Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

Back in 2012 The White House was critical of Charlie:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015...-judgement-of-deeply-offensive-charlie-hebdo/

REPORTER: The French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and schools in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, that published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad. Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?

CARNEY: Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.

In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

 

Anjem Choudary ‏@anjemchoudary

Freedom of expression does not extend to insulting the Prophets of Allah, whatever your views on the events in Paris today! #ParisShooting

 

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."

...

So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?

It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world's population was protected.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...h-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/

 

After listening to Nick Kristoff I am convinced that it was all Charlie's fault.

 

I suppose this is just wrong:

 

Islamic law supposedly prohibits any image of Muhammed. So should all images be banned?

 

I just want to come back to this statement really quickly.

What you're advocating here is profiling based on a suspect's name, i.e. "MAJ Hassan had a Muslim name and shot a bunch of people, therefore he is a terrorist motivated by Islamic fundamentalism."

There was a shit-ton of misinformation in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting, much like there is in most other major events these days. The difference is the question of "could he have some other, nonreligious motive" was asked behind closed doors as part of the "editing process," a quaint notion that no longer exists, or at best takes place for the entire world to see.

This tragedy is pretty different from a shooting on a restricted-access military base, or a situation where you have to rely on police spokespeople, who are notoriously tight-lipped about motives and other personal details in the immediate aftermath of things.

This was as cut-and-dried as it gets, in terms of determining some kind of religious extremism was the catalyst.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-not-muslim-terrorists/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

YAAAAAAAAAH!

 

Howard Dean, Koranic scholar:

"I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am," he said. "I mean, they have no respect for anybody else's life, that's not what the Koran says. And, you know Europe has an enormous radical problem. ... I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it's a cult."

 

Has anyone seen a list of which outlets that have decided to publish the cartoons vs. ones that have decided not too?

Have any of the prominent outlets -- NY Times, NBC -- that have chosen not to show them come out and said their decision was due to fear, or are they all saying it was an editorial decision not to publish offensive material?

 

I think FoxNews has a link to the cartoons on their website. Not sure what they have shown on air. I try not to watch ANY news from ANY station. Just can't stand it anymore.

Of course, any search through Google Images will find something interesting. That's how I found the LEGO set. And, that LEGO photo was originally from someone's collection of LEGOs that illustrate Bible stories. And in this case, something from the book of Judges was then lifted and the photo got altered into the Islam thing.