DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Why Did Obama Snub France?

PDR...Serious question IYO what are they trying to say, or what, on that cover are they apologizing for what they said and forgiving them?

I think that's a very good question and one I was hoping to discuss.

I still can't say for sure what I think their intent or message was.

Contextually, we have Mohammed shedding a tear, holding a sign that says 'I am Charlie', with the caption 'All is forgiven'.

It's an overtly Christian sentiment despite the publication's aversion to religion.

Are they forgiving their attackers? The Muslim faith? Themselves?

My initial impulse was to view it as a forgiveness of humanity as a collective, which we are all a part of, attackers and victims alike.

Then again, Mohammed is an established character of theirs, and they've never been known to be deep thinkers as far as their art is concerned, so maybe that's me reading too much into it.

What does everyone else think?

Renald Luzier, the cartoonist who drew the cover image under the pen name ‘Luz’, said it represents ‘just a little guy who’s crying’. Then he added, unapologetically: ‘Yes, it is Mohammed…’


‘It is not the cover that the world wanted us to do,’ he said, tearfully putting his head down on the table at one point as colleagues embraced him in a group hug.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/14/what-does-the-charlie-hebdo-cover-mean/

Perhaps they are saying they abused their right to free speech and made the Profit cry for the insult to Him and his 1.6 Billion followers.

They remind us that the Profit Mohammed had the free speech to create Islam so he also "Is Charlie".

They offer "All is Forgiven" as a sign they now realize that Free Speech isn't always Free.

no.

people forget, muslims and christians, as individuals, don't determine what is considered disrespectful toward religion with regards to the masses.

if that was the case, then there would be thousands of muslims trying to bomb paris at the same time. there isn't.

if that was the case, there would've been thousands of christians burning the Quran, there isn't.

if that was the case, there would be thousands of hindus killing New yorkers every time they killed a rat. there isn't.

even i don't lump religious folks into one category in that aspect. you should practice the same.

I don't think he was doing that in his speculation on the meaning of the cover.

Thanks Damon. I don't advocate either party per say. I've heard the rhetoric from both parties and have seen the direct results of their action. It makes it very hard to see a Saints verses Sinners argument here.

I'm not really terribly opposed to a lot of views 40 has. Some of them I truly agree with. But when he gets to the point that one side is evil and stupid and the other side will save our nation, well I've witnessed enough to know that's simply not the case.

Our two party system is terribly broken and special interests by both parties rule the day. Both parties make it about them and not us as a people or a nation.

That's tough to say. It would seem that the message would be coming from the perspective of Mohammed, but I don't know enough about Islam or Mohammed's story to expand on that. You are right though, it does appear to be an overtly Christian sentiment. But isn't Jesus recognized as a prophet in Islam? So maybe there is a message of forgiveness that transcends??

My initial impression is that it depicts Mohammed as apologizing for the killing done in his name. But again I don't know if that would be consistent with Mohammed's teachings or if it would be consistent with Charlie Hebdo's interpretation of Mohammed.

But given how sensitive Muslims are to ANY depiction of Mohammed, I can't think that it means Charlie Hebdo is apologizing for anything.

I would agree that anyone criticizing Obama for not attending in person are being unfair. The logistics involved with him going anywhere are massive. Its why the President never goes anywhere "on a whim". However the decision to send a representative or not does rest solely with him.

Maybe our ambassador to France did attend. But given the subject matter, I'm not of the opinion that he would be the most appropriate representative. When you consider the lead the U.S. has taken in the fight against terror, and considering no other nation has Freedom of Speech at the foundation of its government... this is the type of thing that almost demands a significant representative from America. Obviously not Obama or Biden given the previously stated logistics involved. Even if they weren't an issue, their presence may have been overkill. Holder was in country, but I don't think he would have been entirely appropriate either.

IMO we should have sent the Sec of State. I should think the logistics involved with that would allow a "last minute" flight. I think that would have sent the right balance, not a peon, but not someone so high ranking as to make people think that the U.S. was making it out to be more about them when it was obviously more about France.

Could it be that our assumptions are wrong? Maybe the French didn't want Obama to attend?

Thanks,I appreciate your thoughts and help for trying to make sense of it and it actually made me feal better about my confusion. Maybe its one of those things that only Charlie could explain.

That would be rude. Oh that's right their French.

Hmmmm, and this affects us how? Who cares?

I think Mohammed is shedding a tear at the senseless violence perpetrated in his name. He holds the placard in support of those slain, and all who have adopted the slogan.

The caption "all is forgiven" is extended to The Prophet... since he had no hand in the bastardization of his religion that brought about last week's events.


But that's just me... ne'est ce pas?

If the audience is the Muslim world, then anything using what is supposed to be the image of their prophet will cause major problems.

I think that such a thing only serves to inflame passions in the Muslim world.

The Koran forbids using a person's image, especially the image of the prophet. It is considered a great sin, and an incredible offense to the person whose image is depicted.

I think that there are probably lines that should not be crossed when it comes to religion. There are people who have done some incredibly offensive things when it comes to Christianity as well, but we don't have any specific rules against creating an image, as such, just against worshiping an image as a god. Islam has different rules. I disagree with Islam a great deal, and I feel that it is really an affront to Christianity in many important ways, but no one needs to go out of their way to insult a religion just for the sake of a cartoon or political commentary.

That's JMHO.

How very P.C. of you.

Mocking or challenging the insane, unjust or hypocritical aspects of society or societal norms is very healthy and can be a vital part of an enlightened society.

That is your opinion. I happen to disagree with you.

I happen to vehemently disagree with Islam, but I will debate it on facts, not to ridicule.

Fair enough.

But "people shouldn't say certain things, because it might offend or upset certain people' is directly antithetical to logic, reason, and freedom.

If we all thought that way, we would be very much stuck on the wrong side of enlightenment and modernity.

There is a difference between civil debate, and going out of one's way to attempt to ridicule others for their beliefs. There is a difference between civil debate and intentionally trying not to debate, but simply to offend.

Sometimes civil debate offends. That should be a side effect, and not the purpose.

Pointing out the difference between civil debate and mockery doesn't change the fact that suggesting we shouldn't say things that may offend or insult others is directly antithetical to freedom and common sense.

I'm sorry, but the belief that someone should die for drawing a picture of an omnipotent invisible wizard is an insane view that deserves mockery and derision.

Mohammed is not an "an omnipotent invisible wizard", he is the prophet of the god that Muslims worship. You deride and mock things you don't even understand, which is always kind of a futile exercise.

I truly cannot believe that you have pushed me into defending a religion I absolutely and completely disagree with. (Islam)

OK, a prophet of an omnipotent invisible wizard.

That's still an insane belief system that deserves mockery and derision.

And, again, your sentiments fly in the face of freedom. They lend themselves to tyrrany.

"Hey, guys, we shouldn't mock Kim Jung-Un, because it might upset some people."

"Hey, guys, we're going to run 'Common Sense', but we're going to take out all of the jokes about King George, because that might upset some people."

*Sigh*

There is a way to do political commentary on a subject as important as religion without being intentionally offensive to the beliefs of million of people. King George was one man. Same with Kim Jung-Un. They have(had) brought derision upon themselves because of their own personal actions.

It really seems that you just really want to insult people, and things you really don't understand. That's fine. I think that says as much about you as it does your targets.

I'll leave you the last word.

At no point did I say there wasn't.

Look, when it comes to issues of personal freedom or free speech or freedom of expression, you're very rarely talking about Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. It's usually an idiot saying idiotic things meant to offend people.



But what about the millions of followers they have? We don't want to insult or offend them, do we?



It really seems that you're doing everything you can to deflect and discuss anything other than the fact that "we shouldn't say certain things because it might offend or insult people" is a stunted logic that has a long history of leading to terrible things and preventing enlightenment.

When you say 'people should avoid making jokes about _____, because it might offend others', I take it very seriously. It's an ignorant and dangerous sentiment.

And in a free society with free press, both are perfectly acceptable. Do I get offended by some of the things PDR posts about God and faith? Of course I do. Yet I would be the first to defend his right to do so and would never object to him doing so.

I would never wish any harm to come to him because of his disregard for how those of us who believe feel about his posts.

There's NO excuse for cartoons, printed words or spoken words to be threatened in their context by the sensibilities of others. I mean if so, there would be an immediate end to AM talk radio. Religion is no sacred cow or exception to the rule in regards to free speech and never should be.

Police In Europe Round Up Terrorist Suspects

http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2015/01/16/154095/police_in_europe_round_up_terrorist_suspects


Why Obama loves to release terrorists from Gitmo

By Pedro Gonzales


President Obama released five more terrorists from Guantánamo Bay this week, though you'd be hard-pressed to understand it from the New York Times headline: "US Moves Five Yemenis from Guantanamo." Moved? Where did they move to?

It's only when you get into the article that you see that the Yemenis were not simply "moved," but released, and that these were not simply Yemenis, but suspected combatants.






But the men were all cleared for release five years ago by the national security team made up of officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, the Justice Department and other national security agencies charged with reviewing the cases.

This shouldn't make us comfortable, however, as all the other releasees who returned to the battlefield were also cleared for release by these same departments. At least 100 of those released (and as many as 174) have returned to terrorism. So why does Obama keep releasing them?

To answer this question, you have to understand how the left views America. Domestically, the left sees an all-powerful government as a power that can improve America, and impose its economic, social, and political diktats to "transform" the nation. But internationally is another story. The left views people in third-world countries as oppressed by the actions or even the inactions of the United States. The United States intervenes? It's a bully. The United States doesn't get involved? It's uncaring. And so on.

When it comes to radical Muslim terrorists, three words liberals would never use in the same sentence, the left feels sympathy. Leftists believe that radical Islam has legitimate grievances. We did, after all, invade Afghanistan, even though we did it because we were attacked by radical Muslims who were trained there. We did, after all, invade Iraq, even though we did it to rid the world of a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, and his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (of which we found the chemical weapons). We were attacked on 9/11, but leftists will tell you smugly that we had a history of supporting Arab dictators against the popular will of the Arab people. Liberals won't tell you that the deaths of 3,000 Americans was justified by our foreign policy, but they will be the first to tell you that there was an explanation for it, that we made the Arab world "angry" because we had diplomatic relations and even gave economic aid to governments the radical Muslims disapproved of. (A footnote: the radical Muslims have no problems with dictatorships, as long as they are in charge of them.)

After all, according to the left, the West has been oppressing the Arab world for years, first by colonizing (an act in which America took no part), and then, after they became independent, by propping up dictators. Not the right kind of dictators, like the ayatollahs of Iran, but the wrong kind of dictators, like Mubarak in Egypt. So while the left doesn't believe that radical Muslims should slaughter Americans, they understand their anger.

What also plays into this is the left's preposterous belief that every prisoner should have a trial or be released, just like a common criminal. Even though this is a war, they feel that these combatants should get a trial, which would be unprecedented for POWs of any ongoing war (unless they were accused of war crimes). What is really unprecedented, of course, is releasing these soldiers while the war is ongoing. I use the term "soldiers" loosely, of course, for these are unlawful combatants, who don't wear uniforms, target civilians, and don't respect the Geneva Conventions.

So given the tremendous guilt the left feels, it is no wonder that Obama is doing everything he can to release these terrorists, many of them killers, to go and kill again.


“This administration continues to irresponsibly release detainees from Guantánamo Bay,” Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, said Tuesday in announcing proposed legislation to stop the releases. “Many of these detainees have returned to the battlefields from which they came and are looking for ways to kill Americans and our allies.”

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said he had been re-evaluating his views about the prison since a visit there in December. “Like most Americans, I took a broad approach to thinking about Guantánamo,” he said. “It was ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ I knew I was safe here, and thought to just put these people on another island in Cuba and keep them there.”

But Mr. Manchin said his views were changing. “We’re up to $3.3 million per detainee. The average annual cost per prisoner in a maximum-security prison in the United States is $78,000. And that’s at the most expensive supermax prison.”

Ever notice that liberals get worried about costs only when it comes to things like prisons, border protection, and national security?

Pedro Gonzales is editor of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.


President Obama released five more terrorists from Guantánamo Bay this week, though you'd be hard-pressed to understand it from the New York Times headline: "US Moves Five Yemenis from Guantanamo." Moved? Where did they move to?

It's only when you get into the article that you see that the Yemenis were not simply "moved," but released, and that these were not simply Yemenis, but suspected combatants.


But the men were all cleared for release five years ago by the national security team made up of officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, the Justice Department and other national security agencies charged with reviewing the cases.

This shouldn't make us comfortable, however, as all the other releasees who returned to the battlefield were also cleared for release by these same departments. At least 100 of those released (and as many as 174) have returned to terrorism. So why does Obama keep releasing them?


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015...l#ixzz3P0f3pPGz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I see a huge difference between someone who intentionally insults people, as opposed to someone who debates their positions. Maybe that's just me. If I know that Muslims would be hugely insulted and offended by a depiction of their prophet, then maybe I make my point using a different tact. That is really all I am saying.

*Edit to add* We have been examining the differences between how Black people and White people often see the same thing in a different manner on another thread. Imagine if we were to use the N word in a "cartoon" trying to make a political statement. Well, that shouldn't offend anyone .... I mean, it's just a cartoon, right? Using the image of anyone in Muslim history is really every bit as offensive, or maybe even more offensive, to Muslims.

If people get offended by a cartoon to the point they advocate killing people, is the problem with the people publishing the cartoon? Does it make the people who published the cartoon wrong for doing so?

And I don't really disagree with your point about being intentionally offensive on a personal level, but I believe that is for each person to decide for themselves.

I don't necessarily advocate that I believe everyone should take my approach as their own.

For the third time - no one is arguing that there is a not a difference between debate and inflammatory remarks meant to incite.

No one.

That's just a strawman argument you've created and continue to argue against when you realized that 'we shouldn't make jokes that might offend people' is an untenable position that's on the wrong side of reason.

I added come comments to my post above.

Anyway, I never said that people would be offended to the point of murdering someone. What I did say is that this kind of thing pushes ordinary, everyday Muslims further away from us. It is like the Black person who is convinced that if another Black person has an interaction with a White officer that ends badly, the officer is automatically at fault. This type of thing is every bit as offensive to pious Muslims as a White person calling a Black person the "N" word. Maybe even more offensive.

Is it illegal? No. Should we refrain from such things because they are rude, and completely unnecessary? Absolutely.

Who says it's unnecessary? You?

I'm sorry, but if someone says 'you can't draw a picture of our prophet or our leader, or make fun of our faith, because it offends our sensibilities, and if you do, you might get killed', I consider it necessary to mock and defy them.

To obey is to submit to censorship by threat.

Society shouldn't be a NYC subway car, where the crazies get their way.

Like I said, would you create a cartoon using the N word? Why not?

This cartoon was equally as offensive to Muslims as a White person calling a Black person the N word.

Because it's not a word that's in my vocabulary.



Faith is a choice. Skin color isn't.

Not to mention, one is an insult to a race that has been degraded beyond belief.

The other is an insult to people because an ancient book of fairy tales said it was.

You are trying to equate a valid attempt to make race relations better in our own country to people who have bombed and killed our innocent civilian in an atrocious act of terrorism and continue to commit such acts around the globe? Seriously?

You have one group who threatens to kill and bomb people for making such cartoons and people need to stand up to them.

According to what you're saying, cartoonists should never make such cartoons about the Pope either. Or are you saying Catholics aren't just as offended by that? Sure they are. The difference is Catholics aren't using the threat of terrorism against people for doing that.

In other news ... In a show of support for France, Germany will be holding a Million Merkel March ...



No word yet whether Obama will attend, and if he does, whether his sign will say "Je suis Charlie" or "Ich bin ein Charlie".

Not every Muslim kills people. I am not saying that Muslims would threaten t kill the cartoonist. Not everyone who is horribly offended to their core by something threatens to kill the person who did so. Nonetheless, there is an alienation that takes place when such things that offend religious sensibilities are done. That cartoon offended every pious Muslim. Every one ..... from your neighbor, to the guy who owns a local store, to the man who goes bowling on Tuesday nights. Every pious Muslim would be offended by any pictorial depiction of their prophet.

Why offend those who are really innocent bystanders?

It is not just the terrorists who are Muslim who are offended by any physical depiction of their prophet. Why push those who are more mainstream away when it is so completely unnecessary?

I can debate a Muslim about their book, and cite specific examples of major, structural flaws in their book. That is not purposefully going out of my way to insult them. It is examining why they believe what they believe, and pushing back against a religion that flat out says that my religion is somehow twisted from the time of the beginning to today. That is a legitimate conversation to have. It is not going out of one's way to insult another person, but opening a dialogue. Often such a discussion falls on deaf ears, but the attempt is there, and most pious Muslims will try just as hard to convert a Christian as vice versa.

Anyway, just because we have the ability to insult a group of people needlessly does not mean that we should do so.

Oh man, that is just so wrong.

So then the exact same thing should be said for Catholics, Jewish and all other religions. All get offended when satirical cartoons are felt as an attack on their religions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but why is it that you feel those who follow Islam are exempt? Maybe it should be wrong to ever publish a picture of an Amish person because their beliefs are against photographs?

Again, at some point we have to have an all or nothing policy regarding satirical cartoons. You can't play both sides of the fence.

Islam is still in its infant stage, in many ways. Those who worship the religion in other parts of the world can easily be exploited by more violent people because of things like this. There is no sense stirring the pot unnecessarily. Further, just because people are so impolite towards Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, does not mean that it is right to be offensive towards a different religion. That's like the adult saying "Well, I got my ass kicked on a daily basis by an adult when I was a kid ..... so I now have every right, as an adult, to go kick a kid's ass whenever I feel like it."

I guess that I will just leave this as we agree to disagree. Neither of us is moving the other's opinion at all, so there is no sense spinning our wheels.