Time Mag Paris Bureau: Sharia-Compliant

From the desk of Diana West on Thu, 2011-11-03 14:54

What journalist wouldn't want to be Paris Bureau Chief for Time magazine, or anything else? Sounds so glamorous. But look closer and the job qualifications -- sharia-compliance -- are more than a little off-putting, certainly as exemplified by the man with the job, Bruce Crumley, on weighing in on the bombing of Charlie Hebdo. Poor man. Full-blown, late-stage and terminal Dhimmitude.

Excerpts from his Time piece:

  1. "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 ..."
  2. It's "hard to have much synpathy for [Charlie Hebdo] after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam."
  3. The "issue was certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed — depictions forbidden in Islam to boot."
  4. "...do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring."
  5. "If that weren't enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let' face it, just plain lame) Mohamed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.:
  6. "Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it's unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists."
  7. " It's yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today's arson, but both the paper's current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike."
  8. "So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo's current edition is all of the above, too."

A hopeless case.

Phony free-speech advocates

Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2011-11-16 01:39.

From what I've heard, Charlie Hebdo is a magazine that specializes in scatological humor, especially about Catholics and the Pope. It also takes part in the usual intimidation and vilification tactics to silence immigration restrictionists. Its owners do not support free speech.

What we need today is not the freedom to do some childish provocation against Muslims, but the freedom to say that non-White immigrants must be expelled. On that account, Charlie Hebdo is no help at all, on the contrary.

The cocktail molotov was probably launched on Charlie Hebdo's offices by a Muslim. But it was used by the media to promote the magazine, and paint its owners as free speech advocates, which is absurd. That attack was also useful for counter-jihad bloggers who say that immigration is not a problem apart from islam. But in the real world, the problem of the West is race-replacement, not islam, not sharia, not dhimmitude. What happened to Charlie Hebdo doesn't matter. Besides, it couldn't have happened to a nastier magazine.

Phony advocates?

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2011-11-17 18:23.

@ Armor

Like yourself, perhaps?

If you are not willing to support the free speech of those 'silly' characters at Charlie Hebdo, you should not be surprised that your own free speech rights have been taken away in France.  

It would appear that Charlie Hebdo does not only "humor" Catholics but also Muslims.  They may be engaged in "childish provocation", but at least they are showing some consistency and, in the present climate, also courage.   If only you could show similar consistency w.r.t. the free speech rights of others...!   'Free speech' isn't worth a bag of beans, unless it is also given to those you consider "nasty". 

I do not agree with your 'racist' talk, but I do support your right to engage in it (at an appropriate time and place).    

Islamophobia

Submitted by Scherzophrenic on Sat, 2011-11-05 02:00.

"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 ..."

Islamophobia should be more properly defined thusly:

The willing self-censorship by politicians, journalists, and academics from speaking the historical truths about the canons of Islam, Islam's prophet, and present day activities of Muslims which do not agree with the phrase "Islam is a Peaceful religion", even though in reality, it isn't, is evidence of a mental disorder known as "Islamophobia".

Europe's death-knell

Submitted by Eugene on Fri, 2011-11-04 20:46.

It would have been hilarious if it had not been so tragic. One's beloved Europe has survived - even if only just about - the two world wars, but it's going down, like The Titanic, before one's very eyes. The words of the Russian 19 century poet Tyutchev come to mind: "Blessed is he who's visited this world in its fateful moments." Some blessing.

Disgusting MSM

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2011-11-03 19:57.

We know the MSM is politically establishment-compliant and financial slaves to the powers that be.

This piece has some more intriguing factors, they want to abandon their own holy grail of the freedom of speech as proven and unnecessary to safe-guard.

It boggles the mind.