Mass Shooting At Newspaper In Paris

Do they lop off the fingertips first as a form of torture then behead them?

Would seem like a wasted point to do it the other way.

 

Seems kinda mafia-like to me. Do they also strap cement blocks to their legs and drop them in the ocean?

 

"Pussy Nation" ...

 

I'm not attempting to justify anyone's decision. I'm saying, as an editor in the Internet age and the 24-hour news cycle, I'd weigh the risk of putting my staff in jeopardy with the benefit of publishing an image that three-quarters of my audience has likely already seen by the time I publish. And, if that's the case, I don't see how one can justify publishing it other than to swing one's dick and falsely assure oneself that the "terrorists didn't win."

It would be different if my newspaper was the one exclusively breaking the story. Then I'd have a different obligation.

 

Maher's appearance was very good. I wonder if he was previously scheduled or if he called Kimmel because he had something to say.

Also -- Modern Family had a joke about Luke vowing revenge on someone and Manny said, "What are you gonna do, draw a satirical cartoon?" Talk about the weirdest timing.

 

You can find the cartoons by doing a Google search. Should the folks at Google be worried?

 

Maybe my reading comprehension isn't great, but I don't believe that's what he's saying.

I don't think he's saying the problem is that we haven't reasoned with Islamists. He's saying we've self censored to the point where Charlie Hebdo was a target because it was unique; because it did not self censor.

We should not have spent the last 20 years reasoning with Islamists. We should have spent the last 20 years standing up to them. We should have been having robust discussions with each other about how to champion free speech, instead of stifling it.

How many who say today Je suis Charlie did not print the Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2006? How many published the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in 2012 when their offices were firebombed?

How many advocated that we all go see the interview two weeks ago, but won't print the Charlie Hebdo cartoons today?

 

Blasphemy in Islam: The Quran curses and Hadith prescribes punishment

Mr. Wahiduddin Khan’s article published in the Times of India ‘ Blasphemy in Islam: The Quran does not prescribe punishment for abusing the Prophet’ on 2nd October, 2012, like many of his articles in the past usually devoid of scholarship and insight into the Quran and Hadith is nothing short of a misleading article which is opposed to the established sources of Islam. His entire article centres on the Quran while ignoring Hadith, the second most important source of Islamic faith and Shariah, which prescribes death penalty as the punishment for blasphemy against the Prophet (p.b.u.h.)

In principle, Hadith is the best interpretation of the Quran as has been stated in the Quran itself. The five-time prayers, Zakat, Hajj, punishment for drinking and many other injunctions have not been mentioned in full details in the Quran but their details have been left to Hadith. The Quran emphasizes the importance of what the Prophet commands and regards his utterances as divinely revealed, in the verses 59:7, and 4:80 etc. The Quran says in another verse “(The Prophet) does not speak of his own desire. It is not less than inspiration sent down to him.” (53:3).

Islam regards blasphemy against the Prophet a very heinous crime and the Quran strongly forbids blasphemy and makes 11 references to it: 2:88, 4:15, 5:17, 5:64, 5:68, 5:73, 6:19, 9:74, 11:19, 14:28, 39:8. They are all against it. At the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.u.h.) announced general amnesty to all except those who were guilty of blasphemous acts and sacrilegious statements. Both Nasai and Sunan Abu Daud, famous Hadith books, narrate that a slave Jew woman was killed by her master for her repeated blasphemy against the Prophet and when the case was brought to the Prophet’s notice he declared no retaliation against the master. (Hadith No.4348)

The death punishment assigned for blasphemy is agreed by all Islamic scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and, is normally covered in Kitabul Hudud in Islamic juridical texts. Because of the evidence for blasphemy punishment being based on Ahadith, certain reported incidents during the lifetime of the Prophet (p.u.h.) and unanimous agreement of all Islamic scholars in all the ages (Ijma), many Islamic countries of the world including Saudi Arabia have legislated death punishment for blasphemy. It is only Qadianis, a community regarded infidels by Muslims across the world, who support no-punishment for blasphemy. It is very surprising that Mr. Wahiduddin Khan, ignoring many clear Ahadith and Ijma (consensus of Islamic jurists) of Islamic scholars - the second and the third most important sources of Islam- claims that no punishment should be meted out to the offender of blasphemy. He stayed blind to Ahadith and Ijma upon which thousands of Islamic injunctions are based.

http://www.deoband.net/blogs/blasphemy-in-islam-the-quran-curses-and-hadith-prescribes-punishment

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rmath-Paris-massacre-left-12-people-dead.html

 

Dyab Abou Jahjah ‏@Aboujahjah

I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed

 

Is the Times really refusing to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because they are offensive?




http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/holcaust-denying-cartoonist-finds-a-home-online/

http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn-t-afraid-to-1678338658

 

Why do I have the feeling that USA Today printed that guy's column not because of what he wrote, but just so they could write another column patting themselves on the back for supporting the First Amendment?