Je suis fini: Charlie Hebdo cartoonist announces retirement

[Wilikon]

Last month, Renald “Luz” Luzier announced that he would no longer draw Mohammed for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, saying “it no longer interests me.” Allahpundit found this declaration curious, especially Luz’ contention at the time that “the terrorists did not win,” and Luz’ focus on nationalist exploitation of the attacks rather than the attacks themselves.

It looks like the terrorists did win after all:


Cartoonist Renald Luzier, who drew the newspaper’s first cover after the Jan. 7 attack killed 12 people, said in an interview Tuesday in the daily Liberation that each issue is “torture, because the others are no longer there.” He will leave in September.

“The time came when it was just all too much to bear. There was next to nobody to draw the cartoons… Every print-run was torture because the others are no longer there,” said the cartoonist, who is known widely in France as Luz.


The CBS report also includes a tidbit that might have contributed to Luz’ despair. In the aftermath of the attacks, the magazine got €4.3 million in donations, and there appears to be dissension between staff and management on how to spend it. The publisher has announced that they will have a special commission make that decision, which seems pretty dysfunctional for a relatively small operation that one would expect to have been united in tragedy.

The terrorists got what they wanted out of the attacks, and are still getting what they want. They slaughtered the magazine’s staff and got worldwide attention to their depravity. They got one of the survivors to publicly announce he would no longer draw the cartoons that they dislike, and now they got him to quit altogether.

I don’t blame Luzier a bit for hanging up his pen at Charlie Hebdo, nor for feeling so much pain while trying to continue working with so many of his colleagues gone. But perhaps Luzier would have found it more palatable had he gotten more support from his colleagues and the cognoscenti on the Left, instead of having them rip Luzier and his dead colleagues for having brought it on themselves for the “crime” of offending others. That’s the victory won by terrorists; Charlie Hebdo was the battlefield on which they won it.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/19/je-suis-fini-charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-announces-retirement/

[Sefton]

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

[Wilikon]

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

No one is blaming the dude.

[bryant.coleman]

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

He is the only cartoonist to survive the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It might be very difficult for him to continue with Charlie Hebdo. I think he want to put everything behind him and move on with something else. We should respect and support his decision. Anyway... I just hope that the Islamic State will leave him alone.

[jaysabi]

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

He is the only cartoonist to survive the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It might be very difficult for him to continue with Charlie Hebdo. I think he want to put everything behind him and move on with something else. We should respect and support his decision. Anyway... I just hope that the Islamic State will leave him alone.

Cuz if there was any group that would ever let bygones be bygones, it's ISIS. Unfortunately, I think this guy will be a target for the rest of his life.

[Wilikon]

I don't blame him to be honest, but retiring doesn't mean he's letting the terrorists win. What is he expected to do? Draw Mohammed for the rest of his life or until he gets killed by one of them?

He is the only cartoonist to survive the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It might be very difficult for him to continue with Charlie Hebdo. I think he want to put everything behind him and move on with something else. We should respect and support his decision. Anyway... I just hope that the Islamic State will leave him alone.

Cuz if there was any group that would ever let bygones be bygones, it's ISIS. Unfortunately, I think this guy will be a target for the rest of his life.

Freedom of speech: not free.

[Hamuki]

He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.

I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.

[Wilikon]

He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.

I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhY

[jaysabi]

He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.

I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhY

Hahaha, that's a really funny sketch! And the irony is it's only funny because of the power the extremists give the joke.

[jaysabi]

He is free to draw anything or not not draw it.
I would lose intrest too if it was the only think I kept drawing for years.

I think I will make a drawing in paint and see the reactions on here tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2mcRb_WXhY

Relatedly, I found this explanation interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/living/islam-prophet-images/index.html

The prohibition again (sic) illustrating the Prophet Mohammed began as a (sic) attempt to ward off idol worship, which was widespread in Islam's Arabian birthplace. But in recent years, that prohibition has taken on a deadly edge.

A central tenet of Islam is that Mohammed was a man, not God, and that portraying him could lead to revering him in lieu of Allah.

"It's all rooted in the notion of idol worship," Akbar Ahmed, who chairs the Islamic Studies department at American University told CNN. "In Islam, the notion of God versus any depiction of God or any sacred figure is very strong."

In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ, not as a man but as a God. They didn't want the same thing to happen to Mohammed.

"The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him," Ahmed told CNN. "So he himself spoke against such images, saying 'I'm just a man.' "

In a bitter irony, the sometimes violent attacks against portrayals of the prophet are kind of reverse idol-worship, revering -- and killing for -- the absence of an image, said Hussein Rashid, a professor of Islamic studies at Hofstra University in New York.

[bryant.coleman]

Freedom of speech: not free.

Freedom of speech will be there as long as you refrain from criticizing the Muslims and the Jews. Once you overstep the mark, you will be branded as a bigot, who needs a lengthy jail term and re-education classes. Political correctness is going crazy these days. 

[hebdonymous]

Freedom of speech is currently dead. The Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly demonstrates that there is an effective death penalty for criticism of Islam. If we cannot freely discuss Islam, there is no free society. We are not living in a free society. To make things worse, many people in the "mainstream" will blame those who are killed for their deaths. They feel more comfortable insulting the dead than insulting their murderers.

I've struggled for months thinking about an appropriate strategy for counteracting this. Obviously we can't deal with the main problem (jihadists who have no concept of freedom in general or freedom of speech in particular) until we deal with their protectors. Their protectors include many people who blamed Benghazi on that youtube video, people who blame Charlie Hebdo, people who are afraid to even show the cartoons not to mention defend the cartoonists. Some examples of these people are Will Saletan, the AP reporters who blamed Pamela Geller for the attack in Texas, the news readers at networks who refuse to even show the cartoons. These cowards, these co-conspirators, these must be our real targets if we are ever to reclaim the freedom required to have a modern civilized liberal society.

A good strategy would lead to these co-conspirators having the same fear of defending jihadis as the obvious fear they have of defending freedom of speech. The problem, obviously, is that we are reasonable people. We are not going to go around randomly killing journalists, and to be very clear: I'm not advocating that.

But we should keep in mind that we do have access to a very powerful weapon: the ignorance of jihadis.

We need a movement of people willing to draw Mohammed cartoons and criticize Islam. But instead of doing it under our own names, we should have a list of "targets." These would be the people who have proven they do not value freedom of speech, those like Will Saletan (/archives/332844.php]ace.m[Suspicious link removed]/archives/332844.php) who refused to stand with the maker of the youtube video Innocence of Muslims, those who condemn Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders for what they say instead of the jihadis for trying to kill them. We should use the names of those "protectors" when we draw Muhammed, when we point out the inherent violence in Islam, in the Quran and in the life of Muhammed.

We should make our targets their targets. This would at least muddy the waters.

I propose "Hebdonymous" as the name for this movement.

It would be very important that the identities of the people actually creating the artwork or writing the prose remain hidden. The best guide I ever read for remaining anonymous on the internet was the "Jolly Roger's Security Guide for Beginners." With Tor, bittorrent, and bitcoin (or altcoins) we could strike back against those protecting Islam in a very effective manner. We would need a method of identifying and distrubting the names of those who make excuses for jihadis and a way of distributing the content we create using their names.

Comments?

[jaysabi]

Freedom of speech is currently dead. The Charlie Hebdo massacre clearly demonstrates that there is an effective death penalty for criticism of Islam. If we cannot freely discuss Islam, there is no free society. We are not living in a free society. To make things worse, many people in the "mainstream" will blame those who are killed for their deaths. They feel more comfortable insulting the dead than insulting their murderers.

I've struggled for months thinking about an appropriate strategy for counteracting this. Obviously we can't deal with the main problem (jihadists who have no concept of freedom in general or freedom of speech in particular) until we deal with their protectors. Their protectors include many people who blamed Benghazi on that youtube video, people who blame Charlie Hebdo, people who are afraid to even show the cartoons not to mention defend the cartoonists. Some examples of these people are Will Saletan, the AP reporters who blamed Pamela Geller for the attack in Texas, the news readers at networks who refuse to even show the cartoons. These cowards, these co-conspirators, these must be our real targets if we are ever to reclaim the freedom required to have a modern civilized liberal society.

A good strategy would lead to these co-conspirators having the same fear of defending jihadis as the obvious fear they have of defending freedom of speech. The problem, obviously, is that we are reasonable people. We are not going to go around randomly killing journalists, and to be very clear: I'm not advocating that.

But we should keep in mind that we do have access to a very powerful weapon: the ignorance of jihadis.

We need a movement of people willing to draw Mohammed cartoons and criticize Islam. But instead of doing it under our own names, we should have a list of "targets." These would be the people who have proven they do not value freedom of speech, those like Will Saletan (/archives/332844.php]ace.m[Suspicious link removed]/archives/332844.php) who refused to stand with the maker of the youtube video Innocence of Muslims, those who condemn Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders for what they say instead of the jihadis for trying to kill them. We should use the names of those "protectors" when we draw Muhammed, when we point out the inherent violence in Islam, in the Quran and in the life of Muhammed.

We should make our targets their targets. This would at least muddy the waters.

I propose "Hebdonymous" as the name for this movement.

It would be very important that the identities of the people actually creating the artwork or writing the prose remain hidden. The best guide I ever read for remaining anonymous on the internet was the "Jolly Roger's Security Guide for Beginners." With Tor, bittorrent, and bitcoin (or altcoins) we could strike back against those protecting Islam in a very effective manner. We would need a method of identifying and distrubting the names of those who make excuses for jihadis and a way of distributing the content we create using their names.

Comments?

So your answer is to cowardly attribute things to people you don't like in their name? Maybe try standing on principle and have the courage to know when you're right. Right message, wrong means.

[hebdonymous]

I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.

In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" and another huge group of people to kill you. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.

In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.

Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List.

In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it.

Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.

I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:

Hebdo is not fini.

I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.

[jaysabi]

I have interspersed my comments directly to your response and changed the font color to red to differentiate my text from yours. I'm very troubled by the implications of living in a society such as the one you propose.

I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? Everyone who stands for law and justice. If any harm comes to anyone, I expect the perpetrators to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other crime. The conclusion of implying that 'no one is standing by her' is that anyone could harm her without consequence, or society as a whole has cast her out. Neither of these is true. I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? No, an institution is welcome to have opinions that differ from individuals the same as you are, and their name no more than your name deserves to be on an intimidation list because you hold an opinion other people disagree with. Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.

In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. You're not proposing debate, you're proposing attributing false rhetoric to people who don't subscribe to it for the purpose of having them deal with consequences you created. There's nothing protected about that action in law or morality. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" There is nothing wrong with someone holding this opinion of another, after all it is an opinion and another huge group of people to kill you. but there is something wrong with an intent to harm. And anyone causing harm will face the same consequences under the law as anyone else, despite how reprehensible their personal opinions might be. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.

In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.

Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List. This is the perfect summation of everything wrong with your point of view. I don't agree with your opinion of things, so I'm going to falsely attribute things I actually believe to you so that you have to face the consequences for it. That makes you a coward for having a clear point of view but no willingness to stand behind it. Your entire premise is based on a subjective opinion that you are right, but you seek to intimidate and harm (or cause to have harmed) those who hold counter-opinions. The actions you perscribe are not at all in keeping with the "free and open society" you pretend to care about, and the irony is that in perscribing to intimidate those who hold a different opinion of you in the manner you have just described, you are doing the same thing ISIS is doing in their campaign of intimidation.

In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. You have freedom of expression. No government is censoring or stopping you. If you feel intimidated by the muderers in ISIS, that's a problem with a group of people, not a government. Our society will not tolerate their threats against you for your opinions or their violations of your rights, and if god forbid they attempt to harm you for expressing your opinion, we will see to their prosecution to the fullest extent possible, because that's the way a free and just society should work. This is what we expect of all crimes in a just society, there is no exception in practice because Islam is involved. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. I agree, and the fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reality doesn't exist. Hyperbole aside, we're not about to become that society either. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. <--(Hyperbole) If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. This sentiment makes you an enemy of freedom, not a defender of it. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it. And this sentiment makes you a despicable person.

Everything below this is interprative and not based on objective, established facts. Debating any of those circumstances is not the purpose of my response, so I am addressing nothing further. My response is only meant to address the motivation of inflicting repercussions on people you disagree with by dishonest means under the guise of building 'an open society,' because as I've demonstrated, you're not interested in that at all.

Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.

I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:

Hebdo is not fini.

I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.

[jaysabi]

I have interspersed my comments directly to your response and changed the font color to red to differentiate my text from yours. I'm very troubled by the implications of living in a society such as the one you propose.

I admire the people who have spoken out openly and honestly in spite of the danger. Those at Charlie Hebdo did, and were executed to avenge the "prophet." I hope the one surviving artist has a safe long (well-deserved) retirement, but you're right that he'll be a target the rest of his life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spoken out openly and honestly and she is on a hit list as well. Who is standing by her? Everyone who stands for law and justice. If any harm comes to anyone, I expect the perpetrators to be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, just like every other crime. The conclusion of implying that 'no one is standing by her' is that anyone could harm her without consequence, or society as a whole has cast her out. Neither of these is true. I'm reminded of Brandeis University who "disinvited" her to speak. Don't the people at Brandeis University who made that decision deserve to be on the Hebdonymous List? No, an institution is welcome to have opinions that differ from individuals the same as you are, and their name no more than your name deserves to be on an intimidation list because you hold an opinion other people disagree with. Do there names deserve some kind of respect? Many others have spoken out, including Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. Their lives are in danger from jihadists and their names are cursed as "racist Islamophobes" by the collaborators, the traitors, the people who well deserve their names being added to the Hebdonymous List.

In a free society where people are free to speak their minds, different beliefs can be debated. You're not proposing debate, you're proposing attributing false rhetoric to people who don't subscribe to it for the purpose of having them deal with consequences you created. There's nothing protected about that action in law or morality. False statements can be identified because they are subject to criticism. True statements are left standing (in addition to being made clearer) after being subjected to criticism. This kind of open debate is the vital lifeblood of a free society. We did not choose to live in a world in which criticizing Islam leads one huge group of people will label you a "racist Islamophobe hate speaker" There is nothing wrong with someone holding this opinion of another, after all it is an opinion and another huge group of people to kill you. but there is something wrong with an intent to harm. And anyone causing harm will face the same consequences under the law as anyone else, despite how reprehensible their personal opinions might be. But this is the society that has been forced on us. I read a news story that the British police collected the names of the people who bought the first Charlie Hebdo issue after the massacre. We are not safe.

In this environment it's not surprising that world leaders regularly tell the nothing-to-do-with-Islam lie and that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the only politically correct position to hold on Islam.

Suppose Hebdonymous were successful and that some of these liars and apologists had their name associated with anti-Islamic speech online. Then imagine your next conversation with that coworker or in-law or Facebook friend of a friend, you know the one: the Islam-is-peace and the real problem comes from those crazy Islamophobes. You could tell the son-of-a-bitch: If I ever hear you say this bullshit again, you may find your name nominated to be on the Hebdonymous List. This is the perfect summation of everything wrong with your point of view. I don't agree with your opinion of things, so I'm going to falsely attribute things I actually believe to you so that you have to face the consequences for it. That makes you a coward for having a clear point of view but no willingness to stand behind it. Your entire premise is based on a subjective opinion that you are right, but you seek to intimidate and harm (or cause to have harmed) those who hold counter-opinions. The actions you perscribe are not at all in keeping with the "free and open society" you pretend to care about, and the irony is that in perscribing to intimidate those who hold a different opinion of you in the manner you have just described, you are doing the same thing ISIS is doing in their campaign of intimidation.

In an optimal world, both those who are pro-Islam and those who are anti-Islam could express their views openly. You have freedom of expression. No government is censoring or stopping you. If you feel intimidated by the muderers in ISIS, that's a problem with a group of people, not a government. Our society will not tolerate their threats against you for your opinions or their violations of your rights, and if god forbid they attempt to harm you for expressing your opinion, we will see to their prosecution to the fullest extent possible, because that's the way a free and just society should work. This is what we expect of all crimes in a just society, there is no exception in practice because Islam is involved. The current world in which only the pro-Islam view can be safely expressed is extremely dangerous. I agree, and the fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reality doesn't exist. Hyperbole aside, we're not about to become that society either. We are marching into a new dark ages of blasphemy laws with horrific punishments. <--(Hyperbole) If both sides cannot express their views openly without danger, it is preferable to me that neither side can express their views openly without danger. This sentiment makes you an enemy of freedom, not a defender of it. Those making excuses for Islam need to know: you can become the target of jihadis too -- and we'll make goddamn sure of it. And this sentiment makes you a despicable person.

Everything below this is interprative and not based on objective, established facts. Debating any of those circumstances is not the purpose of my response, so I am addressing nothing further. My response is only meant to address the motivation of inflicting repercussions on people you disagree with by dishonest means under the guise of building 'an open society,' because as I've demonstrated, you're not interested in that at all.

Is this dishonest? Yes, it is. That's a legitimate criticism of the strategy. But it's also dishonest when Obama goes before the U.N. and calls "Innocence of Muslims" a "slander against the prophet of Islam." That short youtube video was based on facts about the life of Muhammed, as anyone who's studied this history of Islam knows. It wasn't slander. It was true. That's why they demonized the filmmaker. The last thing people like Obama (and almost all other world leaders) want is for ordinary people to learn the truth about Islam and Muhammed. So, the Western Islamophiles are already using a dishonest strategy. In addition, Muslims lie, lie and lie about their religion. Just look at the post history of Muhammed Zakir on this forum. Now, many people on this forum have done a good job of exposing his lies, but this forum also has the advantage of a certain level of anonymity. I would not encourage anyone to point out the lies of Muslims without this protection. You'll be needlessly risking your life.

I'm open to suggestion about how to do something like Hebdonymous, but there's one thing I want to make clear:

Hebdo is not fini.

I hope to see the day that Muslims and their "multi-kulti" allies in the West will curse the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. I want it to give birth to something that hurts them far worse than a little harmless mocking of Muhammed. Muslims may have avenged their prophet for one day, but they fucked up. Big time.

I just want to add that I don't mean to make it personal, if my tone makes it seem like I do. That's not my intent, I run a little hot sometimes when responding in the moment. I'll just add that I understand your frustration and your desire to "fix" it. But I think the actions you have perscribed are the antithesis of what you say you are defending. In reality, you're asking to create an atmosphere of intimidation to bully those you don't agree with. Just as that's not acceptable for ISIS, it's not acceptable for anyone else. The answer to how to have a free and open society isn't intimidate everyone into compliance; it's fight like hell to have a free society. But you have to actually have the free society, the appearance of a free society where everyone has been bullied into silence is worth nothing.

[Hamuki]

Freedom of speech is currently dead.

Comments?

Fuck Islam.

So.. I think your arguement is invalid.. Ill throw in a Muhammed drawing too if you want me to make one.

LOL

[King Karma]

Freedom of speech is currently dead.

Comments?

Fuck Islam.

So.. I think your arguement is invalid.. Ill throw in a Muhammed drawing too if you want me to make one.

LOL

I wouldn't say it's dead but its under attack and it varies from country to country. In some countries you can be racist to certain groups but not others. Sometimes it's not ok to discriminate against religion but perfectly fine to discriminate against homosexuals etc.

[bryant.coleman]

I wouldn't say it's dead but its under attack and it varies from country to country. In some countries you can be racist to certain groups but not others. Sometimes it's not ok to discriminate against religion but perfectly fine to discriminate against homosexuals etc.

The freedom of speech is under threat from radical Islam, political correctness and the LGBT lobby. In England (which happens to be the political correctness capital of the world), the situation can be summarized as follows:

1. It is OK to discriminate against other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism, but it is not OK to do so against Judaism and Islam.

2. It is OK to discriminate against heterosexuals, but it is not OK to discriminate against homosexuals.

3. It is OK to discriminate against whites, but it is not OK to discriminate against non-whites.

4. It is OK to discriminate against males, but it is not OK to discriminate against females.

[Okurkabinladin]

I wouldn't say it's dead but its under attack and it varies from country to country. In some countries you can be racist to certain groups but not others. Sometimes it's not ok to discriminate against religion but perfectly fine to discriminate against homosexuals etc.

The freedom of speech is under threat from radical Islam, political correctness and the LGBT lobby. In England (which happens to be the political correctness capital of the world), the situation can be summarized as follows:

1. It is OK to discriminate against other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism, but it is not OK to do so against Judaism and Islam.

2. It is OK to discriminate against heterosexuals, but it is not OK to discriminate against homosexuals.

3. It is OK to discriminate against whites, but it is not OK to discriminate against non-whites.

4. It is OK to discriminate against males, but it is not OK to discriminate against females.

You pretty much described postmodernist West, Bryant. Rest of the world works quite differently. Good for them, as both demography and economy suggests, that West is headed for terminal decline and along with it, also its "universal values". Universal values stop being universal, when their upholders isnt able to enforce them anymore. Cant say, I am terribly griefed about that. Last fifty years brought Europe only stagnation, atomization and ageing.