Thursday, January 08, 2015

Massacre at Charlie Hebdo - who is guilty?

TMI - 12 dead, including policemen, in Paris shooting at satirical publication office


I join the condemnation against such violence which doesn't prove nor achieve anything but where innocent people instead are killed.

But let's not just leave it there - we need to put the total picture in perspective where we need to also condemn Charlie Hebdo for its unnecessary provocations against Muslims.

The (then) French Foreign Minister was damn angry with the earlier provocation of Charlie Hebdo in publishing the Prophet Mohamad caricatures, where he stated "In France, there is a principle of freedom of expression, which should not be undermined. In the present context, given this absurd video that has been aired, strong emotions have been awakened in many Muslim countries. Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?"

What was Charlie Hebdo's excuse or if we want to be kind to it, reason for re-publishing (not first to publish as the Norwegians did it first followed by the Danes) something which had already inflamed Muslims all over the world?

As TMI reported: Despite being taken to court under anti-racism laws, the weekly continued to publish controversial cartoons of the Muslim prophet.

In September 2012, Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of a naked prophet as violent protests were taking place in several countries over a low-budget film, titled "Innocence of Muslims", which was made in the United States and had insulted the prophet.

French schools, consulates and cultural centres in 20 Muslim countries were briefly closed along with embassies for fear of retaliatory attacks at the time.


Why was it so adamant about being provocative against Muslims?

Charlie Hebdo's director, Stephane Charbonnier, pompously claimed that his magazine was not really fuelling the (angry Muslim) fire but rather using its 'freedom of expression' to comment on the news in a satirical way.

Its editor responded to the French ministerial rebuke: "We do caricatures of everyone, and above all every week, and when we do it with the Prophet, it's called provocation."

'Freedom of expression'?

Oh, that thick-skinned double standard hypocritical claim again, again and yet again by those European press.

Okay then, can Stephane Charbonnier or anyone in Charlie Hebdo please explain why it sacked its former cartoonist Siné (real name Maurice Sinet) in 2008 for his cartoon-article on the marriage of Jean Sakorzy, the son of France former president, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, a Jewish heiress, after a (obviously) Jewish journalist described Sinet's comments as anti-Semitic.

For more see my post Charlie Hebdo - further Western hypocrisy.


Thus Charlie Hebdo's publishing "sin" was not so much in its claimed pompous right to exercise the European's so-called bull about "freedom of expression" if even in an unnecessary provocative manner, but in its double standard hypocrisy in sacking its former cartoonist Maurice Sinet for a mere seemingly innocuous comment about the wedding, where Sinet said of the young bridegroom: "He'll go a long way in life, this lad!"

Whether Sinet was referring to the heiress' wealth or Jewish heritage was not known but regardless, please tell me, how was it in any way anti-Semitic?

And compare Sinet's remark with the degree of provocation in publishing the Prophet Mohamad caricatures.

"Freedom of expression"? As we Malaysians would say: Pordah!

But more interestingly, we must ask why Charlie Hebdo has persisted in its provocations against Muslims while over pampering to Jewish issues, even when there had been no issue as in the case of Maurice Sinet's comment?

Yes, why? Do read my 2007 post The 'O' in SWOT regarding the 3 'I'-s in the ME particularly in its latter section about Daniel Pipes and Flemming Rose, cultural editor of a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the bloke who published the Prophet Mohamed caricatures.


By the by, have you heard of David Irving?

He was jailed by Austria for questioning details about the Holocaust. Read my post European 'Freedom of Expression' took nosedive!

"Freedom of expression"? Pordah again!

63 comments:

  1. I've posted a reason for yr 'politically correct' cockaroo on yr previous posting before u wrote this 'piece' of double standard hypocrisy.

    I just want to add that, all thing aside, u seem to be playing what u abhorred about that double standard hypocrisy in this write-up!

    The point is among the three main branches of the Abrahamic faith - u display a profound 'hatred' in the order of Judaism, Christianity & Islam (perhaps not this one, due to whatsoever of yr logic!!)

    U might not have been self-conscious BUT it shows throughout yr postings, past & current, about religious indoctrination.

    What gives?

    Yr hate of Zionist????

    Yr cat????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wakakaka, you remind me of anwaristas - whenever I criticized Anwar Ibrahim based on his track record as an UMNO minister, events or his own admissions, I would be asked why I HATED Anwar.

      HATE - oh, such a convenient word to hurl at someone you can't argue with. Nat Tan used to ask me that, but today he is no longer an anwarista, having discovered what I revealed ages ago, wakakaka again. One day I may ask him why he HATES Anwar, wakakaka.

      Then, do you realize that by accusing me of HATING (wakakaka), just because I pointed out facts and quotes from reliable sources, Judaism, Christianity and Islam in that order, you are actually reflecting your personal sensitivities of your own bias regarding those 3 religions, meaning you love or highly respect Judaism, then Christianity next, but least of all (or even dislike) Islam, wakakaka.

      Don't be childishly emotional. Be intellectual

      Delete
    2. Nah! Once upon a time, Mrs Goon, his PE has humiliated him in front of the students. Kaytee studied in girls school you know. Ah so.........That school happened to be a catholic school. As he studied overseas, at anytime, he kenna beaten academically by the jews........ah so

      Guys and Gals,
      Who is David Marshall?

      Delete
    3. anwaristas???

      Wakakakaka....

      '...to hurl at someone you can't argue with.'??????

      Where's yr counter-arguments???What smokes r u inhaling???

      Nat Tan???? A self-styled righteousness middle-pather???? Wakakakaka... where is he now with that expose of the RM2.6M golden handshake by his favourite ex-Selangor MB?

      Yr last paragraph truly reflects yr style of arguing (or worming) yr way out of a self-painted corner.

      Yr showing of hatred toward religious indoctrination is not the question, as u've declared yrself to be an atheist. The KEY question is why the hierarchy of 'hate' preferences? Is it in yr world of reliable 'understanding' about religious indoctrination, there is different class of attack?

      I'm also an atheist (surprise....surprise) & I treat ALL religious indoctrinations as a form of self-delusional personal therapy. There is no 'hate' involved, unlike yr case!

      Thus my fundamental question about these psychopathic Islamists mentioned in my previous posting.

      So, try answer my questions about u lah......

      Delete
    4. actually I don't have to argue with you because you're merely showing your suspicions or speculations via your intrinsic bias - hierarchy of hatred? wakakaka - so where's your question? wakakaka

      Delete
  2. It is the Yankees! Someone revealed the 'hidden agenda", see:
    http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2015/01/08/the-real-story-behind-islamic-attack-on-paris-magazine-office/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, the CIA did it....

      Delete
  3. Interesting that Malaysia, which counts France as the European country it is closest to, has remained silent on the attacks......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PM Najib has condemned the attack. Former PM Dr Mahathir has said the attack was wrong/ See http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2015/01/08/Paris-shooting-Malaysia/

      I am sure Anwar Ibrahim will soon join in the chorus of condemnation

      Delete
  4. The Interview, which shows the assassination of the leader of another country, is a 'fine' example of freedom of expression !
    -huaren

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know who's right or wrong in this bloodbath? All the deaths and horror seem to prevail over the possibility of real world peace. I just wish the aggressors would stop harming innocent people. As a Muslim I condemn the murderers be it Muslims or Nons!

    On 9th September 2011, at 8.46 am the World Trade Centre Twin Towers were attacked and destroyed. Some 3,000 people suffered the horrific consequences. The blamed was put on 19 Islamic fundamentalists’ suicide bombers.

    The impact is on the Muslim, as most western people would hate them and the Islamic religion.

    However, on the other hand, skeptics of 911 argued that the demolition-like collapsed of the Twin Towers and also a third 47 storey skyscraper WTC 7 which was never hit by the plane, and also the unprecedented failure of the US Air Defense System on the morning of the attacks, suggested that it was possibly a staged or scripted ‘False Flag Operation’ as a pretext, perhaps to launch a new war on the Islamic countries and the Muslims.

    I am feeling very sad indeed.

    - hasan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Hasan,

      You wrote: ". . . . . possibly a False Flag Operation . . . . to launch a new war on the Islamic countries and the Muslims."

      The puzzling question is what has America to gain from that? They attacked Afghanistan (Taliban) and Iraq. But still it is hard to discern what benefit they derived from these efforts.

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 2.32...

      My guess is black gold (oil), and perhaps to invigorate and strengthen Israel. By the way, there is no oil in Afghanistan, but don't forget that the Russian was/is the main ally of Afghanistan.

      In addition, at the fourth last paragraph in this post, KT has mentioned Daniel Pipes, who was an ex-Harvard advisor to the US State Department. Pipes rabid racial superiority and his dislike for Muslims/Islam is the main thesis of his book (1984) "In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power.

      - hasan

      Delete
  6. If you were brought up in Malaysia, you have probably been conditioned to regard Islam as above reproach. That is still the Law in Malaysia.

    Well, the fact is in the global market place of ideas , Islam is definitely subject to criticism, yes even ridicule. Just as Christianity and Judaism is daily criticised and ridiculed.

    Just on this blog, Judaism is regularly excoriated, sometimes Christianity as well.

    Islam has no special position on the global stage. All the kataks underneath their tempurungs need to understand that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That magazine has been sued unsuccessfully 14 TIMES by the Vatican! It may be provocative but it has also been fair and free. I do not see why you want to blame the victim.

    If these Islamofacist boofheads have anything to say, they can set up their own satirical magazine instead. I will subscribe to "Charlie hebdo" even though I donot read French.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you miss my point altogether. If you care to open your eyes and read what I have written above, and take a few seconds to digest the meaning, you would have understood my main point, namely Charlie Hebdo's hypocrisy in its double standards approach to so-called "freedom of expression"

      The paragraph you should have paid more attention to is:

      Charlie Hebdo's publishing "sin" was not so much in its claimed pompous right to exercise the European's so-called bull about "freedom of expression" if even in an unnecessary provocative manner, but in its double standard hypocrisy in sacking its former cartoonist Maurice Sinet for a mere seemingly innocuous comment about the wedding, where Sinet said of the young bridegroom: "He'll go a long way in life, this lad!"

      Whether Sinet was referring to the heiress' wealth or Jewish heritage was not known but regardless, please tell me, how was it in any way anti-Semitic?

      And compare Sinet's remark with the degree of provocation in publishing the Prophet Mohamad caricatures.

      "Freedom of expression"? As we Malaysians would say: Pordah!


      And associated with the above the question we need to ask is why the double standards and the persistent vilification of Islamic beliefs.

      If you're an objective and impartial observer you might have noticed the connection between such provocations and something that the Palestinians have done or would suffer from - now, what did the Palestinians do recently? work that out.

      Delete
    2. double standard hypocrisy??????

      Now that’s a BIG word seems to be popular with KT at this juncture of his sopo illusion.

      1st - when Maurice Sinet was sacked, who was the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo? & when was that incident happened?

      2nd - is the Jewish link the sole reason of the sacking? KT should read the written Siné’s 40,000-euro court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination. Preferably in French!

      So using an incident happened quite some time ago & under a different care of people to label the current Charlei Hebdo playing double standard hypocrisy IS just NOT cricket!

      Remember, different people play different tune & policies change
      like quicksilver, especially in a country where liberty, fraternity & freedom rule supreme.

      Perhaps, the double standard hypocrisy is ON u!

      Using this tragedy to hijack yr known dislike of Zionists & the appalling state of the Palestinian survival is just THAT, nothing else!

      This paragraph is profoundly telling about yr intention;

      ‘If you're an objective and impartial observer you might have noticed the connection between such provocations and something that the Palestinians have done or would suffer from - now, what did the Palestinians do recently? work that out.’

      Don’t let one tragedy to justify another!

      Ooop.. could this be yr an-eye-for-an-eye type of childish emotion?

      Work THAT out, Please!!!!!

      Delete
    3. Charlie Hebdo still have the same owners and editorial people so don't try to sneak away on their double standard behalf

      it seems no one wants to listen to what I have been saying, I suppose once they have made up their minds, wakakaka - the issue is not so much "the right to offend" but a consistent & fair standard - if Jewish sensitivities canNOT be offended, then other ethnic groups' sensitivities also should NOT be offended

      If Muslims' sensitivities are to be provoked, fine, then Jewish sensitivities should also be allowed to be provoked too..

      Thus my observation of Charlie Hebdo's double standard hypocrisy. And it's not just CH alone in this hypocrisy but a whole range of Western press and authorities as well.

      My encouragement to you to read the issues connecting Middle East politics and unwarranted provocation by certain media elements in Europe have gone wasted.

      Delete
    4. U should get hold of a few past copies of the Charlie Hebdo to find out their satirical targets.

      If yr claimed of the same (Jewish) owner cultivates this double standard hypocrisy, then the irrelevency punks CH done on the Judaism must be an eye opener!

      Could it be the owner has a hand-off policy on editorial issues?? Ouch...

      As far as yr claimed of fixation of blocked mindset, u SHOULD get a mirror & look deeply into it.

      U r no better at hiding yr antisemitism theme by sheep-skinned it with yr selective argument of double standard hypocrisy!!

      Delete
    5. accusing your opponent of antisemitism is no different from some kniasu Muslims accusing you of insulting Islam. It's an over-worn accusation that no longer has any foundation nor impact. Why, it's like what CH accused Maurice Sinet of, wakakaka

      Delete
  8. The point is you cannot take other's people life.

    If tak faham susah lah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wakakaka, now you're trying to bullshit your way out. Again I call upon you to stop bullshitting and read what I wrote right at the very beginning (as follows):

      I join the condemnation against such violence which doesn't prove nor achieve anything but where innocent people instead are killed.

      Delete
    2. U should read this;

      http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/why-i-support-the-freedom-to-offend-me-farouk-a.-peru

      Especially the word play between “blamed” & “caused”!

      Then also go a bit further to tie yr antisemitism & Je Suis Charlie massacre hypothesis in yr on going trumpet of double standard hypocrisy.

      Wakakakaka

      Delete
    3. as I have been saying (it seems no one wants to listen once they have made up their mind, wakakaka) the issue is not so much "the right to offend" but a consistent & fair standard - if Jewish sensitivities canNOT be offended, then other ethnic groups' sensitivities also should NOT be offended

      If Muslims' sensitivities are to be provoked, fine, then Jewish sensitivities should also be allowed to be offended..

      Thus my observation fo Charlie Hebdo's double standard hypocrisy

      Delete
  9. Ironically, France is one of the few friends the Islamic world has in the West.

    They have steadfastly refrained from the deadly interventions in Islamic countries conducted by the American-British-Australian Anglophile Axis.

    France has also served as a tolerant host for generations of Islamists. Ayatollah Khomeini, for one, lived in exile Paris for years before returning to Iran after the Shah's overthrow. Even someone like Osama bin Laden could have been welcome if he did not engage in violent acts.

    Right-wingers who criticise this Islamist-tolerant policy used to refer to their capital city Paris-tan.

    Now the Islamists have turned round to bite their benefactor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where did these killers learn 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' ?
    -huaren

    ReplyDelete
  11. I disagree with the title of your post - "Massacre at Charlie Hebdo - who is guilty?"

    The guilty party is as straightforward as hell - its the gunmen who carried it out.
    There are other concerns surrounding Charlie Hebdo which can and should be questioned and addressed, but it does not detract from the guilt of the perpetrators.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those who insult Islam and the Prophet Muhammad SAW must be prepared to face the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is why the God said.....don't try to be clever, who asks you to defend me, you puny humans.....there you are, I asked you not to kill, and you went berserk killing 12 people...I make sure you drop your ID card and make sure you face the consequences. Amin.

      Delete
  13. Perhaps you should read http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-the-truths-that-ought-to-be-self-evident-but-still-arent/ for a reflection on your stand in this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Soon, there will be a huge propaganda campaign, perhaps blaming the Muslim clerics and the mosques for the cause of this act of terrorism by the Islamic militants. Granted!

    Now, what about on dropping hundreds of tons of radioactive bombs in urban Iraq? Is that not an act of terrorism too? Who are we to blame? Bush and Sharon? Americans foreign policy? Mind you, we can bark and foam at the mouth, but Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 911, and had no weapons of mass destruction?

    Would it not provoke powerful expressions of revenged and hatred towards the West too? Can we can discuss about the West's complicity in creating terrorism? It kind of leaves us scratching our heads! Wakakaka...

    - hasan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hasan, like it or not, there are plenty of Jihadist Muslim clerics who preach violence and death against the enemies of Islam. And the mosques which nurture them.
    Even in so-called "Moderate" Malaysia, official Jakim written Friday khutbah called for Muslims to unite and take action against the enemies of Islam.
    As if that is not incitement to violence ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charlie,

      "As if that is not incitement to violence?"

      Did I not say granted if you want to blame the Muslim clerics and the mosques for inciting Islamic terrorism/fundamentalism? Wakakaka...

      What is your take on my other point about the West's complicity in provoking powerful expressions of revenged and hatred towards the West?

      By the way, Charlie Hebdo is not as extreme if compared to the London Underground Bombings on the 07.07.05 where four Islamist detonated four bombs aboard the underground trains and a double-decker bus. Along with the four suicide bombers, 52 civilians were killed and 700 more were injured in the attack.

      - hasan

      Delete
  16. Latest news is that French police have shot dead the two Charlie Hebdo killers.
    Shahid... Or so they think....
    I suppose they have gone to meet their 72 houris....

    ReplyDelete
  17. The punishment for blasphemy and those who insult The Prophet (pbuh) is Death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moron,

      u should re-read yr copy of the 'Quran' about blasphemy!

      There is NO punishment of ANY sort been mentioned in the Quran about blasphemy.

      The blasphemy part comes out of the tribalistic invention of the desert roaming pagans!

      So, is yr copy of that holy book - truly the Quran?

      Delete
    2. Fareed Zakaria: Blasphemy, Bible and the law of fanatics
      http://malaysiansmustknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/fareed-zakaria-blasphemy-bible-and-law.html

      Delete
  18. http://www.malaysiandigest.com/frontpage/29-4-tile/536812-danish-newspaper-won-t-print-prophet-cartoons.html
    Jyllands Posten will not reprint Anti Islam cartoons....looks like they learnt their lesson

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Charlie Hebdo attackers may be a lunatic fringe, but hey all Muslims need to take note - they feed from the general Muslim community.
    Malaysia is also becoming more Islamist by the day - its official government policy, with the likes of Jamil Khir Baharom.
    When you move a whole population rightwards, the number and virulence of the lunatic fringe grows as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely spot on ! There is still a chance, albeit a slight chance, for Malaysia to stop this slide ..... if the PM and his husband are not so horrendously obsessed to hold on to power by any means. Let's see the outcome of the meeting with the group of G25.

      Delete
  20. kt out of curiosity, can u name me a media outlet from the west, or east north south that not operate in a double standard hypocrisy manner?

    u sound like one that keep babbling abt the person who urinating on a flag pole, and only write one sentence to condemn those that do the killing in a riot.

    anon n me keep on "provoke" u, just curios again, what u gonna do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. try the Australian Sydney Morning Herald [http://www.smh.com.au/] and the British The Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/]

      I haven't read the latter for many years now because it then required subscription (presumably still does). Robert Fisk used to write a column for it but I'm not sure about now.

      The former (Sydney Morning Herald) is one Aussie news that (thank goodness) haven't gone under the Murdoch stable ... yet anyway. Paul McGeough writes for it.

      Paul McGeough is an award winning journalist, and probably next to Robert Fisk, the most knowledgeable and respected person in that profession on Middle-East affairs. He has interviewed al Qaeda and other groups that won’t normally provide interviews to western journalists.

      McGeough and an Aussie photographer-journalist Kate Geraghty, both of whom worked for the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), were among those on the peace flotilla and subsequently imprisoned by Israeli military until international pressure forced the Jewish State to release them.

      Incidentally McGeough was the journalist who had to flee Iraq for his own life when in mid-2004 he revealed to the world how US pet and former Iraqi PM, Iyad Allawi, had cold-bloodedly executed 6 prisoners, who were nothing more than “suspects”, in front of his troops, it was said, to straighten up their (the troops’) spines. He shot each and every one of those prisoners as Saddam Hussein had been accused of doing.

      McGeough's report was confirmed by an American official in http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/US-official-confirms-Allawi-shot-six-dead/2005/01/18/1105810916006.html

      Read my posts quoting Paul MCGeough:

      http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/truth-on-israeli-attack-on-peace.html

      http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/america-unfair-america-unchampion-of.html

      http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/western-apathetic-hypocrisy-or.html

      http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/neo-nazis-perpetuating-holocaust-in.html

      http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/gaza-war-crimes-till-unaccounted-for.html

      I'm sure there are many more

      Delete
    2. what abt this?

      http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/04/fairfax-apologises-and-withdraws-smh-cartoon-criticised-as-antisemitic

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-06/smh-columnist-mike-carlton-resigns-following-gaza-column-furore/5651470

      Delete
    3. Mike Carlton has been a very good journalist but unfortunately he shot himself in the foot when he used rather robust language in some of his responses to the more feral of his detractors - he's a typical Aussie male.

      While the smh has been and still is an independnt news source it didn't want to be labeled as a news agency with racist characteristics. On balance of the longer term implications, it decided to remove the cartoon seen as offensive to many Australians who incidentally like the Aussie gvernment are pro-Israel

      Delete
    4. KT,

      Yr current write-up of double standard hypocrisy rings the same undertone as that of that half-anmoh’s boundaries and limits to free speech take!

      I do hope u see the convergency of both pieces toward a transient set theme, & yet both of u r unwilling to define PROPERLY.

      What takes?????

      Double standard hypocrisy ke, limit of free speech ke, the fact of the matter is Muslim’s overblown hypersensitivity about all things Islam, vis-à-vis other religious indoctrinations.

      ‘If Muslims' sensitivities are to be provoked, fine, then Jewish sensitivities should also be allowed to be offended.’ – shows truly yr underlying biasness in commenting this issue. Bcoz, matter of fact, CH has being blasting its gun on ALL religions iff u care to read their past copies.

      As far as Maurice Sinet’s case, obviously u still have not read the judgment report. It could very well be the single decision of the editor-in-chief then.

      Not reading French is NO excuses, please, since u r the one that 1st raised this issue!

      So, could Jewish puppeteering of the editorial management of CH is yr fragment of imagination, guided by yr hidden sense of all-thing-Zionist hate?

      Wasnt u once said that Jews don’t equal Zionist??? Or now r u changing wholesale to Jews=Zionist! Wakakakaka…sigh…

      Now back to that hidden theme, & let me spells it out for both of u, of forever Muslim bashing by Western medias.

      Whatsoever been said & done – the fundamental fact remains that it is been clearly displayed that as if the Muslim populace has the sole right of beget extreme violence with whatsoever acts/speeches/irrelevants, no matter how inconsequential they appear to project about their ‘beloved’ faith!

      Even an eye for an eye – a ancient barbaric reaction, has a certain sense of balance. Counter whatsoever action with EQUAL reaction of same magnitude is WHAT it intrinsically implies. Nothing more nothing less.

      & yet, in the case of CH massacre – that sense of balance is lost!

      So, wakakakaka… for u…’ wakakaka - the issue is not so much "the right to offend" but a consistent & fair standard’!!!!!

      More so when this is done in a modern & cilvilised world!

      Feel slighted/insulted/mis-treated?

      React in a civilized manner & with all the Allah given manna of oil money to advance the civility of the ummat Islam. If the West can do it, so can u – unless u r forever sub-servant to yr inferiority complex! Violent reaction ONLY proves to the whole world that the ummat Islam is still living inside the cave, even with the guidance of the Quran! It also provides ammunition to yr haters to justify their continuous actions against u.

      That is, of course, IFF the whole ummat Islam allows a small portion of their misguided & blood-thirty brethren to exercise extreme measures on their behalf to uphold their faith.

      Keeping silence is NOT an option!!!! Not just token speeches!!! Bcoz, deep down, the ummat Islam needs to ask that long avoided question of why these extremists exist in such a large quantity that exceed the statistical norm as compare with OTHER religious faiths.

      Neither is diverting/finding alternative excuses/logic/reason by whosoever to justify the killing by assigning blames on freedom of speech & causality of the event!

      Comprehendi????

      Delete
    5. This was what I had written over at Malaysia-Today:

      It's not the freedom of expression I have difficulty with - it's the European Press' double standards hypocrisy where no one is allowed to touch Jewish sensitivities while it's freedom of speech/expression to abuse Islam's most revered prophet. The European's ON/OFF style in their so-called freedom of expression is utterly hypocritical, shameless and cringing to only one race/religion/culture.

      What's good for the goose should be equally good for the gander.

      I support respecting Jewish sensitivities, but then that same respect must be extended t Muslim sensitivities.

      I support freedom of expression to wax satirical about religious icons and even revered prophets, but only if the same freedom of expression be equally extended to those who want to express their thoughts/opinions freely on Jewish issues, as in the case of David Irving and Ken Livingstone (let alone an innocent like Prince Harry who went to a fancy dress ball and ended up being described by a British Jewish Lord as "evil").


      Likewise, I condemn the senseless killings at CH, the terrorist attacks by al Qaeda and JI, as I would condemn the Israeli murderous use of disproportionate force on civilians including women and babies in Gaza (Ops Cast Lead) and Lebanon (2006), and illegally on the high sea on board the MV Mavi Marmara, as well the US drone attacks on sundry targets, with innocent civilian deaths, etc

      I don't see any more value in your persistent refusal to recognize the double standards hypocrisy practiced by the Western (European) press depsite the many examples besides the CH case I have offered

      Delete
  21. There're many more out there who believe killing innocent people is one way to go to heaven! What heaven?
    -huaren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you mean the Americans and Israelis? The Judeo-Christian heaven then

      Delete
    2. KT,
      they kill for the same reward?
      -huaren

      Delete
  22. The massacre arose from reaction to Charlie Hebdo's extreme abuse of freedom of speech.
    Its an important reason why we need legal constraints on freedom of speech such as the Sedition Act in Malaysia. Our multi-ethnic and multi religious society is even more vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wakakaka Kalai, I really admire you never ever missing an opportunity

      Delete
  23. Sometimes clever people condemn an action or incident for perfunctory purposes, then give a side nudge and wink of tacit approval.
    Both Mahathir and Ktemoc's reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre sound like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wakakaka, running out of arguments?

      Delete
    2. Christians believe Jesus is God but Muslims regard Jesus as just another prophet. Surely that's an insult for centuries but so far it seems the Christian God has a better control over his believers in that they don't run amok killing people. This is not intended to hurt anybody's feeling, I apologize if anyone is offended. Would be glad if you let me know where I am wrong.

      Delete
    3. Jesus being considered by Muslims as a prophet is at least better than being considered by followers of Judaism as a heretic (apostate)

      Delete
    4. An insult is an insult. To ameliorate it by saying one is better than the other is smack of double standard isn't it?

      Delete
    5. alamak, u can't recognize sarcasm lah, wakakaka. nonetheless, it seems according to your logic that both Jews and Muslims insult Christians, but on a comparative basis the insult of the Jews towards Christians has been far far more acerbic than the Muslims', by any measure, a heretic has to be far less respectful than a prophet wakakaka

      Delete
  24. I am Charlie Hebdo, too.......wakakakaka...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. when you say "I am Charlie Hebdo" you mustn't wakakaka - be serious, angry and resolute - alamak

      Delete
  25. It has emerged from recordings made during the related hostage taking that the massacre really was an Islamist-ideology driven terrorist act.
    Charlie Hebdo was incidental to it. That they published the controversial cartoons made the choice for the attackers, but it wasn't the core issue.
    It could easily have been some other soft target.

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186441.html

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/who-should-be-blamed-for-muslim-terrorism/

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies?intcid=mod-yml

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-080115.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bro, i share the plight of muslim (from a wider perspective), n i do read many "speculation" and "conspiracy" theory on various case, some i agree n some not, however i still hope there is more muslim to move forward to condemn such act, not giving an impression that they are apologist, or even condone such act (killing of civilian).

      kt, sensitivities among people from various nation n race n religion is at vast diff, yr argument on the god name case demonstrate that u r well aware of such sensitivity, thus the "double hypocrisy" could be a result of the history n environment one was groom. most caucacian especially european r sensitive toward anything jew, american white toward black, china / chinese toward minority, japan toward nanjing chinese n etc. i am not saying anyone is rightly to do so, but i expect u to understand this more than the rest.

      Delete
  27. Excellent article, very well written. Thank you so much for adding some perspective to this parade of guilt. Je suis PAS Charlie!

    ReplyDelete