France - Machine Gun attack on magazine Charlie Hebdo #1

[Boodles]

I don't think anyone in the States was criticiizing the BEAUTY of the Paris March. It was a thing of sheer beauty, no doubt about it. It was watching the long line of world leaders, arm in arm, in solidarity, that brought up our own DISAPPOINTMENT with our current administration.

Hearing Obama's lame excuse, anout 'his security detail being a distraction' is INSULTING, to us and to The French people. Does Obama not think that the heads of every country have their security with them? No, once again. Obama led from behind. JMO

I am an American. I was stating my own view, shared also by many. I am not insulted, ashamed, disappointed or embarrassed (nor have any of my European friends expressed those sentiments to me - I lived there for awhile). Not all of us share the negative view, and of course we all have the right to state our own perspectives. Not looking to argue about it, I'm simpy sharing the other POV held by many Americans.

 

[Gardenlady]

So tired tho of everything having to be about the US. If Obama showed up with huge security he would be criticized for detracting from the event. He doesn't go, he is criticized for that. Either way, Americans are still making this all about us - the public outcry, and the choice to not attend, and now the apology.

It's not always about us. Maybe we should just shut up and listen to the French, and other European nations, who have been experiencing terrorism for far longer than we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

THREE MILLION COPIES OF CHARLIE HEBDO TO FEATURE MOHAMMED CARTOONS

http://news.yahoo.com/weeks-charlie-hebdo-feature-mohammed-cartoons-lawyer-145010472.html


Paris (AFP) - This week's three million copies of Charlie Hebdo, the first post-attack issue of the French satirical weekly, will defiantly feature caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, its lawyer said Monday.

The special issue, to come out on Wednesday, will also be offered "in 16 languages" for readers around the world, one of its columnists, Patrick Pelloux, said.

Charlie Hebdo's lawyer, Richard Malka, told French radio the upcoming publication will "obviously" lampoon Mohammed -- among other figures -- to show staff will "cede nothing" to extremists seeking to silence them.

(...)


The 44-year-old newspaper has always sought to break taboos with its provocative cartoons on all religions, current events and prominent personalities.

The paper's distributors, MLP, had initially planned to print one million copies of the issue currently being put together by survivors of the shooting.
But MLP said demand from France and abroad has been huge and that three million copies would now be released.

The original paper printed at 60,000 copies a week, selling 30,000.

With their headquarters still a crime scene, remaining staff are working out of the offices of daily newspaper Liberation with equipment loaned by the Le Monde daily and cash handed out by other French and even foreign media.

Charlie Hebdo had been sliding towards bankruptcy before the attack against it.
But since gaining worldwide notoriety in the past few days, it has won pledges of support from the French government and media groups.


BBM


Amazing. I am staring at maps and calculating how long it would take me to get to France... :back:

I am glad to see they will be publishing fearlessly. France has a great history of no-holding-back satire going back centuries, it would be a crime if they were to be silenced now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Our governments are sending a schizophrenic message, we applaud the publishing of cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, yet in Australia publishing cartoons like that would be illegal. No wonder people have no idea what they can and cannot say or do. Also our papers are still to afraid to publish the cartoons themselves. Basically our governments are running scared between their own values and the fear there will be more extremist actions.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

#JeSuisNico

This is hilarious

[h=1]Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy ridiculed under #JeSuisNico for moving to front of Paris march[/h]
https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=#jesuisnico&src=typd

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So tired tho of everything having to be about the US. If Obama showed up with huge security he would be criticized for detracting from the event. He doesn't go, he is criticized for that. Either way, Americans are still making this all about us - the public outcry, and the choice to not attend, and now the apology.

It's not always about us. Maybe we should just shut up and listen to the French, and other European nations, who have been experiencing terrorism for far longer than we have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do think Obama should have gone to represent our country. It is not about him although he often thinks it is. It is about our President standing together with the other 40 world leaders that attended.

For no one to represent us at all makes it look like America is selfish and has no concern or sympathy or compassion for those who were slain by these Islamic terrorists. That is not the way the citizens of America feels but by no one attending it gives a very bad impression since he supposedly (cough cough) is to represent our country. I imagine BO didn't want to take time away from watching football.

And all of the other leaders are calling it what it is 'Islamic Extremist Terrorism' and BO and his Admin. refuses to do so. The no show from America just reinforces how much this administration wants to ignore the giant elephant in the room who is plotting and planning to murder Americans.

But it is not the first time this Administration has screwed up and it wont be the last.

 

[Gardenlady]

Yes, I'm sure the president considered football more important.

I'm sorry but I just can't take anything else seriously when things like that are said lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

I mean, as much as I disliked GWBush's policies, I believe he cared deeply and felt deeply the losses of 9/11 and those in UK and Spain and India, all lost to terror attacks.

So I cannot take seriously any argument or statement that puts forth an argument that the president - any president - did something because he felt more strongly about football than he did about innocents killed in a terror attack.

It's beyond partisan, it's just nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I'm sure the president considered football more important.

I'm sorry but I just can't take anything else seriously when things like that are said lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think he considered football to be more important. But it did not seem that he considered this solidarity march to be all that much of a priority. Neither of our top three leaders were sent over to attend. And Holder was there, and RSVPed, but then he left before the march even started. I have problems with that behavior on his part. Every other country seemed to take their role and their attendance seriously, but us. Why is that?

 

[wfgodot]

Yes, it's beyond pathetic, this critical mewling, from "patriots" who'd gladly send a U.S. President into a hastily organized three million person march in a country with unsettled security concerns and 17 freshly dead in terror attacks. If any doubt the U.S.'s commitment to freedom and to Europe, a walk on Omaha Beach might be a nice refresher; and if any doubt our president's patriotic lineage, then that person can reflect on Obama's granddad and great-uncle, both of whom were in France and in uniform within six weeks of D-Day.

But I get it, I get it -- it's never about truth; it's about something much more hidden, fearful, and unclear.

 

[SStarr33]

Our governments are sending a schizophrenic message, we applaud the publishing of cartoons from Charlie Hebdo, yet in Australia publishing cartoons like that would be illegal. No wonder people have no idea what they can and cannot say or do. Also our papers are still to afraid to publish the cartoons themselves. Basically our governments are running scared between their own values and the fear there will be more extremist actions.

Wait.

Why would it be illegal?

 

[SStarr33]

Anyways, it does appear the Obama administration agrees with all of us that think they screwed up. At the very least he could have shown up at the walk in DC

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Wait.

Why would it be illegal?

Tim Wilson joins call for changes to discrimination laws, says Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be banned in Australia

Under our racial discrimination laws they would not have been able to be published .. (I know!)

Citing concerns from the Muslim community, the Federal Government last year dumped plans to remove section 18C from the Act making it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate based on racial grounds.
...

"Around the world, if you're going to say you believe in free speech and that people should have the freedom to offend or insult somebody, then the solution cannot be censorship," he said.

"That is what we have in Australia today. We have a law that makes it unlawful to offend or insult somebody.

"So people are either being hypocrites when they say Je Suis Charlie and saying they defend these people's right to free speech, or they actually believe in free speech and recognise that laws that make it unlawful to insult or offend people are censorious and would see that Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia."

 

[Gardenlady]

I don't think he considered football to be more important. But it did not seem that he considered this solidarity march to be all that much of a priority. Neither of our top three leaders were sent over to attend. And Holder was there, and RSVPed, but then he left before the march even started. I have problems with that behavior on his part. Every other country seemed to take their role and their attendance seriously, but us. Why is that?

I don't know why - I think it was a mistake too not to have a high level rep there. The only thing I can think is that possibly they felt it would detract from the moment to have the president or VP show up. Kerry was already slated to visit a school India that had been victim to a terrors attack, and to back out of that would look bad. They should have kept holder there, IMO.

But to make the charge that the mistake was made not out of bad decision making but because the president cares more about football is just over the top. To disagree with policies is one thing but when you let the disagreement color your thinking to the point where you are basically accusing the president of being an uncaring psychopath (because that's what you'd have to be, to care more about football than about dead innocents, really) is just beyond reason. It's entering tinfoil hat territory.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SStarr33]

Tim Wilson joins call for changes to discrimination laws, says Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be banned in Australia

Under our racial discrimination laws they would not have been able to be published .. (I know!)

Citing concerns from the Muslim community, the Federal Government last year dumped plans to remove section 18C from the Act making it illegal to offend, insult or humiliate based on racial grounds.
...

"Around the world, if you're going to say you believe in free speech and that people should have the freedom to offend or insult somebody, then the solution cannot be censorship," he said.

"That is what we have in Australia today. We have a law that makes it unlawful to offend or insult somebody.

"So people are either being hypocrites when they say Je Suis Charlie and saying they defend these people's right to free speech, or they actually believe in free speech and recognise that laws that make it unlawful to insult or offend people are censorious and would see that Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia."

I'm truly shocked that Australian's do not have freedom of expression.

 

[Gardenlady]

I don't know why - I think it was a mistake too not to have a high level rep there. The only thing I can think is that possibly they felt it would detract from the moment to have the president or VP show up. Kerry was already slated to visit a school India that had been victim to a terrors attack, and to back out of that would look bad. They should have kept holder there, IMO.

But to make the charge that the mistake was made not out of bad decision making but because the president cares more about football is just over the top. To disagree with policies is one thing but when you let the disagreement color your thinking to the point where you are basically accusing the president of being an uncaring psychopath (because that's what you'd have to be, to care more about football than about dead innocents, really) is just beyond reason. It's entering tinfoil hat territory.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And forgive me for quoting myself, but I do it just to chastise my own self really. Because look - here we are, making it all about us USians again. As usual. There was an attack on France, on the French people, yet the topic inevitably comes around to us. We are like the toddler or teenager who cannot bear to not be the center of attention. And I included myself in this. I apologize.

Maybe we should just shut up about what we here in the U.S. Are doing/not doing, and listen and learn from the French. Because again, Europe has a lot more experience dealing with terror attacks than we do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

Yes, it's beyond pathetic, this critical mewling, from "patriots" who'd gladly send a U.S. President into a hastily organized three million person march in a country with unsettled security concerns and 17 freshly dead in terror attacks. If any doubt the U.S.'s commitment to freedom and to Europe, a walk on Omaha Beach might be a nice refresher; and if any doubt our president's patriotic lineage, then that person can reflect on Obama's granddad and great-uncle, both of whom were in France and in uniform within six weeks of D-Day.

But I get it, I get it -- it's never about truth; it's about something much more hidden, fearful, and unclear.

But they don't care about those relatives, they only care that some of his relatives came from (gasp!) Kenya!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I'm truly shocked that Australian's do not have freedom of expression.

So are we!

 

[Brightbird]

I'm truly shocked that Australian's do not have freedom of expression.

We do. It's not clear whether the cartoons would have been against the racial discrimination act. If it's satire on a religion or political group, that's fine. I think some MSM publications don't want to publish them so as not to offend millions of moderate Muslims. I agree with that decision. Freedom of the press surely includes the freedom not to publish certain things. I defend their right to publish it, but I hope they're not bullied into doing it by commentators with an anti-Islamic view.

 

[Curious Guy]

Yes, it's beyond pathetic, this critical mewling, from "patriots" who'd gladly send a U.S. President into a hastily organized three million person march in a country with unsettled security concerns and 17 freshly dead in terror attacks. If any doubt the U.S.'s commitment to freedom and to Europe, a walk on Omaha Beach might be a nice refresher; and if any doubt our president's patriotic lineage, then that person can reflect on Obama's granddad and great-uncle, both of whom were in France and in uniform within six weeks of D-Day.

But I get it, I get it -- it's never about truth; it's about something much more hidden, fearful, and unclear.

Clearly anyone that criticizes Obama has a hidden agenda. I believe this because I hear it daily from the MSM in the USA. :eyeroll: