Have the Charlie Hebdo terrorists won?

Scroll to see replies

No they haven't won. As far as I can see there haven't been general anti-Muslim reprisals and the response has been solidarity between Muslims and white Europeans against terrorism. The second they shot that Ahmed chap in cold blood it was over on that score.

The French political conversation may be pretty racist and unforgiving on the multiculturalism front but at the end of the day the silent majority is shamelessly stout about national unity in the face of anti-Muslim rabble-rousing as much as Islamist terrorism.

Original post by tibis viii

anti-immigration, anti-islam, white nationalists etc won.

dead muslims.
dead marxists.
dead jews.
muslims look terrible.
marxists look like they got a taste of their own medicine.

a really good few days for people who don't like marxists, modern socialists and muslims.

oh and the marxist western media looks pathetic as they don't have the guts to print cartoons of muhamad. it just gets better and better really.

oh and of course incrementally the human gene pool benefited.

Lol, the Western media Marxist? What have you been smoking.

Original post by ESPORTIVA

The terrorists got lit up!

The videos online of him trying to run out of the siege then the french swat shoot him then when he's down on the ground they carry on shooting him!

Amazing stuff!

I bet the liberals are crying about this though

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah that's something to celebrate isn't it, very grown up of you...

If you respond like it's a war the terrorists have won. They're criminals and nothing more and should be apprehended and/or shot without making a big song and dance about it.

Reply 21

Jacobmead9

Maybe this is the shock to the system that will make us realise our apartment ****ing stinks

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 22

elohssa

No Muslims, no terrorists. As long as you have Muslims you don't have free speech.

Reply 23

Jacobmead9

Not just that, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing my town gradually become a cesspool of mosques, pawn shops takeaways taxi ranks and these novelty black walking postboxes I keep seeing pottering about with what looks like a primary school foreign exchange in tow

Reply 24

skunkboy

No. The police won, terrorists failed. But terrorism still exists. That's because the Quran says that "unbelievers are the vilest of animals".

That's why those Muslim terrorists can cold-bloodedly kill non-Muslims...

The Quran is obviously the big problem. It could cause massacres in the future.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 25

saywhatm8

Original post by Jacobmead9

Not just that, I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing my town gradually become a cesspool of mosques, pawn shops takeaways taxi ranks

Perhaps there wouldn't be so many of these businesses if the previous owners of the plots were more successful. How often did you give them your custom? When is the last time you set up a business to counteract the commercial trend of the high street?

and these novelty black walking postboxes I keep seeing pottering about with what looks like a primary school foreign exchange in tow

So do you believe in freedom of expression or not?

Reply 26

Viridiana

The major newspaper in my country did publish many of those pictures in the newest edition but well, we have almost no Muslims so we can pretend to be brave

Reply 27

caravaggio2

Where are you virinda?

Reply 28

JamesNeedHelp2

It is evident that the Martyred muslims won this one. Lets not kid ourself. Their stated Aims were to kill the journalists and in doing so, die as martyrs. Nevermind all the other people that they killed.

Reply 29

JamesNeedHelp2

Original post by skunkboy

Please elaborate...how on earth did the police win? Lets stay factual and rational...

Reply 30

caravaggio2

Of course they've won. They won a long time ago with Salman Rushdie. That's why my nearest 15 libraries don't stock the satanic verses and I have to order it from the nearest university library 20 miles away despite my local small one holding two copies of midnights children.
As a society we self sensor all the time to avoid upsetting them and bringing violence down on our heads.
Look at the papers today. not one showing the cartoons.
Charlie died because they stood alone.
For the rest of the media to say je suis Charlie and then not print the images shows the terrorists have won.

Reply 31

the bear

these dogs are not martyrs. when you open your bowels your stools are not martyred. they are flushed away to the cesspit. that is what happened yesterday to those fools.

Reply 32

Pegasus2

Original post by caravaggio2

Charlie died because they stood alone.
For the rest of the media to say je suis Charlie and then not print the images shows the terrorists have won.

Stood for what though?

Certainly not 'free speech' as everyone is making out. Free speech is not the right to make dirogatory, disrespectful pictures or jokes about a certain group of people and then publish them. That's called hate speach and there are a mirad of laws against it and the communication of such material in the UK.

As far as I can tell, whether what was published in Hebdo, for it to be illegal in the UK would hinge on the basis of if they were intended to stir up hatred or not. Obviously, they did in the end and even after repeated warnings from the people the comics were aimed at and a Government ban on an issue, they still continued to publish.

However, if those comics had been aimed at the black or the gay community you can bet he'd been in jail pretty quickly.

We censor a lot of stuff, like terrorism, glorifying terrorism, promotion of criminal acts etc etc, hate against minority groups and hateful speech / material against people's age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, origin, basicaly all the nasty stuff, so clearly there are exceptions to true 'free speech'. I think most people would agree with me that maliciously attacking a group of people based on any of the above is wrong, but according to what is happening in france, maliciously attacking someone's religious beliefs, especially muslim's is somehow OK?

Personally I think the comics were very ill-contrived, vulgar and don't think any of them are even remotely funny. No one will publish or display the images because they're in very poor taste.

If what was published is called 'free speech' then I certainly don't stand for it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 33

King Leonidas

Haven the French government not give Cherlie Hebdo 1 million Euros to keep the company active?

Don't know much about how British publication is dealing with it, although the guys on The Last Leg refused to show the cartoons...

Reply 34

Pegasus2

Original post by King Leonidas

so did the BBC and I think TSR has refused to have them linked afaik.

Reply 35

Calpurnia

Many media outlets didn't want to post the images prior to the attack, because they felt they were in bad taste. So posting them now would just seem bizarre and petty. The best way to kept flying the flag for free speech is just to keep publishing whatever it is that you usually publish. If that's a fashion blog, great. If that's gaudy images of religious figures, great.

The "terrorists" don't win, because we don't actually have any idea what they wanted. Unfortunately they were shot before anyone could ask them. The thing is, whilst it's comforting to brand these people as loony-fringe fanatics, they aren't alone in the world, and with MI5 freaking out about attacks, it seems worthwhile to see if there isn't something more proactive we could be doing. If Isreal turns out to be a common theme, for instance, then it may be worth exploring policies on Israel.

Unfortunately, even just looking at anything we're doing in the world as questionable is probably too much to handle, especially if the interest was sparked by violence. So perhaps we should just sit tight for the next attack.

Reply 36

Meenglishnogood

Original post by Lady Comstock

Their aim, or at least a primary aim, was to scare journalists into refraining from publishing images of Muhammad, or indeed blasphemous content. It was a case of: "see what happens if you publish this stuff".

Not one mainstream British publication published the images (overtly) in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian admitted that it does not want to publish the images full stop.

And I bet journalists will now be even more cautious about publishing such images in future.

I appreciate that people don't want to put their lives at risk, but it is a huge shame that it's possible that the terrorists' goal was achieved. Had all publications published the images, fanatics would not have enough resources to target each publisher.

I doubt many of thebritish newspapaers would have publish the pictures even if it hadnthappened, its not our sort fo thing. But anyway, many similar havealready been published online by tousands of random people as aresult of the attack – and charlie hebdo has had more internationalcoverage than it would have ever had in its history – its going tocirculate 1 million copies next week.

So in that respect theislamists have done the opposite of their aim.

The main result is toscrew over everyday peacefule muslims – but islamist dont careabout the average musim, so that prob wasnt a consideration.

Reply 37

mojojojo101

Whatever happens, we (by that I mean the general population of the UK, France, the US, etc) have lost and will continue to lose.

The threat from Islamist terrorists on the one hand is mirrored by the ever increasing reach of our security 'services', our phones will be tapped, our internet usage tracked and our liberty defiled all in the name of our protection.