http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-right-image-prophet-muhammad-right?CMP=twt_gu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xp4ws
From the 15th minute.
David Aaronovitch's fighting talk:
https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/555330443500081152
If David Aaranovitch can't find anything offensive about a cartoon, then it cannot be offensive.
Ergo, if libtards don't find something offensive, it cannot be offensive.
Ergo Muslims like Nabila Ramdani are lying when they say they are offended, or just being silly.
Apparently, a child childishly taunting an adult is not offensive because its insults are inept.
Apparently, the intention of the child to insult is not in itself offensive, according to David Aaronovitch and others of his libtard ilk.
How would he like a child to taunt him every day, even if its taunts about Commie Jews are inept and off the mark?
Apparently, the world revolves around David Aaronovitch and those who think like him. If they don't find something offensive, then it is not offensive, but if they do, then it is, because people like David Aaronovitch are in charge.
What David Aaronovitch has done is declared a taunting war on Muslims by saying he wants to insult Muslims because he thinks they are mad and silly and asserts his libtard right to do so, because he can, and David Cameron supports him. David Cameron defends Charlie Hebdo's right to publish new Prophet Mohammed cartoon
What they are doing is asserting the right of those who hate Muslims to continue provoking Muslims into violence because they themselves hate Muslims, deep down, and want - just like the anti-immigrant extremists the Left love to denounce - to bring about a situation where the idea of a conducting a pogrom against Muslims or making life as unpleasant for them as possible becomes increasingly attractive to the voter.
How will it end then?
In the expulsion of Muslims from the West or in Islamic State taking over the West?
Is this even a war between Muslims v Islamophobes?
No, it is an ideological war between Islam v Liberalism.
As to which is better and stronger and more worthy of victory, the proof pudding will be in the eating.
Clausewitz on War provides us with a few clues.
When was this ideological war declared? It was declared on 9/11/2001. The casus belli is stated at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
How is the war going so far?
Islamic State here, Islamic State there, Everywhere Islamic State Old Ayatollah had a farm E I E I O ...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/satellite-images-reveal-devastation-boko-haram-massacre-nigeria
Are Charlie Hebdo now really *really* REALLY asking for it?
The gunning down of Charlie Hebdo is part of the eternal battle of the sexes
Who is the zealot and fanatic? He who (a) insists on his right to continue being gratuitously offensive after provoking devastating violence (b) responds with violence after a deliberate campaign to gratuitously offend him
Most of us are sheeple, or like the lionesses in the harem of a lion. When another lion approaches and challenges the lion for sexual access to his harem, the members of the harem look on with interest , but do not assist, resigned to submitting to the victor. The harem do not assist even though they know that their cubs will be killed by the victor. This is because they know that if their present lord and master wins, life will go on as before. If he does not, then they will be impregnated by the victor and have his cubs, whose genetic quality they expect to be superior to the cubs of their vanquished former master.
Nabila Ramdani: This shows how muddled the debate has become
France's most godless magazine was displaying remarkably Christian values today. The first edition of Charlie Hebdo since nine members of staff were murdered by terrorist gunmen last week appears to turn the other cheek. Its cover – released ahead of the full magazine tomorrow – carries a depiction of the crying prophet Muhammad under the strapline "All is forgiven".
Interpretations of what this actually means will vary, but it is certainly more maudlin – schmaltzy even – than it is funny. We've seen the caricature a thousand times before: it is dated and tired, and the character's little sign reading "Je suis Charlie" is woefully dull and predictable.
The sense of cliche evokes President John F Kennedy's melodramatic "Ich bin ein Berliner" one-liner, which is now more than half a century old. Millions of people took to the streets of Paris on Sunday to rally under the Charlie slogan but that was all about conformist defiance in the face of terrorist horror. On the cover of what is meant to be an anti-establishment magazine, this just symbolises – at best – egalitarian bigotry.
Surely a satirical magazine is meant to defy the herd; to cause outrage through biting wit and originality? Not to vaguely insult one of the most revered figures in Islam, while actually suggesting that he might not be such a bad chap after all – some kind of hyper-sensitive liberal who can take monstrous violence on the chin and move on with his eternal life.
There is no such thing as being a "little bit blasphemous", of course, and Muslims are already reacting with predictable sadness and indeed anger to the cover. Feelings will run even higher when three million copies of the magazine are distributed across the world. Charlie lives, and will be lauded by many as a symbol of free speech and democracy, but to me this cover is just a hugely provocative reminder of how muddled the debate around these atrocities has become.
• Nabila Ramdani is a Paris-born freelance journalist and academic of Algerian descent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xp4ws
From the 15th minute.
David Aaronovitch's fighting talk:
"She objects to the depiction per se, no matter what it actually does and that, I am afraid, is a prescription we cannot run with any more - not in a free society. You're going to have the allow the possibility that people for whom Mohammed has become a very big figure for all of us are allowed to talk about it and depict it in the way they see fit."
https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/555330443500081152
If David Aaranovitch can't find anything offensive about a cartoon, then it cannot be offensive.
Ergo, if libtards don't find something offensive, it cannot be offensive.
Ergo Muslims like Nabila Ramdani are lying when they say they are offended, or just being silly.
Apparently, a child childishly taunting an adult is not offensive because its insults are inept.
Apparently, the intention of the child to insult is not in itself offensive, according to David Aaronovitch and others of his libtard ilk.
How would he like a child to taunt him every day, even if its taunts about Commie Jews are inept and off the mark?
Apparently, the world revolves around David Aaronovitch and those who think like him. If they don't find something offensive, then it is not offensive, but if they do, then it is, because people like David Aaronovitch are in charge.
What David Aaronovitch has done is declared a taunting war on Muslims by saying he wants to insult Muslims because he thinks they are mad and silly and asserts his libtard right to do so, because he can, and David Cameron supports him. David Cameron defends Charlie Hebdo's right to publish new Prophet Mohammed cartoon
What they are doing is asserting the right of those who hate Muslims to continue provoking Muslims into violence because they themselves hate Muslims, deep down, and want - just like the anti-immigrant extremists the Left love to denounce - to bring about a situation where the idea of a conducting a pogrom against Muslims or making life as unpleasant for them as possible becomes increasingly attractive to the voter.
How will it end then?
In the expulsion of Muslims from the West or in Islamic State taking over the West?
Is this even a war between Muslims v Islamophobes?
No, it is an ideological war between Islam v Liberalism.
As to which is better and stronger and more worthy of victory, the proof pudding will be in the eating.
Clausewitz on War provides us with a few clues.
When was this ideological war declared? It was declared on 9/11/2001. The casus belli is stated at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
How is the war going so far?
Islamic State here, Islamic State there, Everywhere Islamic State Old Ayatollah had a farm E I E I O ...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/satellite-images-reveal-devastation-boko-haram-massacre-nigeria
Are Charlie Hebdo now really *really* REALLY asking for it?
The gunning down of Charlie Hebdo is part of the eternal battle of the sexes
Who is the zealot and fanatic? He who (a) insists on his right to continue being gratuitously offensive after provoking devastating violence (b) responds with violence after a deliberate campaign to gratuitously offend him
Most of us are sheeple, or like the lionesses in the harem of a lion. When another lion approaches and challenges the lion for sexual access to his harem, the members of the harem look on with interest , but do not assist, resigned to submitting to the victor. The harem do not assist even though they know that their cubs will be killed by the victor. This is because they know that if their present lord and master wins, life will go on as before. If he does not, then they will be impregnated by the victor and have his cubs, whose genetic quality they expect to be superior to the cubs of their vanquished former master.
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous You were suggesting u did not think she was really offended and were suggesting she was LYING.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Nabila Ramdani clearly had no idea what u were on about when you kept asking the same question
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@ntfem Oh, I think she did. @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous
— David Aaronovitch (@DAaronovitch) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous I don't think anyone had any idea what u were trying to do by splitting hairs except sneering.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Muslims are offended if you depict the prophet. She is Muslim ergo she was offended.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Odd u can't understand that causing offence with the intention of causing offence is offensive
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Perhaps u were saying u couldn't find anything offensive about the latest CharlieHebdo cartoon
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Ah well. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous What was your question again, for the record?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Whether offence is taken does *not* depend on whether you *intend* to give offence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Offence can be snatched out of your reluctant hands, as any man who has dealt with women knows
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Charlie Hebdo COULD claim they did not mean to give offence, but who would believe them? You?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous Did @BBCTimWillcox mean to give offence to Jews PRIVILEGED by Holocaust Denial laws?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
The exchange @DAaronovitch had with Nabila Ramdani no more than an exercise of hubristic libtard arrogance and bullying. @VictoriaPeckham
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous To be told that one is lying when one says one is offended is deeply deeply offensive.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
Perhaps @DAaronovitch should be prevented from being given a platform for inciting hatred against Jews? @VictoriaPeckham @AlexiMostrous
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
Exchange ended with @DAaronovitch shouting at @NabilaRamdani Muhammad wd b in future depicted in cartoons if he had anything to do with it
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
How was what @DAaronovitch said on @BBCPM in substance different to what @anjemchoudary said at http://t.co/HYbiOyUI6C? @NabilaRamdani
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@DAaronovitch to @NabilaRamdani: "What do u find offensive about cartoon u said u found offensive yet said u don't really find offensive?"
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
I think @NabilaRamdani shd hv said to @DAaronovitch: "I found the INTENTION to offend offensive in itself even if the humour was a bit lame"
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 14, 2015
@irrpfad @GavinKnightHood @NabilaRamdani @DAronovitch It was @eddiemair
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 15, 2015
@irrpfad @GavinKnightHood @NabilaRamdani @DAronovitch @eddiemair Not so much mics as dislike of Muslims, I think.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 15, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment