If you haven’t seen the story in the Daily Mail, try this link:
Many pictures of the event.
So you won’t mind if “I just put out some answers to your questions”, will you?
The magazine was known for satirising pretty much everyone, so you’re asking the wrong question. The right question is: Why is it that only depictions of Muhammad result in bloodshed?
Remember the 1989 massacre of those women in Montreal?
The first police who arrived on the scene had guns. But they wouldn’t leave their cars until they were certain they would be safe. They waited in their cars for 30 minutes during which time more women could have been slaughtered. The gunman was already dead. But these cops didn’t know that.
I lost almost all my respect for the police on that day.
By the way, many things in Montreal are taken from France - including attitudes.
I’m surprised the Montreal police have had guns for many years now while the Paris cops do not.
No offense, but do keep up. Charlie Hedbo has been mercilessly satirizing anything and everything worth satirizing since 1969 and is part of a tradition going back to Marie-Antoinette.
Jews and Catholics don’t gun down innocents over cartoons.
The Daily Mail Online has a picture of one policeman who did have a gun and engaged in some shooting.
Unfortunately, or Typically, the only person this cop shot was himself.
How fucking unbelievable is that?
The size of demonstrations could grow. I would be surprised if the ratios changed much.
Where does your link demonstrate anything you said?
I started a thread a few months back pitting Modern Islam.
This is why.
…
That’s quite different from fleeing the scene. Or even from “backing off”.
The same magazine printed cartoons that were just as “offensive” to Jews and Christians. So, no, it is not “always Muhammed”. The difference is that the offended Jews and Christians did not go in and murder the cartoonists.
I noticed that too. Also, the Daily Mail isn’t the most respected source in the UK. I’m surprised sometimes their coverage is pretty comprehensive, but still not the most trusted source.
Where in your link is there any claim about the cop shooting himself.
Rather classy comment by the way.
Not from Hebdo, but I know many people who find the image of God the Father in slippers having generational issues with the Son highly offensive; some of them find the Divine Love Handles even more offensive. They rarely do anything beyond roll their eyes, though, or say that “it’s not right”. Some guest stars you can see in the same search page: Buddha, Kali, Odin, Allah, Manitou…
Hebdo and similar mags don’t limit themselves to Muhammed.
Actually, lots of Catholics in Belfast would just a few decades ago happily murder anyone they saw spray painting “Fuck the Pope” on a wall.
The difference is not the theological differences between Catholicism and Islam but that rightly or wrongly many French Muslims feel abused and oppressed and they strike back in ways that say American Muslims don’t in response to some Family Guy cartoons or American Christians did to The Last Temptation of Christ.
Of Course Irish Catholics during the era of the Troubles felt abused and oppressed and reacted to perceived insults against their community in ways that would be considered far too extreme to say American Catholics.
Hopefully the situation will change for Muslims and they won’t feel like they’re having war waged against them and react as such.
None of that of course is to excuse today’s massacre or the atrocities of the IRA.
Wildly mocking depictions on Charlie-Hebdo included the Pope(s), Jesus Christ and the apostles, Rabbis and stereotypical caricature Jews, Britain and Brits and the leaders of Britain and the rest of the EU, every French politician right and left and labor leader, industrial bosses, celebrities, et-goddamn-cetera. Even one: “Michael Jackson, finally White” portraying his bleached skeleton.
Quite a number of publications across the world are reprinting some of those covers today, as part of their various tributesto their fallen colleagues.
Meanwhile pictures tightly cropped so the offending covers don’t appear, or the blurry pixels being deployed aggressively, is what you are getting in American media outlets. Can’t say I blame them but please don’t give me bullshit about it being because they do not want to further offend. We know it just clicked in their heads: “Holy shit, I could get KILLED!” or “Holy shit, someone working for this network could get killed and WE could get SUED!”
Oh. Well, I would explain it to you but there #&*^% %@!@@!@ ^&%^
Sorry. It would just be too easy. Sort of like shooting turkeys in a barrel.
By way of explanation, a news organization can put out a news story and then people can post links to that story.
Later, the news organization can edit or change their story so it is different. When people then try the link, they find something that was not previously there or look for something that was previously there but is now removed.
In this case, The Daily Mail Online posted a picture of a police man who had accidentally shot himself on the same page as the Paris Massacre story. But then they removed that picture.
I will leave it to you to figure out why they did that and how you can find the original picture now.
Good luck.
If you get stuck, just ask any ten year old to help you.
But in the future, if you are going to ask someone for help, it’s best if you don’t insult them in the very same post that you ask them for some help.
Otherwise they may just tell you to stick it up your ass or something else classy like that.
With all due respect, as regards Belfast, you are talking out of your rear end.
Daily Mail posts a lot of videos, unrelated to the story, as click bait on the page of the story. In this case,this is the video you’re referring to.
It has nothing to do with the events in France, and yes, it is still linked to on the page that you cited (you may have to click around on the “Most Watched Videos” to find it). It was not removed. What’s your point?