French Magazine Bombed to Enforce Shariah

[chanel]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

 

[alexa]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

 

[syrenn]

Religion of peace ya know.


Fuck them.....

 

[Jos]

"Sorry to hear about the fire that gutted your Magazine, Val"
"Shhs, it's not until tomorrow"
Philippe Val - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Amazing how some folks stands up to intimidation....

....my fav was Yale University publishing a book on the Prophet Muhammad cartoons....but wouldn't allow pics of the cartoons.

"So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí. "
Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book by Jytte Klausen - NYTimes.com

 

[California Girl]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Following your "logic", do rape victims who dress provocatively 'ask for it'?

Fucking idiot.

 

[chanel]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Move to Mecca. In most religions, and in most civilized societies, there is no justification for firebombing office buildings in residential neighborhoods. True story.

Oh my. Was that picture offensive? I hope those crazy Christians don't burn down my house!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Move to Mecca. In most religions, and in most civilized societies, there is no justification for firebombing office buildings in residential neighborhoods. True story.

Oh my. Was that picture offensive? I hope those crazy Christians don't burn down my house!

Did you know that there is a statue of Mohammad on the Supreme Court building?
Think they'll fire bomb it?

The North Frieze on the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC features a bas-relief sculpture of Mohammed, among several other historical law-givers. He is in the center of this image holding a curved scimitar; on the left is Charlemagne, and on the right is Byzantine Emperor Justinian. You can download a detailed pdf of the Supreme Court friezes here. The urban legend site Snopes.com has info about the frieze in this entry. A slightly less clear photo of Mohammed in the frieze can be found here, as part of this article which gives some background on the sculpture.
Mohammed Image Archive


And did you know that a group of French were invited into the Mecca, and into the Grand Mosque in 1979?
No, they weren't Muslim.

 

[chanel]

Ssssh PC. We wouldn't want to be complicit in the bombing of a federal building. Even if it is "justified."

 

[Si modo]

Fuck'em.

Damn, what a bunch of whining pussies.

 

[Amelia]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Obama deliberately mocks Republicans in a way which he knows will be upsetting to us.

Glad to hear that's justification for firebombing the White House. ;-)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Obama deliberately mocks Republicans in a way which he knows will be upsetting to us.

Glad to hear that's justification for firebombing the White House. ;-)

Too late, it's been done.
Those Muslim Brits did it in 1812.

 

[alexa]

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Obama deliberately mocks Republicans in a way which he knows will be upsetting to us.

Glad to hear that's justification for firebombing the White House. ;-)

Only problem is, Chinese whispers going on here. Nobody said anything about justification, people said it was asked for. Big difference.

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

-snip-

It's obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it's just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it's just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you.

Read more: Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

This was a bait. No one said the bombing was justified, they said it was asked for. Given that the people involved are the very same as did the Danish Cartoons, their intentions are obvious.

Do I feel sorry their place is blasted to pieces because they wanted to show how big they were by tormenting Islam and tempting extremists. No and I happen to know that the very same people were offered offensive Christian cartoons to publish before the Muslim and turned them down because they were offensive. They know exactly what they are doing and always have.

I am not justifying this. I am saying it was asked for. If you ask for something, do not then complain if you get it.

 

[chanel]

Nice spin attempt. Saying someone "asked for it" is condoning it. When you condone something, you excuse or "justify" it. Is English your first language?

Would you have felt differently if innocent people were killed in that building or in that neighborhood?

Rhetorical question of course.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Obama deliberately mocks Republicans in a way which he knows will be upsetting to us.

Glad to hear that's justification for firebombing the White House. ;-)

Only problem is, Chinese whispers going on here. Nobody said anything about justification, people said it was asked for. Big difference.

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

-snip-

It's obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it's just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it's just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it's pointlessly all about you.

Read more: Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

This was a bait. No one said the bombing was justified, they said it was asked for. Given that the people involved are the very same as did the Danish Cartoons, their intentions are obvious.

Do I feel sorry their place is blasted to pieces because they wanted to show how big they were by tormenting Islam and tempting extremists. No and I happen to know that the very same people were offered offensive Christian cartoons to publish before the Muslim and turned them down because they were offensive. They know exactly what they are doing and always have.

I am not justifying this. I am saying it was asked for. If you ask for something, do not then complain if you get it.

I ask for all Muslims to move to Saudi Arabia.

I won't complain if I get it, promise.

 

[alexa]

Nice spin attempt. Saying someone "asked for it" is condoning it. When you condone something, you excuse or "justify" it. Is English your first language?

Condoning would be to approve the behaviour. I do not. I expect the people concerned to be arrested and treated by the law. Who those people are we do not yet know. They may not even be Muslims.

Would you have felt differently if innocent people were killed in that building or in that neighborhood?

If people had been killed I would have felt for them yes, I would certainly have felt sad at the loss of life but my view on this having been asked for would not have changed.

It was asked for in just the same way as the Danish cartoons were released to cause a reaction from Muslims. It is very easy to show how this is true.

First they are offered Jesus cartoons, which according to their artist were not all that extreme, just a joke. The kind his grandfather would have laughed at, he said. He had already shown them to a Pastor who also found them funny. This was not the case though with the Danish paper which published the Mohammed cartoons. What they thought of the Jesus cartoons was

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons | Media | MediaGuardian

So what we have is a Danish paper offered cartoons of Jesus which were not greatly offensive and refusing to publish them because they thought they would provoke an outcry and then we have the very same paper hiring a cartoonist to create intensely offensive cartoons of Mohamed. Clearly having been offered and turned down the Jesus ones because they believed they would cause an outcry gave them the very idea of doing this with Mohammed, in full expectation and desire of an outcry. In other words asking for an outcry.

You can see Philippe Val's involvement with this here

Philippe Val - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you have here is double standards. People getting all high and mighty about people being offended by the most grotesque insult to Mohammed while not being prepared to risk the rile of Christians with even moderately offensive Jesus ones.

Here you have people whose very motivation it would appear was to cause a Muslim outcry.

I hear their insurance agency is furious they were given insurance. Cannot say I am surprised. If you ask for something, don't expect sympathy when you get it.

It is to be thanked no loss of life resulted from this malarkey.

 

[Ropey]

Nice spin attempt. Saying someone "asked for it" is condoning it. When you condone something, you excuse or "justify" it. Is English your first language?

Condoning would be to approve the behaviour. I do not. I expect the people concerned to be arrested and treated by the law. Who those people are we do not yet know. They may not even be Muslims.

Would you have felt differently if innocent people were killed in that building or in that neighborhood?

If people had been killed I would have felt for them yes, I would certainly have felt sad at the loss of life but my view on this having been asked for would not have changed.

It was asked for in just the same way as the Danish cartoons were released to cause a reaction from Muslims. It is very easy to show how this is true.

First they are offered Jesus cartoons, which according to their artist were not all that extreme, just a joke. The kind his grandfather would have laughed at, he said. He had already shown them to a Pastor who also found them funny. This was not the case though with the Danish paper which published the Mohammed cartoons. What they thought of the Jesus cartoons was

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons | Media | MediaGuardian

So what we have is a Danish paper offered cartoons of Jesus which were not greatly offensive and refusing to publish them because they thought they would provoke an outcry and then we have the very same paper hiring a cartoonist to create intensely offensive cartoons of Mohamed. Clearly having been offered and turned down the Jesus ones because they believed they would cause an outcry gave them the very idea of doing this with Mohammed, in full expectation and desire of an outcry. In other words asking for an outcry.

You can see Philippe Val's involvement with this here

Philippe Val - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you have here is double standards. People getting all high and mighty about people being offended by the most grotesque insult to Mohammed while not being prepared to risk the rile of Christians with even moderately offensive Jesus ones.

Here you have people whose very motivation it would appear was to cause a Muslim outcry.

I hear their insurance agency is furious they were given insurance. Cannot say I am surprised. If you ask for something, don't expect sympathy when you get it.

It is to be thanked no loss of life resulted from this malarkey.

^^^ Outcry ^^^​

What you see as malarkey does not mean it is malarkey. You are unwilling to see reality and see malarkey as reality.

Malarkey I say....

 

[Toro]

Molotov cocktails were today used to burn down the headquarters of a leading French magazine because it mocked the Prophet Mohammed.

Its latest edition carries a cartoon image of a bearded Mohammed - something which is blasphemous under Islamic law - and pretends that it is being 'guest edited' by the Prophet.

Armed police were this morning surrounding the charred remains of the building, which is close to a number of housing estates where the occupants are predominantly Muslim.

Read more: Charlie Hebdo: French magazine's offices torched after it mocks Prophet Mohammed | Mail Online

Time Magazine's French Bureau Chief essentially said "they asked for it".

Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish | NewsBusters.org

The French should require a course in satire for all Muslim immigrants - before they are granted residency.

Well first, they do not yet know who did it. It could just as easily be someone hoping to stir up hatred of Muslims.

Secondly Time is right, they asked for it. They deliberately mocked Islam in a way which they knew would be upsetting to all Muslims and which after the Cartoon thing was a dare.

They dared. Someone answered. Most Muslim's have realised they do need to put up with being humiliated ad infinitum and no good comes of responding so we do not yet know who responded. A Muslim or a Muslim hater. Time will tell.

Assuming it was Muslim extremists, these people are enemies of liberal democracy. Their religion does not supersede the foundations of Western society.

If they do not want to live by the standards of Western society, they can fuck off back to where they came from.

 

[Toro]

Nice spin attempt. Saying someone "asked for it" is condoning it. When you condone something, you excuse or "justify" it. Is English your first language?

Condoning would be to approve the behaviour. I do not. I expect the people concerned to be arrested and treated by the law. Who those people are we do not yet know. They may not even be Muslims.

Would you have felt differently if innocent people were killed in that building or in that neighborhood?

If people had been killed I would have felt for them yes, I would certainly have felt sad at the loss of life but my view on this having been asked for would not have changed.

It was asked for in just the same way as the Danish cartoons were released to cause a reaction from Muslims. It is very easy to show how this is true.

First they are offered Jesus cartoons, which according to their artist were not all that extreme, just a joke. The kind his grandfather would have laughed at, he said. He had already shown them to a Pastor who also found them funny. This was not the case though with the Danish paper which published the Mohammed cartoons. What they thought of the Jesus cartoons was

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons | Media | MediaGuardian

So what we have is a Danish paper offered cartoons of Jesus which were not greatly offensive and refusing to publish them because they thought they would provoke an outcry and then we have the very same paper hiring a cartoonist to create intensely offensive cartoons of Mohamed. Clearly having been offered and turned down the Jesus ones because they believed they would cause an outcry gave them the very idea of doing this with Mohammed, in full expectation and desire of an outcry. In other words asking for an outcry.

You can see Philippe Val's involvement with this here

Philippe Val - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you have here is double standards. People getting all high and mighty about people being offended by the most grotesque insult to Mohammed while not being prepared to risk the rile of Christians with even moderately offensive Jesus ones.

Here you have people whose very motivation it would appear was to cause a Muslim outcry.

I hear their insurance agency is furious they were given insurance. Cannot say I am surprised. If you ask for something, don't expect sympathy when you get it.

It is to be thanked no loss of life resulted from this malarkey.

This is "Piss Christ." It is a crucifix of Jesus submerged in urine.

This offends me greatly. But because I live in a Western society, not some backward culture 500 years behind the West in cultural evolution, I fully support that this be shown in public museums, as it was. I do not support the museum being blown to smithereens.

Western society > Islam

 

[Tank]

I'm so glad America only has the nice Muslims