Terrorism

The White House on Charlie Hebdo, Then and Now

|

From their previous firebombing. This cartoonist, Luz, survived today's attack because he overslept.
Source: Rex Features

The White House has released a statement from President Barack Obama about this morning's attack and murder of 12 people at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris over its use of depictions of Mohammad in its images. It's short and to the point:

I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time. France is America's oldest ally, and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world. Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended. France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers. We are in touch with French officials and I have directed my Administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice.

Nothing particularly outrageous about the response, but there is a notable lack of defense of free speech and free expression beyond an extremely vague gesture at "universal values." It's a statement that murdering people is bad and freedom is good.

This isn't the first time Charlie Hebdo has been attacked over its depictions of Mohammad. In 2011, the weekly newspaper was firebombed over previous jokes targeting Islam. Then in 2012 it was in the news again as more representations of Muhammad stirred up more fears. It came up at a White House press briefing and here's then Press Secretary Jay Carney's response:

Q    The French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and schools in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.  Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.  We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.  But we've spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.

In other words, we don't question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.  And I think that that's our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

Now, it has to be said, and I'll say it again, that no matter how offensive something like this is, it is not in any way justification for violence—not in any way justification for violence.  Now, we have been staying in close touch with the French government as well as other governments around the world, and we appreciate the statements of support by French government officials over the past week, denouncing the violence against Americans and our diplomatic missions overseas.

Some media outlets are noting today that the White House was critical of Charlie Hebdo back then. That's true, but at least the administration did state the value of upholding freedom of expression. There's actually nothing about freedom of speech in the president's current response.

Secretary of State John Kerry did better in public comments, though I think many would take issue with his claim that France "gave birth to Democracy herself." He said that extremists fear the most France's freedom and free expression: "Free expression and a free press are core values; they are universal values, principles that can be attacked but never eradicated, because brave and decent people around the world will never give in to the intimidation and terror that those seeking to destroy those values deploy." It always amazes me how, even when the Obama Administration promotes individual freedom and liberty, they manage to make a statement of collective "universal values." If freedom of speech and expression were truly universal values, then we wouldn't need the First Amendment to protect Americans from government censorship. We certainly wish they were universal values, but they're obviously not.

NEXT: Border Drones Cost More Than Advertised and Offer Dubious Benefits, Says Inspector General

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think many would take issue with his claim that France “gave birth to Democracy herself.”

    Yeah, historically inaccurate, but possibly short for “modern democracy”?

    1. If we’re being pedantic, then why would we want to insult France?

    2. I think the First Republic may take exception with that characterization….at least until all its governing members were dragged to the guillotine.

    3. Even so, we still beat them to the punch.

    4. France wasn’t the first modern democracy. Either Greece, Britain, or America was the country that “gave birth to democracy herself” depending on how you define “birth” and “democracy.”

      1. I thought the United States was an oligarchy. Satire and parody (even kinds that we “really don’t like”) are certainly not criminalized in democracies, but they find ways of doing just that in America. See the documentation of one case still going on (in New York of all places, the nation’s presumed cultural capital) at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    5. The answer is no.

      Ancient Greece for the idea and USA for its actual implementation.

      End of discussion.

  2. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

    -Barack Obama, Address to the United Nations

    1. We’re one day closer to that future.

    2. I think he meant that the future must not belong to those who tell the truth about the Prophet of Islam.

      One need not slander the Prophet of Islam to get the message across.

      1. People do seem to forget that slander/libel/defamation requires the statements to be harmful and false.

        1. Good because I regularly call Muhammad a pedophile child rapist, because you know, that’s what he was. Now when I call him a pigfucker that might be slander, but I still do it because Muslims need to be offended more.

        2. … harmful, false and living.

  3. Jesus, I always forget what a miserable toad Jay Carney was.

    ‘It’s bad of you to engage in free speech attacking a major religion.’ Solid stand for freedom of speech there.

    Incidentally, are any of the people who claimed in the other thread that Islam is ‘just another religion’ and that it’s wrong to point out that they appear to be vastly more violent going to point me to the last time a White House press secretary said we shouldn’t criticize Christianity because people might die?

    This is what I find so comical. The very people who claim Islam is a religion of peace will criticize attacks on Islam based on the argument that attacking Islam could result in violence. Therefore, even the people claiming it’s a religion of peace don’t believe it and are just saying something they know to be a lie as a means of cultural signaling.

    If Islam is just like other religions, then I suppose Matt Parker is going to be assassinated by Catholics one of these days due to South Park’s mockery of Jesus. If that doesn’t happen, then we’ll know there is a difference and an obvious one.

    1. Islam is just another religion from the Dark Ages, it just hasn’t quite made it out yet.

      1. They’re all for peace and they’ll kill anyone who doesn’t agree.

        1. To be fair, it’s just like Christianity, only 400 years behind.

          1. Exactly. Though it seems like the Islamic timeline may be going in the opposite direction.

            1. Not quite … it’s just like Christendom, only 400-500 years behind and violent, global conquest is hard-wired in Islamic Scripture.

              1. It is hundreds of years younger than Christianity.

                1. Na na na so there! harumph!

                2. “It is hundreds of years younger than Christianity.”

                  700 years younger. Hmmm … so we can expect a “modern” version of Islam sometime around the year 2600 AD?

    2. A couple of things….

      1. I won’t join in on the collectivist blame game bullshit. That road leads nowhere useful or good.
      2. Is there a higher rate of violent crime in Muslim communities here in the states? I have no idea, but that would be interesting to know.
      3. I worked at the Watergate for years, while the Saudi embassy had offices there. I must have passed by thousands of Arabs in my time there, including fresh off the plane, ready to be processed, college-aged men. I’d share elevators with them and see them in the men’s room. Not once was I attacked or even treated rudely.

      Does Islam attract it share of 3rd world nutjobs with no regard for human life? Absolutely. So does Marxism and whatever tribalist or nationalist movements there are in the 3rd World. No shortage of those fucking loons, ready to slaughter entire villages at a whim.

      1. 2. Is there a higher rate of violent crime in Muslim communities here in the states? I have no idea, but that would be interesting to know.

        Come on, JW, they have “workarounds” for all that bullshit.

        Any religion that says it’s ok to rape a woman (or man, for that matter) is fucked and should be exterminated with extreme prejudice.

        1. I should add it is the religion that preaches such bullshit that I want to eliminate, not the people. Critical distinction.

          Tolerance does not necessitate tolerating intolerance.

          1. I should add it is the religion that preaches such bullshit that I want to eliminate, not the people. Critical distinction.

            I don’t disagree with that.

            OK, what’s Step 1?

            1. Collect all the underpants. Obviously.

        2. So…Christianity and Judaism?

          1. Don’t think I stated any exemptions.

          2. In Saudi Arabia, a woman can be sentenced by a court to be raped.

            Even the fucking Marxists never thought of anything like that.

            1. Yeah. I don’t care who you are; if you’re down with that shit, I pretty much hope you die in a fire, maybe even one I lit and locked you in. (not you specifically).

            2. Try to be fair please. It is only if she deserves it. Anyway, it is the LAW, so it must be upheld. And, it isn’t like it is rape-rape.

              Is she beheaded after for being an unclean woman? Very enlightened if she isn’t.

      2. ^^This.

        I work with a crapload of Muslims, right here in the U.S. government. Shocking, I know.

        1. Do they say anything about incidents like this Paris atrocity?

          1. I dunno – haven’t talked to any Muslims yet today. Their jobs here are to translate U.S. policy into Arabic & Persian and disseminate it across Arab & Persian message boards and blog comment sections, so their view is probably whatever Obama tells them it is. 90% of the people who work here (of all creeds) are 100% Obamabot.

            1. Their jobs here are to translate U.S. policy into Arabic & Persian and disseminate it across Arab & Persian message boards and blog comment sections

              Wait…what?

              1. The job of our bureau is to explain U.S. policy to foreign audiences. We’re the child of the old USIA. Pretty standard stuff, really. Make ferners love us.

                1. Oh Gawd… I thought the VOA/VOD was borderline….spamming blogs? Oy.

                  1. The good thing is, because of Smith-Mundt, they don’t show up on ‘Merikan blogs. Though they would love to. People around here hate Smith-Mundt and would love nothing more than to propagandize to the U.S. public.

              2. so Putin isn’t the only one fielding a troll army?

            2. Nothing left to cut.

        2. I’ve been over this before on these very boards. A majority of Muslims in America are normal Americans. That doesn’t change the fact that ISLAM is an international scourge.

          Islam is a philosophy. A lot of people who declare themselves Muslims don’t follow major aspects of what the philosophy tells them to do.

          Two things can simultaneously be true: 1. Most Muslims are good people. 2. A ton of Muslims who aren’t good people are terrible human beings as a direct consequence of the precepts of Islam. These are not mutually exclusive.

          1. A ton of Muslims who aren’t good people are terrible human beings as a direct consequence of the precepts of Islam.

            This sounds a lot like Meese’s “Porn causes rape” premise. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

            As I’ve already noted, there are probably tens of thousands of non-Muslim loons around the planet, right now, ready to smite whoever they’re told to smite, because their enemy isn’t one of them or has done something to offend them. This makes Islam sound very unexceptional in that regard.

            1. “This sounds a lot like Meese’s “Porn causes rape” premise. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.”

              Last I checked, people do not worship pornography and porn does not, as a matter of course, advocate widespread rape.

              When a religion says ‘go forth and massacre the infidel in service to Allah,’ and then adherents of that religion go forth and massacre the infidel, it takes a pretty bizarre view of the world to claim there’s no causal link.

              Is there no link between being a Nazi and wanting to kill blacks and Jews?

              1. Maybe there’s a correlation between violent cultural mongoloids and movements that give them an opportunity to get their bloodthirst on.

                People tend to follow tenets that validate their own personal views, not the other way around.

                1. Many people also live in countries where this is fed to them since infancy, under threat of capital punishment from the courts or their parents, if whey wish to leave the faith. Their best choice is to say “yeah, yeah” and say they’re Muslim but just ignore the shit.

          2. I’ll add that some basic math can prove your premise right or wrong.

            Does Islam compel more than half of its adherent’s to commit violence against the infidel? No? 25%? No? 10%? Maybe not even that?

            That’s about a kajillion deviations away from any kind of accurate statement.

            1. Did Nazism compel more than half or even 10% of German citizens to work in the death camps? In fact, I am sure a lot of German Nazis would have told you the camps went too far. That fact, however, doesn’t make Nazism any less of a murderous ideology.

              1. John–I’m not disagreeing with the notion that many tenets of Islam and laws of Islamic countries are barbaric and need to be wiped from the planet. Anon and I have started collecting underpants to get that ball rolling.

                What I am saying is bloodthirsty loons who want to kill people only look for a modest rationales for their actions. History is replete with them and Islam is just one more. My belief is that 3rd World cultural mongoloids with a penchant for violence are the problem, not any particular belief system. Just ask the Tutsis.

                Too many people are quick to start waving a bloody shirt at a population of of several billion people because it suits their beliefs. That ain’t happening with me.

                1. JW,

                  If Muslims do not want to be associated with the murderous tenants of their own professed religion, then they need to banish those tenants from their religion. Non Muslims can’t reform Islam. Only Muslims can.

                2. Let me ask you JW, every believing Marxist will swear to the ends of the earth they don’t support mass murder or anything done in the name of Marxism over the last 100 years. Does that fact excuse them from supporting a murderous ideology or make Marxism anything but what it is?

                3. It’s hard for me to take seriously a people whose one name sounds like “tootsie” and whose other is a dance.

            2. JW, since your “basic math” of percentages “can prove (a) premise right or wrong”, I guess we can assume that if less than 10% of people who come into contact with streptococcus pyogenes bacteria go on to develop active symptoms of strep throat, it’s been proven that streptococcus pyogenes bacteria does not cause strep throat symptoms?

          3. “A ton of Muslims who aren’t good people are terrible human beings as a direct consequence of the precepts of Islam.”

            But that means that the peaceful Muslims have an inauthentic interpretation of their religion.

            Why do we paint the violent ones as the only true expositors of Islam? Most of us aren’t even Muslims, why should we be preaching to people of another religion what their religion means?

            If peaceful Muslims want to give a peaceful interpretation of Islam, why not let them do so? Why brand their interpretation as worse than the fanatics’ interpretation?

      3. “Does Islam attract it share of 3rd world nutjobs with no regard for human life? Absolutely. So does Marxism and whatever tribalist or nationalist movements there are in the 3rd World. No shortage of those fucking loons, ready to slaughter entire villages at a whim.”

        Are there Marxist guerrillas infiltrating Western capitals and massacring journalists?

        “2. Is there a higher rate of violent crime in Muslim communities here in the states? I have no idea, but that would be interesting to know.”

        Is this a serious question? There might not be a higher rate of violent crime, but when you declare that it’s not a crime to beat a woman to death for adultery, your crime rate will drop.

        What Muslim countries do is declare what we would consider to be violent crimes to be legal. When people are being raped and decapitated as a matter of Saudi policy, the officially released crime rates might be a bit skewed.

        “I worked at the Watergate for years, while the Saudi embassy had offices there. I must have passed by thousands of Arabs in my time there, including fresh off the plane, ready to be processed, college-aged men.”

        Arab =/= Muslim. Also, I’ve met Communists who I didn’t personally have a problem with. It doesn’t make the philosophy any less repellent.

        1. ^^^ this

          It’s exactly like calling North Korea the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

        2. Are there Marxist guerrillas infiltrating Western capitals and massacring journalists?

          Over the past 40 years, you bet your ass they were and more than jounalists.

          What Muslim countries do is declare what we would consider to be violent crimes to be legal. When people are being raped and decapitated as a matter of Saudi policy, the officially released crime rates might be a bit skewed.

          It’s barbaric. What does that have to do with the attack?

          Our own gubmint holds views and advocates policies that I find to be abhorrent and at odds with a free and civilized world. Does that paint me with the same broad brush of guilt that you’re using?

          Arab =/= Muslim. Also, I’ve met Communists who I didn’t personally have a problem with. It doesn’t make the philosophy any less repellent.

          I absolutely agree. What does that have to do with the attack?

          1. “Over the past 40 years, you bet your ass they were and more than jounalists.”

            And Marxism is an evil philosophy, just like Islamism is an evil philosophy.

            “It’s barbaric. What does that have to do with the attack?

            Our own gubmint holds views and advocates policies that I find to be abhorrent and at odds with a free and civilized world. Does that paint me with the same broad brush of guilt that you’re using?”

            Did you read what I was responding to? I was specifically responding to a question of whether Muslim countries have more violent crime than America. I was pointing out that this is an absurd argument since mass rape in Muslim countries isn’t even considered to be a criminal offense in some cases. It’s an actual, no-shit rape culture and not in the way feminists say it.

            “I absolutely agree. What does that have to do with the attack?”

            Again, read what I was responding to. He said ‘I’ve met Arabs who were nice.’ Cool, that doesn’t change the fact that Islam necessitates violence as a core aspect of the religion. Nice people belonging to an abhorrent philosophy does not make the philosophy okay.

            People are mistaking individual Muslims with Islam itself. I am not prejudiced against individual Muslims, since many don’t even follow the stated precepts of Islam. I despise the religion itself, as every thinking person should.

            1. I was specifically responding to a question of whether Muslim countries have more violent crime than America. I was pointing out that this is an absurd argument since mass rape in Muslim countries isn’t even considered to be a criminal offense in some cases.

              I didn’t ask about Muslim countries. I asked about Muslims who have emigrated to the US. That’s relevant to your assertion.

              Cool, that doesn’t change the fact that Islam necessitates violence as a core aspect of the religion.

              I responded above regarding your collectivism, insomuch as who to blame. No need to repeat it.

        3. Are there Marxist guerrillas infiltrating Western capitals and massacring journalists?

          They got it out of their system in the ’70s.

        4. “Are there Marxist guerrillas infiltrating Western capitals and massacring journalists?”

          How silly is this atrocity competition? Have Muslims starved tens of millions? Dropped atomic weapons on entire cities full of civilians? Come on.

          1. Talk 2015. Most of the world’s repressive regimes involve some form of Islam.

            1. “Talk 2015”

              They can’t because then they’d have to admit that virtually all of the least free countries are Muslim, the only exception basically being North Korea.

              That’s why they keep bringing up Marxism circa 1975 and Christian atrocities in the Middle Ages – to muddy the waters and ignore the obvious.

              1. Irish, you’re claiming that Islam is a particularly heinous ideology. The current practice by the most extreme members is disgusting, but the only reason that Christianity and Judaism aren’t heinous ideologies is that both religions ignore the shit out of their foundational texts.

                Considering I spent a chunk of my Saturday listening to a Christian street preacher with a solid crowd in Venice, CA harp on Leviticus 20:13*, and know that in Africa Christian and Muslim governments are racing to outdo each other on the whole murdering fags thing, I think you’re off base in saying that there is something inherently evil about Islam that is somehow absent in the other Abrahamic faiths.

                *If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

                1. I think you’re off base in saying that there is something inherently evil about Islam that is somehow absent in the other Abrahamic faiths.

                  Many Christian denominations believe that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, many denominations agree that the Bible should not be taken literally. This is not the case with Islam: every word in the Koran is the word of God. I’m unaware of any major Muslim group that preached that some parts of the Koran could be ignored.

                  1. “Many Christian denominations believe that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, many denominations agree that the Bible should not be taken literally.”
                    Is there anything in the New Testament that explicitly says that the rules in the O.T. are no longer valid? And how do Jews *know* that the O.T. shouldn’t be taken literally? The fundamental documents of all of the Abrahamic faiths are flawed and of questionable morality to someone on the outside. It is fortunate that in Judaism and Christianity most of the “must take this literally” has been eradicated from the meme pool.

                    1. Well Jesus did “fulfill” the old law and forged a new covenant between humanity and divinity that rests upon the golden rule.

                      IOW, many christians believe that the old rules still apply to themselves, but that they have no right to impose those rules on others.

                    2. @Bob:

                      Yeah, there are a few things about the NT superseding the OT. Jesus fulfills the covenant of the OT and establishes a new one based on the so-called Law of Christ, which is usually phrased as, “Love one another as I have loved you.”

                      In fact, that’s sort of the big deal about the NT that gets missed by people who do nasty things in the name of Christianity: the biggest, most important, transcends-all-the-other-rules rule is to love one another as Jesus loved everyone, i.e., to behave as much like Jesus as possible. There’s some room for debate over whether that means all of Leviticus and the Ten Commandments go out the window, but I’d think it certainly means you can’t rough people up for working on Sunday, for instance, unless you think the Big J was in the knee-breaking business.

          2. Yes they have starved millions. History, learn some.

      4. Then I’ll do it- FUCK Islam.

        It’s an archaic and bloody thought construct that hasn’t matured a whit since Christ got nailed to the damn cross.

        1. It didn’t exist when Christ got nailed to a cross.

          The Koran is no more violent and rapey than the Old Testament. It’s certain people who use the violent parts of it to be all sensitive and butthurt that are the problem. There a massive inferiority complex among certain Muslims, I think, that causes them to be whiny crybabies who like to blow shit up.

          I think jesse and anon are kind of right in that their about 100-400 years “behind” the West in just not giving a shit when someone insults their creed. But there’s also the factor of Christianity having spread West, and Islam having spread East. Views on things like work, home & hearth, child-rearing, etc. are vastly different between Western Europe and, say, Pakistan. So, yeah, they’re a hundred or so years removed and are a relatively new religion, but I’m pretty sure that the fact that Islam is East-facing is another factor in how they behave.

          And I do think that there are way more militant and violent religiously-motivated Muslims than there are Christians, Jews, Buddhists or any other religion.

          But I don’t think Islam should be “exterminated”. That’s against every principle of self-ownership. People gonna believe crazy shit. Ain’t never gonna change that.

          1. To say they are 400 years behind is an insult to Europe in 1600. As bad as Europe was then, it was a hell of a lot more enlightened than these animals. Europe in 1600 was in the midst of the Renaissance and was giving the world some of the greatest art ever produced. What the fuck are these people giving the world?

            1. Algebra?

              1. Really anything that starts with “al” in Spanish.

                Alfombra = carpet
                Almohada = pillow
                Alquimia = alchemy

              2. Sorry Kristen, that wasn’t these idiots. I mean Islam today not that of a 1000 years ago.

            2. Don’t forget, John, if you looked at the world just a couple of centuries before the Renaissance, you’d have though Christianity was a plague that would die in its own stupidity and backwardness while choking on the fires of burning heretics. The civilization that you’d have bet on to be The Big Winner back in say 1000 or 1100 would have been the one that didn’t think it was witchcraft to practice mathematics, astronomy, or medicine, that developed advanced architecture, and that actually managed to move humanity slightly forward from the Egyptians and Greeks in those regards. You’d have bet on Islam.

              History takes strange turns.

              1. Hamilton,

                That is crap. That interpretation of history forgets this little thing we like to call the Byzantine Empire. If you were going to bet on a civilization in 1000, it would have been that one not the Arabs.

                Moreover, to the extent that there was a “Muslim Civilization” in 1000, it was the Persian and Greek civilizations that were already there that the Muslims took over and co-opted. The Arab Muslims were nomadic war like idiots on the level of the Mongols. They never built shit or did anything but conquer and co-opt existing civilization. There were great civilizations in Iraq, Persia, the Levant and India long before the Muslims ever came around.

                Moreover, even Western Europe in 1000 was entering the high middle ages and giving the world Gothic Cathedrals, Thomas Aquinas, and the birth of free trade and beginnings of capitalism.

                1. “They never built shit or did anything but conquer and co-opt existing civilization. ”

                  #Holy Roman Empire

                  1. Are you claiming that Charlemagne was muslim?

                2. OK, I’m not gonna fight a war which you can easily check on Wikipedia and less easily on something more reliable. But I’d contrast the achievements and timing of the Byzantines with the Abbasid Caliphate and leave it at that. Evaluated in the 1000-1100ish timeframe.

                  And “co-opting existing civilization” is pretty much what each successive empire does, until it stagnates into iconoclasm or gets it lazy ass conquered.

                  1. The point is hamilton, that the achievements didn’t happen because of Islam. Islam gets blamed for a lot of barbarity that it isn’t really responsible for. Places like Northwest Pakistan or the The Arabian Peninsula were barbaric and backward long before Islam and if anything Islam moderated them a bit. In the same way, it gets credit for for the accomplishments of places just because it was the dominant religion at the time. Neither assertion is true and gives the religion way too much credit or blame depending.

                  2. I’ll fight that war.

                    The Byzantine “Empire” was the last remnant of Roman culture. The eastern Empire never produced much in the way of great thinkers or artists, and by the time the Arabs started getting it together they were little more than a living history colony for a Greek-flavored Rome. The last interesting thing the Byzantines did was use Greek fire. They had money because they sat astride a massive trade route.

                    The Fatimid and the early part of the Abbasid caliphates preserved all the learning of the ancient world AND added astronomy, biology, medicine, philosophy, and a host of other stuff. The Fatimids even had an official “freedom of religion” type thing going. In fact, a lot of scholars believe that the Renaissance was triggered by Venetian interaction with the Muslim world. The caliphates don’t start getting scary until the Turks come in and fuck everything up following Genghis.

                    So yeah, if you were alive in 1000 and had to pick between Paris, Constantinople, and Baghdad, you want Baghdad.

              2. Back in 1000 or 1100, the Islamic world gave us such sweethearts as the fanatical Almoravids and the mad caliph Hakim. I wouldn’t have been betting on them.

                1. The Almoravids never made it out of northwestern Africa and southern Spain. They’re hardly indicative of the larger Muslim world at the time. That’s a little like saying, “The Christian world gave us the English, so fuck them!”

          2. I think one of the hard things about Islam is there have been periods of intense civil maturity in even the recent past: this is (reportedly) a picture from Afghanistan in the late ’50s or ’60s. The “recent” turn toward retrograde religious governments is disheartening.

            One of the doctors I work with was running around with a Koran pointing out some violent verses. He stopped when I started quoting from 1 Samuel 15

            3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

            9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

            28 And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.

            1. The difference of course being that Christianity basically trumped the Old Testament, and replaced the Old testament militancy with more ‘love thy neighbor’ type philosophy. That is not true of Islam, and the Koran. Also, the Koran is believed to be the direct infallible word of God, not open to interpretation, while the Bible is believed to be merely inspired by God, and thus amenable to interpretation and not necessarily literal instruction from God in all things.

              1. Christians accept the Old Testament as the word of God too you know. It’s simplistic to say that Christians think the Old Testament is canceled out by the New.

                1. Why do you think it’s called “New Testament” if not a subsequent or amended contract? It is written mostly by Jews (Hellenized Jews), BTW. Still it was not added to existing Jewish scripture, but appended. Where the two diverge, Christians take the new instead of the old.

                  So yes, in some cases the New cancels or supersedes the Old.

            2. Another difference of course being that modern Christians do not generally advocate the slaying of man and woman, infant and suckling, etc. etc. because a passage in the Bible said so.

              1. The difference of course being that Christianity basically trumped the Old Testament, and replaced the Old testament militancy with more ‘love thy neighbor’ type philosophy.

                The first 1650 years of Christianity beg to differ.

                modern Christians

                I believe you meant to say modern “Western” Christians. African Christianity isn’t a whole lot better than African Islam.

            3. Significant change happened some number of books after Samuel…something around 0 AD?

              The Old Testament is full of narsty stuff – that got a significant change in SOP a couple of millennium ago, however. There is no “New Testament” in Islam. No Beatitudes, No Sermon on the Mount, none of that.

              1. Significant change happened some number of books after Samuel…something around 0 AD?

                You’re right, the change started after (during) the Exile. Isaiah (the second and third writer) is where the transition began.

            4. Jesse,

              The devout folks in the countryside of Afghanistan were deeply unhappy with the more secular city folk of Kabul and such. It all came to a head in the late 1970s when they started killin’ Communists and their Russian advisers and such. “Islam” wasn’t chill, it was a lot more absent then.

              1. Maybe my perception of Christianity is skewed in that I have encountered in person Christians who claim the old testament is correct in its handling of homosexuality. They may not have the guts to follow through were they not restrained by secular society, but they believe killing me is acceptable for my wickedness.

                I don’t think that Christians are on-the-whole bad people, but I think that Christianity has a long history of being subverted to violence and that it’s restrained by a strong secular civil society. The New Testament may be full of peace and love, but when it comes time to purge Christendom of Jews, Lutherans, Catholics or heretics, everyone remembers Leviticus suddenly.

                1. All religions have a history of being subverted for violence. Rationalizing violence is what human beings do.

          3. It didn’t exist when Christ got nailed to a cross.

            Metaphor.

            But I don’t think Islam should be “exterminated”.

            It should be violently verbally-assaulted on a constant basis, tho.

      5. I have no doubt that a large majority of Muslims will abhor this act of violence. I also have no doubt that many of those will simultaneously think that the blasphemers had it coming.

      6. Add Liberalism to that list.

      7. This is not part of a violent crime rate. This is a war. There’s difference.

    3. I would say Islam has more problems than any other major religion. I still do not think it is fair to include all Muslims in with radicals. I have Muslim friends and coworkers and they are decent hard working people. I will grant that I work in healthcare and so probably work with more educated and wealthy Muslims than the average Muslim.

      1. Decent and hard-working just means you have no clue about their core philosophy.

        1. What does that even mean? Because of their core values them showing up and working hard everyday doesn’t count? Them sharing stories and pictures about their children is just a clever ruse to throw me off the scent of them wanting to cut my head off?

          1. People with rotgut thought constructs are often ‘decent and hard-working’. Doesn’t mean they are planning to trim your shoulders or hamstring you with a pair of scissors.

            Amish are ‘decent and hard-working’ but in their world Florida Man is going straight to hell to swim in fireballs. How decent would this be if Florida Man ended up in hell swimming in fireballs. Less cracker in the threads, bro. Just sayin’.

    4. Abrahamic faiths need ~1500 years to mellow out. Moses to the Siege of Massada was about 1500 years. Jesus to the end of the Reconquista/Spanish Inquisition was about 1500 years.

      Islam is at about 1400 years. So we only have another 100 years of nutters blowing up everyone who criticizes them because they’re too thin-skinned to participate in civil society like members of a grown up religion. Until then, enjoy some art.

      Wait, when did Christians and Catholics stop trying to wipe each other out through violence in Western Europe… let’s say ~1650 years for good measure.

      1. I suppose I should also include the standard disclaimer that I’m talking about the Wahabbi nutters who roll hard on the asshole front, not your normal Christmas and Easter Muslims.

        1. “Ramadan and Eid” Muslims, you mean…?

          1. My wife is a Christmas and Easter Jew.

      2. “Moses to the Siege of Massada was about 1500 years.”

        Well considering Moses never existed that is a hard date to set down.

        Egypt is fucking old. Did Moses exist when the Great pyramids were being built? That would be 2500 BC or about 2500 years from Moses to Massada. Was Ramesses II the supposed Pharaoh of the biblical account? That would be about 1300 BC Which fits your 1500 year figure…of course a unified Jewish religion did not even exist until about 1000 BC so that is unlikely.

        1. I suppose I could’ve gotten into the insertion of the Deuteronomists’s agenda into a much older oral tradition under the reign of King Josiah in the 600s BC, but that’s an unnecessary complexity in this case.

          BECAUSE IT’S WEIRD TO GET INTO AN ARGUMENT ON THE HISTORICITY OF MOSES when one is trying to make a quick point about the lifecycle of an Abrahamic faith.

          1. Well to be fair the historicity of Moses is kind of relevant when you’re arguing that Abrahamic faiths have a specific ‘maturing’ period of a millennium and a half or so.

            1. Sorry, that wasn’t really meant to be a serious argument. I think picking on Islam outside of historical context is fruitless, but 1500 years isn’t magic. Judaism was crushed under the boot of Rome, and Christianity found it was way more fun to fight over resources and trade routes than faith.

              As long as there’s a robust secular/tolerant (in the classical liberal sense) civil society, any religion can flourish. Atat?rk’s Turkey was better than Erdo?an’s Turkey.

              I’d kind of hoped that this would give away that my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

              So we only have another 100 years of nutters blowing up everyone who criticizes them because they’re too thin-skinned to participate in civil society like members of a grown up religion.

              1. My mistake, the problem is that I’ve seen that argument legitimately used by people arguing against ‘Islamophobia’ and now it’s hard to tell when it’s a joke.

      3. Jesus to the end of the Reconquista/Spanish Inquisition was about 1500 years.

        More like 1800, right? Christianity was at the height of its violence at 1500-1600 years old.

        1. It’s like you didn’t even read what I wrote!

          Wait, when did Christians and Catholics stop trying to wipe each other out through violence in Western Europe… let’s say ~1650 years for good measure.

          Religious violence dropped off pretty quickly in favor of colonial and nationalist violence. There may have been religious overtones particularly where the Spanish were involved, but the focus had shifted to resource and land acquisition.

          1. I READ THE FIRST SENTENCE OF WHAT YOU WROTE THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH

            It is remarkable how quickly large-scale religious violence ended in the West, isn’t it? The Peace of Westphalia might be the most effective treaty in history.

          2. Eh, the argument’s a little too determinist for my tastes. And some of the implications of the argument are awkward. Namely, if the zealot revolt and Massada were what calmed Jewish extremism, then the response against Islam would have to be very similar to the diaspora.

            I’d say the bigger problem in Islam is that its religious texts explicitly argue for Islam to be central controller of state power and for Islamic dogma to form the basis of everything from treatment of other religions to inheritance laws in society. Christianity and Judaism do certainly have elements of that (the priest hierarchy described by God to Moses, slave policy, stonings for certain crimes, etc.) but they also have decent positions against it (‘Render Onto Caesar’ and all that) as well as centuries of experience as minority religions in large empires that…mellowed them out to some extent. Islam has never been in a similar position until now, and it shows.

            1. The rigid timeframe is probably invalid, but I think it’s true that religions are dangerous until most of its adherents grow up, so to speak, and stop caring so much about their stupid religion. Almost all Christians today wouldn’t even be recognized as a fellow-religionist by a Christian of 500 years ago, right?

              1. Well, even though I’m not a big Dawkins fan, he does a good job in the God Delusion pointing out how religious people’s attitudes towards morality change primarily with the overall culture rather than just their own religious beliefs. Shifts towards secularism and gradual removal of the church from a position of political power has a lot to do with the ‘mellowing’ out of Christianity.

                Of course, when your religious texts rather explicitly cite your beliefs as the only foundation of ‘just’ society, it’s difficult to remove it from the power structure. The Reformation at least helped to do that in Europe by ending the Catholic monopoly.

            2. Sorry, was away from desk. I responded somewhat to your concerns above. The 1500 number is a funny point to argue from, but historical determinism leads to ridiculous assumptions. I agree with Warty that religions seem to take a while to figure out what is best to focus on and what to ignore when dealing with other people, but largely I think it comes down to how robust civil society is.

              I’m also not sure how much the texts matter. People keep pointing out that Christianity got critical updates with the Beatitudes and whatnot, but the Jews didn’t and most [American] Jews that I’ve dealt with are chiller than Episcopalians.

              1. I’d argue that being Judaism’s ‘mellowing’ is mainly a product of being a minority religion in larger societies for so long, as well as a massive shift away from its more traditional foundations after the diaspora and the destruction of the Second Temple.

                1. This is right. Christianity is itself a product of the Hellenization of diaspora Judaism. In the same way, Western Secularism is a product of Christianity merged with Germanic values and the rediscovery of the Graeco-Roman classics. Dawkins is full of shit.

      4. Wait, when did Christians and Catholics stop trying to wipe each other out through violence in Western Europe… let’s say ~1650 years for good measure.

        You forgot about Northern Ireland.

        1. You forgot about Northern Ireland.

          Blast. You are correct. I’m willing to be overly generous to my own argument by saying that Catholic and Protestant were largely shorthand for Irish and English/Scots and it was a colonial conflict, not really about theology if you are 😀

          1. I agree. In fact, I see much of this kind of conflict as stemming from tribalism.

            My tribe is better than your tribe. I don’t trust your tribe. And, of course, we can replace “tribe” with race, ethnicity, level of education, political persuasion, etc..

    5. Did you mean to say Trey Parker or Matt Stone?

    6. ‘It’s bad of you to engage in free speech attacking a major religion.’ Solid stand for freedom of speech there.

      Are you the type who say you’re blaming the victim if you counsel women not to do certain things that’d increase their chance of being raped? What’s wrong with saying, “Don’t say this, because these people might kill you?” if it’s true? And it turned out it is true!

  4. Not that it matters, but a few years ago I stayed in a small hotel just a few steps away from Charlie Hebdo’s HQ.

    1. Where were you earlier this morning?

    2. At some point some information just has to be forgotten, grizzled.

  5. “We respect the natural right of free speech, but….”

    The siren song of the power hungry and cowardly.

    1. As usual, everything prior to “but” is bullshit.

      1. Some would say that is a sexual innuendo.

        1. Or a literal description of a bull’s lower intestine.

  6. OT: who wants a SFW boob gif?

    1. Boobs are never off topic.

      1. Boobs are never off topic.

        Particularly in an article about politicians.

        1. Thanks for reminding me of Chuck Schumer, Jesse.

    2. This is a total setup

      1. As long as it’s a setup for boobs, I’m ok with that.

    3. I was just tryin’-a be nice on a rather nutpunchy thread. Maybe I should save it for a worse nutpunch?

      1. See, you have to get us after we’ve started drinking but before the apathy sets in. Meaning roughly noon.

        1. Anytime is a good time for boobs.

    4. Here’s your boobs. You’re welcome.

      (I hope Mr. Goldwater sees this as he’s always being so nice to us cis-normative hetero ladies)

      1. She really knows the source of her popularity.

        1. They’re definitely popular in my book.

      2. You should consider making this a daily feature, Kristen.

          1. Or hourly. Whatever.

      3. And they’re incredible.

      4. BEWBS!

        You didn’t mention that they were Giadalicious.

      5. Nice. But she still sucks at cooking.

        1. Hard to cook over those.

        2. I don’t have to eat her cooking

        3. Tits and teeth, that’s all there is to Giada.

          1. Even with those tits, her head is still 25% of her body weight.

        4. Right. You watch for the cooking.

      6. reeCOTT-ah!

        1. Spa-GHEY-tee

          1. And then she annoyingly explains what spa-GHEY-tee is, because people are unfamiliar with that exotic food.

    1. Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin NY Daily News!

      1. Hey, they nearly pissed themselves!

      2. Time to end the “surrender monkeys” joke. The French have more balls than we do.

    2. These idiots don’t realize that they’re just moving the goalposts. The next time, it’s going to take something even more minor to cause violence, and they’ll cave again. Then it will take something even more minor than that.

      At which point, we will effectively have eliminated free speech out of fear.

      1. At which point, we will effectively have eliminated free speech out of fear.

        I feel like that ship sailed a while ago.

      2. Once the war on terror is won everything will go back to normal.

      3. Add to this fear the clamoring for freedom from hurt feelings and the slide into regulated speech increases.

  7. ‘Islamophobic’ Michel Houellebecq book featured by Charlie Hebdo published today

    The controversial novel published in France on Wednesday about a Muslim running the country according to the laws of conservative Islam has been defended by its author against claims it is Islamophobic.
    Submission, by celebrated French author Michel Houellebecq, was featured on the front cover of this week’s Charlie Hebdo, the magazine attacked by terrorist gunmen on Wednesday.

    1. Oh fuck, where to even begin with the criticisms.

    2. A pet peeve of mine: it’s impossible to buy French (or German) ebooks in the US. I was more than willing to pay 14.99 Euros for Houellebecq’s ebook. But nobody sells it to Americans. On the other hand, it can be downloaded from torrent in 30 seconds. I cannot understand why European publishers cannot strike an agreement and sell the ebooks available on Amazon.fr on Amazon.com.

      1. Amazon.fr sells to Americans. (I presume Amazon.de does as well, but I’ve never bought anything from them.)

        1. Amazon.fr ships regular paper books to the US. That’s how I buy French books. However, it doesn’t sell electronic books if your billing address is in the US. And Amazon.com doesn’t have any contemporary French ebooks.

  8. Survived the attack because he overslept?

    1. The early bird gets the worms.

      1. second mouse gets the cheese

    2. I imagine he’s in for some survivor’s guilt.

      1. “If only I did have that 12th shot!”

  9. “And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.”

    LYING WINGNUTZ!!! THE LIGHTWORKER AND HIS ADMINISTRATION NEVER CLAIMED ANY SUCH THING!!!!! PHAKE SKANDULL!!!!

    1. Ok, it has just occurred to me that “The Lightmaker” really might be something they believe.

  10. If it is the case that Muslim nutcases are going to behead someone, is it too much to ask that it be Jay Carney? I mean if an innocent person is going to die anyway, why can’t it be a spineless crap weasel like Carney.

    Carney may actually have represented a real low point in Presidential Press Secretaries. As bad as Josh Earnest is, he seems honest and forthright compared to Carney. What a pathetic cowardly piece of shit that guy is. Carney is a living breathing example of every thing that is wrong with this country and wrong with Washington and the media.

    1. Somehow I’m ok with an islamic court sentencing Jay Carney to be raped to death.

    2. I think it’s the #1 requirement for any spokesperson job to be a scuzzy crapweasel.

      1. They all are. But they kept getting progressively worse as time went on. As bad as Tony Snow was, Dana Perino was worse and Gibbs worse than her. Carney was the worst yet and so bad that for the first time in my memory his successor seems to be an improvement.

        1. Carney was the worst yet and so bad that for the first time in my memory his successor seems to be an improvement.

          That’s just the Alzheimer’s.

          1. No. Earnest is horrible, but he is not as bad as Carney was. Carney is a real low that may never be equaled.

            And your joke doesn’t work. If I had Altzheimers, I wouldn’t remember Carney and I would think Earnest is the worst.

            1. Carney strikes me as the kind of spineless weasel who, if you were a leader in the Democratic party, would let you fuck his wife in front of him just so you’d know he was a team player.

              1. It wouldn’t shock me if that has actually happened. His wife is Claire Shipman, who is not bad looking at all.

                1. I don’t know, she looks like she came from Iran

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2KsZHRrFpU#t=90

                  1. She looks pretty cute to me Jimbo

                    http://thehill.com/50-most-bea…..hipman.png

                    Unless you have something against MILFs, what is not to love?

                    1. Unless you have something against MILFs, what is not to love?

                      She’s fucking a weasel like Jay Carney?

                    2. There is that WTF. There is that. But she is attractive, just ruined by her taste in men.

    3. On the plus side the terrorists wouldn’t have to saw through a spine when beheading Carney since he doesn’t seem to have one.

  11. A car explosion that occurred outside of a synagogue in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles was caused by a mechanical failure, Paris Metro reported.

    If parked cars just explode because of mechanical failures, I should probably stop parking mine in the garage.

    1. It happens sometimes. Cars just explode. Natural causes.

      1. “Things break….Colonel”

        /Vercotti brother

      2. You eat a lot of acid, db, back in the hippie days?

      3. Cars explode. Guns discharge. Passive voice happens.

    2. A car exploded near our house in a church parking lot. There was an initial fire that eventually reached the gas tank and boom.

      1. *clicks ballpoint pen, flips open notebook*

        And where were you when this “initial fire” started?

    3. Just don’t park it near a synagogue. Synagogues make cars explode.

  12. Meanwhile, back at the UN, Article 4 of United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1995 requires that signatories “(a) shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred … (b) shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations … which promote and incite racial discrimination and shall recognize participation in such organizations as an offense punishable by law.”

    Article 4 is already interpreted to encompass religious discrimination as well as racial and ethnic discrimination. The Paris “terrorists” had to enforce Article 4 because the French government failed in its obligations.

    1. Only 20 years has that been in existence and we’re already on the brink of completely eliminating discrimination. Well done UN.

    2. so the UN outlawed freedom of speech?

  13. “It always amazes me how, even when the Obama Administration promotes individual freedom and liberty, they manage to make a statement of collective “universal values.” If freedom of speech and expression were truly universal values, then we wouldn’t need the First Amendment to protect Americans from government censorship”

    It was noted in the comments of the “Thought Catalog-Retardedness” the other day that there are almost ZERO nations on earth with the same kind of speech protections we have in the US constitution. Yes, there are varying degrees of similar things, but nearly nothing with the same level of protection. “Freedom of Expression” isn’t a universal value *at all*. It isn’t even close. Suggesting that we share our priorities with the rest of the world is a willful dilution of American constitutional tradition.

    1. Yes it is. That is one of America’s worst flaws; we can’t seem to understand that not everyone is like us. Some people really don’t share our values or want to be luck us. Americans never seem to get that.

    2. What are you, some kind of teathuglican America First-er?

      1. 🙂

        I merely suggest that the only ‘universal value’ tends to be stupidity

        Whereas, the Bill of Rights is actually a rare, fortunate accident in history, and something that shouldn’t be belittled by suggesting “everyone on the planet has something similar”

        1. “Whereas, the Bill of Rights is actually a rare, fortunate accident in history..”

          Lucky for us we have politicians like Harry Reid to fix such accidents of history.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..29917.html

    3. Pretty funny. If the article wasn’t an intentional parody-troll, it is a pretty good imitation of one. I’ve never seen comments so unanimously opposed.

      1. I am fairly certain the author was entirely serious

        and that this low-level of respect for ‘free speech’ (and other aspects of ‘limited government’ in the Bill of Rights) is fairly common in recent college graduates

        see this recent essay by a Dartmouth student = ‘Free Speech Needs Fixing

        I think the younger generation has zero comprehension of why Government can’t (or shouldn’t) “Do More”

        The negative connotation of “Nanny State” is incomprehensible to some.

        To borrow the ‘rape culture’-idiots lingo… many liberals think,

        We shouldn’t teach Muslims Not to Murder People = We should teach Westerners Not To Insult Their Prophet So Much”

  14. Arab Spring!

  15. France is America’s oldest ally…

    No, Mr. President. That implies that they have consistently been our ally. They have not. We have consistently been their ally. They may have been our first ally, but our first nation-state adversary is now our strongest friend.

    1. Play nice. The Vichy period was just a rough patch. And we don’t need to talk about that time we got sucked into defending their colonial acquisitions in Indochina.

      1. The Vichy period was just a rough patch.

        France was also an enemy right after the revolutions. The whole Alien and Sedition Acts were about them.

      2. Don’t mention the war!

        1. I mentioned the Quasi-War, but I think I got away with it!

    2. I think technically we’d have to call China our ‘oldest ally’. I mean, they had Empires when the French were still a couple of Gallic tribes.

      And the ‘alliance’ with the french? Didn’t actually last very long. We stopped being nice-nice with them as soon as they re-engaged hostilities with the Brits, which was basically every 5 minutes.

    3. Obama is certainly given to making ahistorical statements.

      Sure, France was America’s first ally, back when France was a monarchy.

      Lots of water under the bridge since that early alliance.

      President Adams main military concern was military conflict with … France (the Quasi-War of 1797.)

      And, shortly before the Revolutionary War alliance, General George Washington faught against France in the French and Indian War.

    4. Also, way to forget Morocco.

  16. My aunt makes $73 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her income was $19059 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    visit the website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  17. If I were

    A) A person with any artistic talent, and
    B) The Editor of a major newspaper or web site

    I would create and publish a cartoon depicting Muhammad standing forlornly holding a newspaper announcing the Charlie Hebdo shooting, weeping a la the Statue of Liberty with some Islamic symbols in the background.

    1. Really?

      I’d have Muhammad sucking my dick while I did a line off a hooker’s ass.

      Because who doesn’t like blowjobs?

      1. Muhammad preferred camel dick.

        1. I have something to add to that, but I need to go look up the word for baby camel.

      2. I prefer the more subtle approach. Go the get the message of “Fuck you” across.

  18. A good reply (with bonus meta Muhammad image)

  19. Obama always has something to say. NEver fails lol.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  20. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  21. we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.

    In light of developments, they were right to question it.

    There’s actually nothing about freedom of speech in the president’s current response.

    There’s nothing in there about foie gras either, but that doesn’t mean they want to ban it.

    1. “In light of developments, they were right to question it.”

      Absolutely. It’s like when that girl wearing the mini-skirt got raped. I mean sure the rapist was wrong, but still in light of developments you’ve got to question her judgment.

  22. For the WH, the Tea party is extremist, and so is al-Qaeda. The Tea party is a friend of freE speech, al-Qaeda is an ISLAMO-FASCIST terror organization. TO SAY THAT ONE IS OPPOSED TO “EXTREMISM” IS TO SAY NOTHING AT ALL.

  23. Please know in France that we here in the US stand behind you in this terrible attack on Freedom of Speech. Do I like much of what this paper had to print or say that was so religiously terrible even about the Pope. NO! But do I stand with you on being able to say and print how you may feel? YES! Just do not buy this paper or read these things? Do I like that someone with an AK47 can walk in and just blow me away or my family or friends. NEVER! Please know that we have millions of guns here in this country sad that we have had to do this but we all own guns the majority? My great grandfather was French Pauline and I have traveled to France. The World as a whole cannot allow this kind of barbarianism to exist? Sorry that we had to go in and kill Saddam? No longer can we tolerate this kind of people who allow one person to be in charge and try to tell the rest of us how to live, or what to say? Rather fight then give in to this way of life. We fought this in WW11 and now the World must come and join in and fight this kind of horror? This was not like a sick in the head type of attack this was a religious terrorist attack? No, not all of Islam a factor that is sick and controlling? Bless those who died for freedom of ideas whether I agree or not? We will fight with you in France!

    1. WW11 ? I must have slept thru numbers 3 to 10

  24. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  25. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good tome by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you

    won’t regret it!….

    w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ————— http://www.paygazette.com

  27. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  28. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.