angered the jihad
by printing cartoons of the so-called "prophet" Muhammad in 2011.
The jihadists first bombed the
Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris in 2011.
They then returned in 2015 and attacked the offices with gunmen,
killing 10 journalists and staff,
including the editor,
the worst mass slaughter of journalists in Western Europe ever.
Time for Europe to get serious about criminalising and destroying Islamism.
Islamism threatens to end our ancient, hard-won European freedoms forever.
Some of us
were defending Charlie Hebdo long before the massacre.
Bruce Crumley, TIME's French correspondent, 2 Nov 2011, blames the rape victim.
He says it is
"hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam."
Rape is caused by skimpy dress.
And Islamic bombings are caused by blasphemy.
Perfect, perfect response to Crumley in the comments:
"This article is so offensive, someone might firebomb Time. Don't get upset though, they asked for it."
Responses to Crumley:
Can we torch Time Magazine's offices now?, Nick Cohen, 4 Nov 2011.
"what possible argument can those of us who shudder at the thought of arsonists torching Time .. now make in its defence? The latest issue contains a piece [which] is worth studying because its author seems to be trying to provide a defence for anyone who attacks his own company's premises."
Robert Spencer replies to Crumley, 3 Nov 2011:
"The huge, gaping hole in his argument, however, is that he is making it after Muslims reacted violently to satire. Judaism and Christianity are lampooned on a regular basis, but [arguments like Crumley's are not made]. So Crumley's argument boils down to saying that we should capitulate in the face of violent intimidation. This is not really about being sensitive. It is about doing what the thugs want so they won't hurt us again.
I'd rather die first."
James Kirchick, 4 Nov 2011:
"Crumley, who would make an excellent propaganda commissar in Uzbekistan or Iran, chided French politicians for "denouncing the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies," which is exactly what it was."
The editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier, says:
"We have the impression that it's officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental Islamists.
Muhammad isn't sacred to me.
I live under French law; I don't live under Koranic law."
In 2015, he was murdered by the jihadi scum. Brave man. RIP.
Charlie Hebdo killers
shouting the war cry of jihad, "Allahu Akbar!"
Charlie Hebdo killers
casually execute a wounded French cop,
He was a Muslim, who died for our freedom.
I can live with this.
Muslims don't have to like Charlie Hebdo.
That's not what freedom means.
have every right to find Charlie Hebdo revolting, disgusting and offensive.
Freedom simply means that, in a free society, one must tolerate the existence of revolting and offensive people.
This young, mixed-race couple are the
modern day Nazis who slaughtered Jews at a French supermarket.
Hollywood never prepared us for this as the face of modern fascism.
man was the
His wife, it seems, helped set up the attack, then fled to Syria.
Jews hid from this Nazi in the freezer, for 5 hours. In Europe. In 2015.
Jews (including a mother and baby) hide from the above Nazi in a freezer.
In Europe. In 2015.
The death of the supermarket terrorist.
Jesus, they riddled the guy. No fucking around.
While there was plenty of nonsense published after the attack,
the main reaction of French people and of Westerners in general was total shock,
and a refreshing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo:
"Je suis Charlie".
There are signs that this could be a turning point for Europe.
First, the bad reactions:
Blaming the victims:
blames the victims
for criticising religion:
"the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected."
blames the victims
for criticising religion:
"Stephane Charbonnier, the paper's publisher, was killed today ... It is too bad that he didn't understand the role he played in his tragic death. ... when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, "Muhammad isn't sacred to me." Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive."
These guys are two sides of the same coin.
Socialist Workers Party
says Charlie Hebdo
"has become a specialist in presenting provocative and racist attacks on Islam."
Julian Vigo, 9 Jan 2015, says we need to consider the attacks in context.
"what is pitifully lacking in most every media representation of the attack ...
is the historical background of what this attack was about."
However, she then goes on to discuss a bunch of largely irrelevant leftist "root causes",
and omits mention of the main root cause of all:
the 1,400 year long persecution by Islam of its critics.
A persecution that started with the Prophet Muhammad,
and that continues today.
Vigo is so loony left that she attacks anyone who criticises Islam.
She calls left-wing magazine Charlie Hebdo racist,
describes her fellow leftists Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins as
"21st-century lackeys of neo-colonialist politics .. who inefficiently mask their racism".
I don't think this woman has any words left to describe right-wing people like me,
if that's how she talks about leftists who aren't left enough!
Mark LeVine, 10 Jan 2015,
says we need a history lesson.
And then gives a very strange one.
"Where does the story begin? Quite simply with colonialism."
He should read something about Islam.
The story begins with Muhammad killing his critics.
The story begins with
Muhammad's first victim
Asma bint Marwan
in 624 AD.
It gets even worse after that start.
Apparently capitalism is also to blame:
"ultimately the violence against Charlie Hebdo is not about Islam per se; it's about a contemporary world system that is particularly adept at grinding down whatever decent values exist in Islam and other faith systems
Decades of the combined onslaught of extreme capitalism and extreme religion have shaped a necropolitics of the oppressed".
Dreadful cartoon response
He thinks it is wrong to draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
He compares them to racist and anti-semitic cartoons.
by Ted Rall, 7 Jan 2015.
Nothing wrong with his article, expressing solidarity with the cartoonists.
But this is a guy who has gone on record
supporting the exact same jihad
that killed them.
Chérif and Saïd Kouachi
were linked to the Iraqi "resistance",
which Ted Rall supported and praised.
So spare me your crocodile tears, asshole.
French left-wing intellectual
says non-Muslims have no right to blaspheme against Islam.
"The right to blasphemy on one's own religion should not confused with the right to blasphemy on someone else's religion, particularly in the difficult socio-economic context of today's French society: repetitive, systematic blasphemy on Mahomet, central figure of the religion of a weak and discriminated-against group, should be, whatever tribunals say, considered as inciting to religious, ethnic or racial hatred."
Irish student Olly Donnelly
attacks "offensive" speech about Islam, after an Islamic massacre of the speakers. Article 6 Oct 2015.
"Charlie didn't just publish images of the Prophet. Charlie went further, depicting the Prophet in offensive scenarios and saying deplorable things. It's clear how these comics by the cartoonist "Luz" would offend ... the implicit argument of "don't read it if you don't like it" isn't really useful either. It's basically a way of saying that if you want to avoid being insulted, don't listen to the insults.
... the comics that they published, within their rights, were still tremendously offensive and irresponsible."
I find Olly Donnelly's article tremendously offensive.
I don't think "Don't listen to him" is a useful answer.
I want whatever solution he is proposing for offensive speech.
3 days after Jews are slaughtered in Paris by Muslims,
"Why Jews being afforded protection in France & Muslims are not?"
"It wasn't courage to attack a religious figure".
She is talking about a religious figure you get killed for attacking!
If it's not courage to attack such a figure then language has no meaning.
She seems to think the hijab is banned in France.
"a young Muslim girl can't even put on her head-scarf as she dresses for school."
The hijab is not banned. It is the niqab, which only lunatics wear.
Dumbest question ever:
"Who is more courageous? The editor and his cartoonists in their city-centre office, feeding the French metropolitan elite what it wants, or the young Muslim girl who puts on her headscarf today and knocks on a door looking for a job?"
Answer: The editor and his cartoonists, by a mile.
"Or the young Muslim boy who passed the crowds that were queuing up to buy Charlie Hebdo yesterday, as he made his way to his local mosque?"
Oh my god, he has to live in a country where not everyone worships the Prophet!
Oh the horror!
The article carries on with more nonsense like this.
Turkey is not going Islamist, and is more secular than the UK, apparently.
Living in a wealthy democracy, she is totally relaxed about the poverty
of the poor people in Cuba:
"Many of these deprivations represent a gap between them and Western society but are not in themselves serious.
Before we lambast Fidel we would do well to remember
that Cubans may look across the Florida Straits at orange hair and wonder if democracy's all it's cracked up to be."
Victoria White, 15 Jan 2015,
has it entirely backwards.
Protecting Islam from mockery
will keep it in the Middle Ages,
and will prevent it from improving and reforming.
OK, enough rubbish. Let's have someone good:
Claire Berlinski, 7 Jan 2015, thinks Europe will eventually fight for its freedoms. I hope she's right.
"The assailants are as yet at liberty. I hope they'll be dead by the time you read this. But if not: You want me too? Come get me. Because nothing short of killing me - and many more of my kind - will ever shut us up.
And if you don't believe that now, you'll believe it very soon. Because there are more of us willing to die for that freedom than those of you eager to take it from us.
And soon you will find out that those of us willing to die for that freedom are also much better at killing than you.
So come and get me.
Because you've got no
idea what we're capable of when we are pushed too far. And you are more than pushing your luck."
There has been a fantastic public reaction to the atrocity.
But it is unclear what it means or if it will last.
French government invited
representatives of Russia, Egypt, Turkey, PA, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Gabon and Algeria
on the marches.
Inviting actual jihadists, funders of jihad,
and killers of journalists.
Nick Cohen, 11 Jan 2015, says the point of such attacks is to put an end to Western press freedom.
And much of the western media is co-operating.
"We have a blasphemy law. No electorate has approved it. No parliament has passed it. No judge supervises its application and no jury determines guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There's no right of appeal. And the penalty is death.
It is enforced ... by a fear that dare not speak its name; a cowardice so total it lacks the courage to admit it is afraid.
The British are the world's worst cowards. It is one thing to say you don't approve of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons.
But the BBC, Channel 4 and many newspapers won't run any images of Mohammad whatsoever.
They would at least have acknowledged censorship if they had announced that they were frightened of attacks on their staff.
Admittedly, an honest admission that terror works would shred the pretence that journalists are fearless speakers of truth to power. But it would be a small gesture of solidarity."
Many people made
"Je suis Charlie"
in solidarity, but this was very touching.
The 87 year old creator of Asterix came out of retirement to make this.
After the massacre,
many normal media outlets around the world showed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad.
They were printed in newspapers,
shown on TV,
put on websites
The global taboo against printing cartoons of Muhammad is crumbling.
If we all do it, there is safety in numbers.
They can't kill us all.
The long-term result of the Charlie Hebdo massacre may be to make it
finally acceptable to display Muhammad cartoons.
The dam is breaking.
Soon it will fall down.
Muhammad cartoons shown in the Irish media in Jan 2015:
The dam is breaking.
The day is coming
when we are not afraid any more.
The touching, beautiful cover of the first Charlie Hebdo since their friends
were murdered by the evil, humourless jihad.
The words above say "All is forgiven".
Muhammad is crying
and holding a sign "Je suis Charlie".
The cartoon is lovely, though of course it is far too nice to Muhammad.
would have heartily approved of the massacre.
The Irish Times
runs two whole pages of Charlie Hebdo "solidarity" on 14 Jan 2015.
But you can see what's missing.
They decline to show what the Charlie Hebdo staff got killed for.
There are no Muhammad cartoons.
They do not even show the beautiful post-massacre cartoon.
Comically bowdlerised photograph in Irish Times, 27 Jan 2015.
Michael Harding, Irish Times, 3 Feb 2015, bravely declares: "I am not Charlie".
Of course you're not. The Irish Times would not publish you if you were.
The unbeliever Harding says
"may his name be praised" about Muhammad, who persecuted unbelievers.
There was no Islamic soul-searching after 9/11.
Why would we expect any Islamic soul-searching after the Charlie Hebdo massacre?
Of course, there was none.
Just the usual mobs of self-righteous pricks.
The cause of jihad is not cartoons. What have cartoons got to do with Catholic worshippers in a church?
The cause of jihad is the ideology of jihad. This is what it does. This is what it always has done, for 1400 years.
"Muhammad isn't sacred to me.
I live under French law; I don't live under Koranic law."
- Western hero
Stephane Charbonnier, editor of Charlie Hebdo, murdered by the jihad in 2015,
sums it up.
Westerners will fight to the death, and rightly so, to avoid living under Koranic law.
Blocked on Twitter by the regressive left and Islamists:
I love debate.
I love ideas.
But the Western left
and their friends the Islamic right
do not return the favour.
Their response to opposing ideas, whether expressed politely or robustly, is often to block.
See Who blocks me on Twitter.
Twitter is broken, 2016 to 2022:
I am on Twitter at
Twitter was a great place for debate before 2016.
You could meet everyone in the world, and argue about ideas.
Starting in 2016,
Twitter became increasingly broken.
It became full of reporting and bans and censorship.
In 2019, Twitter even started
for no reason that was ever explained, or could be appealed.
By 2022, everyone was looking for a better place to debate.
Twitter is saved, 2022:
bought Twitter and started to end the censorship.
It looks great so far.
Twitter seems to be saved.