Charlie Hebdo

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Charlie Hebdo

fschmidt
Administrator
The big news this week is that two Islamist gunmen killed twelve people at the French "satirical" weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo.  The world is almost universally outraged by this attack.  But not me.

What exactly is Charlie Hebdo?  It's in French and I don't read French, but I think a google image search conveys the basic idea.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlie+Hebdo&tbm=isch

From this, we see that "satire" is really just a polite way of saying ridicule.  This is a liberal newspaper that ridicules religion and whatever else liberals don't approve of.  We can see a similar style of cartoon by googling "nazi jewish cartoons".

http://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+jewish+cartoons&tbm=isch

There isn't much difference except that the Nazis had somewhat better taste than Liberals do.  Of course the targets are different, but that doesn't matter, the concept is the same.

Should this kind of thing be tolerated?  Whatever the answer, the answer should be consistent.  If you are going to tolerate Charlie Hebdo then you should also tolerate Nazi anti-Jewish cartoons.  Is France consistent?  Please read about Hate speech laws in France.  According to these laws, this kind of thing is "hate speech" and should not be tolerated.  And in fact Muslims took Charlie Hebdo to court based on this law and lost.  This is liberal hypocrisy at its finest.  For a liberal, hate speech is only speech against something liberals like.  Hate speech against what liberals hate isn't hate speech at all, according to liberals, it is free speech.

So let us summarize what a liberal is.  A liberal is a hypocrite who ridicules opposing viewpoints, who is intolerant and legally censors opposing viewpoints, who is totally closed-minded and is unwilling to even listen to opposing viewpoints, and who come out in mass protest when their hypocrisy is threatened.  In short, liberals are scum.  But does this justify killing them?

On an intellectual level, this is a difficult question.  But on an emotional, it is easy.  I am filled with joy whenever I hear that liberals have been killed.  How could I possibly feel any other way?  I have an opposing view to liberals, just as these Muslims do, so the liberals have relentlessly ridiculed and censored me.  They are totally incapable of respecting or tolerating opposing viewpoints like mine.  Every interaction I have with liberals causes me to hate them more.  How could I wish for anything other than their death?

On an intellectual level, I believe in free speech and live and let live.  So in theory, liberals should be allowed to be scum and should be left in peace.  But this only applies as long as liberals follow the same rules.  When the liberal West interferes in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, Muslims have every right to attack back.  The argument that these are innocent citizens of the West is absurd.  It is precisely propaganda like Charlie Hebdo that causes the public to choose governments that attack Islam.  So Charlie Hebdo is a justified target.  My only criticism is that while France is quite intolerant internally to Muslims, it is not particularly active against Muslim countries.  So Muslims who don't like France should just leave.  The same cannot be said for America which relentlessly sticks its nose into the affairs of other nations.  So attacks against America are entirely justified.

I am not Muslim, so this is not my problem.  So while violence against liberals appeals to me emotionally, I have no intellectual reason to do this and I won't.  I will just live my life in peace, and take pleasure in any news of violence against the liberals who I hate.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

Anatol
Hello,

[~} I am very pleased the now-evil West, which is the den of feminism and is the cause of most NEW problems in the world the previous 30 years has been attacked.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

ShaunS
In reply to this post by fschmidt
Obviously many of your arguments are very poor.

He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. A pen is not a bullet, the two are not the same, thus the response was extreme and thus inappropriate.

If a God is insulted then the God himself shall respond directly and has the power to do so without the help and support of people on the ground.

The issue here is that Muslims do not have a sense of humour. Was their God offended or were they offended? The issue is when a priest decides what a God thinks and as you are aware the God himself is capable of direct communication.

The Muslims are not really fighting the West as you seem to think. They are currently fighting each other as they have been dumb enough to develop a philosophy that divides them into two opposing camps. They only attack America to gain credibility.

I am not convinced that these cartoonists and their paper were Liberal politicians. They appeared to be journalists. The Nazi's in you comparison were a dictatorship not a liberal group. Perhaps these Nazi's were thinking of the Jews as being Liberals?

None of these people deserved to die as none of them committed any serious offences. It is only Muslims who think such stuff because they have stupidly severe laws. Only recently the chief of the religious police in some ISIS area was beheaded and the head left with a cigarette in his mouth because the local people were enraged by being told that they were not allowed to smoke. The Muslims therefore lack credibility and their religion is actually better than they are.

Perhaps one day the Muslims could follow Islam for a change.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

fschmidt
Administrator
This post was updated on .
ShaunS,

It is the West that lives by the sword, and therefore shall die by the sword according to the saying.

God acted through people in the Bible.  Not sure why it should be different now.

Sense of humor?  I think Charlie Hebdo is about as humorous as Nazi anti-Jewish cartoons.  Do you find that humorous?

I don't care about the internal affairs of the Muslims.  That is none of my business.

Of course the paper was put out by journalists.  So what?  The Nazis put out their propaganda before being in government.  I see no difference.

And again, Islam is none of my business.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

caamib
In reply to this post by fschmidt
It is important to note that it is much easier for Muslims to attack countries like France or even Germany than USA. It's hard to even visit USA today for anybody, let alone a Muslim, so unless you're some kind of a sleeper agent or recruited in some way you can't just appear there.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

ShaunS
I think that ISIS in particular should be something to take an interest in.

ISIS are not a hugely religious group and they are not really intellectual in any sense but they seem to have developed a very pure strategy which needs to be looked at rather carefully.

A Muslim man can have four wives. To get four wives - kill four husbands. In fact to get more women kill more men. This strategy has significant advantages and is simple enough for even thick people to understand.

So they move into a new area and start killing men. As they take over the area they acquire the females by killing the males. With four wives they overcome the nine month gestation period and have definitely greater numbers of children. All the children support the same basic philosophy. The result is a progression rather like a virus. It's simple, it's easy, it's straightforward, it's easy to understand, and it's a perfect method of conquering an enemy. Attrition followed by reproduction. It doesn't require ambition and it matches the needs of evolution directly.

This is what they are doing. The political west is a concept that they wouldn't understand. ISIS is not taking land - they appear to be taking people. They are conquering the human race, not countries, not borders or boundaries. Kill then Take, then repeat and do so as a group.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

fschmidt
Administrator
In reply to this post by caamib
It is certainly hard to enter America legally, but one can pay to be smuggled in from Mexico.  I have heard that some Islamic State fighters are in Mexico just across from where I live.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1465830/isis-terrorist-cell-formed-just-a-few-miles-from-el-paso-texas-local-sheriff-says/
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

Humanity
Administrator
In reply to this post by fschmidt
fschmidt wrote
My only criticism is that while France is quite intolerant internally to Muslims, it is not particularly active against Muslim countries.  So Muslims who don't like France should just leave.
They won't have to. If the trends hold, France will belong to Muslims within a several decades. I guess that is the best revenge for them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

fschmidt
Administrator
In reply to this post by fschmidt
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

Humanity
Administrator
Liberals undermine their credibility much more than their opposition ever could. French authorities have basically arrested and prosecuted people for thoughtcrimes. And it hardly took them any time at all.

France is losing the demographic struggle and is losing the moral struggle as well, through its hypocrisy.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

caamib
I don't anything about the state of free speech in France so I'm not sure what this is about. UK is disastrous in this aspect, but I can't know about France. Maybe this is just a nervous reaction in the aftermath, while still disgusting? If so, you'd expect more maturity from such an old society.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

ShaunS
The problem as I see it, is that there is NO freedom of speech. At the same time the people are told that there is freedom of speech and because they believe what they have been told they speak freely.

What happens next is that one side shoots at them with guns while the other side throws people in jail. If the people could be told that there isn't freedom of speech, then they would know that they could NOT speak freely and then they would not do so and none of this would happen.

Governments want people to believe in freedom of speech because they want people to speak freely so that they can then be attacked for what they say. If the people did not speak freely then the governments would not know who to arrest. So there is a general ploy here to lure people out into the open. Freedom of Speech is the cheese in the trap (and it works very well).

Visibility creates contention, handling the contention is power, (power attracts females).

Freedom of Speech is a form of visibility and this means that you only have such freedom if you can handle the contention - which if by custom or law (such as with the feminists) is mostly fake, can be tested to show the lack of power. Yes, you can insult Islam, but as the Pope said expect to get punched for doing so. If you can't handle that then don't do it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

fschmidt
Administrator
In reply to this post by fschmidt
Here is a very good article:

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2015/01/19/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/

The comparison to Julius Streicher is very good.  Julius Streicher was tried and hung at the Nuremberg trials for publishing anti-jewish cartoons.  Exactly how this different from the killing of the staff at Charlie Hebdo?
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

ShaunS
The difference between right and wrong can simply be determined by the number of dead bodies.

If there are any dead bodies then it is wrong. The more there are then the more wrong it is. The function of Evil is to kill. I'm sure I have given this definition before.

Thou shalt not kill...  without a motive.

Thou shalt not kill... unless it's some other religion.

Thou shalt not kill... unless God says so.

None are correct. They did it so we can do it - is not correct. Even evil cannot be killed, without creating a vacancy for a greater stronger evil.

*Try to understand that this is not religious. It is a practical factor. Death is not the convenient simple solution that it may appear to be. Re-education or some form of enslavement, the enemy is displaced or dislodged but is preserved as some future value may appear.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

ShaunS
Just a few more words.

Why? Why is the function of Evil to kill? The impulse comes from the brain stem.

You eat what you kill. So in a sense murder is pre-cannibalism. Violence is then pre-murder. In this sense it is hunger that motivates. Saddam Hussein would starve his soldiers before sending them into battle. They would kill more because they were hungry. If you don't want a murderer to kill then keep him well fed. If you don't want violent prisoners then give them more food.

Evil was needed to kill for food. If you don't want to eat it, then don't kill it.

There is probably a further aspect relating to the demonic which may also feed on that which was killed. I am now leaning towards the notion that the demonic comes from the brain stem.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Charlie Hebdo

Moralmoe91
In reply to this post by fschmidt
What's interesting to me is how liberals in the U.S are largely silent about Muslims/Islam but choose to go after Christianity instead. And when they do speak up about Islam they support it! The liberals in the U.S hate Christianity because most Christians are against gay marriage. They call Christianity an intolerant religion but they fail to realize that muslims are far more intolerant than Christians and actually kill people they disagree with. American Liberals are idiots...