In addition, when a small number of government workers refuse to honor the moment of silence…they are promptly fired.   That is how French respect freedom of thought and expression!   Although, journalism is the most important pillar of democracy…taking advantage of an unfortunate incident like this, when innocent lives are lost, is hypocritical and unwarranted…although, we are talking about French after ALL!!!

Kamal eventhough you made a good point but god help you for saying it here.

I think some people in CH were obsessed with Islam and the link below is the proof;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html

And here is another link;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html

This has now become a quite familiar refrain from certain quarters ("I'm against deliberately murdering innocent people in cold blood over CARTOONS" -- a pastime unique to the followers of the Holy Prophet Mo -- BUT ____). Perhaps, one should ask oneself why Muslims are the only group in the world who have repeatedly committed mass murder over CARTOONS. That strikes me as the most important and relevant question here:

https://ricochet.media/en/292/lost-in-translation-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-and-the-unilingual-left

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/188320/the-charlie-cover

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/14/1357531/-CHARLIE-AND-ISLAM-AN-AFTERTHOUGHT

To Amir1973, that is also a legit question and you have every right to start your own blog and ask the believers of that faith for an explanation. In the meanwhile, I expect the same courtesy in exercising my freedom to express and ask questions that I think are relevant and deserve an explanation. Good day. 

I can't even begin to fathom why you would even pick this particular case to scorn the founders of Charlie hebdo or even the french government. Seems like you are getting your issues mixed up here. 

Are you trying to tell me that firing someone over their anti-semitic view points is far more outrageous and heinous that having a bunch of totally useless , criminals killing a group of intellectuals who only dared to express their ideas in the most open and uncensored of ways?

Do you really think you are justifiably questioning whether or not the french democratic system here is actively functioning by twisting things around and making a totally irrelevant comparison? 

That would be akin to a disgruntled co-worker picking up a gun; seeking to avenge the supposedly unjust firing of his colleague and then turn around and say See!! if they had not fired him, i would not have done what i did.

To Doctor41, with all due respect let’s keep the usual rhetoric out of this exchange. I asked a very direct question and all I hear is the legitimacy of my question. Do I have the right to ask a simple question or not? Where did the freedom of expression go when it comes down to me? Since the inception of this site and the previous site people from all walks of life have tried to find a label for me and gang up on me to no avail. Why do you insist in categorizing me in some kind of a file cabinet that you can comprehend? Think of me as a simple person with a simple question. Where do we draw the lines in what is considered anti Semitic? I provided a link to a case where a cartoonist was fired for expressing his point of views. Let’s keep that in mind and then try to give me a rational answer. I can use the same method as you by pointing to the FACT that just in the last year alone 16 innocent Palestinian  journalists have been killed by Israeli military under direct orders from Netanyahu but I know that is a none starter so instead I kept my question very simple or I could say the same thing as you are saying “ I cannot even begin to fathom how someone like Netanyahu  can show up in Paris, talking about freedom of expression” do you catch my drift?  Aab raa gel nakonim. As for your reference to other issues that was brought up by our contributors, I let them to clarify it a bit further since I have no affiliation to any other person on this site but find my views closer to certain members.

This magazine has attacked all religions and all prophets (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) -- the only hypocrites are the ones trying to minimize, obscure, and divert from the cold blooded murders carried out by Muslims (part of a pattern of murdering people over cartoons that no other group is guilty of).

Amir 1973, I have to admit that you perseverance amazes me. I keep asking for a specific answer to a freaking question of mine and you keep writing in general terms while still hanging on your by now chronic habit of  labeling people. Direct quote from you “the only hypocrites are the ones trying to minimize, obscure, and divert from the cold blooded murders carried out by Muslims (part of a pattern of murdering people over cartoons that no other group is guilty of).” Which on this particular blog could only be me since I started it. Doost man, baraadar man, pesar man, pedar man, agha jaan, either answer the question with specifics relevant to what was asked or hold your peace. It is not as if  I’m holding a gun to your head demanding an answer. There is no space left on my body for yet another label. When can we move from this seemingly perpetual state of stagnation? When? When? 

Kamal

Judging by, ooops wrong terrm (since you are so sensitive about being judged, labelled, etc), Gathering from your replies to all these comments, it seems to me that you are the real source of any kind of rethoric here. It is like, we are trying to reply to u in our own way, yet you pretend no to see them for they are and continue to go back to square one and say: So...belakhare nagofti...are ya na!!! Drop the act dude. you have gotten ur response. 

Starting from the top: 

Yes. of course you have the right to ask anything you want to, but since in every reply u make to people you repeat the same thing, as if you are on trial or something, this tells me that you are here fishing for something else, and not really shooting for a nice and decent" Hey...i asked a question and i would like a reply"session.

This is NOT about who is an anti-semite or what is its definition. See? this was one of your tricks and the spins you put on the whole thing by the way. I never supported nor defended the anti-semites, all i did was make an innocent comparison. But you....I am keeping what you said in mind and the "rational" answer is that firing someone for having unacceptable beliefs is NOT The same as KILLING Them for the same reason. These azzholes killed people for drawing cartoons, but those others ,merely fired people. Do you get this? or am i "labelling" you again in whatever spot you have left on your body!!!!

I never condoned natanyahu or his actions, so i am right there with you. I also CONDEMN him for his vicious mentality and direct orders. Satisfied?:)

Not realy sure what u are getting at in the last part, I never made any sorta references to anybody else or whatever the may have brought up. 

Please just stay focused on the content of a comments; and please avoid getting hostile (or defensive) by keep referring back to your own personal grievances towards others.

Dear Doctor41, since this is the first time that I have seen your name under any of my posts or comments I take it that you are not very familiar with my issues and concerns regarding our (us Iranian) place in this world and your above response kind of made me certain of my assumption. By way of introduction, I will just try to clarify some misunderstanding on your part in what matters to me. First thing off the bat, I DO NOT CARE TO BE LABELED. I use repeated references to this point so that I can show whomever I’m debating at the moment that they are veering off the subject and believe it or not it works in bringing the focus back. As I’ve said before on other blogs, feel free to describe me by using variety of 4 letter words. I don’t get offended since it means nothing to me, what gets my blood boiling is when people purposefully try to muddy the waters or ignorantly repeat what they hear in the main media like a parrot ( So far I have no reason to believe that you belong to either group and I think in this debate our differences are a matter of misunderstanding each other, I sure hope that I’m not wrong)

I assume that you read the article about the cartoonist who was fired bY Charlie Hebdo over his drawings that was considered offensive to believers in Judaism faith, hence YOUR REFERENCE to anti-Semitism (NOT MINE) ? here it is, just in case: “Are you trying to tell me that firing someone over their anti-semitic view points is far more outrageous and heinous that having a bunch of totally useless , criminals killing a group of intellectuals who only dared to express their ideas in the most open and uncensored of ways?”

And my response was: where do we draw the line? Believe me when I tell you this, I’m as far away as being considered a  religious person but why is it a fair game to make fun of one and be on your tippy toe for the other? While we are here, what is your take on Holocausts deniers getting prosecuted? It is a free world (supposedly) so why can’t an ignorant person have the right to deny Holocausts ever happened? The evidence against it is so overwhelming that such a person will only make a fool out of him/ herself .

Where in my writing you detected a comparison between innocent people being killed and someone being fired from his job due to his point of view? Asking a question does NOT mean comparing. My reference to Netanyahu and Palestinians was meant as a hint at the enormity of the issue, hence a none starter due to the fact that people on either side have strong views on the subject. Therefore, I suggested a discussion on the meaning of double standards which ironically nobody has touched upon yet, A little trust will go a long way and contrary to your belief I have NO OTHER AGENDAS,  My motto in life: “Before you accuse, ask”

The answer to the last paragraph of your above comment: You referred to “French democratic system” which another member had questioned , not I. Hence, I asked that you direct your questions to them. And my response to the last couple of sentences of your above comment: Please stay off rhetoric. Been there, done that for 40 years. The only thing that I’m after is the truth. Best of luck.   

Kamal khan

You have seen me before and i have commented on your blogs here under the name DoctorMohandes. rings any bells? there you go:)

It is and it never was and it never will be my intention to accuse you, label you or even god forbid use the f or any other 4 letter words (of your choice) , against you and i Just don't understand why you have go through such a long intro/editorial to make a simple point. Keep it simple partner, that is what they say in Texas.

The word Anti-semitism was originally introduced through that article which you put up and decided to collect comments on. So to repeat, and keeping it simple, it was YOU who made that refrence just becasue it was your blog and the title of an article which you chose. CLear on that , aren't we?

IT is not, and i Repeat it is NOT to make fun of anyone for any reason for that matter, What i criticized was the punishment method. Those editors elected to Fire someone whereas these islamic moron chose to KILL and ruin the lives of those whose ideas they did not like. Now, please don't make me make this any more simpler for you because if you come back to me with another "toomar" i will know for FACT that you are doing nothing but putting an spin on things.

No, i refrenced the french democratic system to you , which was really appropriate indeed, because it was u who was criticizing the system. was it not? your point, after a careful look through all the complex and convoluted logic that you weaved to express something, was to mock the French government for allowing a person with anti-semitic views to be fired and not taking any actions. Right? 

Oh ...u poor soul, u are sick and tired of all them rhetorics, are you? well, you do see where the root of the problem lies right? Maybe you should start with your own self and really and truly apply your own motto "before you accuse, ask"...Not only you accused me of implementing rethoric but even worse, you ASSUMED and you know what they say about those who assume.

Oh and here is a friendly reminder...please change your tactics on how you conduct discussion in public; and quit resorting to rethorics and maybe you will get different outcomes. 

Dear kamalFM, methinks thee dost protest quite a bit about "labelling", which I find interesting in view of the fact that your blog is about labelling the people at Charlie Hebdo as hypocrites. I think Charlie Hebdo was WRONG to fire that cartoonist back in 2009, and he was awarded a settlement after he sued for wrongful termination (which I think he was RIGHT to do). Neither you nor I know all the precise details of that case, but it MIGHT have to do with the fact that the 2009 cartoon dealt with a refusal to apologize to a specific living individual, not a Holy Prophet who lived 1400 years ago. That being said, I support the full application of free speech as embodied in the American First Amendment....As I mentioned above, this sort of fault-finding, labelling or blaming of Charlie Hebdo (or the West or France or the Jews or whomever) is part of a pattern on the part of certain individuals "trying to minimize, obscure, and divert from the cold blooded murders carried out by Muslims (part of a pattern of murdering people over cartoons that no other group is guilty of)". I even mentioned the typical sentence of "I'm against cold blooded murder of cartoonists, BUT ____". It's a quite familiar refrain at this time...Let's picture the following scenario: a group of innocent people are deliberately murdered over CARTOONS. Certain people then come along and say, well, those murdered people were a bunch of hypocrites: see what they did in 2009 -- there you have it. Now, I can certainly imagine if the gunmen's defense lawyer were to attack the victims in this way (he is only doing his job, after all), but most people would say that the crime of cold blooded murder is not even remotely equivalent in a moral sense to certain hypocritical acts that the victims may have committed 6 years ago, and that the lawyer is merely trying to muddy the waters in a quite unseemly way. Regards and please forgive me if I don't continue this exchange on my end.

Dear Doctor41, It is apparent to me that we, meaning you and I have some fundamental differences that from a human to another human we owe it to each other to make an effort in resolving them. This is something that also needs to happen in a larger scale among us Iranians in order to build trust and eventual  solidarity in reaching higher goals. I have exhausted all my efforts to make a case for my point of view on this blog. I want to thank you for sticking around and not to disappear like most of our contributors after they deliver their SPEECH! It is a promise from I to you that I have no hidden agenda, my only reason for sharing my thoughts is to exchange ideas and learn from other members. I’m certain that our paths will cross again and hopefully we can make some strides in understanding each other. Good luck.

Dear Amir1973, most of my last reply to Doctor41 applies to you as well. In addition I wanted to thank you for finally addressing the article that started this whole blog. In defense of myself and it goes without saying that I did not try to equate this horrendous crime as justification for previous actions of that publication. I presented my blog in a question form, meaning that although I have some ideas on the subject but I am also seeking contributions from other members to better understand the subject matter. Best of luck and looking forward in exchanging ideas in the future.

Kamal khan

That is a very sophisticated motto to live by ; but i just don't understand how you or anyone in your shoes could go about making that happen if you insist on not listening and constantly making attempts to repeat your own talking points; because  , if you really delve into it you will see that this is what really iranian people suffer from; they never listen. they just want to talk. Am i right or am i right?:)

Dear Doctor41, To my credit and by following  the posts that interest me, I can only count myself among people who have ever admitted to any mistakes or wrongdoings on this site (on several occasions) and every time I felt elated because it meant that I learned something. I’m yet to see even one case that any of our dear members accept any responsibility for their gaffes when confronted with pure FACTS and they either disappear or start verbal abuse. It is the same trend every time, no exceptions.  As for the subject of our discussion, neither of us could convince the other party so I suggested that we move on and take our chances on another subject in the future but tone of above comment hints at taking higher moral ground on your part and your expectation that I accept the case that you presented. I could demand the same thing from you based on what I presented but that’s not how it works. I respected your opinion and expect the same courtesy from you. Best Regards, Kamal.    

Kamal khan

You can give yourself all the credit in the world as it is your right and this is your party after all; however , i don't see it that way. For starters, and in the context of our discussions that we conduct over on this site, it is so absurd to make the claim that one person is "confronting" the other with FACTS!!! let alone the pure version of them. Are u kiddin' me? WHat facts? those are just your interpretation of them. Ger real bro:)

MY goal was not to convince you of anything. You have this tendency to read too much into things and totally twist them around. I swear to god, maybe that is ur strategy or something...but it is working. WHat i pointed out was one of the FLAWS in the way some iranians tend to have in the way they present their points (please make a note of that...it is very important). 

Thank you for suggesting that i am "taking the moral high ground". though i absolutely do not get how this particular term may apply to what i brought up! And you are right, you could do whatever it is you think i did, as well. 

About the respecting part...no, you did not. but that is alright, no worries. WHy? because if you had, u would not have argued with me to death about various different issues just to prove me wrong. I just don't think of that as respect for one's opinion...But what you did was asking a question, which i and everyone else answered in the best way possible.

Anywho, it was a pleasure. had not done that in a while:)

Dear Kamal,

In response to your question, no there is no hypocrisy as the journal has published cartoons about Jewish and Christian faiths too. We have the sacked guy's version of events but I think in fairness you should make the opposite side's version of the events available too. They made a business decission to sack this guy. Were they afraid of a lengthy and expensive legal case? who knows. What is important is that despite this sacking, the cartoons about the Jewish and Israel have featured in the journal. So there is no double standards.

I think the bias shown by you and amirkabear4u in ignoring the other works by this journal and portraying it as obsessed with Islam has religious tints to it.

Now, if you had said that the French government is a hypocrite I would have fully agreed with you.

Dear Doctor41, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. For the sake of our discussion, let’s forget about me taking credit for myself, What I was referring to occurred on a couple of other debates when the discussion was narrowed down to counting numbers on a specific issue which I think can be presented as FACTS since we were not discussing anything but just disagreeing on a certain number which happened to work to my advantage since the other party was way off base and after my last post never showed up again. As for goal of debates, how would you put it? I called it convincing the other party you may chose to call it something else. Come to think of it, as long as I can make a case in my debate that provokes a thinking process in the other person’s mind then I’m satisfied.  I used the term high moral ground since I believe our discussion has a strong moral element  to it, meaning marginalizing a huge population of certain faith that have nothing to do with a small groups of radicals. And in regards to respect, I treated you fairly , free of accusations and name calling but don’t forget that we are DEBATING here so of course we will have clashes of ideas which does not mean I disrespected you. On the other hand using a term like “Get real bro” definitely has some derogatory connotations. I enjoyed our exchange never the less. Best of luck.   

Dear Divaneh,

Whatever case you present regarding this specific issue is pure speculation since the paper itself never bothered to share their own reasoning for making such a strange decision by not pursuing to fight the case in the court of law on a subject that is directly connected  to what they preach!! And by adding insult to injury you accuse me of having religious tendencies when all my writings point to the opposite direction. On a broader view, I posted links to few great articles that I strongly recommend that everyone who cares to know about my tendencies on  this subject to go and read them. You will find the links to a few of them below this paragraph. Best of luck.

http://iroon.com/irtn/link/22039/

http://iroon.com/irtn/link/22042/

http://iroon.com/irtn/link/22043/

Dear Kamal,

So I was right. They were avoiding a court case. Do you understand that loosing such an expensive case could spell the end for a journal with 60,000 circulation. They could even get into a protracted case and be bankrupt before reaching the end of the case. Sarkozy would surely have much deeper pockets. As a business manager I would have made exactly the same decision because the first responsibility of the manager is to save the business. As you can see this has not prevented them from publishing further cartoons about Judaism.

I had a quick look at the link and read your description and could not see anything but the same views as you have expressed here.

Dear Divaneh,

As we say in Farsi, this is an excuse worst than the sin. Some cases are a matter of principle. Particularly when it comes down to what one represents, in this case freedom of expression. I’m an engineer and own my business. Many years ago I was wrongfully sued for negligence by a client which I had no doubt that it was baseless. I was approached by a team of attorneys who were representing the other party to settle out of court which I refused. I told myself if I’m wrong then I rather go do something else than be an engineer cause either the system sucks or I’m not a competent engineer. We ended up winning the case. Again, I’m going to be accused of putting myself on a pedestal but so be it. There is always a line where by crossing it you compromise your integrity be it business or what not. I’m ok to be called an idealist, in my book it is much, much better to be a hypocrite, particularly when it comes down to the pillar of my beliefs. I’m fully aware of what you are saying which by removing the sugarcoated layer, plain and simple,  means screw morality, long live hypocrisy in order to make a buck.  Stand back a second and tell me what is your issue with IRI? They are doing exactly the same thing just in a much, much grander scale. 

Kamal khan

Pardon me boss, but you have got me totally lost on the first half ur post. Let me just say right here that i am not aware of any such exchange of opninions between you and someone else and i really have no idea what u are getting at .

I really don't think thatyou are adopting the right approach here. In essence you are saying that your intentions are to "educate" the other party, because to evoke someone to think basically means "consider youself being educated by me" which i think is a bit arrogant. but anyway..

Bottom line is that the issue that you brought up in your post in the form of a question was properly and fully answered, but for some reason you have chosen to so skillfully and intelligently manuver ur way around accepting it as an end point and expanding it into a multitude of other subjects, calling it a Debate!!

Using the expression Get real bro is a friendly reminder, that is all it is. I have been using it all my life in the states and in iran even, with those who have spent many years living there and there is no hurt feelings or comments regarding it having "definitely" derogatory connotations. 

Dear Kamal,

One of the problems in Iran is that we have too many irrational people like you, and they make poor judghements based on the strength of their feelings. There are two options for the management. First, fighting a case with the risk of running the business to ground, bringing an end to an iconic publication and going silent for ever. Second, avert the case, publish far more cartoons about the subject and continue to have a voice. Between the two you choose the first one and I choose the second one. You are a prisoner of your feelings and react without much thinking. I look at the end result and make a decision to safeguard that future. No wonder Iran never gets anywhere.

May I have some links to Charlie Hebdo cartoons satirical about Jews?

Also some where Moses is parting his ass cheeks to be photographed would be welcome.

Meybokhor you will now be branded as an ISIS supporter for saying that and as divaneh confessed in his last comment there are too many irrational people around. 

I would have asked for even more if frontal nudity was permitted on US based sites. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1f1iIlRjU#t=350 (around the 6th min.)

Dear MBMB,

As you seem unable to do a simple search in the web, here are some links.

In this one Jesus is fucking the Pope and a triangle has been stuck in his arse. I hope that is good enough for you.

http://deadstate.org/christian-organizations-tried-to-silence-charlie-hebdo-more-often-than-muslim-ones-did/

In this one you can see a Jewish arse and another cartoon telling you that you can not stisfy a Jewish person by licking his arse.

https://twitter.com/quenellien/status/417747908142714880

If you want to see more search using the following phrases

Charlie Hebdo Juive

Charlie Hebdo Juif

Other words are Yupin, Israel, Moise, ...

I hope that has porvided you an answer. I now suggest that if you can read Persian, read my latest Persian blog to see how daft is all these Hoo Haa that you and the rest of the religious gang are making about the cartoons.

None of the links work. But are there realy links to Charlie Hebdo cartoons featuring an ass parting Moses? 

All you need to do is to paste those links to the address bar of your browser. I am not sure why the pasted link does not woork in this site.

Here is the Moses arse for you from a differnet publication.

http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/Bath%20time%20for%20Moses_63463

There are a lot more about Moses. just do your own search.

Remember, it is not Islamist against Charlie Hebdo, it is Islamist and this fascist religion against the free world.

Humourless politically correct soft Lefties need to get over themselves: