Trending Topics:

It’s not the cartoons– a contrarian perspective from a Muslim cartoonist

Opinion
on 165 Comments

In the last few days I’ve seen more than enough cartoonish clichés of pens and pencils vs. swords and guns scrolling through my Twitter feed.

Pencils versus guns, really?

This is a lie

I don’t think this is about cartoons.

Imagine a world where the western powers were not invading, occupying, drone bombing, kidnapping, torturing and holding Muslims in prison without trial. Now try to imagine that world in which cartoonists who drew Islamophobic cartoons were murdered.

I can’t.

The right wing media uses opinion polls about Muslims to paint a black and white picture akin to the Rebel Alliance vs the Galactic Empire. They parade the freakshow that is Anjem Choudary as their go-to expert, as if he’s the spokesperson for the entire ummah in order to reinforce their position that Islam is a violent ideology. According to a Gallup poll in 2003, 72% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. In other words, you have 72% of the population that supports a violent, imperialist attack on Muslims.  According to al Qaeda’s beliefs, that means all 72% of those Americans are guilty and are legitimate targets. And that’s terrifyingly similar to what people like Bill Maher claim when they say hundreds of millions of Muslims support the attacks on Charlie Hebdo.

Why can’t Muslims just take a joke?

Despite one of the Kouachi brothers yelling “the prophet has been avenged” after he completed his mass murder spree, the Prophet has not been avenged. Why? Because you can’t hurt prophet Muhammed ﷺ‎ He’s The Prophet of God and he’s dead. He doesn’t get hurt. The hurt comes when people feel personally insulted by a racist and Islamophobic cartoon and they use that as an excuse to carry out murders. The honor of the prophet is a red herring.

Charlie Hebdo was an easier and more dramatic target than a military or governmental target, the latter having caused actual damage to Muslims but the former having had much less in the way of security obstacles. Charlie Hebdo was also hitlisted in al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine.

Freedom of expressions means the government cannot put you in jail for what you say but that doesn’t mean people can’t call you out on your bigotry

The Islamophobic cartoons in Charlie Hebdo are the American equivalent of white people drawing cartoons of African Americans as monkeys or Germans drawing cartoons mocking Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Cherif and Said Kouachi, the suspects in the terrorist attacks, are of Algerian ancestry. France’s Muslim population originates predominantly from its former North African colonies including Algeria. France’s brutal colonization of Algeria lasted 132 years and during the 8 year Algerian war of independence, 1 million Algerians died. It was only 50 years ago that the French left Algeria. Amedy Coulibaly, the suspect in the kosher supermarket shootings, was of Malian origin, another former French colony. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers, felt that printing cartoons mocking the beliefs of former colonial subjects was somehow a funny and cool thing to do. I disagree with them.

netanyahuMy role as a cartoonist is to challenge power and dominant narratives, not to attack marginalized people. I draw cartoons about Obama, Netanyahu, Arab dictators, and Israeli settlers because they’re the ones in power, they’re literally calling the shots and making people’s lives miserable. These are legitimate targets for political satire. Trying to satirize prophet Muhammed ﷺ‎  in a cartoon just makes you look like an ignorant jerk.

Tariq Ramadan made an important point on Democracy Now; Charlie Hebdo was going bankrupt a few years back so they switched from being “equal opportunity offenders” to targeting Muslims because that sold copies of their magazine. In other words, making money off Islamophobia. If true, this makes me sick.

And it would appear to be so. In Oliver Cyran’s epic takedown of his former employer, he painstakingly catalogues all the reasons why Charlie Hebdo took a dramatic turn for the worse. It’s definitely worth a read as much for its insights as for its scathing wit:

 Scarcely had I walked out, wearied by the dictatorial behaviour and corrupt promotion practices of the employer, than the Twin Towers fell and Caroline Fourest arrived in your editorial team. This double catastrophe set off a process of ideological reformatting which would drive off your former readers and attract new ones – a cleaner readership, more interested in a light-hearted version of the “war on terror”  than the soft anarchy of [cartoonist] Gébé. Little by little, the wholesale denunciation of “beards”, veiled women and their imaginary accomplices became a central axis of your journalistic and satirical production. “Investigations” began to appear which accepted the wildest rumours as fact, like the so-called infiltration of the League of Human Rights (LDH) or European Social Forum (FSE) by a horde of bloodthirsty Salafists. The new impulse underway required the magazine to renounce the unruly attitude which had been its backbone up to then, and to form alliances with the most corrupt figures of the intellectual jet-set, such as Bernard-Henri Lévy or Antoine Sfeir, cosignatories in Charlie Hebdo of a grotesque “Manifesto of the Twelve against the New Islamic Totalitarianism”. Whoever could not see themselves in a worldview which opposed the civilized (Europeans) to obscurantists (Muslims) saw themselves quickly slapped with the label of “useful idiots” or “Islamoleftists”.

'We do it to Jews and Christians too'

‘We do it to Jews and Christians too’

People should be free to create whatever art they want. The culture they live in decides whether it’s offensive enough to end up being career suicide as it was for one of the former cartoonists for Charlie Hebdo who was fired for drawing an anti-Semitic cartoon. We cannot make offensive art illegal if we want to live in a free society, but we can examine the context and power structures under which bigoted cartoons are created and hopefully come to the conclusion that cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammed ﷺ‎ will just be considered one of those socially unacceptable things you just don’t do.

Drones and terror

Drones and terror

That’s not going to happen until citizens of western countries start viewing Muslims as actual human beings instead of “militants” or the group of people to collectively blame during a tragedy like this.

In a recording obtained by French radio station RTL, Amedy Coulibaly was speaking about legitimate grievances that had nothing to do with cartoons:

“Me, I was born in France. If they didn’t attack other countries, I wouldn’t be here.”

“Everybody could get together. If they could do it for Charlie Hebdo. Organize protests and let the Muslim people be, and we will let you be. Why are you not doing that?”

The solution to protecting our freedoms isn’t to bomb Muslim countries, torture Muslims and ramp up our surveillance of them. The solution is to stop the cycle so there will be no more motivation for these attacks.

Katie Miranda

Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, calligrapher, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR. Her Arabic calligraphy jewelry and apparel are favorites of people in the Palestine solidarity community. Katie runs Palbox: a quarterly subscription box containing Palestinian goods benefiting the Northern California branch of the International Solidarity Movement. Connect on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

Other posts by .


Posted In:

165 Responses

  1. pabelmont on January 14, 2015, 10:51 am

    Yes; not to mention that whereas the “threat” to the USA and its interests from world’s disaffected Muslims is small, the THREAT from global warming/climate change is real, present, and unbelievably enormous.

    So governments distract folks with loud proclamations (and brutal fighting against) the wrong threat.

    So, long live BIG-OIL, BIG-BANKS, BIG-ARMAMENTS, etc., at least in the short run (not so long) while we distract people from the real threats and (other) evils of our governments (i.e., in its oligarchic identity: BIG-OIL, BIG-BANKS, BIG-ARMAMENTS, etc.).

    • Keith on January 14, 2015, 6:34 pm

      PABELMONT- “…the THREAT from global warming/climate change is real, present, and unbelievably enormous.”

      Yes it is! Would I be correct in assuming that you are Peter Belmont from Brooklyn who posted the “metaphor” article over at CounterPunch? For those interested, I provide a link:
      http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/14/changing-the-global-warming-metaphor/

      • bilal a on January 15, 2015, 10:44 pm

        I knew friends deep inside CO2 emissions trading at BP / Enron at the beginning. The highest levels of energy companies love global warming as a business opportunity– it is a massive transfer of wealth from emitters ( humans, mammals ) to CO2 sinks , emissions credit providers, mainly forest owners, ie federal states, and the energy companies sit in the middle taking an intermediation fee. The emissions credit providers do not plant more trees, they just sell the credits on the federal land to the emitters. The emitters charge the consumers for the purchase and take an intermediation fee. The banks trade the credits. The same oil companies give generously to the climate change advocate ngos. True or not, its a great business scam for the elite.

      • Keith on January 16, 2015, 7:10 pm

        BILAL A- “True or not, its a great business scam for the elite.”

        Absolutely! Carbon trading is a big opportunity for financial gamesmanship and is not the answer to global warming. I provide a quote which you might find amusing.

        “Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?”

        “Well, you see, honey, when a polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they come together in a very special way to produce an extremely long piece of paper.” (Gar Lipow)

      • Bornajoo on January 16, 2015, 8:12 pm

        “Well, you see, honey, when a polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they come together in a very special way to produce an extremely long piece of paper.” (Gar Lipow)

        Too good!

        I’m afraid just something else for the brokers and bankers to bundle up and trade

  2. eljay on January 14, 2015, 10:56 am

    The solution to protecting our freedoms isn’t to bomb Muslim countries, torture Muslims and ramp up our surveillance of them. The solution is to stop the cycle so there will be no more motivation for these attacks.

    I agree. And the just or moral solution to offensive cartoons is to respond to them / protest them / counter them peacefully.

    Never, ever is a murder spree the just or moral solution to offensive cartoons.

    • Stephen Shenfield on January 14, 2015, 6:15 pm

      The cartoon as a genre has a long tradition of making the target look ugly and repulsive. It is not a form of rational criticism but relies on inducing a feeling of disgust in the reader. The whole tradition is one of bigotry. Katie Miranda’s cartoons do not belong to this tradition. Her drawings are emotionally neutral. Her aim is to make the reader think.

  3. Marnie on January 14, 2015, 11:06 am

    “Trying to satirize prophet Muhammed ﷺ‎ in a cartoon just makes you look like an ignorant jerk”.

    It would be a much nicer world if we would just respect each other. Muslims are ridiculed and disrespected all the time. The name for God, Allah, is often maligned as if it were a code word for jihad and it goes on from there. I don’t want to say anything else because I don’t know much at all about Islam and am trying to avoid looking like an ignorant jerk. It makes me very sad that the murder of parisian Jews was apparently much worse than the murder of parisian Muslims.

  4. HarryLaw on January 14, 2015, 11:07 am

    This is from Professor Norman Finkelsteins blog, very thought provoking.
    The Nazi publication Der Sturmer, edited by Julius Streicher, was notorious for its obscene anti-Semitic caricatures.

    Imagine if a pair of Jewish brothers, distraught at the death and destruction that had befallen the Jewish people, barged into the newspaper’s offices and murdered members of its staff.

    Would we hold up as martyrs and heroes those who chose to mock the deeply held beliefs of a suffering and despised people; to degrade, demean, insult and humiliate Jews in their hour of trial, when the world they had known was disintegrating around them?

    Imagine if a million Berliners turned out to mourn the political pornographers.

    Would we applaud this display of solidarity?

    Streicher was sentenced to death in the Nuremberg Trial.

    It is not reported that many in the enlightened West shed tears.
    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2015/01/13/ich-bin-der-sturmer/

    • lysias on January 14, 2015, 11:25 am

      Standing on the gallows platform, right before he was hanged, Streicher shouted, “Purimfest 1946!” He then told the American officer presiding over the executions, “The Bolsheviks will hang you one day.”

      Oddly, the Nuremberg tribunal acquitted the other propagandist on trial, radio newscaster Hans Fritzsche. I’ve always suspected the reason for the disparate treatment of the two propagandists was the repulsive impression Streicher’s appearance created.

  5. MRW on January 14, 2015, 11:31 am

    Good for you, Kate.

  6. lysias on January 14, 2015, 11:31 am

    I’ve asked posters here to post links to anti-Semitic caricatures from Charlie from the last five years. The sole response I’ve seen was an undated set of pictures that does indeed contain an anti-Semitic caricature, but the caricature is meant to represent the thinking of anti-Semites, and it is really anti-Semites whom the cartoon ridicules (at least if I properly understand the cartoon with my less than fluent French).

  7. HarryLaw on January 14, 2015, 11:49 am

    David Cameron defended the magazine’s right to offend.

    ‘When your freedom of expression is attacked in this way, I don’t think it’s surprising that people want to stand up and fight for that freedom of expression they believe in,’ he told Heart radio.

    Would Cameron defend the right of any magazine to be anti semitic, “posh boy” is the most nauseating hypocrite in British politics. I hate the gobshite.

    • American on January 14, 2015, 1:21 pm

      ” HarryLaw
      January 14, 2015, 11:49 am

      David Cameron defended the magazine’s right to offend…;
      >>>>>>

      France Arrests a Muslim Comedian For His Facebook Comments, Showing the Sham of the West’s “Free Speech” Celebration

      http://interc.pt/1u6hEPn
      https://twitter.com/ggreenwald

      ”It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. ”
      George Orwell, “1984”, first sentence

      Thirteen is here. I am afraid those of you who think there can be a peaceful resolution to the spreading world madness and chaos created by a select few are going to be disappointed…. Unless you can find something besides politicians to be world leaders.

      • michelle on January 15, 2015, 11:35 am

        .
        from
        cave pictures to pony express
        snail mail to e-mail
        .
        as the world grew/grows smaller
        the role of world leader(s)
        should have lessened
        .
        the people need less governing
        and more vote power
        the powerful need more governing
        and less vote power
        .
        i don’t vote, i won’t vote
        not until my vote will truly count
        i won’t take that placebo
        might as well vote on 2+2 or 1+3
        if there was a place to vote for a
        new vote with ‘better’ choices
        then i would be interested
        .
        and as far as “if ‘you’ don’t vote
        you can’t complain”
        whatever …. looks like i actually can
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

  8. aiman on January 14, 2015, 12:09 pm

    “Why? Because you can’t hurt prophet Muhammed.”

    Yes and no way of drawing the Prophet Muhammad or Jesus for that matter. It’s logically impossible. All attempts at such fantastic feats reveal more about the artist.

    “France’s Muslim population originates predominantly from its former North African colonies including Algeria. France’s brutal colonization of Algeria lasted 132 years and during the 8 year Algerian war of independence, 1 million Algerians died. It was only 50 years ago that the French left Algeria. Amedy Coulibaly, the suspect in the kosher supermarket shootings was of Senegalese origin, another former French colony. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers, felt that printing cartoons mocking the beliefs of former colonial subjects was somehow a funny and cool thing to do.”

    The key point in the cause of this tragedy. In my view bolstered by the false confidence given by the rise of Daesh; to make use of disaffected young men with identity crises; misleading them into the meaning of redemption. It could also be al-Qaeda trying to steal headlines from Daesh. The sin of the two brothers is falling for the devil’s whispers and committing twelve murders, wounding others and threatening a baby’s life. And lastly taking the name of God in vain.

    Excellent article.

  9. RobertB on January 14, 2015, 12:26 pm

    A Message From the Dispossessed

    By Chris Hedges

    January 12, 2015

    The cartoons of the Prophet in the Paris-based satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo are offensive and juvenile. None of them are funny. And they expose a grotesque double standard when it comes to Muslims. In France a Holocaust denier, or someone who denies the Armenian genocide, can be imprisoned for a year and forced to pay a $60,000 fine. It is a criminal act in France to mock the Holocaust the way Charlie Hebdo mocked Islam. French high school students must be taught about the Nazi persecution of the Jews, but these same students read almost nothing in their textbooks about the widespread French atrocities, including a death toll among Algerians that some sources set at more than 1 million, in the Algerian war for independence against colonial France. French law bans the public wearing of the burqa, a body covering for women that includes a mesh over the face, as well as the niqab, a full veil that has a small slit for the eyes. Women who wear these in public can be arrested, fined the equivalent of about $200 and forced to carry out community service. France banned rallies in support of the Palestinians last summer when Israel was carrying out daily airstrikes in Gaza that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. The message to Muslims is clear: Your traditions, history and suffering do not matter. Your story will not be heard. Joe Sacco had the courage to make this point in panels he drew for the Guardian newspaper. And as Sacco pointed out, if we cannot hear these stories we will endlessly trade state terror for terror.

    “It is dangerous to ignore this rage. But it is even more dangerous to refuse to examine and understand its origins. It did not arise from the Quran or Islam. It arose from mass despair, from palpable conditions of poverty, along with the West’s imperial violence, capitalist exploitation and hubris. As the resources of the world diminish, especially with the onslaught of climate change, the message we send to the unfortunate of the earth is stark and unequivocal: We have everything and if you try to take anything away from us we will kill you. The message the dispossessed send back is also stark and unequivocal. It was delivered in Paris. “

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40677.htm

    • Daniel Rich on January 14, 2015, 6:22 pm

      @ RobertB,

      Q: The cartoons of the Prophet…

      R: Democracy is not about what you are allowed to say, because it always falters when you dare to ask questions. A simple look at which questions are not allowed to be asked will suffice…

    • Marnie on January 15, 2015, 4:53 am

      It has been the job of the far right to insist that the violent actions of the smallest minority of Muslims is because of their crazy, violent religion (unlike the love-fest in the Jewish and Christian bibles LOL). The racist, rabidly right wing criminals continue to lead the sheep to drink from the well of “Its all in the Koran folks!”, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that historically Christians and Jews have been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries. I am sick to death of the lie repeated that is Islam = terrorism. Its funny but the zionists use the same logic with Judaism by insisting Zionism and Judaism are one in the same or if not one in the same they are inseparable. That crazy, f*cked up thinking is the oxygen the zionist state of Israel lives on and it’s droned into people worldwide by the hasbarists at http://www.hasbara.com and with the western ones at StandWithUs. This logic is to throw all Jews in the fire, to make them all guilty for the crimes of the zionist state, just because they are Jews.

      The cartoons by Charlie Hebdo only humiliate, mock and are ugly to look at, and are exactly like style of cartoons printed in Der Sturmer. This is not satire. This is hateful ignorance and it is acceptable only because it is about Muslims. Meanwhile, a person who questions things about the holocaust can end up in prison. And it is a crime for a woman to wear a burqa or niqab in France? Seriously? But its okay for a woman to display her breasts and ass publicly. Got it.

      • hophmi on January 15, 2015, 11:37 am

        “historically Christians and Jews have been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries.”

        Please detail how Jews how been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries.

      • Marnie on January 15, 2015, 2:45 pm

        Christians have a history of killing Muslims in the name of Christianity (the crusades; and in recent history since 2001 and Jewish congressmen and women were in favor to do this with one notable exception being the late senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, RIP) and Jews have a history of killing Muslims and stealing their land and wealth since the Balfour Declaration.

      • annie on January 15, 2015, 2:55 pm

        with one notable exception

        actually there were a few others besides wellstone at the time. http://www.democrats.com/node/6890

        Senators Who Voted Against the War

        ……let’s take a moment to look at the names and the words of the Senators who defied bullying by Team Bush and had the wisdom and courage to vote “nay” on October 11, 2002.

        Here are the brave ones:

        Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
        Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
        Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
        Robert Byrd (D-WV)
        Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
        Kent Conrad (D-ND)
        Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
        Mark Dayton (D-MN)
        Richard Durbin (D-IL)
        Russell Feingold (D-WI)
        Robert Graham (D-FL)
        Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
        James Jeffords (I-VT)
        Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
        Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
        Carl Levin (D-MI)
        Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
        Patty Murray (D-WA)
        Jack Reed (D-RI)
        Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
        Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
        Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
        Ron Wyden (D-OR)

      • Marnie on January 15, 2015, 3:03 pm

        I’m very embarassed. Thanks for the correction Annie.

      • annie on January 15, 2015, 4:02 pm

        that’s ok marnie. wellstone was the most dangerous. that’s why they killed him.

      • hophmi on January 15, 2015, 4:07 pm

        Who killed Wellstone? He went down in a small plane. It’s been known to happen.

        Another conspiracy theory, I guess.

        No wait, it was the Mossad working with Al Qaeda, right?

      • lysias on January 15, 2015, 4:07 pm

        And also, killing just one Wellstone served to intimidate others.

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 9:58 pm

        “Please detail how Jews how been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries.”

        Too late, Hophmi! Little late for a defense.
        Investigated, indicted, summoned, judged and sentenced, and all in one sentence. Best you can do now is plea-bargain. The present changes the past, Hophmi, you should know that.

      • hophmi on January 15, 2015, 10:22 pm

        I have no clue what you’re talking about, Mooser. There is no record of Jews killing Muslims and stealing their wealth. That’s untrue, and blatantly antisemitic.

      • Kris on January 15, 2015, 11:40 pm

        @hophmi: ” There is no record of Jews killing Muslims and stealing their wealth. That’s untrue, and blatantly antisemitic.”

        Here you go, a video archive of Jews describing what they did to the Palestinians in 1948: http://palestinemonitor.org/details.php?id=3r8rr4a930y68c20gx6p

        “Tel Aviv – “Towards a Common Archive” is a media exhibition in collaboration with the Israeli NGO Zochrot and the ongoing research project “A Common Archive, 1948 Palestine” by filmmaker Eyal Sivan and history professor Illan Pappe. The exhibition is supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

        “The project consists of 100 filmed testimonies of Jewish Israeli soldiers and commanders (both men and women) who have all taken part in the expulsion of the Palestinian people and their villages. It goes back to the preparation of the “village files” which took place in the 1930s and up to 1947-1948.”

        –snip–

        “The testimony of Binyamin Eshet (born in 1927, filmed in Kibbutz Palmachim July 2012) who is a holocaust survivor and served in the Israeli Palmach Brigades, presents an interesting insight to the perception of how it must have been like for the Palestinians to flee from their homes.

        “He tells about the caravan of Palestinian refugees fleeing from a-Lydd (Lod) in 1948: “[Palestinians were] walking with kids in their arms, pulling wagons, wagons with horses, this was … Now I didn’t realize this [at that time] – I had been in Europe, in 1946 Europe was a lot like this… I wasn’t aware of the fact that these were people turning into refugees.”

        “Binyamin Eshet explains in his testimony and continues, “It traumatized me. To see your grandfather and then see all that [the Palestinians fleeing], when you still have memories from the Holocaust.”

        “Eshet furthermore revealed in his testimony that a mass looting and burglaries of Palestinians houses took place in Lod before the army committed massacres against the Palestinians and forced the rest to escape.

        “Some soldiers became rich overnight, rich due to looting and theft of Palestinian property,” he said.”

        Hophmi, are you secretly on the side of the Palestinians? That must be why you lie even when the truth is so easily discovered–it’s as if you are a clever teacher, sending us on internet hunts to discover ever more facts that discredit Israel and Zionists. Good teachers know that when students discover information they are more likely to remember it.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 11:36 am

        “Please detail how Jews how been murdering Muslims and stealing their wealth for centuries.”

        You tell ’em Hophmi! It wasn’t the Jews who did that, it was the Zionists. So don’t blame us! I’m glad this is a two-way street.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 11:45 am

        “I have no clue what you’re talking about, Mooser. “

        Sure you do, Hophmi! You are part of the process! When people communicate (whether in writing or speech) with a guy like you, and get a load of your character and ideas, how could they possibly believe anybody ever pushed us around? The bravery, the forthrightness, and always, the fairness and ethics which make all the stereotypes simply vanish into thin air! And the feelings cause really, that’s a big part of it. Can’t leave those out. The way you make-a me feel, you knock me offa’ my feet!

        Yes, Hophmi, you are playing a role in busting those old stereotypes, and the way people see us now conditions the way they see the past. It was time the old stereotypes were replaced by modern digitally amplified quadratypes. Binaural won’t cut it, these days.

      • hophmi on January 16, 2015, 12:21 pm

        ” Jewish congressmen and women were in favor to do this with one notable exception being the late senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, RIP) ”

        So when a Congressperson votes who happens to be Jewish, that person does so as a Jew, and this is the same thing as the Crusaders?

        Gimme a break.

        “Jews have a history of killing Muslims and stealing their land and wealth since the Balfour Declaration.”

        Because they’re Muslims, or because there’s a conflict? And how many Jews have been killed by Muslims? (Thousands.) How many Jews living in the Arab world had their wealth plundered precisely because they were Jewish?

      • Mooser on January 17, 2015, 6:49 pm

        “I have no clue what you’re talking about, Mooser.”

        Hophmi, the present changes the past. You better get used to it. I admit, it caught me by surprise and freaked me out, but there it is. The present changes the past.

    • bilal a on January 15, 2015, 10:51 pm

      The wasp left and reactionary right converge against the Paris Je suis Netanyahu march.

      “Still, any truly pious Muslim is principally speaking more deserving of my admiration than a bunch of leftist satirical ‘artists’ for whom “nothing is sacred”–a fact they proudly stated and extolled as a kind of bizarre anti-virtue. It is the people of that same spirit–that same internal psychological orientation and signature–who have wrecked Europe, who have spat upon our symbols and perverted our civilization.

      Their “values” are nothing but a negation, a gaping black hole, the absence of God… death and damnation. The “new Europe” they have created is a grotesque counterfeit, deprived of any higher guidance or leading star. The “freedom” this system allows, indeed promotes, is only the ‘satanic’ freedom of falling ever lower into darkness and chaos. A suicidal freedom that allows soul-killing infections to spread unchecked.

      What does it matter if every Mosque is demolished and every subversive immigrant is expelled down, as long as Hollywood and the rest of the “culture” industry continues spitting forth products that pollute the minds of our youth, destroying all notions of purity and nobility–denigrating the idea of the sacred itself?

      There are forces in our very midst that are responsible for the corruption of generations. They have committed a spiritual crime of the highest order. The scope of it is sickening to witness and acknowledge.

      They are the enemy, and they do not depend upon Islam at the end of the day. Islam is no more than a cheap tool to them; entirely disposable. It is useful when it comes to atomizing Europe–not so useful those times when it gets in the way of global uniformization.

      A Radical Traditionalist Critique of the Anti-Islam Movement
      Jonathan Olavsson · January 15, 2015
      http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015/1/15/primary-diversion

  10. ThorsteinVeblen2012 on January 14, 2015, 12:49 pm

    In 2009 a writer was fired for making what was considered an antiSemitic statement after he refused to apologize. He was also prosecuted under French law.

    From the Telegraph:
    French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe
    A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.
    By Henry Samuel in Paris
    6:00AM GMT 27 Jan 2009
    Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of “inciting racial hatred” for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
    “L’affaire Sine” followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president’s son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: “He’ll go a long way in life, that little lad.”
    A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo’s editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: “I’d rather cut my balls off.”
    Mr Val’s decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech.
    Last week, the anti-capitalist, anti-clerical Sine, who recently founded his own weekly magazine, Sine Hebdo, took Claude Askolovitch, the journalist who first accused him of anti-Semitism, to court for slander in a separate case.
    “When I heard that I was being treated as anti-Semitic, my blood ran cold,” he said during the trial, adding that if Mr Askolovitch had turned up in person, “it is not a trial he would have had but a head butt.”
    Sine is the defendant in Tuesday’s court case in Lyon, southern France. The plaintiff is the anti-racism and anti-Semitism group, Licra.
    The issue of anti-Semitism, already sensitive in a country still marked by the Alfred Dreyfus affair – the Jewish army captain wrongly accused of spying in the 19th century – has become even more charged in recent weeks due to Israel’s Gaza offensive; France was hit by a series of anti-Semitic acts, including firebomb attacks on synagogues.
    The young Mr Sarkozy, who is now the leader of his father’s party in the president’s old fiefdom, the chic Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine, has since married. He has denied converting to Judaism.

    • Neil Schipper on January 16, 2015, 10:36 pm

      .. 1982 radio interview, shortly after a terrorist attack on Jews in central Paris, in which the cartoonist said: ‘Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it… I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die.’ Siné later apologised.

      ” ‘ Anti-Semitic’ satire divides liberal Paris”

      If any Charlie Hebdo writer ever said or wrote something resembling:

      Yes, I am anti-Muslim and I am not scared to admit it… I want all Muslims to live in fear, unless they are pro-Enlightenment. Let them die.

      .. even if they later apologized, we probably would have heard about it.

  11. Taxi on January 14, 2015, 1:25 pm

    My understanding is that the prophet Mohamad did not want his face depicted or illustrated because he feared people would start to worship his image instead of god, worship the messenger instead of the message. To worship people or objects is a form of paganism that the prophet was trying to shake off his people at the time. He self-identified as a ‘messenger’, not as a holier-than-thou god.

    I met a practicing Buddhist a few years ago who told me that her branch of Buddhism does not allow for meditating on symbols of god or even on holy scripture, but that the focus of their meditations are on the single abstract force behind creation (god). I think the prophet Mohamad was trying to instill this same approach in his people.

    • Mooser on January 14, 2015, 2:28 pm

      “My understanding is that the prophet Mohamad did not want his face depicted or illustrated because he feared people would start to worship his image instead of god,”

      Wait a minute, Taxi? Isn’t that concept called “aniconism”? You know, I heard about that in Hebrew School, what the he….it’s been a while…Now I remember, something about “the prohibition of graven images”

      I thought it was something Jews and Muslims had, (although it works itself out differently, I don’t think it is a basic command, like it is in the Ten Commandments of Judaism) in common.

      • Taxi on January 14, 2015, 3:01 pm

        Mooser,

        I’m sure you can appreciate the profound hostility between the monotheist and the pagans back in the days of deserts and gods and wine – I mean whine.

      • Mooser on January 14, 2015, 5:58 pm

        Very talented friend of my wife’s once organized the Kitsap County Fair around the slogan: “The Days of Swine and Roses”

        But still RoHa, we might have to take credit for being the ones to start that whole idea, that images or statues are worth killing over, and must be controlled. Or else why have a prohibition?

      • Daniel Rich on January 14, 2015, 6:16 pm

        @ Mooser,

        Back in the day, when Mooses went up the mountain to find plurality in unity, by declaring singularity wasn’t among the 11 09 13 07 10 commandments, we shoved that golden calf into the nearest bank and produced CCs.

        Owning the banks also helped…

        Fortunately we’re modest…

      • Mooser on January 14, 2015, 8:59 pm

        Daniel, what do you suppose they did to you if they caught you with a “graven image” back then, in Ten Commandment days? Probably was pretty icky, and probably terminal.
        So I guess that’s where the idea of killing people over images may have come from. In Islam, aniconism seems to a subsidiary tradition, varying from place to place and time to time (and of course, the compensation for not featuring animal or human figures is the multiplicity of beautiful symbolic patterns and designs, I would guess).

        But in Judaism, aniconism is one of the central tenets, in the Ten Commandments. Am I the only one who has noticed this?

      • Daniel Rich on January 15, 2015, 2:19 am

        @ Mooser,

        Q: Am I the only one who has noticed this?

        R: Wouldn’t an empty chair be the best solution [so anyone can imagine a deity sitting in or on it] or would the fight/killing then be over the fact that it’s a cold, formless ‘Target‘ thing?

      • MRW on January 15, 2015, 4:03 am

        @Mooser

        In Islam, aniconism seems to a subsidiary tradition, varying from place to place and time to time

        Subsidiary? Not a chance. It’s basic. It’s why Charlie Hebdo happened, fercrissake. It’s what those idiot Europeans, and many Americans, don’t seem to understand. Or, respect.

        BTW, thanks for the word. Now I can sound intelligent. ;-)

      • michelle on January 15, 2015, 12:15 pm

        .
        all creation
        It’s all G-d
        to focus on one object
        rather than the whole of life
        is a blasphemy
        #1 of the top ten
        .
        G-d was in each of those people that were killed
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:13 pm

        “Subsidiary? Not a chance. It’s basic.”

        “The Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry.[1][2] Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down. Because these hadith are tied to particular events in the life of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, they need to be interpreted in order to be applied in any general manner.”

        You can tell me if that is more “basic” than the Ten Commandments. I never argue with an elite education.

      • MRW on January 16, 2015, 10:16 am

        it merely condemns idolatry

        Which I’ve been saying in my posts.

    • JWalters on January 14, 2015, 5:48 pm

      The Ba’hai faith has a similar prohibition on images of its founder for the same reason.

      In other misunderstandings, the Koran says that the purpose of this book is to bring the story of the God of Moses and Jesus to a people who had not received it yet. In other words, Muslims worship the SAME God as the Jews. Israel’s first Prime Minister ignorantly claimed they worshiped a different god, and that was part of his excuse for making war on them.

      Further, the Koran specifically says God makes no distinction between Jews, Christians, and Muslims if they do what is right. It accepts followers of all these religions. Where the Koran condemns Jews and Christians it is condemning hypocrites who have forsaken the spirit of their own religions for predatory practices.

      The later historical spread of Islam by war was not due to the Koran, any more than the spread of Christianity by war was due to the New Testament. These were both due to other political and human factors.

      • lysias on January 14, 2015, 6:55 pm

        “Allah” is also the word that Arabic-speaking Christians use for “God”. (I would hazard the guess that Arabic-speaking Jews do the same.) Not only that, but variants of “Allah” are also the word for “God” in Aramaic (Jesus’s language) and its dialect Syriac (the most important language after Greek and Latin for the Church Fathers).

      • Bornajoo on January 14, 2015, 7:05 pm

        Your guess is spot on Lysias. Arabic speaking Jews also use Allah for God. My mother uses it to this day

      • Mooser on January 14, 2015, 9:02 pm

        “Arabic speaking Jews also use Allah for God. My mother uses it to this day”

        Too, too, much too cool! For some reason, I think that is just so great! I don’t know why exactly, but it makes me feel good to hear about that.

      • Another Steve on January 16, 2015, 12:25 am

        Apparently, the word “Allah” is also cognate with the Hebrew “Elohim,” used in the Bible and in many translations is rendered as “God.”

      • RoHa on January 16, 2015, 4:26 am

        I have been told that “Allah” is a contraction of “al Ilah” (the god), but I do not know whether that is true.

    • Stephen Shenfield on January 14, 2015, 6:09 pm

      Abu Bakr announced the death of Mohamed in the following words: “Let those who worship Mohamed know that Mohamed is dead. Let those who worship God know that God will never die.”

      • MRW on January 15, 2015, 5:21 am

        The crux.

      • gamal on January 21, 2015, 10:44 am

        “Abu Bakr announced the death of Mohamed” which was a rebuke to the second caliph Umar, who refused to accept the news, Abu Bakr was Aisha’s father, the range of ages given for her by various sources at the time of her marriage goes from 6-14 yrs, by people who thought this unexceptional, and there is an extensive personal record of her relationship with Muhammad, which anyone can read, even in English, once they have overcome their righteous indignation etc, while its provenance can be questioned its content may surprise the uninitiated.

        the prohibition on pictures of the Prophets didn’t become established till after 1500ce, the Shia have never really followed this line, they love pictures of Ali, looking like a brunette Fabio, mostly the Prophet was, after 1500, shown as a man with a handkerchief for a face, but still there are loads of representations of him with a human face, Muslims have a habit of extending Quranic injunctions, despite the specific Quranic warning them not to do so, at least some of the Hanbali’s drink beer, as an expression of their fastidious literal reading of things, and keeping in mind that Malik’s Muwatta exists now in no less than 30 versions, the most widely accepted version was produced by an Iberian Berber who had no curiosity whatsoever about Elephants at least that’s what he told Malik, who was duly impressed.

        once it was well established that the mat’n or content of a Hadith or tradition of the Prophet could not be a reason for its rejection many wags had a field day constructing insulting and satirical ahadith of Muhammad all duly recorded and discussed within the literature, some times with appreciation for the ribaldry and jokes, sometimes not.

  12. OyVey00 on January 14, 2015, 1:37 pm

    French comic Dieudonne has just been arrested for “glorification of terrorism”, since he posted “I am Charlie Coulibaly” on facebook. This offense is apparently punishable with up to 7 years in prison.

    France, the country of free speech trololol

    • Kris on January 14, 2015, 4:40 pm

      France has arrested 54 people for “offensive speech” in the past few days:

      “Controversial comic Dieudonné was one of those taken into custody Wednesday morning for a Facebook post in which he declared: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly”—merging the names of the satire magazine and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed four hostages at a kosher market on Friday.”
      http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/14/days-after-free-speech-rally-france-arrests-54-people-offensive-speech

      • lysias on January 14, 2015, 5:14 pm

        Glenn Greenwald’s take on the arrest of Dieudonné: FRANCE ARRESTS A COMEDIAN FOR HIS FACEBOOK COMMENTS, SHOWING THE SHAM OF THE WEST’S “FREE SPEECH” CELEBRATION:

        Perhaps the most intellectually corrupted figure in this regard is, unsurprisingly, France’s most celebrated (and easily the world’s most overrated) public intellectual, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. He demands criminal suppression of anything smacking of anti-Jewish views (he called for Dieudonné’s shows to be banned (“I don’t understand why anyone even sees the need for debate”) and supported the 2009 firing of the Charlie Hebdo writer for a speech offense against Jews), while shamelessly parading around all last week as the Churchillian champion of free expression when it comes to anti-Muslim cartoons.

        But that, inevitably, is precisely the goal, and the effect, of laws that criminalize certain ideas and those who support such laws: to codify a system where the views they like are sanctified and the groups to which they belong protected. The views and groups they most dislike – and only them – are fair game for oppression and degradation.

        The arrest of this French comedian so soon after the epic Paris free speech march underscores this point more powerfully than anything I could have written about the selectivity and fraud of this week’s “free speech” parade. It also shows – yet again – why those who want to criminalize the ideas they most dislike are at least as dangerous and tyrannical as the ideas they target: at least.

      • MRW on January 15, 2015, 4:52 am

        I love Glenn Greenwald’s intellectual honesty.

    • MRW on January 15, 2015, 5:22 am

      So much for their vaunted free speech.

      Hypocrites. Forty world leaders marching for lies.

  13. hophmi on January 14, 2015, 1:54 pm

    “The Islamophobic cartoons in Charlie Hebdo are the American equivalent of white people drawing cartoons of African Americans as monkeys or Germans drawing cartoons mocking Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.”

    How? Where are Muslims enslaved or persecuted in the way African-Americans were in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century or like Jews during the Holocaust? Not in France, for sure, even though there is societal discrimination.

    This is not some small religion of a few million people. This is major world religion of 1.5 billion people and nearly five dozen countries. In many of those countries, Muslim majorities persecute minorities and newspapers publish bigoted cartoons about them. In others, radical Islamist groups wreak havoc, like Somalia, Nigeria, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and many others. You can’t just blame everything on Western imperialism, Katie.

    “The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers”

    Who? Was Ahmed Merabet shot in the head because he was a descendant of French colonizers? Was Georges Wolinski, who was descended from a Tunisian Jewish family, a descendant of French colonizers? Was Elsa Cayat, who had been received antisemitic phone calls for months, killed because she was descended from French colonizers? Was the kosher supermarket attacked because of French colonialism?

    • Donald on January 14, 2015, 7:06 pm

      Algeria was considered part of France. Its conquest and the early part of French rule involved the deaths of a large part of the Algerian population., according to my source Alastair Horne. The French then ruled it much like apartheid SA. You know this, so I don’t get your point.

      Some of your other points are valid and I’d copy them if I could figure out how to do this on an IPad. But you are mixing good points with bad ones.

      • hophmi on January 15, 2015, 1:38 pm

        “Algeria was considered part of France. Its conquest and the early part of French rule involved the deaths of a large part of the Algerian population., according to my source Alastair Horne. The French then ruled it much like apartheid SA. You know this, so I don’t get your point.”

        The French haven’t been in Algeria in half a century. France is not now persecuting Algerians or Muslims. So it is not the same thing as Germans drawing cartoon of Jews during the Holocaust or of Americans drawing cartoons of Black people during segregation or slavery times.

        Katie’s repeating lefty agitprop.

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 10:04 pm

        “The French haven’t been in Algeria in half a century.”

        I see. Is that the same statute of limitations you apply to the Holocaust and the crimes associated with it?

    • Whizdom on January 14, 2015, 7:23 pm

      The killer in the HyperCacher told the hostages he had nothing against Jews, but said anyone who paid taxes was culpable in the presence of the French Military in Africa, and he stated his cause was to get the French Military out of Africa, where by the way, the French support of Christian terrorists has resulted in the deaths and mutation and displacement of tens of thousands in the Central African Republic.

      Oddly he didn’t kill or threaten any of the hostages after the initial assault. In fact, he offered them food.

      • Mayhem on January 14, 2015, 8:35 pm

        No wisdom from Whizdom –
        Oddly he didn’t kill or threaten any of the hostages after the initial assault
        Yeh he only killed 4 people so he wasn’t such a bad guy!

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:18 pm

        “No wisdom from Whizdom –”

        Of course you won’t agree with “Whizdom”. Nope there’s no way you two could agree on anything. You see, “Mayhem” he describes himself as a “liberal Zionist” and I know what you think of them, “Mayhem”. He threatens everything you fight for and hold dear!

        Why, him and his kind want to toss thousands of Jews out of their homes!

      • eljay on January 15, 2015, 3:34 pm

        >> Whizdom: The killer in the HyperCacher told the hostages he had nothing against Jews, but said anyone who paid taxes was culpable in the presence of the French Military in Africa, and he stated his cause was to get the French Military out of Africa …

        I’d be more inclined to believe that had he attacked French military personnel – or even French police officers or politicians – rather than patrons of a Jewish French grocery store.

      • Whizdom on January 15, 2015, 3:45 pm

        Mayhem, one murder is a heinous crime, a murder of four is a massacre, no argument from me. But we often hear in defense of the Israeli security forces on charges of genocide, the argument that if they really wanted to do genocide, there would be a lot more dead.

        So this genocidal Jew hating killing machine had the perfect opportunity to run up the body count, but instead served them lunch, and made sure the elderly hostages were able to sit comfortably. For 7 hours he had total control over their life or death.

        It raises a question in one’s mind about his motivations. Definite horrific crime, but it casts a shadow on “all they want to do is to kill as many Jews as possible” as their principal motivation.

        I abhor the killings and wish the survivors a rapid recovery from this terrible ordeal.

      • Mayhem on January 15, 2015, 8:40 pm

        @mooser, you encapsulate a closed mentality that ignores what somebody might say and concentrate instead on the ‘color of their skin’. What hope is there for rational discussion if you dismiss what somebody has to say because of who they happen to be?

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 10:12 pm

        ” What hope is there for rational discussion if you dismiss what somebody has to say because of who they happen to be?”

        And, if you don’t mind my asking, who do you happen to be? What is it about who you “happen to be” that precludes rational discussion?

        But I want to assure you, “Mayhem” (if, indeeed, heh, heh, heh, that is your real name) that I give every one of your utterances all the considerations they deserve. Every one of them. Every, last, stinking, flushugginer and tzidiskovicirest one they deserve!

        Yes, “Mayhem”, that right, you heard me: tzidiskovicirest! I said it, and, I meant it!

  14. lysias on January 14, 2015, 2:23 pm

    Paul Craig Roberts’s arguments that the Charlie Hebdo attack was a false flag event strike me as quite powerful. Charlie Hebdo — Paul Craig Roberts.

    • Bornajoo on January 14, 2015, 6:43 pm

      Lysias
      Agree. I was going to mention a few more weird things like why is it that the police inspector’s alleged suicide is not mentioned in any of the msm? Also, now that the 3rd suspect has been released, what has happened to the REAL third suspect? The getaway driver? How come no mention of him? Is it because the 3rd suspect who turned himself in did so to prevent his own elimination?
      Then there’s the 2 separate groups claiming responsibility.
      I put a search into Google about the 3rd suspect and I found this article which is asking the same questions as I am. I don’t know this website but their questions are the same ones I would ask
      http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/unanswered-questions-paris-attacks-charlie-hebdo

      • Daniel Rich on January 14, 2015, 8:04 pm

        @ Bornajoo,

        Q: I was going to mention a few more weird things…

        R: My [biological] dad didn’t give me much advise, but the one thing I did learn from him was to learn to listen to my ‘gut feeling.’ That’s not something about being right or wrong, it’s about something personal and that, according to him, is never wrong.

        In this day and age we have to make do with tad bits of info, because there’s so much we’re not privy to, so much that takes place behind closed doors and steel-eyed curtains and that means you and I have to be honest about others as well as ourselves to get to that oh so allusive illusive elusive gem, aka truth.

        I, for one, like your style.

      • MRW on January 15, 2015, 5:29 am

        Got your back on that thinking, Bornajoo.

      • lysias on January 15, 2015, 12:16 pm

        Global Research now has a piece on the alleged suicide of the police inspector. Charlie Hebdo: Mystery Surrounding Death of French Policeman. Apparently there are problems about the deaths of some of the other police as well.

        I am starting to have flashbacks of Lee Harvey Oswald and the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippitt.

    • marc b. on January 14, 2015, 3:35 pm

      talk about your irony, lysias. I don’t know how that comment can be construed as ‘justifying terrorism’. I didn’t read your Guardian link but Dieudonne’s open letter makes a mockery of France’s commitment to liberte. And this from AP”

      France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and those glorifying terrorism and announced Wednesday it was sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East to work more closely with the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State militants.

      nothing says, ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’ more clearly than a mass domestic crackdown, coupled with threats of a widening international war. I don’t know if Hollande’s been waiting for this opportunity, but it would seem to contradict his recent public statements about French policy towards Palestine and Russia.

      • RoHa on January 14, 2015, 9:22 pm

        Maybe Hollande has a Cunning Plan. Crack down on speech, etc., send a carrier to support US moves, so as to get some diplomatic credit. Said credit will then be used to offset US contumely for selling stuff (e.g. ships) to Russia and saving French economy

      • bintbiba on January 15, 2015, 5:05 am

        I’m getting more and more confused and distressed every day!
        Bornajoo , Daniel …You make a lot of sense, and I do like your style.

  15. mcohen. on January 14, 2015, 2:43 pm

    katie miranda

    why the continued reference to ….attacking muslims,insulting muslims,muslim this muslim that…..why is everything in the muslim religion context

    the charlie hebdo murderers were algerian…… in syria they are arab…why is this a war on a religion,when it is not about religion but survival.

    survival comes first and religion provides the will and intent to survive but so do other factors….

    simply grouping together under “muslim” is laying the ground for war based on religion…us and them….

    africans,arabs,chechens,indonesians,malay,persians,turks…….these people must be understood in the context of there true nature….leave religion out of it

    • Mooser on January 14, 2015, 6:03 pm

      “africans,arabs,chechens,indonesians,malay,persians,turks…….these people must be understood in the context of there true nature………”

      And please tell me, mchoen, what is “there (sic) true nature? Would you mind telling me what the “true nature” of these “these people”?

      You won’t, because you are a coward, of the worst stripe. That, “mcohen” is, not to put too fine a point on it, your “true nature”. A stinkin coward.

      • RoHa on January 14, 2015, 9:23 pm

        Mooser, is there a key or some sort of guide on how to extract sense from mcohen’s posts?

      • mcohen. on January 15, 2015, 3:22 pm

        which mooser are you……..stinkin (without the g) coward…….

        lol……. jelly bone,let me explain

        the true nature of these people is simply there cultural
        differences ……take music for example,african music differs to arab music ..
        there language..the way they treat woman and children in society

        say something in yiddish

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:22 pm

        “Mooser, is there a key or some sort of guide on how to extract sense from mcohen’s posts?”

        Him? He’s not worth the effort. To cowardly to say what he thinks, but too frightened to ignore Mondoweiss. Must be a hell of a spot to be in.

        I suppose it’s better than “Jon s”s whipped-dog, murderous obsequiousness, on some days.

    • michelle on January 15, 2015, 2:05 pm

      .
      @ mcohen
      it might be more effective to request that the true aggressors
      leave religion out of it

      by including this religion the size of the ‘target’ is increased (or revealed)
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

      • mcohen. on January 15, 2015, 3:34 pm

        michele

        the aggressors as you refer to them are fighting for control of natural resources…it has nothing to do with relegion.relegion is simply a tool in the hands of both sides

        the target is oil and the enemy is arab…….who also happens to be muslim….it is that simple…if there was no oil in the middle east there would be no “war on terror”

      • michelle on January 15, 2015, 5:49 pm

        .
        in the effort to steal from the ‘Arabs’
        (i read that many in Gaza are offended when refered to
        as Arabs might be others who are of the same opinion)
        the aggressors have targeted the followers of the Muslim
        religion in all areas of the world
        just look at French laws that undress Muslim females
        under threat of large fines and/or prison
        .
        they are trying to steal more than natural resources
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

      • Mooser on January 17, 2015, 6:58 pm

        “it has nothing to do with relegion.relegion is simply a tool in the hands of both sides”

        Are you trying to say, “mcohen” that a couple of million G-d fearing, genuinely religious Jews are being ‘taken in’ by Zionist leaders? That they have all been ‘conned’ into lending their religion to a struggle for profit?

        But it’s sort of tough on them, don’t you think, being manipulated that way?

  16. JLewisDickerson on January 14, 2015, 3:11 pm

    RE: “I don’t think this is about cartoons.”

    ● REGARDING THE FRENCH COLONIZATION OF ALGERIA, SEE – http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/dont-civilizations-again#comment-737140

    ● REGARDING THE “QUASI-APARTHEID” OF FRENCH ALGERIA, SEE – http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/dont-civilizations-again#comment-737147

    P.S. French stamp (circa 1922) proudly showing beheaded Moroccans.
    IMAGE SOURCE – https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/554643361186189312
    IMAGE URL -https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7J9MdBCUAA1kEM.jpg

    • JLewisDickerson on January 14, 2015, 3:16 pm

      P.P.S. LARGELY UNRELATED, BUT WELL WORTH A WATCH/LISTEN :
      Efterklang – Cutting Ice To Snow Live in Paris 2012 [VIDEO, 04:21] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwHKxsAQjw
      Efterklang & The Danish National Chamber Orchestra – Cutting Ice To Snow (live) (taken from Performing Parades, 2009) [VIDEO, 07:53] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeRNFnpd160

      Efterklang and the Wordless Music Orchestra [VIDEO, 1:28:31] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4p5CMpai7s
      Efterklang and the Worldless Music Orchestra performed September 22, 2012 in the Grace Rainey Rogers Auditorium at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

      P.P.P.S. Efterklanghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efterklang

    • JLewisDickerson on January 14, 2015, 3:31 pm

      P.P.P.P.S FROM WIKIPEDIA [Paris massacre of 1961]:

      “Paris massacre” redirects here. For the 2015 incident, see Charlie Hebdo shooting.

      [EXCERPT] The Paris massacre of 1961 was a massacre in Paris on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French police attacked a forbidden demonstration of some 30,000 pro-FLN Algerians. Two months before, FLN had decided to increase the bombing in France and to resume the campaign against the pro-France Algerians and the rival Algerian nationalist organization called MNA in France. After 37 years of denial, in 1998 the French government acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of over 200.[1]
      The 17 October 1961 massacre appears to have been intentional, as has been demonstrated by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, who won a trial against Maurice Papon in 1999 — the latter was convicted in 1998 on charges of crimes against humanity for his role under the Vichy collaborationist regime during World War II. Official documentation and eyewitnesses within the Paris police department indeed suggest that the massacre was directed by Maurice Papon. Police records show that Papon called for officers in one station to be ‘subversive’ in quelling the demonstrations, and assured them protection from prosecution if they participated.[2] Many demonstrators died when they were violently herded by police into the River Seine, with some thrown from bridges after being beaten unconscious. Other demonstrators were killed within the courtyard of the Paris police headquarters after being arrested and delivered there in police buses. Officers who participated in the courtyard killings took the precaution of removing identification numbers from their uniforms, while senior officers ignored pleas by other policemen who were shocked when witnessing the brutality. Silence about the events within the police headquarters was further enforced by threats of reprisals from participating officers.
      Forty years later, Bertrand Delanoë, member of the Socialist Party (PS) and Mayor of Paris, put a plaque in remembrance of the massacre on the Saint-Michel bridge on 17 October 2001.[3][4] How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear, but estimates range from 70 to 200 people. In the absence of official estimates, the placard which commemorates the massacre stated: “In memory of the many Algerians killed during the bloody repression of the peaceful demonstration of 17 October 1961”. On 18 February 2007 (the day after Papon’s death), calls were made for a Paris Métro station under construction in Gennevilliers to be named “17 Octobre 1961” in commemoration of the massacre.[5][6] . . .

    • JLewisDickerson on January 21, 2015, 4:14 am

      P.P.P.P.P.S. ALSO SEE: “Striking Fear in Paris”, by Uri Avnery, CounterPunch.org, January 16-18, 2015

      [EXCERPT] . . . Apparently, there is a lot of anti-Semitism in France and other European countries, though probably far less than Islamophobia. But the fight between Jews and Arabs on French soil has little to do with anti-Semitism. It is a struggle imported from North Africa.

      When the Algerian war of liberation broke out in 1954, the Jews there had to choose sides. Almost all decided to support the colonial power, France, against the Algerian people.

      That had a historical background. In 1870, the French minister of justice, Adolphe Cremieux, who happened to be a Jew, conferred French citizenship on all Algerian Jews, separating them from their Muslim neighbors.

      The Algerian Liberation Front (FLN) tried very hard to draw the local Jews to their side. I know because I was somewhat involved. Their underground organization in France asked me to set up an Israeli support group, in order to convince our Algerian co-religionists. I founded the “Israeli Committee For A Free Algeria” and published material which was used by the FLN in their effort to win over the Jews.

      In vain. The local Jews, proud of their French citizenship, staunchly supported the colonists. In the end, the Jews were prominent in the OAS, the extreme French underground which conducted a bloody struggle against the freedom fighters. The result was that practically all the Jews fled Algeria together with the French when the day of reckoning arrived. They did not go to Israel. Almost all of them went to France. (Unlike the Moroccan and Tunisian Jews, many of whom came to Israel. Generally, the poorer and less educated chose Israel, while the French-educated elite went to France and Canada.)

      What we see now is the continuation of this war between Algerian Muslims and Jews on French soil. All the four “French” Jews killed in the attack had North African names and were buried in Israel. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/16/striking-fear-in-paris/

      • lysias on January 21, 2015, 10:31 am

        There’s another complication, the “Harkis”, the Algerian Muslims who fought for the French side during the Algerian War of Independence. It’s estimated that they and their descendants now number some 800,000 in France. They’re distinguished from the Évolués, the Algerian Muslims who adopted French culture while still in Algeria. Many of them and their descendants are now also in France.

  17. gracie fr on January 14, 2015, 3:42 pm

    – Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life. By demonizing Islam, you demonize everything associated with it, including, of course, Muslims.
    – The vilification of Islam which morphed into massive western-led Islamophobia helped validate the actions of western governments, however violent and abusive. The dehumanization of Muslims became an essential weapon in war.
    – It was also strategic: hating Islam and all Muslims is a very flexible tool that would make military intervention and economic sanctions possible anywhere where the West has political and economic interests. Hating Islam became a unifying rally-cry from advocates of sanctions on Sudan to anti-immigrant neo-Nazi groups in Germany, and everywhere else. The issue is no longer the violent means used to achieve political domination and control of natural resources, but, magically, it all was reduced to one single word: Islam; or, at best, Islam and something else: freedom of expression, women rights, and so forth.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/14/its-not-about-islam-it-never-was/

    The fact is that the role of religion in radicalisation (and deradicalisation) is grossly overestimated. There is actually no empirical evidence to support the claim that religion (any religion) and ideology are the primary motivators of violent extremism…[ Factors such as anger at injustice, moral superiority, a sense of identity and purpose, the promise of adventure, and becoming a hero have all been implicated in case studies of radicalisation. Religion and ideology serve as vehicles for an “us versus them” mentality and as the justification for violence against those who represent “the enemy”, but they are not the drivers of radicalisation.]

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/the-role-of-islam-in-radicalisation-is-grossly-overestimated?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Given his prior thorn-in-the-side status with the government, the Facebook comment for which Dieudonné was reportedly arrested was a convenient excuse and described as “justifying terrorism.”
    And of course the implications go far beyond the personal situation of Dieudonné.
    The French daily Le Figaro reports that Dieudonné was arrested by judicial police at his home near Paris for investigation of “apologie de terrorisme” – justifying or making an apologia for terrorism.Le Figaro published this screenshot of a posting on Dieudonné’s Facebook page that apparently precipitated the arrest. It is dated 11 January, the day of the Paris march.
    It states:
    After this historic march, what do I say… Legendary! A magic moment equal to the Big Bang that created the universe … or at least (more local) comparable to the crowning of [Gaullish king] Vercengétorix, I’m finally back home. Know that this evening, as far as I am concerned, I feel likeCharlie Coulibaly.
    Launching the French government’s newly declared (or re-declared) “war on terrorism,” and its crackdown on dissent, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that “racism, anti-Semitism and justifying terrorism” were “not opinions.”
    The arrest of Dieudonné shows that the government will decide what constitutes an “opinion.”
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/whos-charlie-france-cracks-down-free-speech-order-defend-it

    Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

    Prominent Rabbi Calls on Europe to Allow Jews to Carry Guns

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189932?utm_content=buffer11991&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.VLbV3sVNeb5

    Capitalizing on division, pandering to bigotry and fear. We’ve seen this before, along with the harm it causes. In the end however, who benefits from the escalation of militarization surveillance and the imprisonment of dissenting voices….?????

  18. just on January 14, 2015, 4:03 pm

    Powerful and true.

    Thank you, Katie. You are a wonderful & shining light.

  19. Daniel Rich on January 14, 2015, 6:01 pm

    …but… Netanyahoo’s tie and shirt are of the same color as this web site’s main template [white and blue]…

  20. wondering jew on January 14, 2015, 6:42 pm

    Haven’t read it all through, but it is excellent to get input from the local political cartoonist. Thanks, Kate.

  21. American on January 14, 2015, 9:28 pm

    Gets more insane every day. I hope France is not stupid enough to allow this. Its just asking for more trouble. I am beginning to see the possibility of concentration camps for European Muslims. Yes, the world is going mad…has gone mad.

    http://www.newsweek.com/change-gun-laws-europe-let-jews-carry-arms-says-leading-rabbi-299102?piano_t=1

    Change Gun Laws in Europe to Let Jews Carry Arms, Says Leading Rabbi

    A prominent Jewish leader has written to the governments of all the EU countries, calling on them to pass legislation giving special licence for Jewish people to carry guns.

    In a letter sent to interior ministries around Europe and obtained by Newsweek, Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director general of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE) and the European Jewish Association (EJA) – the largest federation of Jewish organizations and communities in Europe – writes: “We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.”

    Speaking to Newsweek, Rabbi Margolin added that he believes that “as many people within the Jewish community as possible” should carry weapons.
    ….

    Rabbi Margolin said that being allowed to carry a weapon would “allow our people to feel protected” adding that the weapons would all be registered. “We will be under the supervision of authorities. It would be completely controlled in the most professional way.”

    EU law does allow for the carrying of guns under a license, but leaves specific gun legislation down to individual member states. Neither the Department for Home Affairs and Migration in Brussels nor the UK Home Office were willing to comment on the letter at this stage.
    ….

    The rabbi said that the campaign to license arms has received positive comments from the Jewish community, with most people saying being armed with a weapon would allow them to feel more secure.

  22. Kay24 on January 14, 2015, 11:13 pm

    I really like the cartoon showing indifference to the killing by drones, and the shock shown for the killings by jihadists. Wow. It describes the situation perfectly. Every time a crime/murders are committed by so called Islamists, the outrage is well orchestrated, the media goes berserk, and the attacks on the religion even by comedians, predictable, while if it is a massacre by Israel or drone attacks by the US, it is always “Meh” (we are defending ourselves, attitude). There is a disparity in the reactions by the pretend pundits and media.

    Here is Russel Brand ridiculing Emerson on Faux News, for pretending he is an authority on (make believe) Muslim enclaves in Britain, and that Muslims are taking over Europe. Note the Faux News woman acting shocked, smug, and outraged. What a comedy of errors.
    Faux News is dumbing down it’s viewers.

    No wonder David Cameron said he almost choked on his porridge and called Emerson “an idiot”.
    That is saying it mildly. Heh.

  23. German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 5:56 am

    “The Islamophobic cartoons in Charlie Hebdo are the American equivalent of white people drawing cartoons of African Americans as monkeys or Germans drawing cartoons mocking Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.”
    -> That’s not comparable. Muslims are not a race. Black people are a race. Jews were persecuted by the Nazis because of their race, not because of their religion. The Jewish equivalent to cartoons about Mohammed would be cartoons about Moses, not cartoons about the Holocaust.

    “The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the descendants of colonizers, felt that printing cartoons mocking the beliefs of former colonial subjects was somehow a funny and cool thing to do.”
    -> By referring to the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo as “the descendants of colonizers”, you hold crimes against them that they didn’t commit. This is intolerable! Also, it’s the same silencing tactic that the Zionists use: “You are the descendants of Nazis. So, how dare you question anything that the Jewish state does!?”

    “Trying to satirize prophet Muhammed in a cartoon just makes you look like an ignorant jerk.”
    -> No, it makes you look like a rational person who rejects superstition.

    • German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 8:04 am

      “Charlie Hebdo was going bankrupt a few years back so they switched from being equal opportunity offenders to targeting Muslims because that sold copies of their magazine.”
      -> Refraining from equal opportunity offending doesn’t make you a bigot. I’ll explain my opinion in form of examples.
      Scenario A: The Charlie Hebdo journalists feel equal contempt for Zionism and ISIS. However, they decide to only publish anti-ISIS cartoons and to remain silent about Zionism, i.e. neither anti-Zionist cartoons nor pro-Zionist cartoons. The reason: The journalists know that the existence of their magazine depends on the money of Zionist readers/donors.
      -> In this scenario, the journalists are not bigoted because they reject Zionism as much as ISIS. It’s just external circumstances, which are not their own fault, that force them to refrain from speaking out against Zionism. You shouldn’t demonise people for not biting the hand that feeds them.
      Scenario B: The Charlie Hebdo journalists are opposed to ISIS but approve of Zionism. That’s why they don’t just publish anti-ISIS cartoons but also pro-Zionist cartoons.
      -> In this scenario, the journalists are bigoted because they don’t understand that Zionism is as wrong as what ISIS does.

      “Freedom of expressions means the government cannot put you in jail for what you say but that doesn’t mean people can’t call you out on your bigotry.”
      -> That’s undoubtedly true! But this is not the problem with the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The problem with the attack is that a certain group of Muslims refuse to understand that freedom of expression means that disagreement is not a justification for murder. So, please, don’t try to change the topic.

      • Kris on January 15, 2015, 1:40 pm

        GermanLefty: “The problem with the attack is that a certain group of Muslims refuse to understand that freedom of expression means that disagreement is not a justification for murder. So, please, don’t try to change the topic.”

        Maybe the “problem with the attack” is that even though we know that people who feel victimized and disrespected will lash out if they are provoked enough, there is a cruel impulse in our hearts that makes us enjoy provoking them.

        Sure, we have the right to offend Muslims by drawing cartoons of their prophet, but what is the point? I have the right to tell the grocery store clerk that the big hole in his earlobe, a new piercing, is ugly, but why would I deliberately offend him?

        If you respect someone, you don’t try to offend him. You try to understand what he considers to be respectful behavior.

        “R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means to me!” Apparently to Muslims, part of respect is NOT depicting their prophet. Why not try treating people with respect?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0

      • Kris on January 15, 2015, 2:25 pm

        It might be worth considering, too, why a lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity is being validated as “free speech” by world leaders who suppress free speech on a routine basis.

        We should be aware of how scapegoating has been used throughout history, and notice the parallels today. Our “leaders” are hurrying us into the abyss through accelerating environmental degradation, economic collapse and unending war, and most of us feel anxious and powerless. Focusing our attention and anxiety on Muslims and their supposed alienness is a successful, and intentional, diversion.

        Who benefits?

      • German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 4:44 pm

        @ Kris
        “I have the right to tell the grocery store clerk that the big hole in his earlobe, a new piercing, is ugly, but why would I deliberately offend him?”
        -> That’s not comparable. As far as I know, nobody has ever committed a crime in the name of his piercing and nobody has ever denied gays or women equal rights in the name of his piercing. So, other people’s piercings don’t pose a danger to my rights. That’s why I couldn’t care less about other people’s piercings. With religion, that’s completely different.

        “Apparently to Muslims, part of respect is NOT depicting their prophet.”
        -> If Muslims don’t want to depict their prophet, then they are free to refrain from it. As a non-Muslim, I totally respect the Muslims’ right to not draw their prophet. Likewise, Muslims have to respect my right to draw their prophet. Muslims can’t expect non-Muslims to adhere to Islamic teachings.

        “If you respect someone, you don’t try to offend him.”
        -> True! But whether I respect someone as a person, that depends on the individual. I have no general respect for Muslims as a group, or Christians as a group, or Jews as a group, or atheists as a group. Of course, I respect other people’s rights. However, as an atheist, I don’t see any reason to respect – or adhere to – other people’s religious beliefs.
        You say that I should respect other people’s religion. However, to many religious people, homophobia is part of their religion. Do you expect me to respect that, too?

    • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:27 pm

      ” Black people are a race.” Only if you need to see them that way. If you get something out of thinking there is some difference besides skin pigmentation, good for you.

      “Jews were persecuted by the Nazis because of their race, not because of their religion -“
      What race are Jews? What are the characteristics of “their race”? Funny coats, hats and hair?

      • lysias on January 15, 2015, 4:05 pm

        The fact that the Nazis’ view of the Jews as a race was incoherent does not mean they did not believe it. Hitler insists in Mein Kampf that a Jew is still a Jew, even if he converts.

      • German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 4:55 pm

        Thanks lysias. Perhaps I should have written something like “perceived race”. Then it would have been more obvious what I mean.
        Also, the same applies to African Americans. They were enslaved because of their race. Mooser seems to think that the mere mention of race is racist.

      • RoHa on January 15, 2015, 6:37 pm

        “Funny coats, hats and hair?”

        Yes, those are the genetic markers. Funny black clothes and hats (Australian Jews have corks dangling from theirs), beards, dreadlocks. The women cover their hair and wear long dresses. They all talk funny, too. You can see it all on display in the barn raising scene in Witness.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 11:55 am

        “Thanks lysias. Perhaps I should have written something like “perceived race”.”

        That would have fixed everything, and saved me endless fretting. And now that you’ve explained it, I won’t have to worry about it again. Thanks.

      • Mooser on January 17, 2015, 7:02 pm

        I’ve been extremely tense since the Hebdo killings, the intense conviction that in addition to the killings, nothing but bad and more bad, and no, no “freedom of speech” (IITL) will come out of it. I hope it doesn’t show. If I don’t have something nice to say, I shouldn’t say it.

  24. German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 6:11 am

    “We cannot make offensive art illegal if we want to live in a free society, but we can examine the context and power structures under which bigoted cartoons are created and hopefully come to the conclusion that cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammed will just be considered one of those socially unacceptable things you just don’t do.”
    -> Nope! The conclusion should be exactly vice versa. Mocking Christianity and Judaism should become as socially acceptable as mocking Islam. Because progressive, rational people realise that religion is ridiculous.

    Being a (former) victim group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!
    Being a minority group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!
    This does not just apply to Jews but also to Muslims.

    • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:32 pm

      “Being a minority group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!”

      German Lefty, So you think the stuff in Charlie Hebdo was “Criticism”. That’s some elevated idea of religious criticism you got there, pal.

      Yes, I’m sure many Muslims looked at Charlie Hebdo, and thought “Now there are some very acute and well-reasoned criticisms of Islam, worthy of further discussion”
      Do you think they should have, German “Lefty”?

      Wow, I’d love to make a graphic novel out of your comment archive, “Lefty”, as a form of “criticism”! With Charlie Hebdo setting the bar!

      • hophmi on January 15, 2015, 4:06 pm

        Actually, it’s an interesting question. How do most Muslims see the satire in Hebdo? Are most Muslims actually offended by it?

      • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 4:08 pm

        “Being a (former) victim group does NOT exempt you from being criticised!”

        Lucky Muslims!
        It’s nice when all that victimization ends, and you join the ranks of “(former) victim groups”

        I have got to stop this. I’ll end up making a fool of myself. If there’s anybody in the world who should know about the delineations of “race” it’s a German, uh “Lefty”.

      • German Lefty on January 15, 2015, 5:17 pm

        “So you think the stuff in Charlie Hebdo was criticism.”
        -> Yes, of course. The cartoons are accompanied by articles, which provide context.

        “I’m sure many Muslims looked at Charlie Hebdo, and thought ‘Now there are some very acute and well-reasoned criticisms of Islam, worthy of further discussion'”
        -> I think that many Muslims and people like you choose to judge the magazine by its covers and deliberately ignore the messages and explanations in its articles.

        “I’d love to make a graphic novel out of your comment archive, Lefty, as a form of criticism!”
        -> Lucky you, I’m a tolerant person and won’t kill you for it. So, I am more tolerant than the people you defend.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 11:58 am

        ” I think that many Muslims and people like you….”

        “Muslims and people like you”? Why, thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment. First time in my life, I think, I’ve been compared with Muslims in my deficiencies. A moment I will treasure, thanks. People usually me describe as “a typical Jew”, but I’m always willing to branch out!

        “Muslims, and people like you!“! Thanks again.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 12:01 pm

        Lucky you, I’m a tolerant person and won’t kill you for it.

        Very nice of you to make that assurance, “German Lefty”, considering it all, but don’t make any promises you can’t keep. Remember, you haven’t seen it yet.

    • michelle on January 15, 2015, 3:47 pm

      .
      there was a time when rational people and/or experts knew the world was flat
      .
      there are a great many enforced laws that protect Jews from negative criticism
      not so much for any other group …. any other group
      many of these laws were meant to protect any & every but they don’t
      .
      over time this fruit will sour
      .
      G-d Bless
      .

    • American on January 15, 2015, 7:43 pm

      ” Nope! The conclusion should be exactly vice versa. Mocking Christianity and Judaism should become as socially acceptable as mocking Islam. Because progressive, rational people realise that religion is ridiculous. – german lefty>>>>

      I think you are letting your own homosexuality issue cloud your judgement about religion and free speech.
      I am not particulary religious, sort of indifferent actually to religions, but if you want to champion attacking people’s religions as ridiculous then they have the right to attack your homosexuality as unnatural and freaky as their opinion also.

      • German Lefty on January 16, 2015, 3:56 pm

        @ American
        “if you want to champion attacking people’s religions as ridiculous then they have the right to attack your homosexuality as unnatural and freaky as their opinion also.”
        -> That’s not quite the same. First of all, sexual orientation is not a choice. Religion, however, is a choice. Second, you confuse rights with opinions. As I have already stated several times, I don’t deny Muslims equal rights. Most Muslims, however, deny gay people equal rights. And that’s the problem. They demand tolerance from others while not offering tolerance to others. Here’s an election poster of the German-Muslim BIG party that promotes denying gay people equal rights: http://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=20054
        I really don’t mind that most Muslims are of the opinion that homosexuality is a bad thing, but I do mind that most Muslims want to deny me equal rights. As long as most Muslims aren’t even willing to respect my RIGHTS, I don’t see why I should be willing to consider their FEELINGS regarding their prophet.

      • American on January 18, 2015, 1:05 pm

        @ german lefty

        Are any Muslims interferring with your rights to be gay in germany?
        Is there anyone or groups besides Muslim that don’t approve of homosexuality?
        Is there anyone except the religious that dont like homosexuality?
        Imo you shouldnt narrow it down to just Muslims or to just religions or go on the war path at *this particular time against the specific religion on Islam.
        Another thing too is, since some other religious dont like homosexuality you are giving them something in common with radical Islamist who dont like either.

  25. Boomer on January 15, 2015, 7:44 am

    Your observations reminded me of Phil’s recent post, saying (using some convoluted language that I assume is idiomatic among some people) “don’t lets’s go to the war of civilizations again.” From the Palestinian perspective, I suppose, the U.S. has continuously been at war with them since 1948, when we supplanted the Brits in the already-old war of civilizations there. Americans may not acknowledge it, but that doesn’t make it less real.

  26. Theo on January 15, 2015, 9:16 am

    And our indecent and corrupt leaders, many of them from dictatorships and a neo-colonial country, use the death of those unfortunate people to show how united in their sorrow are.
    We all saw on TV and newspapers the line of them marching in front of supposedly hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. In the middle first Sarkozy, then in the very same place suddenly Netanyahu!
    Very impressive, however new photoes appeared in the internet showing that it is nothing but a bluff, a setup, as behind that group of politicians, their personal and guards THERE IS NOTHING; BUT EMPTY STREET AND SPACE!!!!

  27. Vera Gottlieb on January 15, 2015, 10:37 am

    How about some integrity. Cartoonists have been asked more than once to stop drawing Mohammad, that it offends Muslims. Why can’t we in the West respect this? This ‘anything goes’ mentality incites violence all over the world and not just caused by cartoons. The West, especially the US, believes we have the right to crap on any other culture or religion as we please. What it really comes down to is Islamophobia hiding behind cartoons. And the large march in Paris was damned hypocritical – so many marching leaders coming from countries were journalists are in prison for expressing their opinion. Freedom of speech…depending on your ethnicity.

    • Mooser on January 15, 2015, 3:36 pm

      Vera, I still maintain if it hadn’t been for:

      Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for [their] descendants, to the third and fourth [generation Exodus 20.3-6

      We wouldn’t have any of these problems. And if my math is correct, that was a long time before The Prophet. (Not for my profane lips to say the name)

      I wonder what they did to you if they found you with a “graven image” back then.”

  28. Je Suis Charlie on January 15, 2015, 2:04 pm

    >>How about some integrity. Cartoonists have been asked more than once to stop drawing Mohammad, that it offends Muslims. Why can’t we in the West respect this? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/contrarian-perspective-cartoonist#sthash.uLxHvsru.dpuf

    Because in the West free speech doesn’t mean free speech *as long as it doesn’t hurt someone’s feelings*

    Saying that the cartoons incite violence reduces muslims to noble savages. That ‘they’ simply can’t help murdering people because they were provoked. Post-enlightenment West religious types usually manage these satires without going out and murdering the cartoonist ;)

    • annie on January 15, 2015, 4:24 pm

      Saying that the cartoons incite violence reduces muslims to noble savages. That ‘they’ simply can’t help murdering people because they were provoked.

      no it doesn’t, because everyone knows (or should, if they don’t watch fox news or only listen to islamophobes) the vast majority of muslims would never murder anyone. but there are extremists in every religion and every ethnicity. just like there are JDL and violent settlers who do violent things when provoked. it doesn’t mean you don’t post der sturmer cartoons because “it reduces jews to noble savages. That ‘they’ simply can’t help murdering people because they were provoked.” and the ADL is around to make sure you don’t, try lecturing them on freedom of expression.

      and what’s with france and other european countries criminalizing holocaust denial and comedians who offend jews while protecting islamophobic speech? did you know the publisher of der sturmer was tried and executed for publishing those cartoons. where’s the complaints about that? where were their rights of freedom of expression?

      Post-enlightenment West religious types usually manage these satires without going out and murdering the cartoonist ;)

      right, and most muslims are Post-enlightenment West religious types who manage these satires quite well without going out and murdering cartoonists ;)

      only a bigot or an idiot wouldn’t know that ;)

      • Je Suis Charlie on January 15, 2015, 6:17 pm

        Anne: I wouldn’t expect you to understand the first thing about free speech since you live in a country with its own blasphemy laws.

        >>no it doesn’t, because everyone knows (or should, if they don’t watch fox news or only listen to islamophobes) the vast majority of muslims would never murder anyone. but there are extremists in every religion and every ethnicity

        According to a scientifically conducted Pew survey, 70-80% of muslims support the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, cutting the hand off a thief, stoning adulters to death and a generally sharia-centric view of justice. Banners hang, to this day in Tehran University proclaiming the ayatollah’s fatwa of death against Salman Rushdie still being in effect.

        A majority of muslims *if they had actual jury trials in sharia* would certainly murder someone by death verdict, for blasphemy. This isn’t a problem relegated to a minority of the muslim culture, its a majority view.

        >> just like there are JDL and violent settlers who do violent things when provoked.

        1) As long as the Israeli’s keep their reactions to their own country, Greater Israel, I’m fine with it. muslims are simply confused that they get to tell people in distant cultures what to do.
        2) ‘Provoking’ someone by terroistically shooting rockets or kidnapping kids deserves a physical reaction. Words are just words, however. Nice try at conflating the two, though.

        >>right, and most muslims are Post-enlightenment West religious types who manage these satires quite well without going out and murdering cartoonists ;)

        As Pew proves, most muslims actually have the mentality of 6th century cave dwellers, legally and morally. Its repugnant to any logically thinking adult.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 12:09 pm

        “Anne: I wouldn’t expect you to understand the first thing about free speech”

        No, why would anybody who writes for Mondoweiss and does editing and comment moderating “understand the first thing about free speech”?
        I mean, considering that Mondo devotes itself entirely to fashion, the latest hits, and celebrity gossip, it’s never an issue. Hey, it may be fluff, but nobody ever threatens to sue over it, except as a publicity stunt.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 12:12 pm

        “As Pew proves, most muslims actually have the mentality of 6th century cave dwellers, legally and morally. Its repugnant to any logically thinking adult.”

        What bravery! With the angry scimitar at his very collar-bone, and a kris poking away at his kishkas he will not renounce his faith! Onward, Judeo-Christian soldiers!

  29. Kris on January 15, 2015, 3:08 pm

    Of course, we are all supposing that Muslims killed the cartoonists. Paul Craig Roberts has a different, and very interesting, take on this: Charlie Hebdo Shootings: False Flag? http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/january/14/charlie-hebdo-shootings-false-flag/

    “Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France. Operation Gladio proves this. The largest part of the government of Italy was ignorant of the bombings conducted by the CIA and Italian Intelligence against European women and children and blamed on communists in order to diminish the communist vote in elections.

    “Americans are a pitifully misinformed people. All of history is a history of false flag operations. Yet Americans dismiss such proven operations as “conspiracy theories,” which merely proves that government has successfully brainwashed insouciant Americans and deprived them of the ability to recognize the truth.

    “Americans are the foremost among the captive nations.

    “Who will liberate them?”

    • silat on January 15, 2015, 4:01 pm

      Utter nonsense. We here in the USA consider the Pauls to be crazy.

      • annie on January 15, 2015, 4:07 pm

        We here in the USA

        ? you mean all 300mil of us? you must think very highly of yourself to make an allegation like that.

      • silat on January 15, 2015, 4:27 pm

        I was trying to be nice. Like other countries we have our crazies. The Teabaggers love the Pauls and their libertarian false flag Taliban nonsense. But in reality that is a minority group even though billionaire libertarians have made them seem like a larger group than they really are.
        300 million? Of those 300 million over half cannot vote. So we are talking about 150 million and of that group you can pick out about 60 million who vote. And of those about 24% are crazy Paul, Bachmann, Cruz type supporters.

        And it has nothing do with what I may think of myself. Not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

      • annie on January 15, 2015, 4:34 pm

        false flag Taliban nonsense? because the cia and mossad and numerous dictators around the world would never engage in false flag operation right? we always act above board, no covert actions for us right? uh huh. it’s not whether they do it, it’s which ones did they do or don’t do.

        setting up ones opponent to take the fall is not some novel idea the taliban invented you know. in fact, it’s probably an extremely common tactic, so common in fact detectives and lawyers generally consider it while carrying out murder investigations. have you ever watched perry mason? you’re probably too young. trust me, it’s common among thieves. .

        So we are talking about 150 million and of those about 24% are crazy Paul, Bachmann, Cruz supporters.

        don’t move the goal posts. it was you who mentioned paul. the topic you responded on, while being listed on a paul website, was false flag operations. classifying every american who may believe in FF as paul supporters or ‘taliban’ is silly.

        it has nothing do with what I may think of myself. Not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

        it’s supposed to mean using rhetorical crutches pretending your opinion represents the whole country takes chutzpa. try just speaking for yourself next time.

      • Bornajoo on January 15, 2015, 5:58 pm

        @silat
        Here are just a few examples of ADMITTED false flag operations. Quite a few by the USA, and no the list doesn’t even include the biggest one (911)

        The sources will show up if you click on the link at the end

        “Governments from around the world admit they’ve used the bully’s trick … attack first, and then blame the victim:

        A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
        Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland
        Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed)
        The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
        The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change
        The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).

        As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennifer.
        2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
        And Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
        The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
        A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists
        The German government admitted that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on
        The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
        An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
        An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.
        Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
        According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
        The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
        As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”
        Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters
        Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country
        Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers)
        Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
        United Press International reported in June 2005:
        U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

        Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
        Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
        At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
        Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters
        A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
        U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
        The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists
        High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government
        The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others
        Britain’s spy agency has admitted to (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/false-flag-3.html

      • silat on January 15, 2015, 4:47 pm

        1. Yes false flag nonsense.
        2. No I never ever said we have not engaged in those operations you mentioned. Stop making things up.
        3. I am pretty certain I am older than you. Not sure why you want to compare birth dates. Jan of 1951. Your turn.
        4. I did not move any posts. I did not bring up Paul first.
        5. I stand by my assertions.

      • Kris on January 15, 2015, 5:26 pm

        @silat: “Utter nonsense. We here in the USA consider the Pauls to be crazy. ”

        The article is by Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D, a distinguished economist and journalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts If you consider the article to be “utter nonsense,” it would be helpful if you would explain why, and would provide links to credible information to support your points.

        Maybe you are trying out a bit of guilt by association–i.e., “we” consider the Pauls to be crazy, therefore Dr. Roberts’ views are crazy if they are published on a Paul website–which is an unAmerican tactic. Maybe you are not, in fact, an American?

        Your “we here in the U.S.” could mean any group, however small, that happens to be in the U.S. right now. You could even be a hasbarist working at an Israeli consulate here.

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 12:16 pm

        “don’t move the goal posts.”

        Hell, no, nobody is ‘moving the goalposts’ now! The Seahawks have home-field advantage for the play-offs, and then on to the second Suberbabowla-Bowl win!

        (Moderators, please leave “Edit” open on this comment until Feb. 2nd. I hate being wrong.)

      • Mooser on January 16, 2015, 12:20 pm

        “We here in the USA consider the Pauls to be crazy.”

        Frightening, isn’t it, the power of a first name. I feel bad for Dr. Roberts. Why didn’t he change it?

      • Bornajoo on January 16, 2015, 12:29 pm

        “Frightening, isn’t it, the power of a frst name. I feel bad for Dr. Roberts. Why didn’t he change it?”

        Hey Mooser, that’s what I was thinking. I think we need to write to Dr Roberts and tell him he should consider a name change. He’s only 75 so it’s not too late. Make sure that none of your friends thinking of having children call them Paul! Stay away from Pauls!

      • Mooser on January 17, 2015, 11:50 am

        Well, all I can say is, it’s always lively at Mondo. It never ever palls.

      • Mooser on January 18, 2015, 4:48 pm

        At this moment, the Seahawks are palling badly against the Packers. 16-0 Packs, at the half.

  30. silat on January 15, 2015, 5:42 pm

    LOL are you making excuses? Do you also claim that Ron had no idea he is a bigot and that bigoted editorials were in his newsletters for years? Or that sonny Paul had as his chief of staff a white supremacist neoconfederate? Just an accident right?
    How old are you?
    Do you need my passport?

    You know why libertarianism is so great to its adherents? It’s ideologically pure. Unfettered by reality or example, it floats free in a cloud of its own. Forget the ivory tower. Libertarianism hangs from a skyhook.

    The feudal system dressed up as rugged American independence = libertarianism

    “Racism, theocracy and libertarianism go hand in hand, when from a philosophical point of view they should have little to do with one another. The negative effects of the lack of a central government are so obvious in developing countries that wherever the social order fails as in Somalia, it must have been due to bad religion, or the defect of having been born to an inferior race.
    Ron Paul fans must reassure themselves that such things would never happen to white, Christian folk. They’re immune from the Somali problem by virtue being of different stock and different values, you see.

    The “Somalia” argument is a sore spot for libertarians. They either fall back on the old line of race and religious prejudice I outlined, or they claim that it isn’t true Libertarianism, you see: it’s anarchy. True Libertarians believe in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety; without those protections, they argue, anarchy ensues.

    The only problem for libertarians is that they cannot point to even a single current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no concrete, real world examples, so they ply their arguments in a theoretical construct.

    Each and every example of places with little centralized government is dismissed by libertarians as an anarchistic situation, not a “true” Libertarianism. It’s the “no true Scotman” fallacy, Ron Paul edition. The hellish situation in Afghanistan is blamed on 30 years of war and tribal anarchy, rather than the lack of a central government. The case of Somalia is blamed again on war, on American intervention, and again on tribal anarchy. Historical examples of feudalism arising in the absence of a centralized state, or the repeated Dark Ages that arise after civilization collapses, are dismissed as either irrelevant to the modern world or invalid because of war and anarchy. The fact that corruption and the Mafia are more prevalent in southern Italy where tax collection and central government are weaker than in the North, is again dismissed as a cultural or anarchistic issue. It’s always the same argument.

    Libertarianism, in other words, is infallible. Wherever it fails, it does so because the people weren’t ready for it, or there was too much violence to allow it to work, or because the government wasn’t powerful enough to protect people from harm.

    Libertarians fail to realize that there has never been–and never will be–a government that functions according to their principles because it runs entirely contrary to human nature.

    As any libertarian understands when it comes to statist authoritarians, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you decentralize and remove the modern welfare state, leaving only essentially a glorified police force in charge to protect private property and personal safety, one of two things happens:

    1) The central police force turns into a right-wing military dictatorship invested in stamping out all leftist thinking, then appropriating the country’s wealth for themselves and their friends (e.g., Chile under Pinochet);

    or

    2) All central authority and protection break down completely as power localizes into the hands of local criminals and feudal/tribal warlords with little compunction about abusing and terrorizing the local population (e.g., feudal France, Afghanistan, Somalia, western Pakistan, etc.) As I said before:

    Feudalism is the inevitable historical consequence of the decline of a centralized cosmopolitan state. That’s because the exercise of power by those in a position to wield it does not end with the elimination of federal authority: rather, it simply shifts to those of a more localized, more tyrannical, and less democratically accountable bent.
    Urban street gangs in under-policed neighborhoods, mafias in under-taxed countries, and groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon invariably step in to fill the void where government fails. When the Japanese government wasn’t able to adequately help the population after the earthquake and tsunami, the yakuza helpfully stepped in to do it for them. The devolution of local authority and taxation into the hands of criminal groups willing to provide a safety net in exchange for their cut of the action is the invariable pre-feudal result of the breakdown of the government-backed safety net. It happens every single time. The people will want a safety net where utter chaos doesn’t prevent it: they’ll either get it from an accountable governmental authority, or from a non-governmental authority of shadowy legality. Both kinds of authority will levy their own form of taxation, be it legal and official, or part of an illegal protection scheme.

    In its own way, the “No True Libertarianism” argument is very similar to the “No True Communism” of those on the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice–despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners.

    Both ideologies run counter to human nature for the same reason: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people with the money and guns will always abuse the people who don’t have the money and guns, unless there are multiple levels of checks, balances, and legal and economic protections to ensure the existence of a middle-class tax base with a stake in maintaining a stable society. The modern welfare state didn’t arise by accident or conspiracy: it evolved as a means of avoiding the failures of other models.

    Libertarianism is a philosophical game played by those without either enough real-world experience of localized, non-state-actor tyranny, or enough awareness of history to understand the immaturity of their political worldview. Unfortunately, the harm they do to the social safety net and to governmental checks and balances is all too real, and all too damaging.”

  31. Kris on January 15, 2015, 6:51 pm

    @silat, the validity of a statement does not depend on whether or not you trust/like/agree with the person making the statement or on how you feel about whatever website picked it up and posted it. Are you just trying to sidetrack the discussion by raving about libertarianism, which no one else has been talking about?

    “Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, “The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!”), but this is actually not that common.

    ” A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information — for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, “We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?” Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone’s arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate — such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

    “It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing “My opponents are fascists” with “My opponents’ arguments are fascist.” http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

  32. EmC23 on January 16, 2015, 12:35 am

    Hi, I hope you read French, here is what a young cartoonist, Algerian, and Muslim has to say about Charlie Hebdo.. He actually spent months with the cartoonist and I think that he is more relevant than anyone to explain how Charlie was NOT islamophobic.

    http://www.algerie-focus.com/blog/2015/01/ghilas-ainouche-caricaturiste-algerien-je-ne-vois-pas-comment-lon-peut-dire-que-charlie-hebdo-est-islamophobe/

    And here is the opinon of Abdelali Mamoun, Alfortville’s Iman
    http://www.europe1.fr/medias-tele/on-a-lu-charlie-hebdo-avec-un-imam-2343729

    have a nice day.

    • Mooser on January 21, 2015, 12:32 pm

      “He actually spent months with the cartoonist and I think that he is more relevant than anyone to explain how Charlie was NOT islamophobic.”

      “EmC23”, take it from me, you can’t always depend on everybody getting the joke.

  33. hjmetro on January 16, 2015, 2:41 pm

    It’s not the cartoons – it’s the frightening resurge of religion in a largely secularized Western Europe. The demons from times not so long ago, the darkness of religious bigotry and repression, when Rome ruled, the bishops, the local clergy – also in Protestantism.

    Ms. Miranda allows herself to “draw cartoons about Obama, Netanyahu, Arab dictators, and Israeli settlers because they’re the ones in power, they’re literally calling the shots and making people’s lives miserable. These are legitimate targets for political satire. Trying to satirize prophet Muhammed in a cartoon just makes you look like an ignorant jerk.” Thank you for your elitist suggestion, you ignorant jerk, but in my humble opinion religions are tools of oppression that make millions of people’s lives miserable as well – and thus targets for satire: they are part and parcel of the world’s power establishment.

    I know there is an other side to religion, it’s not all misery and death but also hope, comfort, social cohesion. So is there to the West: it’s not only violence, exploitation, destruction. Satirizing the powerfull MUST include fundamental critique of religion because religion has been a major backward force throughout history. Countless wars are still fought for or against religious beliefs. I don’t think ‘multiculturalism’ should mean allowing attacks, critique, even blasphemy on one superpower: Western Imperialism, while exempting that other superpower: Religion. It’s about time muslim clerics worldwide tell their flock that Mohamed was just a mortal being, that he has been dead for some time already, and that there are others in the world that don’t give a damn about him, Jesus, Buddha, and that they have the human right to do so. I don’t want to take your beliefs away from you, but please don’t expect others to be aware of all your religious sensitivities. Bugger off, and be happy that Mohamed is not yet marketed as a garden gnome, like Buddha!

  34. hjmetro on January 16, 2015, 2:44 pm

    You’ll find an edited and extended version of my comments below.

  35. Neil Schipper on January 17, 2015, 2:03 am

    Der Sturmer, through cartoons and text: You Jews are, by virtue of race, filthy vermin. Whether half-Jews, atheists, converts to Christianity.. no matter.. same disgusting race. You stab us in the back in time of war. You rob from us by corrupt business practice. You despoil our people with your vile culture. We will free ourselves of you..

    Charlie Hebdo, through cartoons and text: You, the aggressive, conservative Muslims, from the blackest Somali to the whitest European convert, are.. loopy. You expect us to gingerly tiptoe around your gargantuan sense of your own authority. You demand that we sit quietly in the face of your outlandish bluster about supreme authority derived from ancient texts. And you do so here, in our ancestral lands, where we carry deep memory of power-mad ecclesiastics and the long fight to bring them down. You whip up hysteria among your uneducated, promising a great caliphate to dominate us. Well, listen up: we want to liberate your own youth from.. you, to better enable them to emerge as full participants in our imperfect, wealthy but unequal, non-violently competitive, boozy and lusty civilization. And, holding to the notion that such a thing is possible, we mock, in addition to you, those among our own who would say to you, “We will free ourselves of you..”

    • Mooser on January 17, 2015, 7:10 pm

      So, Neil, I can conclude you like neither “Der Sturmer” nor “Charlie Hebdo”?

      • Neil Schipper on January 17, 2015, 8:01 pm

        From your question it’s clear you’re ducking my point.

      • Mooser on January 18, 2015, 4:52 pm

        “From your question it’s clear you’re ducking my point.”

        I’d love to, if I knew what it was. Could you put it succinctly, in a line or two? Believe me, if you like neither “Charlie Hebdo” or “Der Sturmer”, that’s cool, too. Not everybody has to like everything.

  36. Mooser on January 17, 2015, 11:54 am

    There’s a whole lotta muttering going on! Mutter, baby, mutter! Now, mutter real low one time, just for me.

    There’s a whole lotta mutterin’ goin’ on!

  37. American on January 18, 2015, 2:01 pm

    Another antisemite journalist bites the dust for anti israel tweets.
    If we rounded up all the people the Zio mafia has taken down we’d have to rent a football staduim to hold them all.
    They should start a club or their own lobby.

    http://www.thewrap.com/longtime-cnn-anchor-jim-clancy-leaves-network-after-three-decades

    Longtime CNN Anchor Jim Clancy Leaves Network After Three Decades

  38. Walid on January 18, 2015, 3:43 pm

    American, I’ve been a fan of Clancy for many years and until the story of the tweets, I never felt that he was anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian and that’s what I liked most about him. He was about fair reporting with no strings attached to any side.

    Over at Elder of Zion, the guy that runs the blog is bragging that he was instrumental in having had Clancy fired and he is also bragging about having had Octavia Nasser also fired from CNN 4 years ago.

    • lysias on January 21, 2015, 11:05 am

      When I go to the gym and CNN is on the TV, I make sure to spend my time on the elliptical machine reading a book of Latin poetry that I have been careful to bring with me, just so that I don’t have to listen to their 24/7 war propaganda.

Leave a Reply