The Student Room Group

The Guardian goes full apologist mode after Charlie Hebdo

delete
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
what's suprising? the guardian is extremist and should be irrelevant. no intelligent person respects such an extremist, dogmatic, political newspaper.
it's down there with the sun and the daily mail, just mindless trash.
This is nothing. The Graun has published Islamic fanatics on numerous occasions, and clearly has no shame in doing so. It is a pro-jihad newspaper, and any liberal who reads it needs their head checked.
It's as disappointing as it is predictable.
They were doing well earlier in the day after posting this one.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/07/free-speech-must-not-be-silenced-in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack

EDIT: In reading the comments I have realised that there is still hope.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 5
Well, it's Thursday tomorrow, so licence fee payers will be treated to someone on Question Time underlining how Muslims are the real victims here, rather than the dead people.
Reply 6
What did you expect from a newspaper that believes men and women should have gender segregated buses?
Reply 7
Original post by Evening
What did you expect from a newspaper that believes men and women should have gender segregated buses?


I thought they believed they shouldn't, and "men should be taught not to rape"(c)
"The prominent French-speaking Muslim theologian Shaikh Abdullah bin Bayyah often says that if there is a house on fire, everybody works towards putting out the fire. You don’t ask why is this or that person carrying the bucket of water. The house of Islam is on fire. The water needs to be carried by everybody, regardless of race or religion."

If the house of Islam is on fire, maybe people should be more focused on dousing the fires and the ridiculous beliefs that lead to the hate and violence instead of responding with #NotAllMuslims and attacking the people who dare to voice opinion and concern about the matter at hand
The Guardian are absolutely traitorous scum. They really are mentally ill. It is just a left wing propaganda machine, that loses money and is financed by autotrader.
Reply 10
Original post by Lady Comstock
Surprise, surprise - within hours. Even the Mail hasn't launched into "it's the Muzlamz fault!!1" yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-murderers-cannot-define-islam?commentpage=2

"In sixth-century Mecca, it was the prophet Muhammad who fought for free speech to proclaim one God as the creator of life and worthy of worship. The city’s pagans were his violent persecutors."

"
The sharia has higher aims that are fully in line with the modern world."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-clash-civilisation-terrorism-muslims

Really? Commissioning a piece that praises sharia law within hours of this attack?

Ed hussain is writing and to be fair to him, he is trying to promote the idea for reform and modernisation in islam, to force islamic world to come under scrutiny of logic. he is doing this by making up some guff about mohammed and pre-islam pagans yes, becuase this is the only way some muslims would actually take any notice of him. in reality arab pagans fought against mohammed becuase he wanted to take over their empire, which he eventually did. but stating facts wont get him support from muslim community.

the rest of his article talks about - "Islam and Muslims are secure in the west because of freedom of speech, conscience, press and religion. To attack those freedoms is to attack Islam’s existence. The dangerous ignorance of the extremists is not limited to their failure to understand the west. They do not know the prophet for whom they claim to kill."

he is trying to spin this argument from a muslims angle - of course it cant be done this way - he is ignoring the bigger issue which is this doctrine cannot be used to control peoples minds anymore, this is 21st century not 8th, people have to be more logical and tolerant of others, not more influnced by ideologies of the 8th century, a time of war and persecutions, no matter what rubbish stories he comes up with
Disgusting apologist nonsense, Galloway's tirade being equally repulsive.

Islamism is a plague.
Meh, they don't seem that bad. When I saw the thread title I was expecting an article about how Charlie Hebdo were stupid to publish the cartoons and it was all their fault for insulting Islam. I don't seem to have seen very much of that yet, though no doubt there'll be some victim blamers out there.

Original post by DiddyDec
They were doing well earlier in the day after posting this one.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/07/free-speech-must-not-be-silenced-in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-attack

EDIT: In reading the comments I have realised that there is still hope.


I can't see the problem with that article. It seems to be a pro-free speech article, rather than an apologist one.

Is there something I'm missing?
Reply 13
It's a comment piece. Surely you'd defend the author's right to freedom of expression just as vigorously as you'd defend anyone elses?
Original post by pjm600
It's a comment piece. Surely you'd defend the author's right to freedom of expression just as vigorously as you'd defend anyone elses?


At what point was it suggested that we should be censoring the article? Free speech, free press, and free criticism are exactly how this is meant to work.
I've never quite understood how the lefts relationship with islam makes any sense. It's an incredibly conservative worldview (words chosen carefully). The guardian somehow manages to have articles promoting feminism on one page and defending islam on the other ... sorry if I don't quite understand it.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Surprise, surprise - within hours. Even the Mail hasn't launched into "it's the Muzlamz fault!!1" yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-murderers-cannot-define-islam?commentpage=2

"In sixth-century Mecca, it was the prophet Muhammad who fought for free speech to proclaim one God as the creator of life and worthy of worship. The city’s pagans were his violent persecutors."

"
The sharia has higher aims that are fully in line with the modern world."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-clash-civilisation-terrorism-muslims

Really? Commissioning a piece that praises sharia law within hours of this attack?


Imagine if the Guardian allowed comments on its articles, as in freedom of speech. Always be suspicious of the authors intention when comments are disabled.
Original post by limetang
I've never quite understood how the lefts relationship with islam makes any sense. It's an incredibly conservative worldview (words chosen carefully). The guardian somehow manages to have articles promoting feminism on one page and defending islam on the other ... sorry if I don't quite understand it.


Like schizophrenia a mental illness
Original post by DiddyDec
EDIT: In reading the comments I have realised that there is still hope.

Yes I thought the same too- it would seem a good majority of the Guardian article comments are always against the Guardian.
Original post by Clip
Well, it's Thursday tomorrow, so licence fee payers will be treated to someone on Question Time underlining how Muslims are the real victims here, rather than the dead people.

Have you seen the application form for applying to be on QT? This is how they ensure a fair audience:

-What is your ethnicity?
-What political party do you vote?

Chuck-out most of the UKIP and Tory applications, approve a liberal-majority, throw in some UAF demonstrators and a "Londoner" to declare how immigration is so ****ing great and they are so proud, when the weekly immigration question is brought-up.

Quick Reply