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

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

As journalists worldwide reacted with universal revulsion at the massacre of some of their own by Islamic jihadists in Paris, Al Jazeera English editor and executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr sent out a staff-wide email

www.nationalreview.com...

FULL LEAKED EMAIL EXCHANGE:

Executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr:

Thursday, January 08, 2015
Subject: AJ coverage of events in Paris

Dear Editorial colleagues,

Please accept this note in the spirit it is intended – to make our coverage the best that it can be …. We are Al Jazeera!!!!

My suggestion is that we question and raise the following points in our coverage – studio/anchors/guests/correspondents:

This was a targeted attack, not a broad attack on the french population a la Twin towers or 7/7 style. So who was this attack against? The whole of France/EU society? Or specifically this magazine. The difference lies in how this is reported not in how terrible the act is obviously – murder is murder either way… but poses a narrower question of the “why”? attack on french society and values? Only if you consider CH’s racist caricatures to be the best of European intellectual production (total whitewash on that at the moment)

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?

“I am Charlie” as an alienating slogan – with us or against us type of statement – one can be anti-CH’s racism and ALSO against murdering people(!) (obvious I know but worth stating)

Also worth stating that we still don’t know much about the motivations of the attackers outside of the few words overheard on the video. Yes, clearly it was a “punishment” for the cartoons, but it didn’t take them 8/9 years to prep this attack (2006 was Danish/CH publication) – this is perhaps a response to something more immediate…French action against ISIL…? Mali? Libya? CH just the target ie focus of the attack..?

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)

The key is to look at the biographies of these guys – contrary to conventional wisdom, they were radicalised by images of Abu Ghraib not by images of the Prophet Mohammed

You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.

This is a clash of extremist fringes…

I suggest a re-read of the Time magazine article back from 2011 and I have selected the most poignant/important excerpt….

world.time.com...://world. time.com/2011/11/02/firebombed-french-paper-a-victim-of-islamistsor-its-own-obnoxious-islamophobia/?iid=gs-article-mostpop1

It’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists.

Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn’t bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk, taking a goading stand on a principle virtually no one contests is worse than pointless: it’s pointlessly all about you.

Kind regards


Salah-Aldeen Khadr
​Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English

What do you think?

With huge rally that was planned soon to begin, and many world leaders attending.

Thoughts?

Some things in the article are just common sense, however heartbreaking the attack was...

But most of it was lunacy to be honest.


& that's what people will take away from this.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

There is a lot of love for these extremists lately, I would expect many on ATS to agree with Al Jazeera. Apparently murder to most is justifiable in todays day and age.

I find it sad as a whole - not justifiable.

The monkeys are getting restless. Too much tension in the forest.
Somebody is likely to lose it and chunk the first coconut.
There will then be much hooting and hollering.

Honestly? I don't object to the things he said. He made many good points. We do have the right to do what we want, and sometimes we do things that are indeed, infantile.

I also agree it does resemble a clash between "two extremists". But the word "clash" minimizes the reality of what happened.

He says "We are Al Jeezera". Well, Indeed they are.

The difference is, one group made fun of the other, and the other slaughtered them in an ambush, consequently giving them no time to fight back. Completely unacceptable. Maybe an infantile action, but the re-action was absolute evil.

Thanks for the comments so far, I think I will just read them for now, really out of things to say.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Well...I agree to an extent of the coverage thus far in the media as far as painting it an issues of free speech. The cartoons in question are a of a off color slant that would normally be condemned, especially within the US as far the "PC" world we live in.

They do and should have the right to publish the cartoons. Most that I have seen are not making fun of the Islamic religion but the cowardly terrorist and how they use the Prophet Mohammed to hide behind, offensive ? Yes to some but most take them for what they are, a satire of extremism. I am sure if a national magazine in the states on a regular basis were to publish cartoons depicting Christ in the same manner that they would have some protesters out front.

This should not become the "Poster" event for free speech but instead another event in a long list against the killing of people because of radical ideas and beliefs. Hopefully the press embraces the facts and explores not only the free speech angle but more of the heart of the issues and the differences that are dividing the world as a whole.

What needs to be noted is, no one outside the two brothers has claimed responsible for this.

Normally terror cells are quick to come forward and claim responsible because something something....(Darkside).

The brothers cause is still foggy IMO.

Also the size, cause or casualties of an event is not what determines if you should support or rally, it's the very act.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Thanks for the comments so far, I think I will just read them for now, really out of things to say.

Say "Yeeeeehaawwww!" as loud as you can. I promise you will feel better.

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.

a reply to: DJMSN

picture

is worth

a thousand words

It is free speech, and its not just in the west that people are practicing it.

PS, Daesh is the arabic acronym for ISIS.

a reply to: Grimpachi

i noticed that as well

a reply to: DJMSN

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....

originally posted by: anarchychaos56
a reply to: DJMSN

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....

The French Cartoonist did satire of all three faith, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I seen some of the Christian ones today pretty raunchy stuff

I feel a big divide building up... Today I fixed the computer of my landlord who is muslim and asked him what he thought about what happened in France. The first thing he told me is that Charlie Hebdo looked for trouble and got served. He argued that they didn't respect the prophet Muhammad, got warned to stop or else and they kept going.

I get the feeling that a lot of Muslims feel like that. Even if most Muslim associations are condemning the attack, I don't think they really have empathy for anyone that died on that day, except of Ahmed the Muslim cop...

And I don't like this at all...

a reply to: MrMaybeNot

Its weird because I see the same thing, a very big divide coming.. and it will effect our very freedom if we are not careful. We are becoming more and more polarized by these issues by the day, and freedom looses more ground daily.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

Free Speech is in danger everywhere because of religion. Here is a list of books challenged or banned from libraries in the US.

1. The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2. The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
3. The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
5. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
6. Ulysses, by James Joyce
7. Beloved, by Toni Morrison
8. The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding
9. 1984, by George Orwell

www.ala.org...

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

Challenged as a summer youth program reading assignment in Chattanooga, TN (1989) because "Steinbeck is known to have had an anti business attitude." In addition, "he was very questionable as to his patriotism." Removed from all reading lists and collected at the White Chapel High School in Pine Bluff, AR (1989) because of objections to language.

Challenged, but retained, in the Bryant, AR school library (1998) because of a parent's complaint that the book "takes God's name in vain 15 times and uses Jesus's name lightly."

Religion is used around the globe to justify censorship and this is of course wrong. I did not mean to imply that it wasn't free speech on the part of the french magazine but I do believe it is religion what it is really all about. We have seen violence from radicals from all religions to include Islam, Buddhist, Christianity and many others so its not free speech that is the problem but our twisted beliefs. I am in no way offering an excuse for the criminal behavior of these terrorist, I would like to see religion as the answer to problems instead of the cause of so many.

a reply to: anarchychaos56

hate a jew because a Muslim terrorist killed a cartoonist? That is a stretch at best.

Was the cartoonist a jew? No. Was the Muslim extremist a jew? No.

So why bring up the Jews - completely off topic? I guess what we hate must then become part of every conversation or what?

a reply to: DJMSN

My response would be off topic, so I messaged you.