Media

Jyllands-Posten Not Reprinting Charlie Hebdo Mohammed Cartoons Because 'Violence Works'

|

Mohammed Bomb
Jyllands-Posten

In 2006 the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed that were followed by anti-Danish protests across the Muslim world—protests that were not as spontaneous as originally claimed.

This time, Jyllands-Posten will be one of the few newspapers in Denmark not to reprint the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons in solidarity with the French satirical newspaper whose Paris offices were attack by Islamist militants Wednesday. Jyllands-Posten explains, translated via Google:

Power is the ability to influence people and community decisions. In this sense, Islam has so much power. Most Europeans 25 years after the attack on Salman Rushdie internalized the fatwa against him. No, the reason why no one has reprinted the famous drawings, of course, fear. Everything else is excuses. Fear, however, is a legitimate feeling, not least for the employees of this newspaper. We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, it explains that we do not reprint cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo's. Concerns for employee safety are paramount. We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation, and we are aware that Denmark and the press, against this background should, not expect less of this when someone violates the Muslim prophet next time, but more. For it shows that violence works.

Read the editorial in the original Danish here.

Meanwhile, Hassan Nasrallah, he leader of Hezbollah, an Islamist militant group/political party in Lebanon, condemned the "takfiris" (essentially a literalist Muslim who accuses another Muslim of apostasy) and their extremist behavior, saying they have "distorted Islam" more than "Islam's enemies," referring to those who publish cartoons of Mohammed.  Nasrallah's comments were widely reported today, but often without mentioning his reference to the Charlie Hebdo victims, among others, as "Islam's enemies."

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: New Year's Hangover, Featuring TV's Andy Levy, Supermodel Carol Alt, Money-Maker Charles Payne, Michael Malice, and More!

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. Win for Islamic bullets?

    Internet hates it when people call bullets that kill superior civilization that mocks Muhammad ‘Islamic’.

  2. The entire world is in a competition to prove who is the biggest pussies. Right now, France and Sony are tied for the lead.

    1. France??! Why?

      1. General principles?

    2. A big pussy is really fun actually… Huge lips / A fucking cavernous rolling wall of flesh mounted onto a piss hose and right underneath a cute wall into the purple darkness clench….

      Slather me up and rape me with this biggest pussy. I promise never to press charges.

      1. How’s the drug war going in your sphere of the world Cyborg ?

        Been able to thwart the naysayers lately ?

        Keep the faith Brother and rock on.

        1. One out… thoughts roil and foil. Superseding the swords of even the deepest universe. No one can live albeit the waves of love, bro. Naysayers are my lovers, sweet labyrinth.

      2. “But this time, get in there! All you’ve been doin’ is giving one side hell!”

      3. Dude, seriously, a big pussy is not so great. Huge lips, that’s all good, but not a cavern to fall into, lol.

        /why there are no female libertarians.

        1. Hyp. Hyp. Ball dat huge vag, brah.

          1. You’re doing it wrong. Balls in the asshole, dick in the pussy. That’s how you should roll.

            Booyah.

        2. Tight snappers

  3. Of course violence works, that’s why people employ it. But violence can also be resisted, and the resistance is particularly effective the more people who join in resisting it.

    I can’t fault these people too much for not wanting to be walking targets. But they did just weaken the effectiveness of the resistance to violence by taking this stance.

    1. I can’t fault these people too much for not wanting to be walking targets. But they did just weaken the effectiveness of the resistance to violence by taking this stance.

      I can fault them, just like I can fault Molly “Everybody Draw Mohammad!” Norris.

      These people are not only cowards, they’re idiots. You purposefully run cartoons about Mohammad, at a time when everyone who isn’t a total moron knows that there is a definite group of fundamentalist Muslims who might commit violence against you, and then when that violence manifests itself you fold and empower the fundamentalists.

      If you don’t want to carry the burden, then don’t be stupid enough to make yourself a target in the first place. Once you make yourself a target, you had best have the balls to continue doing what you’re doing because otherwise the fundamentalists become increasingly empowered, the line at which they resort to violence becomes nearer and nearer, and people will end up dying as a result of your cowardice.

      Want to know why those people at Charlie Hebdo are dead? Because the western media wouldn’t reprint the initial Mohammad cartoons and because Comedy Central folded to vague internet threats.

      This taught the fundamentalists that all you have to do is kill a few of us and we will accede to all of your demands. The magazine’s decision in this case is exacerbating that problem, they are helping the line get nearer, and people will die because of it.

      1. I 100% hear what you are saying, but at the end of the day, the only people responsible for people being killed is the killers. What the magazine has done may be craven and self-serving, but they are no more morally responsible for any killings than you are.

        The people at Charlie Hebdo are dead because some psycho zealots shot them. Not because the media did or didn’t print things.

        I also find what Jyllands-Posten to be doing cowardly and ultimately exacerbating the problem of “hey, violence works!” But that’s not morally their fault or responsibility. That lies solely on those who take the lesson and commit more violence.

        1. The ultimate moral responsibility resides with the attackers. That doesn’t change the fact that cowardice empowers them and that those who publicly express such cowardice are at fault for the culture of fear and submission now sweeping the west.

          You do have a moral responsibility to fight on behalf of the very values that have made you so affluent. Absolutely you have a moral responsibility because if all the bravery is on the side of reaction, oppression, and violence, then they will win.

          Bravery at bottom is morally neutral. It’s not a virtue or a vice. Courage is only a virtue if you utilize it on behalf of something good and positive.

          Similarly, when those with supposedly positive views and good, western liberal values are such cowards, their cowardice absolutely is a vice and an example of pure, self-serving immorality.

          1. I don’t agree that you have a moral responsibility to fight for anything. If you choose to lie down and cower in fear or die, that is not morally wrong, that is your choice.

            It would be nice if more people chose to stand up for values of freedom and liberty, but they are not morally reprehensible if they don’t.

            You’re essentially saying that anyone who doesn’t fight for the things that you think are good (and that even they think is good) is morally degenerate. It also means you think pacifists and Quakers are morally degenerate.

            I don’t actually think you think that.

            1. Cowardice – fear that makes you unable to do what is right or expected – is morally wrong.

              Exactly what you believe to be “right or expected” is not specified, but it is presumed to be something, and given that something failure to stand up for it is cowardice.

              What you advocate really is nothing more than nihilism.

              Which is really funny when you consider that that is exactly what we are up against.

        2. Yes. And at least they are being honest. I have more respect for the sniveling two faced cowards over here who pretned to care about resisting this all the while rolling over and excusing it.

        3. They are also dead because French gun laws don’t allow them to defend themselves from the extremists.

        4. They are not psychos. Islamists are very logical and not crazy at all. This is why they are dangerous.

          Too many westerners want to write them off as “crazy” when they are obviously not. This is mainly because it makes westerners very uncomfortable to confront a religion where some sizeable minority have logically read their religious texts and decided to act on them.

          Totally understandable, but wrong.

      2. Let’s you & him fight.

      3. Yep if all this stuff we immediately reprinted all over the world, they could not respond in kind.

      4. “Once you make yourself a target…” you better be prepared to defend yourself. Imagine the different outcome if even one of the magazine staff or their security guard had been carrying, or the French police. Instead they go down like sheep.

    2. “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history that has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

      1. Starship Troopers?

        1. Close. Lazarus Long in Time Enough For Love.

        2. There was indeed a similar line in ST.

  4. Wow, Hezbollah really knows how to play the Europeans like a harp from hell.

    1. Poet ribbon. Harp form hell… dammn chiggga wigga chigga noooga loogoa domodmmom a smaggggggggggg….

      Demon fingers, bra

      1. I feel that knowing AC.

        1. I seriously did not fucking know that these waffles has a reason god.

          Waffles.

          Be toasted.

          Be slathered with all sorts of splendiferous……!

          You need to know the waffles god is here and he is guiding your path into the throats of greatness…

          and when you get pooped…

          you are still a waffle turd…

          we humans die and just get turned into bones…

          no fun

          1. That’s a good point.

          2. But less fun is to be turned into waffe turds whie still alive.

            We have a battle to fight.

            Will it be now while the enemy is still weak yet growing?

            Or later after we have armed our enemy ourselves through political correctness ?

            1. The enemy is a turnstile of the past and present, 1.

              1. And you are a fucking idiot in any sense of reality. pissoff

  5. Looking for a t-shirt with a pic of the illustration of this post but can’t find it. I also looked back when it was front page news. Any of you expert intertube travellers have advice/links in finding one? Thanks in advance.

    1. You can make your own t-shirt design at Cafe Press.

    2. Here’s a version that should be h-res enough: http://static.flickr.com/41/95…..b6_o_d.jpg

    3. Search “Custom T-Shirt” Lots of sites let you upload an image to print on a shirt.

  6. Here’s what a lot of people don’t realize: Westerners are such pathetic cowards that Islamists don’t even need to have a majority to basically own most European countries politically. They basically just need to carry out a few riots and terrorist attacks a year and over time they can eliminate virtually all western values and force them to submit to Islam.

    Actual, hardcore Islamists only need to be like 1% of the population and they can make European nations do whatever they want out of sheer cowardice.

    1. Actual, hardcore Islamists only need to be like 1% of the population and they can make European nations do whatever they want out of sheer cowardice.

      Well that and the two groups can always find common cause in that it’s all the Jews’ fault.

      1. It also doesn’t help that, when it comes to Jew hating, a huge percentage of supposedly ‘moderate’ Muslims also despise Jews and therefore actively allow and applaud the attacks on Jews carried out by the more extreme members of their religion. The synagogues in France were besieged by an awful lot of Muslims that the media would doubtlessly declare to be moderates if given the chance.

        This isn’t much of a problem in the U.S. but in Europe the moderate Muslims are the great source of modern anti-Semitism.

        1. I think that’s because so much of Europe is anti-semitic. They’re just assimilating!

        2. This isn’t much of a problem in the U.S. but in Europe the moderate Muslims are the great source of modern anti-Semitism.

          Not really, the not-Muslim native Europeans still have pretty strong Jew-hate tendencies. They are just circumspect about acting on them.

          This is true almost universally throughout Europe and across the Eurotrash political spectrum, even in areas that don’t have much Muslim immigration.

          Muslims are generally not much liked either, but Eurotrash will blithely look the other way if “moderate” Muslims started really fucking with/murdering Jews.

          1. Oh really? Sounds like more jewish paranoid “the world is out to get me” narrative. Whenever jewishness is invoked, europeans light up like the Wall of Wails is coming at them personally. This behaviour is also nicely enforced: Can’t even allude to Israel possibly doing something wrong on TV without the risk of being dragged to court for “hate speech” while phones ring off the hooks in govnmts demanding “condemnation”.

            Now, Ukraine is possibly gonna be something else, but then again the Simon Wiesenthal Center itself thinks there won’t be a problem (“How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis”), so who am I to argue?

    2. Unfortunately, a part of Western values is questioning Truth – the Islamists are 100% convinced they know The Truth whereas few Westerners are that certain about anything.

      It wasn’t an Islamist who said “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” That was said by someone with the humility to believe it’s important that everyone be allowed to speak, because who knows who may be speaking The Truth?

      (As I’ve frequently said, one of my favorite quotes is Cromwell speaking to the Scots who claimed they knew exactly what God wants: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”)

      1. English civil war started off with the end-goal for many being some new state-run protestantism.

        But at the end, a lot of people decided freedom of worship was the better course.

        Which is quite amazing and should encourage libertarians mightily.

    3. In France they banned religious headwear and did other antagonizing things to the already marginalized and highly unemployed Muslim population, and will probably crack down worse now. They do not have political power; that might be part of the problem.

      1. That ain’t the problem. Europe’s illiberalism is the problem.

        1. That’s what I said. They are being illiberal in their approach to the Muslim population.

          1. And everything else.

            1. I think al Qaeda is being a tad more illiberal.

              1. True, but Europe’s governments are a far greater threat to European’s rights than AQ.

      2. If they don’t like France, move back to Algeria. Non?

        1. Note: open borders allows reverse flow for immigrants who decide the country they move to does not represent their values.

  7. So the fact is you might be with a lady who doesn’t understand she can flex her vaginal walls….

    So, teach her. The vagina is flexible. It can roll, clench, and tighten like a fucking super heroine vice clamp. Problem is, some sweet ladies and rather vapid young men don’t know this.

    Her orgasm and yours will and might transcend several dimensions of pleasure… Once she gets it you might wake up 3 when she’s been dreaming of her favorite lover that isn’t you and then you get to fuck that sweet nest of volcanic atomic holocaust and then she gets off on your dick and decides to clench that fucking geek stick… you realize you are not going fucking ANYWHERE unless cum shoots like a bomb out of your fucking jizz laser… vagina grips dick and dick screams cum…………. fukyea

    1. Why is it that SugarFree and Agile Cyborg are never in the room at the same time? MMMMMMM?

      1. Don’t you dare compare NutraSweet’s exquisite(ly disgusting) prose to that wall of incoherence.

        1. I don’t expect SF to be coherent when he’s tripping balls. I think you’re holding him to higher standards than the rest of us.

      2. I’m thinking actually charlie sheen.

  8. Europe really, truly is fucked.

    They refuse to defend their values and principles on their own soil?

    Disappointing decision.

    1. I gave up any hope I had for Europe the day I heard the phrase, “right to be forgotten.”

      1. My only hope for Europe is 1) carving new states like Catalonia out of the old rotten ones and 2) mass immigration leading to the end of ‘europeanism’.

        1. Well, it can’t get stupider from here.

        2. The problem with carving out new states is that the separatists are usually more inward-looking and intolerant than the general population.

    2. Europe went from Catholique priests and kings screwing massive bolts into people’s necks to….

      truly is fucked.

      Europe, become. For once. And you mutherfuckers don’t need Catholiques and old screws.

      1. A good part of Erurope is actually protestant. The radical nutcases emgriated, too. Mayflower etc.

    3. Hard to look at it any other way. Hope it’s not true.

    4. Europe really, truly is fucked.

      They refuse to defend their values and principles on their own soil?

      They have any values and principles to begin with?

  9. I love Scandinavians. What’s the reason they developed the most practical attitude toward life among all the peoples of the world? Must be the cold.

    It’s a perfectly good point and there is no shame in choosing cowardice over painting a target on your back. That’s why this is tragedy. Perhaps the news media should go V for Vendetta, all displaying blasphemous Mohammed images at the same time. Exasperate the psychos by providing too many targets.

    1. What’s the reason they developed the most practical attitude toward life among all the peoples of the world?

      Premise assumes facts not in evidence.

      1. Dude. Don’t bother.

        1. Someone on the internet is wrong. I have to stop it.

      2. It’s my opinion. Besides, no matter what speculative horseshit you want to splatter the walls with, numbers don’t lie, and by reasonable measures of human well-being, Scandinavia has some shit figured out.

        1. They have lower standards of living than Mississippi. That’s a fact. They’ve figured out how to employ socialism without mass death, just mass poverty and the inevitable implosion (as happened in 1990). Feel free to move there if you want. Actions speak louder than words. Live the dream.

          1. How is that a fact? “Poverty rates pre-tax/transfer are 24.4% in Denmark, 32.3% in Finland, 21% in Iceland, 25.7% in Norway, and 27.8% in Sweden, and post-tax/transfer poverty rates become 6%, 7.3%, 6.4%, 7.5%, and 9.1% respectively.” –Wikipedia

            Looks like, objectively, their model of free capitalism combined with a significant public sphere is the best humanity has been able to come up with. Sorry. No shame in saying you were wrong about what the correct mix is.

            1. “Looks like, objectively, their model of free capitalism combined with a significant public sphere is the best humanity has been able to come up with.”

              I’m sure you’ll be happy there; please leave.

            2. BTW, Tony, let’s see a link. I want to see how they calc “poverty”. It’s not anything like “standard of living”.

            3. Haha no. I don’t know WTF post-transfer poverty is, but I am pretty sure when your bottle of booze costs $200, you live in poverty. There’s no opportunity in those countries outside of some engineering jobs, and the standard of living is extremely low. But you are still welcome to go there.

              http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf

              Also, Northern Europe in general and Sweden in particular are ever less and less socialist. We win you lose.

              1. Cytotoxic|1.9.15 @ 8:40PM|#
                “Haha no. I don’t know WTF post-transfer poverty is”

                That’s after the gov’t steals from the 1/5 of the population that actually produces anything.
                And I was pretty sure Tony was picking those cherries….

              2. You can’t be quite as rich in these places as you can in America, but by “can” I mean you almost certainly won’t. That’s the tradeoff. A few very very wealthy people and a lot of struggling people, or no struggling people and no very very wealthy people. That in itself is good, because very very wealthy people have too much power to themselves. And guess what, none of this violates any moral boundary you believe in. You believe in some mix of public and private, some mix of risk and security. Just not the best one.

                  1. Morality is for peasants.

                    1. Typical pig. How do you live with yourself?

                    2. As hedonistically and myopically as you, minus the vulgar and adolescent Randian narcissism.

                    3. At the expense of your betters.

                1. This is why the rich people move out. IKEA founder lives in Switzerland.

                  Your solution is to exile the rich.

                  AWESOME!

                  1. Oh, if Tony had his way, he would forbid the rich from moving. If they leave he cannot steal from them. And that is what the immoral swine wants. He wants to live by the exploitation of others. He has no desire to grow and produce or create. Only to steal and destroy. He is vile.

                    1. Tony is stupid. And should be ignored. Pretty simple unless you care about pitter patter over stupid shit.

                      Whoa..that be be Tony. Piss off,the stupidest person to show his his sorry ass in this neighborhood

                2. This is bullshit. In reality, the bulk of Scandinavians are much poorer than the bulk of Americans.

                  Inequality is life. Inequality is good.

            4. You would have to stab me in my ear with an ice pick before I would ever want to live like a Scandinavian.

              Sheesh. Didn’t you watch Vikings and Lillyhammer?

              Meh. Their entire superior Scandinavian welfare slavery is coming to an end and they have serious troubles with guess who?

              Norway’s rape rate skyrocketed.

              I wonder why.

              1. As somebody once said, in a hundred years Scandinavia will either be Muslim territory, or there will be a statue of Anders Breivik in the town square of every village in Norway.

                1. Shut up. There is about as much chance of Scandinavia or any part of Europe becoming a Muslim nation as there is of America becoming one i.e. zero.

          2. Strange none of those working want anything to do with those ‘workers paradise’ places, isn’t it?

    2. “It’s a perfectly good point and there is no shame in choosing cowardice over painting a target on your back. ”

      Why must one not be a coward and not also paint a trget on one’s back ?

      Yes Tony, choosing to be a coward is a shame.

      More power to the one comic writer who said, ” he would rather die on his feet than live on his knees”. He is dead now, as he was gonna be all along, but he is not known as a coward.

      1. So would you be that brave? Would you defy Islamists and publish their blasphemy? Or do you value cowardice just as much as I do? You’re libertarians, self-service is the height of morality for you.

        1. Liberty is the height or morality, pig.

          1. The liberty of whom to do what?

            1. For all, to do what they please so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

              1. Which I’ve explained 1000 times.

                1. The definition of “rights” being the point of contention. I believe in having many more rights than you do.

                  1. Rights:

                    Negative rights are unlimited.
                    Positive rights are limited to assured in the Constitution.

                  2. Tony|1.10.15 @ 12:53AM|#

                    The definition of “rights” being the point of contention. I believe in having many more rights than you do.

                    No, you don’t; you believe in having powers – not the same thing at all.

    3. there is no shame in choosing cowardice over painting a target on your back

      Really? No shame whatsoever? Must be dull to live so bereft of values that you experience no shame whatsoever in betraying them. I can sympathize with a lack of bravery, but shame at this lack is an appropriate response for anyone with moral fiber.

      Your comment and the attitude it embodies says much about the state of Western culture.

      1. You have absolutely no intention of putting your life on the line to defend the principle of free speech. Never, ever will you do that.

        1. I’d be happy to. I’m at least as well-armed as the Charlie Hebdo shooters, and a day-trip to Cabela’s lands me the 30-round magazines I can’t legally buy here, which I do believe gives me a bit of an edge.

          The 2nd protects the 1st, as they say.

  10. I recently read a column by The War Geek, in which he describe Glenn Greenwald as the stupidest man on the planet.

    I thought that was harsh, until I read this.

    https://t.co/k5k9fwVG7X

    Can anyone spot the difference between what he is doing and what Charlie Hebdo was doing?

    1. So now I think that either he’s really that stupid, or he just hates Jews.

      1. He is Jewish. Greenwald really is that stupid. The day the fanatics show up to cut his head off he will hand them the knife and them them for it. He is fucking retarded

        1. Nice to see Carlos Latuff spared to time in pissing all over the graves of all those killed in the newspaper and supermarket attacks.

    2. One was irreverent and funny, the other is a retard.

      I love how the third Brazilian cartoon is blatantly anti-semitic. Much irony, no awareness.

    3. Greenwald is focusing way too much on blasphemy. I thought only right-wing reactionaries think that blasphemy is wrong?

      Also he would have made a better point if he showed a cartoon mocking Jesus. Which would have been actually blasphemous but he focused on Israel. Of course he wouldn’t have been murdered for doing that..

      That said I do think there is too much sentiment that we must approve of what Charlie Hebdo did. I mean they can print whatever they want but I don’t have to like it. Also I oppose hate speech laws and holocaust denial laws.

    4. I’ve followed Greenwald way before he was anything… and I followed him with 20% appreciation in deed and heart.

      Greenwald is an Islamic apologist who has yet to find himself.

      Greenwalds correctly shits on U.S. creeping totalitarian strategy and write not a single article slamming Islamic repression.

      Like a I siad… I follow the bitch but his world is not evocative… it’s far too fucking Islam…

      Real islam would bury his ass in a fucking sand pit.

    5. stupidest man on the planet.

      Does he still think the government has to reign in the corporations?

      1. Sorry *rein* in the corporations?

    6. His argument in there is idiotic. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were hugely blasphemous, but not racist. The cartoons Greenwald posts to show how ‘hypocritical’ people are are actually legitimate anti-semitic propaganda on a level not even approached by anything Charlie Hebdo did.

      Also, that last Carlos Latuff cartoon is the dumbest goddamn thing I’ve ever seen. In case someone doesn’t want to click through, it shows people laughing at a cartoon labeled ‘cartoons of Mohammed’ and then shows people horrified by a cartoon labeled ‘cartoons of the Holocaust.’

      Yes, mocking a religious figure is exactly the same thing as mocking a genocide. Smart take Latuff, you goddamn idiot.

      1. Well there are actual laws against Holocaust denial but I probably being generous to Latuff.

        1. Well there are actual laws against Holocaust denial

          There are laws against blasphemy too. Hell, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons would have probably been deemed illegal in Germany as well.

        2. Came across this map yesterday concerning laws prohibiting defamation of religion, blasphemy, apostasy, etc. It includes countries with the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy – no real surprises on the last. A little shocked by some of the countries with anti-defamation laws though.

          http://pjmedia-new.pjmedia.net……33-AM.png

      2. His focus on blasphemy is idiotic. Western societies consider blasphemy laws to be backwards so why is it wrong for people to support blasphemers?

    7. Can anyone spot the difference between what he is doing and what Charlie Hebdo was doing?

      No your personal army but I see where you are going.

      “Charlie Hebdo was Not Serious”?

  11. “Nasrallah’s comments were widely reported today, but often without mentioning his reference to the Charlie Hebdo victims, among others, as “Islam’s enemies.””

    How much of a stretch is that?

    Would the Charlie Hebdo victims have described themselves as “Islam’s enemies”?

    Would anyone describe the Charlie Hebdo victims as “Islam’s friends”?

    1. You’re missing the point. The media-particularly in Europe-gives Hezbollah a pass. “They’re not so bad, they just want to murder Israelis”.

      1. It’s just that Hezbollah is already so bad–is it really necessary to nitpick what they say?

        You know Hitler was responsible for killing millions of innocent people during the holocaust. He killed tens of millions more civilians in his invasion of Russia.

        …oh, and did you hear what he said about how women wouldn’t make good astronauts?!

      2. And Nasrallah hate Sunnis. There is a religious war going on that nobody seems to talk about clearly.

        Obama wouldn’t fucking dare.

    2. Should these ideologies be so weak that anti-libertarian violent images make us armed and fuked up and often drugged mothafukas want to take out a shit ton of dip shit ‘murikan scribes who run right/left n super fukin critical?

      No.

      No.

      No.

      Judge us. Critigue us. fukin revile us… you are Americans. You are the reason WHY the fucking open society exists… PLESE fucking critiq freedom…. I have a fuckton to offer you.

      1. It’s called love… Freedom love…

        1. A freedom’s love is not like a square’s love.

      2. The problem is Joe Sixpack is scared shitless of freedom. Joe Sixpack wants to be told what to do.

    3. Islam’s enemy is not a bad description. Maybe I should adopt. I’m proud to call myself an anti-Communist and an anti-Fascist. I need a similarly decent term to express my contempt for Islam.

      1. ‘ I’m proud to call myself an anti-Communist and an anti-Fascist. I need a similarly decent term to express my contempt for Islam.”

        Anti Islam would match your other anti sentiments.

      2. anti-Hamite?

  12. if enough people join in similar attacks on any news outlets that DON’T reprint/print cartoons that mock the prophet, there’s going to be some really uncomfortable editorial meetings.

  13. Good grief, WaPo comments are worse than HuffPo, seriously. I’ve been over there all afternoon and after about an hour staring in disbelief at the black hole of stupid that are the comments there, I decided to engage the retards. Even when you utterly destroy them, which will be the most menial task you have accomplished since 3rd grade, they don’t comprehend what has happened.

    Read the posts here if you do not value you brain cells:

    The Romulan is coming

    1. yes. i saw the headline and simply stared..and blinked twice. and am turning my computer off now.

      1. If at first you don’t succeed, fail, fail again.

  14. Violence works. It also works the other way. At this point who other than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald would really give a shit if France and a lot of other place absolutely stomps their Muslim populations? Every time something like this happens the antipathy towards Muslims grows.

    1. Would be nice if there was a libertarian nation arisen from the ashes of some former western proglotardination, and the radical islamist decided to give it a try. Would give a whole new meaning to ‘I should have left them alone, they weren’t bothering me’.

      1. The big problem is that the leftist policies would burn through all of the capital.

    2. Uhh… a lot of us here?

      (though I am self-loathing)

    3. At this point who other than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald

      Ron Paul essentially has the same views, and people here love Ron Paul, at least his foreign policy (not so much his abortion views)

    4. At this point who other than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald would really give a shit if France and a lot of other place absolutely stomps their Muslim populations?

      Me because even though I hate Islam I’m not a sociopath who thinks genocide is justifiable.

      Sorry to disappoint you.

      1. I’m not a sociopath who thinks genocide is justifiable.

        This. The possibility of all this leading to an anti-Muslim backlash or a holy war is pretty frightening. France’s previous history of dealing with religious groups that fell out of favor is not pretty. This is of course what the Islamic terrorists want. Trying to provoke government repression in order to get the fence sitters on their side is a time-honored tactic.

        1. “France’s previous history of dealing with religious groups that fell out of favor is not pretty. This is of course what the Islamic terrorists want.”

          Hazel Mead made a point yesterday that sort of addressed this: The intent of the thugs was not to convince non-bleevers to embrace Islam; it was to make sure those who are bleevers that they’d better tow the lion.
          An un-holy war would be just the ticket to re-enforce that aim.
          No, thank you.

    5. John|1.9.15 @ 9:17PM|#
      …”At this point who other than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald would really give a shit if France and a lot of other place absolutely stomps their Muslim populations?”

      Me.
      Regardless of the sympathies of the muslim population in general, the general population DID NOT kill those people.
      I’m not in the least in favor of general retribution. Period.

    6. who other than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald would really give a shit if France and a lot of other place absolutely stomps their Muslim populations?

      Not anything close to a bleeding heart type, but I would. Lot of workaday French citizens among the French Muslim population.

      That said, every day it becomes more understandable and necessary for Europeans to limit Islamic immigration to a more manageable figure.

      1. A bit late to close the barn door for most of those countries.

      2. Limitations on immigration are never reasonable. They can manage what they have now if they were to stop being socialist and xenophobic.

    7. Eventually someone is going to ask “Are you willing to trade a mosque for an ‘infidel’?” The results will not be pretty.

    8. Moral people who aren’t psychopaths would be offended. Way to drop the mask, psycho.

    9. than self loathing retards like Glenn Greenwald

      Maybe you want to draw a cartoon to chill out?

  15. No, the reason why no one has reprinted the famous drawings, of course, fear. Everything else is excuses. Fear, however, is a legitimate feeling, not least for the employees of this newspaper. We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, it explains that we do not reprint cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo’s. Concerns for employee safety are paramount.

    This, I can respect. I’ve said it here dozens of times, if a media organization would simply say, “No we’re not going to print this stuff, because these people are fucking nuts and they scare the shit out of us” that is truthful and understandable. The mealy-mouthed bullshit about sensitivity to cultures and ‘responsible speech’ make my blood boil.

    1. The thing is, most leftists agree with Islamic terrorists.

      Western civilization and White People (especially males and Christians) are evil. Therefore everyone who opposes them is good.

      And really, I shouldn’t say Leftists. There’s those on the right – Ron Paul and Alex Jones and company who feel the same way.

      1. Ron Paul isn’t ‘on the right’ and Alex Jones lives in a universe where political beliefs are irrelevant.

        The reasons they constantly criticize America are vastly different than the left. As you said, the left has bizarre, bigoted and frankly racist beliefs that lead them to see anyone who is nebulously anti-Christian or anti-white men to be a good guy.

        Paul just hates American foreign policy and shoehorns his obsession into every conceivable situation, even when it does not apply. That’s why he said that stupid bullshit about the Hebdo shooting being caused by French foreign policy, because to Paul everything bad which happens to us is blowback for foreign policy choices. Now I do think there is some truth to the fact that American foreign policy can make us enemies and that it often has, but the idea that crazed losers in French ghettos engaged in violence because of legitimate foreign policy concerns is absurd.

        And Jones is simply crazy.

        1. Paul’s comments show the limits of the libertarian obsession with Blowback. Pretty much everything can be blowback which gets silly.

          I mean in a way WWI was blowback for the Civil War since Woodrow Wilson was from Virginia…

          1. Or WWII helped the airlines and airplane manufacturers. Which means that airline food is the fault of US foreign policy. And in turn responsible for all those comedians making fun of it.

    2. yep

  16. The gunmen told police that they wanted to die as martyrs,

    Always, always happy to oblige.

    1. “But first — Chee-Chee!”

  17. and here i was thinking the Zionists controlled Europe….

    guess i was wrong.

    -FFM

  18. From time to time, Andy & Ken on “7 Sec. Delay” on WFMU play jihad chicken, seeing which of them dare make themselves a more attractive target of Islamic terror. They didn’t play this past Wed. night.

    However, the irony & hence the joke is they’ve nothing to fear because they’re not prominent. So part of ostentatiously avoiding provoking Moslems as in the case at hand is a brag that you’re prominent & influential.

  19. The Spectator writes the dumbest fucking opening paragraph in the history of the human race.

    On Monday, a PEN American Center poll reported that 75 percent of writers in free countries fear government surveillance. On Wednesday, 100 percent of the scribes and scribblers at Charlie Hebdo lamented the absence of government surveillance.

    Except, idiot, that several of the terrorists were known to the French government and HAD BEEN under surveillance.

    They carried this out under the nose of the surveillance state as they were being watched.

    That’s the thing about the surveillance state. It has a bizarre tendency to snoop on easy targets and miss the actual terrorists. But it makes idiot conservatives feel all safe and secure and isn’t that really all that matters?

    1. “On Wednesday, 100 percent of the scribes and scribblers at Charlie Hebdo lamented the absence of government surveillance.”

      So The Spectator presumes having censors means they are there and armed when fucking thugs arrive?
      Straws are getting very hard to grasp…

    2. Not just under its nose. Under its guidance. Its no coincidence that they just HAPPENED to conveniently leave their IDs behind in the car they abandoned. Just like how, somehow, all of the passports of the 19 9/11 hijackers were the only things to survive the crash and were magically recovered from the WTC wreckage almost immediately.

      There is no terrorist attack that occurs in the Western world without the foreknowledge, funding, and encouragement of its various governments and intelligence agencies. They manufacture their own threats. Its the ultimate job security.

      1. Cool story bro.

    3. ” But it makes idiot conservatives feel all safe and secure and isn’t that really all that matters?”

      I think it’s a stretch to blame conservatives for security state surveillance, particularly when referring to the French government.

      There are statists of all stripes who believe in strong state surveillance.

    4. The WSJ is also using this as a justification for MOAR surveillance which is their answer to fucking everything.

  20. on a kinder note: Aunnie chun’s seaweed is fukin delizio… follow those vitabooty sea dollars up with pistachios and goddam egg rolls infused with the sperm and eggs of several of the high seas greatest fish life and you have a truly alpha christ upheaval… right fucking into the goddam hammock of love and peace in front of the fucking resort you so fucking righeously booked. rock on internet man

    1. If you were a prog you could collect all of these posts into a book and win a Pulitzer and then a Nobel.

  21. So what do people about Selma? Is it a good movie or does it have the Right Messages?

    1. Not going to watch it, first because movies are rarely worth the three hours and then because the subject carries entirely too much lefty baggage.
      He (supposedly) wanted a color-blind society, but that is NOT going to be part of the film’s ‘message’, I promise.

  22. DIRECT ACTION GETS THE GOODS

  23. Thank you, Reason, for having a readership whose opinions are a million times less savage, illogical, and unthinkingly supportive of government tyranny than 99% of both conservatives and liberals. An oasis of sanity in a vast desert of mental zombies/

  24. French: “Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys” —Jeremy Clarkson

    1. Actually, it was a The Simpsons writer who coined the term, back when the show was still watchable.

  25. “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

    The more I think about the fact that Obama said that the more unbelievable it is. Our entire nation, by virtue if being secular and largely Christian is a slander to Islam. Everytime a Jew or a Christian goes to services and affirms the premacy of their God and renounces false Gods and Prophets or when an atheist denies God, they are slandering Muhammad

    Either Obama really is a Manchurian Candidate traitor (unlikely) or he is the mist profoundly stupid and shallow man to ever hold high office in this country (likely).

    1. …and what does he mean by that? Kill people who slander the Prophet of Islam? Sterilize them?

    2. That is a pretty terrible thing to say. I agree that shallow stupidity is the most likely explanation. It is an incredible combo of arrogance and cluelessness.

      1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

        I don’t think it’s cluelessness. Most of his core Left voters will nod their head in agreement at that statement.

        Of course those very same voters would scream in outrage if Dick Cheney were to publicly proclaim:

        “The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus”

    3. Either Obama really is a Manchurian Candidate traitor (unlikely) or he is the mist profoundly stupid and shallow man to ever hold high office in this country (likely).

      Could be both, but I’m betting just on the latter.

  26. Fuck the cowards and fuck the Prophet!

    Is that clear enough?

  27. These people are defenseless primarily because they choose to be defenseless.

    But that is hardly surprising, when has Europe not been a continent largely filled with peasants?

  28. Danish version of Big Brother:
    http://www.dailymotion.com/vid…..rk_redband

    A Danish park:
    http://imgur.com/R0OLa

  29. so, there were more than a few justifications for these attacks b/c hebdo knew islamists disapprove of the cartoons that were drawn. i haven’t heard any discussion about why it is that a kosher market was chosen to stage a hostage siege. after all, jews know that islamists want them all dead.

  30. What if there was a campaign to have a happening on a certain day: as many people with access to the internet, print and broadcast media as possible would post a message (with a satiric cartoon of Muhammad where possible) like, “The Islamic god and his prophet aren’t immune to satire. They will be mocked, and you can’t punish all of us. Get over it!”

    If Islam is a religion of peace, what if recognized spokespersons of the various sects issued public statements to the effect of, “The fundamental documents of Islam may contain commands that incite violence, but as Jews and Christians do with their bible, most Muslims choose to overlook them. We think they are good Muslims. We *are* a religion of peace. Every culture has its fanatics, however, and we renounce them.”

  31. I don’t agree that you have a moral responsibility to fight for anything. If you choose to lie down and cower in fear or die, that is not morally wrong, that is your choice.- Epi, yet again failing to understand the difference between libertinism and libertarianism

    The latter school of thought does not mean that just because the locus of control in a given situation rest with the individual that therefore any decision that individual makes is morally okay or morally neutral.

    However it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding of libertarianism and lack of civic duty that I would expect from the kind of person that would on one hand wank about how awful the criminal justice system is and then on the other hand celebrate how they avoided jury duty

    The libertine argument – it’s my choice to do X y or Z in this situation THEREFORE there is no moral duty to make any particular choice

    That is not libertarianism

    It is the same disconnect we see in certain legalistic arguments

    ‘X is not illegal’ therefore x is perfectly Ok

    It is my constitutional right to do X, therefore I should do X

    (Or therefore X is the morally superior choice)

  32. Whether violence works or not is highly subjective- https://www.youtube.com/embed/eBEU-OiEvII

  33. Just like you cannot liberate a country from the outside, you cannot save someone from any particular creed from the outside. Posting shit about Islam is about stating the obvious to non Islamics. But it’s worthless in converting Islamics or any other adherents for that matter from their belief system. It must come from the inside.
    Economic prosperity aids more than anything in that internal conversion.

    1. not killing their families in wars also helps.

      1. They can stop instigating those wars in that case.

        1. And we can stop over-reacting to the provocation of apocalyptic fanatics.

  34. Since I started with my online business I earn $42 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    CHECK FREELY …. MAKE FREELY ….. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  35. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $14825 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read More Here……

    ????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  36. My friend makes $84 /hr on the computer . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13167 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    site here ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  37. Reminds of a scene in Unforgiven:

    ‘You just shot an unarmed man!”
    Will Munny: “Well, he should have armed himself if he’s going to decorate his saloon with my friend.”

    Take Will Munny’s advice. Arm yourself. They regard freedom as a killing offense. Be ready.

  38. 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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.