Here are the cartoons that got 12 innocent people at Charlie Hebdo slaughtered

While I support posting lewd pictures of Prophet Mo, I'd also like to express my hope that all of the free-speech supporting Christians on Letsrun wouldn't be offended by a picture of a masturbating nun or Jesus humping a dog something.

OF COURSE no one should die for making fun of someone's religion. OF COURSE people should have, and do have, the legal right to do so. OF COURSE it's horrible what these psycho idiot terrorists did. But what's the point of provoking them? (and it is hilariously ironic that all these "STAND UP FOR FREE SPEECH AGAINST THE TERRORISTS" peeps are anonymous cowards)

Here's an analogy: if there is some college or HS kid who has school-shooter written all over him, and he does some annoying stuff, should you call him out on it and mock him just because he deserves it and it's "free speech" ? Will it be worth it when he murders you and half the school?

Or if some road rage, clearly criminal gangster driver cuts you off, gives YOU the finger, even though you did nothing wrong, spits on your car, and then at the red light stares at you, should you say: "look A__hole, stop driving like a maniac" ? if you think there is a decent chance he will pull out a gun and shoot you and your whole family? OF course not.

It sucks that nihilistic maniacs are able to intimidate and threaten others, but..... (in both situations you call authorities if you are concerned about ticking time bombs, not light the fuse)

you need to pick your battles and the risk. I understand the whole slippery slope argument, but publicly mocking Muhammed is on the top of my "can't live in a free society without" list. I support people doing it. If they think it is worthy dying for, or living under 24/7 security the rest of their lives for. For now, I'll pass (on doing it publicly). There other battles.

corrected-

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

but publicly mocking Muhammed is NOT on the top of my "can't live in a free society without" list. I support people doing it. If they think it is worthy dying for, or living under 24/7 security the rest of their lives for. For now, I'll pass (on doing it publicly). There other battles.

wejo wrote:

For example, I wouldn't publish a front page with the word N***** on it. Who knows maybe seeing picture of Muhammad is that offensive to Sunnis.

Just for perspective's sake:

If this weren't about religion and instead some magazine ran a big joke with N****** printed front and center, and some black nationalists killed several people at that magazine in retaliation, would you say, "in the name of free speech, even though I understand how offensive that is, I'm going to put that word front and center on my website in defiance to those murderers."

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Here's an analogy: if there is some college or HS kid who has school-shooter written all over him, and he does some annoying stuff, should you call him out on it and mock him just because he deserves it and it's "free speech" ? Will it be worth it when he murders you and half the school?

Or if some road rage, clearly criminal gangster driver cuts you off, gives YOU the finger, even though you did nothing wrong, spits on your car, and then at the red light stares at you, should you say: "look A__hole, stop driving like a maniac" ? if you think there is a decent chance he will pull out a gun and shoot you and your whole family? OF course not.

There is a disanology here.

In your example, a specific person is being antagonized.

The cartoonists however poked fun at islam. An idea.

Antagonizing a particular person, and satirizing an idea is not the same thing.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

wejo wrote:

For example, I wouldn't publish a front page with the word N***** on it. Who knows maybe seeing picture of Muhammad is that offensive to Sunnis.

Just for perspective's sake:

If this weren't about religion and instead some magazine ran a big joke with N****** printed front and center, and some black nationalists killed several people at that magazine in retaliation, would you say, "in the name of free speech, even though I understand how offensive that is, I'm going to put that word front and center on my website in defiance to those murderers."

Your example is not analogous.

Using a racial slur to offend a person is not the same as drawing a cartoon that satirizes an idea.

One is about a person, the other is about an idea.

Giant Johnson wrote:

While I support posting lewd pictures of Prophet Mo, I'd also like to express my hope that all of the free-speech supporting Christians on Letsrun wouldn't be offended by a picture of a masturbating nun or Jesus humping a dog something.

Here you go linked to earlier:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing- I understand the point, but when does society stand up as a whole against these people? I don't think Rojo will go for publishing the cartoons, but he's fine with me linking to them and apparently fine if every other new organization did it at the same time.

CNN and other news outlets that are reporting news of the situation and not showing the cartoons are even more cowards. I can see not just blasting it on the homepage of a site, but not including it in a story? That is irresponsible news. Say "these images may be offensive to some" and then show them.

Read this CNN memo:

What's next if these terrorists go and slaughter kids in a Christian school? Should we close Christian schools because they find it offensive?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing, you are stupid beyond words. Thank god you are not running this website.

Weldon and Robert, I say post the pictures. It is past time we stood up to these murderous, disgusting pieces of sh!t that terrorize America. No more censorship bullsh!t, no more bending over backwards so that fanatical Muslims don't get their "feelings" hurt. It's absolutely insane that we're supposed to "tolerate" murder and torture.

I will speak my mind about this issue, and I suggest you do as well. Please, do NOT listen to any liberal who says "but but but they might get their feelings hurt if you post the pictures!" Do it and be proud you are fighting back against absolute evil.

Flagpole wrote:

6) I have a good friend who is a diehard NRA card-carrying Republican, and other than my own father and mother and my wife, he is the person in this world I respect the most. I have some liberal views on gun control. When he's over at the house, I don't proudly display my more liberal readings on the coffee table. He's no shrinking violet, but there's no need for me to do that either.

.

Posting the images here is NOT leaving them on the coffee table when he comes over. Posting the images here is akin to having your reading on your nightstand in your bedroom. If you friend gets into your bedroom (very possible for legit reasons) and is then offended by what you have there it is HIS problem, not you being an poor host.

Just Do It! Kudos to NIKE(tm)

Remember the French national security apparatus ALLEGEDLY took out those Greenpeace protesters in the south pacific years ago.

Turn 'em loose on the Islamowhackos.

They have to learn to understand that it is the 21st Century.

Rojo, please ban Wejo. wrote:

Rojo, don't listen to Wejo!!!

He is CLEARLY the weaker twin. Don't back down now. Don't let your brother tell you what you can or can't do. Remember in the 3rd grade when Wejo put you in that headlock and made you eat goose poop? Remember that?!? Huh? NEVER let that happen again. YOU ARE YOUR OWN MAN ROJO.

Are either of the brothers jo a lefty?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Gun Control Works wrote:

Hey France, how are those restrictive gun policies working out for you?

http://www.examiner.com/article/terrorists-take-advantage-of-restrictive-french-gun-laws-to-kill-12

Even the first responders had to run away like cowardly libtards.

hey look everyone, it's another LetsRun "discussion board terrorist", who cowardly hides behind ever-changing names (like a dark hood), "hi-jacks" others names, and tries to bully others into being quiet all in the name of winning the debate/discussion because he can't simply argue his point!

You'd make the muslim terrorists very proud with your actions. VERY.

Writes the coward with a pseudo name on anonymous message board.

How did that European Style Gun Contol Workout in Paris today? Yeah that what I though!!!

The big news media outlets have an obligation to report the news and not make the news. If they publish the images that have been the subject of the attacks, they risk having their people become targets when they are out trying to gather the news in places that are already very dangerous. It would almost be more dangerous for news outlets to not be able to send reporters to the field and not know what is really going on in places like Yemen, Iraq, Syria, etc. then to send terrorists some sort of implied message that they have succeeded because news outlets won't show the offending material.

It is also a bit ironic that in the US, we have a big ruckus over efforts to take religious symbols out of public spaces, but the Muslims are actually against any symbols of the prophet because they fear idolatry of the prophet who is just a man and not God.

But, I am all for anyone else showing solidarity with Charlie Ebdo. It is perfectly fine for a Muslim to lash out at another Muslim for violating their idolatry law. But, Muslims have no right to tell non-Muslims what they can and cannot do, regardless of how offensive it is. The main premise behind the Muslim outrage over Europeans depicting the prophet is not that it is so offensive, it is that Islam is some sort of super religion that requires extra special respect above all other religions. That is not going to happen, ever. Je suis Charlie.

^ oh look, another libtard talking and talking and talking, without actually saying anything at all. What a shocker!

Recognizer of Brilliance wrote:

Nothing is above reproach wrote:

Be lending any crediance to the idea that some ideas are sacred and that people have a right not to be offended, you are part of the problem. I'm not saying that you're a bad person or in any way are responsible for what happened today. But moderates like you, in large enough numbers, give cover to the extremists. If your Muslim friends can't deal with satire, they are part of the problem too. They can believe whatever they want, but the that I should censor myself because of their beliefs is pure evil.

This ^

Well said

This^2.

They are a bunch of cartoons by immature men who thought they were on a crusade of higher journalism. Get over themselves. Google search some of the images besides the cover posted by wejo. They're f-king offensive. Very offensive. The one with Muhammad being bent over with his posterior in the air like some porn actress. Did they f-king think this was going to sit well with Muslims? What value did this have? They just embarrassed themselves. These people are not journalists. They were basically doing this for shits and giggles which I find patently offensive.

finisher medal wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing, you are stupid beyond words. Thank god you are not running this website.

Weldon and Robert, I say post the pictures. It is past time we stood up to these murderous, disgusting pieces of sh!t that terrorize America. No more censorship bullsh!t, no more bending over backwards so that fanatical Muslims don't get their "feelings" hurt. It's absolutely insane that we're supposed to "tolerate" murder and torture.

I will speak my mind about this issue, and I suggest you do as well. Please, do NOT listen to any liberal who says "but but but they might get their feelings hurt if you post the pictures!" Do it and be proud you are fighting back against absolute evil.

Yes, everyone knows I am stupid beyond words...so the joke is on you!

But do you know just how "Butt Hurt" I am all the time?

Do it

This is a weak, trashy and reactionary way to appeal to your solidarity with non-whackos. If you really want to hit the point home, you should go find a muslim on the street and express your free speech directly to their face. Don't be a wimp. Do it.