Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed

There is strong motive. And again it fits a pattern of intimidation of those who would depict the prophet.

 

The evidence is the timing.

It is circumstantial evidence, but it's still evidence nonetheless.

 

Seriously Muslims threaten a paper, they ignore the threat and get bombed, and we get left wing hippies running about claiming it must be infidels.

 

All you have is suspicion. That is not enough to conclude that fundamentalist muslims did it.

 

No evidence so far except that French evening news showed the forthcoming Charlie Hebdo's front page on tv a few hours before their building was set on fire at night.

If that is enough for you to conclude that fundamentalist muslims did it, perhaps you know something I don't and should go talk to the police

 

Any insurance payouts yet?

 

It is fair to suspect that Muslims might have been involved, but there is currently no evidence proving such. Anyone could have performed the act while figuring that you'd blame Muslims for it.

Wer die Angriffe auf die Redaktion und die Website verübte, ist auch drei Tage später noch unklar. Die Polizei fahndet nach zwei Männern, die von einem Busfahrer bei der Tat beobachtet wurden
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,796009,00.html

 

Are you seriously equating freedom of speech and expression with firebombing a building? Hint: destruction of property and endangering of other lives are still illegal.

Let me guess, you are a muslim, arent you? How typical, lol..

 

II amde no such conclusions. But it would be a reasonable deduction.

 

With reasonable suspicion, you can have some people arrested.

Hopefully, unless their guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, they shall be released.

 

Yes but that we have a reasonable suspicion that it was the act of a fundamentalist Muslim does not necessarily imply that it was any particular person

Well isn't that how the legal system is supposed to function?

 

Indeed! Unfortunately, it doesn't prevent people from having prejudices.

 

have you seen personally this cartoon? will you qualified it as a insult?

 

They must be far from sure with their `religion'. If each Christian gave a kick to for each Jesus time was offensive would be to us daily combat. A program insulting Mohamed as they announced as exposure of Jerry Springer? They draw a cartoon which depicts Mohamed he is really, a warmonger. Koran states MUCH time that not believers are put at death. A so nice peaceful religion of which we allow members to freely live among us. Poor wretch provided the proof what is this religion REALLY approximately and it goes among us on our streets.

 

Serious question, first of all, my Dutch chum.

Have you ever created a thread on here which doesn't contain something about Muslims?

Anything at all? If so, I should like you to link me to three threads in the past three months, none of which had anything to do with Muslims.

If you cannot do that, then, imo, you are simply using this site entirely as a vehicle to stir up hate against your selected target.

(I can show you three of mine, before you ask).

And now onto the matter of this 'cartoon'.

I don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that have been dreamed up by men, since we began to walk upright. However, were I a cartoonist, I may not go out of my way to create what would be a highly offensive cartoon depicting Jesus as a drug addled hippy, and his mother a whore.

What would be amusing about that, and would it not merely amount to a cheap shot, on my part?

Now, you may argue that even if I did do this, that no Christian would be crazy enough to think about harming me over it. I disagree. There are literally tens of thousands of Christians and Catholics who would be extreme enough to not only wish me harm, but do me harm. But it's not that which would put me off doing it. It would be nasty, cheap, and demeaning, that's why I would not do it.

During Nazi Germany, cartoons of Jews were commonplace.

All in good fun, or a pre cursor to the slow process of mocking these people, so as to alientate Germans from them?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNaXjBWRLg"]Nazi Propaganda against Jews and Others - YouTube[/ame]

 

I meant to ask.

Is that a picture of you in your avatar, or some man important to you?

Btw - nice balanced commentary from you, as usual.

 

You're difficult to understand. Are you saying that the jews killed jesus ?

 

We don't know that there was even a real man called 'Jesus' (would that have been a common name, in that part of that world, at that time?).

What we do know is this.

The Romans were obsessive about record keeping.

Esp of all crucifixtions. And yet, oddly enough, there is not ONE record of a crucifixtion of a man called 'Jesus'. I find that interesting.

However, if we go down the route that there was a man called Jesus, and that he was crucified for his beliefs/actions, then as far as I am aware, the Romans were effectively like the 'police' in that region, of the time, and while it was they who carried out the crucifixation, it was at the behest of the Jews.

A Jewish man of peace emerges, speaking about brotherly love and mutual acceptance. Jews who like brutal leaders and murder used the Romans to bring about his downfall.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

If Jesus were to turn up in Israel today, they would likely kill him all over again.

 

the swin comment was harsh, Muhammed being a pedophile is fact.

 

What if you experienced that your colleagues were fearful of illustrating a perfectly respectable childrens book on Christianity because of very real threats from fundamentalist Christians? Might you feel provoked to draw some kind of caricature of Jesus say being accidently stabbed in the back complaining he wasn't ready yet? Isn't it fair to use satire to get your point across? At the same time Nazi propaganda was busy publishing cartoons mocking Jews others outside Germany were drawing cartoons mocking the Nazis, not just in good fun but as a means of getting a message across. Was that ok or was that just the same?

 

You're distorting the context.

And I ask you again, do you ever create or post on threads that have NOTHING to do with Muslims, or do you just use this place as a platform for your obvious hate?



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8MKseGA90"]Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was NOT a pedophile - YouTube[/ame]

 

Affirmative in relation to the latter.

 

You have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up view on what freedom of expression is.

 

This is why so many Muslims don't fit in over here or in Canada. Destruction of another's property violates the peace while the expression of an opinion operates in the realm of ideas and is protected.

 

Most Canadian Muslims live in the safest region with the least amount of crime in North America. Your argument thus suggests that more Muslims threaten to reduce the violence.