Arson at German paper that reprinted Charlie Hebdo cartoons – reports

http://rt.com/news/221507-germany-attack-newspaper-arson/

A German newspaper, the Hamburger Morgenpost, that reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons said it suffered an arson attack overnight.

The incident happened at about 2 am local time. Unidentified people threw stones and an incendiary devices into the building housing the “Hamburger Morgenpost” tabloid newspaper in Hamburg, Germany’s second largest city.

“Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window,” a police spokesman told AFP. “Two rooms on the lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly.”

Nobody was hurt in the attack, police say.

“It's true: Tonight there was an arson attack on our newspaper,” the Hamburger Morgenpost said on Twitter.

Police have arrested two men who were behaving suspiciously in the area at the time of the attack, said the newspaper. The authorities have launched an investigation.

The Hamburger Morgenpost reprinted cartoons created by the Charlie Hebdo magazine whose HQ in Paris was attacked on January 7. Twelve people, including famous cartoonists, were killed in the massacre.

After the Paris shooting, the newspaper published three Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page. “This much freedom must be possible!” said the headline.

Police, however, didn’t comment on possible links between the arson attack on the German newspaper and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, saying it was "too soon" to know for certain.

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

FD, just curious, are you going to spam the forum with each and every firebombing/vandalism/other reprisal attack against mosques?

Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders.

After all, Muslims are always the victims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:24pm:

FD, just curious, are you going to spam the forum with each and every firebombing/vandalism/other reprisal attack against mosques?

I bet he won't post the arson attacks on French mosques after the attack.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims.

So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not?

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/files/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-08-at-1.44.09-AM.png

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not?

Correct.

Jihad comes from mosques.


Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them.


The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is. 

Muslims are the real victims here.

Mussies attack again:

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/1/11/1420965866268/Dresden-012.jpg

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/german-newspaper-muhammad-cartoons-firebombed-hamburger-morgenpost



Quote:

German newspaper that reprinted Muhammad cartoons firebombed Arson attack on offices of Hamburg tabloid that published Charlie Hebdo cartoons on front page after Paris massacre. A German newspaper that reprinted the Muhammad cartoons from the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo has been the target of an arson attack. “Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window,” a police spokesman told AFP. “Two rooms on lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly.” The regional tabloid daily, the Hamburger Morgenpost, had splashed three Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page after the Paris massacre, running the headline “This much freedom must be possible!” No one was hurt in the attack in the northern port city, which police said occurred at about 1.20am on Sunday. Two people were detained and an investigation has begun, police said. The police said it was too soon to say whether there was a connection between the attack and the newspaper’s publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Police declined to provide further information about the suspects. No one at the Hamburger Morgenpost, known locally as the Mopo and which has a circulation of around 91,000, could immediately be reached for comment. “Thick smoke is still hanging in the air, the police are looking for clues,” the newspaper said in its online edition. Media reports said the newspaper’s publishers had ordered private security protection for the building in the western district of Othmarschen. German news agency DPA reported that the attack had been launched from a courtyard of the building and hit the newspaper’s archive room where some records were destroyed. It quoted a police spokeswoman as saying that the editorial team should be able to continue working in the building as the damage was relatively minor. Two Islamic extremists stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, killing 12 people, including some of France’s best-known satirists. Both suspects were killed on Friday in a standoff with police. Several German newspapers had published the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoons on their front pages on Thursday in a gesture of solidarity with the French cartoonists and in defence of free speech. Germany’s Bild am Sonntag newspaper reported on Sunday that the bloodshed in France could signal the start of a wave of attacks across Europe, citing communications by Islamic State leaders intercepted by US intelligence. Shortly after the attack in Paris, the US National Security Agency had intercepted communications in which leaders of the jihadi group announced a next wave of attacks, the tabloid said, citing unnamed sources in the US intelligence services.

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.

And some of the suppossed hijackers where at night clubs before the 911 attacks

So do we shoot up nightclubs?

It's all a grand conspiracy to tarnish Islam's good name. We all know those hijackers were upstanding citizens, not those dodgy looking guys you get in nightclubs.

wally1 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  And some of the suppossed hijackers where at night clubs before the 911 attacks So do we shoot up nightclubs?

I thought they were in strip clubs.

With all those houris and rivers of wine the Islamic afterlife would be like a brothel combined with a pub. :)

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 8:04pm:

It's all a grand conspiracy to tarnish Islam's good name. We all know those hijackers were upstanding citizens, not those dodgy looking guys you get in nightclubs.

Then why do they get 72  black eyed virgins?

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 8:04pm:

It's all a grand conspiracy to tarnish Islam's good name. We all know those hijackers were upstanding citizens, not those dodgy looking guys you get in nightclubs.

They certainly don’t look like decent white people to.me, FD.

Do we ban them?

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.

We know you believe in Guilt by Association and Collective Guilt, Soren.   When are you going to start holding Christians and Buddhists to the same standard?  Afterall, the poster-boy of Christian Terrorism seems to get a free ticket from you.  Or is simply that because his victims are Africans they don't count unless Muslims kill them?  ::)

http://www.iq4news.com/sites/default/files/iq4news_images/joseph_kony_image.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  We know you believe in Guilt by Association and Collective Guilt, Soren.   When are you going to start holding Christians and Buddhists to the same standard?  Afterall, the poster-boy of Christian Terrorism seems to get a free ticket from you.  Or is simply that because his victims are Africans they don't count unless Muslims kill them?  ::) http://www.iq4news.com/sites/default/files/iq4news_images/joseph_kony_image.jpg

Which churches in Australia promote and defend and champion Kony?  Are any Australians travelling to Africa to take up arms on Kony's side? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-Kony propaganda?

No.

Are there mosques and prayer centres in Australia that promote and champion jihad? Are there Australians travelling overseas fight along ISIL? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-jihad propaganda?

Yes.

"The Australian based arm of the Hizb ut-Tahrir terror group is now openly advising multiple Muslim passport holders to get to Syria via the Maldives.

Tony Abbott has responded by lashing out at Hizb ut-Tahrir, calling them very naughty boys and branding their actions as “un-Australian” and “un-Islamic”.

God, aren't we lucky to have such a take-no-prisoners gutsey prime minister as Abbott?

"The Paris millions were complaining only of a threat to freedom of speech, (pencils and pens were all the go) and it was far from an anti-Islam demo.

They still support the multiculturalism that has produced 150 “no-go” areas on sovereign French soil where Shariah law prevails over French law leaving young girls to be genitally mutilated, multiple wives to be beaten senseless and Shariah courts to exact stone-age punishments".

"The Socialist French President Hollande was claiming these Paris attacks had, “Nothing to do with Islam”

**********

More Useful Idiots across the border ...

" The gathering, jointly organized by the Dresden administration and the government of Saxony, was also a response to a series of anti-immigrant rallies, which recently took place in the city.

"I'm not here because I'm against people who go to PEGIDA [marches]," Orosz said as cited by Deutsche Welle, "but because I don't fear people with a different skin color, customs or ways.”

"We stand here not in protest or opposition but for all Dresden, for Saxony and for everyone who lives here," she added. "Regardless of whether you're Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim - we will not be separated by hate."

***

" On Saturday, Merkel urged Germans to differentiate between ordinary Muslims and Islamic radicals".

Every 'extremist' starts out as an 'ordinary Muslim'. When idiots like Merkel, Abbott, and Britain's David Cameron realise this fact they may then view their 'ordinary Muslim community' with a little more understanding of from where these 'terrorists' evolve.

Commentator:

Theodore Grapsas      
           
"Poor old Germany. In Dresden of all Places. The do-gooders and so-called Saxony Government along with thousands of freaks, Yell out.....We Love everybody....come In... you are welcome all races, religions etc to do what you want and like....we're not Germans anymore..we're world citizens...our country is yours...our culture, customs, race is all rubbish, please take it all".

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 8:13am: Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  We know you believe in Guilt by Association and Collective Guilt, Soren.   When are you going to start holding Christians and Buddhists to the same standard?  Afterall, the poster-boy of Christian Terrorism seems to get a free ticket from you.  Or is simply that because his victims are Africans they don't count unless Muslims kill them?  ::) http://www.iq4news.com/sites/default/files/iq4news_images/joseph_kony_image.jpg Which churches in Australia promote and defend and champion Kony?  Are any Australians travelling to Africa to take up arms on Kony's side? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-Kony propaganda? No. Are there mosques and prayer centres in Australia that promote and champion jihad? Are there Australians travelling overseas fight along ISIL? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-jihad propaganda? Yes.

Ah, and there Soren I thought you acting on the basis of principle out of concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Obviously I was mistaken.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.

Islamist terrorism? Is there such a thing?   Who does such a thing? In the name of Islam??   

Really??




Religion of Peace no longer?  When did the switch/admission happen?



Don't let Brain see you, he will denounce you as a bigot.

"Islamist terrorism?  No genuflection to the 'vast majority'?!? Islamophobe!!!!"


You are in trouble now, Titto.

wally1 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  And some of the suppossed hijackers where at night clubs before the 911 attacks So do we shoot up nightclubs?

'Suppossed hijackers'. Good one drongo.

No,  you should not shoot up anything, my little Mohammedan hothead.  Life is not about opportunities for you to shoot something up. I know you are waging jihad but try the inner struggle type (if you have heard about it).  You know, control yourself and all that. 

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

wally1 wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 8:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  And some of the suppossed hijackers where at night clubs before the 911 attacks So do we shoot up nightclubs? 'Suppossed hijackers'. Good one drongo. No,  you should not shoot up anything, my little Mohammedan hothead.  Life is not about opportunities for you to shoot something up. I know you are waging jihad but try the inner struggle type (if you have heard about it).  You know, control yourself and all that.

Good point, old boy. Control yourself and think of Mother.

You do this yourself, no? We can tell!

|dev|null wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 1:09pm: Which churches in Australia promote and defend and champion Kony?  Are any Australians travelling to Africa to take up arms on Kony's side? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-Kony propaganda? No. Are there mosques and prayer centres in Australia that promote and champion jihad? Are there Australians travelling overseas fight along ISIL? Are the bookshops in Australia that stock pro-jihad propaganda? Yes. Ah, and there Soren I thought you acting on the basis of principle out of concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Obviously I was mistaken.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

I am acting on the principle of not tolerating any Islamic terrorists or sympathisers or enablers or excusers and hand-washers (yes, Muslim hand-washers included) in Australia - for starters.
And then not tolerating them anywhere else.

The time for your stupid PC nonsense is long gone HB/Brain.

After these Paris massacres of cartoonists - CARTOONISTS!!!!!! - Islam deserves absolutely NO special treatment. What is more, it is in the dock. If people do not respect Islam and Muslims - well, nobody needs to respect Scientology or Christian Democrats and I do not see how or why Islam merits special treatment.

After all, there are NO Scientologist or Christian Democrat mass murderers.

Islam deserves NO special treatment just because it is violent in the face of mockery. It is made ALL THE MORE ridiculous by its own inability to face mockery and criticism.

The time for gutless surrender to barbarian, Mohammed-inspired murderers is over.


" We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them. This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curriculums. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organisations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.  What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris."

The gutless surrender must end.

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.

On the other hand, we could stop the bigots among us, and the satirists who abuse and ridicule a main stream faith some people strangely seem to hold very dear.

Aussie wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 10:23pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  On the other hand, we could stop the bigots among us, and the satirists who abuse and ridicule a main stream faith some people strangely seem to hold very dear.

There is nothing special about Islam and Mohammed.  I don't give a hoot how dear they hold their beliefs - they are not sacred to me and they have ZERO claim to special treatment.

ZERO.  (other than  your cowardice, of course, you spineless, squishy little bender-over and taker-upper).

Quote:

There is nothing special about Islam and Mohammed.

No argument from me on that score.  And I just treat it like I treat everything 'nothing special.'  It seems people like you want to go out of your way to make it something worth mocking, even though you want to hold the view it is nothing special.  Me....nah.  I don't care.

If there are people who want to give it status beyond 'nothing special,' let them.  I don't care.  Why ought I?  Why do you?  I'm not the sort of person who gets jollies by taking the mickey out of people who have a genuine belief in something I could not care less about.  Live and let live, wot?

I reckon the Hari Krishnas are as funny as shite.  But, I don't own and publish a newspaper which goes out of its way to abuse, mock and ridicule them for what they believe in.

Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who was happily married to that honest tradesman carpenter Joe about 2015 years ago?  I don't and I don't care if you do, and I will not ridicule you for holding that belief.

Now now, that’s a bit harsh. The old boy only ridicules the Muselman, bearded numpties, PBs, dirty little inverts, the tinted races, the yellow races, and their spineless appeasers. Remind me if I’ve left anybody out.

People who worship carpenters are okay. The old boy likes to pretend he stands with Charlie, but he only stands with the cartoons about the Muselman. The ones about priests, Jews, hommersexuals, etc, are offensive to decent people everywhere.

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 2:43pm: concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Islamist terrorism? Is there such a thing?   Who does such a thing? In the name of Islam??    Really?? Religion of Peace no longer?  When did the switch/admission happen? Don't let Brain see you, he will denounce you as a bigot. "Islamist terrorism?  No genuflection to the 'vast majority'?!? Islamophobe!!!!" You are in trouble now, Titto.

As usual you can't figure out the difference or don't want to figure out the difference, between Islamism and Islam Soren.

Your bigotry is showing again.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 7:20am:

Now now, that’s a bit harsh. The old boy only ridicules the Muselman, bearded numpties, PBs, dirty little inverts, the tinted races, the yellow races, and their spineless appeasers. Remind me if I’ve left anybody out. People who worship carpenters are okay. The old boy likes to pretend he stands with Charlie, but he only stands with the cartoons about the Muselman. The ones about priests, Jews, hommersexuals, etc, are offensive to decent people everywhere.

Thank you, ijit, you miss the point as always.  You can disagree with Charlie as much s you like - verbally or in writing. Clash of IDEAS is ok and is to be encouraged. On that level, nobody has the right not to be offended,  You need to do your own turning away from what you do not like. Don't buy Charlie, don't listen to the Grens, ddon't go to catch the fire gatherings, don't read bolt. Easy.

But there is no room for violence, thereat of violence or lawfare to protect the honour of religion or a prophet or god.

Do you see the difference between using your words to disagree or using weapons or the courts to retalate and silence.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 9:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 2:43pm: concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Islamist terrorism? Is there such a thing?   Who does such a thing? In the name of Islam??    Really?? Religion of Peace no longer?  When did the switch/admission happen? Don't let Brain see you, he will denounce you as a bigot. "Islamist terrorism?  No genuflection to the 'vast majority'?!? Islamophobe!!!!" You are in trouble now, Titto. As usual you can't figure out the difference or don't want to figure out the difference, between Islamism and Islam Soren. Your bigotry is showing again.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Here's the shocking news for ya - I do not have to agree or like or respect any form or aspect of it.   

You don't have to respect and like peaceful Scientologists, Nazis. Catholics or Zionists.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

[ Thank you, ijit, you miss the point as always.  You can disagree with Charlie as much s you like - verbally or in writing. Clash of IDEAS is ok and is to be encouraged. On that level, nobody has the right not to be offended,  You need to do your own turning away from what you do not like. Don't buy Charlie, don't listen to the Grens, ddon't go to catch the fire gatherings, don't read bolt. Easy. But there is no room for violence, thereat of violence or lawfare to protect the honour of religion or a prophet or god. Do you see the difference between using your words to disagree or using weapons or the courts to retalate and silence.

let me ask the question, if that magazine was a legal pro Nambla publication printing nude pictures of kiddies would you feel the same way?

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:52am:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:47am: Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 9:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 2:43pm: concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Islamist terrorism? Is there such a thing?   Who does such a thing? In the name of Islam??    Really?? Religion of Peace no longer?  When did the switch/admission happen? Don't let Brain see you, he will denounce you as a bigot. "Islamist terrorism?  No genuflection to the 'vast majority'?!? Islamophobe!!!!" You are in trouble now, Titto. As usual you can't figure out the difference or don't want to figure out the difference, between Islamism and Islam Soren. Your bigotry is showing again.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D Here's the shocking news for ya - I do not have to agree or like or respect any form or aspect of it.    You don't have to respect and like peaceful Scientologists, Nazis. Catholics or Zionists.

I don't have to like bigots either Soren.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:47am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 7:20am: Now now, that’s a bit harsh. The old boy only ridicules the Muselman, bearded numpties, PBs, dirty little inverts, the tinted races, the yellow races, and their spineless appeasers. Remind me if I’ve left anybody out. People who worship carpenters are okay. The old boy likes to pretend he stands with Charlie, but he only stands with the cartoons about the Muselman. The ones about priests, Jews, hommersexuals, etc, are offensive to decent people everywhere. Thank you, ijit, you miss the point as always.  You can disagree with Charlie as much s you like - verbally or in writing. Clash of IDEAS is ok and is to be encouraged. On that level, nobody has the right not to be offended,  You need to do your own turning away from what you do not like. Don't buy Charlie, don't listen to the Grens, ddon't go to catch the fire gatherings, don't read bolt. Easy. But there is no room for violence, thereat of violence or lawfare to protect the honour of religion or a prophet or god. Do you see the difference between using your words to disagree or using weapons or the courts to retalate and silence.

One of the Charlie editors who was wounded lashed out at all the French hypocrites who regularly complained about Charlie. Charlie had been the target of old boy complaints for years. After the shoot-up, they're all Charlie.

As the Australian Discrimination Commissioner (and former IPA stooge) said yesterday, he'd rather see Charlie go out of business than silenced by the Muselman. Charlie has always been a thorn in the side of French old dears, and what better a solution than to let the free market take it out?

Clash of civilizations, innit. Neoliberalism versus faatwas and assassinations.

You're right - no one did shut it down, and no one except the Muselman shot it up. But it's a tad hypocritical for people be all Charlie now when they've called for it to be banned in the past.

You might not go around shooting people you disagree with, old boy, but you reserve your right to be offended on a daily basis. The proof of this is your regular and consistent offence. Your support of Charlie is conditional on its characterisation of Muhammed. You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman. 

As every schoolboy knows.

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows.

correct.

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows.

Spot on!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Aussie wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 10:23pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:51pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:38pm: freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2015 at 5:30pm: Yes Gandalf, I am sure they will be flooding in soon enough. Just like the reprisal attacks that forced decent white people to ride in the same train carriages as Muslims after the Sydney hostage murders. After all, Muslims are always the victims. So FD a German paper that gets firebombed is a victim, but a French mosque that gets firebombed is not? Correct. Jihad comes from mosques. Stop the jihadis among you, Gandy, and your mosques will not be held responsible for them. The 'vast majority' is responsible for the 'tiny minority' in its midst. You chafe at the bit but that's how it is.  On the other hand, we could stop the bigots among us, and the satirists who abuse and ridicule a main stream faith some people strangely seem to hold very dear.

Aussie how do you propose we stop the satirists in order to appease the terrorists?


ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:47am: [ Thank you, ijit, you miss the point as always.  You can disagree with Charlie as much s you like - verbally or in writing. Clash of IDEAS is ok and is to be encouraged. On that level, nobody has the right not to be offended,  You need to do your own turning away from what you do not like. Don't buy Charlie, don't listen to the Grens, ddon't go to catch the fire gatherings, don't read bolt. Easy. But there is no room for violence, thereat of violence or lawfare to protect the honour of religion or a prophet or god. Do you see the difference between using your words to disagree or using weapons or the courts to retalate and silence. let me ask the question, if that magazine was a legal pro Nambla publication printing nude pictures of kiddies would you feel the same way?

Good point Ian. The Koran does, after all, promote sex with children. But they will chop your head off if you draw a picture of Muhammed having sex with his child bride.

FD, after all, is about to post the Koran quote that promotes sex with children.

Google: Taqiyya.

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

printing nude pictures of kiddies

Not legal.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 2:21pm:

ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:55am: printing nude pictures of kiddies Not legal.

That's strange. FD just said promoting sex with children is in a legal book called the Koran.

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 1:56pm:

FD, after all, is about to post the Koran quote that promotes sex with children.

Even better - he's going to claim Abu said it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 3:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 1:56pm: FD, after all, is about to post the Koran quote that promotes sex with children. Even better - he's going to claim Abu said it.

That means you'll have to agree. Sorry, G, you asked for this.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 2:21pm:

ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:55am: printing nude pictures of kiddies Not legal.

incorrect. no law against it. Now answer the question.

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

You might not go around shooting people you disagree with, old boy, but you reserve your right to be offended on a daily basis. The proof of this is your regular and consistent offence. Your support of Charlie is conditional on its characterisation of Muhammed. You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows.

Bollocks on stilts, PB, and you know it.  I have never once told anyone that they do not have the right to say or think what they do.  Telling them - you - that you are ijits is not shutting you up.


I wouldn't have posted this otherwise: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421097021/39#39

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 4:55pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 2:21pm: ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:55am: printing nude pictures of kiddies Not legal. incorrect. no law against it. Now answer the question.

Thank you ijit, you may be seated.


And read on:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/childpornographylaw

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 11:24am: You might not go around shooting people you disagree with, old boy, but you reserve your right to be offended on a daily basis. The proof of this is your regular and consistent offence. Your support of Charlie is conditional on its characterisation of Muhammed. You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows. Bollocks on stilts, PB, and you know it.  I have never once told anyone that they do not have the right to say or think what they do.  Telling them - you - that you are ijits is not shutting you up. I wouldn't have posted this otherwise: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421097021/39#39

You didn’t write that, you just wrote, "just so".

The only reason you come out against Holocaust denial is you support the Joos in their campaign against the Muselman. You’ve simply formed a convenient alliance, and you know it.

Every position of yours is an anti-position, every comment here a war. The only thing you stand for is your sole right to be offended. You cannot possibly not be offended. Your very purpose is to be offended.

This is so patently obvious to all, your denial makes you out to be a naughty little shrieker.

You don’t need to admit this, it’s the bleedingly obvious, as every schoolboy knows.

You may be seated.

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 11:24am: You might not go around shooting people you disagree with, old boy, but you reserve your right to be offended on a daily basis. The proof of this is your regular and consistent offence. Your support of Charlie is conditional on its characterisation of Muhammed. You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows. Bollocks on stilts, PB, and you know it.  I have never once told anyone that they do not have the right to say or think what they do.  Telling them - you - that you are ijits is not shutting you up. I wouldn't have posted this otherwise: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421097021/39#39 You didn’t write that, you just wrote, "just so". The only reason you come out against Holocaust denial is you support the Joos in their campaign against the Muselman. You’ve simply formed a convenient alliance, and you know it. Every position of yours is an anti-position, every comment here a war. The only thing you stand for is your sole right to be offended. You cannot possibly not be offended. Your very purpose is to be offended. This is so patently obvious to all, your denial makes you out to be a naughty little shrieker. You don’t need to admit this, it’s the bleedingly obvious, as every schoolboy knows. You may be seated.

You are invited to present a post from me where I said or even implied that it my right to be sheltered from that which may offend me (ie that I have the right not be offended) which of course is not the same as the 'right' to be offended (which is not really a right but a spontaneous response, like finding something ugly).

I do not know whether you really don't understand or just playing Silly PBs again.


Re. "Every position of yours is an anti-position" - I am 'anti' like the iconoclasts of the 60s were 'anti'. In our progressive, multi-culti PC times, I am the counter-culture, PB.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 7:57pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 11:24am: You might not go around shooting people you disagree with, old boy, but you reserve your right to be offended on a daily basis. The proof of this is your regular and consistent offence. Your support of Charlie is conditional on its characterisation of Muhammed. You're not pro-free speech, you're simply anti-Muselman.  As every schoolboy knows. Bollocks on stilts, PB, and you know it.  I have never once told anyone that they do not have the right to say or think what they do.  Telling them - you - that you are ijits is not shutting you up. I wouldn't have posted this otherwise: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421097021/39#39 You didn’t write that, you just wrote, "just so". The only reason you come out against Holocaust denial is you support the Joos in their campaign against the Muselman. You’ve simply formed a convenient alliance, and you know it. Every position of yours is an anti-position, every comment here a war. The only thing you stand for is your sole right to be offended. You cannot possibly not be offended. Your very purpose is to be offended. This is so patently obvious to all, your denial makes you out to be a naughty little shrieker. You don’t need to admit this, it’s the bleedingly obvious, as every schoolboy knows. You may be seated. You are invited to present a post from me where I said or even implied that it my right to be sheltered from that which may offend me (ie that I have the right not be offended) which of course is not the same as the 'right' to be offended (which is not really a right but a spontaneous response, like finding something ugly).

Thanks for the explanation, old boy. Most helpful.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 4:55pm: Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 2:21pm: ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:55am: printing nude pictures of kiddies Not legal. incorrect. no law against it. Now answer the question. Thank you ijit, you may be seated. And read on: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/childpornographylaw

read my post again, I did not mention child pornography. Your hypocrisy here was easily exposed and you know it, thats why you decline to answer the question. You have zero credibility on this subject.
Thanks for playing. and I will bring this up now every single time you accuse others of cowardice.  ;)

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 6:11pm: ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 4:55pm: Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 2:21pm: ian wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:55am: printing nude pictures of kiddies Not legal. incorrect. no law against it. Now answer the question. Thank you ijit, you may be seated. And read on: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/childpornographylaw read my post again, I did not mention child pornography.

Not the words but your example amounted to just that in the context of where it was to be published.

You had too many punches to the head, I hazard a guess

|dev|null wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:52am: |dev|null wrote on Jan 14th, 2015 at 10:47am: Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 9:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 12th, 2015 at 2:43pm: concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Islamist terrorism? Is there such a thing?   Who does such a thing? In the name of Islam??    Really?? Religion of Peace no longer?  When did the switch/admission happen? Don't let Brain see you, he will denounce you as a bigot. "Islamist terrorism?  No genuflection to the 'vast majority'?!? Islamophobe!!!!" You are in trouble now, Titto. As usual you can't figure out the difference or don't want to figure out the difference, between Islamism and Islam Soren. Your bigotry is showing again.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D Here's the shocking news for ya - I do not have to agree or like or respect any form or aspect of it.    You don't have to respect and like peaceful Scientologists, Nazis. Catholics or Zionists. I don't have to like bigots either Soren.   ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

Except Muslim bigots, of course.

If you do not want your premises shot up.



It's easy for you to label me whatever you like, dicko, because you know you are not in danger, whatever you say or draw.  NOT SO with with anyone who takes the piss outa Muslims and their prophet. Murderous mayhem is sure to come their way.

This is exactly what makes you a cowardly, spineless little dicko, dicko.  You demand the right to call me anything you like - but also demand that I do not call Muslims anything I like.

Dicko is correct.