Friday, January 9, 2015

Tagged under: , , ,

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace

Peadar O’Maoileoin slams the suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace.


Charb
People who say Islam is a religion of peace do not know what they are talking about. Whenever I hear someone utter that idiom, I instantly know that they are devoid of clue. How can a religion which is in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shiites be a religion of peace?

When Sunni Muslims bomb the funerals of Shiite Muslims, why are their leaders silent? There’s no condemnation, and their silence condones this violence. The next time someone tells you Islam is a religion of peace ask them about this. It’s irreconcilable. Chances are they don’t even know this takes place.

When I spoke about yesterday’s massacre in Paris I said it had been met with support for Charlie Hebdo, but also with ridicule for the magazine. I wish to address that here.

Charlie Hebdo is a magazine that not a lot of people had heard about until Islamofascist goons kicked in the doors of their headquarters and murdered their cartoonists. The magazine did not just make fun of Islam, it made fun of all religions. This is a salient fact, because the Pope’s cardinals were not the ones with semi-automatic weapons committing the massacre in France’s capital city. However, there was a time when we could not have criticized Christianity, a taboo which is now gone.

Islam is a belief system, and like all belief systems it deserves to be questioned and
criticised. To demand immunity from criticism is totalitarian. Under a
totalitarian regime you cannot question the dear leader. To do so could get you
killed, or at least severely beaten. This is why totalitarian regimes are
doomed to ultimate failure, because they try to own the thought process of
those under its influence. Religion does this as well. 

Questioning beliefs and the way we think is critical to the advancement of our species. If it was not for the criticism of Christianity, we may never have developed the theory
of Evolution, and science would not be where it is today.

If you wish to believe the world is flat, then you are free to do so; it’s your prerogative. However, do not try to force those beliefs on me. When you do that, we start to have problems. 

The prohibition of pork, alcohol, and the picturing of the prophet are unconditional in the Muslim world. I have no qualms with this. I would personally find a life without
rashers and Guinness a miserable existence; I don’t think I could do it, but I’m not Muslim so it does not relate to me. And that is the key point here: I am not a follower of the prophet Muhammad, so do not try to enforce a ban on alcohol, pork, or of drawing pictures on me. I will not accept that.

Lastly, to the people who say the cartoonists brought their demise on themselves and that they should not have annoyed Islam I have this to say: we cannot change enough about ourselves to please these barbarians. They find offense with everything we do because Islam tries to be the final solution. It tries to take care of ones diet, banking, how one conduct ones business, even sexual encounters and relationships. Therefore I submit that it is impossible for people in western societies to play nice, and not offend Islam. You cannot possibly make enough adjustments to please a totalitarian regime without succumbing to it.

36 comments :

DaithiD said...

Peadar, I think the conclusion of the article is correct, but you will be led into a dead end if you argue it in terms of
How can a religion which is in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shiites be a religion of peace?
Because at various stages Christianity has been at war with one or other faction. Plus since the vast majority of Muslims arent at war, it could be concluded if thats the meausure, it is on balance peaceful. We need to separate the actions of its adherents, to what the text prescribes.
Where Islam runs into difficulty, is the life and practices of its founder Mohammed. People assume you are lying and slandering the religion if you mention he personally ordered the beheading of 600+ Jews in Banu Quarayza (he did some himself too), that as a 56 year old man he took a 6 year old bride and sex with her at 9, he kept slaves and also robbed trade caravans. Finally he claimed to have been possessed by Satan at some stage of reciting the Koran. Look at what ISIS get upto, and measure that against what Muslims consider to be the template of morality, Mohammed. Arent they following his example perfectly, literally perfectly. We are being lied to on a massive scale, with selective quotings that would have lazy people beleive ISIS are perverting the Islamic doctrine.
There is no equivalence in Christianity, whose basis is the New Testament. Although apoligists love to quote OT teachings that were abrogated by Jesus in pages like Sermon on the Mount.They need all religions to be equally bad to save them from making difficult choices, but the truth is there, hidden in plain view if people want to know it.

Mary Marscal said...

Lampooning all different religions – Islam was not singled out… The murderous rampage is tragic, vile and senseless… I hope the slain died instantly without suffering… There can be NO JUSTIFYING what was done in any form that validates these actions NONE.
Free speech under enforced Islam is not allowed – the more intense the application of the hadiths (scriptures) the easier it is to utilise the indoctrinated to be tools of destruction. ISIS IS Daesh etc is a CIA/Mossad collaboration/creation = common and factual knowledge The Caliphate they r seeking to create through crucifying torturing raping etc Christians, Muslims yes they kill their own, minority religions (Yazidi) will not ever WIN… It is in the human spirit the desire for freedom, the desire to express creatively whether it is palatable to all or not, the diversity of convictions, beliefs, non beliefs…
There are millions of Muslims who abhor and do not support the killings but there are few who are going to speak out in media… One needs to recognise the risk involved for those who speak out against it who are Muslim… It takes great courage and the reality is they too could be taken out for not adhering to a narrative demanded of them…
RE ‘They find offense with everything we do because Islam tries to be the final solution.’
They? A section of Islam/Muslims will… Not all of them. Christians and Jews are as the Islamists say ‘people of the book’ (continuity in belief re Old Testament/Torah) etc Ah lets face it We non Muslim are considered kafir infidel and that is stipulated over and over in the teachings… People talk about radicalised and non radicalised Islam. I say there is only Islam and the fact millions do not want to go round chopping up the kafir… They stop short of implementing the political ideology.
There was once a place called Palestine where Jew Christian and Muslim lived side by side and respected one another’s spiritual conviction… All paths lead back to this and Israel and Zionism …
Is mise Criostai Plenty mock including friends what I believe but I accept that in just as I think not to believe in God is the pinnacle of stupidity and share that at times… Live and let live…
Re ‘You cannot possibly make enough adjustments to please a totalitarian regime without succumbing to it’
Yes that is true.. To survive under Islamic rule you are dhimmi (non Muslim) & have to pay a tax jizya I think its called Cannae remember
I love the Quill for giving voice to all voices whether they offend me or not. The Western way is for the clashing of ideas and dissemination and challenge = growth in all senses… Polarised is the Islamic way which demands adherence without questioning although much of the scriptures are reasoned… (by men!) Time for Muslims to face into it all and speak up… Time is NOW You cannot be silent and allow these atrocities to occur Even if you are scared SPEAK OUT and denounce these killings… Do it on the Quill if need be and use anonymous ID To be silent is to be complicit and you know these killings were WRONG in every sense and can never be justified…

larry hughes said...

Thank Christ somebody has some gumption. Agree with this in just about its entirety. I imagine that if the Muslin gunmen are making references to drone strikes or other western crimes they are not going to be aired on the Jewish media of the UK/USA global menace. Something was sure to give eventually after Gazza and global murders endlessly being carried out by the west.

That does not attempt to justify the Cartoonist murders...that is just shocking and does expose the extent of zero humour or tolerance of Muslin Jihadists. Islam is not a religion of peace, it defines all none believers as infidels who should be killed. These people want to impose their ugly mores upon the planet. I have utmost contempt for the UK/USA global menace and would almost prefer to be speaking Russian or Chinese just to see them get what they deserve. Which is Blair Bush Cheney Rumsfeld et al hung like the Nuremburg guilty. But you can keep these Muslims...try asking one for directions in Birmingham England, you are invisible.

The Catholic and Jewish faiths have so much history past and present to be ashamed of, but try you and go on a 'tour' of Mecca or any other Islamic site. I wish you all the luck in the world...or why not try the Pyramids, bus loads of westerners get wiped out there an odd time.

I don't need to be firmly in one or either camp. Nor do I need to have one foot in both. The mess we are in has been turbo charged by Bliar and Bush and the west have no intention of letting up. Euro news reports comments from the gunmen in France regarding Abu Grebe, Guantanamo and drone strikes. As I said the Zionist UK/USA media will not give you that info, they are as bad as each other.

Organized Rage said...

No organised religion is a religion of peace, all of them when push comes to shove side with their own bourgeoisie in time of war. To single out Islam as being worse than all the others is infantile and very dangerous especially when we in the west are involved in setting the middle east aflame.

For a socialist the main enemy is at home, and if we forget that, even for a moment we're lost. What purpose does it serve to condemn Islam at this time? When Christians; and yes from Bush to Blair, Cameron to Obama, to almost every general in the US and British armies all claim publicly they are Christians, and have bombed much of the middle east back to barbarism.

Two angry and violent men in Paris no more represent all muslims than Cameron and Blair represented me.

Martin Rowson the cartoonist wrote today he only attacks people more powerful than himself, something we all might consider before picking up a pen.

As Marx said religion is the opium of the people and to suggest one is worse than others is to play the man in big houses game and take my word for it is not god who lives in that big house but some living satrap.As to religions they are equally daft, dangerous and if it comes to it bloodthirsty.

frankie said...

Personally, no time for any religion (apart from some of the native American teachings)..

Simon said...

Organised Rage, your entire comment was nicely put. I wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with every point but the sentiment is refreshing.

I wouldn't say all religions are necessarily not religions of peace in the sense that most people of any religion or none are peaceful.

Much of the global tension can be avoided with a progressive foreign policy and less destruction through direct war or through proxy. The drone footage of the devastation of Gaza on the BBC is analogous to the West's impact on the Middle East as a whole.

Those two men who murdered the cartoonists weren't elected to public office but Blair and Cameron were. I would suggest those two former people have less support within their country than Mssrs Blair and Cameron. The latter two hold much responsibility for the problems today in the Middle East and if someone analysed the data the French terrorist's damage is much less than the harm caused by British state actions.

I see the head of MI5 says the threat of a terrorist attack on the UK is increasing. No shit Sherlock! I wonder why that is?

Dutchjim said...

Peadar O’Maoileoin, you're very confused.

truelovelives onlollipopsandcrisps said...

Well Put Organized Rage.
Also liked this
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

Sarah Heaton said...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

grouch said...

nicely put mary mar.

tiarna said...

Organised Rage & Simon

Could not disagree with you more -Many Islamists are not merely pursuing a terrorist war but a genocidal war. Apart from token handfuls of Imams and other islamic Leaders Islam by an large remains passive, and silent on Islamic extremism. No other mainstream religion can be likened to Islam no matter its own violent past -they do not have armies and excommunicate --Islam does not.

Article 6 of the Rome Statute defines genocide as:
For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity and Article 8: War Crimes are equally relevant.

wolfe tone said...

Larry Hughes
'Try asking one for directions in Birmingham England, you are invisible'.
Try asking a French person in Paris for directions and I would suggest you may get the same treatment. Thankfully I found out why the French were abrupt with me initially.....they thought I was english! When they realised I was irish they treated me with decency and respect. Perhaps those 'ones' you asked in Birmingham thought you were english too?
I had the privilege to meet Palestinians,Algerians,etc when I attended a sporting occasion in Paris and I never met more civil and kind people.
I dont concur to the narrative that all Islamic people are out to kill all us unbelievers. It's a lazy suggestion. But I would suggest that the Islamic people are growing more hostile to the white Man because the White Man continues to force them to conform to their ways. And perhaps they have learnt from the Native American when they accepted the White mans ways, that they will eventually be betrayed and let down by these liars? If I were a Muslim I would be growing very afraid but also angry at the White Man telling me how to think. I would also be in despair at the matter of fact way my people are being killed all over the world by the White man.....just like the Native American suffered.
It seems the only option the Muslim people have being offered by the White man is to conform or die....again just like the American indian. And yet we wonder when they snub us on the street? The cheek of them.

ultan weelbarra said...

Nothing justifies the terrorists actions but hebdo was a racist publication reminicist of nazi germany. It constantly derided a minority community. Such derision is used to continue imperialism in the Middle East. France criticised the Iraq war 10 years ago and refused to take Part due to public outrage. Now France leads line as usa lap dog in Africa and Arab world. The pure Hypocrisy of the imperialist powers especially USA about attacking press freedom. USA bombed al jazzera, imprisoned Chelsea manning, harasses assange. Why weren't these terrorists stopped it's not as France didn't know about them, they went on TV previously and declared themselves as al Qaeda. That article by peadar is pathetic and typical of a narrow minded nationalist who lacks understanding of capitalism and it's highest form imperialism

Simon said...

Tiarna, "Apart from token handfuls of Imams and other islamic Leaders Islam by an large remains passive, and silent on Islamic extremism."

Why should Muslims be required to condemn Islamic extremism? Why should they condemn something they have nothing to do with and have no control over?

To quote Robert Fisk in one of his sarcastic moods 'Similarly, when the Norwegian Christian Anders Breivik committed his massacre, all decent people marched straight down to the church and yelled "oy vicar, why haven’t you issued a statement condemning the shooting"?'

The leader of Hezbollah says Islamic extremists have hurt Islam more than the çartoonists have.

Why should we allow unrepresentative extremists like those who murdered the cartoonists colour our view of the Muslim world?

It seems we can be easily swayed to stereotype when extremists take the stage. Why should we allow a minority to mold our views of the majority?

Western governments tend to be ambivalent about Islamic extremists. Supporting some but condemning others.

Many people in the Middle East blame the citizens of countries like the USA and the UK for atrocities carried out in our name in that region. They are wrong to assume we all support terror just as we are wrong to assume they all support terror.

tiarna said...

Simon

I think you are responding to the wrong person. Why do Muslims allow the extremist to colour the view of Islam for non-Muslims??

Can you make up your mind one way or another --non-Muslims should not speak out -lest they be curtailed. And Muslims should not speak out -because, why should they??

"Why should we allow a minority to mold our views of the majority?" Who said they are a minority? The majority might not be carrying out attacks but that does not mean the majority are not sympathetic or supportive of the extremists? Who would know as they kept tight lipped about where they stand. -non-Muslim apologists like you cannot speak with any authority about the majority's support or not for extremism.

Hezbollah is an extremist group but the Leader is right. He did not say that murdering 12 innocent people was wrong (which is my point about Muslims) but made a self serving statement at damage limitation. In other words he is sending a statement that better targets need be selected for murder to avoid negative blow-back.

Simon said...

Tiarna, "Can you make up your mind one way or another"

I never said non-Muslims should never speak out. I said they shouldn't purposely publish materials which offend many ordinary Muslims but more importantly which will inevitably lead to violence. Freedom of Speech is not absolute and comes with a degree of responsibility. I welcome Muslims or non-Muslims attacking the extremists and undermining their arguments. I think they are wrong if by doing so they consciously incite violence.

"Who would know as they kept tight lipped about where they stand. -non-Muslim apologists like you cannot speak with any authority about the majority's support or not for extremism."

I am afraid I am not an apologist for anybody and I have just as much authority as you to judge the majority's support or otherwise for extremism.

I didn't say Muslims didn't speak out all I said is why should they?

If you want evidence of Muslims speaking out against the attacks and there are many I would look here.

larry hughes said...

Tain Bo

The French are like that. Asian girls have cried at the airport in France finding it impossible to get assistance to a connecting flight. I had them sit at a table in Bangkok and refuse to speak English to accommodate the rest of the company. Scum attitude.

If Muslims don't like western culture they should stay in the desert. Simples. Fuck them.

larry hughes said...

Sorry...that post was for Wolf Tone...my error

tiarna said...

Simon

In Nigeria children simply learning how to draw stick men at school offend Muslims. Should they be curtailed?? We know children getting an education in many Islamic Countries offends Muslims. Humanitarian Aid workers offend Muslims. Journalists who do not draw cartoons offend Muslims. Pictures of flowers offend Muslims. Iranian Muslims are not recognised by hardcore Muslims because they had a revolution. ... the list goes on ...

Islam is in crisis and they are holding world at ransom.

Charlie did not incite violence and I think you are just being vile bandying allegation about like that -you are not saying it explicitly but you are consistently attacking the victims for being murdered -Muslims incite others to murder -Charlie did not.

Again you have moved from Charlie provoked Muslims to now they incited them to violence --there is a big difference. Nobody controls Muslims better than Muslims themselves --stop blaming everyone else for offending Muslims.

Simon said...

I stand by my remarks that the publishers of those cartoons knew of a near inevitability of violence as a specific reaction to their publication.

I am not blaming the cartoonists for their own murders.

Freedom of Speech comes with responsibility. However, no-one should be harmed in any way by exercising that right legally. The French journalists exercised their right to Freedom of Speech legally and so should be safe from reprisal.

Any crimes through speech should be dealt with through legal channels. Eg. Incitement of violence or defamation. No-one should be harmed physically for any crime particularly ones through purely speaking or writing.

They shouldn't have published the cartoons in the first place. I was offended by the original cartoon images but I was mostly offended by their provocative nature and the intention to insult.

It all seemed so unnecessary. Satire is important, however anything satirical which has the power or inevitability to be violently divisive isn't valuable. It's destructive.

The only people responsible for the crimes are those that pulled the trigger.

"Stop blaming everyone else for offending Muslims". You are trying to censor me now? That's rich.

wolfe tone said...

Tiarna

Have you ever stopped to think why these people are opposed to the schools and the health workers in their countries? Perhaps maybe they see that these schools etc are set up by western 'charities and missionaries' whose over all agenda is to get them to speak English,French etc and in a roundabout way maintain the colonial control of their peoples?
I always find it peculiar when I see a white missionary teacher teaching a group of black kids in say Kenya, lessons in English. Surely it would be better to hire a native speaker to teach his/her own people maths,science in their own language? Maybe the natives havnt the brains to take a class?
We in Ireland were forced to abandoned our language etc if we were to receive an education. Pearse even cursed the education system forced on the irish people by England and titled it a murder machine. Some would argue that murder machine still prevails to this day.
Just like other notable freedom fighters like Ho Chi Minh who learnt from the what happened to the irish under imperialism, it would be remiss of other people not to learn either how the invader plants his ways in their land?

larry hughes said...

'The only people responsible for the crimes are those that pulled the trigger'.

Quoting Paisley now?

Simon said...

Larry, Maybe I am. I didn't know that was a Paisleyism.

I would say that the causality link or causation between the publication and the murders is apparent but not strong enough to say that the cartoonists are in any way responsible for their own murders.

That is what I meant by my use of that phrase you quoted above. In the context where I used it the phrase was employed to distance the cartoonists from responsibility for their own deaths not any person who aided, abetted, procured or counseled those that pulled the trigger.

Those people weren't mentioned previously so I didn't think to include them.

Robert said...

Simon,

'I was offended by the original cartoon images but I was mostly offended by their provocative nature and the intention to insult.'

The problem with this type of offence is it is invariably self inflicted and it is borne on someone else's behalf. You are free not to look or read.

Simon said...

Robert, "The problem with this type of offence is it is invariably self inflicted and it is borne on someone else's behalf. You are free not to look or read."

I know that. I wouldn't censor something purely for being offensive.

tiarna said...

Simon
Let's just go through a few of your contradictions.

'I am not blaming them --but they should not have published them.'

Last time they had libeled (wrote something wrong) now they have defamed (said something wrong) -you're constantly trying to blame the victims as bad people who were asking for it.

Before they published the cartoons they did what most media outlets do --they got a legal opinion to ensure that they were not breaking the law --they weren't, so they had every right to publish -- but they were given a police guard.

"I wouldn't censor something purely for being offensive" --'they should not have published them'.

'They have a right to freedom of expression --but if they exercise it it is a hate-crime'

'they should have known they would offend Muslims ---I was offended, I was provoked ....they should have known they would be killed....they should be curtailed.....'

But we did make progress --you were offended and provoked by these ruthless scumbag cartoonists --did they threaten your wacky beliefs?

tiarna said...

Wolf tone

The point of the Muslims is that they do not want any schools, lest not for girls. And what schools they would have force children (boys) to go into trances rocking back and forth reciting from the Q'uarn.

A lot of white people can speak various African languages --English is a language that Africans want to learn at school.

Simon said...

Tiarna, libel is the written form of defamation, slander is the spoken form.

I have never said the cartoons were defamatory. I used that as an example of why freedom of speech sometimes has to be restricted. I have already explained this.

Your editing skills are good but dishonest.

Just like your use of the term "curtailed" which I used. You repeatedly used it as a synonym for murder to imply I supported murder. You are implying so again saying that I said the asked for it. They didn't.

I also never said they were bad people.

wolfe tone said...

Tiarna

I am glad you are an authority on how all Africans,Asians etc think. For one second there I thought you might have been taking the old traditional view that these people are too thick to speak for themselves so a westerner will do it for them? Surely these savages know the White Man has what's best for them?
If as you claim these people want to learn english(do they want to by taught through the medium of English?), could I ask why?
Could it be that they are told by their parents that the only way you are ever going to escape poverty in their homeland is to learn English and try and emigrate to an English speaking country ie go where the money is? Just like the native irish speaker a couple hundred years ago, are these savages offered a carrot of a better life just as long as they abandoned who they are and mimic the westerne/englander?

tiarna said...

Simon

Don't talk crap. I have disagreed with you that they did not need curtailed no matter how gently you would have done it.

You keep putting negative things in to say people them might be killed -libel, defamation, hate-crime --they did none of these things so why keep going on about them --you might have to concede they are innocent and psycho Muslims are murderers.


Wolfe tone

you go to a lot of places, even no further than Spain -and discussed with someone this am --he has been checking out India and thinking of moving there because --natural English speakers are preferred in other countries --even Africa not a racial thing and not some capitalist conspiracy

Simon said...

Tiarna,"-they did none of these things so why keep going on about them".

I used the example of libel in reference to why someone might be censored generally and lawfully. By the lawful agencies of the state. Not (and I repeat for the third time now) in specific reference to the cartoons.

It may have been in a comment about a blog on the cartoons but I expressly and consistently used defamation as an example of a reason to censor someone. Not the cartoonists. I never said they were defamatory. I can't understand how they could have been.

I don't understand why someone can be charged with inciting violence if they publish material that provokes people who agree with that material to violence but they can't be similarly charged if it provokes someone who disagrees with the message. They can only control the message. They don't control the violence so does it matter if it comes from one source or another?

Sarah Heaton said...

Wolfe Tone and Tiarna, you may find this an interesting example of an African country's linguistic aspirations. Apologies if you're already familiar with this.

In 2000 the Rwandan govt declared English an official language of Rwanda, along with French and Kinyarwanda. After major linguistic reform in 2008 French was dropped as an official language. The reasons given for this were varied but they all centered on economic advantage:-

a) to enable Rwanda to join the English speaking East African Community

b) to make economic relations with South Africa easier

c) to increase trade with the UK and USA.

In 2009 Rwanda left La Francophonie and became a member of the Commonwealth even though it had not ever been a British colony.

The unofficial but widely accepted reasons for adopting the English language are

a) for Rwandans to distance themselves from their colonial past

b) to facilitate an easier transition for members of the mostly English speaking diaspora who returned to help rebuild the country after 1994,

c) to punish France for their practical, financial, and military support for the ruling MRND party before, during and after the genocide.

I appreciate that this is just one example out of 58 African countries, however I thought it was relevant considering your discussion. I can only offer this one example as i'm not very familiar with most other African countries.

Best wishes to all.

tiarna said...

Simon

"I don't understand why someone can be charged with inciting violence if they publish material that provokes people who agree with that material to violence but they can't be similarly charged if it provokes someone who disagrees with the message."

You now think those at Charlie H should be charged for provoking their own killers --your fucked up -you weren't kidding that they offended you.

We are not talking hypothetically you were explaining why they should have known they would be killed and you put forward what you thought they were guilty off.

So you accept that they did not do anything wrong, by libel, defamation or anything else?

Then we are left with just your, and the killers, sense of being offended. (Note to readers Simon has always maintained that they should have been curtailed [but not killed])

wolfe tone said...

Tiarna
Dunno what your point is but again thank you for expertise on how all these countries thoughts. If I ever wanna gauge the feelings and thoughts of Africans,Asians and people of the Middle East then I will be sure to ask you.

Sarah, I can't claim to know the history of every African country but I do believe all these countries are still under the influence of European colonists. Just like here in Ireland the invader may have 'left' the country to an extent but he has made sure his ways are still cemented within the psyche of the people. This ensures that whichever European empire it is, continues in that country and ultimately ensures the native becomes a mirror image of the invader in whether he realises it or not.
It amazes me to read the comments on here from some people who should/would claim to know better concerning the British and their ways here in Ireland but fail to recognise other imperialist tactics in other lands. Is it any wonder irish republicanism was pulled apart the way it was if some of the sages on here had their say years ago?
By the way, maybe all the free speech champions on here could confirm or deny that this Charlie newspaper sacked a journalist in 2009 for doing an article that was viewed as anti Semitic? And in this bullshite of freedom of speech malarkey is it true you are not allowed to deny the holocaust in France? What about the Quenelle? Hypocrisy is a bitch; )

Simon said...

Tiarna, "You now think those at Charlie H should be charged for provoking their own killers --your fucked up -you weren't kidding that they offended you."

I don't think murdered people should be charged for provoking their own killers. You are adept at changing the meaning of what I say to suit yourself.

I don't think they should have been allowed to publish the material in the first place. Charged? No.

However, since you either are trying to wind me up Tiarna, or have a short temper I will leave the debate with you. Continue if you want. I am fed up having to explain myself to someone who doesn't treat me with any decency or respect as a fellow commenter.

tiarna said...

Simon

You are so compassionate that you "don't think murdered people should be charged for provoking their own killers." That's is nice of you, after all they did provoke you, and the killers, and needed to be curtailed.

Charlies' only fault was that they offended you and like minded people like you.