Time Magazine Writer (Who Is Not Even Muslim): French Newspaper That Got Firebombed By Jihadists Deserved What It Got

Really!

Really. See, it's a victim, as the headline puts it, of its own "obnoxious Islamophobia."

Maybe some Christians should extend that principle to Time Magazine. We'll see if his endorsement of firebombing holds up then.

Okay, so can we finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by “majority sections” of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that “they” aren't going to tell “us” what can and can't be done in free societies? Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction?

The difficulty in answering that question is also what's making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam. The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

We, by contrast, have another reaction to the firebombing: Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there's no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.

Don't quote that "no justification" thing for me. That's just ass-covering. The guy's gist is a sarcastic soooo sorry. Like I said, the web-based headline -- that continues in the URL -- is:

firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/

So the original headline was: "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?"

The new headline answers that question -- Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr So it's the latter, then. Islam didn't do this; Islamaphobia did this. The paper provoked the Islamists; how could they do other, than to resort to violence yet again?

The chief complaint about radical Islam isn't that it's backwards and often barbaric. It is that, frequently, but it was always that, and yet people didn't often comment on it.

The chief complaint about radical Islam is that it preaches that violence and murder are not only acceptable but required in response to "insults" against it.

So, this newspaper mocks radical Islam for just that. And radical Islam proves them right (apparently -- police aren't sure who firebombed the office, but they have suspicions).

And this guy concludes, then, that the paper indulged in "obnoxious Islamaphobia."

Here's my version of Islamaphobia, of which I do suffer: I fear that radical Islamists will attempt to kill me or the ones I love or my fellow countryman because they feel their murderous religion demands it.

Am I obnoxious for having that fear?

Or am sentient?

Islamists (apparently) firebomb a peaceful newspaper (funny, OWS is "peaceful," but a simple newspaper is guilty of... something) and this proves, of course, that that newspaper was just silly to suspect Islamists of doing things like firebombing a newspaper.

Thanks to Miss80sBaby.

posted by Ace at 03:14 PM

| Access Comments