NORMAN FINKELSTEIN, ICH BIN DER STURMER, I AM GHAZZA, SORRY CHARLIE HEBDO!
The new Prophets and Saints of the French Secular Theocratic Judeo-Masonic and Zionist Republic
JEHOVA HU AKBAR!
YVES
SAINT LAURENT ET PIERRE BERGÉ – LES PROPHÈTES ET LES SAINTS DE
LA LAÏCITÉ – DES PERVERS, HOMOSEXUELS, SADO-MASOCHISTES ET PÉDOPHILES, CANONISÉS
PAR LA FRANCE LAÏQUE, SIONISTE, JUDÉO-MAÇONNIQUE, SES MÉDIAS PROSTITUÉS, ET LES SYNAGOGUES DE SATAN (SYNAGOGUES ET ÉGLISES COMPRIS), SANS OUBLIER DALIL BOUBAKEUR ET SA CLIQUE!
Drogues, sadisme, pédophilie, témoignage de
Fabrice Thomas, amant de Bergé/Saint Laurent
Cette interview de Monsieur Fabrice Thomas, auteur du livre Saint
Laurent et moi : une histoire intime, paru début octobre 2017 aux éditions Hugo
Doc, est véritablement exclusive tant la chape de plomb des médias mainstream
concernant son livre choc est lourde et efficace1.
Actuellement, alors que tous
les médias - papier, télévision et radio - ne cessent de parler des accusations
d'agressions sexuelles contre Harvey Weinstein ou Monsieur Tariq Ramadan, pas
la moindre ligne n'est consacrée au livre de Monsieur Fabrice Thomas, aucune
interview n'a été réalisée. On imagine que cette censure a pour cause trois
points importants :
* on ne touche pas à Pierre Bergé qui est devenu ces dernières
décennies le pape infaillible de la république ;
* deuxièmement, Monsieur Yves
Saint Laurent fait partie du patrimoine culturel français ;
* enfin, il est assez
suicidaire pour ces médias de s'attaquer à Yves Saint Laurent Beauté -
propriété de L'Oréal - qui représente une manne financière publicitaire très
importante.
À l'instar de Bernard Arnault qui n'a pas apprécié que l'on parle
de ses finances dans l'enquête des "Paradise Papers" et qui a
sanctionné le journal Le Monde en retirant les pages de publicité de tout le
groupe LVMH dont il est le président.
Monsieur Fabrice Thomas a été l'amant
aussi bien de Pierre Bergé que de Monsieur Yves Saint Laurent, il a fréquenté
ce couple près d'une dizaine d'années. Il nous explique dans cette interview,
mais également dans son livre, que la condition sine qua non pour travailler au
service de Pierre Bergé -- condition n'apparaissant pas, bien entendu, dans le
contrat de travail -- était de coucher avec lui, ce qu'il appelle "le
petit manège". L'auteur décrit Pierre Bergé comme un personnage
maléfique adepte du sadisme le plus cruel et le plus pervers. Il décrit dans
son livre des séances de "dressage" sadomasochiste dans lesquelles,
il finissait par uriner sur ses esclaves (On a vu d'ailleurs un retweet de Monsieur
Pierre Bergé concernant une photo de "Golden Shower" (cf. photo de
droite). Nous apprenons également dans ce témoignage que Monsieur Pierre Bergé
était un occultiste, adepte de magie sexuelle, ayant comme livre de chevet
Magia Sexualis de Pascal Bewerly Randolph !
Il sera également question dans ces
révélations des comportements à risque du couple Bergé-Saint Laurent qui
cumulait frénétiquement les amants sans jamais se protéger avec des
préservatifs (Monsieur Yves Saint Laurent étant un consommateur des backrooms
les plus sordides de la capitale) ! Ce qui n'a pas empêché Monsieur Pierre
Bergé d'être l'ambassadeur français du Sidaction et de « prodiguer » sur le
plateau de Paul Amar dans l'émission Revue et Corrigé de France 5, des leçons
de morale à un prêtre camerounais sur la nécessité du port du préservatif !...
Se procurer nos livres :
We
don't have to speculate as to how this event is going to be used. It
has already started. Sources, transcript and download links: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charl...
There are already certain aspects of this story that make me feel it is worthy of further investigation.
1.
If this is in central Paris, one of Europes busiest capitol cities, why
then from footage shot from a rooftop is there NO OTHER VEHICLES
DRIVING ON ANY OF THE STREETS?
2. Why did the attackers feel confident enough of thier getaway that they didnt even speed off from the scene?
3.
Why was it security forces were happy for the french President to go
the scene so soon after the incident when we are being told the
whereabout of the attackers is unknown?
4. After recent attacks
with vehicles on pedestrians in the run up to xmas, why did the police
send officers on bikes to a location already know to be a target for
islamic extremists?
Just some of the questions that need answering in my opinion.
Is this fake or real? it would be ridiculous of me to say either way, or to dismiss anything at this time.
Kev Baker Show
Kev
Baker has been on the front lines since 2009. Hailing from Glasgow,
Scotland, Kev was recently featured in VICE magazine as a front-line
consultant and expert on activist groups in the United Kingdom. You can
listen to Kev Baker on AM/FM in Colorado, Oregan, California, Sydney and
London or tune into any of the TFR internet streams or listening
options.
Kev Baker has set his mark as a professional broadcaster
by featuring cutting edge analysis, current events and breaking news.
However he does not stop there! Together with his co-hosts Johnny
Whistles and Martin Hardy, Kev is joined by a great panel of expert
researchers and whistleblowers in the field of space technology,
metaphysics, human origins, black operations and international
terrorism.
Seeking the answers to age old questions and
dechipering the world around you painted by the mainstream media.. this
is the Kev Baker Show!
Paris "Charlie Hebdo" attack": another Zionist false flag?
Just one month ago, France set off a stampede when its lower house voted
to recognize Palestine. Now Palestine is in the International Criminal
Court, poised to take down Israel for genocide.
Suddenly "Islamic terror strikes France." Is Paris being punished for its pro-Palestine vote?
In late 2013, Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur Tribunal found Israel guilty of
genocide. A few months later, Malaysian planes started falling out of
the sky.
In 2011, Norway's Labor Party's youth wing was poised to impose a
complete blockade on Israel. Suddenly the entire leadership of the
Party's youth wing was slaughtered in a professional operation falsely
attributed to a lone nut, Anders Breivik.
Broadcast January 9th, 10-11:00 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on NoLiesRadio.org, archived here. Note: TruthJihad.comsubscriberscan
listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast - and also get free
downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of TruthJihad.com and go to the "Private Blog" to get early access to the shows.
Kevin calls in to RBN's Outcast Radio with Don Campbell, where
islamophobes have been poisoning the anti-NWO discourse; then tries to
interview Patrick Poole (see his press release below); and finally
spends forty minutes discussing the Paris shootings and related matters
with Rodney Shakespeare.
CITY OF LIGHT HIT BY ISLAMIC DARKNESS
A MASSACRE AT A
BASTION OF FREE SPEECH
RADICAL ISLAM IS REJOICING
ISLAMIC PARIS ATTACK GUEST: Patrick Poole, is a national security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia.com.
I
posted this piece yesterday, but it was mysteriously taken down
overnight; VT appears to have been hacked. So I had to re-post from a
back-up. Sorry to all the people whose comments were erased. This must
be an important story if the bad guys have to hack VT to try to stop it
as it goes viral.
By
Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor False Flag Weekly News just
finished a special report on the Charlie Hebdo spectacular in Paris:
Also check out the links to the stories we covered. I also did a special
radio show on Charlie Hebdo, including a verbal battle with neocon
propagandist Patrick Po…
Sir
Malcolm Rifkind has requested data from the US to learn the extent of
British intelligence’s involvement in the CIA’s torture program. The UK
government’s...
I
posted this piece yesterday, but it was mysteriously taken down
overnight; VT appears to have been hacked. So I had to re-post from a
back-up. Sorry to all the people whose comments were erased. This must
be an important story if the bad guys have to hack VT to try to stop it
as it goes viral.
By
Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor False Flag Weekly News just
finished a special report on the Charlie Hebdo spectacular in Paris:
Also check out the links to the stories we covered. I also did a special
radio show on Charlie Hebdo, including a verbal battle with neocon
propagandist Patrick Po…
Paris "Charlie Hebdo" attack": another Zionist false flag?
Just one month ago, France set off a stampede when its lower house voted
to recognize Palestine. Now Palestine is in the International Criminal
Court, poised to take down Israel for genocide.
Suddenly "Islamic terror strikes France." Is Paris being punished for its pro-Palestine vote?
In late 2013, Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur Tribunal found Israel guilty of
genocide. A few months later, Malaysian planes started falling out of
the sky.
In 2011, Norway's Labor Party's youth wing was poised to impose a
complete blockade on Israel. Suddenly the entire leadership of the
Party's youth wing was slaughtered in a professional operation falsely
attributed to a lone nut, Anders Breivik.
Police investigators search for evidence during an operation in the eastern French city of Reims, January 8, 2015.
By KEVIN BARRETT
French Interior Minister Bernard
Cazeneuve says the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo would never
have been caught had they not made one fatal mistake: They conveniently
left an ID card in their abandoned getaway car.
Since when did criminals leave their identification cards in abandoned getaway cars?
An
ordinary citizen, taking no precautions, might accidentally leave a
wallet or purse in their parked car. I have driven automobiles
approximately 50,000 times in my life, and I think my wallet might have
slipped out of my pocket and fallen into the crack between the driver’s
seat and the door...once.
What are the odds that skilled
terrorists who have just carried out an ultra-professional
special-forces style attack will accidentally leave their ID card in the
abandoned getaway car? Answer: Effectively zero.
So why are police reporting an event that cannot have happened?
Assuming
that French police really did find “terror suspect” Said Kouachi’s ID
card in an abandoned getaway car, that ID card must have been planted by
someone wishing to incriminate Kouachi. Even the legendary French idiot
detective, Inspector Clouseau, could not fail to make this thunderingly
obvious inference.
The discovery of Kouachi’s ID does not
implicate him; it exonerates him. It shows that he is an innocent patsy
who is being framed by the real perpetrators of the attack.
Police
and intelligence agencies routinely plant evidence to support false
narratives, convict innocent people, and exonerate themselves. American
police who kill unarmed citizens often plant a gun on the corpses to
support their claims of having killed in self-defense. Such throw-down
guns, which the police call “ham sandwiches,” are kept in police locker
rooms and carried in police cars in case they are needed.
Likewise,
throw-down ID cards and other “incriminating” documents are routinely
used by the military, intelligence, and special forces professionals who
orchestrate false flag operations. Consider the ludicrously-obvious
planted evidence used in the mother of all false-flag operations: the
September 11th, 2001 inside job.
Intelligence agents planted not
just one, but two “magic suitcases” designed to incriminate Mohamed
Atta, the innocent patsy framed for the crimes of September 11th.
According to Der Spiegel’s book Inside 9/11: What Really Happened, the
first Atta suitcase was handed to German police by a self-described
“good Samaritan burglar.” The so-called burglar claimed to have stolen
Atta’s suitcase during the course of a burglary and discovered
terrorism-related information in it. As an honorable citizen, this
kind-hearted burglar felt compelled by his conscience to deliver the
suitcase to the authorities.
According to Der Spiegel, the German
police, not being fools, knew that the self-styled burglar was not
really a burglar at all, but an intelligence agent planting fake
evidence against Atta. Der Spiegel quotes German police as saying: “The
only question is, which intelligence agency was he working for?” (“CIA
and Mossad,” answered former German Intelligence Minister Andreas Von
Bülow in his book The CIA and September 11th.)
Despite its absurd
origins, this suitcase full of fabricated documents provides virtually
the only purported evidence supporting the official story of Atta’s
supposed terrorism-related activities in Germany. Aside from the good
Samaritan burglar’s suitcase, it seems that the original Egyptian Atta –
the one in Germany – was a gentle, shy, sensitive, soft-spoken
architecture student with no connections to terrorism of any kind. Yet
the “Atta” who made a spectacle of himself in Florida before 9/11,
staging memorable public scenes while all but wearing an “I am an
al-Qaeda terrorist” sign around his neck, was a coarse, obscene, violent
loudmouthed braggart who dated strippers, disemboweled kittens, and
spoke fluent Hebrew.
The Hebrew-speaking Atta’s second and
better-known “magic suitcase” was the one he allegedly checked in on his
early morning flight from Portland, Maine to Boston on September 11th,
2001. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the suitcase was
miraculously preserved and delivered to the authorities when it somehow
failed to make the transfer from Atta’s Portland-to-Boston commuter
flight onto Flight 11, which Atta supposedly piloted into the North
Tower of the World Trade Center. Had the suitcase been transferred as it
should have been, we are told, it would have been destroyed in a
fireball at the World Trade Center.
This magic suitcase provided
the only evidence allowing authorities to identify the alleged 19
hijackers within 24 hours of the event. (None of the 9/11 passenger
lists contained any Arab names; no airline employees remember having
ticketed or boarded any of the alleged hijackers; and none of the
hundreds of security cameras at Boston’s Logan Airport, Washington
D.C.’s Dulles Airport, or Newark Airport took a single authenticated
frame of any of the 19 Arabs blamed for 9/11.)
This suitcase not
only contained a list of the 19 patsies, but also Atta’s supposed last
will and testament. (Why would a suicide hijacker check his will onto a
doomed plane?) Britain’s dean of Middle East journalism Robert Fisk has
ridiculed Atta’s alleged will, pointing out that it begins with a
botched bismillah: “In the name of God, myself, and my family...” No
Muslim would ever write such a thing. As Fisk suggests, the document
purporting to be Atta’s will must have been forged by an incompetent
intelligence agent. The suitcase was obviously planted.
And that
is not just Robert Fisk’s opinion. Seymour Hersh, the dean of American
investigative journalism, quotes a senior US intelligence source as
saying, with regard to Atta’s magic suitcase: “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.”
Atta’s
two magic suitcases are not the only examples of clumsily-planted 9/11
evidence. Another is the “magic passport” of alleged 9/11 hijacker Satam
al-Suqami. That passport, looking as pristine as the “magic bullet” of
the JFK assassination, was allegedly discovered by an anonymous
individual, with no chain of custody, near the two flat spots of smoking
ground where two 110-story towers somehow exploded into very fine dust.
But
Atta’s magic suitcases, the magic passport, beside the most
pathetically-planted 9/11 item of them all: The “Fatty Bin Laden
confession video” supposedly discovered in December 2001 by an anonymous
US soldier in Jalalabad, and delivered with no chain of possession to
be brandished by the Bush Administration as supposed proof of Bin
Laden’s guilt.
Professor Bruce Lawrence, a respected expert on Bin
Laden, has categorically stated of this video: “It’s bogus!” Lawrence
adds that his many acquaintances in the US intelligence community’s Bin
Laden units know that the video is bogus – but are afraid to say so in
public, because they are afraid of the implications of Bin Laden’s
innocence.
These and other examples show that the intelligence
agents who orchestrate false-flag terror spectacles often do not even
bother to disguise the blatantly-fabricated nature of the planted
evidence used to implicate patsies.
So we should not be terribly
surprised when the French police tell us – with a straight face – that a
highly professional fleeing terrorist would leave his ID card in an
abandoned getaway car.
KB/MKA
KEVIN BARRETT
Columnist
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D.
Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War
on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and
other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in
the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune,
and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and
universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for
Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish
Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against
the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for
Obama Voters (2009). His website is www.truthjihad.com.
Dans les trois « posts » réunis ci-dessous, Norman G.
Finkelstein, historien et politologue américain, référence
internationale sur le conflit israélo-palestinien, réagit à l’affaire
« Charlie Hebdo » de manière brève mais éloquente.
Juif, enfant de rescapés du ghetto de Varsovie et d’Auschwitz, le
reste de sa famille ayant disparu dans les camps nazis, Norman
Finkelstein avait déjà dénoncé l’incroyable arriération de la France en
ce qui concerne l’éveil politique et la liberté d’expression, notamment
la liberticide loi Gayssot (cf. cet extrait vidéo comportant le fameux « Que dire d’un pays qui considère BHL comme un philosophe ?! »).
L’engagement de Norman Finkelstein pour la cause palestinienne
lui a coûté son métier et sa vocation. Parce qu’il avait minutieusement
démonté un ouvrage pro-israélien d’Alan Dershowitz, un BHL américain
qu’il révéla comme une imposture, Norman Finkelstein fut victime d’une
cabale orchestrée par ledit Dershowitz, suite à laquelle il perdit son
poste d’enseignant à l’Université De Paul de Chicago. Depuis, malgré son
parcours universitaire exceptionnel (Doctorat à Princeton, Professeur
dans plusieurs Universités américaines, auteur et conférencier de
renommée internationale), il n’a pas pu retrouver de poste.
La publication nazie Der Sturmer, éditée par Julius Streicher, était connue pour ses caricatures antisémites obscènes.
Imaginez qu’une paire de frères juifs, éperdus de douleur face à la
mort et à la destruction qui s’étaient abattues sur le peuple juif,
aient fait irruption dans les bureaux du journal et assassiné des
membres de son personnel. Elèverions-nous au rang de martyrs et de héros ceux qui ont choisi de
se moquer des croyances profondément ancrées dans les consciences d’un
peuple souffrant et méprisé ; de dégrader, rabaisser, insulter et
humilier les Juifs à l’heure de leur épreuve, alors que le monde qu’ils
avaient connu se désintégrait tout autour d’eux ? Imaginez qu’un million de Berlinois se soient mobilisés pour pleurer les pornographes politiques. Applaudirions-nous à cette manifestation de solidarité ? Streicher a été condamné à mort durant le procès de Nuremberg. Il n’est pas rapporté que beaucoup de personnes dans notre Occident éclairé aient versé des larmes. *** Désolé, Charlie Par Norman G. Finkelstein Article original : http://normanfinkelstein.com/2015/01/12/sorry-charlie%E2%80%8B/ Lundi 12 janvier 2015
Après le massacre de 1000 musulmans par le dictateur égyptien Sissi
en un seul jour, le journal Charlie Hebdo a publié ce titre (image de
gauche) : « Le Coran c’est de la m*** : Ca n’arrête pas les balles ». Est-ce que l’image de droite, sur laquelle on peut lire « Charlie
Hebdo, c’est de la m*** : Ca n’arrête pas les balles » est inclus dans
la liberté d’expression, ou est-ce considéré comme un propos
offensant par le monde « épris de liberté » ? *** Je suis… Gaza
Norman G. Finkelstein | 10 janvier 2015
[Après un périple extrêmement ardu, un groupe d'enfants
de Gaza a pu réaliser son rêve et se présenter sur la scène de
l'émission populaire Arabs Got Talent, bouleversant d'émotion jury et
télespectateurs (voir cet article détaillé).] Vidéo postée par N. Finkelstein (Traduction : Sayed 7asan) Source: Sayed Hasan
BROTHER MARK GLENN'S ADVICE ABOUT ANTI MUHAMMAD MOVIE
BROTHER MARK GLENN’S ADVICE
ABOUT ANTI MUHAMMAD MOVIE
Anti-Islam movie, West’s conspiracy against Muslim world:
Analyst
Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:15PM GMT
Interview with Mark Glenn, from the Crescent and Cross
Solidarity Movement
So the notion that this is a conspiracy source, absolutely this [yes]. It
was done to inflame the Islamic world so as to further propagandize the West
into making war against the Middle Eastern countries."
Outrage and anti-US sentiment are growing across the Muslim
world over the controversial movie that insults Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Anti-US demonstrations, which began on September 11 over the anti-Islam film,
have been held across the Muslim world, with protesters storming US embassies
and torching US flags.
Over a dozen people
have already been killed in protests since the release of the film.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Mark Glenn, from the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement,
to further discuss the issue. What follows is an approximate transcription of
the interview.
Press TV:Mr. Glenn, protests are gaining
momentum around the world and more and more people are coming to this belief
that this move, this insulting movie, was more likely to be a deliberate act of
conspiracy.
Glenn: Yes, I think that is exactly what it was and I think that the
people responsible for putting this together, their reasons for doing it are
self-evident. They want the world to witness these uprisings and these protests
taking place as a means of defaming Islam and painting the Muslims as violent,
irrational people.
You know (blipped) … is saying this
that the Christian in the West because it is not my religion that has been
attacked in this per se but when I would counsel those in these, [all I want to
do] is to take
a step back and to understand that what they are doing by participating in
these things is that they are giving their enemies all of the ammunition that
they need in order to take Islam as a violent, irrational religion followed by
violent irrational people and all of this being on a course in order
to justify the
military brutality that has taken place in the past, that is taking place now
and will take place in the future if these evil doers are given a
free hand to do it.
So the notion that this is a conspiracy source, absolutely
this [yes]. It was done to inflame the Islamic world so as to further
propagandize the West into making war against the Middle Eastern countries.
Press TV:So what you are saying is that
actually this was a conspiracy for Muslims to play in the hands of their
enemies. Well, there are questions also surrounding the timing of the insulting
movie, its coincidence with 9/11 and the US elections is also a month to go
there.
Glenn: Yes, absolutely. You know, in 11 years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks
in the United States.
And so the American people are beginning to ask questions: Why are we still at
war? Why are young people so being set off to fight in these theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan? You know, Osama bin
Laden is dead; there have been no terrorist attacks; we are going bankrupt
fighting these wars. Perhaps it is time to bring our troops home and to go back
to peace and prosperity.
And so these organized pro-war interests, Zionist interest, organized
Jewish interest-- whatever you want to call them-- they have to from
time to time remind the American people why they are going bankrupt fighting
these wars and why they should continue to go bankrupt fighting these wars and
so that is exactly what this entire stunt in making this movie was all about,
was to bring the American people back to the morning of 9/11 of 2001 and also
in order to set
the stage for further military action, unfortunately, against your own country
of Iran.
I think that this entire debacle that is taking place that the main bull’s-eye
in this thing, I mean the big agenda here that is being pushed is to prepare
the mind of the American people so that they will sign on to increase military adventures against Iran.
AHK/MSK/JR
P.S.Many lives were lost uselessly after Jewish
sponsored renegade Salman Rushdie released his SATANIC VERSES attacking
Muhammad and Muslims and blaspheming Islam!For outraging Muslims around the world and causing the deaths of many,
Salman Rushdie was knighted by the Freemasonic and Druidic German Squatter
Queen of B’rit’ain!B’rit in “Hebrew”
means Covenant or Contract and the B’rit’ish monarchs retrace their roots to
King David, the Lion of Judah and the Jewish Qabbalah. (BAFS)
I contemplate my recent trip to
the Islamic Republic of Iran and ask myself who wants war between
America and Iran. I quickly surmise that it is not the American people,
nor the Iranian people, but globalists (international bankers and their
multinational beneficiaries). They control Israel, the American media
and most of our politicians…and by extension our foreign policy.
My journey to this exotic and
little understood land began with an invitation to “New Horizon – The
First International Independent Filmmakers Festival”. It was a
conference and festival held in Tehran from September 2nd through
September 7th. Filmmakers and intellectuals from around the world
attended. It was one of the most stimulating experiences that I have
ever had and an effective bridge between diverse cultures and
perspectives – with the purpose of promoting truth, justice, liberty,
and peace.
This initiative was undertaken,
not by America or other world leaders, but by a country unfairly
besieged with sanctions and threats of war. My observations were in
stark contrast to the perceptions of most Americans. What I experienced
was a devout country with a love of God, family, and nation – and an
uncompromising respect for the noblest of human endeavors.
As I write this, a giant,
beautiful book, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, lies next to me. Khayyam’s
wonderful poems have survived the test of time and are a testament to
the normally peaceful spirit of the Persian people. This treasure was
given to me by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Inside its back cover, he
inscribed the following for me (transcribed from Farsi):
In the name of God who loves human beings.
My dear brother:
I, you, we and all of us are pursuing truth and happiness for human beings, which is unfortunately a victim of world powers.
This is a historical opportunity to undermine all inhuman
relations and put an end to prejudices, which have questioned the truths
and separates them, to build a new beautiful world based on love,
justice and beauty.
This is a historical and certainly achievable objective. It only needs our hands, minds and hearts to join each other.
I pray Great God to bless you, who love humanity and wish success for all. I hope to meet you in a better future.
(signed) M. Ahmadinejad September 8, 2012
I found President Ahmadinejad to
be a humble man with a firm handshake and intense, intelligent eyes.
Despite his courteous and dignified bearing, he has been regularly
berated, and routinely misrepresented, by a controlled western media. Is
their demonization justified, or has he been targeted as the lone
political figure standing against Zionist powers? This is my attempt to
represent truths, such that the world might have a better understanding
of Iran, its people, and its leadership.
The Iranian people are similar to
Europeans in appearance…a beautiful people, poised and kind. Their
women wear clothing which modestly cover them, but in elegant fashion
and with serene faces that are usually exposed. They return smiles and
are not treated as second class citizens, as we have been conditioned to
believe. In fact, they outnumber men in higher education enrollments.
There is no profanity and women are safe on any Tehran street – at any
time of day or night. The influences of western civilization have not
been totally removed, but the Iranians resist the decadence of
cultural-Marxism. I attribute this largely to their faith and love of
family. I was surprised to discover that the Islamic faith actually
honors Jesus and Christianity. However, through Zionist media control,
policy dictates, and other manipulations, the Christian world is
incessantly convinced that Muslims should be our enemies and that we
should be theirs.
Muslims look with jaundiced eye
upon the outrageous media lies and perpetual assaults on their faith and
culture. Hollywood’s promotion of twisted films can provoke extremist
reactions, and we are then led to believe that Muslims are all radicals.
We never question the bizarre promotion of these divisive, Zionist
inspired productions, or the actions of multinational interests in the
internal affairs of sovereign Islamic nations. Were we to look honestly
at the many false portrayals, we would see remarkable similarities to
how our Christian communities have also been assaulted – increasingly
with contempt and disrespect by these same Zionist and Cultural Marxist
propagandists. They seek a globalist new world order – devoid of the
diversity and freedoms associated with independent nation states.
As I wandered from the festival
grounds to meet people on the streets, I found them to be most helpful
and without animosity – despite my obvious American nationality. I
enjoyed their exotic food and came to appreciate the craftsmanship of
their products. The only negative sensation that I had was in witnessing
the mad house traffic situation in Tehran. A city of 15 million, it has
grown faster that it’s infrastructure. Despite this, the city is
thriving with new construction and beautiful parks and monuments – which
reflect a noble and accomplished people. The Iranians seemingly love
Americans, but are rightly concerned and critical of our irrational and
invasive government policies. The common response seems to be “why would
your country want to attack us?”
The current condemnation of Iran
is supposedly due to the possibility that they may develop nuclear
weapons. We should all work for a world free from nuclear threat, but
the sovereignty of nations must also be respected. Iran is signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has opened their facilities for
inspection, declaring their interest is for energy development only. No
evidence to the contrary has been shown, and Iran’s Supreme Leader, the
Ayatollah Khamenei condemns nuclear weaponry – actually declaring a
“Fatwa” against them – as it is contrary to their nation’s faith.
However, Israel, their chief accuser (and architect behind the campaign
to falsely accuse Iraq of possessing “weapons of mass destruction”), is
believed to possess over 300 nuclear weapons. Israel is not signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no intention of sharing
information or opening their facilities for inspection – yet America
continues to march to their fanatical war drums against others. Why is
there no pressure on Israel to meet the same standards and why are we
imposing “sanctions” against a nation that has done us no wrong? It is a
preliminary act of war, and only imposed because Israeli lobbies demand
it of our lap-dog politicians, who incredibly serve Zionist interests
rather than the American people.
Iran is a strategic rival for
regional hegemony in the resource rich middle-east and has stood strong
for Islamic unity. They also courageously and most justifiably call for
an end to the Palestinian occupation – the ruthless suppression of an
enslaved people, largely funded by America. There is no greater
injustice than that being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
World condemnation, through the United Nations is consistently blocked
by U.S. actions on the Security Council. As a result, the Non Aligned
Nations Movement (NAM) is growing as an alternative to the UN. Its
recent success is not generally reported in Western media, but 120
nations came together in Tehran the week before the New Horizon Film
Festival – in unity and in opposition to the evils of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine. The Secretary General of the United Nations
even attended, as well as observers from Russia and China. The
Palestinian occupation and Israeli aggressions (including “false flag”
operations against other nations) are at the root of the discontents for
Zionism.
As President Ahmadinejad gave me
copy of Khayyam’s works, I gave him copy of my western motion picture,
“Jericho”, and my political book, “Our Vision for America”. When I asked
him what messages I might convey to the American people, he indicated
“truths” and “Iran’s desire for peace”. Through lies and evil acts,
Globalists and Zionists falsely portray Iran, as they seek conflict
between nations. I later told him that our State Department should be
meeting with Iran’s leaders and not depending on the initiatives of
private citizens, like me. However, I hope that he and the Iranian
people take hope in the prospect that many patriotic Americans are
awakening to the evils that have consumed us, even while our politicians
continue to betray the otherwise good spirit and traditions of the
American people. Growing numbers seek answers that might save America
and truly promote world peace.
Americans do not want war, and
are beginning to realize that our politicians, of both major parties,
initiate these actions against the wishes of the American people – and
in accord with the intrigues of international bankers and their Zionist
agents. It is time we stopped them by creating alternatives in politics,
and in media. Iran sees the need and is taking appropriate initiatives,
and so should America.
I went to Iran to promote the
prospects for producing “False Flag”, a critically important motion
picture. I returned to America more committed than ever to produce this
political thriller and, through commercial entertainment, help awaken a
sleeping America. Vital truths must be revealed so that new evils are
not perpetrated against the people of America and Iran, with destructive
effects resonating throughout the world. I also return committed to
building a viable third party, which will represent traditional working
class Americans, rather than perpetuating a corrupt two party system,
which serves special global interests. God willing, my answer to the
courageous efforts of President Ahmadinejad is “I also hope to meet you
in a better future”.
Merlin Miller is a West Point
graduate, US Army veteran, engineer, writer, filmmaker
(www.Americana-Pictures.com) and 2012 Presidential candidate
(www.MerlinMiller2012.com)
This entry was posted on September 19, 2012, 11:31 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Nothing could incite more anti-semitism than an unprovoked
attack by isreal on Iran that drags the US into war! Netanyahu’s name
will be equated as a 21′st century Hitler!
I hope the Isreali people do something to rein him in before Isreal is destroyed….forever!
Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei condemns nuclear
weaponry – actually declaring a “Fatwa” against them – as it is contrary
to their nation’s faith.
This is one truth that has always been kept away from the public: THAT ISLAM FORBIDS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
CHAPTER I – “TEACHER, WHAT GOOD MUST I DO…? ” (Mt 19:16)
– Christ and the answer to the question about morality
“Someone came to him…” (Mt 19:16)
6. The dialogue of Jesus with the rich young man, related in the
nineteenth chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, can serve as a useful
guide for listening once more in a lively and direct way to his moral
teaching: “Then someone came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good must I
do to have eternal life?’ And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about
what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into
life, keep the commandments. ‘He said to him, ‘Which ones?’ And Jesus
said,
‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’
The young man said to him, ‘I have kept all these; what do I still lack?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give the
money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come,
follow me’ ”
(Mt 19:16-21).13
BAFS:
Note that in the very First Commandment (God’s, not Jesus’s!) the Pope
has changed the word KILL into that of MURDER, which is the correct
translation as made by the “Hebrews” or today’s JEWS. For nearly 2,000
years Rome had preached the wrong religion.
Now, Catholics are allowed TO KILL, but not MURDER! So, KILLING
Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians and other defenceless nations on earth
amounts just to KILLING which is no more stressed as before!
This position of Rome is in contradiction with Saint Paul’s teachings
who got rid of the Mosaic Law, nailing it to the Cross! And, by that
one magical stroke, the Pope has also got rid of the doctrine of TURN
THE OTHER CHEEK, which was a fallacy anyway!
Until Christians do not start thinking BY THEMSELVES and not stop
listening blindly to Churches and Popes, they will never be obeying
God’s Commandments!
Thank God, in Islam, we do not need Churches or Popes to tell humankind what to believe or not and what to do or not.
But, after Council Vatican II, Rome and the Churches worldwide sold out to Zionism and the International Jewish Mafia!
#6 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on September 20, 2012 – 12:33 pm
“Thank God, in Islam, we do not need Churches or Popes to tell humankind what to believe or not and what to do or not.”
SATAN: But, can’t you see, you fool, that even when Muslims know
EXACTLY what to believe and what to do, they still believe in and do the
wrong things, EXACTLY the way I want things to be done! I have got
them all EXACTLY where I want, those stupid Godly Christians and Godly
Muslims, those hypocrites and money-loving fake Believers, those cowards
and treacherous Paradise lovers?
BAFS: Unfortunately, I do see what you mean, O Master of this
wretched world! But, let’s see what your adversary God has in store for
His own Creation, the Good, the Evil and the Ugly! Isn’t it strange
that you the Devil should obey God faithfully by doing the maximum of
evil on earth and mislead His creation whereas Believers in God would
disobey Him to such an extent that they now face total annihilation?
SATAN: So, tell me, you Earthling, WHO IS THE BEST OF PLANNERS, God or Me! Who is greater, God or me?
BAFS: Are you serious, O Master of this world? Do you want me to
blaspheme? But, as you say, they well deserve their fate, don’t they?
All our good and saintly people are being murdered one by one and we
keep drinking Coca-Cola, watching television, football, and sing to the
tune of the Kosher Nostra! Whole nations of nice people that were never
contaminated by the diabolical West have now completey disapperared.
SATAN: This is nothing, just wait and see!
BAFS: Well, I will wait no more as my time is almost up and I leave
it to our progeny if there will be any left with good health, a free
mind and humanity in their heart.
BAFS
Thursday 20th of September 2012
Actress in anti-Muslim movie sues for its removal online; sues filmmaker for fraud
LOS
ANGELES, Calif. - An actress who appears in the anti-Muslim film that
has sparked riots in the Middle East is suing the filmmaker for fraud
and slander and suing Google to try to get the movie’s trailer removed
online.
Cindy
Lee Garcia’s lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles claims the actress
was duped by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind “Innocence of
Muslims” who has been forced into hiding since its 14-minute trailer
rose to prominence last week. She was unaware of the film’s anti-Muslim
content and said the pages of the script she received had no mention of
the prophet Muhammad, according to her complaint.
The lawsuit states Garcia
responded to an ad and thought she was appearing in an ancient Egyptian
adventure film, which was altered to give it an anti-Islamic message.
“The film is vile and reprehensible,” Garcia’s attorney, M. Cris Armenta, wrote in the document.
“This lawsuit is not an attack on
the First Amendment nor on the right of Americans to say what they
think, but does request that the offending content be removed from the
Internet,” the complaint states. Garcia’s attorneys plan to seek an
injunction against the film Thursday in a Los Angeles court.
Garcia has received death threats
since the trailer began drawing attention, and her suit states she no
longer is able to visit her grandchildren as a result. It has also
harmed her reputation and caused “shame, mortification, and hurt
feelings,” the suit states.
An email sent to Google seeking
comment was not immediately returned. The search giant owns YouTube and
has blocked users in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt from viewing the
“Innocence of Muslims” trailer. It has also blocked the video from being
viewed in Indonesia and India because it violates laws in those
countries.
A man who answered the phone at
the law offices of Steven Seiden, who represents Nakoula on any criminal
repercussions he may face, declined comment. He said Seiden does not
represent Nakoula, who is on probation for a bank fraud case in which he
opened 600 fraudulent credit accounts, in civil matters.
According to the terms of his
probation, Nakoula was allowed to only access websites with the
permission of probation officials and for work purposes. It is unclear
who uploaded the film to the site.
The
lawsuit also names Sam Bacile, an alias that Nakoula gave to The
Associated Press after the trailer was linked to protests that have
since killed at least 30 people in seven countries, including the U.S.
ambassador to Libya.
“Charlie Hebdo” is a weekly French satirical pornographic
magazine for perverts and popular atheist consumption, sold freely in all
newspaper outlets and within easy reach of teenagers.
It is said to be “satirical” magazine only because
France is ruled by the Devil himself, the morally bankrupt Judeo-Christian,
Judeo-Protestant, and Laïque (Secular) Marxist left, and Israelist Jews like Laurent
Fabius (former Prime Minister of Zionist France who is now drumming for war
against Iran!) and Nicolas Sarkozy (former Knesset puppet President of Zionist
France who too wants war with all Arabs and all Muslims worldwide).
The same Israelist Jew Laurent Fabius teamed up with
Communist Gayssot and passed Fabius-Gayssot Law outlawing any criticism of the
Holocaust (or of Israel), but is in favour of “freedom of speech” when Islam,
Muslims and Arabs are demonised and the French populace is incited to hatred
and violence against Muslims in France and worldwide! Or when the Pope and Catholics are demonised.
“Charlie Hebdo” is a weekly satirical pornographic magazine even
if most depictions are cartoon like.Literature deemed as pornographic does not have to be illustrated with
real photographs of male and female prostitutes or whores to de described as
pornographic!“Charlie Hebdo” started as
Hara-Kiri (a satirical porn magazine, which was banned), then Hara-Kiri Hebdo
Weekly which was banned again.
In one of the Hara-Kiri issues, on the cover John Paul II
was shown (having sex?) with naked or half naked nuns, but I cannot confirm the
details of the cover depiction.
However, I still have a copy of Hara-Kiri Hebdo which I
purchased for 10 francs (£1 then in English money) in Gare-du-Nord during one
of my travels (sold to any Tom, Dick and Harry!), Hara-Kiri Hebdo, Wednesday, Number 3 released at the time of the
European orchestrated mass rape of Muslim women and girls in Bosnia Herzegovina
in the nineties.The European Union was then
led by British Prime Minister John Major and the Europeans were behind the
ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans at the behest of Israel and the US.
On the cover of that Hara-Kiri issue we see some 20 cartoons
of naked women being raped and with sperm all over their body, front and back,
and the title: “SERBS MORE POWERFUL THAN PATRICK BRUEL!Patrick Bruel is a French Jewish
Supremacist!
The cover depicts a Cartoon Serb Soldier with a huge naked
male organ shouting:
“Send me more sperm.My balls are empty!”
And, the raped Muslim women coming and screaming:
“more…continue,
please…more…more…oh yes, more…yea…oh yea…yes, yes more…yes, continue,
please…for heaven’s sake, put it in again…”
On page 3 of the same issue, we see the photographs of the
editor of Hara-Kiri Georges Bernier aka “Professor Shoron” and of three naked women
holding their legs up and showing their genitals wide open with a caption
saying they were “authentic” Bosnian women with banners attached to their legs
saying:
We
demand courting before the act
Our
body is not a motorway
Down
with penetrations by surprise
This is the type of filth that Jewish Zionist France enjoys
with the blessings of the Catholic Church and the Vatican and of the entire West!
Now, you must have a clear idea
of what “Charlie Hebdo” really is!
As for the demonstrations of outrage in public with the
burning of flags, I am totally against, but it is impossible to prevent some
more vulnerable people (like in all countries, Muslims or not) from feeling so
outraged as to commit some irrational acts.Anyway, it is not because of such public demonstrations of anger that
make the West go and bomb Muslim countries and plunder their wealth!
Bon appétit with the French Jewish Marxist porn!
BAFS
P.S.THIS IS WESTERN CIVILISATION!
Photo by Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/FileMon, Oct 1, 2012
Competitors in Brazil's Miss Bum
Bum pageant wait to record a TV program in Osasco, a surburb of Sao
Paulo, on September 24. Brazil's upcoming municipal elections are being
overshadowed by the online contest, which seeks to find the cutest
female behind
France stepped up security
Wednesday at its embassies across the Muslim world after a French
satirical weekly revived a formula that it has already used to capture
attention: Publishing crude, lewd caricatures of Islam’s Prophet
Muhammad.
Wednesday’s
issue of the provocative satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, whose offices
were firebombed last year, raised concerns that France could face
violent protests like the ones targeting theUnited States over an
amateur video produced in California that have left at least 30 people
dead.
The drawings, some of which
depicted Muhammad naked and in demeaning or pornographic poses, were met
with a swift rebuke by the French government, which warned the magazine
could be inflaming tensions, even as it reiterated France’s free speech
protections.
The
principle of freedom of expression “must not be infringed,”Foreign
Minister Laurent Fabius said, speaking on France Interradio.
But he added: “Is it pertinent, intelligent, in this context to pour oil on the fire? The answer is no.”
Anger
over the film “Innocence of Muslims” has fueled violent protests from
Asia to Africa. In the Lebanese port city of Tyre, tens of thousands of
people marched in the streets Wednesday, chanting “Oh, America, you are
God’s enemy!”
Worried France might
be targeted, the government ordered its embassies, cultural centers,
schools and other official sites to close on Friday — the Muslim holy
day — in 20 countries. It also immediately shut down its embassy and the
French school in Tunisia, the site of deadly protests at theU.S.
Embassy last week.
The French Foreign Ministry
issued a travel warning urging French citizens in the Muslim world to
exercise “the greatest vigilance,” avoiding public gatherings and
“sensitive buildings.”
The controversy could prove
tricky for France, which has struggled to integrate its Muslim
population, Western Europe’s largest. Many Muslims believe the Prophet
Muhammad should not be depicted at all — even in a flattering way —
because it might encourage idolatry.
Violence
provoked by the anti-Islam video, which portrays the prophet as a
fraud, womanizer and child molester, began with a Sept. 11 attack on the
U.S. Embassy in Cairo, then quickly spread toLibya, where an attack on
the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi left the U.S. ambassador and three other
Americans dead.
In Washington, White House
spokesman Jay Carney said the Obama administration believed the French
magazine images “will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential
to be inflammatory.”
“We don’t question the right of
something like this to be published,” he said, pointing to the U.S.
Constitution’s protections of free expression. “We just question the
judgment behind the decision to publish it.”
In a statement, Arab League chief
Nabil Elarabi called the cartoons “provocative and disgraceful” and
said their publication added complexity to an already inflamed
situation. He said the drawings arose from ignorance of “true Islam and
its holy prophet.”
A lawsuit was filed against
Charlie Hebdo hours after the issue hit newsstands, the Paris
prosecutor’s office said, though it would not say who filed it. The
magazine also said its website had been hacked.
Riot police took up positions
outside the magazine’s offices, which were firebombed last year after it
released an edition that mocked radical Islam.
Chief
editor Stephane Charbonnier, who publishes under the pen name “Charb”
and has been under police protection for a year, defended the cartoons.
“Muhammad isn’t sacred to me,” he
told The Associated Press. “I don’t blame Muslims for not laughing at
our drawings. I live under French law. I don’t live under Quranic law.”
He said he had no regrets and felt no responsibility for any violence.
“I’m not the one going into the
streets with stones and Kalashnikovs,” he said. “We’ve had 1,000 issues
and only three problems, all after front pages about radical Islam.”
The cartoonist, who goes by the name Luz, also was defiant.
“We treat the news like
journalists. Some use cameras, some use computers. For us, it’s a paper
and pencil,” he said. “A pencil is not a weapon. It’s just a means of
expression.”
A small-circulation weekly,
Charlie Hebdo often draws attention for ridiculing sensitivity about the
Prophet Muhammad. It was acquitted in 2008 by a Paris appeals court of
“publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion” following
a complaint by Muslim associations.
The magazine has staked out a
sub-genre in France’s varied media universe with its cartoons. Little is
sacred, and Wednesday’s issue also featured caricatures of people as
varied as Clint Eastwood, an unnamed Roman Catholic cardinal who looked a
bit like Pope John Paul II and French President Francois Hollande, a
staple.
At
the demonstration in Lebanon, Nabil Kaouk, deputy chief of Hezbollah’s
Executive Council, warned the United States and France not to anger
Muslims.
“Be careful of the anger of our
nation that is ready to defend the prophet,” he said. “Our hearts are
wounded and our chests are full of anger.”
Nasser Dheini, a 40-year-old
farmer, said instead of boosting security at its embassies, France
should close down the offending magazine.
“Freedom of opinion should not be by insulting religions,” said Dheini, carrying his 4-year-old son Sajed.
Outside
the magazine’s Paris offices, a passer-by wearing a traditional Muslim
tunic said he was neither surprised nor shocked by the cartoons. He
criticized France’s decision to close embassies and schools for fear of
protests by extremists.
“It gives legitimacy to movements that don’t have any,” said Hatim Essoufaly, who was walking his toddler in a stroller.
THE UGLY TRUTH (MARK GLENN)
Egypt Issues Arrest Warrants for Terry Jones and Anti-Islam Filmmaker
On
Tuesday, Egypt’s general prosecutor issued eight arrest warrants for
anti-Muslim U.S. pastor Terry Jones, producerNakoula Basseley
Nakoula and six other Coptic Christiansassociated with the incendiary
film Innocence of Muslims, the The prosecutor’s office says
the seven men and one woman could face the death penalty and are charged
with “harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam
and spreading false information.” It’s not clear where the other Coptic
Christians live (an names them as Adel Riad, Morris Sadek, Nabil
Bissada, Esmat Zaklama, Elia Bassily, Ihab Yaacoub and Jack Atallah) but
the prosecutor says they are outside of Egypt at the moment. Meanwhile
Jones and Nakoula live in the free lands of Florida and California,
respectively, where it’s not a crime to make or promote a movie that
depicts the prophet Muhammad as an effete homosexual.
RELATED:
However,
that doesn’t mean their security situation isn’t a major legal headache
for U.S. officials. As the U.S. is in a tricky position. “If the
government were to overtly protect Nakoula, it could be seen by some as
tacit approval of the film, and further enflame protests. Leaving him to
fend for himself could have deadly consequences. There are examples of
violence against others who have written or spoken against Muhammad.” So
far, the government has offered some assistance, in the form of Los
Angeles County sheriff’s deputies escorting Nakoula to a meeting with
probation officials in the dead of night.
RELATED:
One
would assume the U.S. would reject any Egyptian extradition request on
First Amendment grounds, which could inflame Egyptian sentiment further.
As Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University’s School of
Law, . ‘‘The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the
United States is that … we treat what most of us would refer to as hate
speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don’t
appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the
world.” You can say that again.
View PhotoAnti-Islam Film: Seventeen Killed in Pakistan
Pakistani officials said 17 people have been killed in protests against an anti-Islam film - including a dozen in Karachi.
The fatalities came as demonstrations swept across the world on Friday
over a US made film denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. At least 47 people
have died overall in violence linked to the movie, including the US
ambassador to Libya.
:: Pakistan
Tens of thousands protested around the country after the government
encouraged peaceful protests and declared a national holiday - "Love for
the Prophet Day".
But demonstrations turned violent as police and protesters clashed in
several Pakistani cities – including Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad. Five
people were killed in Peshawar and 12 in Karachi.
One of the dead was identified as Mohammad Amir, a driver for a
Pakistani television station, who was killed after police opened fire on
rioters torching a cinema in Peshawar.
The United States has paid for adverts on Pakistani television which
show US President Barack Obama and US Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton
denouncing the film.
But the president has also suggested Islamist extremists are manipulating the protests for their own ends.
"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the
outrage of the video was used as an excuse by extremists to see if they
could directly harm US interests," he said.
:: France
Meanwhile, security has been tightened in France after a satirical
magazine published drawings featuring the Prophet Mohammed naked.
French authorities declared street protests had been banned and
interior minister Manuel Valls said there would be a crackdown if the
ban was challenged.
"There will be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken up," he said.
Charlie Hebdo magazine has said the cartoons were merely designed to
satirise the international furore over the film, and the pictures have
yet to cause public disorder in France.
But French embassies, schools and cultural centres have been shut in 20
Muslim countries, on orders from French authorities, and the magazine's
offices have been put under police guard.
Mohammed Moussaoui, leader of the French Muslim Council, described both
the film and the cartoons as "acts of aggression". But he appealed to
French Muslims not to take to the streets to protest.
:: Germany
Several hundred people gathered in the city of Freiburg in southwest of
Germany to protest the film. Police banned inflammatory slogans.
Some carried banners saying: "The dignity of the Prophet Muhammad is our dignity."
The Interior Ministry postponed a poster campaign aimed at countering
radical Islam among young people due to tensions caused by the US-made
video.
Posters for the campaign - in German, Turkish and Arabic - were meant
to go on display in German cities with large immigrant populations on
Friday, but are being withheld because of the changed security
situation.
:: Iraq
About 3,000 people, mostly followers of Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim
groups, protested against the film and French cartoons in Basra.
Demonstrators carried Iraqi flags and posters of Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei, chanting "death to America" and "no to America."
:: United Kingdom
Some 100 people gathered near the Bullring in Birmingham on Friday
afternoon, although the motive of the protest is unclear. No violence
has been reported.
:: Bangladesh
About 10,000 Bangladeshis took to the streets of Dhaka, outside the
country's National Mosque, shouting slogans and carrying placards.
A mock coffin of President Obama was burnt and a mock execution was held of the creator of the film Innocence Of Muslims.
The protesters also set fire to a French flag as they carried placards
stating "Obama, you are a cheater!" and "Protest the disgrace of Prophet
Muhammed!"
About 90% of Bangladesh's 153 million people are Muslims.
:: Sri Lanka
In the Sri Lankan capital Colombo, up to 2,000 Muslims were reported to have burnt effigies of Mr Obama
One of the protest organisers, Mujibur Rahman, said Muslims in Sri
Lanka "have come to the streets today to join with Muslims all over the
world" to protest against the film's insults to Islam and Prophet
Mohammed.
He threatened to continue protests if the "US fails to ban this film and arrest its creators".
:: North Africa
Tunisian authorities banned all demonstrations on Friday and in the
Libyan city of Benghazi, where US ambassador Chris Stevens and three
other Americans were killed last week, but protests were being planned.
Lebanese Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites took part in protests in the
southern port city of Sidon, where Sunni clerics called "a day of rage"
against insults to the Prophet Mohammed but urged followers to contain
their anger to inside the mosques.
:: Lebanon
Thousands gathered in the Bekaa valley for the latest in a series of
protest rallies organised by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah.
Protesters carried the yellow Hezbollah flag.
:: Malaysia
About 3,000 Muslims marched on the US embassy, burning an American flag topped with the Jewish Star of David.
Although there was no violence, angry demonstrators declared their
willingness to sacrifice their lives to defend the honour of the Prophet
Mohammed and warned "there will be consequences" over the film.
"We will not allow the prophet to be insulted. We are willing to
sacrifice our lives and property," said Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, an
official with the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, which
spearheaded the march.
:: Indonesia
Indonesians staged anti-French and anti-American protests in the
capital Jakarta. Protesters gathered outside US and French embassies,
which were closed on the Muslim holy day amid fears of violence.
Demonstrators targeted American fast food outlets, and there were minor scuffles with police.
In Medan, North Sumatra province, dozens of protesters from the
hardline Islamic Defenders Front burnt an American flag outside the US
consulate.
:: Afganistan
About 900 people have gathered for a protest against the film in the
capital, Kabul, chanting "death to America" and burning an effigy of
President Barack Obama and an American flag.
A few hundred demonstrators also protested inside a mosque in the eastern city of Ghazni. The protests were peaceful.
#9 by MJ on September 21, 2012 – 1:28 pm
“Basheer so true, this along with the firing of the generals are good moves by Egypt.”
DEAR MJ
Salaam
Thanks for the observation.
As you know I have been spending quite some time interviewing and
speaking to Satan himself, and I enjoy doing it, but this woman is worse
than Satan. Miss Leigh Sales has hate written on her face and every
word she utters is full of lies, hate, disinformation and venom.
Of course, Brother Mustafa is not a “preacher of hate”, and Miss
Leigh knows this very well as she has gone through the ‘pain’ to find
out whether he was preaching hate or not. Strangely enough, she should
have known this was not true, but by some kind of (Jewish) miracle all
she found was one fake website, most probably set up by MOSSAD, Jews or
Zionists, with totally fabricated statements that Brother Mustafa
confirms are not from Hizb ut Tahrir, and which she almost defiantly
‘handed over’ to him as HER evidence. And, she really did not seem
concerned in the least that she was wrong, or caught up using
disinformation live, when Brother Mustafa said “this does not look like
our website”. Her main concern was exclusively about Jews and Israel.
“ERADICATING ISRAEL AND PURIFYING THE EARTH OF JEWISH FILTHS”. That is certainly hateful, isn’t it?
This is all she could come up with as evidence, a fake website! She
does not give a damn about Muslims, about their suffering, about them
being exterminated by the millions, starved, persecuted, exiled,
tortured, demonised, and raped, and so on.
“DO YOU THIK THAT JEWS SHOULD BE ERADICATED?” This is all she is
interested in, and she even condones the slaughter the West and the Jews
(like Bernard Henri Lévi, Nicolas Sarkozy, Laurent Fabius…) carried out
in Libya because she argues Colonel Ghaddafi committed the capital
crime of “not doing a great job for its citizens”!
On the good side, Brother Mustafa managed to say without being
interrupted (which shows that Miss Leigh is not that vicious!) what Hizb
ut Tahrir and I have been saying for decades now, that WE NEED TO
ESTABALISH A KHILAAFAH AND SHARI’A LAW IN OUR OWN MUSLIM LANDS!
Miss Leigh proves that she is just another stooge for Israel and the
Jews or Jewish interest by trying to insinuate that Br Mustafa was
condoning the killing of the US ambassador. Her logic stinks.
After admitting that she heard Br Mustafa say on a Youtube video:
“American ambassadors should not be in Muslim countries. They should
leave and go home.”, which he confirms, she asks Br Mustafa if he was
saying THEREFORE THAT THE US AMBASSADOR WAS ASKING FOR IT BECAUSE HE WAS
THERE, which, of course, he was not saying!
Lastly, our brave Miss Leigh seemed so concerned about a child carrying a sign saying:
“BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT PROPHET MUHAMMAD!”
But, she shows no concern at all about all the Muslims that the West
is beheading, bombing, killing, holocausting, on a daily basis.
But, I bet if Brother Mustafa would explain himself and Hizb ut
Tahrir policy independently, no mainstream media would air it at all,
including her.
Yet, on the whole, we have to give the she-devil her due, as she
allowed Brother Mustapha to say what he wanted to say and toned down her
aggressiveness near the end. So, she is not that bad after all, and
may even make a good Muslimah, insha’Allah!
I am glad to see our Brother Mustafa keeping his calm. I would not
have been able to. But, my initial remark (which I have removed) was
that our Brother Mustafa was a blooming idiot for exposing himself and
Muslims to ridicule like our Br Dr Tariq Ramadan does so often. This
nonsense about “peaceful protest” by calling for street picnics where
the innocent gets injured and even killed should stop! Sixteen got
killed today FOR NOTHING in Pakistan!
Why not PEACEFUL BOYCOTT INSTEAD?
I went shopping to buy wholemeal sliced bread several times, but each
time I found it had E471 in its ingredients, which is en anzyme
obtained either from pork (cheaper to make) or beef. So, I did not buy
it. Out of all the drinks they sell in the shops, I buy only juices
pressed from fruits and with no artificial junk like aspartame. I try
to avoid meat as much as possible because meat is a killer and eat as
‘natural’ as possible although I have not far to go in life. My grand
daughters want me to live longer and I pray to God to give me health to
be able to take care of them as long as possible! I do not waste food
or money and do not buy junk like most City Muslims do! So, protesting
is picnic (in my view) while boycotting hurts the usurious Jews and the
war mongers EXACTLY where it should! Now, it is useless to protest when
we support Muslim governments that are members of the Zionist United
Nations Dictatorship! We will not be able to establish the Khilaafah as
long as we bow down to UN dictates!
Without the Khilaafah, Islam will remain in the gutter and Muslims will continue to be exterminated!
Thanks again.
Salaam.
Basheer
Islamophobia
is modern day racism. Insulting someone and calling it freedom of
speech. Like the CNN, whose ignorant recent poll was no different than
if they were to ask the Jews about the Holocaust or the Africans about
Slavery. If there are laws in place to protect people from
anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia, then why is Islamophobia accepted?
The sacrilegious film “Innocence of Muslims” that mocked Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and Islam has profoundly hurt
the sensitivities of Muslims and sparked violent protests all over the
world. It has renewed the debate about sanctity of religion and
controversial approaches towards freedom of speech. What is freedom of
speech and expression? Does it allow humiliation of any divine religion,
its prophet, its faith, and values that are perceived sacred by the
followers of that religion? If it does allow all such things then why
freedom of expression has always been used against Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH)? These are a few questions frequently raised by Muslims across
the world.
Muslims have been protesting against the movie, at some places
protests are staged in a peaceful way while in most states these have
turned violent, such as the killing of American diplomats in Libya and
the burning of public and private property and loss of innocent lives in
Pakistan. This is not the first time when blasphemous act has been
committed against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there has been a chain of
events, at first books were written to defame the Prophat Muhammad
(PBUH), then caricatures were drawn in Denmark and other
European newspapers and now a malicious attempt has been made to produce
a sacrilegious movie. This movie has followed by publication of
caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Frenchmagazine Charlie
Hebdo that have added fuel to anti-Western sentiments in Muslims.
In the post 9/11 era the wrong image of Islam has been portrayed in
the Western societies and it is considered as a threat to Western
civilization. New terminologies are being introduced that are being
associated with Islam such as radicalization, extremism, fundamentalism,
Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia. People like Sam Bacile are
representing the so-called Islamophobia, the filmmaker has deliberated
focused on fermenting violence. Filmmakers should have anticipated that
it will create unrest and violence in Muslim societies because for the
Muslims, love for Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been considered as part of
the faith. Veneration of all prophets of Allah is a fundamental
principle of faith in Islam. If we see what has been the reaction of
Muslim states it becomes obvious that Muslim masses are protesting
against blasphemy of their religion but their leaders are silent. They
have not raised a collective voice. Unfortunately, there is lack of will
on the part of Muslim leaders to project a common cause.
Criminalizing the defamation of religion has been on the agenda of
OIC for some time but it could not get support from the western liberal
democracies. At present, Turkey is heading the OIC, but it is not yet
clear that organization has consulted with its members to bring a
resolution to ban blasphemy. OIC member states must get agreed on a
common agenda that UN should declare blasphemy as a criminal offence and
should present their case from a unitary platform so that it could have
a forceful effect. If denial of holocaust has been prohibited by law in
majority of Western states to respect the sensitivities of 13 million
Jewish population then why indifferent laws and practices against over
1.5 billion Muslim population?
It is our right to protest against such attacks on our religion but
the protest should be staged in a peaceful manner. Our Prophet (PBUH)
stood for peace in his whole life. If we resort to violent means and
destruction of our own property then we may not be able to highlight the
noble cause to which each one of us is duty bound to raise our voice.
Western notion of freedom of speech and expression can not be accepted
in its current form. There should be a clear distinction between what
constitutes free speech and what will be considered as hate speech
against any religion. Turkish Prime Minister has rightly said that free
speech comes with boundaries, “Freedom of thought and belief ends where
the freedom of thought and belief of others starts”.
UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon referring to anti-Islam movie has
also made it clear that the right of freedom of expression to provoke or
humiliate some others’ values and beliefs can not be protected, it can
only be guaranteed and protected as a fundamental right when it is used
for common justice, and common purpose. To promote interfaith harmony,
it is the duty of Western governments to take this issue seriously and
to come up with some proposals that could address the discriminatory law
of freedom of expression and could differentiate between freedom of
speech and blasphemy.
Insults, incitement and Islam
Across the Muslim World there is rightly outrage and hurt at the
latest calculated attack on Islam, in the form of the film trailer
Innocence of Muslims. All who hold human rights and moral decency close
to their heart share their indignation.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, protected under Article 19
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
states 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference. And 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression. Rights enshrined in law that are nevertheless denied to
many, rights supposedly honoured in democratic countries.
Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that
consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly
restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression.
Article 20, paragraph 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence shall be prohibited by law. Innocence of Muslims
The deliberately amateurish film with no real narrative portrays the
Prophet Mohammed as a violent and lascivious fool. It is cheaply made,
poorly acted and directed, and as a piece of filmmaking it is to be
dismissed out of hand, but as The Guardian 17/09/2012 put it “the really
sinister thing is that all this ham-fistedness and crassness is an
important sense deliberate. It has to look like propaganda for the
provocation to be effective.” The actors claim they did not know what
the film was about, or it’s purpose and some speak of suing the
producers. The BBC reports, “One actress featured in the film said she
had no idea it would be used for anti-Islamic propaganda and condemned
it.” Offensive dialogue that insults Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has
been crudely added after filming.
The trailer was written and produced in the USA by Nakoula Basseley, a
Coptic (Egyptian) Christian living in California, who drafted much of
the script whilst serving a prison sentence for fraud. And directed,
according to Gawker “by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan
Roberts …. He’s the creative vision behind soft-core porn classics like
The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.” Whether a full film version exists is
speculation, the trailer however has done its toxic, destructive work.
Basseley says his wife’s family paid for the film, but it is still
unclear how it was funded or what the cost was. Whatever the amount, it
is hard to justify any expense at all on a film rooted in such prejudice
and hatred, which serves no purpose other than to hurt and insult
Muslims throughout the World, reinforce negative stereotypes, incite
violence and fuel division. The film is as The Guardian 17/09/2012 state
“a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world… it
might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes
and whose effects are now being seen around the world.” Intended fury
The film has unsurprisingly prompted widespread protests throughout the World. On the 11th September
In Cairo protesters scaled the walls of the embassy, pulled down the US
flag and called for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Cairo. In
Libya the U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American
staff members were killed in the American embassy in what appears to
have been an unrelated pre-planned military style attack, as The
Observer 16/09/2012 comments “The murder of US diplomats was not carried
out spontaneously, but by a jihadist militia that wanted to kill
Americans on the 9/11 anniversary.”
Protests directly triggered by the offensive, degrading film, have
since taken place in countries with large Muslim populations, sadly
causing as the BBC 14/09/2012 reports more loss of life. “Three people
were killed when the US embassy in Khartoum was attacked, Sudanese state
radio said. In Tunisia, two people were killed after crowds breached
the US embassy compound in Tunis. There was one death in Egypt and one
in Lebanon.” In Yemen hundreds of students demonstrated in the capital
Sanaa and demanded the US ambassador be expelled, thousands waved flags
on the streets of Beirut and chanted “America hear us – don’t insult our
Prophet.” The Guardian 17/09/2012 reports that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah,
the leader of Hezbollah has “called for new demonstrations to express
outrage at a film that denigrates Islam and the prophet Muhammad.
“Prophet of God, we offer ourselves, our blood and our kin for the sake
of your dignity and honour,” Nasrallah told supporters who chanted
“death to Israel” and “death to America” at a rally in the southern Shia
suburbs of Beirut.”
The Philippines Indonesia, usually calm Qatar, Afghanistan, London,
Kashmir, all have witnessed demonstrations and in Pakistan access to You
tube has been blocked by the government, the Prime Minister, rightly
describing the film as “”blasphemous.” Such is the deep-seated feeling
amongst the people of the Muslim community. An open wound has been
deliberately inflamed and the people cry out in anger and frustration. Free speech or incitement
The film and the reaction to it, has prompted much to be written and
spoken about unrestricted free speech and the dangers of censorship.
Writing in The Observer Nick Cohen argues that, “Nothing, however vile,
justifies censorship. Even in the hardest of cases such as this
anti-Islamic film, the old arguments against censorship remain the
best.” The observation of basic human rights is the foundation for any
democratic society and free speech is a fundamental requirement. Where
it is absent totalitarian control of one kind of another becomes
possible, perhaps inevitable.
There are though many methods of control and restriction of freedoms,
both crude and subtle. Is for example the manufacturing of consent, a
form of sociological coercion commonplace in America (and elsewhere)
compatible with freedom and/or democratic principles of independent
thinking and participation. Noam Chomsky, “the anti-democratic thrust of
opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious,
and for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more
dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to
cage it somehow.” The ‘Great Beast’ is of course us – the 99%.
The making and distribution of this film is not an expression of
freedom of any kind, it contributes nothing of value to the political
environment or social discourse and has no artistic merit. The Anna
Lindh Foundation reinforces this view in their statement made on
16/09/12, asserting “Innocence of Muslims is an inflammatory pamphlet,
the distribution of which – on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks
of September 11th – cannot be abridged to a manifestation of freedom of
expression.”
International law, acting as a guide and aid to clarity of thinking,
states there are limits to free speech. Where such expression is clearly
based on racial or religious hatred and incites violence, then it is
illegal and the perpetrators subject to prosecution. For where the law
is infringed consequences follow – something Israel should be made aware
of. What is crucial is the motive. If something is spoken, written,
painted, drawn, filmed etc. with the premeditated intention of causing
offense, because it is rooted in hatred of one kind or another it is
outside the law.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it
does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human
dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are
indivisible.
Unless the filmmakers of Innocence of Muslims are completely naïve or
plain stupid, they would have known that producing a film in which the
Prophet Mohammed is portrayed, as a violent, promiscuous simpleton would
inevitably cause offense and would probably result in violent
demonstrations. Therefore the film breaches international guidelines on
free speech, and should be banned, its makers charged and prosecuted.
Al Jazeera 14/09/2012 quote the filmmaker Danny Schechter, whose view on
the film is clear: “It is very political from beginning to end. It’s
not about free expression; it’s about propaganda. The film is incitement
– it’s not information, it’s not filmmaking and it’s really intended as
a technique of war-making.”
What good can possibly come from continuing to allow such a
distasteful film to be circulated? It serves no purpose other than to
provoke further potential violence. Enabling Muslims to be marginalized
and demonized once more, constructing some perverse justification for
continued American and Israeli intimidation, aggression and the
spreading of paranoia. Allowing this film to be shown or not has little
to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to
such notions is a convenient, distraction, fabricated in order to avoid
discussing the filmmakers intention and the underlying causes of
Islamists hurt and anger, which arise largely out of American foreign
policy. Simmering resentment “the safeguard of justice”
Opinion amongst large numbers of Islamists throughout the Muslim
World towards America is overwhelmingly negative. The Pew Research
Center found in a recent survey that “There remains a widespread
perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does not consider the
interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American
anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” In fact according to
the Pew report only 15% of Muslims have confidence in President Obama,
approve of his foreign policies and hold favorable views of America in
general. Pew state, “In a number of strategically important Muslim
nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency.”
In fact it has deteriorated, as US policies throughout the region
continue to cause consternation amongst large numbers of Muslims, (and
of course more widely).
American support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, which
violates a host of international and indeed national laws and
contravenes numerous UN resolutions, is perhaps top of the list.
Followed by the Iraq war US involvement in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and
Yemen, long running proxy wars in Somalia, and US support for what the
BBC call ‘friendly dictators’. Add confinement without trial, abuse and
torture in Guantanamo and Bagram prisons, the burning of the Qur’an by
US soldiers in Afghanistan and Florida Pastor Terry Jones and
disrespecting the dead bodies of Afghans. The list is indeed long and
damning, and so it goes on.
The recent demonstrations were simply sparked by the film
Innocence of Muslims; it was of course not the root cause of the
protests. As the BBC 15/09/2012 state “we are witnessing profound
anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious
extremism – with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a
trigger.” Of course extremists were involved they never miss an
opportunity, their violent actions distorting the events feeding
prejudice and creating a convenient diversion from the issues. US ideals of peace justifying conflict
All violence is to be condemned and the attacks that caused deaths
and injuries resulting from these protests are no exception, they should
not be allowed to take centre stage though, and it must be stated that
the vast majority of actions undertaken have been peaceful and without
incident. The Anna Lindh Foundation (ALF) says in relation to the
protests that “the vast majority of Muslim public opinion has expressed
its anger to the release of the film peacefully and individually, and
the Arab governments of the region have reiterated their commitment with
cultural inclusiveness while condemning the attacks to diplomatic
delegations.”
To speak with solemnity and shock, calling for justice against the
perpetrators of violence as US officials have, is expected and indeed
right, albeit hypocritical and reactionary. In order to create peace
however it is necessary to remove the causes of conflict, in this case
those causes are complex and not confined to one poorly made deeply
offensive film. Offensive let us add, not just to Muslims, who are
understandably enraged, but to all right minded men and women respectful
and tolerant of others beliefs and cultures.
American foreign policy is seen by many to be that which seeks to
extend the influence and maximize the power of America, safeguard their
interests at the expense of others and the natural environment and
support criminality – Israel comes to mind. Such distasteful American
foreign policies go back decades, as Noam Chomsky states in The Guardian
“Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he
called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the
perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive
regimes to take their oil.” A perception proved to be correct.
Ideologically driven, rooted in a desire to export worldwide an
American version, or vision, of democracy, which they claim to be the
highest ideal for all. The attitude is that when all follow America’s
lead on matters relating to economics, politics, religion and social
affairs, peace will inevitably follow, and not until. With this doctrine
in mind America has sought to dominate the world, repeatedly making war
in the name of peace.
Peace though is beyond ideology. For peace to envelop our world as
men ad women everywhere hope, there must be tolerance, cooperation and
understanding of others, not ideological imposition – of any kind. The
equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and
experience will create justice. Dissipating mistrust and resentment
leading to peace and a natural movement towards unity that encourages
the greatest possible diversity enriching the lives of us all.
Occidental double standards
The recent outrage by the Muslim Ummah protesting against a low
budget blasphemous movie produced in theUSAand the West’s condemnation
of the remonstration of the Islamists depict occidental double
standards.
The US State Department assures the Muslims that the sacrilegious
film was not sponsored by it. The US Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton, during her meeting with her Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani
Khar, made it clear that the protests that had turned violent and,
sadly, resulted in loss of life, cannot be tolerated. She admitted that
there is provocation, and theUShad made clear that it does not in any
way support provocation. She reiterated that theUSadministration found
the video, which is at the core of this series of events, offensive,
disgusting and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, the West displays double standards in its dealing.
Terry Jones, a small time pastor of Dove World Outreach Centre, a small
nondenominational Christian church inGainesville,Florida, had his 10
minutes of fame when he burnt copies of the Holy Quràn. His despicable
act was condemned, but no legal action was taken against him. The Danish
caricatures ridiculing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were in bad taste and
violently protested by the Muslim Ummah, but no legal action was taken
against the cartoonist, who caused mental agony to billions of Muslims
all over the globe. Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, was
revered by the West although his blasphemous book was reviled by the
Muslims all over the globe. Now similar revulsion has been caused by the
profane film, which would have gone unnoticed if the producer had not
taken pains to translate it in Arabic and post it on YouTube.
The sad aspect is that all these heinous acts causing mental anguish
to Muslims for defaming their beloved Prophet (PBUH) are brushed aside
by the West under the ‘Freedom of Speech Act’.
It is, indeed, doublespeak when the punishment for the denial of
Holocaust ranges to imprisonment of one up to 10 years in a number of
Western countries. Nudity is permissible but in some Western countries,
Muslim women covering their heads with scarves can be punished or sacked
from their jobs or expelled from educational institutions. InDenmark,
the construction of magnificent palaces, citadels and mansions is
permissible, but the domes of mosques are prohibited. Smoking at public
places is prohibited as it is injurious to health, but the onslaught of
venomous comments against a religious entity is permissible under
freedom of speech. InGermany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is banned, but books
preaching hate and odium against Islam are tolerable. It is high time
that the Occident reviews its laws against blasphemy and the reviling of
other religions.
On the other hand, Muslims, and especially Pakistanis, need to rein
in our anger.September 21, 2012, was declared as the day of ‘Love for
the Holy Prophet (PBUH)’, but it turned into a day of expressing extreme
hatred, violence and aggression. The same Holy Prophet (PBUH), whom we
revere and whose Sunnah (teaching and practices) we are ordained to
follow, were conveniently forgotten. The Prophet (PBUH) was a paragon of
love and virtue. He decried violent behaviour and forgave even those
who caused him physical harm.
Against this backdrop, Pakistanis, who attacked and burned a church,
cinema houses, looted ATMs, torched cars and petrol pumps, only caused
damage to their own country. They lost an ideal opportunity to display
to the world that their sentiments had been hurt. By giving vent to
their emotions through violent acts, they only revealed their barbaric
nature and brought Islam a bad name. No wonder, an Indian student has
taunted that India does not need to build Pakistan-specific Agni and
Prithvi missiles —- “just produce a blasphemous movie, post it on
YouTube and in retaliation, Pakistanis will destroy their own country.”
Brazil moves against Google over videos
A Brazilian court has ordered YouTube to remove an anti-Islam video
that prompted violent protests across the Muslim world, while an
elections court has ordered the arrest of a Google executive after the
popular video-sharing service failed to remove a video attacking a
mayoral candidate.
Tuesday’s decision by a state court in Sao Paulo, home to a large
Middle Eastern immigrant community, came just hours after Brazilian
President Dilma Rousseff criticised “Islamophobia” in Western countries
in a speech at the UN.
In a statement, the court said Judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the
video-sharing site ten days to remove videos of the film, “Innocence of
Muslims”.
After that, it will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil.
The case against the controversial film was brought by a Brazilian
Muslim group, the National Islamic Union, against Google Inc, the owner
of YouTube, for posting on the internet a film it said was offensive and
a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Miranda said the case juxtaposed freedom of expression and the need
to protect individuals or groups of people from action that might incite
religious discrimination.
Miranda concluded that banning something illegal should not “offend”
freedom of thought and expression, according to the ruling posted online
by Estado de S. Paulo newspaper.
It was not the only Brazilian court ruling against Google on Tuesday.
Earlier, an elections court ordered the arrest of Google’s most senior
executive in Brazil after the company failed to take down YouTube videos
attacking a local mayoral candidate.
Google is appealing the order, which follows a similar decision by
another Brazilian election judge. In that case, a judge found another
senior executive responsible for violating local election law. That
decision was overturned last week.
The legal challenges underline broader questions about Google’s
responsibility for content uploaded by third parties to its websites.
Fifteen people were killed in Pakistan during demonstrations over the video on Friday.
People involved in the film, an amateurish 13-minute clip of which
was posted on YouTube, have said it was made by a 55-year-old California
man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
Muslim leaders condemn Islamophobia at UN General Assembly
Muslim leaders have called on the Western countries to stop spreading
Islamophobia and blasphemy in their communities, challenging US
President Barack Obama’s defense of freedom of expression.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday,
Obama condemned the “violence and intolerance” which has erupted across
the world over a blasphemous anti-Islam film produced in the United
States.
He also stated that the removal of such sacrilegious videos or
offensive publications from the Internet would be a violation of the US
constitution, which “protects the right to practice free speech.”
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono challenged Obama’s
speech, saying the insulting movie was another example of religious
defamation.
Yudhoyono stressed that freedom of expression is “not
absolute” as according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“everyone must observe morality and public order.”
He also called for the establishment of an international “instrument
to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on
religions or beliefs.”
In addition to Yudhoyono, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari asked
the UN to take actions against the “incitement of hate” against Muslims.
“Although we can never condone violence, the international community
must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that
destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing
freedom of expression,” Zardari said during his speech at the General
Assembly.
Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced the anti-Islam
movie and said, “The menace of Islamophobia is a worrying phenomenon
that threatens peace and co-existence.”
The Muslim world has been boiling with anti-Western sentiments over a blasphemous film named Innocence of Muslims, which insults Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
Muslim protesters across the globe demand the US government apologize
to the Muslims and punish those behind the blasphemous act.
Freedom of Speech - Double Standards?
Dr Amjid Muhammad
Last Updated on Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:30 Please help us run Islam21c and its' projects for the next 12 months. Donate to our Just Giving page.
In
other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and
the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours
unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim
would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does
so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the
unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the
public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is
increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come
into consideration.
Embassies
are razed, diplomats are lynched, protesters have marched with
unbridled aggression from east to west. The Islamic world and the West
once again finds itself at loggerheads arising from two conflicting
principles, the right of 'freedom of speech' against the right to
'defend one's honour'. What ensues is a repetitive discourse occurs
between the two.
The
argument a Liberal-Secular puts forward is that he can say what he
wants without the Muslim having the right to be offended. He will then
further propose that Muslims should be mature enough to handle such
insults. The Muslims would argue that it is well understood that the
freedom of speech is not absolute. Exceptions have always been made
against blasphemy. Why then, the Muslim would argue, that these
exceptions do not apply when Islam or its Prophet are in question?
The
right to freedom of expression has been articulated both in the UN’s
Universal declaration of Humans Rights as well as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), however it is well
understood that this concept is not absolute. The ICCPR states that
restrictions are imposed to "respect of the rights or reputation of
others" or "for the protection of national security or of public
order...". Even within the United States, the most liberal in terms of
freedom of expression due to its Constitution's First amendment,
defamation and censorship laws exist.
In
other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and
the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours
unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim
would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does
so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the
unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the
public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is
increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come
into consideration.
There
are many examples which highlight the inconsistency in which the
freedom of speech is applied in the west, which implies an underlying
prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
The
Holocaust perpetrated against the Jews is a dark page in human history.
Muslims sympathize with the many innocent lives that were lost during
the Nazi era. Nevertheless Holocaust deniers do exist. These Holocaust
deniers are not given the freedom to express themselves across 17
European nations in which it is considered a crime. The EU further
advocates an optional maximum term of three years in jail to all member
nations for denying or grossly trivialising crimes such as the
Holocaust. The Muslim will ask why is the balance here towards
suppression and not expression? What makes denial of the holocaust a
crime while insulting a Prophet of God is not?
Staying
in Europe, in 2007 a Swiss court convicted Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish
politician, of racial discrimination because he denied the Armenian
Genocide. In his defence he argued that he had a right to freedom of
expression and added, "I have not denied genocide because there was no
genocide". It is a crime in Switzerland to deny the Armenian Genocide
and this was also the case in France until recently. Muslims see only
duplicity in this.
We just have to look at events over the last week to further strengthen the case of prejudice against Muslims.
In
the UK, an advert showing a pregnant nun having ice-cream was banned
because according to The Advertising Standards Authority, “it mocked
Roman Catholic beliefs”. The Muslim will ask why its ok to mock Islamic
beliefs but not Roman Catholic ones?
Again
in the UK, a Muslim teenager was charged with “sending a grossly
offensive communication”. The teenager posted on facebook, “all
soldiers should die and go to hell" two days after 6 British soldiers
were killed in Afghanistan. The judged ruled that the comments were
"derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" and understandably so. The
Muslim however will ask why "derogatory, disrespectful and
inflammatory" comments against Islam go punished while a Muslim is
punished when Western sentiments are offended?
The
French take the cake though. In the country where the cartoons
demeaning the Prophet are considered acceptable, protesting against
these cartoons is not. Interior Minister Manuel Valls said, "There will
be strictly no exceptions. Demonstrations will be banned and broken
up”. We are not even allowed to express our objections via peaceful and
recognized democratic avenues?
Even
in Australia, Senator Cory Bernardi was forced to resign as Tony
Abbot’s personal parliamentary secretary because of his perceived
homophobic comments; but when he called for banning the burqah or an end
to multiculturalism, his leader or party did not see the need to
censure him.
It
seems, at least from a Muslims point of view, that if a value in
question is closer to Western culture, the balance between the freedom
of speech and its curtailment shifts towards the latter while in the
case of an Islamic value such as the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, the
opposite holds true. This inconsistent and perhaps even biased
application of this value only compounds the hurt Muslims feel when
Islam or any of its symbols are demeaned. This perspective towards
understanding the reaction of Muslims towards recent events has long
been overlooked.
Virtuous
speech is not speech itself, but the impact it has on oneself and
others. This is why freedom of speech has its boundaries defined in
law. Perhaps it’s time for the West to be equal in its interpretation
of this principle and to legislate against mocking Islam and its
Prophet, at least for the sake of a more harmonious global village.
Sources: www.islam21c.com Islam21c requests all the readers of this article, and others, to share it on your facebook, twitter, and other platforms to further spread our efforts.
West wages all-out war against divine religions, spiritual values: Activist
Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:27PM GMT
2
Interview with Mr. Manfred Petritsch, finance expert and international activist
Well,
I think they are trying to… We have to see this as a general picture of
a war against spirituality. That means, they are not particularly
attacking Islam, but they are attacking spirituality as a whole." So
what they are doing now is shifting the focus, after they have finished
off Christianity, they are now attacking Islam. But the whole war is
against spirituality as a whole."
A
blasphemous anti-Islam film from the US followed up with insulting
cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from France shows a Western
attack on Islam.
This last week in yet another anti-Muslim move, a French magazine
published a caricature of the prophet of Islam (PBUH), sparking more
outrage in the Muslim world and with no stoppage or condemnation by
France or any other Western governments.
Press TV has interviewed Mr. Manfred Petritsch, an international
activist and prominent finance expert. What follows is an approximate
transcript of the interview.
Press TV: 1.3 billion people… Muslims. And we have this new
wave of attack on Islam. These people, these Western countries, the
Western people, those who are attacking Islam - Who are these people and
why is it they are doing so?
Petritsch Well, I think they are trying to… We have to see
this as a general picture of a war against spirituality. That means,
they are not particularly attacking Islam, but they are attacking
spirituality as a whole.
The attack against Christianity has been happening already since a long time and Christianity is more or less destroyed.
So what they are doing now is shifting the focus, after they have
finished off Christianity, they are now attacking Islam. But the whole
war is against spirituality as a whole.
You see, these blasphemous attacks are happening against
Christianity all the time, but nobody is doing anything anymore because
society and also the people who represent the Christian church are not
putting up a fight anymore. They have lost and now they are shifting
focus to Islam to also try to destroy their spirituality.
Press TV: We saw in the United States the blasphemous film
that sparked tensions and protests all across the world. The US
Ambassador to Libya was killed; more than 40 people across the world
were killed in those protests.
And right in the midst of all these protests and tensions, France
allows a person, a magazine, a publisher to print another set of
blasphemous material, this time cartoons insulting the prophet of Islam.
And yet the French authorities did not do anything to stop that
although they knew that it might create further tension in the world -
they didn’t stop that.
At the same time, they stopped the French magazine that published
nude pictures of the British princess. So, what is going on here? Why is
this happening, why the disparity?
Petritsch Well, this shows you exactly the double standard
the West operates in many ways. So if it is against what they want then
they of course stop it, like the photos of the princess, which is of
course, wrong to invade her personal life.
But how can the insult of a whole religion be less important than the personal feelings of one person?
So, on the one hand the same government or the same system in France
closes down a magazine because of nude pictures, but on the other hand
allows insulting cartoons against a whole religion. And this shows how
the West always uses double standards, in many ways… This exposes it,
that what they are doing is a lie.
Press TV: Do you think the attacks will continue - the attacks on Islam?
Petritsch As I said before we are talking about a war against
spirituality… You see, a lot of people believe that the cause for all
this protest is the film. But I think it’s not the film, the film was
just the ignition point.
There was a whole explosive mixture existing because of the American
foreign policy or the foreign policy of the West as a whole against all
Islamic countries; against the war they are fighting; against this
double standard they are doing; against the killer drones, which are
killing hundreds of civilians.
And all this explosive mixture was there and now the film came along
and was the ignition point. So I think the people are not protesting
specially against the film, they are protesting against the whole
attitude of the West towards the Islamic countries.
Press TV: The issue of human rights particularly the issue of
European countries talk more often than not about the issue of human
rights in terms of, they want those countries that they say violate
human rights to be brought to justice and they themselves say that they
are the biggest advocates of human rights in the world.
A lot of people say that the sanctions against Iran that primarily
affect ordinary people in the country; they say these sanctions are in
essence in violation of human rights of the Iranian people. What do you
think?
Petritsch Absolutely. Anybody who reads the Charter of the
United Nations sees that sanctions must not cover, for instance, medical
supplies or food and things like that. That means anything that touches
the basic human rights of people you cannot sanction, right?
But they are doing it, so they are violating not only their own
laws, but also the laws of the United Nations. But who is there to take
them to court? That is a big problem, you know.
Press TV: You come from Switzerland. Switzerland is part of
the countries that are imposing sanctions against Iran. Is that
something legal in terms of the Swiss Constitution, the Swiss internal
laws?
Petritsch: No. The Swiss government is acting illegally
because Switzerland and the spirit of Switzerland, is based on
neutrality. That’s what Switzerland is all about. And it’s about
humanitarian aid. That’s also why the Red Cross has its headquarters
there, and UNICEF and all these humanitarian organizations.
So what the Swiss government is doing by blindly following the
sanctions of the United States and of the EU is, in my opinion,
definitely breaking the laws and the spirit of Switzerland.
That is not correct because they’re taking sides, and Switzerland
does not take sides -- it always helps, normally, people who are
suffering. And I know that the Iranian people are suffering because of
these sanctions.
Press TV: How does Switzerland explain, justify the sanctions against Iran?
Petritsch: The Swiss Foreign Ministry and the government say
that they cannot step out of line, out of this NATO policy. They cannot
be something different because otherwise they will suffer themselves.
But I think that the Swiss politicians should have enough backbone
to say to the EU and NATO countries ‘you can do what you want, but we
have our own policies’.
Press TV: Switzerland is not taking independent policies?
Petritsch: No. That is a big problem that a lot of people
see, that more and more, Switzerland is losing its independence, its own
free decision-making, its neutrality. This has a couple of reasons:
First, the reason is that we are, in Switzerland, under huge
pressure from the outside because we are surrounded by NATO countries
and by EU countries. So you can imagine being a small island in this
sea, we are under huge pressure - just like Iran.
They don’t like independent countries. They don’t like countries
that don’t follow their policies. So this is a huge pressure. The
problem is that our government is collapsing to these pressures and they
shouldn’t do that.
Press TV: Let’s talk about a different topic, the issue of
terrorism in the world. Militants, insurgency, a lot of al-Qaeda
fighters, al-Qaeda insurgents who have been fighting American and NATO
forces in the past 11, 12 years, these people are now fighting in Syria
against the Syrian government.
When they fight in Afghanistan, they are called insurgents, they are
called terrorists. When they fight in Syria, they are called freedom
fighters. How does that sit in terms of double standards in the way that
the West is looking at these people, the same people, but different
titles when it comes to different countries?
Petritsch: Well, here we have again the proof that the West
works with double standards. So for the West, there is good terrorism
and bad terrorism.
Good terrorism is the terrorism, which works against
their enemies, and they use it. Bad terrorism is the one, which works
against themselves.
Turkey is a very good example. Turkey allows bases for al-Qaeda
terrorists, training camps where they’re supplied with weapons, and then
sent to Syria to cause terror. But at the same time, the government
fights terror, which comes from the outside, from Iraq, from the PKK.
Here we have a perfect example of how on the one hand they support
terrorism when it is to their own good; and on the other hand, they
fight it when it is against them. This shows how the West always uses
double standards in many ways.
Press TV: Is there anything else that you wanted to discuss?
Petritsch: I would like to say to your viewers that Iran has
many friends in the West who are realizing more and more that the way
Iran is treated is wrong. Also, that there is a completely wrong picture
about Iran out there.
The reason is that the Western media purposely is showing the wrong
picture about how the Iranians are, what they think, what they want.
I hope that with more and more information, we can open up the minds
of the people more so that they understand that what their governments
are doing is wrong against Iran.
We are fighting here an information war. The question is, who will
win this information war? We are up against a huge enemy with endless
resources, who control all the media and therefore they can show this
wrong picture. The question is can we counter that?
On 7 January 2015, at about 11:30 am, two masked gunmen
forced their way into the offices of the French satirical newspaper
Charlie Hebdo in Paris, France. They killed twelve people, including the
editor Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier, seven other Charlie Hebdo
employees, and two National Police officers, and wounded eleven others.
Motive for the attack: The newspaper has attracted worldwide attention for its scurrilous depictions of the prophet Muhammad.
The attacks now appear to have ended after 72 hours of carnage. A
total of twenty people were killed at four locations between 7 and 9
January, including the three suspects. At least twenty-one others were
injured, some critically. The attacks are the deadliest act of terrorism
in France for fifty-four years.
The remaining staff of Charlie Hebdo announced that publication was
to continue as usual, with plans for a print run of one million copies
for the next week’s issue, rather than its typical 60,000. (See here)
To many observers, the Charlie Hebdo shootings would appear to have
all the hallmarks of a false flag attack. There are many unanswered
questions. Even as we write, events on the ground are changing.
Watch this spot for further developments.
§
“Okay, let’s be clear. I am not Muslim. I oppose
terrorism. I don’t even support the death penalty. I oppose violence as a
means to make a political or ethical point. I fully support freedom of
speech, including critical speech and humor. But this morning I am most definitely NOT Charlie. In fact, I am disgusted and nauseated by the sick display of
collective hypocrisy about the murders in France. Here is why: The folks
at Charlie Hebdo had it coming!”
When I read those words in an article called I am NOT Charlie, by
an author who calls himself “the Saker”, I gave a sigh of relief. Why?
Because it turns out I wasn’t the only one to have entertained such dangerous thoughts that could get me put away as a potential Al Qaeda sympathizer.
There were other people, perhaps millions of them all over the world, who thought just like me.
Like the Saker, I too am not a Muslim. I am a Roman Catholic
Christian. I also believe firmly in freedom of speech. “Feel free to say
whatever you want,” I like to advise. “Have total freedom to say what
you want. But be prepared to accept the consequences of free speech.”
If you wish to spit in Islam’s face, do so—at your peril.
If you wish to insult the Prophet Mohammed, or Jesus Christ, or the
Buddha, or anyone else for that matter, feel free to do so—and take the
consequences of your folly.
Spit and be spat upon. Kill with vicious words and be killed by guns. Hate your neighbor and expect to be hated in return.
§
It is the morning of Thursday, 8 January.
I am confronted by a shelf of newspapers in
a busy department store. This is in London, England, one of the three
capitals of the Empire of Evil, the other two being Washington and Tel
Aviv.
I hear the murmurs of people around me.
They are outraged. Their cheeks are flushed, their hands are bunched
into fists. Their eyes are red with rage and their lips are quivering.
They want to kill someone. Who? You guessed it: they want to kill 1.6 billion Muslims!
Here are the newspaper headlines that are whipping us all into a froth of hysteria:
“Attack on Freedom” — The Times.
“War on Freedom” — The Daily Telegraph.
“An Assault on Democracy” — The Guardian.
“NON! A policeman is murdered in cold blood for defending free speech. This evil in the name of Islam MUST STOP!” — The Sun,
owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man who introduced topless titillation to
Britain in the form of sleazy page-three girls. I turn to page 3 to
check if the usual luscious lady, flashing her tits, is still there. She
isn’t. The poor darling has been banished to page 9 to make room on
page 3 for a dose of screaming hysterics and concentrated Islamophobia.
“Massacred in minutes—Britain on red alert as jihadis shoot 12 dead in Paris.” — The Daily Express, owned
by Jewish tycoon Richard Desmond who made his fortune selling porn
magazines and who dined at Downing Streets on more than one occasion
with Britain’s war criminal Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Whew, no wonder the seething crowds around me are baying for Muslim blood! “Kill the bastards! Wipe out the dirty ragheads! Fuck the Palestinians! Let’s bomb Iran!” Ah, words of music to the Zionist press which have done their job only too well!
And here was this man, “the Saker”, saying
that the French cartoonists who had been killed in the Paris Massacre
had been asking for it.
“The folks at Charlie Hebdo had it coming!”he has the nerve to say. “I am NOT Charlie!”
Wow, what a lunatic! If he’d said that in
front of these frothing maniacs, queuing up to buy their newspapers and
seething with anger over Muslims, they would have torn him apart. I
bought six papers, composing my face into a mask of icy indifference, as
if I too wanted to knock off the nearest turban and dance with delirium
over a mound of Qur’ans.
This is how one survives in a police state: by pretending that one’s indoctrination by the state has been successful.
I am a zombie . . . please don’t kill me!
§
The Saker writes: “Check out the caricature which one of the folks who got murdered yesterday had just posted. The text reads: “Still no terrorist attacks in France — Wait, we have until the end of January to send you our best wishes!”
“There is an expression in Russian: spitting in somebody’s soul,”
the Saker continues. “It fully applies here. Muslims worldwide need to
be unambiguously clear about that. They take blasphemy very, very
seriously, as they do the name of the Prophet and the Quran.
If you want to really offend a Muslim, ridicule his Prophet
or his Holy Book. That is not a secret at all. And when Charlie Hebdo
published their caricatures of the Prophet and when they ridiculed him
in a deliberately rude and provocative manner, they knew what they were
doing: they were very deliberately and deeply offending 1.6 billion
Muslims all over the world.
Oh, and did I mention that in Islam blasphemy is a crime punishable by death?
Well, it turns out that of 1.6 billion Muslims exactly three decided to take justice into their own hands and kill the blasphemous Frenchmen, deliberately blaspheming — one a Jew and the rest all nice little Zionists on the payroll of international Jewry. (Phrase in italics added by Lasha Darkmoon).
You don’t have to be Muslim or to approve of the death penalty for
blasphemy to realize that this was inevitable and that this has nothing
to do with Islam as a religion. Offend any group as large as 1.6 billion
people and sooner or later you will find 2-3 people — call them
“fanatics” if you will — who will resort to violence to make you pay for
it.
This is a statistical inevitability. (See here)
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE’S NEW FREEDOM FIGHTER
“What is going on here?” the Saker asks
rhetorically. He thinks the Paris massacre is the French government’s
version of 9/11. It gives them the pretext they need to intimidate and
torture France’s 4.7 million Muslims and confiscate their Qur’ans.
Assuming this terrorist act was done by Muslims—something,
incidentally, we have no right to assume right now—how many Muslims
deserve to be arrested and tortured? The answer is three Muslims, at the very most, assuming you believe in torture like the Americans and Israelis.
How many Muslims had nothing to do with this act and are absolutely innocent? I will tell you: 1.6 billion Muslims minus three.
That’s a lot of innocent Muslims.
“I am disgusted beyond words,” the Saker concludes,
“[with these people] who made their money spitting in the souls of
billions of people and then dared them to do something about it.
And I am under no illusion whatsoever about the fact that cui bono
clearly indicates that the French regime either organized it all, or
let it happen, or, at the very least, intends to make capital out of it.
But most of all I am disgusted with all those who play along and
studiously avoid asking the right questions about all this. I guess they
really are “Charlies”, all of them.
I am not.
§
I fully agree with everything the Saker has said. At the risk of getting myself hated for exercising my freedom of speech, I
would like to add a few points to the Saker’s courageous analysis. He
is much to be commended for refusing to shed crocodile tears for this
bunch of impudent scoundrels who made a living out of mocking 1.6
billion people and trampling on their most cherished values.
This I will say: if you keep goading people to a pitch of frenzy by
ridiculing their religion and insulting their honor, sooner or later you
will get your teeth smashed in. And deservedly so. Among the French
cartoonists killed in Paris recently, I learn that one was a Jew and all
the rest were devout Zionists blowing the trumpet for Israel. That’s
interesting.
Let’s observe a minute’s silence and shed a few (hopefully genuine)
tears for these “heroes” of free speech. After all, they didn’t deserve
to be killed just for spitting in people’s faces for a living and
smirking contemptuously, “Hey, this is freedom of speech! Aren’t we brave!” Insulting the prophet Mohammed in the name of free
speech appeared to be their constant delight. For which they were paid,
and paid quite generously, by those who have a vested interest in
whipping up Islamophobia.
Mocking Christianity was also part of their agenda, much to the
delight of international Jewry, their principal paymasters, who offered
them both moral and financial support in their “satirical” undertakings —
“hate speech” when used against Jews. but “satire” and “courageous free
speech” when directed at Muslims and Christians, the Jews’ most hated
enemies.
A correspondent Greg Bacon writes: “Hedbo’s
cartoons make me vomit, especially the one showing Jesus Christ
sodomizing God the Father and the Holy Ghost sodomizing Jesus Christ.
That’s not comedy, it’s vulgar, obscene porn. I’m not into religion, but
that’s disgusting.” He forgets to mention the obvious: that all this is a direct
and vicious attack on Christianity by an organization financed by Jews.
The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman, the nice young lady who likes humping dogs and licking their anuses in various video skits—see here—and
who gets many a cheap laugh by insulting Christianity in America, would
have been a great hit with these satirical French journalists.
They would have loved her for saying, “I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again—in a second!”
Sarah Silverman, exercising her right of “free speech.”
Ask yourself: would a Christian
comedian be allowed to mock the Holocaust in the same way? Sarah, thank
your lucky stars that Christian jihadists haven’t blown your brains out!
No chance of that ever happening, I guess, since Christians believe in
turning the right cheek when the Jew strikes the left one. Christianity
has its uses, it seems. It keeps Christians docile and submissive and
makes them only too happy to acquire virtue by being kicked around.
Freedom of speech is indeed precious.
Maybe insulting the prophet Mohammed will soon be made compulsory in
order to drive all Muslims crazy. And then, when they have predictably
reacted with rage to our constant provocations, we will have the perfect
excuse we need to pull their beards, knock off their turbans, trample
on their Qur’ans, obliterate Syria and Iran, grab hold of Middle Eastern
oil, and, finally, allow our favorite country, Israel, to expand its
borders from the Nile to the Euphrates.
Note one thing, my friends: this freedom of speech, which is so very
precious and of which we make such a fetish, does not include freedom to
criticize Israel or question the Holocaust.
Make one satirical comment about Auschwitz, or
express doubts about six million Jews dying in gas ovens, and you will
end up behind bars in 16 countries:
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Switzerland, and Romania.
You may mock Jesus Christ
as much as you want, but you must not mock Anne Frank. Poke fun at
Christ carrying his Cross—no problem!—but don’t dare to breathe a word
about Anne Frank’s sacred ball point pen!
The French cartoonists who died recently (God rest their souls) never
satirized Auschwitz. They would never have dared to expose “The Diary
of Anne Frank” (see cartoon opposite) as a fake, by pointing out that much of it had been written with a ballpoint pen,
invented only in 1951, whereas Anne Frank had died in Bergen-Belsen in
1945 and so couldn’t possibly have written the entire book herself.
Nor did these courageous French “martyrs for free speech” ever have
the guts to criticize the war crimes of Israel. Oh no, they thought the
Israelis were doing a fine job slaughtering women and children in Gaza
like flies—like this Palestinian child here, her face half blown off by an Israeli sniper.
These cowardly cartoonists kept all their scorn for the prophet
Mohammed and the Lord Jesus Christ, much to the delight of the Jews
whose dirty work they did so well and whose contemptible mercenaries
they remained to their last dying breath.
Yes, they had it coming! They were asking for it!
For blowback. For their just deserts. For the iron law of karma to take
effect. — “The wheel has come full circle, I am here!”
But shush! be quiet! don’t say it out too loud! Or you will
suddenly learn the bitter truth: that only those who wear the iron boot
have the right to free speech: to mock you and trample on all you hold
dear, and that if you try and avenge your honor and smash the dirty
bastards back in the teeth—heaven help you! Terrorist, die!We’ll rip your fucking heart out! We’ll torture you to death!
So much for free speech, my friends. Free speech for them. For the rest of us, silence.
Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978)
is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics who
lives and works in England. She is also a poet, translator, and
political columnist on various websites.
Her own website, Darkmoon.me, is now within the top 1 percent of
websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.
Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer, The TruthSeeker, and at VeteransToday.
Many of her articles and poems, in addition, have been translated into
several languages. In her spare time, Lasha likes to read, swim, listen
to music, and take long walks in the country.
55 thoughts on “The Paris Massacre: they had
I am NOT Charlie
By The Saker
January 08, 2015 "ICH"
- Okay, let's be clear. I am
not Muslim. I oppose terrorism. I don't
even support the death penalty. I loathe
Takfirism. I oppose violence as a means to
make a political or ethical point. I fully
support freedom of speech, including
critical speech and humor.
But this morning I am most definitely NOT
Charlie.
In fact, I am disgusted and nauseated by the
sick display of collective hypocrisy about
the murders in France. Here is why:
Charlie Hebdo for
the Darwin Awards
The folks at Charlie Hebdo had it coming.
Here is what I wrote about them in September
2012 when they published their famous
caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed:
Worthy of the
Darwin Awards, if you ask me.
Excellent, the “gene pool” of the French
“caviar-Left” badly needs some cleaning".
Today I fully stand by my words.
Just a stupid dare?
Let me ask you this: what
would be the point of, say, taking a nap on
train tracks? You don't have to "agree"
with the train which will run you over, but
it still will, won't it? What about taking
a nap on train tracks specifically to make a
point? To prove that the train is bad? To
dare it? To make fun of it? Would that not
be the height of stupidity? And yet, that
is *exactly* what Charlie Hebdo did. I
would even argue that that his how Charlie
Hebdo made it's money, daring the "Muslim
train" to run them over. You think I am
exaggerating? Check out the caricature
which one of the folks who got murdered
yesterday had just posted. The text reads:
"Still no terrorist attacks in France -
Wait, we have until the end of January to
send you are best wishes". The crazy
person shown in the drawing is packing a
Kalashnikov and wearing an Afghan "Pakol"
- the typical "crazy Muslim" in Charlie
Hebdo's world. Talk about a stupid dare...
"Spitting in
people's souls"
There is an expression in Russian: spitting
in somebody's soul. It fully applies here.
Muslims worldwide have be unambiguously
clear about that. They take blasphemy very,
very seriously, as they do the name of the
Prophet and the Quran. If you want to
really offend a Muslim, ridicule his Prophet
or his Holy Book. That is not a secret at
all. And when Charlie Hebdo published their
caricatures of the Prophet and when they
ridiculed him the a deliberately rude and
provocative manner, they knew what they were
doing: they were very deliberately deeply
offending 1.6 billion Muslims world
wide. Oh, and did I mention that in Islam
blasphemy is a crime punishable by death?
Well, it turns out that of 1.6 billion
Muslims exactly three decided to take
justice in their own hands and kill the very
deliberately blaspheming Frenchmen. You
don't have to be Muslim or to approve of the
death penalty for blasphemy to realize that
this was inevitable and that this has
nothing to do with Islam as a religion.
Offend any group as large as 1.6
billion and sooner or later you will find
1-5 folks willing to use violence to make
you pay for it. This is a statistical
inevitability.
Are some victims
more equal then others?
So 12 deliberately "soul spitting
blasphemers" were murdered and all of France
is in deep mourning. The media worldwide
does such a good job presenting it all as a
planetary disaster that many thousands
people worldwide say "I am Charlie", sob,
light candles and take a "courageous" stance
for freedom of speech.
Crocodile tears if you ask me.
The Empire's freedom fighter
The fact is that the
AngloZionists have carefully and lovingly
nurtured, organized, armed, financed,
trained, equipped and even directed the
Takfiri crazies for decades. From the war
in Afghanistan to Syria today these
murderous psychopaths have been the
foot-soldiers of the AngloZionist Empire for
decades. But, apparently, nobody cares
about their victims in Afghanistan, in
Bosnia, in Chechnia, in Kosovo, in Libya, in
Kurdistan, in Iraq or elsewhere. There
these liver-eating murderers are "freedom
fighters" who get full support. Including
from the very same media which today is in
mourning over Charlie Hebdo. Apparently, in
the western ethos some victims are
more equal then others.
And when is the last time somebody in Europe
shed a single tear over the daily murders of
innocent people in the Donbass whose murder
is paid for and directly directed by the
western regimes?
How stupid do they
think we are?
And then this. Even a drooling idiot knew
that Charlie Hebdo was THE prime target for
that kind of attack. And I promise you that
French cops are not drooling idiots. Yet,
for some reason, they were nowhere to be
seen that day. Only a van with two (or
one?) cop was parked nearby (hardly an
anti-terrorist protection detail) and one
poor cop was shot and then executed with an
AK shot to the head while he was begging for
mercy. Is this the best the French state
can do?
Hardly.
So what is going on here? I will tell you
what - the EU 1%ers are now capitalizing on
these murders to crack down on their own
population. Sarkozy already met Hollande
and they both agreed that
new levels of firmness and vigilance need to
be implemented. Does that not reek of a
French 9/11?
So no, I am most definitely NOT Charlie this
morning and I am disgusted beyond words with
the obscene display of
doubleplusgoodthinking "solidarity" for
a group of "caviar-lefties" who made their
money spitting in the souls of billions of
people and then dared them to do something
about it. And I am under no illusion
whatsoever about the fact that cui bono
clearly indicates that the French regime
either organized it all, or let it happen
or, at the very least, makes maximal
political use of it all.
But most of all, I am disgusted with all
those who play along and studiously avoid
asking the right questions about all this.
I guess they really are "Charlies" all of
them.
View PhotoParis Attack: Terror Raid Under Way In Reims
An
anti-terror raid has been launched in north-eastern France after 12
people were killed during a gun attack on a newspaper office, according
to reports.
AFP news agency reported that France's elite anti-terrorist unit had begun the raid in Reims on Wednesday night.
Two brothers and a third man have been identified as suspects behind the attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris.
The men have been named as French nationals Said Kouachi and Cherif
Kouachi, in their early 30s, along with 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad.
Police officials have said the suspects are linked to a Yemeni terror network. Follow live updates here
Cherif Kouachi was reportedly convicted in 2008 of terrorism charges
for helping channel fighters to Iraq's insurgency. He was jailed for 18
months.
Three masked gunmen stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo, which has
previously been targeted over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.
They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade during the attack on Wednesday morning.
A major manhunt was launched after the men fled the scene in a black
Citroen, which was later found abandoned in north-eastern Paris.
They then hijacked a white Renault Clio and drove off in the direction
of the Porte de Pantin - one of the main routes out of the French
capital.
The attackers called out their victims by name before opening fire during a morning editorial meeting.
They were let inside the Charlie Hebdo building by a female employee
who was threatened at gunpoint along with her daughter and forced to
punch in a security code to allow them inside.
The editor and a cartoonist for the newspaper, who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu , were among those killed.
Radio France chief executive Mathieu Gilet announced revealed that contributor Bernard Maris was also killed.
Two police officers were among the dead, including one assigned as
Charb's bodyguard after he had received death threats and another who was shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside the offices.
French President Francois Hollande has declared a national day of mourning on Thursday.
In a televised address on Wednesday he said: "We have to respond
according to the crime, first of all by finding the authors of this
infamy and we have to ensure that they are arrested, judged... and
punished very severely.
"We must also protect all public buildings... security forces will be deployed everywhere where there could be a threat.
Our best weapon is our unity, the unity of all our citizens, nothing
can divide us, nothing must separate us. Freedom will always be stronger
than barbarism."
Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of Drancy mosque in the Paris suburb of
Seine-Saint-Denis, said: "These are criminals, barbarians. They have
sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom.
"This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this."
An extra 3,000 police officers have been deployed on the streets in a
massive security operation, according to reports, as the security threat
level in France was raised to the highest level.
Tens of thousands of people have staged silent protests in France and across the world in solidarity for the victims of the attack.
Social media users have used the hashtag #jesuischarlie to show
solidarity for the victims of the shooting, with the Charlie Hebdo
website also using the image as its masthead.
The shooting is one of the worst terror attacks in France in decades.
In 1995, a bomb on a commuter train blamed on Algerian extremists
killed eight people at the Saint Michel metro station in Paris.
Mohamed Merah, an al Qaeda-inspired gunman, killed seven people in
Toulouse in 2012, including three French soldiers and three children.
Pictured: Two brothers who 'trained in Yemen as assassins' and a
homeless teenager identified by police as suspects in Paris magazine
massacre that left 12 dead
Masked gunmen storm Paris headquarters with AK-47s shouting 'Allahu akbar!' and 'the Prophet has been avenged'
Stalked building asking for people's names before killing the editor, three cartoonists and the deputy chief editor
Editor Stephane Charbonnier had famously shrugged off threats, saying: 'I'd rather die standing than live kneeling'
Horrific footage shows a police officer begging for his life before being shot in the head at point-blank range
Cartoonist Corrine Rey told how she cowered with her young daughter as she watched two colleagues gunned down
Killers fled in stolen car across eastern Paris after a 'mass shoot-out' with police officers and remain on the loose
Militants believed to be from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula which was behind plane bomb plots in US and UK
Three suspects said to be all French citizens - a homeless teenage man aged 18, and two brothers aged 32 and 34
Newspaper had earlier posted a picture of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on its Twitter account
Publication's offices werefirebombed in 2011 for publishing satirical cartoon of Prophet Mohammed
White House had previously criticised Charlie Hebdo in 2012 for publishing its religiously sensitive cartoons
Two
brothers were tonight named as being among the three suspects involved
in a deadly terrorist attack on an anti-Islamist newspaper in France.
Said
Kouachi, 34, and Cherif Kouachi, 32, were identified along with Hamyd
Mourad, 18, with all three from the Paris commuter town of
Gennevilliers.
At
least 100,000 people gathered across France tonight to back the Charlie
Hebdo publication, as a huge manhunt was launched to find the
attackers.
The
suspected Al Qaeda militants massacred 12 people in Paris today - and
among those slaughtered was a police officer as he begged for mercy.
Tonight,
thousands of people went to Republique Square near the scene to honour
the victims, holding signs reading 'Je suis Charlie' - 'I am Charlie'.
Scroll down for videos and audio
+34
+34
Suspects:
The three men were named as Said Kouachi (left), 34, his brother Cherif
Kouachi (right), 32, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, of Gennevilliers
+34
Brutal execution: A police officer
pleads for mercy on the pavement in Paris before being shot in the head
by masked gunmen during an attack on the headquarters of the French
satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, a notoriously anti-Islamic
publication
+34
Gunned down in cold blood: Horrific
footage shows the injured police officer slumped on the pavement as two
of the gunmen approach. In a desperate plea for his life, the officer
slowly raises his hand towards one of the attackers, who callously
shoots him at point-blank range
+34
'Massacre': The gunmen are seen
brandishing Kalashnikovs as they move in on the injured police officer
from their vehicle outside the office
+34
Vigil: People gather around candles
and pens at the Place de la Republique in Paris in support of the
victims after the terrorist attack
The three suspects were tonight said by Metronews to be all French citizens - a homeless teenage man, and two brothers in their thirties.
There were disputed claims that the three men had been arrested 100 miles away in Reims, following a report by Libération. This could not be verified.
Cherif
Kouachi was convicted in 2008 of terrorism charges for helping funnel
fighters to Iraq's insurgency and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Clad
all in black with hoods and speaking French, the militants forced one
of the cartoonists - at the office with her young daughter - to open the
door.
Witnesses
said the gunmen shouted 'we are from the Al Qaeda in Yemen', and
'Allahu akbar!' - Arabic for 'God is great' - as they stalked the
building.
They were also said to have yelled 'the Prophet has been avenged', during what was France's deadliest post-war terrorist attack.
The attackers headed straight for the paper's editor and cartoonist, Stephane Charbonnier, killing him and his police bodyguard.
The
security had been recruited to protect him after extremists firebombed
the offices in 2011 over a satirical cartoon about the Prophet
Mohammed.
+34
People gather in Toulouse tonight to
show their solidarity for the victims of the attack by gunmen on the
offices of the satirical publication
+34
Elsewhere: People gather at the Place
Royale in Nantes to show their solidarity for the victims of the attack
on the offices of the satirical weekly
+34
Standing together: People hold up pens
and posters reading 'I am Charlie' in French as they take part in a
vigil in Trafalgar Square, London
+34
People gather near candles lit to
commemorate the victims of the deadly attack on the Charlie Hebdo
offices, in Lyon, central France
+34
'Not afraid': People gather to pay
their respects for the victims of the terror attack against the
satirical newspaper, in Paris tonight
A
year later, Mr Charbonnier famously dismissed threats against his life,
declaring: 'I would rather die standing than live kneeling.'
The
militants also killed three other renowned cartoonists – men who had
regularly satirised Islam – and the newspaper's deputy chief editor.
Despite a shoot-out with armed officers, the gunmen escaped in a hijacked car and remained on the loose this evening.
This left the French capital in virtual lockdown as police and soldiers flooded the streets to join the search.
President Barack Obama offered U.S. help in pursuing the gunmen, saying they had attacked freedom of expression.
But it also emerged that the White House had previously criticised Charlie Hebdo in 2012 over its Prophet Mohammed cartoon.
At the time it had said that the images would be 'deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory'.
+34
Emergency: Police officers and
firefighters gather in front of the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris
today after gunmen stormed the building
+34
Critical: Firefighters carry an
injured man on a stretcher in front of the offices of French satirical
paper Charlie Hebdo after the shooting
Faces of the victims: Among the
journalists killed were (l to r) Charlie Hebdo's deputy chief editor
Bernard Maris and cartoonists Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut, aka Cabu,
Stephane Charbonnier, who is also editor-in-chief, and Bernard Verlhac,
also known as Tignous
Meanwhile,
horrific footage emerged showing an injured police officer slumped on
the pavement as two gunmen approached him outside the office.
In
an apparent desperate plea for life, the officer is seen slowly raising
his hand towards an attacker, who shoots him in the head at point-blank
range.
Despite
a fierce firefight with police, the men got away in a hijacked car,
and, within an hour of the atrocity, appeared to have vanished without
trace.
France
raised its security alert to the highest level and reinforced
protective measures at houses of worship, stores, media offices and
transportation.
President
Francois Hollande called the bloodbath a 'barbaric attack against
France and against journalists' and vowed to hunt down those
responsible.
Jacques Myard, French MP with opposition party UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), said: 'We knew something would happen.
'The (security) services used to say to us it's not if but when and where. We know that we are at war.
'The Western nations - like Britain, France, Germany - we are at war.'
The Queen today sent her 'sincere condolences to the families of those who have been killed' in the attack.
And Prime Minister David Cameron described the murders as 'sickening'.
Tonight: French forensic experts and
police officers examine evidence outside the French satirical newspaper
Charlie Hebdo's office, in Paris
+34
At large: The gunmen are seen near the
offices of the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo before fleeing in a car.
They remain on the loose
+34
Forensic experts examine the car
believed to have been used as the escape vehicle by gunmen who attacked
the Charlie Hebdo office
Twitter
users responded to the Charlie Hebdo massacre with an outpouring of
solidarity using the hashtag #jesuischarlie, which is trending online.
By
4.15pm, nearly five hours after the attack, it had already been tweeted
more than 250,000 times, according to one social analytics website.
Guy
Verhofstadt, the President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe tweeted: 'A tragic day for the freedom of speech
#jesuischarlie.'
Marches have also been organised through Paris and London in support of journalistic freedom.
As well as the AK47 assault rifles, there were also reports of a rocket-propelled grenade being used in the attack.
It
took place during the publication's weekly editorial meeting at around
12pm (11am GMT), meaning all the journalists would have been present.
A
young mother and cartoonist, known as 'Coco', who survived the massacre
told how she had let the suspected Al Qaeda killers into the office.
Corrine
Rey said she had returned from picking up her daughter from a nursery
when she was confronted by two armed men wearing balaclavas.
'I
had gone to pick up my daughter at day care, arriving in front of the
building, where two masked and armed men brutally threatened us,' said
Ms Rey.
'They
said they wanted to go up to the offices, so I tapped in the code,'
said Ms Rey, referring to the digi-code security system on the
interphone.
+34
A police photographer (partially
hidden) works with investigators as they examine the impacts from
machine gun fire on a police vehicle
+34
Life-threatening: An injured person is evacuated outside the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo's office
Ms Rey and her daughter hid under a desk, from where they saw two other cartoonists being executed.
'They shot Wolinski and Cabu,' she said. 'It lasted five minutes. I had taken refuge under a desk.'
Ms Rey said the men 'spoke French perfectly' and 'claimed they were 'Al Qaeda terrorists'.
Gunmen reportedly told another witness: 'You say to the media, it was Al Qaeda in Yemen.'
A
police source told the Liberation newspaper the gunmen were asking for
the Mr Charbonnier by name, shouting: 'Where is Charb? Where is Charb?'
The source added: 'They killed him then sprayed everyone else.'
Mr
Charbonnier was included in a 2013 'Wanted Dead or Alive for Crimes
Against Islam' article published by Al Qaeda propaganda magazine
Inspire.
The
latest tweet published by the newspaper's official Twitter account
earlier in the day featured a cartoon of Abu Baghdadi, the leader of
Islamic State.
In it, he wishes everyone 'good health'. Cartoonists Cabu, Tignous and Wolinski were all also reported dead.
Radio
France chief executive Mathieu Gilet later announced on Twitter that a
contributor, Bernard Maris, was another of the victims.
+34
Shell-shocked: A woman cries outside
the office. Witnesses reported hearing loud gunfire and at least one
explosion during the attack
+34
Trail of destruction: Police inspect
the damage after a collision between police cars at the scene during a
firefight with Islamic militants
Meanwhile,
there were reports of a car explosion outside a synagogue in Sarcelles,
in northern Paris, just hours after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
The
blast, at about 1.30pm GMT, is not thought to be connected to the
massacre, according to Paris Metro which quoted the mayor of Sarcelles.
Florence
Pouvil, a saleswoman at Lunas France on Rue Nicolas Appert, opposite
the Charlie Hebdo offices, spoke of her shock at the attack.
She
told MailOnline: 'I saw two people with big guns, like Kalashnikovs
outside our office and then we heard firing. We were very confused.
'There were two guys who came out of the building and shot everywhere. We hid on the floor, we were terrified.
'They came from the building opposite with big guns. It has a bunch of different companies inside.
'Some of our co-workers work there so we were frightened for them. They weren't just firing inside the Charlie Hebdo offices.
'They were firing in the street too. We feared for our lives so we hid under our desks so they wouldn't see us.
'Both men were dressed in black from head to toe and their faces were covered so I didn't see them.
'They were wearing military clothes, it wasn't common clothing, like they were soldiers.'
ARE PARIS GUNMEN FROM YEMENI AL QAEDA CELL BEHIND PLANE BOMB PLOTS IN THE U.S. AND BRITAIN?
The
gunmen being hunted by police over the Charlie Hebdo attack are
believed to be from militant group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP).
The
group was established by Yusef al-Ayeri in 2003 in Saudi Arabia, but
was forced to flee to Yemen after a series of attacks drove them back.
Yemen's
weak government allowed the group to rally and gain members, though
they are only thought to have around 400 troops today.
While
their attacks initially focused on targets in the Middle East, such as
an attempted suicide attack on Saudi Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef,
they quickly spread to Western targets.
On
Christmas Day in 2009, they were implicated in the underwear bomb plot
after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was discovered on a Detroit-bound plane
trying to detonate liquid explosives in his underpants.
The
following year AQAP also took responsibility for a plot to blow up two
devices hidden inside printer cartridges loaded on to cargo planes
travelling from Yemen to the United States.
One device was discovered during a stopover at East Midlands Airport in Britain, while another was uncovered in Dubai.
According
to Stanford University the group is currently lead by Yemen-born Nasser
al-Wuhayshi, who is an apprentice of Osama Bin Laden and was imprisoned
for a time in Yemen, but escaped in 2006 along with 22 others.
The
group has a global jihadist agenda. Like ISIS, they aim to create a
single Arab caliphate, covering Pakistan Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and
the Levant - the area encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Israel.
If
today's attack is confirmed as coming from AQAP, it will be the first
time the group has used lone-wolf style tactics, in which gunmen act
alone or in small groups to attack targets.
+34
Benoit Bringer, a journalist with
Agence Premiere Ligne, told the iTele network he saw several masked men
armed with machine guns
+34
Carnage: A police official, Luc
Poignant, said he was aware of one journalist dead and several injured,
including three police officers
The
New York Times reported that a journalist at the Charlie Hebdo office,
who asked not to be named, texted a friend after the attack to say: 'I'm
alive.
'There is death all around me. Yes, I am there. The jihadists spared me.'
Another
witness, Gilles Boulanger, who works in the same building, told Itele:
'A neighbour called to warn me that there were armed men in the building
and that we had to shut all the doors.
'And several minutes later, there were several shots heard in the building from automatic weapons firing in all directions.
'So
then we looked out of the window and saw the shooting was on Boulevard
Richard-Lenoir, with the police. It was really upsetting. You'd think it
was a war zone.'
French
journalist, Stefan De Vries, told Sky News: 'There was protection at
the door but they killed the police officers, they executed them and
they started shooting in the offices.'
An
unnamed eyewitness told the BBC World Service: 'When I arrived at the
scene it was quite disturbing as you can imagine. There were several
corpses on the floor.
'We
saw the number of casualties was very high, so we just tried to help as
we could - there were a lot of people down on the floor and there was
blood everywhere.
'I'm
very traumatised by this attack and everything and now we're in
psychological hell where we're being attended to by professionals.'
+34
Terror: In footage filmed from a rooftop, people are seen running for cover as the gunmen rampage through the building
+34
A picture posted on Twitter appearing to show people taking refuge on the roof of the Charlie Hebdo office
Benoit
Bringer, a journalist at the scene who works next door, took refuge on
the roof of the building, which is in the 11th arrondissement of Paris.
He
said: 'There were very many people in the building. We evacuated via
the roof just next to the office. After around ten minutes we saw two
heavily armed, masked men in the street'.
Another
witness said: 'There was a loud gunfire and at least one explosion.
When police arrived there was a mass shoot-out. The men got away by car,
stealing a car.'
A police official, Luc Poignant, said: 'It's carnage.'
After
the shooting, hundreds of comments were posted on the Charlie Hebdo
Twitter page, with one user, David Rault, writing: 'A sad day for
freedom of expression.'
Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief Gerard Biard escaped the massacre because he was in London.
He
told France Inter: 'I am shocked that people can have attacked a
newspaper in France, a secular republic. I don't understand it.
'I don't understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.'
Targeted: A picture posted on Twitter reportedly showing bullets in one of the windows of the Charlie Hebdo offices
+34
High alert: French soldiers patrol at
the Eiffel Tower after the Charlie Hebdo shooting as the militants are
hunted across the city
Mr
Biard said he did not believe the attack was linked to the newspaper's
latest front page, which featured novelist Michel Houellebecq, who has
previously sparked controversy with comments about Islam.
And
he said the newspaper had not received threats of violence: 'Not to my
knowledge, and I don't think anyone had received them as individuals,
because they would have talked about it. There was no particular tension
at the moment.'
A
visibly shocked French President François Hollande, speaking live near
the scene of the shooting, said: 'France is today in shock, in front of a
terrorist attack.
'This newspaper was threatened several rimes in the past and we need to show we are a united country.
'We have to be firm, and we have to be stand strong with the international community in the coming days and weeks.
'We are at a very difficult moment following several terrorist attacks. We are threated because we are a country of freedom
'We will punish the attackers. We will look for the people responsible.'
Today, Mr Cameron said: 'We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the press.'
US
President Barack Obama has condemned the 'horrific shooting', offering
to provide any assistance needed 'to help bring these terrorists to
justice'.
And United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: 'It was a horrendous, unjustifiable and cold-blooded crime.
'It was also a direct assault on a cornerstone of democracy, on the media and on freedom of expression.'
The
British Foreign Office immediately updated is advice for travellers
heading to Pairs, warning: 'There is a high threat from terrorism.'
+34
Defiant: Stephane
Charbonnier, known by his pen name Charb, was editor of Charlie Hebdo,
and gunned down by men with assault weapons
+34
Mr Charbonnier
was named as one of nine men the extreme Islamist group were targetting
(pictured centre right). Their photographs were printed alongside the
caption 'a bullet a day keeps the infidel away'
+34
Tragic: Cartoonist Georges Wolinski was named by officials as one of those shot dead at the offices of Charlie Hebdo
+34
+34
Lead
cartoonist Jean 'Cabu' Cabut (left) was among the 12 massacred by
terrorists in Paris today, along with Bernard 'Tignous' Verlhac (right)
+34
Radio France
chief executive Mathieu Gilet announced on Twitter that a contributor,
Bernard Maris (above right) was another of the victims
It added: 'If you're in Paris or the Ile de France area take extra care and follow advice of French authorities.'
Luce
Lapin and Laurent Leger, who have both worked at Charlie Hebdo, were
using Twitter hours before the attack, with the most recent tweet posted
by Lapin praising cartoonist Cabu.
It read: 'Cabu, a great man! And honest, he doesn't eat foie gras.'
While Leger's made a political point about taxes.
It
said: 'Macron [French ministry of economy] wants more billionaires in
France, the same that use tricks for not paying ISF [solidarity tax on
wealth].'
Mohammed
Moussaoui, president of the Union of French mosques, condemned the
'hateful act,' and urged Muslims and Christians 'to intensify their
actions to give more strength to this dialogue to make a united front
against extremism'.
It
is believed to be the deadliest attack in France since 1961, when
right-wingers who wanted to keep Algeria French bombed a train, killing
28 people.
The
number of attackers was initially reported to be two, but the French
Interior Minister later said security services were hunting three
'criminals'.
Bernard Cazeneuve added that Paris had been placed on the highest alert.
Security
expert Professor Anthony Glees, from the University of Buckingham,
said: ‘The French have signally failed to keep their country safe.’
He
told MailOnline: ‘We in the great western democracies could now be on
the verge of a sustained series of Al-Qaeda-IS attacks, generated by the
hold that Islamists have in many places in the world, not least the IS
state itself.
‘We cannot appease this movement - we have to win the security war against it and contain it, otherwise big trouble lies ahead.
Location:
Officers were involved in a gunfight with the men, who escaped in a
hijacked car and sped away from the office towards east Paris
+34
'We have to be stand strong with the
international community': A visibly shocked French President François
Hollande arrives at the scene, where he promised to bring those
responsible to justice
'100 LASHES IF YOU DON'T DIE OF LAUGHTER': HOW CHARLIE HEBDO HAS BECOME A BYWORD FOR ANTI-ISLAMISM
Charlie Hebdo has become a byword for offensive statements in France after taking several highly provocative swipes at Islam.
The
newspaper once named Prophet Mohammed as its guest editor, published
cartoons of the holy figure in the nude, and once renamed itself Sharia
Hebdo with the cover slogan '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter'.
The
controversy began in 2006 when the publication reprinted now-infamous
cartoons of Prophet Mohammed by Danish artist Kurt Westergaard.
When
the images originally appeared they lead to days of protests across the
Middle East and in Western cities. The decision to reprint the images
landed the then-editor in court under anti-terror laws, though he was
later acquitted.
The
Hebdo offices were burned to the ground in 2011 when attackers used
Molotov cocktails to start a blaze early in the morning of November 2.
There
was nobody in the building at the time, and the target was instead
thought to be the newspaper's computer system, which was completely
destroyed.
Riot
police were forced to stand guard outside the building for days
following the attack, as the editors took a defiant stance, choosing to
reprint the cartoon images multiple times.
In
2012 they again printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed as a
deliberately provocative gesture while violent protests were taking
place across the Middle East.
The
following year the newspaper's office again had to be surrounded by
riot officers after they published a cartoon booklet depicting the
Prohpet naked as a baby and being pushed in a wheelchair.
On
the final page of the booklet there was a note from the editor,
Stephane Charbonnier, saying the images were 'halal' because Muslims had
worked on them, and that they were factually accurate as they had been
derived from descriptions in the Koran.
The
satirical publication, widely seen as France's answer to Private Eye,
prides itself on a mixture of tongue-in-cheek reporting and
investigative journalism.
Hebdo's current office building has no notices on the door to prevent a repeat of the attacks that have occurred in the past.
In
an interview with De Volkskrant in January 2013, Mr Charbonnier
revealed he had been placed under constant police protection for four
months after one of the cartoon issues was published.
He
shrugged off criticism that he was only publishing the images to gain
notoriety for Hebdo, and insisted that he was instead defending the
right to free speech.
Mr
Charbonnier pointed out that the newspaper had poked fun at feminism,
nuclear energy and homeland security, but the Islam issues always
attracted the most publicity.
‘We need more and better intelligence-led activity at home and we need to defeat the IS state abroad.
‘It's not surprising that so many people in Europe are demonstrating against what they see as the Islamisation of Europe.
‘However,
their target should not be the vast majority of European Muslims who
want nothing to do with Islamism, but the political movement it has
produced.
‘This isn't about religion or faith communities, it's about revolutionary politics and violence and only force can overcome it.’
The
offices of the same newspaper were burnt down in a petrol attack in
2011 after running a magazine cover of the Prophet Mohammed as a cartoon
character.
At the time, the editor-in-chief, Stephane Charbonnier, said Islam could not be excluded from freedom of the press.
He
said: 'If we can poke fun at everything in France, if we can talk about
anything in France apart from Islam or the consequences of Islamism,
that is annoying.'
Mr
Charbonnier, also known as Charb, said he did not see the attack on the
newspaper as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called 'idiot
extremists'.
The cover showed Mohammed saying: '100 lashes if you are not dying of laughter'.
This
week's Charlie Hebdo also featured the author Houellebecq, whose new
novel imagines Muslims taking over the French government in 2022.
Inside,
there was an editorial, attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, and more
cartoons - one showing the Prophet with a clown's red nose.
Depiction of the Prophet is strictly prohibited in Islam, but the newspaper denied it was trying to be provocative.
A
firebomb attack gutted the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in November
2011 after it put an image of the Prophet Mohammed on its cover.
HOW ATTACK ON CHARLIE HEBDO HQ UNFOLDED
10.28am -
The satirical magazine updates its Twitter page with a cartoon of
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In it, he wishes everyone
'good health'.
10.57am - The AFP news agency reports shots have been fired at the French weekly magazine, on Boulevard Richard Lenoir.
11.17am - Eyewitness accounts emerge showing the immediate aftermath of the scene.
11.22am - AFP confirms the first death as a result of the shooting. Three minutes later it confirms the death toll has risen to 10.
11.31am - President Francois Hollande is en-route to visit the magazine's offices shortly, officials say
11.36am - The death toll is increased to 11 and then to 12.
11.46am - Paris is put on maximum alert following the attacks.
11.49am
- Prime Minister David Cameron condemns the attack: 'The murders in
Paris are sickening. We stand with the French people in the fight
against terror and defending the freedom of the press.'
11.54am
- Mr Hollande, in an address near the scene of the massacre, says the
shooting was 'undoubtedly a terrorist attack'. He adds: 'We fight
threats and we will punish the attackers.'
11.59am
- The first tweet is posted containing the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie in
solidarity with the victims, the magazine and its supporters.
12.26pm
- French officials confirm gunmen who carried out the attack are still
at large. At least two criminals are believed to be involved.
12.38pm - The White House condemns Paris attack in the 'strongest possible terms'.
1.30pm - AFP says dead include three cartoonists and editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, known as Charb.
2.13pm - French internal minister Bernard Cazeneuve says 'three criminals' were involved in the attack. They remain at large.
Call them sheeple. Lemmings. Zombies. New World Order mind control slaves.
Whatever you call them, the drooling dimwits chanting “we are
Charlie” are the all-time greatest argument for Rockefeller-style
eugenic euthanasia. (Which, incidentally, should start with the
Rockefellers.)
And don’t get me started on those “world leaders” who led the le défilé des idiots.
These scumbag-psychopath “leaders” are the worst terrorists on earth.
Take Netanyahu – please! Where are the black ski mask guys with AK-47s
when we need them? Somebody call in a drone strike!
But seriously, folks, it isn’t easy being a three-digit-IQ Muslim in a
world full of one-digit-IQ infidels. Frankly, I’m getting tired of
trying to explain things to people who should know better…a category
that includes pretty much everybody who isn’t too stupid to live. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.
First, this Charlie Hebdo thing (dramatic drum roll) is the most
obvious freakin’ false flag imaginable. If inside jobs were hamburgers,
this one would come with “the works” – throw-down ID in an abandoned getaway car, Police Commissioner conveniently suicided, intel-cutout patsies murdered, blatantly fake “terrorist kills cop” propaganda video…it doesn’t get any better (or should I say worse) than this.
But just because it was a false flag doesn’t mean that Muslims are
always going to put up with obscene, blasphemous attacks on their
Prophet. If you publish garbage like Charlie did, you are asking to get
hurt…just like if I were to publish an obscene drawing of your mother or
daughter or sister, only more so…MUCH more so. If you publish an
obscene attack on my mother or sister or wife or daughter (assuming I
had a daughter) I am going to be very, very angry with you…and you
had best hope that I manage to control my anger…and, more pertinently,
choose not to serve you a dish of cold revenge some day, perhaps years
from now when you least expect it.
You will be facing the same situation – except a whole lot more
grievous – if you obscenely insult my Prophet. A whole lot of us Muslims
are just that way.
We’ll struggle all-out to control ourselves. Maybe 99% of us, or even
99.9%, will succeed. But if one day somebody loses it and goes off on
you, you shouldn’t pretend to be surprised.
Maybe you don’t hold anything sacred, not even your
womenfolk’s honor. Or maybe there are certain “fighting words” that
you’d feel compelled to avenge. Maybe I could walk up to you in a bar
and start talking trash about your female family members and you’d turn
the other cheek. Then again, maybe you wouldn’t. If I tried that, and
got my ass kicked, or even got my ass shot, would you organize a million
moron march in my memory? The thought of a million morons marching down
the Champs Elysées carrying signs reading “Je suis Kevin”…c’est trop délicieux.
So yes, many Muslims will grow very, very angry if you cross the line
in obscenely attacking their prophet. That is a well-known
fact…background knowledge for the psy-op specialists tasked with staging
murderous PR stunts to keep the clash-of-civilizations a-clashing.
And that’s how this false flag was arranged: Find some creep
cartoonists who are practically begging for Muslims to come after
them…and then dress up your blue-eyed (!) Special Forces guys in ski
masks and stage a professional slaughter.
Next, whip out the genocide propagandists and useful idiots.
I have seen more out-and-out lies in the Charlie Hebdo propaganda
stories than even I imagined the MSM could be capable of. A few examples
from my favorite Mossadnik rag will suffice.
The Huffington Post published a gargantuan genocidal big lie story: These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over.
But that’s a lie. This story features only relatively inoffensive
Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It leaves the really sick, obscene stuff out.
People who read this mendacious Huffington Post piece, and who don’t
understand that it was a false flag, are going to think that the Charlie
Hebdo creeps were – as so many “house Muslims” disgustingly intone –
“innocent.” Bullshit. They were vicious, evil,
blasphemous pornographers pumping out genocide propaganda. And rather
than being murdered by blue-eyed Special Forces officers dressed up as
Wahhabis, they should have been tried, condemned, and hanged, whether
for genocide propaganda in a secular courtroom, or for blasphemy in an
Islamic one. (The genocide I am referring to, of course, is the
9/11-false-flag-triggered War on Islam, which has killed more than one
million Muslims, ruined the lives of tens of millions, and aims at
eradicating Islam in part by targeting its sacred symbols for
blasphemous, pornographic annihilation.)
HuffPost, a well-known Zionist mouthpiece, also published another
Goebbels-style propaganda lie, this time by an author with a Muslim
name. I am referring to Fathima Imra Nazeer’s sickening To Prevent Another Charlie Hebdo, Reconsider the Example of Muhammed. This airhead (or Mossad operative using an Islamic pen name) begins by invoking the “good Muslim vs. bad Muslim” dichotomy:
“Many Muslims are rightfully outraged by the attack on Charlie Hebdo way
more than they would ever be offended by some caricature of Muhammed.
Unfortunately, there are some Muslims who are quick to justify this atrocity as well.”
The “good Muslims” she cites are the pathetic, Guantanamo-terrorized house Muslims
who are complicit in their own genocide; while her “bad Muslim” is the
illiterate idiot Anjum Chaudary, London’s walking, talking advertisement
for Islamophobia. This is a classic false dichotomy, like Bush’s
“either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” And like Bush’s
line, it was designed by Zionist psy-op specialists as part of the
ongoing effort to delegitimize self-defense-while-Muslim.
Nazeer then slanders the Qur’an, saying: “The Quran encourages the killing of ‘those who spread mischief’ against Allah and Muhammed.” That’s a big lie. If you follow her link, you’ll find it goes to a passage that might be roughly translated as: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against God and
His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but
that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off
from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for
them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great
punishment, “Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
The passage – which was revealed in, and refers to, the context of a
desperate defensive war – says nothing about “spreading mischief against
Allah and Muhammad.” Instead, it clearly states that to merit capital
punishment, the war criminal must be guilty of all of the following: *Waging war against God. *Waging war against God’s messenger. *Striving to cause corruption. (The Arabic word fasad indicates a very strong, extreme form of corruption; the word mischief,
which connotes the naughty tricks of children, is light-years away from
the correct meaning. In other words, the war criminal must be working
really, really hard to do really, really terrible things.)
Only a very uncharitable mufti would say that Nazeer, by viciously
slandering the Qur’an and the Prophet in her lying article, was guilty
of all of the three parts of this crime. If I were called for Islamic
jury duty, I would vote to let her off with a reprimand. It could be
that she has psychological problems, or perhaps her grotesque
mistranslation is an innocent mistake.
I’m joking, of course. There is no such thing as Islamic jury duty, and if there were, I would find a way to get out of it.
But the Qur’anic passage Nazeer mistranslates is revealing. It
suggests that in a desperate, defensive war to defend a community
founded on the sacred, the worst crimes merit the harshest
punishments…but that repentance and mercy are better than punishment.
Which, like everything else in the Qur’an, displays its profound
understanding of human nature. Any community founded on the sacred – and
all communities are, one way or another – will fight to defend itself
and what it holds sacred…and the more desperate the struggle, the more
powerful and nastier the enemies, the more harshly will attempts at
order-restoring justice be meted out. To take one historical example,
when the US was collapsing from the Great Depression, it began executing
people in far greater numbers than ever before or since. A decade
later, the desperation felt by all the belligerent parties during World
War II led to their committing unprecedented atrocities.
Since the Western powers-that-be have forced the ludicrous official
story of 9/11 down our throats – a story that 80% of Muslims worldwide
know is a lie – we Muslims feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are in
desperate straits. Over a million have been murdered for this lie. Tens
of thousands have been tortured. Our religion is under genocidal attack.
But we must not fight back by stupidly lashing out…and providing our enemies with the propaganda ammunition they seek.
There is a famous “Muslim anger management” story: “Caliph Ali was once fighting in a war imposed on Muslims,
and the chief of the Unbelievers confronted him. During the fight, the
Ali was able to overcome his enemy, who fell on the ground and Ali was
about to kill him. The enemy, knowing his fate, had no hope so he spit
on the face of Ali. Ali immediately got up and left him alone. The man
came running to him and asked, ‘You had a chance to kill me since I am a
Polytheist; how come you didn’t use your sword?’ Ali said, ‘I have no
personal animosity toward you. I was fighting you on behalf of God. If I
had killed you after you spat on my face, then it would have become my
personal revenge which I do not wish to take.’ That Unbeliever chief
became a Muslim immediately.”
If you insult my Prophet (or female family member) and I strike you
out of anger, that is a failure on my part. A natural failure, one that
we might hope and pray will not be judged too severely by the only Judge
who counts; but a failure nonetheless.
The greater jihad is the struggle for self-control, the struggle to
be a better person. The lesser jihad is the struggle to defend the
community…whether by force of arms, or by waging “the best jihad…(which) is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.”
Obviously we need a whole lot of both varieties these days.
Attentats : les thèses conspirationnistes se multiplient en Turquie et en Russie
En Turquie et en Russie, les théories du complot les plus folles foisonnent, appuyées parfois par des membres du gouvernement.
Au lendemain de la participation du Premier
ministre turc, Ahmet Davutoglu, au rassemblement qui a eu lieu dimanche à
Paris pour rendre hommage aux 17 victimes d’extrémistes islamistes,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, le président turc, a adopté un ton beaucoup moins
consensuel, voire conflictuel. « La duplicité occidentale est évidente », a-t-il déclaré lors d’une conférence de presse organisée lundi soir, raconte le Financial Times . «
En tant que musulmans, nous n’avons jamais pris le parti de la terreur
ou des massacres : le racisme, les discours de haine, l’islamophobie
sont derrière ces tueries », a lancé Erdogan. « Les coupables sont clairs : les citoyens français ont commis ce massacre et les musulmans sont blâmés pour cela »,
a-t-il ajouté. Et le président de se dire perplexe quant au manque
d’efficacité des services de renseignement dans la traque des coupables.
Certes, les dirigeants politiques en
Turquie ont à plusieurs reprises condamné les attentats perpétrés contre
Charlie Hebdo, le supermarché juif et la femme policier. Mais un récit
parallèle a émergé dans le pays, celui proféré par les théoriciens de la
conspiration qui reportent la responsabilité des massacres sur les
agences de renseignement étrangères plutôt que sur les islamistes
radicaux.
Un phénomène similaire s’est
produit en Russie, qui a envoyé son ministre des Affaires étrangères,
Sergei Lavrov, la représenter à la marche parisienne de dimanche.
« Blâmer les musulmans »
Phénomène
particulièrement inquiétant, certaines de ces théories ont été
approuvées par des personnalités des gouvernements turc et russe, signe
de la montée du ressentiment et de la suspicion envers l’occident de ces
deux pays très importants sur le plan géopolitique dans un contexte de
tensions extrêmes sur l’Ukraine et le Moyen Orient.
En Turquie, le « double jeu » affiché par certaines personnalités est « dangereux », a fait observer au Financial Times Aron Stein, du Royal United Services Institute, un think-tank britannique. Tolérer « les opinions les plus folles » de votre base politique pose problème pour les condamnations qui se « jouent à l’échelle internationale », a-t-il expliqué.
Melih Gokcek, le maire d’Ankara affilié au parti au pouvoir AK, a ainsi assuré lundi que « le Mossad (les services de renseignement israéliens, ndlr) est certainement derrière ces incidents ». Il a également lié les attentats survenus en France à la reconnaissance de l’Etat palestinien.
Ali
Sahin, membre du Parlement turc et porte-parole du parti AK, la semaine
dernière, a pour sa part indiqué qu’il soupçonnait que ces massacres
aient été commis dans le but de « blâmer les musulmans et l’islam ».
Les Etats-Unis montrés du doigt
En
Russie, certains commentateurs pro-Kremlin désignent clairement les
Etats-Unis. Le Komsomolskaïa Pravda, l’un des principaux tabloïds de la
Russie, a ainsi titré : «Les Américains ont-ils semé la terreur à Paris ? »
et posté sur son site une série d’interviews qui expliquent pourquoi
Washington aurait pu organiser les attentats. Par exemple, Alexander
Zhilin, un officiel du Kremlin, a assuré qu'ils avaient été commis par
les Etats-Unis en représailles des propos tenus par le président
François Hollande, qui, le 6 janvier dernier, réclamait de l’UE la levée
des sanctions contre la Russie. Selon lui, Washington a diligenté les
attentats pour consolider « rapidement » les intérêts américains et européens en Ukraine.
D’autres
ont fait resurgir une théorie du complot populaire en Russie selon
laquelle les services de renseignement américains étaient à l’origine de
toute une série d’attentats terroristes, du 11 septembre 2001 aux
Etats-Unis aux tueries commises la semaine dernière à Paris.
« Depuis ces dix dernières années, ce que l’on nomme le terrorisme
islamiste est sous le contrôle d’une des plus grandes agences de
renseignement du monde », a affirmé pour sa part Alexei Martynov,
directeur du think-thank International Institute for New States, à
LIFEnews, un site Internet pro-Kremlin. « Je suis sûr que certains
Américains sont responsables des attentats terroristes à Paris, ou en
tout cas des islamistes qui les ont perpétré », a-t-il asséné.
En
savoir plus sur
http://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/0204077195000-attentats-les-theses-conspirationnistes-se-multiplient-en-turquie-et-russie-1082784.php?w7oWTxKUCsVdrH5Q.99
YES, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ISLAM DOES NOT BAN IMAGES OF THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD, BUT WE SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE PICTURES OF HIM AS THIS WILL OPEN THE GATE TO ALL KINDS OF CARICATURES!
ISLAMICALLY THIS CANNOT BE PERMISSIBLE AS ANY PICTURE OF MUHAMMAD WILL BE A LIE AND BLASPHEMOUS AS THERE WAS NO PICTURE OF HIM MADE WHEN HE WAS ALIVE!
FURTHER,
MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN KNOWN FOR CENTURIES AND TO THIS VERY DAY NOT TO HAVE
LEARNED HOW TO DRAW OR TO DO ANYTHING CREATIVE ANYWAY!
AND THE CIA-SAUDI 'ISLAM' MUSLIMS PRACTICE TODAY IS NOT ISLAM AND THE GOD THEY WORSHIP IS NOT ALLAH, BUT SHAYTAAN!
N.B. THE DISPLAY OF THOSE PICTURES (LIES) ARE MEANT ONLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES!
The Charlie Hebdo killers were operating under a misapprehension. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
In the wake of the massacre that took place in the Paris offices ofCharlie Hebdo, I
have been called upon as a scholar specializing in Islamic paintings of
the Prophet to explain whether images of Muhammad are banned in Islam.
The
short and simple answer is no. The Koran does not prohibit figural
imagery. Rather, it castigates the worship of idols, which are
understood as concrete embodiments of the polytheistic beliefs that
Islam supplanted when it emerged as a purely monotheistic faith in the
Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century.
Moreover, the Hadith,
or Sayings of the Prophet, present us with an ambiguous picture at
best: At turns we read of artists dared to breathe life into their
figures and, at others, of pillows ornamented with figural imagery.
If we turn to Islamic law, there does not exist a single legal decree, or fatwa,
in the historical corpus that explicitly and decisively prohibits
figural imagery, including images of the Prophet. While more recent
online fatwas can surely be found, the decree that comes closest
to articulating this type of ban was published online in 2001 by the
Taliban, as they set out to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
In their fatwa,
the Taliban decreed that all non-Islamic statues and shrines in
Afghanistan be destroyed. However, this very modern decree remains
entirely silent on the issue of figural images and sculptures within
Islam, which, conversely, had been praised as beneficial and educational
by Muhammad 'Abduh, a prominent jurist in 19th century Egypt.
In
sum, a search for a ban on images of Muhammad in pre-modern Islamic
textual sources will yield no clear and firm results whatsoever.
Figure
1. The Prophet Muhammad enthroned, surmounted by angels, and surrounded
by his companions, Firdawsi, Shahnama (Book of Kings), probably Shiraz,
Iran, early 14th century.
FREER/SACKLER MUSEUM OF ASIAN ART/SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
While
Islam has been described as a faith that is largely aniconic—i.e., that
tends to avoid images—figural imagery has nevertheless been a staple of
Islamic artistic expression, especially in secular, private contexts
(and today, Muslim majority countries are saturated with images, dolls,
and other representational arts). Indeed, a variety of Muslim patrons
commissioned illustrated manuscripts replete with figural and animal
imagery from the 13th century onward.
Over
the past seven centuries, a variety of historical and poetic texts
largely produced in Turkish and Persian spheres—both Sunni and
Shiite—include beautiful depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. These many
images were not only meant to praise and commemorate the Prophet; they
also served as occasions and centerpieces for Muslim devotional
practice, much like celebrations of the Prophet’s birthday (Mawlid) and visitations to his tomb in Medina.
As
a result, this visual evidence clearly undermines the premise that
images of Muhammad are banned in Islamic law and practice, thereby
providing us with a less ideologically divisive and more fact-based way
to speak about a subject that has grown increasingly contentious ever
since 2005.
Figure 2. Black ink sketch of the Prophet Muhammad enthroned, Iran, 14th century. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN
Representations
of the Prophet in Islamic traditions have varied over time, and they
have catered to different needs and desires. During the fourteenth
century, a number of Persian drawings and paintings depict Muhammad as
an enthroned leader surmounted by angels and surrounded by his
companions (figures 1-2). These images show the Prophet as a human
messenger entrusted with divine revelation through the angelic figures
that protect and accompany him.
At
other times, medieval paintings depict Muhammad alongside other
Abrahamic prophets, the latter frequently represented in 16th century
illustrated copies of popular texts concerned with explaining the lives
and tales of the prophets (qisas al-anbiya). In some instances,
Muhammad is accompanied by Jesus Christ—revered as the Prophet ‘Isa in
Islamic traditions—both of whom are said to have been seen in an
apocalyptic vision by Isaiah (figure 3).
Figure
3. Isaiah’s vision of Jesus riding a donkey and Muhammad riding a
camel, al-Biruni, al-Athar al-Baqiyya ‘an al-Qurun al-Khaliyya
(Chronology of Ancient Nations), Tabriz, Iran, 1307-8. Edinburgh
University Library. EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
In other tales, especially those dedicated to narrating and illustrating the Prophet’s heavenly ascension (mi‘raj)
from Mecca to Jerusalem and onward through the celestial spheres,
Muhammad is depicted surrounded by the Abrahamic prophets as he sits in
the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (figure 4). In these medieval
paintings, some of which were commissioned by a Sunni ruler in Iran,
Muhammad is praised as the leader of his faith community, as the bearer
of divine revelation, and as a messenger belonging to a long and
respected line of monotheistic prophets.
Figure
4. The Prophet Muhammad sits with the Abrahamic prophets in Jerusalem,
anonymous, Mi‘rajnama (Book of Ascension), Tabriz, ca. 1317-1330. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
After
1500, a major shift in representations of the Prophet occurs in both
Persian-Shiite and Ottoman-Sunni lands. Muhammad’s facial features
become covered by a white facial veil while his body is engulfed by a
large gold aureole, visual devices that doubly stress his unseen,
numinous qualities (figure 5).
Figure
5. The Prophet Muhammad receives revelations at Mount Hira, al-Darir,
Siyer-i Nebi (The Biography of the Prophet), Istanbul, Ottoman lands,
1595-1596. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
While
these more abstract depictions of the Prophet certainly show an
emerging tendency to shy away from figural representation, they also
praise the Prophet according to a metaphorical language that is a
hallmark of Sufi (mystical) traditions found in both Sunni and Shiite
spheres. Particularly interesting is a series of late 16th-century
Sunni-Ottoman paintings of the Prophet’s biography (sira), in which
Muhammad is shown confronting the very issue of idolatry as he
approaches the Ka‘ba in Mecca (figure 6).
Figure 6. Ka‘ba, al-Darir, Siyer-i Nebi (The Biography of the Prophet), Istanbul, Ottoman lands, 1595-96. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
In
this and other cases, the image of Muhammad is preserved in a pristine
state, while the gold idol and its prostrating idolater have been rubbed
away by the painting’s viewers. Here then, the problem is not so much
the depiction of the Prophet, but rather paganism and polytheism, which
are here visually excised in order to make symbolic way for a strictly
monotheistic world order.
While
images of the Prophet have waned since 1800, there nevertheless exist a
number of modern and contemporary representations that reveal a rather
unsteady, and thus not cohesive or uniform, approach to the production
of Muhammad-centered imagery. While “blessed icons” of the Prophet made
in Iran during the 19th and 20th centuries show Muhammad in his full
corporeal form and touched by God through the symbol of the golden halo,
depictions in Sunni and especially Arab lands remain largely abstract
and show a clear preference for textual representations describing his
physical attributes. Known as hilyas, these aniconic icons most recently have been printed in Turkey in the format of a state ID card.
As
portable icons, these cards give details about Muhammad’s birth date
and place as well as the date of his endowment with prophecy. Moreover,
they depict the Prophet through three metaphors: the rose (known as the
“rose of Muhammad”), his seal impression (reading “Muhammad is the
Messenger of God”), and calligraphic renderings of his name in Arabic
script.
The
contemporary ID card of the Prophet highlights a number of issues that
are of particular concern today. First, just last week these laminated hilyas were
used as invitation cards for celebrations of the Prophet’s birthday in
Turkey. At exactly the same time, ISIS suppressed all Mawlid celebrations
in Iraq, and recently a document has revealed that Saudi Arabia has
discussed plans to exhume the Prophet’s remains from his tomb in Medina,
supposedly in order to prevent his worship.
Taken
altogether, these images, sites and celebrations have one thing in
common: namely, a very contemporary urge to erase various forms of
devotion to the Prophet within discourses emanating from extremist and
Salafi spheres. Such discourses, which present themselves as
representing a “true Islam,” have been loudly present in the public
sphere.
Couched
as normative and thus representing a general consensus, they have the
net effect of turning images of the Prophet into items that should not,
in principle, exist. Theory and practice, along with fact and belief,
find themselves at odds here, to say the least.
When
one speaks of a “ban” of images of the Prophet in Islam, the negative
repercussions are many. First, all doors to constructive dialogue on the
topic are closed a priori, thus precluding a nuanced and
apolitical discussion of historical Islamic images freed from the
polarizing narratives of today. In addition, such images effectively
become further endangered as a form of artistic heritage if merely
speaking of and illustrating them is seen as a subversive, rather than a
productive and reconstructive, act.
And
so we must pose ourselves yet another question: why not celebrate this
global artistic patrimony by flooding our eyes with beautiful images
instead of unseemly cartoons? In so doing, such images will invite us to
ponder, at least to a small degree, all that connects us as visual
human beings, regardless of creed and conviction.
Christiane Gruber is
associate professor and director of graduate studies at the University
of Michigan. Her primary field of research is Islamic book arts,
paintings of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islamic ascension texts and
images, about which she has written two books and edited a volume of
articles. She also pursues research in Islamic book arts and codicology,
having authored the online catalog of Islamic calligraphies in the
Library of Congress as well as edited the volume of articles, The Islamic Manuscript Tradition.
Her third field of specialization is modern Islamic visual culture and
post-revolutionary Iranian visual and material culture, about which she
has written several articles. She also has co-edited two volumes on
Islamic and crosscultural visual cultures. She is currently writing her
next book, titled The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images.
Respect
for each other and our beliefs is the only way human kind will ever
find peace, but the imperialists feed of the hate and greed they have
created! It serves them very well each time a war starts, only the
imperialists gain from war-war means more money and more power over the
brain-washed masses!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW0NLlwqGvc ABEL DANGER
Marcy:
"divine timing"? Not that one again! I see Field's and David's pathetic
moves to push Marcy into some top level Abel Danger function once they
are gone or even before, but Marcy is seen being totally unable to be to
the level in this pathetic trio venture! Let this be regarded as a
constructive observation and not a vicious attack on Marcy or on Abel
Danger for which I have great respect even if I do not feel comfortable
with the religious bent being systematically used. "Jesus Calling", I
wrote in vain, was more like New Age crap to me! Blind faith most
probably and tribal (cultural or ethnic) instinct might explain their
silence. BAFS P.S. My main interest in Abel Danger is what David calls
investigating and analyzing TRUTH and FALSEHOOD!
truthjihad.com blog
Après le massacre de 1000 musulmans par le dictateur égyptien Sissi
en un seul jour, le journal Charlie Hebdo a publié ce titre (image de
gauche) : « Le Coran c’est de la m*** : Ca n’arrête pas les balles ».
You may mock Jesus Christ
as much as you want, but you must not mock Anne Frank. Poke fun at
Christ carrying his Cross—no problem!—but don’t dare to breathe a word
about Anne Frank’s sacred ball point pen!
Sky News – 3 minutes 53 seconds ago [Wed 7 January 2015]
It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.
YES, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ISLAM DOES NOT BAN IMAGES OF THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD, BUT WE SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE PICTURES OF HIM AS THIS WILL OPEN THE GATE TO ALL KINDS OF CARICATURES!
Figure
1. The Prophet Muhammad enthroned, surmounted by angels, and surrounded
by his companions, Firdawsi, Shahnama (Book of Kings), probably Shiraz,
Iran, early 14th century.
Figure 2. Black ink sketch of the Prophet Muhammad enthroned, Iran, 14th century. STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN
Figure
3. Isaiah’s vision of Jesus riding a donkey and Muhammad riding a
camel, al-Biruni, al-Athar al-Baqiyya ‘an al-Qurun al-Khaliyya
(Chronology of Ancient Nations), Tabriz, Iran, 1307-8. Edinburgh
University Library. EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Figure
4. The Prophet Muhammad sits with the Abrahamic prophets in Jerusalem,
anonymous, Mi‘rajnama (Book of Ascension), Tabriz, ca. 1317-1330. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
Figure
5. The Prophet Muhammad receives revelations at Mount Hira, al-Darir,
Siyer-i Nebi (The Biography of the Prophet), Istanbul, Ottoman lands,
1595-1596. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
Figure 6. Ka‘ba, al-Darir, Siyer-i Nebi (The Biography of the Prophet), Istanbul, Ottoman lands, 1595-96. TOPKAPI PALACE LIBRARY
Photo by Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/File Mon, Oct 1, 2012
Sky News – 8 minutes ago
View PhotoAnti-Islam Film: Seventeen Killed in Pakistan
In other words there is a fine balance between the freedom of speech and the freedom to offend. Freedom of speech is curtailed if it dishonours unjustifiably or if it can cause harm to the wider public. The Muslim would argue that the west, when it applies this principle to Islam, does so with an element of prejudice. It fails to consider the unjustifiable attack on the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad, or the public disorder that such expressions can lead to. In a world which is increasingly resembling a global village, the later must surely come into consideration.
Sources: www.islam21c.comEmbassies are razed, diplomats are lynched, protesters have marched with unbridled aggression from east to west. The Islamic world and the West once again finds itself at loggerheads arising from two conflicting principles, the right of 'freedom of speech' against the right to 'defend one's honour'. What ensues is a repetitive discourse occurs between the two.
Interview with Mr. Manfred Petritsch, finance expert and international activistWell, I think they are trying to… We have to see this as a general picture of a war against spirituality. That means, they are not particularly attacking Islam, but they are attacking spirituality as a whole."
View PhotoParis Attack: Terror Raid Under Way In Reims'I prefer to die than live like a rat': Bravery of slain...
Crowds gather in central Paris in solidarity with murdered...
Standing together in defiance, thousands gather across...
Merkel and Cameron given extraordinary joint terror briefing...
#JeSuisCharlie sweeps Twitter as Internet users rush to show...
Soldiers on the streets: Military is brought in to protect...
Obama condemns 'cowardly evil' attack on French newspaper...
Charlie Hebdo cartoonist reveals terrorists threatened to...
Were they militarily trained? Terrifying footage shows how...
'Very little seems funny today': Private Eye editor Ian...
It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.
ABEL DANGER
Marcy: "divine timing"? Not that one again! I see Field's and David's pathetic moves to push Marcy into some top level Abel Danger function once they are gone or even before, but Marcy is seen being totally unable to be to the level in this pathetic trio venture! Let this be regarded as a constructive observation and not a vicious attack on Marcy or on Abel Danger for which I have great respect even if I do not feel comfortable with the religious bent being systematically used. "Jesus Calling", I wrote in vain, was more like New Age crap to me! Blind faith most probably and tribal (cultural or ethnic) instinct might explain their silence. BAFS P.S. My main interest in Abel Danger is what David calls investigating and analyzing TRUTH and FALSEHOOD!
See brief 194