Translate

Friday, 9 January 2015

Is Charlie Hebdo guilty of provoking the terrorist attack? Will you get the answer wrong ON PURPOSE?

Worse, will our governments get the answer wrong on purpose because most voters will get the answers wrong on purpose?



1:06 Natalie Nougayrede, former editor of Le Monde, now a columnist with the Guardian presumes to tell us what not to think at 1:06. Well, fuck HER and read http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/ instead. 


https://twitter.com/CristinaOhq/status/553511643607740416

Women and liberals are not really into discussing the truth without calling it "vile"  and "dangerous", are they?

This clash of civilisations is basically between

(1)  the West whose governments and politicians are too terrified to alienate the female vote because they have to keep the whole shebang of democracy going, and

and

(2) the Muslims who think democracy run by sluts for sluts, the LGBT and their running dogs is crap and should be replaced by Islam that will encourage men to assert patriarchal moral values again.

In short, this clash of civilisations is between people who

(a) think gay marriage should be spread over the world like manure spread by a manure spreader

and

(b) those who will kill to keep this kind of filth out of their country and away from their people.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-export-gay-marriage-around-the-world-says-David-Cameron.html

Put it another way:

Would the terrorists say Charlie Hebdo provoked the attack?

If the terrorists said Charlie Hebdo provoked the attack then they must have provoked the attack, mustn't they?

http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/687164-charlie-hebdo-mgr-vingt-trois-mariage-gay-moquer-les-religions-un-mal-necessaire.html

Who is the zealot and fanatic? The Muslim or the militant atheist who delights in causing gratuitous offence to Muslims?

No getting round this fact, is there, unless you are a head-burying liberal ostrich who insists on the absolute right to gratuitously offend anyone and expects and believes that there will be no retaliation.

When there is retaliation, the reaction of this militant atheist liberal ostrich is to do more of the same because he insists on his right to show contempt for Muslims while expecting them never to retaliate.

What they are hoping for then is to have a 21st century European War of Religion, perhaps, which they expect to win giving them the opportunity to massacre and expel Muslims, burn down mosques then ban Islam so they can have their Muslim-free Europe.

I know Western Islamophobes safely out of the West - living in non-Muslim countries - who advocate and pray for precisely this.

These are the people who won't answer this question as truth and logic would dictate even though they are graduates quite able to see the implications of the wording of this question. These are the people who are the ones with the dangerous ideas and atheist zealots who insist on their absolute right to cause gratuitous offence in order to assert their racial, cultural and what they think is their intellectual and moral superiority over Muslims.

https://polldaddy.com/poll/8570599/


4 comments:

DS said...

Even if they were " the punishment does not fit the crime"

Claire Khaw said...

I am not saying for one moment that what the terrorists did was proportionate, but do you know what I mean when I say that there is only one correct answer to this question?

The answers currently stand at 50/50.

People are dumb, aren't they?

They will actually not answer correctly, if answering correctly conflicts with their position, which is that they hate Muslims so much that they feel they should have the right to insult and mock Muslims in any way they like and expect no retaliation, when this is obviously not the case.

OM said...

Would you argue that the Jews provoked the holocaust by being deliberately successful while many germans were failing? How about the Irish provoking Bloody Sunday by having the nerve to demonstrate about something they were unhappy about when we clearly had more guns than them? What about Pakistanis provoking drone strikes on weddings by not doing exactly what Andrica demands of them? How about victims of of anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic beatings provoking skinheads by living in their country and not giving up their religion and trying to fit in?

There is almost always a reason for any act of violence. Normally these things do not happen in a vacuum.

Claire Khaw said...

Of course not.