It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

‘I AM NOT CHARLIE’: Leaked Newsroom Emails Reveal Al Jazeera Fury over Global Support for Charli

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:40 PM
I thought it was a message to France for 'recognizing' the Palestinian nation.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:49 PM

originally posted by: anarchychaos56
a reply to: Stormdancer777

It seems my posts aren't lined up to the correct source. Having said that, I was hopeful when I found this site. Finally a site that looked at all angles, but as it turns out there is the usual zio control system to silence any questioning of the zionist control of our media, our banking, our alphabet agencies, the military industrial complex and our goverment. Recall the 29 standing ovations our prostitute politicians gave bibi. My bad, the status quo is here too.
There were no Arabs caught high fiving while filming the 9/11 attack it was Israelis. These bastar..d s need to be wiped from the earth. Satanists....

This is my last post on this WIMPY WEBSITE...

Yeah say what you like about Arabs or blacks, oh but god forbid you say anything about the real elephant in the room the Zionists....

Don't let the door hit you in the back. Oh and don't forget the elephant in the room you brought with you.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:51 PM
I'm not seeing anything to be concerned about. No attempt at justification. The cartoons offended Muslims, there's no way around that. I don't see what's wrong with stating that both the cartoons and the attack offended them. They don't want to be Charlie, that doesn't mean they want to be the terrorists either. It doesn't even mean they are trying to limit speech, it's clear they don't want that, they just don't want to be Charlie.

posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:56 PM
a reply to: Kali74

No kidding.

What the hell did Charlie do that was admirable, or is this all about drawing some arguably racist cartoons?

I'd rather identify with that cop that got shot.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:12 AM
a reply to: TheArrow

Me too and it's not that I don't find it sad that people died for what they said, no one should die for that... no one should have to lose a loved one for that. I just don't feel honest in saying I'm Charlie, when I feel so strongly against everything they ever said regardless of whom or what they were satirizing. Personally, I'd rather say I am Free Speech.

Je suis la liberté d'expression

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:22 AM
I would say yes, this was an attack on core European values. You do not need to agree with them to give them the Freedom to have their voice heard. This attack was about stifling that voice, stifling by violence a voice simply because it was disagreed with.

That is against core French values.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:33 AM

originally posted by: TheArrow
a reply to: Kali74

No kidding.

What the hell did Charlie do that was admirable, or is this all about drawing some arguably racist cartoons?

I'd rather identify with that cop that got shot.

Charlie Hebdo went after every religions. I don't think they qualify as racist. Maybe realist.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:40 AM
I think his email was pretty mild and logical, except for the flat out denial that this was an attack on free speech. It was a news organization. Yes, based on satire, but a publication nonetheless. When you attack ONE, you attack ALL by matter WHAT they say.

edit on 11-1-2015 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 12:48 AM
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Yes, I agree. This was definitely an attack on Free Speech. Otherwise, feel free to think Charlie is disgusting, I definitely do not feel they represent me.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:09 AM

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I think it is backhanded crap.

Yes, clearly it was a “punishment”

Really? By saying it is punishment it gives a sense that justice was served.

So Salah-Aldeen Khadr in some way or maybe even completely you agree with the murders.

Khadar obviously finds the cartoons offensive and I find the article offensive the difference if she/he was killed over it I would never think justice was in any way severed.

Putting the word "punishment" in quotation marks gave the sense that the writer meant that the attack was a punishment in the eyes of the attackers. I don't see where It was expressed that the writer of that email considered that attack to be a punishment.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:36 AM
a reply to: BuzzCory

So I guess the writer can see the attackers point of view.

If the writer doesn't know the attackers then the writer would be empathizing with them.

I don't think I have ever been able to empathize with a terrorist.

Quotation marks or not I think the writer used the word "punishment" calculatively.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 01:39 AM

why bring up the Jews

A few facts that are being swept under the carpet :
A previous employee at Charley Hebdo was indiscriminately fired for
illustrating a cartoon lampooning jews, claiming that the cartoon was anti-semetic.
Mr.Siné sued charley hebdo and won for wrongful dismissal,
proving that charely hebdo is NOT defending freedom of speech but
actually has a biased political agenda.

The magazine's editor, Philippe Val, ordered Siné to write a letter of apology or face termination. The cartoonist said he would rather "cut his own balls off," and was promptly fired. Both sides subsequently filed lawsuits, and in December 2010, Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against his former publisher for wrongful termination.


Siné received death threats from the Jewish Defense League.
Direct threats as :
"20 centimeters of stainless steel in the gut, that should teach the bastard to stop and think."

Mr. Siné went on to publish his own weekly unbiased lampoon called
Siné Hebdo

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:26 AM

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well.

Kind regards

Salah-Aldeen Khadr
​Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English

And why on earth would these so-called "moderate" people be offended if they were indeed so moderate ?

It's a damn cartoon, rise above it!!

Screw Al-Jazeera.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:53 AM
having grown up in a time when monty python ruled and politically incorrect comedians ruled ,i see the pictures portrayed by charlie as pure comedy and comedy genius at that.

seriously if your offended by a cartoon you are a very weak soul indeed and that goes to any muslim that is offended by a cartoon ,,geez this is 2015 not the middle-ages ..i dont care if its your prophet grow a real back bone...seems to me you have deep mental disorders if you are offended by a cartoon ...

no religon has a right to dictate what i can and cannot do ,and any religon that tries to needs to be challenged.

if that makes me an infidel like charlie then bring it on al-jazzera for i am charlie to.

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:07 AM
a reply to: ToneDeaf

Whether Charlie Hebdo is interested in Fair Speech is not the point. Free Speech does not have to include satire on everyone. The attackers attacked FREE speech, not fair speech, when they decided anyone using free speech to depict Islamic figures satirically need to be killed, sending the message that no one in France can exercise Free speech on topics Muslims say no to.
edit on 11-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:25 AM
It reads very much like Al Jazera is trying to play a bit of 'good cop' to ISIS' 'bad cop' routine. A tone just empathetic enough to sound innocuous, but an underlying message of "you brought this upon yourself and paid for it... next time just do what we/they say and don't have to pay again."

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:05 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Where they make some reasonable points, and use it to cover up other less reasonable positions. That way if you disagree it seems like you are disagreeing with some pretty reasonable things, when in fact you are not.
edit on 11-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:20 AM
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Was this really an attack on “Free speech”? Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?

Yes. Really.

How is a "journalist" not able to understand this?

Danger in making this a free speech aka “European Values” under attack binary is that it once again constructs European identity in opposition to Islam (sacred depictions) and cements the notion of a European identity under threat from an Islamic retrograde culture of which the attackers are merely the violent tip of the iceberg (see the seeping of Far Right discourse into french normalcy with Houellebecque’s novel for example)

Wrong. Has this guy ever been to any european country?

"European values" =/= "European identity".

What is happening here right now (I can only speak for Germany though) is a display of solidarity among europeans of various ethnicities AND religions - including Muslims and even Atheists - against radical fundamentalists.
edit on 11-1-2015 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:44 AM
a reply to: DJMSN

I really think it is sad that these days we are not grown up enough to take a bit of stick, whether intended in a jocular or harmful manner, without running for cover. I further object to "the State", which ever state it is, deciding which books I can or cannot read most especially if the decision is made on the basis of a supposed sleight to a religion whether my own or not.

Surely we have progressed far enough to recognise that we do not all worship the same deity, or any deity in some cases, and that no one religion is "right". Is not the suppression of a book because it "takes God's name in vain 15 times and uses Jesus's name lightly." , just as bad as a missionary telling a tribe that worships the another deity that they are wrong? Is that not just as offensive to that tribe?

I believe that all people have the right to believe in a Deity or Deities if they so choose or to not believe in any such higher power, but I also believe that it is the right of any other person to chose not to believe them. HOWEVER whilst I think it is wrong to mock another's belief it is also inevitable and the suppression of such mockery should be endured on the basis that to suppress such mockery or other supposed sleight is to eschew the removal of the freedom of speech. As far as I am concerned the attempt by other religions to change my point of view to theirs is just as much mocking my beliefs.

People need to grow up and stop looking for the State or any other organisation to defend their indefensible beliefs, no matter what those beliefs may be. Money is not the root of all evil. That accolade should be laid on religion.
edit on 11/1/2015 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:54 AM
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I actually agree with him. He's not trying to shunt reliable reporting but is putting it to context. It was a horrible horrible act by these men but the company taunted known mass murders like they were asking for it. He does condemn the act, he just asks for everyone to not be biased about it. And I do think after the threats received how could they not expect these monsters that chop heads off of innocent ppl to come for them? I agree we should not ever have to worry about free speech, but this world today is screwed up and caution should be taken until the problem is fixed.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in