You mock people who were attacked for their free speech because it was “unwise speech”. They should have known better after all.
Devils advocate position, perhaps the prophet Mohammed needs mocked more. Over the past 30 days there have been 86 Islamic fundamentalist attacks in 20 countries killing 694 and maiming 1,256. Whether we’re silent or not, people will keep dying. Silence and appeasement is tacit approval.
Catholics and the Pope should be mocked daily for not cooperating with investigations into pedophile priests.
Protestants like the Westboro baptists should be mocked for being a-holes.
Assange allegedly helped a traitor try to hack the US government. That was most unwise. He knew from Snowden leaks that the US government owns nodes on the TOR network and had backdoors into all the secure messaging apps. His biggest mistake was not being prepared to live the rest of his life in Russia like Snowden.
Actually, the last decade or so was literally apocalyptic for Christians… I mean “Easter worshippers” per Obama nad HRC in the Middle East, second only to the Muslim conquests of the 7th century.
Estimates vary, but between 10 and 20 percent of Egyptian population are Coptic Christians. We’re talking about more than 10 million people. But hey, they’re brown and yell all a lot in their guttural language so they do not fit the “evil white islamophobe” mould.
MLK was fighting discrimination against black people. Charlie Hebdo was printing obscene photos. Same deal?
Yeah, so printing more obscene cartoons is sure to get a positive response. Great critical thinking there. Something needs to be done, but Charlie Hebdo is not the answer.
They already went to court and had their office firebombed. They should have been aware of what the possible consequences were, and prepared appropriately if they were determined to continue printing those sorts of cartoons. Unfortunately for them, France does not have the right to bear arms so there wasn’t a whole lot they could do except wait for someone to kill them.
Who defines what’s obscene? We’re talking about the First Arrondisment in Paris - does the Grand Mufti of Mecca have legal authority over that geographical location?
I find this custom below repugnant and obscene. What recourse do I have except some tut-tuting and shaking of the head?
Exactly that needs to be done - to show that Muslim religious norms do not apply to the House of War aka the non-Ummah.
Not that it matters, but they had an armed guard on the premises. Also, there are around 12 million firearms in France meaning one for each five French citizens.
Go look up the pictures, they have him posing for gay porn. If that’s not obscene then nothing is.
No, and France did not extradite any Charlie Hebdo employees to face trial in Mecca.
Why are you posting this bacha bai thing? That is sickening. Apparently the “Northern Alliance” people in Afghanistan who helped the US fight the Taliban are all into that.
It’s not that simple. France colonized a whole bunch of Muslim countries and continues to exploit them to this day (they have some deal where France holds most of their gold reserves and if they need money they have to borrow their own money from France and pay interest, French companies get priority on major contracts, etc.) and there are a lot of Muslims in France to the point that some areas are no-go zones for white French people. You want to add insult to injury when the “enemy” has already established strongholds in your country, and many are well armed as well, things are not going to turn out favorably. Some of them already think there is a holy war going on, you want more people to join them? I don’t have a solution to propose at this point, it would have been better if it never became this way in the first place, but offensive cartoons are not going to help unless you feel that terrorist attacks somehow aid your cause.
Everywhere has guns, just not like the US. One armed guard is no match for two jihadists with AK-47s, maybe if everyone in the office was armed it would have been a different story.
The point is don’t start a fight when you can’t defend yourself.
Anyway, we have strayed pretty far from the original topic now. If you want to discuss how to stop Islamic terrorism then maybe we should start another thread. All I can say is that once you meddle in the affairs of other countries you make yourself a target, and worse when you invite migrants from those countries. That’s why Poland and Hungary have no such problems, they didn’t colonize anything and they accept no migrants, now they have no terrorist attacks. If some jihadists were determined to attack either of those countries they could because of open borders in the EU, but it hasn’t happened yet.
A controversy arose after allegations surfaced that U.S. government forces in Afghanistan after the invasion of the country deliberately ignored bacha bazi.[15] The U.S. military justified this by claiming the abuse was largely the responsibility of the “local Afghan government.”[16]
Sounds like maybe the US is backing the wrong people over there. Bin Laden was a CIA agent too.
The problem with “one quick search” from someone who obviously has no grounding in the field and an ideological axe to grind is that it often leads to citing disreputable sources as “evidence”. “Foreign policy journal” is one of them. Any American or European foreign policy scholar or practitioner would firmly put FPJ in the non-credible rubbish heap.
Despite its high sounding name, Foreign Policy Journal is not a respected peer reviewed publication like Foreign Policy or Foreign Affairs magazine. In fact, it’s a well known anti Israel/anti-US mouth piece ran by a prolific 9/11 truther. It’s mission statement is, “to challenge the propaganda narratives presented by the mainstream media, which serve to manufacture consent for government policies.”
Outside of your lack of anything approaching a 101 understanding of the relevant issues at hand, the immense corpus of technical and human intelligence establishes with high confidence that Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence propaganda operations.
Clearly some people do suspect Israel. You can find a lot more articles saying the same thing, and many of them publish more recently than that one from 9 years ago.
Just because my opinion conflicts with yours I lack a basic understanding of this topic? Really?
Do you have anything to add here or do you just like using big words and talking like you know better than others?
Yes, that seems very likely, but why is it forbidden to speculate that Israel might be involved as well? Trump has done more for them than for Russia, and you don’t need a peer-reviewed publication to figure that out for you.
If you feel that the right to publish homo-erotic cartoons of religious figures is just as important as basic rights for black Americans then please, go ahead and make that argument. I get the feeling that it won’t get you very far.
The problem is that free speech isn’t something that only applies to things YOU, individually, like or feel good about.
It’s disgusting, yes. It’s not near as important no. But you either have free speech or you don’t. Rules vary country to country, but that has nothing to do with cherry picking like you have been. You don’t get it both ways.
France doesn’t have free speech like the US. Very few countries (possibly none) do. Remember this “Je suis Charlie Hebdo” thing? Go find out what happened to the comedian Dieudonne when he posted “Je suis Charlie Coulibaly”, and all the other stuff they went after him for. Free speech in France is a one way street.
Your argument might have some validity in the US, but getting yourself killed over a stupid cartoon is a waste of life.
What exactly have they done to him? Fined him multiple times for hate speech? Gave him a two month suspended sentence?
Dieudonne is an antisemitic, Holocaust-denying, racist piece of shit. Nevertheless, his Youtube channel has millions of views and he’s got a veritable media empire running in the cradle of Enlightenment, which is according to Dieudonne himself completely controlled by “Jooooos”. Not bad for being “persecuted”.
If nothing else, it’s the testament to the tolerance of liberal democracies towards people with repugnant views who can even thrive while claiming victimhood, as is the case with Dieudonne.
Whether this tolerance will be the final nail in the coffin of Western civilization yet remains to be seen.
How do you not see what I am talking about? Not only was Charlie Hebdo not prevented in any way from printing their cartoons, there was a whole campaign in favor of them. Dieudonne was fined, censored, and banned from performing. You call that symbolic?
The terrorists who attacked the Charlie Hebdo offices did not act with the backing of the French government, in case you didn’t realize.
I’m not sure why you keep inventing positions I don’t take. At the time he was using his free speech it would have been easy to say he was trying to piss white Americans off and it got him killed. Which is exactly what you said happened to CH.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or not. I haven’t said they argued the same thing merely that the point you made about them easily could have been made about many people who have used free speech in the past.
But hey they said obscene stuff and you seem to think they got what they deserved. Yay terrorism!
