Một cuộc biểu tình lôi kéo khoảng 2 triệu người tràn ngập thủ đô Paris được dẫn đầu bởi khoảng 40 "lãnh đạo quốc gia" như Tổng thống Pháp, Holland; Thủ tướng Đức, Angela Merkel; Thủ Tướng Anh, Cameron; Thủ Tướng Do Thái, Netanyahu; Chủ Tịch Palestine Abbas v.v dẫn đầu- để đoàn kết lên án chống hành động khủng bố Hồi giáo và ... xiển dương quyền tự do báo chí.. Nhà bỉnh bút của tờ Antiwar.com đã chính xác gọi cuộc diễn hành này là cuộc DIỄN HÀNH của những KẺ ĐẠO ĐỨC GIẢ March of the Hypocrites.
Quả thật ký giả của tờ Daily Beast viết quá đúng: "Bọn Chính Trị Gia chỉ Yêu Quí Nhà Báo Khi Họ Bị Chết Rồi mà Thôi" (Politicians Only Love Journalists When They're Dead)
Thật trơ trẽn và bịp bợp và ĐẠO ĐỨC GIẢ một cách ti tiện rõ ràng hề chèo - vì trong khi đó cùng ngày bên Phi châu, Trung Đông - cuộc thảm sát 50 thường dân Syrian do máy bay Mỹ tấn công thả bom 50 Syrian Civilians Believed Killed in US Airstrike Chưa kể trong các cuộc tấn công ám sát bọn "khủng bố", Mỹ đã bắn giết 1,147 thường dân chỉ để giết được 41 "kẻ tình nghi khủng bố" 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes ---cũng như mới đây khoảng 2000 phụ nữ bị Boko Haram tàn sát Boko Haram's 'deadliest massacre': 2000 feared dead in Nigeria- Nhưng chẳng có thằng quốc trưởng, hay bọn báo chí, quần chúng nào biểu tình kêu gọi điều tra hay tưởng niệm thương xót nạn nhân và lên án thủ phạm hết cả!
Theo diễn viên và nhà báo TARIQ ALI Anh quốc, trong bài viết mới đây (Maximum Horror) nhận định rằng bọn chủ mưu tính toán quá kỹ lưỡng trong việc chọn mục tiêu nạn nhân là Charlie Hebdo để tạo tối đa tác động "cảm xúc Tây Âu với Hồi Giáo". Vậy bọn thủ phạm này là ai mà lại mong muốn tác động như thế? Và bọn thủ phạm là ai mà lại có kiến thức tâm lý và khả năng "bắt mạch người âu tây" chính xác như thế? Và chúng chọn thủ đô Paris, nước Pháp, và nhóm nhà báo Charlie Hebdo hài báng bổ nhất của xã hội này- vì Pháp là nước duy nhất thiên vị Do Thái và trù ếm người Hồi Ả rập rõ rệt nhất. Pháp đã dùng đạo luật an ninh quốc gia tối thượng đình chỉ tự do xuất hiện công chúng hành nghề của danh hài Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, vì ông này nổi tiếng với những chuyện hài chích biếm Do Thái thâm thúy. Cũng như Pháp là nước Âu Châu ra lệnh cấm những nhóm biểu tình bênh vực Palestine, và ra luật cấm quàng khăn v.v toàn những luật VI PHẠM NGUYÊN LÝ DÂN QUYỀN và NHÂN QUYỀN đàn áp công dân gốc Hồi giáo.... ngay tại ...trung tâm tiến bộ Âu Châu!!! Một Âu Châu tiến bộ "nhân quyền" với đạo luật cấm không cho ai được chất vấn sử chứng của "kỹ nghệ Holocaust"!!!
Cập Nhât: ngày 13-01-2015French comedian Dieudonné faces inquiry over 'Charlie Coulibaly' remark
Chúng ta hành xử theo văn hóa của bọn chính trị (văn hóa chính trị) và đúng là "đạo đức theo chính trị" là như thế đấy.The Guardian Controversial French comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala will be investigated over a ..
Nhà danh hài gốc Hồi này lại vừa bị nhà nước Pháp truy tố về tội "nói đùa" xúc phạm Charlie Hebdo khi ông viết trên FaceBook "Tôi thích Charlie Coulibaly". Thế mới biết Âu Mỹ Pháp tôn trọng quyền "Ngôn Luận" TÙY VÀO CÔNG DÂN CÓ gốc gác nào!!! Đúng là một bọn đạo đức dân chủ giả!
Cập Nhật 13-01-2015 : Đã có nhiều bằng chứng vụ này là GIẢ ĐỊCH của Pháp và Do Thái. (xin tham khảo nguồn phía dưới)
Và một lũ 2 triệu đứa đạo đức giả nối đuôi những thằng lãnh tụ đểu cáng nước mắt cá sấu đang làm trò hề XIỂN DƯƠNG TỰ DO NGÔN LUẬN ngay tại trung tâm Âu Châu!!!
Nhưng mà Người Hồi giáo đâu? Các giáo sĩ Hồi giáo đâu? Sao không thấy tổ chức biểu tình diễn hành đòi công lý cho hàng trăm ngàn lương dân vô tội của họ tại Trung Đông?
Các tu sĩ đạo đức của các Giáo hội Chúa Phật, đầu trọc, áo thụng quạ đen ở đâu hết rồi? Sao không kêu gọi tín đồ nhân ái biểu tình đòi các chính phủ nhà nước ngưng chém giết thường dân, kêu gọi bọn tín đồ công an cảnh sát quân lính nhìn lại lương tâm bác ái, và tín lý yêu thương, từ bi hỉ xả con tườu con vượn gì đó trong kinh thánh, bài kệ của họ !?!
Hay là Chúa Phật của họ, tu sĩ của họ chỉ dành sự linh thiêng ban phép lành chúc phúc cho đám cảnh sát cầm dùi cui, cầm súng, cho đám lính yêu nước của họ trước khi đi giết người thành công mỹ mãn trở về an toàn mà thôi chăng?
Bây giờ xin xét duyệt lại một số chi tiết BẤT THƯỜNG của sự kiện KHỦNG BỐ mà bọn chính qui Âu Mỹ Úc đã khẳng định là tác phẩm của Al Qaeda hoặc ISIL do gia đình anh em người Pháp Hồi giáo gốc Algeria và một kẻ khác Amedy Coulibaly, bắt con tin tại siêu thị rồi giết người để "ủng hộ" gia đình nhà Kouachi,!
Xin quí độc giả xem lại đoạn phim do một cư dân Paris quay từ sân thượng (ai là tác giả?).. Phim này hiện nay đang bị tháo gỡ khỏi mạng Youtube, vì đọan phom cho thấy bằng chứng GIẢ ĐỊCH của vụ này.
1- Đây là hai kẻ chuyên nghiệp với vũ khí áo giáp đạn dược trang bị đầy đủ. Rất chuyên nghiệp, thản nhiên, bình tĩnh. Tuy nhiên, Cho đến nay chúng ta không có một hình ảnh thông tin hay chi tiết cá nhân để so sánh vóc dáng kích thước mầu da đẻ KHẲNG ĐỊNH hai kẻ bắn súng này là 2 anh em Kouachi.
2- Quí vị xem kỹ , TÊN KHỦNG BỐ bắn người cảnh sát nơi đầu NHƯNG KHÔNG CÓ MÁU CHẢY hay ỨA RA cũng như không có sức công phá đầu nạn nhân không bị tác động với phát súng đó- và chỉ có bụi đường bắn lên bên cạnh đầu người cảnh sát - có vẻ như là một viên đạn MÃ TỬ (blank bullet).. Các đài truyền hình Pháp đã cắt bỏ phần "bắn giả" này khi loan tin!
3- Gia đình hai anh em Kouachi, theo An ninh chính qui, thì 2 kẻ này đang bị An Ninh Tình Báo Quốc Gia Pháp lên danh sách thường xuyên theo dõi vì có thành tích tù tội khủng bố từ năm 2008! Có trong danh sách KHÔNG ĐƯỢC LÊN MÁY BAY, hay rời biên giới (no fly list) ...Nhưng tại sao họ lại đi Syria và trở về thoải mái.. Còn tàng trữ đủ vũ khí đạn dược áo giáp quân sự v.v???
4- Và theo tờ McClatchy, thì anh em nhà này cũng từng làm ăn với cơ quan tình báo Pháp.."According to McClatchy, Mohammed Mehra and the Kouachi brothers are linked to the French secret services",
Theo một học giả người Pháp, Thierry Meyssan của Voltaire Network, thì hành động này không thể là của Hồi giáo Al Qaeda hay ISIL trong việc trả thù cho "Tiên Tri Mohammed". Vì nếu đúng như vậy, thì:
a- "Kẻ tử đạo" (matyr) rất hãnh diện không cần bịt mặt!
b- "Kẻ tử đạo" sẽ chẳng cần bỏ chạy và sẽ phải phá hủy thủ tiêu TOÀN BỘ HÌNH ẢNH XÚC PHẠM TIÊN TRI nằm đầy dẫy trong tòa báo. Nhưng 2 kẻ này không đụng gì đến các hình ảnh xúc phạm Allah và Tiên Tri Mohammed này! Chỉ bắn giết các tay hí hoạ, nhà báo, cảnh sát (có lẽ vì nhìn được mặt tên khủng bố- nhưng hình như không trúng, không thấy máu!)
Vụ 911 cách đây 14 năm với đầy đủ các cuộc điều tra của hơn 2 ngàn chuyên gia học giả khắp thế giới BBC Court Case Result Ignites New Push for 9/11 Justice
Cũng như những diễn biến chủ trương chính trị quốc nội, an ninh tình báo trấn áp nhân quyền và dân quyền, và các cuộc chiến tranh liên tục sau đó với hàng trăm ngàn sinh mạng thường dân Hồi giáo, xã hội Hồi giáo bị lấn chiếm tan hoang- Tất cả đã cho thấy càng ngày càng rõ ràng cho chúng ta khẳng định 911 là một vụ "giả địch" để tạo lý cớ tiến hành chủ trương khống trị.
Chiến dịch đầu tiên kéo dài cho đến hôm nay là tấn công khối dân Hồi Giáo và đẩy họ vào vai trò nhận lãnh toàn bộ tính cực đoan bạo động cho toàn bộ hầu như tất cả các vụ giết người.
Chúng ta ai còn nhớ vụ bức tranh "Chúa Ki Tô Nước Đái" ?
Bức tranh đoạt giải nghệ thuật hình Jesu trên thập giá được nhà nghệ sĩ nhiếp ảnh Andres Serrano tạo dựng năm 1987 bằng chất liệu như chất nhờn, sữa, nước tiểu, máu, được đặt trong một khung kính.
Bức tranh đoạt giải Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" do một cơ quan nghệ thuật văn hóa của chính phủ Mỹ National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government - tài trợ. Nhưng hiện nay bản tin này đã bị thông tấn AP gỡ xuống khỏi trang nhà vì...sợ!!!
.jpg)
Thế nhưng cũng đã bị bọn bán khai cuồng tín thiên chúa giáo tìm đủ cách phá hoại và phá hủy tác phẩm nghệ thuật này mà chúng cho là xúc phạm tôn giáo và "Chúa"! Dưới đây là hình ảnh tác phẩm bị phá hoại :
"Hai tín đồ" này đã không thấy bị xúc phạm khi nhìn đầy dẫy, đầy trên tường những bức tranh chích biếm giáo chủ của họ trong toà báo!
Cuộc tàn sát này được coi như là hành động xóa sổ tờ báo Charlie Hebdo khỏi xã hội Pháp, và có vẻ như một HĂM DỌA ngầm nhưng TRỰC TIẾP ĐẾN BẤT CỨ KÝ GIẢ BÁNG BỔ nào! Nhưng diễn biến rõ ràng là tái củng cố và tái xác lập cũng như tăng cường vai trò an ninh cảnh sát và nhà nước.
Đặc biệt trước mắt ly gián và đẩy người dân Hồi giáo khắp nơi vào góc tường của xã hội Âu Mỹ Úc, coi như mặc nhiên chính đáng hóa hành động kỳ thị phân biệt đang và sẽ diễn ra cường đột hơn giữa nhóm dân Hồi, người da mầu gốc Trung Đông Á Phi v.v và mọi người gốc Âu khác.
Không chỉ riêng trang Nhân Chủ có nhận định "không chính qui" như thế, mà ngay như nhà báo Pêpe Escobar của Asian Times (Who profits from killing Charlie?) hoặc, trên các diển đàn Government Prepares Internet Speech Crackdown
Căn bệnh tôn thờ Nhà nước Chính phủ, hay chủ nghĩa định chế quốc gia nó giống như một căn bệnh tiểu đường của trí tuệ, càng lâu dài nó làm mờ mắt và mù mắt người ta.
Trong lịch sử cận đại, chúng ta đã chứng kiến bao nhiêu vụ "Giả Địch" (False Flag) - nghĩa là chính bọn cảnh sát, an ninh, quân đội nhà nước chính phủ là kẻ thi hành khủng bố giết người dân của chính họ, rồi tạo cảnh THÚC ĐẨY THÔNG TIN đổ lỗi cho KẺ THÙ, để tạo lý cớ TẤN CÔNG BÊN NGOÀI và KHỦNG BỐ BỊT MIỆNG người dân báo chí bên trong XÃ HỘI!
Trang Zero Hedge đã liệt kê một loạt các cuộc Khủng Bố Đen Giả Dịch đã được chứng minh cũng như chính bọn chính phủ đã phải thú nhận The First Question to Ask After Any Terror Attack: Was It a False Flag?
1- Vụ Mukden, năm 1931, quân Nhật cho nổ một toa xe lửa rồi đổ thừa cho Trung Quốc để lấy cớ chiếm Mãn Thanh.
2- Quốc Xã Đức giả trang tấn công giết người Đức rồi đổ vấy cho Balan, lấy cớ tạo căm thù tiến chiếm Balan.
3- Năm 1939 SoViết Nikita Khrushchev ra lệnh tấn công làng Mainila của Nga, rồi đổ thừa cho Finland, tạo cớ tấn công Finland.
4-Vụ Lavon Affairs, 1954, Do Thái giả trang giết người Âu Mỹ tại Ai Cập rồi đổ lỗi cho Hồi giáo Ả Rập lấy lý cớ cho việc triệt hạ Ả rập củng cố việc lập quốc Israel với sự ủng hộ của quân Âu Mỹ
5- CIA, Mỹ TPAJAX tạo dựng vụ giết người náo loạn Teheran Batư đổ vấy cho cộng sản để lấy cớ lật đổ chính phủ dân chủ Mohammad Mosaddegh..
6- Thời J.F. Kennedy, quân đội Mỹ lập kế hoặch bắn hạ máy bay hàng không dân sự của Mỹ để đổ vấy cho CUBA, tạo cớ đổ bộ chiếm Cuba .
7- 1970s - Chính phủ Ý phối hợp với CIA Mỹ tạo khủng bố rồi đổ thừa cho KHUYNH TẢ để đàn áp phe Tả trong mục tiêu nắm quyền lâu dài - General Gianadelio Maletti.
Và còn nhiều hơn nữa, kể không hết! Chưa kề bao nhiêu vụ thời chiến tranh quốc cộng Việt Nam; chiến tranh giữa Trung Quốc Việt Nam... người dân bị giết để tạo tuyên truyền căm thù địch nhân, ngoại bang, thúc đẩy tàn sát không tương nhượng. Và hôm nay đang xảy ra ở Ukraine và Nga, hai xứ sở khi xưa là một nhà, một tổ quốc, một chính phủ!!!
Chúng tôi, xin chấm dứt chủ đề Charlie Hebdo này, và để tất cả tùy quí độc giả tham khảo tự quyết định riêng. Chúng tôi không muốn phí năng lực thời gian vào những vụ "nổi cộm" hiển nhiên như thế này để lọt bẫy "bẻ hướng dư luận" của bọn nhà nước.
Chúng ta cần tiết kiệm năng lực giải quyết vấn đề dân trí và vạch trần BẢN CHẤT TỘI PHẠM của định chế chính phủ nhà nước. Rồi để tùy người dân họ hành xử theo nhận thức cao nhất của họ.
NKPTC
12-1-2015
==
THAM KHẢO NGUỒN DẪN CHỨNG
Cập Nhật 13-01-2015 : Đã có hiều bằng chứng vụ này là GIẢ ĐỊCH của Pháp và Do Thái.
Cảnh sát trưởng điều tra vụ Charlie Hebdo bỗng nhiên đã "tự tử" chết !?!
Total News Blackout: Police Commissioner Involved in the Charlie Hebdo Investigation “Commits Suicide”? Why AND FOR What?
by Michel Chossudovsky | January 12, 2015 8:14 pmPolice Commissioner Helric Fredou, Number Two Police Officer of the Regional Service of France’s Judicial Police (JP), Limoges, (Haute-Vienne), “committed suicide on the night of Wednesday to Thursday at the police station.” Commissioner Helric Fredou was part of the police investigation into the Charlie Hebdo terror attack.
Terror suspects Cherif and Said Kouachi who were shot dead by police on January 9, spent their high-school years in the Limoges region. No doubt this was the object of Fredou’s police investigation. Yet police and media reports state that on that same Wednesday he was involved in a meeting with the family of one of the Charlie Hebdo victims.
On Wednesday, as part of the Charlie Hebdo investigation, he dispatched a team of police officials under his jurisdiction. He is reported to have waited for the return of his team for a debriefing. Immediately following the police debriefing, he was involved in preparing his police report.
According to media reports, he committed suicide at around 1am on Thursday, within hours of the police debriefing. He used his own police weapon, a SIG-Sauer to “shoot himself in the head”.
At the time of his death, police claim to have not known the reason for his alleged suicide. This was reflected in their official statements to the media: “It is unknown at this time the reasons for his actions”.
However, a back story appears to have been inserted simultaneously, most likely from the very same police media liaisons, who then told the press that Fredou was ‘depressed and overworked’. For any law enforcement officer in France, it would seem rather odd that anyone would want to miss the biggest single terror event of the century, or history in the making, as it were. (21st Century Wire)
”An autopsy was performed at the University Hospital of Limoges, “confirming the suicide”
There has been a total news blackout.
The French media decided or was instructed not to cover the incident. Not news worthy? So much for “Je suis Charlie” and ”Freedom of Expression” in journalism.
Likewise, the Western media including all major news services (AP, AFP, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, etc) have not covered the issue.
One isolated report in Le Parisien presents the act of suicide as being totally unrelated to the Charlie Hebdo investigation.
While described as being depressive and suffering from a burnout, police reports state that Helric Fredou’s suicide was totally unexpected.
Moreover, it is worth noting that, according to reports, he committed suicide in his workplace, in his office at the police station.
Did he commit suicide? Was he incited to commit suicide?
Or was he an “honest Cop” executed on orders of France’s judicial police?
Has his report been released?
These are issues for France’s journalists to address. It’s called investigative reporting. Or is it outright media censorship?
Source URL: http://www.4thmedia.org/2015/01/total-news-blackout-on-police-commissioner-involved-in-charlie-hebdo-investigation-commits-suicide-why-cover-up-on-what/
Copyright ©2015 The 4th Media unless otherwise noted.
Suspicions are growing that the French shootings are a false flag operation
Suspicions are growing that the French shootings are a false flag operation
I do not know these sites or their credibility. I do know the mainstream media, and it has no credibility.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/10/new-twist-charlie-hebdo-lead-investigator-turns-up-dead-suicided/
http://sgtreport.com/2015/01/paris-siege-false-flag-analyzing-the-cop-shooting-footag
http://zeeklytv.com/video/13910/SLOW-MOTION-FAKE-PARIS-SHOOTING-MISS-7-1-15-FRENCH-SATIRE-YT-banned-with-120000-views
Considering the number of real journalists on war fronts, not cartoonists in Paris, killed by Washington funded and organized ISIS, including filmed beheadings, the uproar over the cartoonists’ deaths has the appearance of orchestration. Whether or not it is a false flag operation, the shootings are being used for a wider purpose or purposes.
Among these purposes is bringing France back into Washington’s orbit. The French president had recently said that the sanctions against Russia should be terminated.
Hollande was allying himself with French economic interests instead of with Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy.
Another purpose is to stifle the growing European sympathy for the Palestinians and to realign Europe with Israel.
Another purpose is to counter the rising opposition in Europe to more Middle Eastern wars. The American neoconservatives have not completed their agenda. Syria, Iran,
Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia are still standing.
And there can be other purposes not apparent to me.
My recommendation is that you not believe the print and TV media, but think. The failure of Americans to think is why they are 13 years into war and live in a police state.
==
New Twist: Charlie Hebdo Police Investigator Turns Up Dead, ‘Suicided’
January 10, 2015 By 74 Comments
BREAKING: INFORMANT? Paris Terror Suspect on US Watch List Met With French President Sarkozy in 200921st Century Wire says…
As the dust settles from this week’s terror extravaganza in France, more loose ends are turning up (or being tied up), with this latest bizarre bombshell which is already fueling speculation as to the covert nature of the Charlie Hebdo false flag affair.
A police commissioner from Limoges, France, Helric Fredou, aged 45 (photo, below), turned up dead from a gun shot to the head on Thursday amid the Charlie Hebdo affair. A high-ranking official within the French law enforcement command-and-control structure, Fredou was also a former deputy director of the regional police service.
At the time of his death, police claim to have not known the reason for his alleged suicide. This was reflected in their official statements to the media: “It is unknown at this time the reasons for his actions”. However, a back story appears to have been inserted simultaneously, most likely from the very same police media liaisons, who then told the press that Fredou was ‘depressed and overworked’. For any law enforcement officer in France, it would seem rather odd that anyone would want to miss the biggest single terror event in the century, or history in the making, as it were.Here is a link to the original report in the French media, which confirms that Commissioner Fredou was indeed working on the Charlie Hebdo case:
“The Fredou Commissioner, like all agents SRPJ, worked yesterday on the case of the massacre at the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo. In particular, he was investigating the family of one of the victims. He killed himself before completing its report. A psychological ‘cell’ was set up in the police station.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: It is not yet known to 21WIRE exactly how the fatal gun shot occurred, but if any other past political and high-profile ‘suicided’ cases are anything to go by, authorities will claim that this victim either shot himself in the back of the head, with his non-shooting hand. In addition, if that were the case, there would also be a lack of gun powder burns on the hands according to the autopsy.
UK-based investigative reporter Morris108, interviews ‘Phil in France’ regarding this new development:
Even more bizarrely, an almost identical event took place just over one year earlier, November 2013 in Limoges, when the number 3 ranked SRPJ officer had killed himself in similar circumstances, with his weapon in the police hotel. Allegedly, his colleague discovered his body. The prosecution ruled that case was a suicide too, and the police officer had left a suicide note to his family in which he expressed “personal reasons” for his surprising action.
Stay tuned for more updates on this story at 21WIRE.
Sputnik News
Police commissioner, who had been investigating the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine committed suicide with his service gun on Thursday night.
Police commissioner Helric Fredou, who had been investigating the attack on the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, committed suicide in his office. The incident occurred in Limoges, the administrative capital of the Limousin region in west-central France, on Thursday night, local media France 3 reports.
Helric Fredou, 45, suffered from ‘depression’ and experienced ‘burn out’ [according to the official statement]. Shortly before committing suicide, he met with the family of a victim of the Charlie Hebdo attack and killed himself preparing the report.
Fredou began his career in 1997 as a police officer at the regional office of the judicial police of Versailles. Later he returned to Limoges, his hometown. Since 2012 he had been the deputy director of the regional police service.
“We are all shocked. Nobody was ready for such developments”, a representative of the local police union told reporters.
On January 7, 2015, two gunmen burst into the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo magazine, known for issuing cartoons, ridiculing Islam. The [suspected] attackers, later identified as brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, killed 12 people and injured 11, and escaped from the scene. Following two days of nationwide manhunt, the suspects were killed on Friday by French police some 20 miles northeast of Paris.
Maximum Horror
It was a horrific event. It was condemned in most parts of the world and most poignantly by many cartoonists. Those who planned the atrocity chose their target carefully. They knew that such an act would create the maximum horror. It was quality, not quantity they were after. The response will not have surprised or displeased them. They don’t care a damn for the world of unbelievers. Unlike the medieval inquisitors of the Sorbonne they do not have the legal and theological authority to harass booksellers or printers, ban books and torture authors, so they go one step further and order executions.
What of the foot-soldiers? The circumstances that attract young men and women to these groups are creations of the Western world that they inhabit – which is itself a result of long years of colonial rule in the countries of their forebears. We know that the Parisian brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi were long-haired inhalers of marijuana and other substances until (like the 7 July bombers in this country) they saw footage of the Iraq war and, in particular, of the torture taking place in Abu Ghraib and the cold-blooded killings of Iraqi citizens in Fallujah.
They sought comfort in the mosque. Here they were radicalised by waiting hardliners for whom the West’s war on terror had become a golden opportunity to recruit and hegemonise the young, both in the Muslim world and in the ghettoes of Europe and North America. Sent first to Iraq to kill Americans and more recently to Syria (with the connivance of the French state?) to topple Assad, such young men were taught how to use weapons effectively. Back home they got ready to deploy this knowledge against those who they believed were tormenting them in difficult times. They were the persecuted. Charlie Hebdo represented their persecutors. The horror should not blind us to this reality.
Charlie Hebdo had made no secret of the fact that it intended to carry on provoking believing Muslims by targeting the Prophet. Most Muslims were angry about this, but ignored the insult. The paper had reprinted the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad in 2005 – the ones that depicted him as a Pakistani immigrant. The Danish newspaper admitted that it would never publish anything similar depicting Moses or the Jews (perhaps it had already done so: it certainly published articles supporting the Third Reich), but Charlie Hebdo sees itself as having a mission to defend republican secular values against all religions. It has occasionally attacked Catholicism, but it’s hardly ever taken on Judaism (though Israel’s numerous assaults on Palestinians have offered many opportunities) and has concentrated its mockery on Islam. French secularism today seems to encompass anything as long as it’s not Islamic. Denunciations of Islam have been relentless in France, with Michel Houellebecq’s new novel, Soumission (the word Islam means ‘submission’), the latest salvo. It predicts the country being ruled by a president from a group he calls the Muslim Fraternity. Charlie Hebdo, we should not forget, ran a cover lampooning Houellebecq on the day it was attacked. Defending its right to publish, regardless of consequences, is one thing, but sacralising a satirical paper that regularly targets those who are victims of a rampant Islamophobia is almost as foolish as justifying the acts of terror against it. Each feeds on the other.
French law allows freedoms to be suspended under the threat of unrest or violence. Before now this provision has been invoked to forbid public appearances by the comedian Dieudonné (well known for making anti-Semitic jokes) and to ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations – France is the only Western country to do this. That such actions are not seen as problematic by a majority of the French people speaks volumes. It isn’t just the French: we didn’t see torchlight vigils or mass assemblies anywhere in Europe when it was revealed that the Muslim prisoners handed over to the US by many EU countries (with the plucky Poles and Labour-run Britain in the forefront) had been tortured by the CIA. There is a bit more at stake here than satire.
The smugness of secular liberals who talk of defending freedom to the death is matched by liberal Muslims who waffle endlessly about how what happened had nothing to do with Islam. There are different versions of Islam (the occupation of Iraq was used deliberately to trigger the Sunni-Shia wars that helped give birth to the Islamic State); it is meaningless to claim to speak in the name of a ‘real’ Islam. The history of Islam from its very beginnings is replete with factional struggles. Fundamentalist currents within Islam as well as external invasions were responsible for wiping out many cultural and scientific advances in the late medieval period. Such differences continue to exist.
Meanwhile, Hollande and Sarkozy have announced that they will lead a march of national unity (Cameron’s going along too). As a French friend wrote to me, ‘The idea of Charlie Hebdo provoking a “union sacrée” has to be one of the ironies of history that even the most cynical post-’68 libertarian anti-establishmentarian would have choked on in disbelief.’
Tariq Ali is the author of The Obama Syndrome (Verso).
What of the foot-soldiers? The circumstances that attract young men and women to these groups are creations of the Western world that they inhabit – which is itself a result of long years of colonial rule in the countries of their forebears. We know that the Parisian brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi were long-haired inhalers of marijuana and other substances until (like the 7 July bombers in this country) they saw footage of the Iraq war and, in particular, of the torture taking place in Abu Ghraib and the cold-blooded killings of Iraqi citizens in Fallujah.
They sought comfort in the mosque. Here they were radicalised by waiting hardliners for whom the West’s war on terror had become a golden opportunity to recruit and hegemonise the young, both in the Muslim world and in the ghettoes of Europe and North America. Sent first to Iraq to kill Americans and more recently to Syria (with the connivance of the French state?) to topple Assad, such young men were taught how to use weapons effectively. Back home they got ready to deploy this knowledge against those who they believed were tormenting them in difficult times. They were the persecuted. Charlie Hebdo represented their persecutors. The horror should not blind us to this reality.
Charlie Hebdo had made no secret of the fact that it intended to carry on provoking believing Muslims by targeting the Prophet. Most Muslims were angry about this, but ignored the insult. The paper had reprinted the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons of Muhammad in 2005 – the ones that depicted him as a Pakistani immigrant. The Danish newspaper admitted that it would never publish anything similar depicting Moses or the Jews (perhaps it had already done so: it certainly published articles supporting the Third Reich), but Charlie Hebdo sees itself as having a mission to defend republican secular values against all religions. It has occasionally attacked Catholicism, but it’s hardly ever taken on Judaism (though Israel’s numerous assaults on Palestinians have offered many opportunities) and has concentrated its mockery on Islam. French secularism today seems to encompass anything as long as it’s not Islamic. Denunciations of Islam have been relentless in France, with Michel Houellebecq’s new novel, Soumission (the word Islam means ‘submission’), the latest salvo. It predicts the country being ruled by a president from a group he calls the Muslim Fraternity. Charlie Hebdo, we should not forget, ran a cover lampooning Houellebecq on the day it was attacked. Defending its right to publish, regardless of consequences, is one thing, but sacralising a satirical paper that regularly targets those who are victims of a rampant Islamophobia is almost as foolish as justifying the acts of terror against it. Each feeds on the other.
French law allows freedoms to be suspended under the threat of unrest or violence. Before now this provision has been invoked to forbid public appearances by the comedian Dieudonné (well known for making anti-Semitic jokes) and to ban pro-Palestinian demonstrations – France is the only Western country to do this. That such actions are not seen as problematic by a majority of the French people speaks volumes. It isn’t just the French: we didn’t see torchlight vigils or mass assemblies anywhere in Europe when it was revealed that the Muslim prisoners handed over to the US by many EU countries (with the plucky Poles and Labour-run Britain in the forefront) had been tortured by the CIA. There is a bit more at stake here than satire.
The smugness of secular liberals who talk of defending freedom to the death is matched by liberal Muslims who waffle endlessly about how what happened had nothing to do with Islam. There are different versions of Islam (the occupation of Iraq was used deliberately to trigger the Sunni-Shia wars that helped give birth to the Islamic State); it is meaningless to claim to speak in the name of a ‘real’ Islam. The history of Islam from its very beginnings is replete with factional struggles. Fundamentalist currents within Islam as well as external invasions were responsible for wiping out many cultural and scientific advances in the late medieval period. Such differences continue to exist.
Meanwhile, Hollande and Sarkozy have announced that they will lead a march of national unity (Cameron’s going along too). As a French friend wrote to me, ‘The idea of Charlie Hebdo provoking a “union sacrée” has to be one of the ironies of history that even the most cynical post-’68 libertarian anti-establishmentarian would have choked on in disbelief.’
Tariq Ali is the author of The Obama Syndrome (Verso).
Understanding what Charlie Hebdo really stood for
Thursday, Jan 8, 2015 11:00 PM +1100
Slaughter and satire: Understanding what Charlie Hebdo really stood for
Yes, the Paris attack was a direct assault on freedom -- and it must not be used as a justification for tyranny
Editors and cartoonists at the ruthlessly satirical and staunchly anti-religious French weekly Charlie Hebdo knew they were inviting the hatred of zealots. They had undoubtedly become accustomed to death threats since publishing a leering cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover four years ago, and their incoming hate mail must have made the vitriol we receive, as a left-leaning American political publication on the Internet, feel like a garden party from “Downton Abbey.” We assume they did not literally expect to be killed for publishing mean jokes about other people’s religions, although editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier (known as “Charb”) repeatedly told interviewers he would rather die than be silenced. But that’s what it came to on Wednesday morning in Paris, when Charbonnier, at least four Charlie cartoonists, two police officers and five other people were killed in a shocking attack that appears to have been carefully planned and professionally executed.
Like everyone else who writes down (or draws) their opinions for a living, and who values the amazing freedom to attack princes, priests and millionaires with equanimity, I feel profoundly shaken by what happened on Wednesday morning. “Je suis Charlie,” as the hashtag of the moment holds, or better “Nous sommes tous Charlie,” because we have all suffered a grievous loss. The responses from cartoonists and writers all over the world have been inspiring, and to some extent comforting. But it’s important to move beyond hashtags and reflect a bit more deeply about Charlie Hebdo, its editorial mission and its social-political context. You don’t have to like Charlie, or agree with its editorial decisions, to appreciate its importance. (Indeed, it’s a publication that thrives on being disliked, and on pushing too far.) The way to make the tragic deaths of Charb and his colleagues mean something is to understand what they really stood for, and to think seriously about this attack and how to respond to it.
Like everyone else who writes down (or draws) their opinions for a living, and who values the amazing freedom to attack princes, priests and millionaires with equanimity, I feel profoundly shaken by what happened on Wednesday morning. “Je suis Charlie,” as the hashtag of the moment holds, or better “Nous sommes tous Charlie,” because we have all suffered a grievous loss. The responses from cartoonists and writers all over the world have been inspiring, and to some extent comforting. But it’s important to move beyond hashtags and reflect a bit more deeply about Charlie Hebdo, its editorial mission and its social-political context. You don’t have to like Charlie, or agree with its editorial decisions, to appreciate its importance. (Indeed, it’s a publication that thrives on being disliked, and on pushing too far.) The way to make the tragic deaths of Charb and his colleagues mean something is to understand what they really stood for, and to think seriously about this attack and how to respond to it.
Politicians Only Love Journalists When They're Dead
Politicians worldwide are enacting a slew of laws to impinge on free speech, but are the first to defend it when there’s a body count
On Wednesday, 12 human beings were massacred in Paris. The motivation for the attack, it appears, was retaliation for the typically religiously offensive cartoons published by the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. But if you listen to our leaders, they weren't the real targets here. It was something ineffable and harder to define: freedom of speech.
On Wednesday, 12 human beings were massacred in Paris. The motivation for the attack, it appears, was retaliation for the typically religiously offensive cartoons published by the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. But if you listen to our leaders, they weren't the real targets here. It was something ineffable and harder to define: freedom of speech.
It's fitting that one of the most common clichés invoked in times like this is a quote often misattributed to Voltaire—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”—as most of the time when it comes to freedom of speech, many of us don’t seem to know exactly what it is we’re talking about. Consider the boob in Maryland, city councilor Kirby Delauter, who has threatened to sue the Frederick News-Post for merely mentioning his name in print for evidence of that.
To paraphrase the old saying about pornography: I may not be able to define freedom of speech, but as long as it applies to the type of thing that gets me off, it qualifies.
Like much of the rhetoric that comes attached to freedom of speech, the “Voltaire” quote is meant as a robust championing of sobriety and fairness. The speaker conjures up centuries of collective sagacity, aligning oneself with an eternal, inarguable good. Certainly no one can argue with that. No one wants to align with less freedom at a time like this. At least not publicly.
This has been in no short supply this week, with many saying that, yes, while much of the material published by Charlie Hebdo was indeed offensive, perhaps racist, and certainly well over the line of propriety, the very fact that they were in operation despite those disagreeable qualities is what makes freedom of speech so important in the first place.
Embedded within the protections of freedom of speech, however, is also the freedom to exaggerate, to manipulate, to grandstand, and this is exactly what much of the world’s political reaction to this tragedy amounts to. It is grandstanding for a right rarely protected unless under immediate attack.
For all of our noble appeals to the freedoms provided for in our Bill of Rights at home, the Obama administration has continued its own slow, less sensational attack on freedom of the press. Earlier last year, both the United States Department of Justice and the White House Press Office took home top dishonors at Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression for their efforts in vigorously prosecuting government whistleblowers at home, like Chelsea Manning, and Edward Swowden, while extending those intimidation tactics to rank and file members of the press. In recent years the administration has filed a search warrant to investigate Fox News reporter James Rosen for talking to a government leaker, and subpoenaed the phone records of the Associated Press to name just a few chilling encroachments.
Elsewhere, courts throughout the country have placed limits on speech this year. A grand juror in the Ferguson case is suing to be able to explain exactly what went down in the courtroom. And as the trial for the accused Boston Marathon bomber begins, cameras will not be allowed inside to record proceedings that could sentence him to death.
As WGBH media critic Dan Kennedy put it, “What all of these cases have in common is the belief by some government officials that the press and the public should be treated like mushrooms: watered and in the dark. These matters are not mere threats to abstract constitutional principles. They are assaults on the public’s right to know.”
Back in 2012 during a previous controversy involving Charlie Hebdo, then-press secretary Jay Carney offered a somewhat less robust appeal to the ideals of freedom of expression.
“Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory,” he said. “But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.”Embedded within the protections of freedom of speech, however, is also the freedom to exaggerate, to manipulate, to grandstand, and this is exactly what much of the world’s political reaction to this tragedy amounts to. It is grandstanding for a right rarely protected unless under immediate attack.
In other words, the free speech exhibited by the folks at Charlie Hebdo was not virtuous—until there was a body count.
Sadly, it appears the American press often doesn't need any outside help when it comes to censoring themselves. The Associated Press cropped out any depictions of Muhammad in their images they distributed throughout the world in the aftermath of the attack, something they say is general policy. After pushback from conservative media pointing out that the AP featured a photo of Andres Serrano’s infamous “Piss Christ”, they appear to have removed that photo form their archives as well. Many other press outlets, all while beating the drum of freedom of speech, self-censored their own photos of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, including the New York Daily News and the Telegraph UK. Almost all of the network and cable news channels said that they would not be showing the cartoons either.
Freedom of speech, then, is sometimes not worth the trouble that comes with it. We’ll defend to your death your right to say whatever you want, but we really don’t want to get involved in it until we can personally be celebrated for it. And definitely don’t exercise that speech in such a way that it spoils our commutes home from work.
Remember last month when the last attack on freedom of speech landed on our shores in the form of an alleged email hack of a film studio by North Korea? This is a blow against freedom of speech, we were told, by the likes of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson.
“The cyber attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment was not just an attack against a company and its employees,” he said. “It was also an attack on our freedom of expression and way of life.” Speech, in this case, is our ability to spend money on a goofy entertainment.
Freedom of speech isn’t an ideal, because ideals are fixed. It’s more of a suggestion, an empty vessel into which one can pour one’s own favored speech.
It’s not just the United States with the strange relationship to freedom of speech, of course.
“We stand absolutely united with the French people against terrorism and against this threat to our values—free speech, the rule of law, democracy. It's absolutely essential we defend those values today and every day,” Prime Minister Cameron said yesterday.
Back in 2013, the UK detained David Miranda, partner of Glenn Greenwald, for associating with someone who practiced acts of journalism. This year, a new counter-terrorism measure proposed by the government suggests that teachers responsible for children as young as nursery school age must report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists. Plans for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders were also announced late last year in the UK, which critics say would ban those considered extremists from sharing their beliefs in public spaces, or online, without permission. Sounds extreme, right? But consider how citizens here in the States are now being arrested for posting threatening messages aimed at police on Facebook.
France’s the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, much like our Declaration of Independence, laid the groundwork for the type of mostly robust speech its countrymen enjoy today. “The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.”
There are limits, of course. You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, another cliché invoked almost without fail in any discussion like this, and so we curb free speech from the start. In France, there have been multiple encroachments over the years, curtailing one’s theoretically unbridled freedom. In July of last year, a court overruled a Muslim woman’s argument that the country's ban on wearing burqas violated her rights. And the Pleven Act of 1972, for example, prohibits incitement of hatred, discrimination, racist insults, and slander. In 1990, the country further made anti-Semitic speech—including Holocaust denial—illegal, something you'll find in many of the other European countries touched by World War II. A few years back, designer John Galliano was fined by the government for sharing just such anti-semitic sentiments in public.
Meanwhile, the self-professed most patriotic citizens in this country harp on our military’s presence in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, insisting that, if not for these brave soldiers, the very foundation of our culture—our speech freedoms—would collapse overnight.
Yet those who question the unwavering justness of any action by the American military are often invited to shut their mouths, or given directions to the nearest port of exit. It wasn't that long ago that entertainers like the Dixie Chicks were being roundly denounced and taken off the air for having the temerity to question our country’s wars.
Police, their representatives and supporters tell us, ensure our freedom of speech through our ability to protest. But they don't really want us to use it, as it’s a sign of disrespect for their protection of our speech.
Spouting off against police online has become criminalized in recent weeks. Rudy Giuliani, among other national figures, actually managed to shift the blame in the shooting of two NYPD officers to protesters exercising their freedom of assembly.
One wants speech to be free, but one doesn't actually want to hear it.
Aggression Trumps Reason
After Paris, Transposing Europe and America
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/transposing-europe-and-america/
Freedom of thought-expression-publication/presentation (for each is part of a unitary process starting from the free individual’s mind and entering an uncensored public domain) is the cherished tradition helping to define a democratic society and giving credence to the sacredness of Ideas as perhaps best dignifying the human spirit—but it is not an ABSOLUTE right. Liberals may rally around the standard, in its most persuasive form, in John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” But radicals cannot and should not, because the community as such also has rights which must be respected, explained, and cogently defended. I share with millions the heartache over the murders of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and deplore these acts, no matter what might be charged against France, Europe, and the West in their treatment of the Muslim world. Cold-blooded murder is never justified, whatever the perpetrators believe are grounds of provocation and redemption.
Satire is not license for self-justifying defamation of character, whether of a religious leader (as in this case an act deeply hurtful to the follower, with inevitable spill-over to the religion itself), or of a leader of a nation, also in an adversarial context (surprisingly throughout the discussion of Charlie Hebdo, no mention is made of Sony Picture’s “The Interview,” which possibly raises more serious consequences, leading to a nuclear stand-off and impending war). Am I suggesting there are limits to political satire, and beyond that to free speech in general? Reluctantly, yes, mindful that imposing such limits could be as abusive and totalitarian as the converse situation, the societal-cultural damage to whole peoples if such “freedom” is left unrestrained. Regrettably, then, there are no satisfying standards for reaching a determination, but incitement, gratuitous slander, callous disregard for the sentiment of the community (WITHOUT in any way exonerating acts of reprisal: murder is murder, twisted minds are twisted minds) must be recognized as more than exhibiting bad or questionable taste; they violate the rights of others. Too, in practical terms (yes, there is a real as opposed to metaphysical world, one I hold is the province of the radical, the other, the refuge of the liberal), needless provocation—the case here as well as with “The Interview”—while titillating to the cognoscenti produces conflict that would cost human lives.
In France, we are not reliving the Dreyfus Affair, nor are Hollande’s words, which I appreciate in the abstract because in fact expressing eloquently humane sentiments, really true to the mark, in light of France’s own history of colonialism and subjugation of peoples under its control—as well as dutifully following the US lead in Iraq and Afghanistan, its NATO membership, etc. To repeat: my unequivocal condemnation of the slayings of Charlie Hebdo staff and police officers, yet the surrounding context is not what it should be, democratic top to bottom—and therefore France, Europe, the West, especially given the treatment of the Muslim population and rising hate-incidents, do not come to the episode with completely clean hands. And the case against satire-with-impunity holds equally with respect to the US, the assassination of Kim, however jocular the setting, does extend beyond bad taste, almost as though part of the underlying psychopathology of looking for war. Had there been internal criticism of the Muhammad caricature in France, or that of Kim in America, at least those on the receiving end could be assured of internal debate and disagreement, rather than a near-unanimity of glee and cynicism, to be interpreted as a preliminary attack on THEIR independence and security. Is no one in either country at all regretful at the glibness, meanness, in depicting—in true ethnocentric flair—a cartoonish Other?
The editorial points out Charlie Hebdo’s past history of controversy over the portrayal of Muhammad, and draws a conclusion I partly agree with: “There are some who will say that Charlie Hebdo tempted the ire of Islamists one too many times, as if cold-blooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.” Of course, cold-blooded murder cannot be accepted under any circumstances—and the hate-motivation for the massacre goes without saying. But what of the argument about avoidance of terrorist attacks? We have no proof, but long-standing intervention in the Middle East, US military bases in the region, wars directly against Muslim countries, subsequent treatment of refugee populations, might have causal significance in the rise of terrorism, even helping to explain 9/11; and on specific topic here, “dictat[ing] standards in a democracy,” what are they, and is absolute free speech (“buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons” calculated to offend, to think otherwise, especially the “glee” involved, being obtuseness of a high order) one of them?
The Times is right when it states, “This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush.” And it rightly calls out rightist groups in French society: “It is a shame that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which has made political gains stoking anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fears, immediately sought political advantage with talk of ‘denial and hypocrisy’ about ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’” But what of xenophobia as the ingrained ideological weaponry fueling EU-US confrontation with Russia, and the probably still deeper American xenophobia characterizing its counterrevolutionary global posture (rationalized as anti-terrorism) and confrontation with both Russia and China? Terrorist attacks are not the whole picture. That which is attacked has also attacked in its own right, with greater preponderance and for a longer time.
My New York Times Comment on the editorial, same date, follows, revealing, in contrast to the above, a more conflicted view because of the immediate impact of the heinous nature of the crime, and because I was struck by a parallel set of dynamics of Charlie Hebdo and “The Interview,” in which, for America, we see the soft approach of character assassination met thus far by no North Korean response, whereas for France, character assassination is met with horrendous physical assassination. Perhaps if we could dispense with assassination of all kinds from every quarter and conduct international politics with justice and toleration uppermost, this would be a better world. Then, satire might be raised to a Swiftian level, rather than wallow in the ghoulish humor of genocidal nightmares. My NYT Comment:
On the videos, the attackers are heard shouting "Allah Akbar! and "avenge Muhammad”. One witness, a Coco designer, said they proclaimed affiliation with al-Qaeda. That’s all it took for many French to denounce it as an Islamist attack.
However, this assumption is illogical.
Similarly, they would not have immediately retreated, fleeing the police, without completing their mission. They would rather have completed their mission, were they to die on the spot.
In addition, videos and some evidence shows that the attackers are professionals. They wielded their weapons expertly and fired advisedly. They were not dressed in the fashion of the jihadists, but as military commandos.
How they dispatched a wounded policeman who posed no danger to them, certifies that their mission was not to "avenge Muhammad" because of the crass humor of Charlie Hebdo.
The video censored by French TV
It is a normal reflex, but intellectually wrong to consider, when one is a victim of an attack, that one knows his attackers. This is most logical when it comes to normal crimes, but it’s wrong when it comes to international politics.
Sponsors for the attack knew it would cause a divide between French Muslims and French non-Muslims. Charlie Hebdo had specialized in anti-Muslim provocation and most Muslims in France have been directly or indirectly their victims. Though the Muslims of France will surely condemn this attack, it will be difficult for them to experience as much pain for the victims as felt by the readers of the newspaper. This will be seen by some as complicity with the murderers.
Therefore, rather than seeing this as an extremely deadly Islamist attack of revenge against the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons and multiplied front page anti-Muslim headlines, it would be more logical to consider that it is the first episode of a process to trigger a civil war.
On the contrary, the strategy of the "clash of civilizations" was formulated by Bernard Lewis for the US National Security Council then popularized by Samuel Huntington not as a strategy of conquest, but as a predictable situation. [1] It aimed to persuade NATO member group populations of the inevitability of confrontation that preventively assumed the form of the "war on terrorism".
It is not in Cairo, Riyadh or Kabul that one advocates the "clash of civilizations", but in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The sponsors of the attack against Charlie Hebdo did not seek to satisfy jihadists or the Taliban, but neo-conservatives or liberal hawks.
Testing the devastating effects of certain drugs on the civilian population in France [2];
Supporting the OAS to try to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle [3];
Carrying out false flag attacks against civilians in several NATO member states . [4]
We must remember that since the break-up of Yugoslavia, the US joint chiefs of staff practiced and honed its “dog fight” strategy in many countries This consists of killing members of the majority community, and also members of minorities, then placing the blame on each of them back-to-back until everyone is sure they are in mortal danger. This is the way Washington caused the civil war in Yugoslavia as well as recently in Ukraine. [5]
The French would do well to remember also that it is not they who took the initiative in the fight against the jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq. To date, moreover, none of them has committed any attack in France, where the case of Mehdi Nemmouche is not that of a lone terrorist, but of an agent tasked with executing two Mossad agents in Brussels [6] [7]. It was Washington who, on February 6, 2014, convened the interior ministers of Germany, the US, France (Mr. Valls was represented), Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom in order to make the return of European jihadists a matter of national security. [8] It was only after this meeting that the French press addressed this issue, and that the authorities began to react.
John Kerry spoke in French for the first time to send a message to the French. He denounced an attack against freedom of expression (while his country since 1995 has continued to bomb and destroy the television stations that were dissing him in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) and celebrated the struggle against obscurantism.
We do not know who sponsored this professional operation against Charlie Hebdo, but we should not allow ourselves to be swept up. We should consider all assumptions and admit that at this stage, its most likely purpose is to divide us; and its sponsors are most likely in Washington.
Satire is not license for self-justifying defamation of character, whether of a religious leader (as in this case an act deeply hurtful to the follower, with inevitable spill-over to the religion itself), or of a leader of a nation, also in an adversarial context (surprisingly throughout the discussion of Charlie Hebdo, no mention is made of Sony Picture’s “The Interview,” which possibly raises more serious consequences, leading to a nuclear stand-off and impending war). Am I suggesting there are limits to political satire, and beyond that to free speech in general? Reluctantly, yes, mindful that imposing such limits could be as abusive and totalitarian as the converse situation, the societal-cultural damage to whole peoples if such “freedom” is left unrestrained. Regrettably, then, there are no satisfying standards for reaching a determination, but incitement, gratuitous slander, callous disregard for the sentiment of the community (WITHOUT in any way exonerating acts of reprisal: murder is murder, twisted minds are twisted minds) must be recognized as more than exhibiting bad or questionable taste; they violate the rights of others. Too, in practical terms (yes, there is a real as opposed to metaphysical world, one I hold is the province of the radical, the other, the refuge of the liberal), needless provocation—the case here as well as with “The Interview”—while titillating to the cognoscenti produces conflict that would cost human lives.
In France, we are not reliving the Dreyfus Affair, nor are Hollande’s words, which I appreciate in the abstract because in fact expressing eloquently humane sentiments, really true to the mark, in light of France’s own history of colonialism and subjugation of peoples under its control—as well as dutifully following the US lead in Iraq and Afghanistan, its NATO membership, etc. To repeat: my unequivocal condemnation of the slayings of Charlie Hebdo staff and police officers, yet the surrounding context is not what it should be, democratic top to bottom—and therefore France, Europe, the West, especially given the treatment of the Muslim population and rising hate-incidents, do not come to the episode with completely clean hands. And the case against satire-with-impunity holds equally with respect to the US, the assassination of Kim, however jocular the setting, does extend beyond bad taste, almost as though part of the underlying psychopathology of looking for war. Had there been internal criticism of the Muhammad caricature in France, or that of Kim in America, at least those on the receiving end could be assured of internal debate and disagreement, rather than a near-unanimity of glee and cynicism, to be interpreted as a preliminary attack on THEIR independence and security. Is no one in either country at all regretful at the glibness, meanness, in depicting—in true ethnocentric flair—a cartoonish Other?
***
The New York Times editorial, “The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris,” (Jan. 8), reveals not soul-searching so much as the need to close ranks. It describes the “brutal terrorist attack,” quotes Hollande’s remarks, “This was an assault… on ‘the expression of freedom’ that is the ‘the spirit of the republic,’” and then, in what might be construed as scathing criticism appears rather as high praise: “The editors, journalists and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo reveled in controversy and relished hitting nerves. The magazine’s editorial director, Stephane Charbonnier, who was killed in the attack, had scoffed at any suggestion that the magazine should tone down its trademark satire to appease anyone. For him, free expression was nothing without the right to offend. And Charlie Hebdo has been an equal-opportunity offender: Muslims, Jews, Christians—not to mention politicians of all stripes—have been targets of buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons that push every hot button with glee.” I cannot summon the same nonchalance (“an equal-opportunity offender”) as though pushing every hot button does more than mix commercialism (a special edition of one million has been announced by the survivors) and incitement.The editorial points out Charlie Hebdo’s past history of controversy over the portrayal of Muhammad, and draws a conclusion I partly agree with: “There are some who will say that Charlie Hebdo tempted the ire of Islamists one too many times, as if cold-blooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.” Of course, cold-blooded murder cannot be accepted under any circumstances—and the hate-motivation for the massacre goes without saying. But what of the argument about avoidance of terrorist attacks? We have no proof, but long-standing intervention in the Middle East, US military bases in the region, wars directly against Muslim countries, subsequent treatment of refugee populations, might have causal significance in the rise of terrorism, even helping to explain 9/11; and on specific topic here, “dictat[ing] standards in a democracy,” what are they, and is absolute free speech (“buffoonish, vulgar caricatures and cartoons” calculated to offend, to think otherwise, especially the “glee” involved, being obtuseness of a high order) one of them?
The Times is right when it states, “This is also no time for peddlers of xenophobia to try to smear all Muslims with a terrorist brush.” And it rightly calls out rightist groups in French society: “It is a shame that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which has made political gains stoking anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim fears, immediately sought political advantage with talk of ‘denial and hypocrisy’ about ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’” But what of xenophobia as the ingrained ideological weaponry fueling EU-US confrontation with Russia, and the probably still deeper American xenophobia characterizing its counterrevolutionary global posture (rationalized as anti-terrorism) and confrontation with both Russia and China? Terrorist attacks are not the whole picture. That which is attacked has also attacked in its own right, with greater preponderance and for a longer time.
My New York Times Comment on the editorial, same date, follows, revealing, in contrast to the above, a more conflicted view because of the immediate impact of the heinous nature of the crime, and because I was struck by a parallel set of dynamics of Charlie Hebdo and “The Interview,” in which, for America, we see the soft approach of character assassination met thus far by no North Korean response, whereas for France, character assassination is met with horrendous physical assassination. Perhaps if we could dispense with assassination of all kinds from every quarter and conduct international politics with justice and toleration uppermost, this would be a better world. Then, satire might be raised to a Swiftian level, rather than wallow in the ghoulish humor of genocidal nightmares. My NYT Comment:
The eloquent, deeply moving response of the people of France–the defense of freedom of expression as a cardinal human right–is too important to be confined as a response to the vicious murders at Charlie Hebdo. This must also be a wake-up call for the people of America, which, unlike the French, do NOT have a heightened value for the expression of free thought.Norman Pollack has written on Populism. His interests are social theory and the structural analysis of capitalism and fascism. He can be reached at pollackn@msu.edu.
In America it is not Muslim extremists who are trying to curtail intellectual and political freedoms, it is we ourselves–not with AK rifles, but with Patriot Acts and other manifestations of thought control. I cannot imagine Pres. Obama saying what Pres. Hollande has said in defense of free thought. For Obama and AG Holder have used the Espionage Act to prevent not only freedom of discussion but also revelations of war criminality.
Imagine Americans massed in a giant public square affirming freedom of speech. To most of us, that specific freedom is not worth caring about. The whole thrust of counterterrorism is acquiescence, submission to authority, on matters increasingly far afield from the putative subject matter within its scope.
We are now the National Security State, McCarthyism Redux, to what should be our everlasting shame–and is not. I therefore reach out in solidarity with the French people who still find the freedom to think among the most precious of human gifts. Je suis… Yes, to all the critics of war, intervention, assassination, I honor you. Stand fearlessly for reason and the right.
Who ordered the attack against Charlie Hebdo?
While many French react to the attack against Charlie Hebdo denouncing Islam and demonstrating in the streets, Thierry Meyssan points out that the jihadist interpretation is impossible. While it would be tempting for him to see it as an Al Qaeda or Daesh operation, he envisages another, much more dangerous hypothesis.
In this report, France 24 edited the video so that we do not see the attackers execute a fallen police officer.
On January 7, 2015, commandos erupted in Paris, in the premises of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people. 4 more victims are still in serious condition.On the videos, the attackers are heard shouting "Allah Akbar! and "avenge Muhammad”. One witness, a Coco designer, said they proclaimed affiliation with al-Qaeda. That’s all it took for many French to denounce it as an Islamist attack.
However, this assumption is illogical.
The mission of this commando had no connection with jihadist ideology
Indeed, members or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda or Daesh would not be content to just kill atheist cartoonists; they would have first destroyed the archives of the newspaper on site, following the model of all their actions in North Africa and the Levant. For jihadists, the first duty is to destroy the objects that they believe offend God, and to punish the "enemies of God."Similarly, they would not have immediately retreated, fleeing the police, without completing their mission. They would rather have completed their mission, were they to die on the spot.
In addition, videos and some evidence shows that the attackers are professionals. They wielded their weapons expertly and fired advisedly. They were not dressed in the fashion of the jihadists, but as military commandos.
How they dispatched a wounded policeman who posed no danger to them, certifies that their mission was not to "avenge Muhammad" because of the crass humor of Charlie Hebdo.
The video censored by French TV
This aims to create the beginning of a civil war
The fact that the assailants speak French well and are probably French does not necessarily indicate that this attack is a Franco-French episode. Rather, the fact that they are professional forces one to distinguish them from possible sponsors. And there is no evidence that these are French.It is a normal reflex, but intellectually wrong to consider, when one is a victim of an attack, that one knows his attackers. This is most logical when it comes to normal crimes, but it’s wrong when it comes to international politics.
Sponsors for the attack knew it would cause a divide between French Muslims and French non-Muslims. Charlie Hebdo had specialized in anti-Muslim provocation and most Muslims in France have been directly or indirectly their victims. Though the Muslims of France will surely condemn this attack, it will be difficult for them to experience as much pain for the victims as felt by the readers of the newspaper. This will be seen by some as complicity with the murderers.
Therefore, rather than seeing this as an extremely deadly Islamist attack of revenge against the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons and multiplied front page anti-Muslim headlines, it would be more logical to consider that it is the first episode of a process to trigger a civil war.
The strategy of "the clash of civilizations" was designed in Tel Aviv and Washington
The ideology and strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Daesh does not advocate the creation of civil war in the ’West’, but on the contrary to create it in the "East" and hermetically separate the two worlds. Never has Sayyid Qutb, nor any of his successors, called to provoke confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims in the territories of the latter.On the contrary, the strategy of the "clash of civilizations" was formulated by Bernard Lewis for the US National Security Council then popularized by Samuel Huntington not as a strategy of conquest, but as a predictable situation. [1] It aimed to persuade NATO member group populations of the inevitability of confrontation that preventively assumed the form of the "war on terrorism".
It is not in Cairo, Riyadh or Kabul that one advocates the "clash of civilizations", but in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The sponsors of the attack against Charlie Hebdo did not seek to satisfy jihadists or the Taliban, but neo-conservatives or liberal hawks.
Let’s not forget the historical precedents
We must remember that in recent years we have seen the US or NATO special services: Testing the devastating effects of certain drugs on the civilian population in France [2]; Supporting the OAS to try to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle [3]; Carrying out false flag attacks against civilians in several NATO member states . [4]We must remember that since the break-up of Yugoslavia, the US joint chiefs of staff practiced and honed its “dog fight” strategy in many countries This consists of killing members of the majority community, and also members of minorities, then placing the blame on each of them back-to-back until everyone is sure they are in mortal danger. This is the way Washington caused the civil war in Yugoslavia as well as recently in Ukraine. [5]
The French would do well to remember also that it is not they who took the initiative in the fight against the jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq. To date, moreover, none of them has committed any attack in France, where the case of Mehdi Nemmouche is not that of a lone terrorist, but of an agent tasked with executing two Mossad agents in Brussels [6] [7]. It was Washington who, on February 6, 2014, convened the interior ministers of Germany, the US, France (Mr. Valls was represented), Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom in order to make the return of European jihadists a matter of national security. [8] It was only after this meeting that the French press addressed this issue, and that the authorities began to react.
John Kerry spoke in French for the first time to send a message to the French. He denounced an attack against freedom of expression (while his country since 1995 has continued to bomb and destroy the television stations that were dissing him in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) and celebrated the struggle against obscurantism.
We do not know who sponsored this professional operation against Charlie Hebdo, but we should not allow ourselves to be swept up. We should consider all assumptions and admit that at this stage, its most likely purpose is to divide us; and its sponsors are most likely in Washington.
No comments:
Post a Comment