Charlie Hebdo Attacked By Muslim Terrorists

You’ve seen the news. And you’re already seeing the craven apologists for Islamic terrorism groveling and justifying and otherwise excusing barbarism. Indeed, somehow, the Obama administration, charged with upholding the First Amendment principles of freedom of speech, found time back in 2012 to weigh in on an obscure French satirical magazine, and surprising no one, came down on the side of the heckler’s veto:

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The White House criticized French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2012 for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
Then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney questioned the magazine’s judgment after publishing images of Muhammad naked.
“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” Carney told reporters in September 2012.

I find myself sadly resigned to the fact that barbarous Muslim fanatics will from time to time go upon murderous rampages. It is simply what happens.

But when a society begins to question whether they should be importing a population known for such, the political class immediately chides them and scolds them for being racist, rather than realist. That is what outrages me.

Our pusillanimous White House cannot even trouble itself to use the word terrorism, instead relying on the non-judgmental term “violence.”

CDR Salamander just looked at the issue of immigrant Muslim populations skewing the politics of an open society Monday. There are literally neighborhoods where the parent society has effectively ceded sovereignty to them. So to in the suburbs of Paris, parts of England, and to some extent, here in Dearborn, Michigan.

We’ll be warned for weeks about a backlash against Muslims that never seems to actually occur.

Maybe it is time it does.

mohammed-cartoons charlie hebdo muhammed cartoons 2012

mohammed-cartoons charlie hebdo muhammed cartoons 2012

11 thoughts on “Charlie Hebdo Attacked By Muslim Terrorists”

  1. Didn’t know you were in the Detroit area. I miss it, except for the weather and the economy.

    What ever happened to that reality show they were trying with American Muslims including one who was a high school football coach in Dearborn?

  2. I have for a while now been watching the French population (less Muslims) resenting more and more the very large Muslim population living in France. So too in Germany only the protests against Muslims are inclusive of “Skinheads” which I find very discomforting. I have no problem with the population being against anything in their country, it is the lunatic fringe that can be the accelerator in that kind of an explosive situation. Anybody else notice the shot group in the front windshield of the French Police car???

  3. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this is going. When the straw breaks the camel’s back there’s gonna be a bloodbath. It’s what you call a consequence.

  4. “But when a society begins to question whether they should be importing a population known for such, the political class immediately chides them and scolds them for being racist, rather than realist. That is what outrages me.”

    When you start assuming someone is a terrorist because they are Muslim, you are being racist (well, religion is. English isn’t the most precise language). It would be like assuming Clarence Thomas was a drug dealer just because he’s black.

    Actually it’s worse than that. A statistically significant number of black men – around 1 in 6 – ARE drug dealers. The percentage of Muslims who are jihadis must be substantially below 1%. There are ~1 billion Muslims on Earth. If 1% were active terrorists – not just supporters – there would be around 10 million people looking to blow up the infidels. The problem is that there are “only” ~10,000 people killed by islamic terrorists in a year. So either there aren’t that many terrorists or it takes on average 1000 terrorists to kill one person. Hadji isn’t that incompetent.

    Now thinking that immigrants aren’t assimilating and the rate of imigration should be reduced is one thing. There isn’t even anything wrong with saying that I migrants from culturally similar regions (in the case of France, Western Europe and North America) assimilate easier and so need less restriction. But when you start treating a person like a criminal just because of his religion you deny him his individuality and treat him like a unit or religion, like a thing.

    1. When you start assuming someone is a terrorist because they are Muslim, you are being racist (well, religion is. English isn’t the most precise language). It would be like assuming Clarence Thomas was a drug dealer just because he’s black.

      Look around the world. Where Islam reigns, with few exceptions, is misery and strife. Why go borrowing trouble? That’s not racist. That’s, again, realist. And you can hardly compare the experience of post-World War II Europe’s open immigration policies with the forced importation of slaves to America. Apples and oranges, as it were.

      For once, I’ll give the liberals a bit of credit. Much of France’s issues on this topic do indeed find their roots in colonialism, particularly the effort to maintain their North African empire post war.

      Now thinking that immigrants aren’t assimilating and the rate of imigration should be reduced is one thing.

      Or stopping said immigration. Which is pretty much what I said and you seem to have deleted from your reading of my piece.

    2. Jeff, according to the NHTSA, 10,076 people died in drunk driving crashes in 2013. Since ONLY that many people were killed by drunk drivers, does that mean that we should just excuse the ones that didn’t kill anyone? I mean, it’s not like they did anything harmful, and yet we’re persecuting and threatening them constantly.

      I mean, if it’s okay for Muslims to kill about 10,000 people a year then it should be okay for drunk drivers to do the same thing, right?

  5. I think it is important to point out that Charlie Hebdo was not just picking on Islam. There are other cartoons about Christianity that make the ones you published look like Disney products. Charlie was an equal opportunity offender.

  6. Maybe we should compare & contrast the Muslim reaction to Charlie Hebdo to the Christian reaction to The Last Temptation of Christ and the “piss Christ” work.

    Muslims all around the world (even the non-terrorist ones, for Jeff) went nuts with massive demonstrations. There were riots, widespread property destruction, and more than a few deaths.

    Christians, on the other hand, wrote letters to the editor, picketed a couple of movie theaters, and not much else.

    It’s not that “not all Muslims” do these things; it’s that even a small minority acts out. Radical Muslims throw acid at schoolgirls for going to school, fathers kill their daughter for wearing blue jeans (even here in the US), the men create false charges of adultery against wives they wish to dispose of (said disposal involves stoning), and several Muslim states execute gay men for, well, being gay. In Iran men & women can get arrested for dancing together.

    I’m quite aware of the loyal Muslim soldiers who have served in our armed forces, but the truth is that anyone who tries to cast light on the ugly warts of modern Islam is immediately accused of “Islamophobia.” They’re not all blood-crazed killers, but -as a culture or religion- they’re not as civilized as other major religions.

    Yeah, I know, I’m a RAAACIST.

    1. Well sheesh, of course they’re not as civilized as other religions. Hasn’t anyone told you yet? Islam is a YOUNG religion. Look where Christianity was when it was only 1400 years old. :rolls eyes:

Comments are closed.