arms fell into their control. That’s plausible. The USA government even admits that groups that they were backing ended up switching to al-Nusara Front. FWIW Qatar is their likely big backer which makes them Hamas cousins.

    • oldgeezer
      January 12, 2015, 1:34 pm

      Pull the other leg. Qatar, a US ally with three major US military bases and a recent 11bn arms deal.

      Yeah sure the US has no role in it.

      • JeffB
        January 12, 2015, 2:02 pm

        @oldgeeezer

        So in your theory is the Egyptian-Saudi-Jordian-Israeli axis then anti-USA as well as the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis? Of the 3 I’m going stick with the Egyptian-Saudi-Jordian-Israeli being the one most likely to represent USA opinion.

  91. Wissam Boustany
    January 12, 2015, 2:12 am

    MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL

    The Terrorist looked in the mirror
    and saw
    The Freedom Fighter.

    The Bomber Pilot looked in the mirror
    and saw
    The Suicide Bomber

    The Jewish State looked in the mirror
    and saw
    The Islamic State

    The problem with mirrors is that they are useless to those who are blinded by their own delusions.

    The pain of it all…lives lost forever, sacrificed in the service of other people’s delusions. I wonder what lessons will be learned from the latest tragedy, soon to be overtaken by many others to follow? I hope a lot more beyond the need to vamp up ‘cooperation between nations’ through ‘intelligence’ – because that is code for ‘we are going to continue doing more of the same and ignore the real issues’. It seems to me that the only solutions that are ever put forward, properly funded and carried through….are the military ones. On that basis, I predict that absolutely nothing is going to change and that more lives will be lost all over the world, for no reason, other than to service the delusions of people looking at each other in their respective mirrors and seeing nothing.

    Seeing millions of people march in Paris in the name of humanity today…of course this is truly touching. But I confess to feeling cold and disconnected in my gut; I cannot let go and participate in this outpouring of grief and solidarity because I can already see the whole thing being gate-crashed and hijacked by the same utterly discredited politicians who have serious blood on their hands. How do these ‘leaders’ conjure up the audacity and arrogance to appear in public, when their policies and actions have done nothing but inflame and exacerbate the unbearable realities that drive so many people beyond the edge?

    When will people all over the world muster up the humility and simplicity to finally say: I AM ME…JE SUIS MOI MÊME?

  92. michelle
    January 12, 2015, 8:16 am

    .
    children are being murdered by governments
    for throwing stones at tanks and playing on the beach
    scratch that
    children are being murdered by governments
    for being Musilm
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

  93. aiman
    January 12, 2015, 11:03 am

    Speaking as a Muslim, I condemn this heinous act against fellow children of Adam. Neither Charlie Hebdo nor Jyllands-Posten ever drew the Prophet, how can you draw someone you have not seen? They instead drew weird fantasies of their own mind reflecting their own anxieties and pleasures. The Meccans did much worse and didn’t have to die. As for free speech and satire in France, I’m a cultural relativist. I find some French attitudes annoying e.g. the notion that they are somehow more enlightened than the rest. That translates in this case into a right to ridicule the precious meanings of socio-economically deprived members their former colony. However, killing innocent and defenceless human beings is a great sin and has no justification in Islam. Just as the Popes of ages past gave passports to heaven, the Takfiris are distributing passports to heaven to young men looking for the thrill. Chris Hedges writes: “Becoming a holy warrior, a jihadist, a champion of an absolute and pure ideal, is an intoxicating conversion, a kind of rebirth that brings a sense of power and importance.” However there is no heaven for the doers of evil.

    • Walid
      January 13, 2015, 5:36 am

      Aiman, it’s going to get much worse in France. Neither the French Government nor Charlie Hebdo have learned anything from last week’s sorry events. For tomorrow’s release of Charlie Hebdo in about 2 million copies in about 15 different languages, the front cover will be of the Prophet holding up a “Je suis Charlie” poster. This should be enough to rile those other Moslems in France that did not join in the Sunday circus and things will probably become very ugly in France.

      I’ve seen anti-Moslem slurs by Charlie Hebdo and I’ve also seen ones that are anti-Christian and those are just as ugly as the ones against the Moslems. They are too ugly to describe here.

      There’ a small green photo of tomorrow’s cover in the article (and the Guardian people contributed 150,000 euros to Charlie Hebdo this week):

      link to theguardian.com

      • aiman
        January 13, 2015, 11:22 am

        Walid, regarding the next big issue: what I don’t get is why Charlie Hebdo and its most passionate supporters are running a free speech circuit on the backs of a largely poor section of French citizens. Housed in the banliues of all places. Also their depictions of the Prophet are unrealistic, cobbled together stereotypical Afghan Arabs. Their research is lazy to say the least; why research when you are enlightened. I’ve read they’ve been sued a number of times by the Catholics. It’s stupid and cruel to beat the disadvantaged and jobless on the head in the name of tradition. The descendants of the colonised Algerians in Algeria may still feel colonised in France and they are being given a reason to feel that they are. That’s the point: the “satirists” are paying homage to their own perceived “tradition” not on its own merit but at the expense of the angry and poor. Hebdo may be well-intentioned in the sense of including major French religions in their ridicule but there is wide power imbalance in society and further entrenches disadvantage. Chris Hedges has a great article up: link to truthdig.com. Thanks for the link to the Guardian. I must also say this is a great time for the corporate media.

  94. JeffB
    January 13, 2015, 1:37 pm

    @Talknic

    Quote the UN … go ahead … I’ll wait … I’m used to waiting for answers and actual quotations from Israel’s apologists

    link to unispal.un.org

    I think that’s pretty clear indication they were part of the quartet.

    As for the rest, it is pretty clear and has been for hundreds of years. The holder of a contract determines if the other party is at most in minor, material or fundamental breach. The UN not you gets to determine if Israel has violated the charter to the extent that it nullifies their arrangement under the charter. That’s basic law. If the UN is failing to declare Israel in fundamental breach then they aren’t. Period. It doesn’t matter what the contract says unless the other party wants to raise the level of breach they aren’t at that level of breach. The UN is still declaring minor breach i.e. do what you promised.

    • Mooser
      January 13, 2015, 7:16 pm

      “The holder of a contract determines if the other party is at most in minor, material or fundamental breach.”

      Holy Shit, are you stupid. No, when there’s a contract, both parties (or all parties) put in the contract who will arbitrate disagreements, and what process is to be used for this.
      Gosh, JeffyB, I hope nobody lets you handle money and stuff. You’d be in stir before you know it.

      And what “JeffyB”, is “the holder of a contract”? As far as I knew, there are “parties” to a contract.

      “Contracts” ? Oh, I see! “JeffyB”, are you getting mixed up with something you saw in a gangster movie ?

      • Whizdom
        January 13, 2015, 7:45 pm

        We Zionists need better defenders, we know this. But JeffyB was low bidder, and he is the cousin of an uncles’ sister and he needs something to do. So lighten up on him. With better facts to work with, he could go far.

    • talknic
      January 13, 2015, 8:02 pm

      @ JeffB Wonders will never cease … but what do we actually have? Support for your assertion? Nope. ‘fraid not.

      “I think that’s pretty clear indication they were part of the quartet”

      Uh huh. Typical of squirming apologists for illegal Israeli expansionism. Whether they were part of the quartet wasn’t in question Your assertion was. “The UN .. .. accepted the Clinton parameters of “what’s Jewish is Israeli”… the actual UN disagrees with your oversimplified model”

      The “actual UN” document you cited doesn’t mention it. It’s idiotic to cite a document that doesn’t support an assertion.

      What it does amongst other things is call for an

      immediate Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities ….. We call on Israel to fully comply with international humanitarian principles and to allow full and unimpeded access to humanitarian organizations and services. We call on Israel to refrain from the excessive use of force and undertake all possible efforts to ensure the protection of civilians.

      and

      We affirm that the Tenet and Mitchell plans must be fully implemented, including an end to all settlement activity. We affirm that there must be immediate, parallel and accelerated movement towards near-term and tangible political progress, and that there must be a defined series of steps leading to permanent peace — involving recognition, normalization and security between the sides, an end to Israeli occupation, and an end to the conflict. This will allow Israel to enjoy enduring peace and security and the Palestinian people to realize their hopes and aspirations in security and dignity.

      “The holder of a contract determines if the other party is at most in minor, material or fundamental breach”

      A) What is ‘minor’ about illegally acquiring territory by war and being in breach of the Geneva Conventions and B) what is it about the following you do not understand? Do you think the UNSC says these things for fun?

      Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

      Deploring the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

      Gravely concerned over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

      1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly;

      3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

      4. Reiterates that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council;

      5. Urgently calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city of Jerusalem;” link to domino.un.org

      “The UN not you gets to determine if Israel has violated the charter .. “

      That’s why I cite the UN.

      “to the extent that it nullifies their arrangement under the charter”

      As was explained earlier and contrary to your prior assertion, it is pointless to table a Chapt VII resolution while the US maintains its veto vote in the UNSC favoring the protection of Israel from actions against the breaches of the Charter and International Law outlined in hundreds of Chapt VI resolutions.

      ” That’s basic law. If the UN is failing to declare Israel in fundamental breach then they aren’t”

      Only a moron keeps ignoring the evidence that the UNSC have declared Israel in breach. UNSC res 476 is very clear and it is only one of EIGHT reminders of UNSC res 252 to Israel to adhere to its legal obligations. A failure to adhere to ones legal obligations is by default being in breach.

      ” It doesn’t matter what the contract says unless the other party wants to raise the level of breach they aren’t at that level of breach. The UN is still declaring minor breach i.e. do what you promised.

      Again with you weasel word ‘minor’ 67 years of occupation link to wp.me and territorial theft is not minor pal and;
      what Israel promised was to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter. It hasn’t. It is therefore in breach.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2015, 8:58 pm

        Yes, “talknic”, but you see Israel “holds the contract” so it can do what it wants.

        There is one thing JeffyB is very good at, and nobody can take this away from him!
        “JeffyB” and the arguments he makes, and the “facts” he uses to back them up, give us an accurate picture of how rigorously Zionist ideas are examined, and how well Zionists think them out. There’s also a lot of information there on the feelings and experience which go to make up the Zionist mind.
        And for this he went to college!

      • talknic
        January 14, 2015, 2:26 am

        @ Mooser
        “There is one thing JeffyB is very good at, and nobody can take this away from him!”

        JeffyB’s brief seems to …… say, they must allow hard working Hasbarristas to have briefs surely. They get caught so many times with their pants down. Without briefs it would be damned embarrassing and likely not a pleasant sight.

        Anyway, briefly, JeffyB’s brief seems to have been – Israel is not in breach of the UN Charter – the UN doesn’t say Israel is in breach – but there are hundreds of unfair UN resolutions against Israel for minor breaches – Israel is a powerful country so it can breach the UN Charter

        “And for this he went to college!”

        NO! I find that almost harder to believe than a Ziofied fact

  95. ritzl
    January 13, 2015, 4:59 pm

    Good (critical), long (contextual) article on Charlie Hebdo‘s slide into racism by a former CH writer, Olivier Cyran.

    “Encoding racism to make it imperceptible, and therefore socially acceptable”, is how Thomas Deltombe defines the function of Islamophobia, also described as a “machine for refining crude racism”[17]. These two formulas fit you like a glove.

    link to posthypnotic.randomstatic.net

  96. Whizdom
    January 13, 2015, 7:51 pm

    I don’t think Americans have a reference for the European press. We barely get Irony, much less, satire. Not since Mad magazine, we have no comprehensible analog to French Satire.

    But media is media, Hebdo is in the business of selling copies. racism sells. and Hebdo is chasing it.

  97. JeffB
    January 14, 2015, 6:27 am

    @Bornajoo

    Not enough housing? That’s a laugh “Jon s” There’s always more houses to steal, say better still, make those French Jews steal the houses themselves. Once they see how easy it is, with the backing of the IDF, they’ll never want a croissant again.”

    Israeli housing doesn’t look anything like Palestinian housing. The underlying infrastructure is entirely different as well. Which means it is built not stolen.

    Where do you BDSers get this nonsense?

    • Bornajoo
      January 14, 2015, 12:47 pm

      @JeffB
      “Israeli housing doesn’t look anything like Palestinian housing. The underlying infrastructure is entirely different as well. Which means it is built not stolen.”

      Does that mean it’s some kind of supremacist housing??

      After expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land all over Palestine Israel just 2 years after the Nakba passed the Absentee Property Law in 1950. The titles of all of these properties were then passed to The state of Israel’s Custodian of Absentee Property. This is how Israel just stole all of the pre-existing land and houses of the Palestinians which was then handed to newly arriving Jewish immigrants

      So the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their own land and their land and property was seized by the state of Israel. These same Palestinians were no longer allowed to return to their homes which were given to Jewish immigrants. That property belonged to other folks but the Zionists came and STOLE it. After stealing their land and property the Zionist state then set up their own state run property company called AMIDAR. Amidar, to this very day still controls a huge amount of land and property stolen from Palestinians in the Nakba. They have regular weekly auctions all over Israel where they still sell this land to the highest bidder. Anyone can go online and see these auctions. The ethnic cleansing continues, it has never stopped. In fact many French Jews, the wealthier ones, are buying up these older and more characterful Palestinian buildings built during the Ottoman period and doing them up. So the theft and illegal sale of what was stolen still continues

      And I’m under NO ILLUSION that the end game is to eventually *transfer* many more Palestinians out of their homeland and colonise as much as possible of the remaining 22% of Palestine. This is to make way for all of those new American, French and other European immigrants you Zionists are hoping will go settle there and help keep up with the inevitable demographic doomsday scenario Israel will eventually face

      And ALL settlements, every single one of them, including every single structure in those settlements are ILLEGAL under international law. You are welcome to keep your super structural house designs, or whatever you were going on about and I’m sure that the Palestinians will allow you to take the bricks and whatever else you can salvage back with you.

      • CigarGod
        January 15, 2015, 2:57 am

        Nice work, bornajoo.

    • Kris
      January 14, 2015, 1:38 pm

      @JeffB: “Israeli housing doesn’t look anything like Palestinian housing.” Given that around 25% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian, then what are you saying here? Only Jews are considered Israelis? Would this be like saying only Christians are Americans?

      This forensic architect says that it’s the houses of Israeli Jews that have red tile roofs, so that the IDF will not bomb them:

      link to theguardian.com

      • JeffB
        January 14, 2015, 2:32 pm

        @Kris

        @JeffB: “Israeli housing doesn’t look anything like Palestinian housing.”

        Given that around 25% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian, then what are you saying here? Only Jews are considered Israelis? Would this be like saying only Christians are Americans?

        The claim was that the houses were “stolen”. What I’m saying is the houses that Jewish Israelis live in have infrastructural differences and structural differences you don’t see in Israeli Arab or West Bank Palestinian housing. Many of these dependent on technologies that didn’t even exist in 1947/1967. Which is not to say there isn’t some overlap, but there is simply no way that the Israelis are living in “stolen” houses. Those houses were built by Israel.

        And I should mention when you talk to Israeli Arabs or West Bank Palestinians they agree. They interact with the Jewish infrastructure on a regular basis and want access to those sorts of infrastructural improvements.

        I’ve seen the red roofs. I’ve heard Israelis talk about how they planted markers (i.e. certain types of agriculture) so that artillery guys know what’s the line between what’s safe to hit or not hit. So I don’t know specifically about red roofs but that sounds plausible.

        As an aside They don’t want to live in over crowded 19th century housing with a few modernizations either. They’ve seen what the Jews do and they want that for themselves. What I (and BTW most Palestinians I’ve talked to agree) would like to see happen is infrastructure equality. But that means getting away from this whole “occupation” paradigm and accepting that Palestinians live in Israel and are going to continue to live in Israel. Right now if Israel makes infrastructure improvements that’s portrayed as “entrenching the occupation”. One of the things the rightwing Zionist parties are running on (most notably the HaBayit HaYehudi) is infrastructure improvements / equality. Economic development now for the Palestinians.

        I was objecting to the claim, which is just ridiculous, that Israelis “stole” their houses from Palestinians. This other discussion is more complex and nuanced though worth having if one wanted to discuss peace and not demonizing the Israelis with silly slogans.

  98. Taxi
    January 15, 2015, 3:46 am

    Here’s how we defeat the vulgarians: Bill Maher, wrong-headed neocons, and the real answer to “radical Islam” :
    link to salon.com

    I guess we can now label Bill Mahr as a vegan vulgarian.

Leave a Reply