Je Suis NON Charlie

Post Reply New Topic

In response to #1, wouldn't "Nous sommes Charlie" be more fitting as an expression of solidarity?

And here is part of my point.

OK so I may have used some intemperate words and yes my French is of the pigeon kind, maybe charlie hebdo are simply rudderless provocateurs I don't know, what I do know is that some of their attacks on Islam are puerile and designed to inflame hatred. Rudderless populist, identity politics are not my thing hence I am NOT Charlie. But more to the point I am attacking the nauseatingly hypocritical chant of "defend free speech" by western governments.

As to you Fnord with "whose side are you on anyway" Is that really the level of your argument, that if someone dares to criticise a viral meme they are somehow siding with the "enemy". and Walrus you claim Assange is hiding like a coward from rape charges, have you looked into the nature of circumstances, the fact that he has NOT been charged with anything and he has repeatedly asked that if the authorities want to interview him he is more than happy for this to occur in the UK and the fact that he waited several weeks in Sweden whilst the initial investigation was carried out and was granted permission to leave. If you really think he is facing fair and reasonable requests and this is not some elaborate attempt to get him in front of a grande jury then I can only hope you have not availed yourself of the full story.

I am only Charlie in as much as yes, I could be targeted merely for existing as many who ARE targeted are devout Muslims so if they can be, I certainly can even though I am only American.

I am not into the populist rhetoric either so in that sense the magazine does not represent the way I think. It has to be more than that. You have to make valid points, not just stir people's anger only because you can.

ANA to a great extent I agree with your view. I understand the sentiment of "Je suis Charlie" I just don't fully agree with it as I am very cynical about Charlie Hebdo being held up as a martyr to the cause of freedom of speech and democracy as well as comparisons to the great satirists of the 16-19 th century.


Also you made a comment about wolfs in sheep clothing, this is exactly how I see the actions of the 40 world leaders linking arms at the head of the recent rally.

Unlikely to be printed, not printed today, by a free newpaper we get on buses and trains:

"Though cartoons should be free to criticise harmdoers, they should not be free to inflict personal harm themselves. Hence, unless you want to risk being sued for contributing to suicides, you should ban and refuse to publish cartoons like today's Pearls Before Swine, gloating over the spectacle of unjust social attitudes causing loneliness."

Again, I think you have no familiarity whatsoever with the work of Philippe Honore and are basically talking out of the wrong orrifice. I'll take it back if you can show me one satirical cartoon from the 16th - 19th century of higher quality than one of Honore's. This is not a rhetorical challenge. I would love to see what you are talking about and I think you might learn something if you tried.

If the Hebdo people were still alive, they would be the first to point out the hypocrisy of the politicos making hay out their deaths.

You presumed they were somehow like the reptiles who work for Murdoch and could not have been more wrong.

Ana thinks they had no valid points but clearly shows that she doesn't know what any of their points were and claims she can tell what the cartoons are about without being able to read the text because they are drawings. This puts here on the same level as the islamists who condemned Rushdie without ever reading a word of his book, because they understood the title.

I don't care about the political points you want to make, I think it's low and despicable to smear good people out of ignorance.

Either you are against the murderers or you are with them. The murderers have made that very plain. Either you utterly oppose the murderers and stand with Charlie Hebdo or you adore the murderers and support Islamofascism. It was the Islamofascists' choice that it be that way. If you do not adore the murderers, they will murder you.

That is such a fallacy. It's called Either/Or.

A new issue is about to come out, featuring cartoons of Mohammed which is their freedom to publish. We all have freedom to choose if we wish to buy it. Just because we do not choose to buy it doesn't mean we have chosen sides or are criminals.

You can bet he would've never written this politically correct drivel had it been Christian US citizens who travelled to Saudi Arabia to shoot customs officials because they throw bibles into the shredder. We'll never know, will we? That's a very unlikely scenario. Blood-filled revenge crusades over petty things like drawings are exclusive to one certain religion.

Now Davutoglu is trying to woo Merkel into putting the pressure on the EU to accept Turkey saying it will show the world Europeans and Muslims can live together in Europe. If that did happen, it might be more difficult for the inflammatory rhetoric to exist in the media because there would be many more Muslims in European society.

May I point out that a church bombing in America in the 1960's killed four little Black girls?

Because messages of racial equality and encouragement to work towards that end were being preached in that church....

Because the Black people of that place and time had no freedom of speech, so they could only gather together and encourage each other in church meetings.

Some people did not like what was preached in someone else's church, so they bombed the church building, and killed four children.

Some people did not like the cartoons and editorializing of a publication in France, so they killed four adult office workers.

Was it Charles Dickens who wrote:

"The more that things change, the more they remain the same."?

At least children were not the victims, this time.

I don't see anyone saying death should have been the outcome here...all of it seems in vain from where I stand. Just all of it. It leaves me wondering what is the point? Yeah I get freedom of speech yadda yadda yadda I get that. Just doesn't seem like it was worth all this just to publish a cartoon but I admittedly cannot wrap my mind around extremism in general. I see all of us as symbiotic - dependent on one another - and extremism just doesn't fit into that model.

To me, the loudest message can be sent by NOT buying. Then they will get it. This doesn't work. It doesn't sell. Do something that works. Do something that sells. It's just pure logic to me.

And the thing about black people and the civil rights movement - blacks look a certain way and they simply cannot change that. If you are made a certain way, you cannot change it and if people cannot accept what you are, they are violating your fundamental right to exist as you are. No one should ever be penalized for something they cannot change.

You do have free will. You can change what you produce, if you choose. So these are two different circumstances entirely.

Of course depicting a naked woman with a burqa stuffed up her a**hole in a piece supporting the french government banning them is so far and away superior its intellect and rapier like wit than anything James Gillray, George Cruikshank, William Hogarth, Thomas Rowlandson, not to mention the likes of Goya ever produced

Really if you think a stereotypical Muslim f*****g a pigs head because he can't afford to be a paedophile is high satire I shake my head in wonderment.



She made a very good point that this stuff is populist rhetoric. Maybe it does have a point but this is lost in its vile and puerile nature. If you need this extraordinary low level of intellectual commentary i pity you.




I could not agree more, I see this all the time. However I am not doing this here. It is you who do not seem to understand the bankrupt nature of these cartoons.

But again I am not out to besmirch the name of Charlie Hebdo, its body of work should do that for it, I am simply saying there are much worthier examples of attacks on freedom of speech by our own states, and that to place this rag in the same company as the folk I have just cited is, in my opinion, a travesty.

That said I thoroughly condemn the attack as a vile and atrocious act.

Oh well done, there's a clever seal, now for your next fish .......................

It seems so silly to blame a cartoon or some satire magazine for anything, the blame falls squarely on the people responsible and those that crafted their beliefs. Barbarism can't be tolerated, if one religion cannot accept this then they don't have any business living in the West simple as that. I say this understanding that this larger conflict has very little do with religion, it's mainly geopolitical in nature and I believe the West should 100% disengage and listen to the legitimate grievances the people of these countries have. There is a reason why extremism is growing and it isn't some divinely inspired religious fervor; it is no coincidence that this current flare up has came in the decade following the invasion and occupation of Iraq and now these violent jihadists are more powerful now than before this "War On Terror" had been waged. It's a total policy failure and the longer we continue the same tactics this same problem will become bigger and bigger.

Institute a policy of non-interventionism, restrict immigration from these countries, try to repatriate those in your country that cannot integrate. If you are to immigrate to the West you should be prepared to accept the liberalism, democracy, and the culture of the country you are moving to. You can talk about tolerance and multiculturalism but it seems hollow to me given the low rates of integration, nothing good can come from creating these ghettoized ethnic enclaves. That's just inviting a fifth column into your country. I understand the need for immigration and don't oppose it, I believe however in adding to the family not building some slave house out back. Who is the real racist in this scenario? If all cultures are equal and worthy of being preserved, then how come not our own? Either way, barbarism cannot be tolerated in order to protect our own or under the guise of cultural tolerance. I think most Muslims in America integrate very well and this is supposedly a country that is so racist and Islamophobic, what does that say about Europe?