Google Fund To Pay For 1 Million Copies of Charlie Hebdo

BarbaraHudson writes The Register is reporting that money set aside from a deal with France's publishers is going to pay for the printing of 1 million copies of next weeks' Charlie Hebdo, "Eight of the 12 people killed were journalists attending an editorial meeting, however, a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack. They have vowed to do a massive 1 million copy print run next week – Charlie Hebdo's circulation is normally around 60k. The cash will come from €60m fund (€20m per year over three years) that supports digital publishing innovation. The fund was set up in 2013 following negotiations between Google and the French government as a remedy to demands from European publishers that Google pay for displaying news snippets in its search results.

Comments

Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so how do I get a copy as I'm outside France? Time to prove that the pen is mightier than the AK-47.

Re:Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

ebay

Re: Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

The shorter than usual survivor edition is being sold internationally next Friday. I heard that Easons will stock it in Ireland. Google to see if your country has a retailer for it?

Re:Availability

[unixisc]

More than that, isn't that weekly in French? Or will they do English editions as well?

Re:Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

You can order subscriptions on Amazon.com or on viapresse.com.

Not sure about single issues. There's some discussion on Reddit for London...

Re:Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to prove that the pen is mightier than the AK-47.

Not so long ago in the USA, there was a certain class of people who expressed great outrage at the problem of black men raping white women. In retrospect, one might argue that they were motivated less by their opposition to rape and more by a racist dislike of black people. Certainly there are voices that need to be heard - promoting understanding of people trapped in situations of poverty, disease, or persecution - that are mostly ignored by the main stream media developed countries. Perhaps, if you are truly concerned about freedom of speech, you would do better to support organizations that provide a platform such voices to be heard.

Re:Availability

[matbury]

Some people don't think that singling out one race or religion for intensive criticism, mischaracterisation, villification, etc. is prejudiced and they'll argue till the end of the world for their right to incite racial and/or religious hatred.

That said, Charlie Hebdo did sack an employee for being antisemitic once. I guess they're OK with racist Arab stereotypes and Islamaphobia though.

Re:Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm not sure whether it's good or bad that many people who are blatantly and obviously prejudiced will absolutely refuse to admit to it. On one hand, it's good that they have a general understanding that prejudice is bad. On the other hand, it would be nice if they had a sufficiently deep understanding of prejudice to recognize it in themselves.

Re:Availability

[Triklyn]

is it anti-arab if they skewer jews and christians as well?

they've a got a pope issue, and a jew issue. just because you're on some kind of arab kick, doesn't mean that the world is out to get you.

Re:Availability

[Ol Olsoc]

is it anti-arab if they skewer jews and christians as well?

We won't know until Jesus brings the pork chops.

Excellent.

[quenda]

I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.
    And a few Jesus & Moses gags inside for balance.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.

To be fair, the marriage wasn't actually consummated until Aisha was nine.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all within the rules of Allah!

Recently, the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia (our ally) informed that there is no age restriction on consuming women as long as they are physically developed enough to withstand the weight of the groom.

http://wunrn.com/news/2009/01_09/01_12_09/011209_saudi.htm

Ah, talk of coincidence, the Captcha word is "violator", lol.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google should reprint some Der Sturmer cartoons to replicate Charlie Hebdo's approach.

Re:Excellent.

[willworkforbeer]

Great, and set up a webpage where you match middle eastern men in their 50's with the 9-year-old girl who makes the best couple.

The Prophet, ladies and gentlemen.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

And another one caricaturing King John of England marriage to 12 year old Isabella of Angoulême some five centuries after Mohammed for completeness.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except people dont go round killing in king john of englands name, nor do they venerate or exalt him as some sort of "perfect human being".

10/10 bait would take again

Re:Excellent.

[Chris Mattern]

You know what? If you want to publish some cartoons denouncing King John as a pedophile, I will totally support your right to do so.

Re:Excellent.

[Chris Mattern]

And, incidentally, John probably didn't consummate that marriage until Isabella was in her late teens.

Re:Excellent.

[sumdumass]

You should look up thighing. Its not safe for work but given the knowledge of that, what you present doesn't surprise me. Make sure you search youtube for it too. There was a cool video where a female news repirter went off on some guy who was describing it as if it was manly or something.

I've talked with several Arabs and Persions who say they were disgusted at the idea so it should not be assumed they all are like that.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except people dont go round killing in king john of englands name

And maybe this is what we should worry about instead, what people are doing now instead of what they were doing in the past. If what Mohammed said to do is not appropriate or applicable today, it would still be inappropriate regardless of who he slept with. People don't have to be reminded of Hitler being an asshole to see problems things that Neonazis promote.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Set up website
2) Prophet!
3) Profit?

Re:Excellent.

[budgenator]

To be fair, when the Bible speaks of Mary and Joseph as being betrothed, at the time it meant they were married (Erusin), but not yet cohabiting (Nissuin).

a betrothed couple is regarded as husband and wife. Similarly, the union can only be ended by the same divorce process as for married couples. However, betrothal does not oblige the couple to behave towards each other in the manner that a married couple is required to, nor does it permit[16] the couple to have a sexual relationship with each other. Erusin

The practice of arranged/forced marriage or betrothal of pre-pubescent girls is still wide spread in Islamic Countries.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody will give a crap if that's drawn. Everyone will just laugh.

That's the whole point, you freaking idiot. These cartoons are MEANT to offend, and to show that it doesn't matter if anyone's offended.

Re:Excellent.

[Chris Mattern]

to show that it doesn't matter if anyone's offended.

Because it doesn't.

Re:Excellent.

[Gavagai80]

Don't Christians believe that God raped Mary when she was around 12 or 13? A prophet acting as was normal for the people of his time is understandable, but an all-knowing immortal god doesn't have the ignorance and culture excuse.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he waited till she was 9 to deflower her.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is threatening to kill anybody who mocks King John. You fucking idiot. Try harder.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.

To be fair, the marriage wasn't actually consummated until Aisha was nine.

Yeah, that's what makes his behavior AOK! Not to mention him getting his adopted son to divorce his daughter-in-law so that he could marry her himself. The latter actually caused even more controversy in Arab circles than did the former.

Re:Excellent.

[rtb61]

Yep, he had plenty of under age slaves 'er' serfs 'er' servants to do that to. It is the nature of monarchists, never forget they publicly tortured to death all those who disagreed with them. So forget the caricatures, tear down the monuments and humiliate their descendants who take public pride in the predations of the their ancestors. This as if it had some value beyond pointing out the true nature of psychopaths and how abusive they truly are when they gain power over others. Race, religion, culture all has nothing to do with it, simply down to gene mutations and a sub species of humanity, that quite simply should not be considered homo sapien but more accurately homo parasitus, the parasites upon humanity society and they are all over the world and they abuse religions as readily as they ruthlessly abuse people of all ages.

Re:Excellent.

[unixisc]

Actually, most neo-Nazi groups, unable to attract mainstream white support, have over the last several years, been attracting Muslims. Even Aryan Nation, despite the fact that Arabs are not Aryans. The Judeophobic nature of both groups is one of the main things that bring them together, as well as the fact that they are both racist. So don't imagine that white supremacist organizations are the ones in the forefront of the faceoff against Muzzies: they are more than happy to associate w/ them, given their common Jew hatred.

Re:Excellent.

[unixisc]

Isn't King John I lampooned already thanks to his adversarial association w/ Robin Hood? Who would protest if this was highlighted? Reason it ain't is that he was already hated enough due to this enmity, and bringing up his pedophilic attributes would only serve to gross out kids following the story.

Very different from Mohammed, who is held up by Muzzies as a perfect model of conduct, and whose pedophillic nature is the main reason for child marriage in Muslim countries even today. In Iran, after Khomenei came to power, the minimum marriage age of girls was lowered to 9, while in Afghanistan, most girls are married off at puberty. Same goes in the Arab countries as well.

Re:Excellent.

[quenda]

Don't Christians believe that God raped Mary when she was around 12 or 13?

Which bit of the Virgin Birth don't you get? Anyway, that totally misses the point. Christians believe some crazy stuff, but don't start threatening you if you ask a question like that, or joke about it. Down Brown doesn't get firebombed for writing about Jesus & Mary Magdalene.

BTW, it was the custom for Jewish girls to be betrothed at that age, (ie puberty) and same in Mohammed's time.
His marriage to Aisha at 6 would have been for political reasons, not because he had a preference. None of that is very funny in a cartoon though.
The issue is not the sexual mores of 1400 years ago, but the violence, intimidation and bigotry of today.

Re:Excellent.

[davydagger]

Lets also be fair, no one is getting shot for pointing that out.

Re:Excellent.

[davydagger]

the sole diffrence is that no one is going to shoot anyone for pointing that one out.

Re:Excellent.

[davydagger]

ha! really? From what I've seen, they've been far more likely to recruit jews against the muslims, who they see as the immediate threat, except in muslim lands, where its the other way around.

As far as white supremecists go, their paterns are pretty damn predictable, don't expect them to do anything more than attack some westernized youth for "race mixing", while leaving the more ethnic people alone. The majority of their targets are liberal and socialist white people, especially those incapable of fighting back.

One thing you will never see NatSoc do, ever, at least in the west, is fight a force on force engagement with a similar or better strength formation.

In europe, expect some westernized arab teenager to get his teeth kicked in, and told to "go home". Don't expect them to really confront any hardcore jihadis. Even if they did, they are most likely to eventually call a truce after they agree to "stop race mixing", and go back to focusing on beating up leftists.

Re:Excellent.

[davydagger]

the bigger issue is people getting shot for publishing satire, regardless of how "offensive". The line for "free speech" is not "offensive", its "provoking attacks, or otherwise denying people their rights".

And no, christians generally don't shoot people for saying bad things about Mr Jesus, even if they do bitch and complain(again their right to bitch and complain).

I think the only other group to follow through with threats in the modern age in the west is probably the Jews, another group that needs to lighten up. No really, the entire semetic race just needs to lighten the fuck up.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about some cartoons praising King John as a pedophile?
Would that be ok? No? Would violate "human rights"?

Men should beable to marry young female children.
Feminism is a disease,

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

" Very different from Mohammed, who is held up by Muzzies as a perfect model of conduct, and whose pedophillic nature is the main reason for child marriage in Muslim countries even today. In Iran, after Khomenei came to power, the minimum marriage age of girls was lowered to 9, while in Afghanistan, most girls are married off at puberty. Same goes in the Arab countries as well. "

Good. Feminists should be executed.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the comparison you are making. Mary wasn't 9 and Joseph wasn't 50 and he didn't raise her as a child to have sex later.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, that makes total sense now. First time God rapes Mary. Next time he chickens out and sends a 50 year old prophet to do the vile act for him at an even lower age!

Re:Excellent.

[unixisc]

If Feminists were really brave, they'd fight real oppression of women in Islamic countries, instead of trying to imagine discrimination in Western societies, where women have all the rights that men have

Re: Excellent.

[ShieldW0lf]

I hope people refuse to work for them, myself. Professional antagonists who got what they deserved.

Re:Excellent.

[zapadnik]

"and go back to focusing on beating up leftists."
The Left and the Muslims are together. Who do you think brings the Muslims in en-masse (as future voters for the Left) ? who defends Islam? the Left. There are numerous Marxist attacks around the World all the time - for example, a Marxist woman blew herself up at an Istanbul police station last week. But you did not hear about this because the Left are in control of the mainstream media. They also never tell you that National Socialism IS socialism, and nearly all violence is perpetrated by the collectivists of one form or another of the Left , or their Islamic allies.

Yes, I know you have never thought about this, and every source of information tells you otherwise. This is the disinformation of The Matrix designed so that you never understand what the Cultural Marxists are doing. And they are very, very good at reducing the signal with the noise of disinformation ("Islam is a Religion of Peace", "National Socialism ois Far Right " [nope, Fascists are collectivists and thus Far Left, and the Libertarians are the true Far Right]).

if you want to escape the Matrix I cannot recommend the book "Disinformation" by Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa highly enough. The question is, will you resist the truth when you hear it?

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty sad that in America, we talk all day long about our freedom of speech and how we're the most free nation on the planet.

We don't even have the balls to publish a cartoon DEPICTION (not actual image - duh) of a guy from religious texts in any form anywhere whatsoever. Even the publications saying OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD PUBLISH THEM aren't willing to publish them. Self-censorship out of fear or intimidation is the same as actual censorship.

We're a nation full of pussies that won't back up our bullshit.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Show them having their wedding ceremony at Auschwitz.

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Saudi Arabia, the same country where the grand mufti said that women that drive will have damaged ovaries.

Keep in mind that their interpretation is extremely archaic and misogynistic, and does *not* represent the entirety of Muslims.

FWIW, I'm an Omani atheist.

Re:Excellent.

[sociocapitalist]

I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.

To be fair, the marriage wasn't actually consummated until Aisha was nine.

The worse thing being, she complained she couldn't even feel it.

Re:Excellent.

[jabuzz]

Let's also be fair the practice was common place in Europe long after Muhammed was dead.

Being British I would point out that Margaret Beaufort was married off for the first time aged one. That was later annulled so she could be married off to Edmund Tudor, the half brother of Henry IV aged 12, he was literately twice her age, aka 24 at the time of the marriage. The future Henry VII was born less than a year later. Lady Margaret had a difficult birth with the future king, largely put down to her young age and size, and would never give birth again as a result.

At this point Mohamed had been dead over six centuries.

Re:Excellent.

[AmiMoJo]

You just couldn't resist taking a pot-shot, huh? Try googling "feminism + islam".

Re:Excellent.

[AmiMoJo]

I googled, and it's like they consider him some kind of super-paedo with a magic cock:

"That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men."

Re:Excellent.

[AmiMoJo]

Which bit of the Virgin Birth don't you get?

Why he may not have actually forced his holy cock into her, impregnating someone without their consent is probably a crime or at best morally dubious.

His marriage to Aisha at 6 would have been for political reasons, not because he had a preference.

He practised rubbing his penis against her thighs and genitals at age 6, something that modern day Muslims use to justify doing the same thing. Some theologians have even tried to address this by saying that Mohammed had super powers to control his erection and since normal men don't have such powers it isn't okay for them to do it.

In any case, he didn't need to get her pregnant at age 9. I think most guys would have trouble even doing that, not finding 9 year old girls to be particular attractive. Maybe she looked older, although being her husband that just makes him guilty of sexualizing a child.

Re: Excellent.

[AvgCsStudent]

Socialism isn't Marxist because it has nothing to do with communal ownership of the means of production.

Re:Excellent.

[unixisc]

Speaking of pregnancy, he never got her pregnant in her life, since he was close to 60 and she was in her teens. After all, he died when she was in her teens, and they didn't have any kids. After his death, she became a leading partisan in the internecine civil war among Muzzies, which resulted in the Shiite-Sunnite split. She had a major enmity with Ali, the founder of Shiite Islam, since the latter was one of her leading accusers of her cheating on Mohammed (which resulted in him coming up with the 4 witnesses rule)

Re:Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most guys would have trouble even doing that, not finding 9 year old girls to be particular attractive.

Most guys *today* would have trouble, but let's not forget that what is attractive isn't constant.

For example, the Chinese at one point thought small feet were beautiful.

Before fashion magazines and super models who are selected for their ability to be essentially coat hangers, having a little meat is considered more attractive. For one thing, it indicated your family ain't so poor you starved.

being her husband that just makes him guilty of sexualizing a child.

Then so was Joseph, Mary's husband, the guy who worked and kept a roof over Mary's head. And fed that child who wasn't even his.

Yet, all attention is given to Mary. Paraphrasing Chris Rock: momma momma momma, it's always momma. Nobody gives a fck about daddy.

Re: Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

All the terrible things some humans do to others in the world, and these are the ones you think deserved death? Disgusting.

Second point: one man's investigative journalist is another's "professional antagonist." Justify this and you can justify anything.

Re:Excellent.

[tehcyder]

the top religious authority in Saudi Arabia (our ally) informed that there is no age restriction on consuming women as long as they are physically developed enough

I don't think that even the more extreme versions of Islam allow you to eat women.

Re:Excellent.

[tehcyder]

You know what? If you want to publish some cartoons denouncing King John as a pedophile, I will totally support your right to do so.

That's because you probably know or care nothing abut King John, so it's a meaningless comparison.

Re: Excellent.

[ShieldW0lf]

I'd call what Charlie Hedbo did hate speech, myself.

Re: Excellent.

[Triklyn]

no, satire is a thing.

Re:Excellent.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Except people dont go round killing in king john of englands name...".

Certainly, nobody was killing in King John's name during 12 years of war with the French.

Re: Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're showing your own bigotry.
Feminists DO fight for women's rights in Islamic nations.
And there is plenty of gender discrimination in the west. Legal or not.

Re:Excellent.

[Ol Olsoc]

Let's also be fair the practice was common place in Europe long after Muhammed was dead.

Being sane, I would point out I don't give a flying fig. Pre-pubescent girls are not designed to have sex with. Not by muslims, not by the British, not by anyone.

I hate these arguments, because it is justifying evil by saying someone else did the same thing.

Re: Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for me and your mum in bed u fucking bitch face, i cant wait to see you rott in hell

Re: Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

To all you racist cunts, i hope you get blown up and ur heads chopped offðY and shame to all the cunts that died in paris, freedom of speech mother fuckers

Re: Excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go eat your mums pussy bitch

Re: Excellent.

[zapadnik]

What is socialism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Marx later used the same idea.

Socialism is the belief that the Collective matters more than the individual. Hence, socialism uses the coercive power of the State for INVOLUNTARY (hence, immoral) redistribute from the productive (talented and hard-working) to the politically favored - for the political power benefit of the political class. Of course, the bloated Government gets its cut (60% of revenue, usually) of the wealth taken from the tax slaves - and thus is relatively inefficient. Because of this, there is little incentive to work hard, and thus over time all socialist states degenerate to a level of equality in misery - except for the political class who have virtually unlimited power and wealth.

Contrast the immorality of involuntary socialism with the VOLUNTARY (and thus, moral) 'charity' practiced by the political Right (the Individualists like Conservatives and Libertarians, who stand in contrast to the totalitarian Collectivist Borg of the Left). Charity does not result in a growth of Big Government, does not result in the Government using coercion to take what you worked for, and is 2.5 times more efficient in helping the poor than socialism (because government doesn't steal the tax take).

Most Slashdotters have never heard this truth (and many resist the truth). Why? because they are indoctrinated by the Big State Collectivists who don't want you to understand that it is (Leftist) Socialism that is immoral and (Rightist) Charity that is moral. The control-freak Leftists (who control mainstream media) want you to remain a tax slave where they can regulate every tiny aspect of your life - because the political class is so arrogant it thinks it knows what is better for you life than you do.

In contrast to the tax enslavement and total regulation of your life that the Left is trying to achieve look at what the Right offers instead:
1) Leave me alone! (small Government)
2) Don't take my stuff! (private property that the Government cannot take from you), and
3) Don't be a jerk! (virtuous citizenry, which is required in order that points 1 & 2 be possible).
Bill Whittle does and excellent job at explaining these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

So, you can defend immoral and involuntary socialism if you want - just don't try and force us Free Men into your mad scheme - which is what socialism has to do, because the productive, hard-working and talented want no part of that unjust system that is destined to fail because it does not understand that **wealth is created** (see how Steve Jobs created massive wealth using his good ideas and talent alone). Because socialism doesn't work that is why the political class always ends up killing hundreds of millions and oppressing even more to try and stave off the collapse of the socialist system that not only does not work (as proven in dozens of countries for over a century), it CANNOT WORK.

Watch now as the slaves of the Borg rage in their prison of indoctrination and mod down the Truth - that socialism is completely immoral and can never work.

Re: Excellent.

[davydagger]

Socialism is the belief that the Collective matters more than the individual.

No, socialism is the workers owning the means of production. There are various forms of socialism, many opposed to eachother, but this is the only common thread.

1) Leave me alone! (small Government)

except for a massive police and military industrial complex needed to protect private property, that while its at it winds up abusing even the self-proffessed rights of small time property owners, and harrassing people for petty moralist issues. Also, people with stuff are more or less allowed to tell people without stuff what to do. Don't like it? Its your fault for not having enough stuff.

2) Don't take my stuff! (private property that the Government cannot take from you)

unless that stuff is immoral, or its inconvient for the largest stuffholders. Of course you just might not be allowed to own stuff because you don't own the procedes of your labor.

3) Don't be a jerk! (virtuous citizenry, which is required in order that points 1 & 2 be possible). Bill Whittle does and excellent job at explaining these:

And the only people who quantify "being a jerk", are the powerful. your "Truth" is wholly dishonest.

Re:Excellent.

[davydagger]

I had to re-read this fucking post and try and figure out if your serious or not.

The Left and the Muslims are together.

The most laughable bit of insanity I think I've ever heard. Niether the "Left" nor Islam are unified groups in purposes, on any scale, for any reason. You're lumping religious muslim groups, with secular arab, kurdish, persian,etc.. nationalists who's faith is Islam, as well as well as lumping in liberal democrats with socialists and communists in a hillarious mess of ignorancce.

Then you try and seperate the relatively small faction of libertarian capitalism, that takes most of its rhetoric and views from 19th century socialist movements as the true bearer of "capitalism", when its been nothing more than a series of fringe movements aimed at enticing disenfranchised leftists and nothing more.

Next you tell me "National Socialism is Socialism", grouping in all of Fascism, showing your complete ignorance of "Third Position" economics, and also completely ignoring history of not just NatSoc, but Fascism as a whole, which is just a diverse group as capitalism and socialism.

Before you go around spouting matrix analogies, I want you to go ahead and do some basic reading.

1. Go read a bood by a fascist, Mein Kamp by Hitler, or Principles of Fascism by mousolini
2. Go read a book by a socialist. Das Kapital by marx, or What is Property by Proudhoun, or even Agrairian Reform by Paine
3. Go read a book by a capitalist. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

Yes, I know you have never thought about this, and every source of information tells you otherwise.

on the contrary I've thought about this somewhat deeply for the past 15 years. Please go read some relivant books, and then get back to me once you've discovered what fascism, socialism, and capitalism mean.

Also stop using terms like "left" and "right", because they mean nothing in greater context. You can also stop telling people you are awaking them from the matrix because you are just pushing them deeper into misdirection and lies.

Re:Excellent.

[shutdown -p now]

No, hardcore neo-Nazis embracing Islam is actually a big thing. Just google "neo-Nazi Islam convert", you'll come up with a surprisingly lengthy list of prominent names. You might even recognize some.

Re: Excellent.

[zapadnik]

No, socialism is the workers owning the means of production. There are various forms of socialism, many opposed to eachother, but this is the only common thread.

Completely FALSE. No wonder you are so confused Davy. You are still in the Matrix, so please let me help you out of it. Ready? here are the definitions:

• Communism: State control of the means of production. State control of the Fruits of Production. A form of Socialism at the Extreme Left of the political spectrum.
• Fascism: State control of the Fruits of Production. The means of production remain in private hands (but may be directed by the State). A form of Socialism are the Far Left of the political spectrum.
• Socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". One of numerous forms of involuntary wealth re-distribution enforce via State coercion (ie. implicit force from the State). Wealth is confiscated from the productive to the politically favored by the politically powerful. An involuntary "win-lose" system.
• Free Market: system where both parties engage in **voluntary** trade. Since the trade is voluntary exchanges only happen if both sides feel they are gaining, thus it is a "win-win" system.

except for a massive police and military industrial complex needed to protect private property, that while its at it winds up abusing even the self-proffessed rights of small time property owners, and harrassing people for petty moralist issues. Also, people with stuff are more or less allowed to tell people without stuff what to do. Don't like it? Its your fault for not having enough stuff.

Can you not see through the neo-Marxist propaganda you've been indoctrinated with? Everything you've been talking about involves a Big State using its power against citizens. The problem is not wealthy people, per se, the problem is wealthy people who use that wealth to influence the Big State. This is called 'cronyism'. You can see this in effect today where the Billionaires (George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc) have massive control over the Democratic Party in the US and the Democratic Party passes laws that benefit those billionaires (such as the block on the Keystone XL pipeline that would massively boost the US economy, and result in millions finding work through flow-on effects, but the Democrats nix it because the key donor Warren Buffet makes a lot of money shipping oil by rail). The Republicans are not much better. Cronyism has gotten so bad that citizens in the US had to form their own political movement (the 'Tea Party') in utter disgust at what both Democrats and Republicans were doing. But the problem does not rest with the wealthy. The problem lies with Big Government that has too much power over citizen lives. But of course the neo-Marxists don't want you to know that Big Government is the true problem - because they want a Government so big that they have all the say over you life and you have none.

Unless, of course, you think that you'll be one of the control freaks in the Big State that tells other people how to live their lives. Is that you davy? Are you one of the dangerous authoritarians that are a mortal threat to every Free Man?

unless that stuff is immoral, or its inconvient for the largest stuffholders. Of course you just might not be allowed to own stuff because you don't own the procedes of your labor.

Socialism is predicated on the idea that wealth is a 'fixed pie' and thus must be shared evenly. This is completely retarded because it doesn't recognize the Truth, that 'wealth is created'. Don't understand? well, consider Steve Jobs making the first iPhone. Through the power of his creativity and ideas alone he was able to make a whole new industry, create massive wealth for himself and his workers, create wealth for workers in China too, and create wealth that was taxed to help the poor. The wealth that was c

Re: Excellent.

[davydagger]

Completely FALSE. No wonder you are so confused Davy. You are still in the Matrix, so please let me help you out of it. Ready? here are the definitions:

why yes, I've see the light, from now on it, I'm going to stop reading historicaly relivant documents essential to the formation of various political ideas, and start reading conspiracy laden blog posts written by advertisers who only see history through the lense of the last 30 or so years.

Communism: State control of the means of production. State control of the Fruits of Production. A form of Socialism at the Extreme Left of the political spectrum. Fascism: State control of the Fruits of Production. The means of production remain in private hands (but may be directed by the State). A form of Socialism are the Far Left of the political spectrum. Socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". One of numerous forms of involuntary wealth re-distribution enforce via State coercion (ie. implicit force from the State). Wealth is confiscated from the productive to the politically favored by the politically powerful. An involuntary "win-lose" system. Free Market: system where both parties engage in **voluntary** trade. Since the trade is voluntary exchanges only happen if both sides feel they are gaining, thus it is a "win-win" system.

Now I'm fairly intrested in where you got this information. I got my information from reading historically relevant documents and even talking to proponents of all thre ideaologies. I even pointed at works that you should read. Communism - Theorhetical end state of communist revolution, where everything is shared, and there is a moneyless economy, where everyone is equal and united. Made famous by Karl Marx, which is sometimes falses attibuted all communist thought. Communism is a subsection of Socialism. There is no "state" in communism, along with no nations, no class, wealth,(some even say no recognition of gender, etc....). This is "to each his ability....". There has yet to be a communist society, but only "Socialist States run by Communists". The fact that a ruling group simply desires communism, does not make communism magicly appear. No group of Communists(people who want to set up communism), have ever really suceeded in setting up communism(the end idea state of their ideaology). Some communists saw use of a Socialist State to achieve their ends, and some saw organic melting away of old structures, and simply not replacing them with anything. Socialism - Umbrella of disimilar ideas, with the common theme of "the workers own the means of production". Socialist ideas generally support working class unity, over that of race, class, nation, with some exceptions. Some socialists preach revolution, others are social democrats that work within a democratic system. Some socialists are Statists who want a large centralized worker state, and others confederations of trade unions, still others advocate a market system, without capital ownership(see mutualism of JP Proudhoun). There is no "redistribution of wealth", just over the means of production. Fascism - Economicly "third position", that respects private property within the realm it falls under the state. I.E. people are allowed to own property unless it interferes with the will of society as a whole dictated from a strong central state. The State, as well as all other things are run as a "meritocracy", where desirable canidates are given the job even if they are not popular(anti-democracy). The state supports itself via taxes and smooths out the edges with generios welfare programs to aid those among the poor that are worthy in the eyes of the State. Otherwise respects private property, but relies heavily on taxes to mediate redistribution of wealth based on needs of the state. Also present in fascism is militarism, some form of nationalism, or exclusionary group ties. There are many types of fascism, National Socialism(NatSoc, or nazis), being the most famous.

Re:Excellent.

[rmdingler]

Fucked up the meta-moderation, so as an apology, I will note your post is +1 insightful here sans the anonymity.

My gut is?... that's for cowards, anyhoo...

Re: Excellent.

[zapadnik]

why yes, I've see the light, from now on it, I'm going to stop reading historicaly relivant documents essential to the formation of various political ideas, and start reading conspiracy laden blog posts written by advertisers who only see history through the lense of the last 30 or so years.

Your definition of "socialism" was actually the definition of communism. I pointed out you were wrong, using the definitions given by Stanford Economics Professor Thomas Sowell (who studied under Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
For example, he defines "fascism" in this talk on "Obama's Failed Economic Policies" [5 min]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
You can invent a strawmen scenario about me, but you are arguing against Sowell, not me about these definitions.

Now I'm fairly intrested in where you got this information. I got my information from reading historically relevant documents and even talking to proponents of all thre ideaologies.

Thanks for your references. A good start I would suggest for you is Sowell's "Basic Economics" which is a complete classic.

Communism is a subsection of Socialism. There is no "state" in communism, along with no nations, no class, wealth,(some even say no recognition of gender, etc....).

Agree completely, Communism is a subsection of Socialism. That is why I found you using the definition of communism as the definition of socialism as rather odd, your "workers owning the means of production" is part of the definition of communism; socialism in general is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", predating but popularised by Marx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... Depends whether you are talking about French Communism or Marxism-Leninism (which which case)

There has yet to be a communist society, but only "Socialist States run by Communists"

This statement shows you are a dangerous ideologue. You think that after a century of failure after failure after failure and tried in dozens of countries that somehow you will be able to "get it right". Of course, when your socialism comes apart at the seams (because it CANNOT work as it does not understand that wealth is created by individuals acting in their own interest which benefits all of society) you will end up first with propaganda, then repression, then oppression and then comes the tens of million of bodies - it is INEVITABLE unless some other external forces stops you crazy ideologues who refuse to Get Real and understand the World as it really is, rather than your ideological fantasy (which is a control-freak fantasy, where you are one of the "enlightened" and deserve to use force to control others "for their own good").

Um no, communism everything is shared evenly, not all socialists are communists.

I didn't say everything was shared evenly (you control freaks always take more than the common prole gets), I said that is was based on the ***idea*** that everything should be shared evenly. Without this idea it would become obvious that the non-voluntary forms of socialism are merely stealing by the politically empowered using the coercive force of the State to do so.

Voluntary forms of socialism are still based on the idea of equal contribution. On my World travels I visited an Israeli kibbutz and it was interesting to hear how they were counter-productive to one talented inhabitant. That inhabitant was a software developer and had a well-paying job outside their kibbutz. But their earnings were brought in to the kibbutz and given to those who were lazy. When this person was a young man and an idealist this didn't matter, but now

Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the original people are dead, whoever and probably the new people are swimming in cash.

The fund was set up in 2013 following negotiations between Google and the French government as a remedy to demands from European publishers that Google pay for displaying news snippets in its search results.

And once you start paying, in Europe, it will never, ever stop. Hope Google is prepared to give eternal handouts everywhere.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[BarbaraHudson]

a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack.

They'll continue on, which is more than most people would have done in their situation. As for the fund, I would think that using some of google's money for this is a good thing (and maybe something they wouldn't have done voluntarily). Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising, and at least some advertisers are going to be relucttant (to say the least) to advertise with them given recent events. I doubt very much that they're "swimming in money."

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people have a strong will to continue. You can see this in the documentary Out of the Clear Blue Sky about the efforts of the Cantor Fitzgerald CEO to continue on and rebuild after 2/3 of his company was killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't run any ads. Freedom is difficult when you depend of large companies.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[aaribaud]

Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising

Wrong. Charlie Hebdo is one of the rare newspapers in France (another example is le Canard Enchaîné) with zero ads, and which survive only from their readership.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[BarbaraHudson]

Thank you for correcting me. I guess this gives them the editorial freedom that lets them take the stands they do.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it? Seems you get corrected quite a lot for bullshit you spew here.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it? Downmod this we see it anyways (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual. Seems you get corrected here quite a lot. The link above shows many times inclusive of your trolling.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that you ate your words for? Downmod this we see it anyhow (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

And a publishing group that subsidizes them.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[davydagger]

mabey, but more people are going to start reading it now that its gotten so much publicity.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[BarbaraHudson]

Another reader pointed out that I was wrong in assuming that Charlie Hebdo was ad-supported. It isn't, which explains why they have so much editorial independence. For sure they'll increase their subscriber base. Rather than terrorize people, they've galvanized them. There will be much more support for anti-terrorism programs.

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[Anonymous Coward]

On ya sockpuppeting & stalking/harassing apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p... eatin yer words when challenged on it http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

Re:Wonder who is running Charlie Hebdo now

[aaribaud]

And a publishing group that subsidizes them.

None that its Wikipedia page knows of, and this page is the object of much updating right now, both from goodwill and less good will editors, so any reliable source about outside financing would certainly be mentioned right now.

Is google now about to become a target?

[BarbaraHudson]

I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is a target to them, anyway.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant. Everyone is a "target" that happens to be in the vicinity of those nutjobs.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[noshellswill]

Good!  A blasted GOOGLEplex!  American gentiles  have been *zzfyucked for decades. Some  fatkat American Jewboiz get attacked and their wives blown apart ... and mebby American  cosmopolitam lib.coms will rethink their  over-valued virtues ... perhaps enjoy watching a few million Muzzi-wogs get vaporized in vengeance-laden retribution.

Never again? Bullshit ... rinse, lather, repeat since the first Homo-Habilis smashed-in his brothers skull and stole his mate ... 

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm left wondering if you and your brain-damaged, bigoted, hypocritical peers will ever wake up and have the decency and manners to stop insulting moslems and islam. You don't insult people over their bald heads, black skin, or overweight body, or their ethnicity, so why do you think it's ok to insult an entire group of people over their religion?

You speak of Google becoming a "target", but did you ever realize that moslem and islams have been targets for years, for insults, ridicule, taunting, mocking and provocation?

Moslems disagree over islam, moslems have concerns over islam, moslems debate islam, and moslems criticize islam, so why can't you? Why do you and little shit magazines like Charlie Hebdo have to stoop to the level of small children and insult with the only intent of provoking an angry reaction? Is that what democracy and freedom of speech means to you, to be reserved to insult anyone or a group of people for anything you want, as opposed to sensibly debate it?

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It isn't like they are paying up willingly, they were made to by the French. On the other hand, the islamofascist muslins won't care about the details, so maybe the best option is for Google to wave the white flag and play the victim.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason you associate this with Google is because a bunch of journalists are trying to create that association in your mind. This is money that the French government obtained from Google by extortion, while French journalists were cheering on. And now they are adding insult to injury by tainting Google with what the extortionists are using the money for.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[jedidiah]

Almost but not quite. Anyone that doesn't follow their particular brand of Islam is a target. This includes other Muslims. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the news.

The hero of Vincennes is as much of a target as the people he saved.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[jedidiah]

> You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them,

Insults aren't the same as murder in any sane or civilized society.

Liberty is a difficult virtue sometimes (like any virtue).

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Chris Mattern]

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

Easily the most evil, wrong-headed and vile statement I've seen on the net today, if not this week. You do Islam no favors by blaming the victim like this, sir.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

No, it is people like you that cause problems. You are one of these bigoted fucks. Here's a hint - don't fucking read it if it insults you! Capish?

Blaming Charlie Hedbo is like blaming Jyoti Singh Pandey for being raped and murdered. People that think like this should be rounded up, and shown the great French invention - the guillotine.

So get it through your thick skull. You have a right to be left alone, to believe whatever the fuck you want. But that stops once you stop tolerating each others' speech. Read that again - it says tolerating. And that is defined by the law of the land.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is important that people know who the 'hero of Vincennes' is. Way too many people are looking for an excuse to indulge their bigotry and attack muslims. Which is pretty much what the terrorists hope to make happen.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts are not bigotry, by definition. Fuck you for trying, though.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[itzly]

Simply choose not to be provoked. That's the only solution that works. Your suggestion, trying to not provoke somebody else, doesn't work, because I have no control over what provokes you. Muslims in my country have been provoked by gay couples walking down the street, or by a Jewish man sitting in the park.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, and the gay nigger Muhammad that you rode in on, faggot.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Oligonicella]

Add to that, every fatwa changes the brand.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[sumdumass]

I was thinking the same thing. When i first saw the headlines i thought "why in the hell would they do something like this for a company like that?". Then i realized that the only connection to google was that they agreed to pay the french years ago and that money is being used now.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who you are responding to, but presenting facts without the full context is definitely bigotry.
If anything, it is the primary form of bigotry in the modern world.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'm left wondering if you and your
>brain-damaged, bigoted,
>hypocritical peers

The only one fitting this description is you.

>will ever wake up and have the
>decency and manners to stop
>insulting moslems and islam.

No. Why should anyone stop doing that? Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, pretty much everyone gets mocked.

Perhaps Muslim countries should stop killing Infidels, LGBTQs, stop degrading women, stop censoring the press and stop being mediaeval theocracies. You know all those reason why Muslims are being mocked.

Oh, I know there are a large number of decent, nice and friendly, tolerant and all around pleasant Muslims. Some of the nicest people I knew are Muslims. Perhaps it's time you stop uniting with the asshole Muslims against the "evil" West. We are not against Muslims. We are against asshole Muslims and their over sensitiveness and their habit to try to enforce their rules elsewhere.

>You don't insult people over their
>bald heads, black skin, or
>overweight body, or their ethnicity,

Wrong. That's being done all the time. And no one gets killed for doing so. If you think it's right to kill or hate because you religion is mocked there is something wrong - with you and your religion.

>so why do you think it's ok to insult
> an entire group of people over
> their religion?

Because it is ok. I couldn't give a flying duck if your religion is being mocked. I couldn't care less.

>You speak of Google becoming a
>"target", but did you ever realize '>that moslem and islams have been
>targets for years, for insults,
>ridicule, taunting, mocking and
>provocation?

So what??? No mocking can ever justify violence. Never ever.

>Moslems disagree over islam,
>moslems have concerns over islam,
>moslems debate islam, and
>moslems criticize islam, so why
>can't you?

Most people are not Muslims?
And Islam is being discussed. But satire are a form of debate. That's what you don't get.

>Why do you and little shit
>magazines like Charlie Hebdo have
>to stoop to the level of small
>children and insult with the only
>intent of provoking an angry
>reaction?

Because we can. Because we don't live in a theocracy. Because the Muslim rules don't apply here. End of story.

>Is that what democracy and
>freedom of speech means to you,
>to be reserved to insult anyone or
>a group of people for anything you
>want, as opposed to sensibly
>debate it?

Yes. To have the possibility to do so if we want. Yes. Next question?

>You can't excuse what Charlie
>Hebdo are doing,

Yes we can. It's called freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Like in any decent country.

>no more than you can excuse what
>these people did to them,

Cartoons are not equal to mass murder. The end.

>but Charlie Hebdo themselves are
>responsible for provoking this
>tragedy.

Victim blaming at its finest.

Piss off, shut the fuck up, get the fuck out of here and don't come back.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[BarbaraHudson]

Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy

Troll much?

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[BarbaraHudson]

First, the money google paid into the fund was a business decision - no more extortionate than any other business decision, and negotiated with the French government, which didn't give french publishers what they were asking for.

Second, the problem is that the people backing these terrorists, while fully aware that it's not google funding this, can use the apparent link to target google for some mentally ill nutjob who is open to irrational suggestions.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they will DDOS Google?

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it? Downmod this we see it anyways (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant.
Well said.
Not logged in or I would mod you up; best response possible.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[excelsior_gr]

Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy

Just like women that get raped are "asking for it" when showing cleavage, right? So, in public they must conceal their body under a burqa, right?

Repeat after me: You cannot tell a journalist what to write just like you cannot tell a woman what to wear.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

Maybe I'm wacko, but it sounds like your saying that Muslims are incapable of resisting impulses and are therefore presenting a clear and credible danger to themselves or others. If that is correct then it follows that Islam is a type of insanity.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Muslim countries should stop killing Infidels, LGBTQs, stop degrading women, stop censoring the press and stop being mediaeval theocracies.

Perhaps Christian countries should stop killing abortion doctors, blacks, homosexuals, stop degrading women, stop censoring the press, and stop torturing people for driving taxis.

Basically stop harbouring Christian terrorists.

You know, like the US needs to stop doing. Your hands aren't so clean.

So what??? No mocking can ever justify violence. Never ever.

Or suicide, but that's a classic case of victim blaming right there.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Sardaukar86]

Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

No, they are not.

it is this kind of vile thinking that has led the world to where we are today.

YOU are the problem, you and people who feel as you do. Grow a spine and grow the fuck up, you goddamned cowardly motherfucker.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we can. It's called freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Like in any decent country.

Where are you cries against France, who ordered aterrorist attack on a ship in a New Zealand harbour?

That makes them a state sponsor of terrorism.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can kill doctors and women who do not follow your views on abortion. It's the Christian thing to do.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comedy is a funny way of being serious. Comedy can bring a subject to the forefront, break the ice, and get people talking. The best comedians discuss politics, ethics, life and death and all the other important things. Comedians can force a debate.

You come across as wanting to be decent and with manners and then call Charlie Hebdo a little shit magazine. I hope bringing this to light doesn't make me responsible for provoking a tragedy.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Perhaps Christian countries should >stop killing abortion doctors,

Neither am I a christian nor are health care doctors murdered for doing their job. At least not on a regular basis.

> blacks, homosexuals,

None of them gets killed in Europe for being them. Again : not on a regular basis. If it happens it os a vile and regrettable exception, not the rule.

BTW : nice straw man arguments.
1/10
Try harder.

>stop degrading women,

Lol. Seriously, I'm breathless from laughing. Thats the funniest joke I ever heard. Quite a bold statement coming from a muslim I suppose where women are mostly 2nd class citizen (yes, there are exceptions).
Wow. That made my day. You are quite a comedian.

>stop censoring the press,

Ohhhhh stop it. It gets even funnier. ROFLMAO. Please stop. It hurts. This is soo funny. hehehe.

Wait you are serious????

*tripple facepalm*

>and stop torturing people for
>driving taxis.

huh???? Are you mad bro?

>Basically stop harbouring Christian
>terrorists.

And again : I am not a christian and I despise all terrorists no matter their faith.

Troll level : pre-school.
1/10. try again.

>You know, like the US needs to stop >doing.

I'm not from the US. And yes, the US did some horrible things I despise them for. BUT : I wouldn't kill them or commit terrorism.

That's the wrong answer. Always.

>Your hands aren't so clean.

I'm pretty sure my hands are as clean as baby hands.

>Or suicide, but that's a classic case
> of victim blaming right there.

nope. That's tragedy.
guess what: I have been mocked and bullied quite a lot in my life. 4 times people tried to kill me. (I didnt do anything) Seriously. Not kidding. Yet I am as nice as possible to everyone, work in health care and help people every single day.
BUT I WILL STILL EXCERSISE MY FREE SPEECH. GROW A PAIR AND PISS OFF!

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up sand nigger and have some yummy bacon.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to burn a Koran for this sand nigger.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

No mocking can ever justify violence. Never ever.

As someone who well remembers my primary and secondary education...

Fuck that. There's a lot of little fuckheads, and a great many adult shitguzzlers, who need to be punched in the face. Possibly more than once.

Of course, there is a difference between "violence" and "durkadurka let's execute a cartoonist or three".

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I really need to explain to you the difference between mass murder & execution and bitchslapping someone on the school yard? Really????

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

More evidence that the only solution to the muslim problem is the Final Solution.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was 10 years old and in my 3rd school year in a tiny village. Sorry for being not up to date back then on international terrorism 16000km away from me.

But yes. That was a terrible and despicable action by France.

But there is still a difference : France did not intend to kill. Al-quida, IS etc do want to kill as their primary goal.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to love the blame game

"...but charlie hebdo was dressing provocatively so they were asking for it"

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[davydagger]

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

you can't equate insults with murder. End of story. While I disagree with insults against Islam, I agree with their right to say it as long as they aren't provoking violence or any harm against believers.

As long as you feel violence is an acceptable retaliation to insult, no one is going to stop mocking Islam now, until you just accept this. Its in your court.

Is that what democracy and freedom of speech means to you, to be reserved to insult anyone or a group of people for anything you want, as opposed to sensibly debate it?

yes, but you can always insult them back. Which is generally the recommended course of action.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't equate insults with murder.

Then again, as the gun enthusiasts on Slashdot are fond of pointing out, a well-armed society is a polite society. How else are you going to achieve a polite society other than have people living in fear of being shot for being rude? :)

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't excuse what Charlie Hebdo are doing, no more than you can excuse what these people did to them, but Charlie Hebdo themselves are responsible for provoking this tragedy.

This statement offends me, and I can't excuse it. Since you believe offense is tantamount to murder, will you please provide me your address so I can send a crack team of assassins to murder you? I'll even be a little more gracious than the nutjob extremists. Before my crack team murders you, I'll give you some time to say goodbye to your loved ones. Thank you ever so much for you help.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

O /|\
/ \

There - I drew a picture of Mohammed. What are you going to do about it sand nigger? I have an idea, suck my cock after I wrap it in bacon.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply choose not to be provoked.

So what's your take on public nudity? It doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't even insult anyone. What right does one person have to not look at certain parts of another person?

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like you're the one with the problem. Its simple - if you insult a person, expect them to respond. If you greatly insult a person, expect them to respond greatly. Your actions have consequences, same as anyone else. If you your a man, man up and accept them.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Israel tolerated a cripple in a wheelchair criticizing Israel to the extent that they used a helicopter gunship to blow him the fuck up ?

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would google become a target? They're a bunch of pussies. They're helping fund another place in another country to publish something they're already going to publish. I don't see google publishing it themselves or putting it on their website. Just a bunch of typical american pussies.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus effin' Mohamed, reading your sh!tty comment is really making me go full-blown wingnut Islamophobe. Are you EFFIN SERIOUS about blaming the victim? Do you not understand the HUGE, GAPING moral chasm between insulting someone verbally and KILLING them? Does your religion even discuss morality at all,since you don't appear to have even the basest grasp of it!? There is no equivocation, period. If you don't get that, GTFO and move yourself to Saudi Theocracia, we don't need morons like you in free society who don't understand how not to get butthurt by words, and want to defend cold-blooded killers because you think your beliefs deserve special protections and privileges over anyone else's. God damn, my increasingly negative views of the silly little religion of Islam gets even more negative when jackasses like you defend those who kill in its name.

You want to outlaw insults, ridicule, taunting, mocking and provocation? Well guess what? Your sheer stupidity is an insult to my intelligence. It mocks me, it provokes me, it taunts me. Throw your own stupid ass in prison. Or since you seem to be OK with killing as a response to such things, take an AK47 to your head, you primitive, worthless sack of superstitious sh!t.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's worth adding the qualifier that it's okay to restrict both of those under limited circumstances: "No, you can't show that much cleavage in a professional office." or "No, you can't put that poster of Mohammed snogging a guy up on the board by the watercooler.".

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the nicest people I knew are Muslims

When I read that sentence in your drivel, That's all I needed to know to stop reading, you islamophobic motherfucker.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

In all fairness, when those people went to avenge the insults of Islam, they knew they'd be killed, so practically they did give away their lives because of that insult. Sure, they killed, but they knew they'd most likely end up killed too, so technically they put their own lives on the same level as the insult.

As of their society and how civilized it is... it actually used to be more civilized than Europe, but then there were the crusades which had one purpose - push the ME back, and now they are back and act like they are backward, and we have a problem with what we did....

As for liberty, it seems to be hard in our own society as well, seeing how criticizing Israel for its crimes against humanity is interpreter as anti-Semitism for the sake of silencing it. Double standards... which brings me to another point, when the US murdered journalists in Serbia as they bombed the national TV station, to create a state of radical Islamists it was OK, but when radical Islamists kill journalists who mock their religion that's bad? How does this work in your so called "civilized society"?

Truth is our society is just as backward and cruel, it just hides it better and further away from its people, which are kept in plastic bubbles to establish an unrealistic concept of reality. A dozen of people were killed for trolling the wrong people and everyone is whining, do you have any idea how many innocent people are getting killed by us in the ME, and not for insulting our religion, their only crime often is "gathering more than 4 persons in one place". But for those scores of 100% innocent people nobody here cares. Westerners are blasted hypocrites. At least they are not savages who pretend to be civilized like we do.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-topic but:

Repeat after me: You cannot tell a journalist what to write just like you cannot tell a woman what to wear.

Unless you're an advertiser, then it's yes sir, no sir, how many paragraphs sir.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

I might expect them to respond in kind. Expecting them to come back with a gun is about as lame as whining to their mommy about it.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think the sorts of people in the West that enjoy satire of this sort like fundamentalist Christians anymore than fundamentalist Muslims?

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[ganjadude]

there are no consequences for drawing a comic. and if one makes it so, the consequences for that will be 100 fold.

I dont think we should have even gone to the middle east as americans, at the same point we are there now, and if people want to murder because of cartoons, it really is time to just level the entire area.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[ganjadude]

lol. you are funny. in muslim countries, women have to be covered head to toe, gays get murdered, rape victims get murdered. That doesnt happen in western countries (no matter how much the activists like to claim)

Where are the gays and women protesting the muslim countries in the name of equality??? thats right, they would be killed if they tried so they dont.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[ganjadude]

0/10 - try harder

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah... the lame attempt to shut up people by swinging the nazi cudgel.

I'm not islamophobic you retarded pile of shit.
I'm a islamistphobic like any decent person should be. Learn the difference you son of a mongrel.

I'm pro-gay, pro-choice, feminist, leftist (americans would probably call me socialist or worse), pro-migration, anti-nazi, anti-rightwing, pro free speech, pro free press you despicable dipshit fucktard.

Get some education and then some.

Troll level : microbe
-1/10

Shut up your shit filled head and piss off

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Copid]

sounds like you're the one with the problem. Its simple - if you insult a person, expect them to respond. If you greatly insult a person, expect them to respond greatly. Your actions have consequences, same as anyone else. If you your a man, man up and accept them.

Is there an upper limit on what "greatly" means for the response? Arson? Murder? Nuclear war? Destruction of your planet and its three nearest neighbors?

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, love the radical Muslim apologists that constantly try to deflect on Christians. You guys write your own satire.

I've got zero love for crazed fundamentalist Christians either, but they've got NOTHING on the fundie Muslims. Ben Affleck starred in Dogma, poking fun at Christians and nothing happened to him. Had he starred in a movie poking fun at Islam, the world would be rid of Ben Affleck, either because some fundie Muslims shot him, or else he changed his name and went into hiding.

Re: Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I read that sentence in your drivel, That's all I needed to know to stop reading, you islamophobic motherfucker."

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I will say it's infinitely morally superior to be an Islamophobe, someone with an aversion to a decidedly backward, anti-human 7th century myth, than it is to be someone who thinks it's OK to murder people over a cartoon, as you and all the other radical Islamic apologists on this board appear to be.
But hey, keep defending the murderers. You brew your own Islamophobia and you will inevitably drown in it.

Re:Is google now about to become a target?

[Anonymous Coward]

"sounds like you're the one with the problem. Its simple - if you insult a person, expect them to respond. If you greatly insult a person, expect them to respond greatly. Your actions have consequences, same as anyone else. If you your a man, man up and accept them."

Sure. If someone insults you, you are well within your rights to insult him back. If he insults you greatly, you are well within your rights to insult him back greatly. Looks like we're all in agreement here.
Oh wait, surely you don't mean to suggest you think it's totally fine when someone insults you, for you to go on a MURDEROUS MASS SHOOTING SPREE? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm under the impression that like all the other Islamophiles and radical Islam apologists on this board going for the blame-the-victim angle, you seem to think this is an appropriate response in a civilized society. And then you wonder why civilized people find people like you to be regressive and harmful to modernity.

So...

[koan]

Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?

That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.

Re:So...

[rebelwarlock]

What are you even babbling about?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.

Huh?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to go out more.

Re:So...

[pushing-robot]

http://www.theguardian.com/com...

Re:So...

[BarbaraHudson]

No it doesn't. You know what the internet would be outraged about right now if this attack had never happened? A pop video featuring a 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl playfighting in their underwear. We would all be incensed about the "pedophilic" content and we'd be calling for it to be banned as gross indecency. The fact that there's no overtly sexual content, and that the two actors in fact represent different facets of a single psyche, would be irrelevant, and we would all be calling for the censoring of offensive imagery. Hypocrisy.

Come off it. Even trying to compare a non-existent video with a series of murders by terrorists - troll much?

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

On Wednesday, Sia launched the video for her single Elastic Heart. In it, Shia LaBeouf is in skin-colour briefs, play-fighting with a 12-year old dancer and actress by the name of Maddie Ziegler.

Some consider it controversial and claim it is a depiction of child abuse. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have made the headlines had it not been that the Charlie Hebdo attack occurred on the exact same day.

It is my contention that if we weren't now all crying for freedom to offend, we would all instead be crying for the censorship of offensive material. That's the human race now.

Re: So...

[qbast]

Is this some reference to age of Mohammed's bride? If yes, then you are off by several years - he married Aisha when she was six and started fucking her three years later.

Re:So...

[Livius]

So, you're applauding the fact that society now has it's priorities straight?

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

Did I imagine this video? Did I imagine these reactions? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.

Re: So...

[Half-pint HAL]

Nope -- Shia LaBeouf and Maddie Zeigler.

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

This.

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

Nope. Our current outrage won't magically conjure up consistency.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so black and white. These two things are only superficially equivalent.

The freedom of speech means the freedom to be offensive and the freedom to criticize people for being offensive.

The number of people who would actually call for that video to be censored via legal means and the creators go to jail is minute compared to the people who just think the people involved are fucked up and ought to be boycotted or fired. The price of being famous is that your fame depends on public approval. Do something that loses that approval and you are back to being a nobody like everybody else.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

What needs to happen is that stupid people like you need to grow up and stop insulting an entire group of people and their religion, for no reason other than to provoke. Have a good long look at yourself in the mirror: maybe you're balding, overweight, or maybe someone has insulted you for your race or ethnicity. You probably felt they did wrong, yet you still allow yourself to insult moslems and their religion, most likely because you don't have the intellectual capacity to formulate any sensible criticism over it. Do you see what a bigot and hypocrite you are?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? You ac post stalk/harass others who got the better of you for years http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:So...

[Bing Tsher E]

Never heard of it. Never heard of the website it was published on. Wouldn't have heard of it if Charlie Hebdo hadn't been attacked.

Sorry. Try again.

Re:So...

[itzly]

You're insulting me. Please stop it.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what needs to happen all over the world is for people who to start exercising their inalienable rights and realize that pontificating about cartoons is a poor substitute for eradicating cancer.
Killing innocents is wrong, but until innocent muslims start dying alongside freakish fanatic muslims, political cartoons will remain without proper context. We don't need a war on terror, we just need to cap enough assholes until people like Jerimiah Wright and Spike Lee gain perspective. Of course, in the U.S., government has created a whole generation of people who think getting abused at airports is normal. So if you are depending on us to be guardians of freedom - you're screwed.
  C'mon people, I wanna see you be brave.

Re: So...

[Jason Levine]

Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.

Re: So...

[Half-pint HAL]

Just as people have a right to offend, people who are offended have a right to protest what offends them. The difference is that the protests of that video would have consisted of angry posts online and boycotts, not shootings. Declaring you are offended and "fighting back" with words is fine. Fighting back by killing those who offend you isn't fine.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I never said otherwise. I was responding to koan's post and his suggestion that the appropriate response to the killings was to repeatedly publish offensive images. Now that I do disagree with. My point was that we will collectively still call for the banning of material we find offensive while simultaneously standing up for the right to publish material that others find offensive. I fully believe that if the CH attack hadn't happened on the same day as the Sia video launch, we would already have seen public announcements from major broadcasters telling us that the video would never be played on their channels. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing sexual about that video. That you see something arousing in a 12 year old girl dancing says much about you, and nothing else.

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

The difference between the two things is only about the outcome. I'm not talking about boycottings, bannings, legal actions or even shootings. The underlying issue of "should they publish this" is all I'm talking about. I personally believe (and I accept that I cannot prove this) that a great many people who are currently speaking in favour of Charlie Hebdo's right to deliberately offend a "them" would take offense to the Sia video and would be denouncing her right to incidentally offend the "us".

Re:So...

[BarbaraHudson]

Did I imagine this video? Did I imagine these reactions? As I said, I believe this is what we'd all be outraged about if the CH attacks hadn't occurred the exact same day that the video was released.

From the article: "Watching it, I realised that the intensity (Sia’s “emotional content”) was the reason it was jarring – the mere fact that the video wasn’t carefully benign, cheaply titillating or just plain boring, like so much else in the genre. In Elastic Heart, the grown man and the young girl are alive with feelings for each other, running the gamut from amusement and play through to fury to despair. What isn’t there is sexuality. In fact, it baffles me how anyone could look seriously at Elastic Heart and claim to see any sexual content whatsoever."

Any "sexuality" is in your head, same as the comments collected on that obscure website. The vast majority of the comments I saw on youtube were telling people to watch the video a second time if they thought it had anything to do with pedophilia.

What's outrageous (and maybe this video is a good way to point it out) is that we've pathologized any contact between even a father and daughter, to the point where fathers have become hyper-vigilant about not showing many displays of affection in public, of hugging for what seems to some people a second too long, saying "I love you sweetie", etc.

Re: So...

[Half-pint HAL]

I never said I found anything sexual about that video. That you read that into my message says much about you, and nothing else.

My main point was that it really isn't offensive, but that people are decrying it as such. I believe if the tabloid press wasn't occupied with the CH shootings, they would already have manufactured a global scandal out of this.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

I don't find it sexual. My point is that I believe, rightly or wrongly, that had this not come out on the same day as the attack happened, the tabloid press would have whipped up a confected outrage, and people would be baying for blood. People who had never watched the video would be demanding that broadcasters refuse to air it, and debate would be stymied by people's refusal to watch the video for themselves because they are already convinced it's paedophilia.

Re:So...

[BarbaraHudson]

Fair enough. The chattering class always needs something to chatter about - just like they were calling for the ban on "The Last Temptation of Christ" even before it was released. People are sheeple :-)

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

What needs to happen is that stupid people like you need to grow up and stop insulting an entire group of people and their religion, for no reason other than to provoke. Have a good long look at yourself in the mirror: maybe you're balding, overweight, or maybe someone has insulted you for your race or ethnicity. You probably felt they did wrong, yet you still allow yourself to insult moslems and their religion, most likely because you don't have the intellectual capacity to formulate any sensible criticism over it. Do you see what a bigot and hypocrite you are?

You mean we shouldn't insult people who buy into religion that calls for murder, enslavement and rape? Well, let's hear your intellectual argument? Most people in general want to live peaceful lives. To that end peaceful Muslims need to rise up and vehemently, publicly reject the lunacy of the jihad and violence perpetrated against non-Muslims by these fundamentalist nut-jobs. Only when the majority of Muslims stand up to this idiotic Muslim fundamentalism can they expect support of others. I do not hear Muslims around the world condemning the blood-thirsty oppressive minority amongst them. I do not hear peace loving Muslims stand up for their peace and their values. This leads me (and most other non-Muslims) to conclude that Muslims in general are in agreement with the fundamentalists. How many Muslims were there at the Paris Unity Rally yesterday? There should have been more of them than non-Muslims, I reckon. I would expect a very vocal rejection of the horrible acts of violence in Paris and in the world in general from the peace-loving Muslims, but what I am seeing is Submission to the fundamentalist values of hatred, violence and ideological domination.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it? Downmod this we see it anyways (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that you had to eat your words for? Downmod this we see it anyhow (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

Re:So...

[Sardaukar86]

What needs to happen is that stupid people like you need to grow up and stop insulting an entire group of people and their religion

People who behave as these terrorists do or support their appalling actions deserve all the ridicule, mocking and insults they get.

Re:So...

[AK Marc]

Men aren't even allowed to do that with their sons, and sons are discouraged doing that with their dads. A man who is nice to boys, must be a pedophile. We don't even need to say "gay pedophile" because the "gay" is assumed, thanks to Catholics. I'm constantly "inappropriate" with a child that I have no legal or blood relation to. I married his mum before he was 1. I treat him no differently than his brother who I do share genetics with. But someone could easily portray it as inappropriate.

We look long and hard for things to be offended by.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat pork sand nigger. Then stick your cock in a Jew.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off.

Re:So...

[BarbaraHudson]

What's worse is that we let these wrong perceptions of what's appropriate influence our behavior. Two women hugging? Nothing wrong there. Two men hugging "OMG gays engaging in a public display of affection cover your eyes!" And so what if they ARE gay? At least the newer television shows are normalizing displays of affection in same-sex relationships.

Now if we can just get rid of the anti-stereotype politically correct ads that show men are always the helpless dummies and women are always coming to the rescue ... these are just as corrosive as the previous generation ads where women were dumb blondes and men ruled the roost.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up.

Re:So...

[AK Marc]

Now if we can just get rid of the anti-stereotype politically correct ads that show men are always the helpless dummies and women are always coming to the rescue ... these are just as corrosive as the previous generation ads where women were dumb blondes and men ruled the roost.

There is humour in playing on the stereotypes. That's why there are so many cop babysitting movies. Kindergarten Cop, The Pacifier, and others. It's funny to put someone in the situation opposite of their stereotype.

You can't eliminate stereotypes. They are genetically wired into every animal. We place things into categories. "safe" "not safe" and many others. Doing so is a requirement of survival. Fighting stereotypes is literally fighting our humanity.

Re:So...

[Half-pint HAL]

Congratulations -- you too can use your right of free speech to act like a dick. Anonymously. How very big of you.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when the majority of Muslims stand up to this idiotic Muslim fundamentalism can they expect support of others. I do not hear Muslims around the world condemning the blood-thirsty oppressive minority amongst them. I do not hear peace loving Muslims stand up for their peace and their values. This leads me (and most other non-Muslims) to conclude that Muslims in general are in agreement with the fundamentalists.

Indeed. For my part, I think the tide will have finally turned when a crappy video or cartoon lampooning Mohammed will get a shrug from the Muslim world while the killing of cartoonists in the name of Islam will cause an eruption of many huge protests throughout the Muslim world declaring, "not in my name!" We aren't there yet, but I sense that we may be slowly edging toward that day. I just hope I live to see it.

Re: So...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the charlie hebdo people were supporters of feminism and were infavor of men being locked up or worse for trying to marry young girls, then who cares what happened to them.

Pity the gulf arabs shot the cop though, and the others at the supermarket.
Leftists have removed men's liberties. When they are killed why should males care?

Re:So...

[sociocapitalist]

Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?

That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.

I would hope for it to be a collection of all the cartoons by Charlie over the years they've been publishing.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares about the crazy music video du jour, dipshit.

Re:So...

[Copid]

I personally believe (and I accept that I cannot prove this) that a great many people who are currently speaking in favour of Charlie Hebdo's right to deliberately offend a "them" would take offense to the Sia video and would be denouncing her right to incidentally offend the "us".

How many of those people you imagine exist do you imagine would change their tune if the people who worked on the video were all shot in the head?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

still, no one would have gotten shot.

Re:So...

[dwye]

So what? I (and most of the non-French-reading world) never heard of Charlie Hebdo before the massacre, either. Does this mean that the Paris attacks never happened, or wouldn't have mattered if it hadn't happened to members of the chattering classes, instead just to of the patrons of the kosher deli where the last male attacker was killed?

Half-pint Hal's thesis was that there was outrage and calls for banning the video, and that "the Internet" is therefore hypocritical for supporting Charlie Hebdo's right to publish what they did. I would suggest that the problem is that the Internet is not a thing, but a large collection of unrelated (intellectually and culturally so, especially) individuals, and that HpH's complaint was like pointing out that some drivers drive drunk and some belong to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or that cat's do not herd.

Questionable

[Anonymous Coward]

The attack and barbarian murder of the people is in no way excusable but I doubt this will send any message or have a lasting effect. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Radical people will get riled up more and will do it again anyway. I really don't see plastering the place with "Je suis Charlie" stickers and silly cartoons is in anyway helping the victims, one of which was a muslim cop.

But shouting freedom and "fight radical islam" seems like the thing to do these days.

Re: Questionable

[Applehu Akbar]

The rallies and cartoons at least let ISIS know that their Stone Age crackpot faith and those who promote it are no longer welcome in Europe. Send them back to their hellholes of origin before the next attack.

Re: Questionable

[dwye]

Yeah, like the #FreeOurGirls tweets have put Boko Haram on the run.

.sarc_mode off

My 2 pence

[Committ]

1. A group of people were murdered for expressing ideas which another group of people (the murderers) didn't like. This is wrong, the people behind the killings are guilty of premeditated murder and should be punished accordingly. It should also be noted that this kind of thing happens all the time. 2. From what I've seen of the publication in question it was not good satire, it neither made me laugh nor had any great insight. This is just my opinion.

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

The cartoons were vile, ugly and poor quality craftsmanship. Here is a higher quality satirical cartoon.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wg_W4xMJ4WQ/VLI1qklMUwI/AAAAAAABZR8/KdQst5r2EEo/s1600/puppets.jpg

 

Re:My 2 pence

[trip23]

Charlie Hebdo is a cultural icon in France. Besides that, if you don't follow french politics/discourse you won't get most of their jokes. Here's an interview with R. Crumb which puts some perspective on the issue: http://observer.com/2015/01/le...
the gist of it:
Q: These guys were not trying not to offend, and that’s what an American media-conditioned mind cannot understand. The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.
A: [Laughs.] No, they can’t.

Re:My 2 pence

[dskoll]

OMG, lame lame lame. Typical Islamist conspiracy theory. Of course, if you're just an idiotic Western leftist, then I apologize for calling you an Islamist. The correct term should have been whore for the Islamists.

Re:My 2 pence

[misexistentialist]

The idea that yes, you offend those who abuse power.

I doubt Muslims have much power to abuse in France. If they did they would have had the police shut down the newspaper like it would have been if it was shitting on Jews.

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlie Hebdo did a good lot of shitting on everyone. Only moo-slimes reacted, and in a murderous way. Moo-slimes can not be civilized. Deport or exterminate them. Now.

Re:My 2 pence

[Half-pint HAL]

Hmm... you mean like the time they used the adbuction of between a hundred and two hundred Nigerian schoolgirls (powerful!) to make jokes about Muslims in France (oh the power of the banlieues!) being benefits scroungers? Yes, they really love knocking the powerful down a peg or two, don't they.

Re:My 2 pence

[Oligonicella]

You are axiomatically incorrect, they just demonstrated the power they have. And, pard, it *did* shit on Jews and was not shuttered for it. You're purposefully ignorant.

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

http://palladio.free.fr/harakiri/ChH/1978-2/no418.jpg 1978 issue.
Literally : racism sells?
The ass of a jew.

Re:My 2 pence

[trip23]

It's about the welfare-stereotype. Actuallly a good example of how how Charlie works. They use what's in the news and transform it into a tasteless absurdity.
See here... http://www.quora.com/What-was-...

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clearly a Christian.

Re:My 2 pence

[Sardaukar86]

See here... http://www.quora.com/What-was-...

Great link, thanks. Lots of context to help the non-French among us understand Charlie Hebdo.

I'd love to see the equivalent here in New Zealand but it would never fly in our nation of piss-weak, politically-correct softcocks.

Re:My 2 pence

[AK Marc]

I thought the attacks were a show of power. Reality proves you wrong. And what about Jews? Still on about how they run the planet through the Illuminati? You do know the Pope is Jewish, and the head of the Illuminati.

Re:My 2 pence

[Half-pint HAL]

All well and good inside, but when you put it on the front cover, you inevitably expose it to people who don't understand the point of the magazine. And as the immigrant community is mostly composed of immigrants, they're pretty likely to misunderstand and be offended.

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have a "right to not be offended" in France. If you don't like it don't go there.

Re:My 2 pence

[Anonymous Coward]

2. From what I've seen of the publication in question it was not good satire, it neither made me laugh nor had any great insight. This is just my opinion.

Superficially, the whole situation doesn't make sense: it seems to be much ado about nothing. On one hand, why would ISIL supporters care about some silly cartoons? There have been numerous serious reports from human rights organizations that are much more damaging to ISIL - and these reports have even been covered in the mainstream media. On the other hand, why is the suppression of these cartoons such a huge issue? Why not focus on suppression of free speech that actually matters? Why weren't there massive protests when the US government wouldn't let 23andMe tell people that they had a genetic predisposition to cancer - something that is almost certainly costing lives? And where are the massive protests when governments, including the USA, routinely suppress disclosure of government wrongdoing?

Not so long ago, there was great moral outrage about the problem of black men raping white women - at a time when wealthy white people were exploiting and persecuting poor black people. And that seems to be the best way to understand what's really going on with this whole Charlie Hedbo situation. You've got a wealthy ruling class (that is increasingly hereditary) in the western countries who are mucking about in certain poor developing countries that have exploitable natural resources (but often indirectly via their influence on the western governments) - for the benefit of the wealthy westerners at the expense of the poor people in the developing countries. And many of the poor people are desperate and angry but they can't go to their own governments that are puppets of the wealthy westerners in one way or another. So they turn to religious organizations. But then leaders of the religious organizations are largely motivated by the personal self interest so nothing really gets solved.

A lasting peace would depend on eliminating much of the socioeconomic injustice in the world and building a world where anyone who's willing to do an honest days work can easily find a good meaningful job that pays enough to support a family simply but comfortably. And that would almost certainly require moving beyond pointless bickering about silly cartoons and developing a deeper understanding of the underlying problems in the world.

Re:My 2 pence

[Half-pint HAL]

They don't have a "right to not be offended" in France. If you don't like it don't go there.

Are you sure...?

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

No that would be be against the religion and not the people involved..
no.. what needs to happen.

Have a cartoon of the terrorists fucking goats, one of them unmasked showing missing teeth and a lazy eye.

Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's giving them $300K, but the government is giving them $1.2M.

While freedom of speech is a law that needs to be upheld, how many people would be happy with the government (or google?) giving an organization like stormfront a million dollars to publish pictures of Obama with a tail and a banana in one hand?

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes no sense, especially given the fund's supposed goal.

The cash will come from €60m fund (€20m per year over three years) that supports digital publishing innovation

What is Hebdo's digital innovation exactly?
Printing one million copies?

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Xenna]

This is freedom of speech paired with freedom of religion *and* freedom from persecution rolled in one issue.

Your Obama cartoon is just plain old racism.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that every rationalization of racism mixes it up with other issues. There is no such thing as "plain old racism."

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[excelsior_gr]

After Obama-worshiping radicals have first murdered several of their executives? A lot, I'd wager.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure about France, but no English speaking countries have freedom of speech except the US. While it is close in the UK, there are a lot of things that are illegal to say or publish in a newspaper in the UK, or Australia, or even Canada.

Are most people unaware that the US is the only place with full freedom of speech?

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

> After Obama-worshiping radicals have first murdered several of their executives? A lot, I'd wager.

Like this?

Be careful of making flawed analogies, those flaws tend to come full circle.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[kamapuaa]

The paper is essentially a racist rag where old white men push the buttons of minorities. Of course the bombing was wrong, and I support the paper's right to say what I disagree with, just as I support the right of Neo-Nazis to hold parades down Peoria, Illinois. However, having the government/Google go further and give public funds towards a racist paper is a step too far.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Xenna]

They push the buttons of everyone, hence the lack of reaction from Marine Le Pen. The Le Pen family has been the target of their cartoons more than anyone. So has the catholic church (hardly a minority).

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't help to have the head of the american catholic league going around saying things like, "It is too bad that [Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane Charbonnie] didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death" He turns it into a binary choice between supporting free speech or supporting killers and he's on the wrong damn side of that false dichotomy to boot.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[squiggleslash]

But it's worth asking: if a group of terrorists barged into the offices of Stormfront and killed their magazine's top staff members, would we feel the "right" action in response to this atrocity was to buy millions of copies of said magazine, and publish as many racist cartoons from that publication as possible?

Charlie Hebdo published some pretty awful shit. Like a cartoon comparing raped sex slaves to welfare queens. There was no level of "down" they weren't prepared to punch to.

Fuck the terrorists, but the right response to terrorism is to continue doing what you would have done anyway, not to blindly give kneejerk support to anything that can be associated as positive for their victims.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

While nothing in life is 100%, there is a good working definition that the point of satire is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Attacking the catholic church and the head of the 3rd largest political party in the country definitely qualifies, attacking the disempowered, especially with specious arguments, does not.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also some big time irony in the fact that Charlie Hebdo was the result of the french government banning the advertising and the sale to minors of its predecssor Hara-Kiri Hebdo. So now the government is all gung-ho on free speech?

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the US might have "freedom of speech" but media groups carefully avoided to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, limiting themselves to textual description or really small images which do not allow to understand the cartoon.

I'm better off with clear rules about what are the few things you can't say in a writing (libel, call for crime) and people feeling free to publish in the full extent of their freedom (including what appears in Charlie Hebdo), rather than theoretical "full freedom" and practical self-censorship.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to supremacists you cite, Charlie Hebdo cartoonists do not take themselves seriously. They will consistently cartoon just about anything as soon as it's funny, just not minding if it is not tasteful. They have special taste for parodies of religious topics but they do not call for hate to Muslims or Jews or Catholics (if they did they would be banned from publishing under French law). They just make fun using Muslim and Jewish and catholic references when the occasion appears, just like they make fun of politicians or filmmakers.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

. They have special taste for parodies of religious topics but they do not call for hate to Muslims or Jews or Catholics (if they did they would be banned from publishing under French law).

Don't be so naive. As if a law can fully capture an idea. The idea that beating up on the weak is ok as long as you also beat up on the powerful is bankrupt.

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

They push the buttons of everyone, hence the lack of reaction from Marine Le Pen.

Say what? This shit plays perfectly into her hands - for those who don't know, she is the leader of the anti-immigrant "national front" party.

Marine Le Pen condemns 'murderous ideology' in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo shooting

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

kill some of stormfront's editors in a very public way, then they can have lots of free money too

Re:Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

Are most people unaware that the US is the only place with full freedom of speech?

Most people are aware that nowhere in the world has full freedom of speech. Were there huge marches attended by world leaders when the USA told 23andMe it couldn't tell people that they had genetic variants that put them at risk for certain diseases ( such as cancer)? And yet 23andMe has been effectively silenced while Charlie Hedbo is still publishing.

Cheap publicity stunt

[should_be_linear]

After "Assange" and "Snowden" PR disasters, Google is trying to win some love back. Lets not forget however, that this company is married to US government, main force behind creating whole armies of terrorists.

Re:Cheap publicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't trying to do anything. The money comes from France's publishers fund, and it's irrelevant to mention the source of that money. Using the source of the source of the money you'd get the headline "AdWords customers To Pay For...", and so on.

Vive la France ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and the freedom.

KKK Publications

[BradMajors]

Suggestion to Google:

You seem to want to support racist publications. How about providing some financial support to some American racists? The KKK is a persecuted organization and could use your financial support.

Re:KKK Publications

[JaredOfEuropa]

How are the Charlie cartoons racist, or, how is islam a race?

Re:KKK Publications

[itzly]

How is this insightful ? The magazine isn't racist, and Google does not want to support it.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to want to support racist publications.

Google isn't "supporting" this, Google is just another injured party.

This is money that the French government extorted from Google and is now misusing for this purpose.

Suggestion to you: stop being such a f*cking moron and stop being led around by the nose by a bunch of journalists with a political agenda.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're twisting the fact (Islam is not a race, Charlie hebdo is a leftist publication, etc). But I'd much rather side with the KKK than with Islam. At least they don't behead people for drawing cartoons in 2015. And I'm not even white.

Re:KKK Publications

[DavidMZ]

Suggestion to Google:

You seem to want to support racist publications.

[Reference needed]

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the magazine is deeply racist. Even conservatives like David Brooks have said things like "If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds." Of course Brooks thinks the problem is that universities aren't willing to celebrate racist speech, as if everybody deserves not just freedom of speech but that others provide them a platform for it.

And if what you are really saying is that same old canard that you can't be racist against people who share a common religion, I suggest you check your dictionary because the OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc."

Re:KKK Publications

[itzly]

OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.

So, if somebody says something bad about Nazis, they are racist ?

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, if somebody says something bad about Nazis, they are racist ?

It depends on what they say. If they say nazis are bad because they gassed millions of people, then that's both factual and there is no further context to the statement. If they say nazis are bad because a couple of nazis killed a guy then that's a fact about those killers who happened to be nazis, not about nazis in general.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda like how global warming is like climate change. Actually, to a liberal, climate change is racism on a planetary scale. -HTH.

Re:KKK Publications

[itzly]

If they say nazis are bad because they gassed millions of people, then that's both factual and there is no further context to the statement

Actually, most Nazi party members and supporters were not personally involved in the genocide, so that would not be factual. By the way, holocaust denial is a pretty big thing in the Muslim community. And even after the Paris attacks, I've heard a surprisingly large number of Muslims claim that the Jews were behind it.

Re:KKK Publications

[sumdumass]

Google did not support anything in this case. The only reason the name is brought up is because it is attached to a fund Google agree to create years ago to escape legal problems in france. Google has no say in how it is used or the present use.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

> Actually, most Nazi party members and supporters were not personally involved in the genocide

Yes lots of people became members because they felt they didn't have a choice. But that is not the same as endorsing the party's beliefs.

Re: KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact. Denial of the shoa(=holocaust) in Germany will put you in the dock and then most likely prison.

Re:KKK Publications

[AK Marc]

Yes, it is. When you sign up, you sign up for what they stand for. If they were saying "Jews at great" while secretly gassing them, that'd be one thing, but there was no secret that people were being rounded up for concentration camps. Anyone who knew that and signed up was complicit. Much like all the people who voted for Bush are complicit in all the acts he did. It's not like it was a secret who he was, and what he advocated. And he won. Twice. If Bush were hanged for treason, so should all the people who put him there.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

> there was no secret that people were being rounded up for concentration camps.

Concentration camps are not the same as gassing them.
If you'll recall, we had concentration camps here in the US.
My grandmother was in one.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

And if what you are really saying is that same old canard that you can't be racist against people who share a common religion, I suggest you check your dictionary because the OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc."

Hmmmm...does that mean that you would consider Christianity to be a race? Really?

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'd much rather side with the KKK than with Islam.

I'd tend to side with National Geographic myself - but I tend to prefer light to heat.

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't explain why there was a Jewish section of the German army ?
Just another building 7, I guess.

Re:KKK Publications

[AK Marc]

That's why the US tried revisionist history to call them internment camps and such, but my dad was 16 when WWII ended. They were "concentration camps". But we "knew" they weren't killing people in them Did the Germans not know anything about the conditions in their camps? 3,000,000 enter. 0 leave. The math doesn't add up.

Re:KKK Publications

[AK Marc]

You are being too cute and cryptic for me. I didn't see the Jewish section of the German army. And are you saying that the Jews took down the World Trade Center?

Re:KKK Publications

[Anonymous Coward]

That includes judgement, which is subjective. Saying they gassed millions of people is correct. Saying it was a bad thing is putting your own judgement on it. Someone else might think it was a good thing. Also, not all nazis gassed jews. You can't make blanket statements like that about the whole german population. They all were, to some extent, nazis or nazi supporters.

How about anti christian or anti jewish cartoons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say a cartoonist had made some of those and had been killed by radical christians. Would the press really react with the same ferrocity?

A mis-use of the fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does funding a tree-ware print run fall under the remit supporting digital publishing innovation? I assume this refers to the Digital Publishing Innovation Fund, which Google said was created "to help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers".

BarbaraHudson, what this you did?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalk and ac post harass others that got the best of you http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

Re:BarbaraHudson, what this you did?

[Sardaukar86]

Stalk and ac post harass others that got the best of you http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??

Hypocrite.

They're not as braindamaged as you

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and being made to eat your words for it?

Lowlife politicians. I am in the U.K. today..

[pigsycyberbully]

The Charlie Hebdo, second attack by lowlife politicians. Francois Hollande, before all this wanted to shutdown this magazine. The politicians jostling each other to try to get a Photo shot of themselves being important even pointing their fingers in the air when they see a camera even though they are talking to nobody. These journalists and cartoonist died for freedom of expression and none of these politicians represent freedom of expression. They all want to use these dead cartoonists and journalists. These lowlife politicians have no shame. If these dead cartoonists and journalists could do one more magazine from their graves what would they have printed? Francois Hollande, with his mistress giving him a blowjob with the caption: Unemployed actress sucks. Angela Merkel, with the caption Gestapo returns to Paris, Sieg Heil Monetary Union! Benjamin Netanyahu, get the fuck out of my way I’m going to build an Israeli settlement in this here Paris road. David haemorrhoid Cameron, am I on camera? are they taking pictures of me? look at me! look at me.. The world economy is safe in my hands I am not just a toffee nosed dickhead from an underprivileged island. Get that nigger out of my way! Sorry about any spelling mistakes I am rushing I’m on a deadline.

Re: Lowlife politicians. I am in the U.K. today..

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:How about anti christian or anti jewish cartoon

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Charlie Hebdo published a lot of hateful anti-christian and anti-jewish cartoons. Since nothing happened, they got cocky and upped the ante with anti-mohammed cartoons and got killed for it.

Charlie Hebdo is basically a hate group (radical atheists) publication.

The story of their demise is overblown, imo. On the same day, 30 got killed in Yemen by al-Queda, a few days ago 2,000+ in Nigeria by Boko Haram. Nobody cares.

Any malware writers out there?

[Okian Warrior]

I was wondering if any malware writers would like to help.

Lots of malware will scan the infected computer for E-mail addresses so that it can send out spam.

Suppose someone wrote a virus which scans infected computers for E-mail addresses with common muslim first names, and sends a randomly selected offensive Mohammed cartoon to that person. One of 10 cartoons that comes bundled with the malware, for instance. (Google has many to choose from.)

This would have the simultaneous effect of trolling (getting others emotionally upset), swatting (getting others to do precipitous actions), ferreting out the extremists, and getting the Islamics more used to satire and criticism.

Of the proposals so far, I think this has the potential to really change the situation. It's like getting allergy injections to teach the body to tolerate irritation.

Any malware writers out there?

Re:How about anti christian or anti jewish cartoon

[Oligonicella]

Boko Haram would be the true hate group in your little screed.

Re:How about anti christian or anti jewish cartoon

[aaribaud]

Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).

Project much?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

Re:Project much?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

Whoever the fuck you are, would you please stop with your obsession with BarbaraHudson already? Seriously, get a new hobby or something.

Re:Project much?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's APK's schizophrenic ass, in case you hadn't figured that out. He actually keeps a file with Slashdot user IDs and links to posts where people have "insulted" him and his superior knowledge, then he follows them around for weeks trying to bait them into arguments. Never criticize APK's sacred hosts file, otherwise he'll start stalking you too.

Re:Project much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell BarbaraHudson ac stalking libeling sockpuppeting harasser that http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Online stalkers are mentally ill

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing & libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... then you had to eat your words for it?

That's great, but ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... until everyone is willing to say "yes, it was Islam, and we are done letting more of you into our countries," then all the hashtags and belated "I am {victims}" (they sure weren't Charlie Hedbo before it happened, when it might have mattered) and candlelight vigils and "oh nos, watch out for imaginary backlash" isn't going to do anything to stop this.

This is an evil death cult, and they don't care what we think, except to use an excuse for more murder.

Re:That's great, but ...

[ikhider]

Over a quarter of the world's population are muzzies. If Islam really is how you describe then there would be a much different world. If we are to look at the death figures, our governments are by far the grim reaper.

Re:That's great, but ...

[bloodhawk]

most of the world is sadly in one death cult or another, be it islam, Christianity, Judaism etc etc. yes the world would be better off without them but that isn't going to happen.

Project much, hypocrite?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson, what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that you had to eat your words for? Downmod this we see it anyhow (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

Why're ya downmodding this to hide it?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson what's this about you ac stalking/harassing/libeling others http://slashdot.org/comments.p... that you ate your words for? Downmod this we see it anyhow (most here browse below -1) so trying to hide it = effete & ineffectual.

No, it is not Islam, but the old Algerian problem

[ikhider]

Insulting the prophet does not carry the death sentence as during his life he was insulted, and worse. These attackers had Islamic precedent to draw from and had they looked it up, would not use the cartoons as justification. I submit to you that there is another reason behind this: http://www.independent.co.uk/v... There is no justification for the murders, but we can grasp to understand the underlying issues.

Print?

[R3d M3rcury]

I thought Print was dead...

BarbaraHudson, what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you ate your words on? Downmod it, we see it. Most browse below -1, "hiding" it = effete & ineffectual.

Not Google - The Government of France

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL Stormfront members want is to live around their own kind.

Who decides that they can't? Who FORCES them to live with non-whites?

Why do YOU believe that white people don't have the right to have their own countries?

Why aren't millions of white people moving to Africa and India every year?

Any answers? You brainwashed idiot.

It's ISLAM, stupid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It very much carries the death sentence, and that was done during his lifetime. One 91 year old poet once wrote poetry condemning him, and he had one of his goons murder him. In protest against that, another poet - this time a pregnant woman - condemned him again, and Mohammed asked for her to be killed. The person who murdered her ran his sword through her belly, killing both her and her unborn child. Her remaining children were taken and converted to Islam.

Later, the murderer told Mohammed that he felt guilty about killing her. Mohammed responded that 2 goats wouldn't butt heads over her.

There had been riots over these, and the Jyland Posten cartoons in a lot of Muslim countries, not just Algeria. What prompted these 2 brothers wasn't any internal Algerian politics - it was Islam

Project much, hypocrite?

[Anonymous Coward]

BarbaraHudson ac stalks/harasses/libels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words it. Downmod it: we see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding" = ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words on? Downmod it: we see it. We browse below -1. Downmod "hiding" = ineffectual & effete.

Re:BarbaraHudson what's this

[Half-pint HAL]

ac stalking/harassing/libelling... well, look who's talking.

Project much, hypocrite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? You ac stalk/harass/libel http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words. Downmod it: we see it &browse below -1. Downmod "hiding" = ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for? Downmod it: we see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding" = ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for? Downmod it: we browse below -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual.

BarbaraHudson got a dose of her own medicine

[Anonymous Coward]

What's good for a goose = good for a gander. Turn about's fair play. Reverse psychology.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for? Downmod it: We see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for? Downmod it: We see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for it? Downmod it: We see it & browse below -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual & effete.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On you ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for it? Downmod it: We see it & browse sub -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual.

Project much hypocrite?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ac stalk/harass/libel http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ate your words for it. Downmod? We see it & browse sub -1. Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual.

$$ == free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

for once this seems to be a good thing.

Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Young girls are pretty, cute, and nice often.
Women do not want men to have them because they are superior to grown women.

The Old Testament allows you to have a female child as a bride.
Read Deuteronomy 22 28-29 in hebrew.

The west's religion is feminism.

Why not Hustler Magazine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Charlie Hebdo is disgusting. Google just made my top pathetic list.

Re:Why not Hustler Magazine?

[Chrisq]

Well I think its great that more and more people are coming out on the pro freedom side rather than pro islam

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On ya ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ya ate yer words for it? Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual: We see it & browse below -1.

BarbaraHudson what's this

[Anonymous Coward]

On ya ac stalking/harassing/libeling http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & ya ate yer words for it? Downmod "hiding"'s ineffectual: We see it & browse below -1.

See BarbaraHudson stalking hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell ac stalking libeling sockpuppeting harasser BarbaraHudson that http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:How about anti christian or anti jewish cartoon

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they start bombing Yemen will you care little sand nigger?

really?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about giving the money to the families of the deceased instead?

Pathetic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

It's all about hegemony

[NewYork]

Let black Judges deal with black Culprits;
Let moderate Muslims deal with radical Muslims;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... VERSUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...