Page 1 of 4
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:13 am
by Leisher
After they created images of Muhammed.
12 people dead because certain people think their religion is so beyond reproach that nobody can tease them about it.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:43 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:24 pm
by Paul
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:32 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:55 pm
by TheCatt
Traditional news agencies won't show the images.
But some new media agencies will
But in the aftermath of the attack, a number of popular news websites decided to show some of the French magazine's provocative covers, including a 2011 image of Mohammed.
Among them: BuzzFeed, Business Insider, The Huffington Post, Gawker and The Daily Beast.
On Wednesday morning, The Daily Beast updated a slide show it originally published in 2011, featuring 16 of the most "shocking" Charlie Hebdo covers.
Daily Beast executive editor Noah Shachtman said there was "zero hesitation" to run the slide show. For one, he said, the images had inherent news value. But the decision to publish the covers was more than that: It was "a show of solidarity."
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 6:55 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:49 pm
by GORDON
CNN tells employes not to show cartoons of "The Prophet."
http://hotair.com/archive....prophet
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 9:14 pm
by Malcolm
Hope someone points this out next time I hear news outlets described as "bold."
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:18 pm
by Paul
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:06 am
by TheCatt
Nevermind
Latest word is 1 turned himself in, and two are still missing.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:52 am
by GORDON
The Onion is taking a curiously strong position about radical islam, this time.
http://www.theonion.com/article....v,37715
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:58 am
by Vince
The attacked French paper was a satire newspaper. Kind of France's Onion. Makes sense they'd take a strong stand.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:29 am
by Malcolm
Drop him in the middle of Jerusalem in a Nazi uniform and let nature take its course.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:38 am
by Leisher
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 11:03 am
by TheCatt
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:09 pm
by Leisher
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:33 pm
by Leisher
President of the Catholic League sides with the terrorists.
As part of his defense he proclaims they brought the attack upon themselves with their offensive cartoons, including:
a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests.
Yes, because mocking pedophilia by priests is much worse and deserving of a violent response than actual pedophilia by priests and covering it up.
Fuck you Bill Donohue.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:07 pm
by Malcolm
If god struck that fucker down with lightning right now, I might go to church.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:12 pm
by TheCatt
Muslim Cleric in UK also sides with the terrorists.
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.
...
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 2:21 pm
by GORDON
Well, that's why people think they are crazy. Nice to see one of them admit it now and then.
