SEVEN SHODDY EXCUSES LEFTIES USE TO JUSTIFY THE MASSACRES IN PARIS

[Wilikon]

1. “You can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre.”

This hackneyed faux-truism is the Expecto Patronum of squishy liberal apologists. That is, when the going gets tough and they’re forced to do that difficult thing – defending free speech – they reach desperately for this magical formula, rather as Harry Potter does when faced with the Dementors. Once the phrase has been uttered, they seem to think, the argument has been made for them and the nasty, scary problem will go away – as no doubt the Lib Dems’ Vince Cable did when he used it in the most recent edition of BBC Question Time.

But the analogy just doesn’t work for at least three good reasons.

First, if the theatre wasn’t on fire, as seems to be implicit, why would anyone want to say it was? You just wouldn’t. Not unless you were mentally ill. So really, to observe that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” is a bit like saying “you can’t put your willy in a pit-bull’s mouth”. Trivially true. But so what?

Second, any legal restrictions there may be on shouting fire in crowded theatres which aren’t on fire have to do with protection of life and property rights. You might cause a stampede which could lead to fatalities; at best you would damage the theatre’s box office. These laws, therefore, are an expression of common consent. Not so the prescriptions on blasphemy which terrorists like the Charlie Hebdo murderers would like to impose on us. In order for them to become so, we would have all to agree that the precepts of Sharia law are something we should all obey, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Currently we don’t, though it seems to be the case that people who wheel out the “crowded theatre” aphorism think that we should.

Third, as Mark Steyn argues here and here, the theatre is on fire.


2. “Offensive”

I see that in a Daily Guardiangraph leader today the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are described as “offensive.” Was this adjective really necessary? It seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming. But last time I checked “offensiveness” in the West was not a capital crime. Indeed, freedom to cause offense is surely one of the defining qualities of a mature, socially liberal culture. It’s how we explore the boundaries of what is and isn’t acceptable, by testing ideas – good and bad ones alike – in the crucible of debate. If people are wrong, we are free to tell them so – and explain why they are wrong. If we simply decide that some things cannot be said simply because they are “offensive” this enables aggrieved minorities to close down any argument they dislike without its ever being aired in public. This is not freedom of speech, but the opposite.


3. “Provocative.”

The first time I heard this justification was – bizarrely – from an old university friend of mine in the aftermath of the brutal 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh. Sure it was jolly sad and upsetting, she argued, but frankly the guy was an outrageous provocateur who deliberately courted controversy so we should hardly be surprised that he came to a sticky end.

Wow! I never met Theo Van Gogh but I’m pretty sure that, had I asked him, he would have said that being shot in the street was not part of his life plan. Nor was it for the Charlie Hebdo team. They did what they did not, I suspect, because they wanted to but because they felt they had to. Why? Because of precisely the kind of cultural surrender they would have recognised in my university friend’s response to Theo Van Gogh’s death.


4. “Islamophobia”

It’s a nonsense term, of course, because phobias are traditionally a fear of something irrational. But it’s also a classic example of something the progressives are forever enjoining us not to do: victim-blaming. Those millions who gathered in Paris and elsewhere yesterday at the Charlie Hebdo vigils: do we imagine that any one of them wants anything other than to live in peace and harmony with their Muslim neighbours? It’s really about time that lefty apologists like Owen Jones stopped responding to every new Islamist atrocity as if it were otherwise.


5. “Anders Breivik”

If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….” (Note incidentally how Owen Jones goes for the double here: Islamophobia and Breivik)


6. “The spectre of the Far Right.”

Another favourite cliche of progressive apologists, as witness most BBC reports on the killings in Paris. Yes, all right, so it seems that most of the evidence – well, all the evidence, actually – points to the murders being the work of fanatical Islamist cells. But it never does any harm, if you’re a liberal, to spread the blame a bit by suggesting that Marine Le Pen and her resurgent Front National (aka “the spectre of the Far Right”) may have played their part in “stoking tensions…”

Oh and one more thing to be noted about “spectres”: being insubstantial, they lack the ability to kill people.

Actually, two more things: Owen Jones again. He’s gone for the treble! (“The favourite target of the Far Right in Europe is…Muslims”). Go on, my son! Back of the net!)


7. “Editorial foolishness”

This is quite similar to point 3, but let’s give a special paragraph of shame to the senior Financial Times editor Tony Barber for that disgraceful apologia for terrorist violence he published the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.


Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.


What Barber (and his craven ilk) don’t seem to realise is that are many, many of us out here who could produce any number of such niggling criticisms of Charlie Hebdo and who, too, secretly rather wish they’d never gone and published those bloody cartoons. But that’s really not the point. They did it to establish a principle. We may not agree with how they did it and few, if any, of us would have done it ourselves. But the principle for which they were fighting ought to be sacrosanct. Either you have free speech or you don’t. Any one trying to argue otherwise has no business being a journalist.



http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/seven-shoddy-excuses-lefties-use-to-justify-the-massacres-in-paris/

[chopstick]

Looks like the latest false flag has gotten everyone riled up.

I am NOT charlie

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/01/i-am-not-charlie.html

[chopstick]

Cunt Piece of shit David Cameron is already promising to take away what little remaining freedoms you have over the latest false flag in Paris if he is elected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2905917/PM-discuss-Paris-terror-response.html

[Chef Ramsay]

Notice how this would be a great way for republicans to show how gun control is bad business but all they can get themselves to do is preach against radical jihad and go back to their old ways of there being a terrorist under every rock. Gin up more fear and take peoples' minds off the real issues at stake, all of which emanate from Washington DC.

[alan2here]

I'm not sure it's particularly the left/liberal justifying this. I'd expect most to be very much on the side of freedom of expression than religion, particularly in the case of "publishing a drawing of a religious figure", it's worth noting if the images really were tediously offensive as well, not that this would justify the shootings. In all similar stories the offence taken ridiculously seems to be for any simple Mohamed drawing.

Also, yes.

all they [USA Republican party] can get themselves to do is preach against radical jihad and go back to their old ways of there being a terrorist under every rock. Gin up more fear and take peoples' minds off the real issues at stake, all of which emanate from Washington DC.

[Rishblitz]

Cunt Piece of shit David Cameron is already promising to take away what little remaining freedoms you have over the latest false flag in Paris if he is elected.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2905917/PM-discuss-Paris-terror-response.html

oh and he will all the damn fools will

[jaysabi]

5. “Anders Breivik”

If Anders Breivik had never existed the left would have had to invent him. He is the (allegedly) right-wing bogeyman they can wheel out at every turn – as Vince Cable did on BBC Question Time – to ‘prove’ that modern terrorism is not an exclusively Islamic phenomenon. The correct response when they try to play this game is: “OK. Apart from Anders Breivik, name two more. Even one more….”

1. Timothy McVeigh
2. Ted Kaczynski

I know the fiction that modern terrorism is an exclusively Islamic phenomenon is a security blanket for neo-cons that justifies their racism against another group of non-whites, but it is still a fiction.

[Wilikon]

Charlie Hebdo can NEVER exist in the USA, the land of freedom of speech.

Charlie Hebdo is the spiritual child of May, 1968, the french revolution. Look it up. They exist to mock everyone and everything. Charlie Hebdo is the Left, but beyond that. They represent what anarchism was supposed to mean: no god, no masters. It is amazing to see conservative blogs and magazines and others showing the cover but NOT the liberal left here in the US. That tells you how far they became the very beast they were hunting all along. NYT, CNN, etc ,etc refusing to show the CH cover. That is funny  

By the way Charlie Hebdo had a daddy/mother.

That magazine was called Hara-Kiri. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara-Kiri_(magazine)

For those liberals here in the US, so proud to not offend anyone but the people they do not agree with, while kowtowing in front of the most evil abuses on the planet, keeping their collective mouths shut, this is the kind of cover you could have seen back in the days on Hara Kiri.

"Hara Kiri Christmas Special" - The Virgin Mary said while laughing: "I aborted!"

No one died from catholic extremists for that cover, Not a drawing, but a picture!


From the NYT, telling everyone who is supposed to be adults and who is supposed to be children...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1&gwh=9DAD81166DB1BE8D4C10D7EE18CEC9DA&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion





When you read this article and when you realize you agree with everything written, you'll then know you've become an intellectual dinosaur, annihilated by the massive meteorite of elitism you've helped build.

[rugrats]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

[jaysabi]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

[Wilikon]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices 

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

Media celebrates massive success of Charlie Hebdo’s defiant new issue by refusing to publish the cover


Normally CH’s circulation is 60,000 copies. They printed three million of the new one to try to meet expected demand after the massacre, but sales are so hot in France this morning that they’ve already had to bump the print run up to five million. The issue’s been condemned by Sunni authorities, in the form of Egypt’s grand mufti, and Shiite ones, via Iranian state media. All of which is to say, this feels newsy. Go look at how the AP is handling photos of Parisians on line, though. Everyone who ventures out publicly to buy the issue is taking a risk that some Kouachi sympathizer will copycat the Charlie Hebdo attack by shooting up a newsstand. Given the denunciations from Islamic clerics and the fact that French security suspects the Kouachis had accomplices, that risk is real. Basic solidarity with France in defense of free speech today should mean, at the very least, showing at least as much balls as the average Frenchman strolling around Paris with a copy of the offending issue on full display in his own hands.

This stain won’t come off. The NYT’s own ombudsman seems to recognize that:

I asked Mr. Baquet on Tuesday if he had considered changing course — as some media organizations did, including The Wall Street Journal and the news pages of the The Washington Post — in order to publish the image of the new edition’s cover. He told me that he had thought about it but decided against it, in keeping with his original thinking.

Here’s my take: The new cover image of Charlie Hebdo is an important part of a story that has gripped the world’s attention over the past week.

The cartoon itself, while it may disturb the sensibilities of a small percentage of Times readers, is neither shocking nor gratuitously offensive. And it has, undoubtedly, significant news value.

With Charlie Hebdo’s expanded press run of millions of copies for this post-attack edition, and a great deal of global coverage, the image is being seen, judged and commented on all over the world. Times readers should not have had to go elsewhere to find it.


Not all news outlets are censoring the images. BuzzFeed has a useful list of those who are (the NYT, the AP, CNN, NBC, NPR, the BBC) and those who aren’t (WaPo, the WSJ, the LA Times, CBS, Fox News). I said this a few days ago but I’ll say it again: By far the more dignified approach if you’re unwilling to print the image is to not cover the story at all. Twenty-five years ago I would have thought differently about that: Better for readers to have some inkling of what’s happening in France even if they can’t see the offending image. But in the age of Internet and cable news, when there are literally a hundred easily accessible alternative news sources, there’s no risk of that; every one of the Times’s readers (except, perhaps, the very old and Internet-unsavvy) know about the new Charlie Hebdo and why it’s “controversial.” A Times blackout of the story wouldn’t affect their access to information but it would preserve a bit of integrity. After all, the implied promise of every (western) paper is that they’ll cover the news forthrightly, despite attempts by powerful agents to influence or restrain them. If you can’t, or won’t, keep that promise, then simply don’t cover it. Promise kept.

If you’re curious what’s inside the issue, BuzzFeed has a look.

Update: And one more point worth remembering on Charlie Hebdo day in France: Every media outlet that refuses to publish the image raises the risk, however marginally, to the ones who do. That’s why Charlie Hebdo was targeted to begin with. A small French paper shouldn’t be on jihadis’ radar screens, but if they’re one of only a handful globally willing to publish images of Mohammed, go figure that they might end up there.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/14/media-celebrates-massive-success-of-charlie-hebdos-defiant-new-issue-by-refusing-to-publish-the-cover/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like your side is covered with the sweat of courage and solidarity...

[jaysabi]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

By showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo they do? I thought we were all Charlie now. Not you? On which side are you then?

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

Published on Jan 14, 2015

On MSNBC Tuesday night Rachel Maddow described the cover of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo because, “NBC News will not allow us to show it to you.”

A different path than Maddow and MSNBC had in 2011 when showing the image of the “Piss Christ” photo by Andres Serrano. “The cover is a cartoon of the Islamic prophet Mohammed shedding a tear beneath the words ‘all is forgiven’ he’s also holding a sign that says ‘Je suis Charlie’", Maddow said on her program. “The reason I’m describing it to you rather than showing it to you – is because we operate under NBC News rules and NBC News will not allow us to show it to you.”

On April 19, 2011 Maddow and her network had no difficulty showing and discussing the “Piss Christ” photo by Andres Serrano after it was destroyed in a museum in France by protestors upset with the image of a crucifix submerged in urine. After showing the image onscreen, Maddow said, “Museum officials say they will reopen tomorrow in order to put the destroyed pieces –still destroyed - on display so that people can see the damage that was done to them.”

“Inanimate art cannot yell back, it cannot hit back. The only way art wins against force if you can put the attack itself on display. See how that looks in the bright light of day, see how that holds up to history,” Maddow continued. CNN joined MSNBC yesterday in declining to show images of the new Charlie Hebdo cover, citing fear of offending Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjREt4ku6sg



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All can see is a total submission of the Left and their so called values. Allah is superior to your belief, according to King Rachel...   

Your leftist world is crumbling around you. Skewed news, not fox news, is to blame. I am not expecting any constructive replies from you, although you are entertaining.

 

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

CAIR Thanks Liberal Media For Refusing To Air New Charlie Hebdo Mohammed Cartoon…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNAlQi0t4Hg


--------------------------------------------------------------
Time to buy kneepads and baby bibs in bulk... 

[Wilikon]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too? 

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

WaPo: “The Role of Religion” In Islamic Terrorism “Is Dangerously Exaggerated”…


… After the Paris tragedy, terrorism analysts found links to al-Qaeda in Yemen and the Islamic State. But rather than seeing this as a directed conspiracy, it may be more useful to analyze the street-gang and prison connections of Said and Cherif Kouachi, the Charlie Hebdo gunmen, and Amedy Coulibaly, the man who attacked the kosher deli. French press accounts suggest the trio are closer to what former CIA officer Marc Sageman calls “leaderless jihad” than the 9/11 model of core al-Qaeda.

“The role of religion in all of this is dangerously exaggerated,” says a former State Department official who now organizes private-sector efforts to counter extremism. “When we get stuck in a religious debate we are never going to win, we miss the point, which is that extremists are offering young people a sense of belonging, an outlet for adventure, and some kind of enhanced status. To combat this, we have to appeal to them as young people more than we have to appeal to them as Muslims.”

What has the United States learned from a decade of debilitating battles against al-Qaeda? Over the past week, I’ve put that question to counterterrorism experts in the White House and across government, and I’ve gotten some pointed answers.

First, the United States isn’t a credible voice in telling Muslims what real Islam is all about. The pushback against violent extremists has to come from religious centers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world. A good example of what’s needed was Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi’s recent call for a “religious revolution” against violent extremism. U.S. technology can help drive such messages through social media, but America cannot be the originator.


http://weaselzippers.us/210989-wapo-the-role-of-religion-in-islamic-terrorism-is-dangerously-exaggerated/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jihadists: We are killing in the name of Allah! – Liberals: No, you’re not.

 

[rugrats]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices 

Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly). 
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."

"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.

[Wilikon]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices 

Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly). 
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."

"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.

Not showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo is the definition of submission. If you agree with this submission the terrorists have won. If you don't then good for you.

The concept of believing everything you read or trust is not biased toward your (normal?) values is not strange.
A cow has a bias toward eating grass, a lion has a bias toward eating fresh meat still barely alive.

My bias is as natural as yours. Why waste my time looking for links you could find yourself proving me wrong?

You have already made up your mind regarding my bias. I always put my bias front and center by posting links I find interesting. What else there is to add regarding my bias?

Wilikon is biased toward a conservative view and definitely not a fan of liberals and the gauche caviar, never ready to change their lives by following their own agenda. Wilikon loves to make fun of them, but he does not mind being called a fool too and be put in his place; as in 'a place' defined by the progressive mind
 
For that I need to keep my mind open and read and listen to what the liberals are saying. That is why I find it funny people rejecting foxnews while most conservative minds love learning about liberals and their alice in wonderland (always turning into a nightmare) views.


Four Ways the Associated Press Is Avoiding Showing the Muhammad Cartoon on New Charlie Hebdo Issue

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/14/four-ways-the-associated-press-is-avoiding-showing-the-muhammad-cartoon-on-new-charlie-hebdo-issue/




Don't beat up on Obama for avoiding the 'I word'


The highlight -- or lowlight -- of Monday’s White House news briefing was the admission by Press Secretary Josh Earnest that “we should have sent someone with a higher profile” to Sunday’s anti-terrorist rally in Paris. But Earnest was also roughed up about an omission in a statement released over the weekend in which the administration announced that it would convene a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism” next month.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-islam-terrorism-20150112-story.html


--------------------------------------------

(i)