Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Charlie Hebdo Journalist Quits On Two-Year Anniversary of Massacre, Says Magazine Went 'Soft' on Extremism

Zineb El Rhazoui doubts Charlie Hebdo still has the "capacity to carry the torch of irreverence and absolute liberty."

|

Not Charlie anymore.
Flickr/H.KoPP

The two-year anniversary of the massacre at the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo passed quietly over the weekend. In contrast to last year, there were only a few relatively quiet remembrances for the 17 murdered artists, journalists, staffers, and policemen killed by Muslim extremists.

Zineb El Rhazoui, one of Charlie Hedbo's journalists who was out of the country at the time of the attack, told France's Agence France-Presse (AFP) that she is leaving the magazine because it now lacks the "capacity to carry the torch of irreverence and absolute liberty."

El Rhazoui added, "Freedom at any cost is what I loved about Charlie Hebdo, where I worked through great adversity," but she now believes the terrorists who murdered her colleagues accomplished what they wanted, as the magazine no longer publishes images of the Prophet Muhammad.

Charlie Hebdo's current editor, Riss, tells AFP that "We've done our job. We have defended the right to caricature," but that "We get the impression that people have become even more intolerant of Charlie…If we did a front cover showing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad now, who would defend us?" El Rhazoui counters that if she were in charge, she would continue publishing Muhammad images, telling AFP that "we cannot permit that our colleagues died for nothing."

A Moroccan-French atheist, El Rhazoui has been described as "the most protected woman in France" due to her 24-hour police protection. She recently published a book called Destroy Islamic Fascism and last year told the New York Times Magazine:

"It's totally crazy. I have done nothing against the law and have nothing to hide, yet I live with security while those who threaten us are free," El Rhazoui declares with an air of shock and anger that underscores the arbitrariness and brutality visited on a 34-year-old woman condemned to living on the run and mostly in the shadows. "And if you call them by their names you are Islamophobic and racist. I am racist? I can teach them a few things about Arab culture. I can show them how to discover its richness and the diversity of their culture. I believe this culture deserves universality because you can be Arab, Muslim and a free thinker."

It is hard to fault Charlie Hebdo's current editorial leadership for being squeamish about publishing images of Muhammad. The magazine persisted in its mission of no-holds-barred militant secularism even after having been firebombed about three years before the 2015 massacre.

Although the immediate reaction to the killing of journalists over cartoons was an international outpouring of support for free speech, very quickly Charlie Hebdo faced accusations that the organization was a racist "white power" publication, and later faced a boycott by 145 PEN America writers over an award presented to the magazine, as well as insinuations from everyone from Pope Francis to John Kerry to Garry Trudeau that the deliberately provocative journalists had somehow asked for their tragic fate.

Charlie Hebdo, which marked the one-year anniversary of the massacre with a cover depicting a bearded "God" figure carrying a rifle, chose a drawing of a laughing man staring down the long barrel of a gun held by a jihadist for the second grim anniversary issue. The accompanying caption reads, "2017, at last, the light at the end of the tunnel."

NEXT: Dogs on airplanes

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. They didn’t go soft, the entire Western media went soft and are a bunch of gutless PC obsessed losers. It shouldn’t be up to one obscure publication in Paris to tell the truth about Islam and Islamic extremism. It only became that way because journalists are as a group self hating cowards.

    1. What are DHS lawyers as a group?

        1. A scumbaggery of government lawyers. I like it.

          1. Given that “scumbag” was a rude way to say condom, and a condom is a container for dying and useless sperm, I think “a scumbag of government lawyers” is correct and possible easier to say.

      1. It doesn’t matter, Anyone can tell the truth. Try doing it sometime.

        1. These deplorable “satirists” should be sent to jail and taught a good lesson, just the way we do with “Pussy Riot” in Moscow and with the subversive “Dead Sea Troll” in New York. Who here would dare to defend the unpresidented “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “parody” case? See the documentation at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. It’s worth noting that when the group you’re punching down to punches back up with overwhelming force, it’s not so easy to call out the berserkers.

      1. You are right. It takes determination, unity, clarity of thought and purpose, willingness to take and inflict casualties.

        Europe has done it in the past. The Reconquista, the long fight in eastern Europe, the Greek War of Independence… Then, a century after they had finally freed themselves, the Europeans forgot it all and invited the Muslims back in.

        I know, I’m a wrong-thinker.

        1. Well, I was thinking more of individual publications, but a Europe willing to address the problem in new and innovative ways might help.

          1. Admitting you have a problem is always step 1. Most western European leaders aren’t there.

          2. You know who else was willing to address Europe’s problems with new and innovative ways…

            1. Beavis and Butthead?

            2. Edward Jenner?

            3. Rollo the Walker?

            4. My urologist deals with my European problems.

            5. General Patton?

            6. The Griswalds?

          3. There hasn’t been a European leader that posited “new and innovative ways” since the 1930s who are you referring to……oh …ohhhhhh I get it

  2. Terrorists are winning.

      1. Since about 610 AD.

  3. When the Hebdo attacks occurred, the nationalist parties in Europe were weak enough that the leftist governments and other elites had little to fear from them. Showing solidarity with Hebdo was a harmless PR measure.

    Now, after the Syrian refugee crisis and the resulting resurrection of European nationalism, Merkel and company wouldn’t be caught dead legitimizing somebody who opposes Islam.

    * While they certainly didn’t deserve to be murdered or coerced in any way, I still think the Hebdo cartoonist were asswipes and trolls for going out of their way to offend people’s religion. That was their sole purpose in drawing Mo.

    1. While they certainly didn’t deserve to be murdered or coerced in any way, I still think the Hebdo cartoonist were asswipes and trolls for going out of their way to offend people’s religion.

      “I’m offended” is about the most useless phrase in the English language. So what? You were taught by your parents and peers to value something and someone else does not value it. I don’t give a shit about your feelings towards your or anyone else’s religion, and you have no right to expect me to. Don’t be a crybully.

      1. When “I’m offended” is synonymous with “I’m a sniveling worm,” we can start taking back our civilization.

        1. Some of our favorite phrases betray our bias as a culture. For example:

          You make me angry.

          If I can make you angry, then I can make you happy too. Like literally stand behind you and flay your back raw with a whip until you are happy. If you believe that’s impossible, then I agree with you, and you should concede that I can’t possibly make you angry either. Your emotions are a choice. They’re a reflection of your values, and values are mutable.

          Externalize blame for everything. Don’t even take responsibility for how you feel or admit the possibility that you might be wrong to.

          This is the infection in our culture, and it’s eating us alive. Socons and proglodytes both exhibit the symptoms slightly differently, but it is the root cause of the disease itself. Nobody has a right to respect. If you don’t feel you’ve got enough of it, go out and earn some.

          1. Nobody has a right to respect. If you don’t feel you’ve got enough of it, go out and earn some.

            Whether you respect me or not is your choice. I can only earn your respect if you allow me to do so, because no matter what I do, i can’t force you to respect me.

            It sounds nice to say “go earn some respect” it is not always true. Exactly what are SOCONs supposed to do to earn the respect of the people on the left who hate them? Respect goes two ways.

            Our problem isn’t so much victimhood, but double standards. Muslims are forever the “victims” no matter how many people they murder and terrorize and SOCONs are forever the real enemy no matter how much they don’t engage in such things.

            1. Respect, like trust, is either given or rescinded at will, and at any time, regardless of how long in whom trust has been placed.

              It is not ever earned.

              To wit, John: If you saw me the night before your wife’s surgery getting pilled & liquored up and snorting bumps of God-knows-what off of hooker’s pustulating, weeping sore laden arses, and you knew I’d be taking out your wife’s gall bladder later that morning, I’m positive whatever trust you gave me beforehand would be immediately (and most likely permanently) rescinded.

              And you’d both find another surgeon and probably report me to The Board as well.

              1. I think it kind of depends on how he feels about his wife, no?

                1. I think it kind of depends on how he feels about his wife, no?

                  John has stated, in the few times he’s discussed Mrs. John, that he loves her and is faithful, despite his usual slobbering over Lardettes, Thicc Chiccs, and Wimminz of Plussly Remarkable Sizes (WPRS)

              2. That is true. But whether I respect you or not is a totally subjective decision on my part. In your example, I had a good reason not to respect you. But there is nothing to say my reasons will always be good or even rational. They are my own.

            2. I can only earn your respect if you allow me to do so, because no matter what I do, i can’t force you to respect me.

              Yep. And that’s just like money. Unless you’re willing to take it by force, you can’t make me give it to you. But, you know, there’s a lot of respect out there that you can earn from other people who are not me. Why do you care?

              If you don’t like that I draw Muhammed, don’t subscribe to my magazine. I don’t like your religion, so I don’t go to your church, or mosque, etc. I don’t wear atheism on my sleeve. You don’t have to wear your religion on yours, and you should be prepared to accept that proselytizing might earn you derision. Respectable religious people accept that not everyone will convert.

              The ones who do not have my respect are the ones who believe their offense at other people’s harmless practices gives them the right to attack those people with the law; to do violence to people to protect their own sensibilities. It is not more noble to require the police to do violence that you are too cowardly to do yourself in the name of your beliefs.

              1. Yes Zero Sum Game. They don’t murder people out of a sense of confidence and strength. They murder people out of a sense of weakness knowing that the threat of force is the only way anyone will ever give them any respect.

                1. So you’re agreeing that the same weakness (impulse to violence whether directly or by proxy) in dealing with offense underlies proggies, socons, and Islamic terrorists alike? Good.

                  I will repeat: it is not more noble to use the might of the state to harm your neighbors any more than it is noble doing harm them directly.

                  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

                  1. Oh, I’ll turn the other cheek alright, so that ye may kiss mine ass.

                  2. So you’re agreeing that the same weakness (impulse to violence whether directly or by proxy) in dealing with offense underlies proggies, socons, and Islamic terrorists alike? Good.

                    No because in my universe SOCONs are not as a rule out murdering people.. Sorry but murdering people is not the same thing as pointing out the fact that SOCONS are the one group in America that the culture actively promotes hatred towards.

                    I don’t know what it is like in your universe.

                    1. Turn a blind eye to people who want to erode the rights of others and use the police to hurt them because, oh look, is that a jihadi over there?

                      Not every criticism of your beliefs is a failure to condemn the violence of others. Give it a break already. It’s not the stupidity of a socon’s religion I reject most (though I do reject it). It’s their authoritarian impulse to inflict it on others at the barrel of a gun.

                      You’re as thick as you are transparent. Too bad your logic isn’t as impregnable as your head.

                    2. Zero Sum Game,

                      You are an idiot. That post is so stupid and nonsensical, there is no way to respond to it. There are a lot of dumb people on here but you seem to be a special breed of irrational.

                      Turn a blind eye to people who want to erode the rights of others and use the police to hurt them because, oh look, is that a jihadi over there?

                      No. I did nothing of the sort. What the fuck are you talking about. Wanting to ban porn is not the same thing as murdering anyone who says anything you don’t like. It takes a person of remarkable stupidity not to understand that.

                      Not every criticism of your beliefs is a failure to condemn the violence of others. Give it a break already.

                      Never said it was. And you didn’t criticize my beliefs. You made a false equivalence you fucking half wit. Do me a favor and stop responding to my posts. You are unworthy of attention.

              2. There are credible substitutes for commanding personal respect. You may not respect me but you’ll respect the gun I’m holding to your back.

                1. You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once. If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me. And you’ll be armed.

          2. If I can make you angry, then I can make you happy too. Like literally stand behind you and flay your back raw with a whip until you are happy. If you believe that’s impossible, then I agree with you, and you should concede that I can’t possibly make you angry either.

            I’d suggest that there is a possibility that you don’t understand fully how language works.

            1. You have never once had an argument with a person who literally believed that other people could make them angry? You’ve never once heard anyone use it as a justification of violence? Hint: we’re conversing in the comments section of an article about such a case, and those on the left who sympathize with the perpetrators of the crime.

              My point is not about people who don’t take that phrase literally. It’s about the many people who do. Language absolutely has the power to alter culture. If it didn’t, the left wouldn’t be so hell-bent on controlling it and undermining it at every opportunity.

              And should it be the case that I don’t understand language as you suggest, I find myself in the distinguished company of Orwell. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I do hope that my words afford an opportunity for introspection. If one’s philosophy is going to stay locked up in one’s head, it couldn’t hurt to let them out into the yard for a bit of exercise from time to time, lest someone else’s move in and make them their bitch.

              1. If I can make you angry, then I can make you happy too.

                This is true.

                Like literally stand behind you and flay your back raw with a whip until you are happy

                Now you’re equivocating the mean of ‘make’.

                The phrase ‘you made me mad’ is an idiom. Did you literally make me be mad? No, but you did say something which ultimately lead me to experience anger. The cause and effect goes directly from your words to my anger. We could certainly demand that people be more precise, perhaps saying something like ‘the words that you said have prompted an emotional response in me which has lead to my feelings of anger’. But that’s a lot to say when ‘you made me mad’ will do the trick for 99% of listeners.

      2. “I’m offended” is about the most useless phrase in the English language.

        And yet the most devastatingly effective one in Arabic. without question (and probably Farsi and Urdu as well).

        And, from a clinical POV, I can tell you if this phrase is uttered in Russian or Ukrainian by an Oligarch type, the least you will lose is an eye, a testicle, or a finger or two. Kneecaps are so passe these days…

        So what?

        Yes, “So what?” indeed… Charlie Hebdo clearly agrees with every Whinge of SJWs (the collective noun for a group of them) and Human Resources Dept as well. All your co-worker, particularly if they check off certain demographies, has to do is utter this magical, magical phrase…

    2. Fuck you, religion is just another way of saying your belief system. It’s not something you were born with, you choose that. It’s is open to criticism just like anything else.

      1. It’s like choosing libertarianism which is quite possibly the stupidest political system ever to be dreamed up.

        1. I’m just here for the chicks.

          1. Chicks? What chicks…where?

        2. I wasn’t offended after I mentally replaced ‘system’ with ‘party’.

        3. It’s the worst political system, except for all the others.

    3. Sorry, if drawing a picture of your prophet justifies murder in someone’s mind then every right thinking person has a moral duty to do it over and over again until you develop a callous or two on your pwecious feewings.

      1. Exactly that. They won’t stop at drawing a picture. Once they have terrorized people out of doing that, they will move on to something else until we have no more freedom.

        1. Like kidnapping your daughters and marrying them off to your buddies?

          1. What the fuck?

            1. The other day someone linked to an article about the fate of certain unlucky Christians in Pakistan.

              1. That is horrifying but sadly not surprising.

    4. While they certainly didn’t deserve to be murdered or coerced in any way, I still think the Hebdo cartoonist were asswipes and trolls for going out of their way to offend people’s religion. That was their sole purpose in drawing Mo.

      Phew. We wouldn’t want to kill people over some cartoons, right?

      I take this as just another way of saying, ‘I believe in free speech but…’

      1. “Excuse me, I don’t appreciate you making fun of my religion.”

        “Shut your fucking face you stupid twat! Nobody asked you!”

      2. Sometimes the world needs trolls. Some people need to be annoyed until they learn to deal with it like proper human beings.

        1. Yep. You don’t get pearls without irritating a few oysters with some grit now and then.

        2. This deserves to be posted above every comment board the internet over.

    5. I thought their sole purpose in drawing Mo was to assert their right to draw Mo even if it does offend the Mo-men. “You can’t tell me what to do” is a normal reaction when somebody tells you that you can’t do something they have no authority to tell you you can’t do.

      Generally, a sense of self-preservation stops you from challenging the authority when the person in question lacks the authority but does have the power, like when a cop tells you to stop filming him for example. The Photography Is Not A Crime people are exactly right when they say they have the right to record public servants conducting their jobs in public, but they still have to take a lot of abuse for it. The cops will still arrest them and book them and hold them and mess with them even when the cops know or should know they’re exceeding their authority.

    6. They were trying to offend offend someone, it was murderous zealots, not “religion.” They produce crude and silly jokes, some of which require depicting that one guy who founded Islam. Are all comedians and satirists asswipes for intentionally mocking the habits and beliefs of others?

      1. Is Penn Gilliette an asswipe for mocking Christians? if he is, it never seems to get mentioned.

        1. No, he’s an asswipe for making shitty disposable razors that have umpteen million blades that get irreversibly clogged the first shave stroke.

          Otherwise, I’m not aware of much, if any, mockery of Christians by Penn Jillette.

          1. Jillette openly mocks and attacks all religions except Islam. That is his right of course but he openly admits that fear of violence from Muslims is why he doesn’t treat Islam the way he does every other religion.

            I don’t see how people can have any respect for him given that. He is basically a bully and a coward.

            1. That is his right of course but he openly admits that fear of violence from Muslims is why he doesn’t treat Islam the way he does every other religion.

              If that’s true, that’s incredibly disappointing and pussified. I was under the impression that he was buds with Glenn Beck (and other adherents of various and sundry faiths) and didn’t appear to harbour any real ill will towards Christians. Or Buddhists, Hindus, or even FSM Adherents. Not sure about the Gaia types, though.

              1. It is true.

                http://concess.blogspot.com/20…..islam.html

                Interviewer: Are there any groups you won’t go after?

                Penn: We haven’t tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn’t want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists?I’m not sure. And we haven’t tackled Islam because we have families.

                Interviewer: Meaning, you won’t attack Islam because you’re afraid it’ll attack back.

                Penn: Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free society is that you’re afraid to talk about it?I can’t think of anything more horrific.

                Interviewer: Of course, it might please some Islamic fundamentalists to hear you say that you won’t talk about them because you’re afraid.

                Penn: It might, but you have to say what you believe, even it if pleases somebody you disagree with?that issue comes up all the time in moral discourse.

              2. That was in 2010. Then last year we get this

                http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f…..-of-islam/

                The same guy who admits he won’t criticize Islam because “we have families” is calling out anyone else who fears Islam as a bigot.

                Jilliette is a hypocritical coward. I can’t stand that guy.

                1. I thought I had some respect for him until reading his recent Reason interview. He spent a full half of it asserting that he just can’t stand anyone who values moderation in anything, which is a ridiculous position to have.

                  1. You do realize that he’s a comedian and an entertainer and he has spent all of his adult life telling people not to take anything he says too seriously, right? Every once in a while he gets on about personal philosophy, but apparently someone must care because they keep pointing a camera and microphone at him.

                    I don’t concern myself with a person being a bit edgy from time to time. I’m a little more concerned with those who wield their celebrity like a battle axe in the marketplace of ideas. Those are the ones likely to put money into eroding the rights of others. Do you think Jillette is going to use any of his wealth to advance authoritarian ideas? If not, just shrug and go on about your life. A harmless person saying silly things is the least of your worries in life.

              3. He doesn’t hold ill will. He’s a proud atheist, and while he mocks “faith,” he doesn’t go around calling Christians stupid. I think he’s said he respects Christians that proselytize, since they’re sticking to their convictions.

                1. He doesn’t hold ill will. He’s a proud atheist

                  Bullshit. It is a free country. He can be as snarky and nasty as he wants. He is entitled to his opinion. That being said, he admits he won’t attack Muslims because he is afraid of them. And then he calls out anyone who will stand up to them as bigots.

                  Fuck him.

    7. Je suis Charlie un petit chat.

    8. Who is this Mo?

  4. Although the immediate reaction to the killing of journalists over cartoons was an international outpouring of support for free speech…

    They quickly learned that their fellow leftists weren’t the champions of speech that perhaps the writers thought they were.

    1. Yep. This would be better:

      Although the immediate reaction to the killing of journalists was a qualified international outpouring of support for free speech

      Outpourings of support often began thus: “I support freedom of speech, but…”

      1. “…..I don’t want to end up with my vagina ripped and my anus torn, body full of bullet holes, and/or a Bomb Victim courtesy of The Religion of Pieces.”

        1. I understand the risks. But I was thinking more of people who wrote something like, “I support freedom of speech but maybe Charlie Hebdo went too far.”

          1. I know this, Raven. I was leading you to finish the qualification, as context here is paramount.

            Too many people, here and in general, are quick to pounce on a “Yeah, but,”-monkey without context of why the, “..,but…” is there. A great many people, Charlie Hebdo included, view your last, full sentence to be the case here WRT Charlie Hebdo, overall.

            1. Cool.

    2. Then it turned into a lecture about “punching up” vs. “punching down”, because the SJWs whined about Hebdo’s content.

  5. Zineb El Rhazoui is a pretty lady.

    1. Zineb El Rowrrrzoui…

      1. I like it!

    2. Maybe I’m a deplorable, but I definitely hit her Twitter link right off the bat to find out if she looked good. She does.

    3. i’d propose if not for her massive spine and balls.

      1. Living life on the run is all the more impressive for having to haul those giant brass balls around.

    4. She’s not unattractive.

  6. I’m not going to be too judgmental here. The people that run that magazine are understandably scared and it’s not like they’re going to get an outpouring of support from the safe space crowd. I’m guessing its time has passed.

  7. as well as insinuations from everyone from Pope Francis to John Kerry to Garry Trudeau that the deliberately provocative journalists had somehow asked for their tragic fate.

    I bet these assholes would never tell their daughters that they deserved to be raped for wearing a skimpy outfit.

    Fuck those pikers.

    1. Nothing spells irrelevant has-been artist like Garry Trudeau.

        1. The PM of CA, Zoolander?

          /s

        2. While I’m a Doonesbury fan, I’m surprised that he hasn’t just ended the comic by now. As of the present, only the Sunday strips are new, and it’s the “Classics” during the week (currently revisiting 1987).

          Then again, after Trump’s election, I’m not surprised. 😛

    2. I bet these assholes would never tell their daughters that they deserved to be raped for wearing a skimpy outfit.

      Unless they were gang-raped by Muslims for offending their delicate sensibilities by wearing Western dress, of course.

  8. Kind of a dick move on her part, I think. Seems to me she’s got probably the best gig she can get when it comes to pulling Islam’s chain and getting paid for it. Does she think she can find an even more irreverent publication to work for?

    1. Stupid bint should learn her place, eh?

      1. Should’ve went the Full Monty and used, “berk,” Swiss. Let’s not go halfies, yes?

    2. Yeah, why doesn’t she walk the talk!

      Oh, wait…

  9. A few months from now, the French will go to the polls to choose a new President. The center left of France is so discredited now, the center-left party won’t even qualify for the runoff. The French will choose between a Thatcherite and Marine Le Pen of the National Front–a political party with neo-Nazi roots whose primary focus is being anti-immigration.

    Imagine what it would be like if the Democrats in the US couldn’t even muster enough support to make it onto the ballot two years from now–if the only choices were either a populist with a libertarian streak or someone from the anti-immigrant contingent of the Trump coalition with old ties to neo-Nazis.

    The thing that changed from two years ago is the influx of refugees. I guess not even the right wants to talk about being anti-immigrant now. It’s become such a big topic that it defies debate. That France will become anti-immigrants in policy isn’t even a question anymore. The question is whether the Thatcherite can pull enough support away from Le Pen to cheat her of presidency.

    Those voters are people who would normally vote for the center left. They’re a bit like Trump Democrats that way. Elitism is dead everywhere. I’m sure the leftist elite in France would love to blame Charlie Hebdo. What else ware they going to do? Take responsibility for their unpopularity of their own policies? They can’t blame Putin and Russian hackers like Obama does, but they would if they could.

    1. You can’t get away with lying to the public and telling them what they see in front of them isn’t really there. You can but not if you have elections.

      1. Have you been keeping up with Obama’s backroom deal to take in some 2,500 refugees that the Australians refuse to accept?

        “In an unprecedented move, the U.S. State Department has classified details on refugees to be resettled in America via a secret deal made with Australia. The bi-lateral agreement, which Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called a “one-off,” involves 2,465 people currently being held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who will now be transferred onto U.S. soil.”

        http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..-deal.html

        Use whatever source you want, the following seems to be the same everywhere.

        1) Some 2,500 refugees are languishing in some pacific island refugee camps the Australians set up–because the Australians have processed them and determined that they represent a threat.

        2) The Obama administration is bringing them here to the U.S. for resettlement.

        The Australians are more than happy to have America take them off their hands. The question is whether they can act fast enough and get them moved into American custody before Trump takes over.

        1. Unbelievable. Because when one or more of those refugees murders someone, it will be just and good because it is the victims’ duty to die so that Muslims remain free and western leftists feel good about themselves.

          1. What is it about Australia’s refugee screening process that makes theirs so much worse than ours?

            I’d understand if our screening process was so good that we could detect threats where the Australians can’t, but how can our screening process be so excellent that we can tell when refugees are safe when the Australians think they’re a threat?

            Screening processes don’t work that way. When they work well, they’re sensitive to threats–not less so.

            Again, Obama is running America for the benefit of refugees–he doesn’t give a shit about the interests of American security. He cares about refugees.

            1. He cares about refugees.

              Actually, he cares about his image. I doubt he give two shits about refugees.

              1. I think he genuinely cares about the refugees.

                He likes to settle them to places like Idaho, where they don’t have enough people of color.

                http://proof.nationalgeographi…..-refugees/

                1. Those stupid Trump-voting potato farmers will be bettered by the cultural diversity.

                  1. My understanding is that they have programs with the State Department to use asylum seeker labor. They want these people to have jobs, and various employers can use that labor on the cheap under federal rules.

                    When you hear about new meatpacking or Chobani yogurt plants being opened in Idaho, my understanding is that a lot of that is asylum labor. It’s like a rent seeking program.

                    1. When you hear about new meatpacking or Chobani yogurt plants being opened in Idaho, my understanding is that a lot of that is asylum labor.

                      Variously known as “jobs that Americans won’t do” or “jobs that won’t be coming back”.

                2. Whew, I’m glad my mom got me out of Twin Falls Boise before that happened.

        2. O, you can’t leave fast enough you fucking useless dipshit.

          1. He’s got 11 more days to do as much damage as possible.

          2. Yeah, Malcolm Turnbull, the Australian PM, is bragging about it.

            Hey, voters, you know those asylum seekers we screened and rejected and didn’t know what to do with? Well, I just pawed them off on the Americans.

            Suckers!!!

            1. Which world leader hasn’t made O their bitch?

              Merely incompetent is normal. This willfully stupid is criminal.

            2. Turnbull’s Castro moment!

        3. While U.S. law stipulates refugee status should not be granted based on generalized violence, according to officer training materials obtained by FoxNews.com, status can be considered for women heads of households who are vulnerable to crime, economic hardships or could be a victim of “Machista,” described in materials as a “cultural pattern where men father children, [then] abandon [their] family.”

          Don’t we have enough of this already?

  10. You can draw a turkey simply by tracing your hand.

    1. WTF are you talkin’ about?

      1. He’s right, Ken.

        The power is in all of us.

        1. OMG. OMG.

          My hands are turkeys.

          MY HANDS ARE TURKEYS!!!

          1. A word of caution: it makes fappin’ a little weird…

            1. *hands trophy to Tundra, steps back and applauds*

            2. Turkey chokes chicken!

              1. Chicken that’s suckin’ duck. Hence, turducken!

      1. The day after Thanxgiving at Planned Parenthood.

        Uff da – sorry about that!

  11. I was late this morning, but just wanted to be the guy to say Jimmy Fallon, Streep’s politics, and a musical called La La Land winning a record number of awards despite most people never seeing it is why Hollywood is despised and the Golden Globes ratings continue to tank. Well, that and the fact that it is an an obviously self-indulgent circle jerk.

    1. “…an obviously self-indulgent circle jerk.”

      Unlike HnR!

  12. Paging Meryl Streep!
    Het, Ms Streep! How ’bout a bold speech regarding the muzzy fundies from your sorry ass?

    1. I’m guessing that muzzie fundies are some kind of Sesame Street muppet?

      1. Explode Me Elmo?

        1. New Hasbro toy: Elmo with suicide-bomb belt.

      2. I think he meant ‘fuzzie mundies,” a euphemism for “hungover.”

  13. So, watched some non-graphic stills from ISIS propaganda showing how they teach kids as little as what appears to be 2 to kill. And I can’t help but wonder if people are psychologically avoiding thinking about how to really deal with the situation because they’re afraid that the only solution to the evil ISIS represents (specially just ISIS, not Salafism in general, much less Islam) is the complete extermination of every man, woman, and child affiliated with that movement.

    1. That is a solution well worth not considering.

      1. Sticking your head under the blanket doesn’t make the problem go away. Can you imagine what would happen if ten or twenty families came over as refugees and got those kids into preschools and grade schools? You think America went crazy after 9/11, I literally can’t even imagine what it will do if a couple of four year old jihadis butcher their classmates.

        1. At any rate, my criticism/suspicion is not that people think about it and decide it’s wrong or unwise; it’s that they refuse to think about it because they’re afraid they will decide that it isn’t. The former might be rational, the latter is not.

    2. I assume you have a list of those people?

      1. Do you think they don’t exist Hugh?

      2. Me? Nope. And I guess I mean the ones that actually control territory in Syria, not just random psychos that watch videos. Which means you don’t really need a list, just a map.

        1. Barack Obama has a map. He uses it every day to plan bombing attacks against people who he later designates to have been legit targets based on their locations and presumed ages.

          1. So what? What does that have to do with the barbarity of ISIS?

            You really are incapable of saying anything bad about Muslims aren’t you?

            1. I’m sure some of the drone operators are Muslims.

              1. It is nice that a retarded person can use the internet, but do us a favor and go to a different site. There is nothing to say to your response because it has nothing to do with the conversation. I am sorry about your low IQ but there is nothing I can do about it. So please stop shitting on the threads with your retardation.

    3. Sounds kind of final.

      1. At least it’s a solution. What are you offering?

      2. Yes. So? They aren’t a big, diverse group that happens to have a bad reputation, or some bad apples, or even a lot of bad apples, they’re group literally defined by their monstrous evil. There’s no such thing as good ISIS.

        1. Wrong – it’s a blatant witch hunt. Yes there are evil people out there. But killing them only creates more. The solution is to stop killing them and establish free speech and religion. Yes they are capable of it.

          1. Bullshit, AM, ISIS are monsters. Even if the world treated them well, they would still be monsters. They don’t practice cruelty and murder out of necessity, they do it because they enjoy it, they wallow in blood and pain and fear. They turn little boys into butchers and little girls into bombs. They tyrannize those who are like them, and exterminate the rest. They are demons in human bodies.

            The only freedom they deserve is being putting out of the world’s misery, with extreme prejudice.

            1. So in other words, they take after you. Congrats.

              1. If you think there’s a moral equivalence between ISIS and any other group of asshats short of the Nazis or Khmer Rouge, there’s something seriously wrong with you.

                1. Stalin has a sad.

          2. You’re not killing them fast enough I reckon

  14. The magazine going ‘soft’ is just a symptom of a bigger problem – the French Secular Caliphate – which would just as soon jail the employees of Charlie Hebdo as they would ‘protect’ them. That she is unable to appreciate the irony of her situation suggests why Charlie was never funny in the first place.

  15. The fact that their staff was murdered by Islamic extremists, but not by Jewish or Christian extremists, should certainly have made them reconsider their lefty crusade against all 3 religions equally.

    You can publish a cartoon of the Pope consecrating a condom, and Catholics call you an asshole – publish a cartoon of Mohammad and there’s a group of Muslims (a minority, but a well-off and well-armed minority) which will want to kill you.

    1. True – Muslims are dangerous. But even worse is the West who after killing Muslims says, “We must kill them because they are dangerous!” And, “If you question our ‘intelligence assessments’ we’ll kill you too!”

      I’m safe now daddy. I don’t need your ‘protection’.

      1. I said a group of Muslims, a minority but a well-off and well-armed minority.

        I didn’t say “Muslims” as such are dangerous – the danger is from the subset of Muslims who do this stuff.

      2. But even worse is the West who after killing Muslims says, “We must kill them because they are dangerous!”

        That might be the dumbest thing ever posted on reason. Is it national retard day?

        1. Every day is national retard day.

          1. You can’t kill people in other countries because they are ‘dangerous’ or because you have ‘photographic evidence’ that they taught a 2 year old to kill. Sorry to break it to you.

            1. I can’t kill people in other countries because I don’t have an army of drones.

              1. “I can’t kill people in other countries because I don’t have an army of drones.”

                Obama to the rescue. And soon, the Donald.

              2. Do you feel like you just aren’t getting enough violence in your life? Become a politician today and you, too, can have your very own slice of the monopoly of force! Remember, misery, like fiat currency, can be created at will to further any goal you’ve set your heart on. Political operators are standing by. Here’s how to order!

                Call (202) 863-8000 if you prefer blue authoritarianism, or (202) 863-8500 if you prefer red. If you act now, we’ll throw in your first drone strike for free. Yes, you heard that right, free!

  16. Maybe their society simply crashed and burned and it made the magazine irrelevant. After all you still need readers, and if readers are afraid they’ll be killed for even holding a copy then what’s the point?

  17. Might be that the “heart” is missing, it having been shot out of the body by some wonderful, peace loving Moslems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.