I am NOT Charlie

[nangyale]

I am NOT Charlie

Okay, let's be clear. I am not Muslim. I oppose terrorism. I don't even support the death penalty. I loathe Takfirism. I oppose violence as a means to make a political or ethical point. I fully support freedom of speech, including critical speech and humor.
But this morning I am most definitely NOT Charlie.
In fact, I am disgusted and nauseated by the sick display of collective hypocrisy about the murders in France. Here is why:
Charlie Hebdo for the Darwin Awards

The folks at Charlie Hebdo had it coming. Here is what I wrote about them in September 2012 when they published their famous caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed: Worthy of the Darwin Awards, if you ask me. Excellent, the “gene pool” of the French “caviar-Left” badly needs some cleaning". Today I fully stand by my words.


Just a stupid dare?
Let me ask you this: what would be the point of, say, taking a nap on train tracks? You don't have to "agree" with the train which will run you over, but it still will, won't it? What about taking a nap on train tracks specifically to make a point? To prove that the train is bad? To dare it? To make fun of it? Would that not be the height of stupidity? And yet, that is *exactly* what Charlie Hebdo did. I would even argue that that his how Charlie Hebdo made it's money, daring the "Muslim train" to run them over. You think I am exaggerating? Check out the caricature which one of the folks who got murdered yesterday had just posted. The text reads: "Still no terrorist attacks in France - Wait, we have until the end of January to send you are best wishes". The crazy person shown in the drawing is packing a Kalashnikov and wearing an Afghan "Pakol" - the typical "crazy Muslim" in Charlie Hebdo's world. Talk about a stupid dare...

"Spitting in people's souls"
There is an expression in Russian: spitting in somebody's soul. It fully applies here. Muslims worldwide have be unambiguously clear about that. They take blasphemy very, very seriously, as they do the name of the Prophet and the Quran. If you want to really offend a Muslim, ridicule his Prophet or his Holy Book. That is not a secret at all. And when Charlie Hebdo published their caricatures of the Prophet and when they ridiculed him the a deliberately rude and provocative manner, they knew what they were doing: they were very deliberately deeply offending 1.6 billion Muslims world wide. Oh, and did I mention that in Islam blasphemy is a crime punishable by death? Well, it turns out that of 1.6 billion Muslims exactly three decided to take justice in their own hands and kill the very deliberately blaspheming Frenchmen. You don't have to be Muslim or to approve of the death penalty for blasphemy to realize that this was inevitable and that this has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Offend any group as large as 1.6 billion and sooner or later you will find 1-5 folks willing to use violence to make you pay for it. This is a statistical inevitability.

Are some victims more equal then others?
So 12 deliberately "soul spitting blasphemers" were murdered and all of France is in deep mourning. The media worldwide does such a good job presenting it all as a planetary disaster that many thousands people worldwide say "I am Charlie", sob, light candles and take a "courageous" stance for freedom of speech.

Crocodile tears if you ask me.

The fact is that the AngloZionists have carefully and lovingly nurtured, organized, armed, financed, trained, equipped and even directed the Takfiri crazies for decades. From the war in Afghanistan to Syria today these murderous psychopaths have been the foot-soldiers of the AngloZionist Empire for decades. But, apparently, nobody cares about their victims in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Chechnia, in Kosovo, in Libya, in Kurdistan, in Iraq or elsewhere. There these liver-eating murderers are "freedom fighters" who get full support. Including from the very same media which today is in mourning over Charlie Hebdo. Apparently, in the western ethos some victims are more equal then others.
And when is the last time somebody in Europe shed a single tear over the daily murders of innocent people in the Donbass whose murder is paid for and directly directed by the western regimes?

How stupid do they think we are?
And then this. Even a drooling idiot knew that Charlie Hebdo was THE prime target for that kind of attack. And I promise you that French cops are not drooling idiots. Yet, for some reason, they were nowhere to be seen that day. Only a van with two (or one?) cop was parked nearby (hardly an anti-terrorist protection detail) and one poor cop was shot and then executed with an AK shot to the head while he was begging for mercy. Is this the best the French state can do?
Hardly.
So what is going on here? I will tell you what - the EU 1%ers are now capitalizing on these murders to crack down on their own population. Sarkozy already met Hollande and they both agreed that new levels of firmness and vigilance need to be implemented. Does that not reek of a French 9/11?
So no, I am most definitely NOT Charlie this morning and I am disgusted beyond words with the obscene display of doubleplusgoodthinking "solidarity" for a group of "caviar-lefties" who made their money spitting in the souls of billions of people and then dared them to do something about it. And I am under no illusion whatsoever about the fact that cui bono clearly indicates that the French regime either organized it all, or let it happen or, at the very least, makes maximal political use of it all.
But most of all, I am disgusted with all those who play along and studiously avoid asking the right questions about all this. I guess they really are "Charlies" all of them.
I am not.
The Saker

 

[nekrasa]

Very reasonable post. In opposition to an emotial and hypocritical MSM. Good for The Saker!

 

[Galad]

Read the article already.This and many more decent articles are already out in alternative media sites.And all of them raising a very valid questions unlike the propaganda storm in the hypocritical ,well-known for double standarts,full with lies and deceit MSM rags.

 

[nekrasa]

Quite good question mark from the articles' comments:

and we still don’t know if this operation was a muslim revenge or just another USA/Mossad operation to demonize Islam in Europe or even put a bit of mess just after Holande declare that the sanctions on Russia must be lifted…

Or We should bombing some country in the name of democracy and freedom of speech becouse of it...

 

[jhungary]

one thing for certain, that guy who wrote that is not muslim or know anything about muslim, that is for sure

Okay, i get it, in a zoo, if you ignore the "dont feed the bear" sign and you go dangle a steak in front of a bear, and you get mauled? Thats 10 out of 10 are your own fault. The reason is simple, you cannot blame a bear being a bear, and you have to be stupid to try dangle a steak in front of it.

But for poking fun with Muslim? Okay, it would be the magazine fault, if we cannot blame Extremist muslim being Extremist muslim. But well, as they (The extremist) are following and twisting the word of Qu'an, and if we cant blame that, that means they have a straight interpretation of Qu'an, and that Qu'an indeed preach intolerance and violent toward nonbeliever.

So, should we blame the magazine people ? Or should we blame the extremist? Your call.

And its fun to see a pakistani swede assuming tobe muslim to quote this right winger, little do the OP know he isalso putting up a satire article on muslim....

Said my piece , believe it or not is up to you

 

[Prometheus]

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Charlie is a hypocrite....

 

[Dubious]

one thing for certain, that guy who wrote that is not muslim or know anything about muslim, that is for sure

Okay, i get it, in a zoo, if you ignore the "dont feed the bear" sign and you go dangle a steak in front of a bear, and you get mauled? Thats 10 out of 10 are your own fault. The reason is simple, you cannot blame a bear being a bear, and you have to be stupid to try dangle a steak in front of it.

But for poking fun with Muslim? Okay, it would be the magazine fault, if we cannot blame Extremist muslim being Extremist muslim. But well, as they (The extremist) are following and twisting the word of Qu'an, and if we cant blame that, that means they have a straight interpretation of Qu'an, and that Qu'an indeed preach intolerance and violent toward nonbeliever.

So, should we blame the magazine people ? Or should we blame the extremist? Your call.

And its fun to see a pakistani swede assuming tobe muslim to quote this right winger, little do the OP know he isalso putting up a satire article on muslim....

Said my piece , believe it or not is up to you

When you call them extremists why do you expect them to NOT behave as extremists?

 

[jhungary]

When you call them extremists why do you expect them to NOT behave as extremists?

thats not my point, my point is can you blame the extremist being extreme?

 

[Dubious]

I am NOT Charlie

Okay, let's be clear. I am not Muslim. I oppose terrorism. I don't even support the death penalty. I loathe Takfirism. I oppose violence as a means to make a political or ethical point. I fully support freedom of speech, including critical speech and humor.
But this morning I am most definitely NOT Charlie.
In fact, I am disgusted and nauseated by the sick display of collective hypocrisy about the murders in France. Here is why:
Charlie Hebdo for the Darwin Awards

The folks at Charlie Hebdo had it coming. Here is what I wrote about them in September 2012 when they published their famous caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed: Worthy of the Darwin Awards, if you ask me. Excellent, the “gene pool” of the French “caviar-Left” badly needs some cleaning". Today I fully stand by my words.


Just a stupid dare?
Let me ask you this: what would be the point of, say, taking a nap on train tracks? You don't have to "agree" with the train which will run you over, but it still will, won't it? What about taking a nap on train tracks specifically to make a point? To prove that the train is bad? To dare it? To make fun of it? Would that not be the height of stupidity? And yet, that is *exactly* what Charlie Hebdo did. I would even argue that that his how Charlie Hebdo made it's money, daring the "Muslim train" to run them over. You think I am exaggerating? Check out the caricature which one of the folks who got murdered yesterday had just posted. The text reads: "Still no terrorist attacks in France - Wait, we have until the end of January to send you are best wishes". The crazy person shown in the drawing is packing a Kalashnikov and wearing an Afghan "Pakol" - the typical "crazy Muslim" in Charlie Hebdo's world. Talk about a stupid dare...

"Spitting in people's souls"
There is an expression in Russian: spitting in somebody's soul. It fully applies here. Muslims worldwide have be unambiguously clear about that. They take blasphemy very, very seriously, as they do the name of the Prophet and the Quran. If you want to really offend a Muslim, ridicule his Prophet or his Holy Book. That is not a secret at all. And when Charlie Hebdo published their caricatures of the Prophet and when they ridiculed him the a deliberately rude and provocative manner, they knew what they were doing: they were very deliberately deeply offending 1.6 billion Muslims world wide. Oh, and did I mention that in Islam blasphemy is a crime punishable by death? Well, it turns out that of 1.6 billion Muslims exactly three decided to take justice in their own hands and kill the very deliberately blaspheming Frenchmen. You don't have to be Muslim or to approve of the death penalty for blasphemy to realize that this was inevitable and that this has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. Offend any group as large as 1.6 billion and sooner or later you will find 1-5 folks willing to use violence to make you pay for it. This is a statistical inevitability.

Are some victims more equal then others?
So 12 deliberately "soul spitting blasphemers" were murdered and all of France is in deep mourning. The media worldwide does such a good job presenting it all as a planetary disaster that many thousands people worldwide say "I am Charlie", sob, light candles and take a "courageous" stance for freedom of speech.

Crocodile tears if you ask me.

The fact is that the AngloZionists have carefully and lovingly nurtured, organized, armed, financed, trained, equipped and even directed the Takfiri crazies for decades. From the war in Afghanistan to Syria today these murderous psychopaths have been the foot-soldiers of the AngloZionist Empire for decades. But, apparently, nobody cares about their victims in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Chechnia, in Kosovo, in Libya, in Kurdistan, in Iraq or elsewhere. There these liver-eating murderers are "freedom fighters" who get full support. Including from the very same media which today is in mourning over Charlie Hebdo. Apparently, in the western ethos some victims are more equal then others.
And when is the last time somebody in Europe shed a single tear over the daily murders of innocent people in the Donbass whose murder is paid for and directly directed by the western regimes?

How stupid do they think we are?
And then this. Even a drooling idiot knew that Charlie Hebdo was THE prime target for that kind of attack. And I promise you that French cops are not drooling idiots. Yet, for some reason, they were nowhere to be seen that day. Only a van with two (or one?) cop was parked nearby (hardly an anti-terrorist protection detail) and one poor cop was shot and then executed with an AK shot to the head while he was begging for mercy. Is this the best the French state can do?
Hardly.
So what is going on here? I will tell you what - the EU 1%ers are now capitalizing on these murders to crack down on their own population. Sarkozy already met Hollande and they both agreed that new levels of firmness and vigilance need to be implemented. Does that not reek of a French 9/11?
So no, I am most definitely NOT Charlie this morning and I am disgusted beyond words with the obscene display of doubleplusgoodthinking "solidarity" for a group of "caviar-lefties" who made their money spitting in the souls of billions of people and then dared them to do something about it. And I am under no illusion whatsoever about the fact that cui bono clearly indicates that the French regime either organized it all, or let it happen or, at the very least, makes maximal political use of it all.
But most of all, I am disgusted with all those who play along and studiously avoid asking the right questions about all this. I guess they really are "Charlies" all of them.
I am not.
The Saker

I like the article but the people died were far from doing anything blasphemous and there should be no justification for their death! Fair enough they were daring snakes like the titanic captain ....

thats not my point, my point is can you blame the extremist being extreme?

1) yes you can blame them but what good does it do? Where does it leave one? But bluntly yes they are alone responsible for their own actions!
2) I wrote exactly that! When you call them extremists and then challenge them to kill you then when they accept it (whatelse can one expect from extremists?) ...

 

[Armstrong]

thats not my point, my point is can you blame the extremist being extreme?

I don't understand; what would answering that question achieve ?

Obviously if an extremist could be argued with; he would not be an extremist then would he ?

 

[Hasbara Buster]

.....

Murdering for geopolitical reasons is good, murdering for some other reason (such as belief) is evil. Do you realize how absurd this kind of thinking is? See this excellent article, they are exactly my thoughts.

Liberal Condemning of Charlie Hebdo Killings Offers Little Civilising Solace

By John Hilley

January 08, 2015 "ICH" - Very sad thoughts with the victims and families of the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris.

Whatever might be claimed about the merit or effect of such journalistic views and images - mocking, controversial, satirical, provocative, incendiary, blasphemous, iconoclastic, defiant or otherwise - there is not the slightest moral justification for such violence or the murder of those who publish such things.

Yet, any measured observation of that violence must be seen against the much greater level of violence and murder perpetrated by the states living under such attacks.

Many, Muslims and non-Muslims, will have made the essential point that these killers are no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is of Christianity. Many across the Islamic world have condemned the Paris deaths.

Which raises the perennial question: why do Muslims, once again, feel so compelled to make such defensive appeals? Largely out of basic humanity. But, also, because a lot of liberal empathy for socially besieged Muslims and 'moderate Islam' is still laced with false dichotomies and misplaced loyalty.

The problem with much liberal 'Je Suis Charlie' solidarity is not its condemnation of violent jihadism, or cherishing of free speech. It's that such expression still relies on flawed identifications with 'enlightened' entities like 'our' states and their 'civilising' status.

Although well motivated, Owen Jones, for example, comes close to such a blanket label in this tweet:

Sickening act of mass murder in Paris. People from all communities will be repulsed by this atrocity. Solidarity with France. All fair and honourable comment on the terrible act and widespread response. But why any particular solidarity with France?

Thomas Piketty has just refused the Legion of Honour, insisting that the French state has no such validity in determining who or what is honourable. Why isn't Jones similarly specific over who deserves such empathy?

Or consider, more problematically, this reading from Channel 4's Jon Snow:

Paris: brutal clash of civilisations: Europe's belief in freedom of expression vs those for whom death is a weapon in defending their beliefs.Is this really a 'clash of civilisations'?

How did Snow arrive at this generic conceit of 'Europe's belief' in anything?

And if we are to speak of Europe as such an entity, what of its own dark record of murderous violence? One could more accurately characterise Europe's part in Western/Nato invasions, occupations and imperialist plundering as distinctly anti-civilising: 'those for whom death is a weapon in defending their geopolitical interests, rather than beliefs.'

Just think, past and present, of France's own militarist atrocities and self-serving interventions in Algeria, Indo-China, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali and other parts of Africa. Indeed, two of the Paris suspects are reported to have returned from jihadist service in Syria, the very same theatre of appalling violence the French state have been so wilfully fuelling.

While much of the liberal political class and media make lofty proclamations and pitch the Paris killings as a red line issue over free speech, they have virtually nothing equivalent, or worse, to say about such states crossing the 'civilisational' line into mass and sustained terrorism.

All of which perfectly shields the hypocritical condemnations and 'we will defend democracy' breast-beating of Hollande, Cameron and Obama. Where are all the searing media comments on their suitability to invoke the values of life and liberty?

This indulgence also provides liberal space for the right's poisonous claim that Western states are still soft on Islam. Thus on Channel 4 News was war hawk and neocon Douglas Murray allowed unopposed room to bewail the 'attack on Western freedoms' and declare that "terrorism works".

Likewise, in condemning the killers and urging liberal defence of free speech, a Guardian editorial can muster only token words on the gravity of Western crimes:

Poverty and discrimination at home may create fertile conditions for the spread of extremism, and western misadventures abroad can certainly inflame the risks.

Those last nine words say more about the Guardian's own feeble mitigations, pandering to power and failure of brave expression than any Voltarian defence of untrammelled speech.

Appalled by the Paris killings, Jon Snow indulges in even more liberal hubris: Make no mistake, this is a landmark moment in the affairs of man.

Can you imagine Snow offering similar enunciations over the West's mass slaughter of Iraq, Israel's grotesque crimes in Gaza, or the sustained killing of Afghan civilians by Nato forces?

For Snow and much of the liberal media, men in jihadist garb killing journalists is barbaric, while men in suits, ordering others in uniform to mass murder and maim millions of innocents has, seemingly, no such 'landmark' significance.

None of which ultimately detracts from the personal responsibility of those who unleashed this wicked killing in Paris. Their actions are as inhumanely futile in closing down real democratic speech as they are in furthering or illuminating Islam.

And, as ever, such acts only provide the purveyors of 'civilising' state violence even greater powers of control, surveillance and repression of serious speech, alongside the vitally extended freedom to inflict even more militarist aggression across the planet.

The mark of a truly courageous media is not its willingness to reproduce more caustic cartoons or proclaim defiant words of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. It's that media's readiness to condemn and indict the 'civilising' politicians and states responsible for even greater acts of barbarous violence.

John blogs at Zenpolitics

 Liberal Condemning of Charlie Hebdo Killings Offers Little
Civilising Solace  : Information Clearing House - ICH

 

[Nihil]

The condemnation/censure of Hebdo does more than anything else to discredit Muslims and Islam. Because the implication is really clear - make fun of other religions, and its A-OK. Make fun of Islam, and be prepared to die because to quote people in this forum, "you don't tangle with thugs; you don't provoke wild animals"
Hey isn't that racist to Muslims? By acknowledging that only Muslims are violently angry?

 

[Prometheus]

Murdering for geopolitical reasons is good, murdering for some other reason (such as belief) is evil. Do you realize how absurd this kind of thinking is? See this excellent article, they are exactly my thoughts.

Liberal Condemning of Charlie Hebdo Killings Offers Little Civilising Solace

By John Hilley

January 08, 2015 "ICH" - Very sad thoughts with the victims and families of the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris.

Whatever might be claimed about the merit or effect of such journalistic views and images - mocking, controversial, satirical, provocative, incendiary, blasphemous, iconoclastic, defiant or otherwise - there is not the slightest moral justification for such violence or the murder of those who publish such things.

Yet, any measured observation of that violence must be seen against the much greater level of violence and murder perpetrated by the states living under such attacks.

Many, Muslims and non-Muslims, will have made the essential point that these killers are no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is of Christianity. Many across the Islamic world have condemned the Paris deaths.

Which raises the perennial question: why do Muslims, once again, feel so compelled to make such defensive appeals? Largely out of basic humanity. But, also, because a lot of liberal empathy for socially besieged Muslims and 'moderate Islam' is still laced with false dichotomies and misplaced loyalty.

The problem with much liberal 'Je Suis Charlie' solidarity is not its condemnation of violent jihadism, or cherishing of free speech. It's that such expression still relies on flawed identifications with 'enlightened' entities like 'our' states and their 'civilising' status.

Although well motivated, Owen Jones, for example, comes close to such a blanket label in this tweet:

Sickening act of mass murder in Paris. People from all communities will be repulsed by this atrocity. Solidarity with France. All fair and honourable comment on the terrible act and widespread response. But why any particular solidarity with France?

Thomas Piketty has just refused the Legion of Honour, insisting that the French state has no such validity in determining who or what is honourable. Why isn't Jones similarly specific over who deserves such empathy?

Or consider, more problematically, this reading from Channel 4's Jon Snow:

Paris: brutal clash of civilisations: Europe's belief in freedom of expression vs those for whom death is a weapon in defending their beliefs.Is this really a 'clash of civilisations'?

How did Snow arrive at this generic conceit of 'Europe's belief' in anything?

And if we are to speak of Europe as such an entity, what of its own dark record of murderous violence? One could more accurately characterise Europe's part in Western/Nato invasions, occupations and imperialist plundering as distinctly anti-civilising: 'those for whom death is a weapon in defending their geopolitical interests, rather than beliefs.'

Just think, past and present, of France's own militarist atrocities and self-serving interventions in Algeria, Indo-China, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali and other parts of Africa. Indeed, two of the Paris suspects are reported to have returned from jihadist service in Syria, the very same theatre of appalling violence the French state have been so wilfully fuelling.

While much of the liberal political class and media make lofty proclamations and pitch the Paris killings as a red line issue over free speech, they have virtually nothing equivalent, or worse, to say about such states crossing the 'civilisational' line into mass and sustained terrorism.

All of which perfectly shields the hypocritical condemnations and 'we will defend democracy' breast-beating of Hollande, Cameron and Obama. Where are all the searing media comments on their suitability to invoke the values of life and liberty?

This indulgence also provides liberal space for the right's poisonous claim that Western states are still soft on Islam. Thus on Channel 4 News was war hawk and neocon Douglas Murray allowed unopposed room to bewail the 'attack on Western freedoms' and declare that "terrorism works".

Likewise, in condemning the killers and urging liberal defence of free speech, a Guardian editorial can muster only token words on the gravity of Western crimes:

Poverty and discrimination at home may create fertile conditions for the spread of extremism, and western misadventures abroad can certainly inflame the risks.

Those last nine words say more about the Guardian's own feeble mitigations, pandering to power and failure of brave expression than any Voltarian defence of untrammelled speech.

Appalled by the Paris killings, Jon Snow indulges in even more liberal hubris: Make no mistake, this is a landmark moment in the affairs of man.

Can you imagine Snow offering similar enunciations over the West's mass slaughter of Iraq, Israel's grotesque crimes in Gaza, or the sustained killing of Afghan civilians by Nato forces?

For Snow and much of the liberal media, men in jihadist garb killing journalists is barbaric, while men in suits, ordering others in uniform to mass murder and maim millions of innocents has, seemingly, no such 'landmark' significance.

None of which ultimately detracts from the personal responsibility of those who unleashed this wicked killing in Paris. Their actions are as inhumanely futile in closing down real democratic speech as they are in furthering or illuminating Islam.

And, as ever, such acts only provide the purveyors of 'civilising' state violence even greater powers of control, surveillance and repression of serious speech, alongside the vitally extended freedom to inflict even more militarist aggression across the planet.

The mark of a truly courageous media is not its willingness to reproduce more caustic cartoons or proclaim defiant words of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. It's that media's readiness to condemn and indict the 'civilising' politicians and states responsible for even greater acts of barbarous violence.

John blogs at Zenpolitics

 Liberal Condemning of Charlie Hebdo Killings Offers Little
Civilising Solace  : Information Clearing House - ICH

i belong to a religion whoz gurus died for "other" religions.............anyone can kill for his faith...........try saving others............tolerance my friend ...is the only way forward..............the soon it takes route in muslims worldwide .........the sooner the better..............cheers

 

[usernameless]

It's horrible what happened and totally unnecessary for a damn cartoon. No religion justifies this. However, i reserve my right to question this act without people immediately silencing me for 'conspiracy theory' aka not following/believing what we get to see without questioning by ourselves. Read some articles stating that the killers used professional techniques, yet they failed at the most basic thing; leaving their ids behind in the car. Cmon, whoever takes even their id with them, let alone leaving it in the car and not carry it with you, when ones about to commit such an act, where an id card seems to play no role?

Sometimes it just feels as if muslims and Europeans are deliberately pitted against each other. Whoever thinks 'divide and rule' is not applied in the modern age is naive, and the media plays a huge role in shaping our thoughts. The worldwide media campaign on painting islam black only makes me more suspicious. Haven't followed this part much, but have western media extensively broadcasted/shared muslim leaders and clerics' condemnations? If not, why not? The average European is screaming that the moderate muslims are making no sound, but is a serious space given to such condemnations from the muslim corner in the western media to begin with? I might be wrong as i'm not tracking all media outlets out there.

Anyway, guess the European muslims (excl. such terrorist scum) will have their hands full with explaining and apologizing whenever this topic or religion comes up.