Hudson Jones

The Jews can learn from Muslims' response to the Paris attack which was done in the name of Islam. the swift and powerful condemnation issued by Muslim groups all over the world will help to reduce anti-Muslim feeling and deter young Muslims from joining the jihadis. This condemnation by Muslims contrasts strongly with the support given by most Jewish communal associations around the world to Israel’s massacre last summer of over 1,400 civilians, including over 500 children, in Gaza. Guardian

Remind me where in the poll it says, as you put it: 80% or more Muslims support Sharia law. Apparently I have a difficult time reading and finding that poll.

Did you mean 80% of Muslims in the world? Are you getting confused by polls again?

This is of course if you pretend that The West has not gone into many Muslim countries and, not only killed hundreds of thousands of people (a large majority of them innocent civilians - example: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Yemen) with their high tech gadgets, but they have also continued support dictators who are anything but democratic. So if you're able to open your eyes and fight the temptation to look at Muslims as one entity and who have, in large number, suffered from our actions in the Middle East, then you would not be sounding so ignorant. Your unnecessary anger and feeling of victimhood pales in comparison to the actual suffering that people in other countries have experienced because of our actions in many regions.

Do you feel there is a double standard? "It is as if today, whatever you want to say about Muslims you can say," explains Oxford University professor Tariq Ramadan. "If you are targeted as anti-Semitic, it is over for you. But when you make Islamophobic statements, that’s fine. "It is the normalization in the political discourse of Islamophobic statements." Watch the interview here.

There seems to be so much resistance and even a hint of fear towards justice and equality. Not to worry too much Bonam, et al. All will be done by Israel and the lapdogs in the U.S. government to derail that. Withholding Palestinian tax money by the Israeli government is the first step.

This is pure fantasy. The best offer, which was never official, included Palestinians living in cantons with the major roads and the borders being controlled by Israel - Oh and no East Jerusalem. That was the generous offer. Which Palestinian leader would accept such an offer? In the Guardian newspaper on 14 April 2001, diplomatic editor Ewen MacAskill wrote: The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated. The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state’s eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state. […] A genuinely generous offer by Barak might have secured peace. That was the missed historic opportunity. If Israel had been more magnanimous at Camp David, it could have had the greater prize of long-term stability. There is a huge danger attached to the Israeli view that Arafat spurned a great offer. Accepting this version perpetuates the Israeli myth that the Palestinians will not be happy until the Jews are pushed back into the sea and that the West Bank and Gaza are full of gunmen and bombers intent on making that happen. There are such people - but most Palestinians are interested less in the destruction of Israel than in establishing a proper Palestinian state. Most are as exercised about the poor quality of the leadership round Arafat and about the endemic corruption and lack of democracy in their own society as they are about Israel. What they want is for the Israeli army to go home and to take the Jewish settlers with them. There will be no peace until that happens. Source: “The real deal; Ewen Macaskill: Israel’s View That Arafat Missed A Chance For Peace Under Barak Is Dangerously Deluded”, The Guardian, 14 April 2001.

Here is a wonderful article which dissects the "#JeSuisCharlie" tag, sweeping the internet world... at least for another a week or so, until another topic comes along, sweeping the attention of the mass on facebook and twitter. We lose our ability to imagine political solutions when we stop thinking critically, when we let emotional identifications sweep us into factitious substitutes for solidarity and action. We lose our ability to respond to atrocity when we start seeing people not as individuals, but as symbols. Changing avatars on social media is a pathetic distraction from changing realities in society. To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won’t stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen that neither risk nor alter anything. To protect expression that’s endangered you have to engage with the substance of what was said, not deny it. That means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure. I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killings. I mourn the dead. I am not Charlie.

Please understand that I'm not trying to equate the response of killing people to being sued. I don't want to keep repeating that. I am talking about the double standards when it comes to self-censorship and freedom of speech in the West when it comes to criticism of different sides. When you champion freedom of speech, it should not be selective.

You are missing the point and are not paying attention to my argument, otherwise you wouldn't make the comment above. Which Western newspaper has published these cartoons? One of them almost did, but then it got struck down by the hire powers. I have given examples of backlash when the odd time something has been posted that is anti-Israel. So there is censorship (mostly self-censorship) sometimes due to the ideological stance of the outlet and sometimes as a result of the backlash they would receive for posting criticism of Israel as it has been clearly demonstrated by me.

How about an example of double standards when it comes to freedom of speech and Charlie Hebdo? How often are comments made about Muslims which could be deemed derogatory given the same treatment. How often are cartoonist or media personnel fired for making derogatory comments or cartoons against Muslims? Here lies the double standard. French cartoonist Sine on trial on charges of anti-Semitism over Sarkozy jibe A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons. Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.

I have already given you at least one example of how the media engages in self-censorship when it comes to criticism of Israel and Israel's treatment of Palestinians through cartoons, and you haven't given anything to back up your claim. Here is another case of a cartoon criticizing Israel, which ended with this: Australian newspaper apologizes for 'anti-Semitic’ cartoon The Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges image’s resemblance to cartoons of Nazi Germany, after Jewish groups threaten legal action.This is the cartoon that the newspaper had to apologize for after receiving pressure and threat to be sued: No Argus. The cartoons I have seen were not to deny the holocaust. I posted the top 2 winners of the contest and neither deny the holocaust. So, once again, your comment is wrong.

One of the best articles I've read on this topic is from Juan Cole. His perspective of the situation and his knowledge of the Middle East makes this a must read - Here are some highlights where he delves into the psyche of Al Qaeda and their recruitment efforts: Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination. This tactic is similar to the one used by Stalinists in the early 20th century. This horrific murder was not a pious protest against the defamation of a religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European society into pogroms against French Muslims, at which point al-Qaeda recruitment would suddenly exhibit some successes Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, then led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deployed this sort of polarization strategy successfully in Iraq, constantly attacking Shiites and their holy symbols, and provoking the ethnic cleansing of a million Sunnis from Baghdad. The polarization proceeded, with the help of various incarnations of Daesh (Arabic for ISIL or ISIS, which descends from al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia). And in the end, the brutal and genocidal strategy worked, such that Daesh was able to encompass all of Sunni Arab Iraq, which had suffered so many Shiite reprisals that they sought the umbrella of the very group that had deliberately and systematically provoked the Shiites. “Sharpening the contradictions” is the strategy of sociopaths and totalitarians, aimed at unmooring people from their ordinary insouciance and preying on them, mobilizing their energies and wealth for the perverted purposes of a self-styled great leader. The only effective response to this manipulative strategy (as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani tried to tell the Iraqi Shiites a decade ago) is to resist the impulse to blame an entire group for the actions of a few and to refuse to carry out identity-politics reprisals.

Actually, I haven't missed any points. This is why I commented what my post was about. Of course it's wrong to kill, because a person is offended by a cartoon. There is no justification whatsoever in regards to what these zealots did. My post was about the hypocrisy and double standards we have in regards to free speech and censorship.

Back this up with links to how widely it was circulated in the West. Because I had a hard time finding links to the images when I went to make this post. Once again, just because you said so, it doesn't make it so. Post something to back up your claim.

This post has nothing to do with the reaction of the those who think killing people is the right response. Of course, it was wrong and there is no way anyone can justify their action. This post is to point out the double standard we have here in the West. I'm all for free speech even if it's distasteful. I even disagree with Canada's free speech laws and believe anyone should be able to say whatever they want without being persecuted by law. Whether it's the rabid Ezra Levant, a backwards radical Muslim cleric, or the racist, reactionary-driven Ann Coulter. I think, shaming these people, especially now, on the internet is a better way to react to these people. That said, there is a double standard here. When papers in Europe publish these cartoons; some funny, some not funny and some derogatory, most people in the West will come out in support of these cartoons in the name of free speech and against censorship. However, when there is any hint of criticism of Israel or Zionism, you will find major censorship and an automatic accusation of 'anti-semitism'. Many are suddenly offended and there is no room for it in the Western media. Case in point, is the International Holocaust Cartoon contest that happened a few years back in Iran, where thousands of cartoons were submitted from around the world. The purpose of this cartoon contest was not to "deny the holocaust" or "Jew hatred", but it was to denounce "Western hypocrisy on freedom of speech". The cartoon contest was criticized by pretty much everyone in the West, including the U.S. State department, Israel, the UN head, Kofi Annan, ADL and others. Some of the media outlets in Europe, in order to show that they don't hold a double standard, announced that they would post some of the cartoons, but then backed out: On February 8, Flemming Rose (the cultural editor for Jyllands-Posten), told CNN: "My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with that Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them". Later that day, the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten would under no circumstances publish the Holocaust cartoons. Here are the top two winners of the contest and the cartoons which were mostly censored in the West:

Yeah man! Since there is no serious chance of Israel following international law, why not... drill baby drill?! Your insistence for a country to follow international law is driving up gas prices! I hope you're happy with yourself Big Guy and anyone else who thinks Israel should follow international law.

Then I will report you for not providing a quote to back up your comment or for not changing the text. Because you said: "where he questioned Israel's right to exist". You didn't say "my impression of his comment was.." You attribute what is in your head with what people say or think. You have a lot of things in your head. There is no point in debating with you when you continuously misrepresent people.

Rue, first you message me to tell me, and I quote: And now you're back to one of your worst habits in your forum debating skills; You're stating false comments about people's positions. For example, this: When did I "question Israel's right to exist"? Provide a quote or I will report you, as Charles Anthony has asked me to do. This is the last time I will address something like this again and will right away report you, if you do not produce a quote. I accept your apology. I will disagree with your interpretation that saying an ideology like Zionism is a cancer that needs to be removed, would mean that anyone who follows it needs to be "wiped out". This is like saying, because I think Wahabism is also an ideology that needs to be removed, it means that I want Saudis and others "wiped out". Your interpretation is your interpretation, but I know what I have said and what I have meant. Once again, I have never said or meant to say that anyone should be killed for their ideology. Zionism is an ugly ideology. It promotes taking away other people's rights in order to achieve selfish goals. Any ideology that excuses violating human rights and inequality should be refused, shunned and wiped out.

You don't seem to get it. This is not about Israel bashing. This is about confronting the double standards of those who are selective about morality.

I have no team. My only team is justice. I said again, I am disgusted at all murder of children. Not just some.

Do what? I am disgusted by the murder of any child done by any person or group.

It's about selective moral standards. If you want to condemn murderers, condemn them all.

So disgusting. These people are heartless, mindless degenerates. I'm also disgusted at some of the people in this forum who need to weigh in with their moral standards and score team points after this horrific event, but have in the past tried to justify the attacks by the Israeli military which have killed thousands of children. Somehow, to these morally confused people, pressing a button to launch a missile that kills children is not as bad as mowing them down with guns.

It's the belief in a set of ideas. Adherence to nationalism, just like adherence to religion, involve strong beliefs in various degrees and a set of principles. A Canadian who volunteers could be doing it for different reasons. It could be due to nationalism or out of necessity (work). But I was also trying to make a point that whatever our beliefs and moral standards are, we are killing innocent people as well. Don't have the stats in front of me, but I'm quite certain that we've killed more people than all those religious fundamentalists. So whatever their beliefs and moral standards are, shouldn't we be looking at ourselves first and try to fix ourselves first? These Muslim fundamentalists didn't just appear out of thin air. We have to look at what is pushing for people to move towards them. We have to look at the puppets we have installed in those regions. We have to look at our activities in those regions. We can't just point to some religion and shrug and pretend our hands are clean.