Time Magazine to Firebombed French Paper: Sorry, But You're Islamophobic and Childish
Islamists firebombed a satirical newspaper in France named Charlie Hebdo. Time magazine, on its “Global Spin” blog, uncorked outrage – against the newspaper. Time’s Paris bureau chief Bruce Crumley blamed the “insolent” newspaper for the bombing. The headline was “Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr.” Ace of Spades says the URL suggests the original title may have been even worse: "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?"
Don’t try telling Crumley that an omnidirectional print equivalent of South Park defines free speech: “As such, Charlie Hebdo has cultivated its insolence proudly as a kind of public duty—pushing the limits of freedom of speech, come what may. But that seems more self-indulgent and willfully injurious when it amounts to defending the right to scream ‘fire’ in an increasingly over-heated theater.”
Crumley began:
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?
Crumley tries to bow to the necessity for free speech, but keeps creeping back around to condemning the mockery of Islam:
It's obvious free societies cannot simply give in to hysterical demands made by members of any beyond-the-pale group. And it's just as clear that intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed—especially if their goal is to undermine freedoms and liberties of open societies. But it's just evident members of those same free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off.
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.
As for "mocking an entire faith" gratuitously, every Catholic could ask Bruce Crumley: have you ever read Time magazine? Start with Tim Padgett comparing Catholic bishops to Southern segregationists. If Crumley hates the "lame" Mohammed cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, how about the bigoted look of the "pilfering priests" art in Time magazine? That was a Tim Padgett story, too.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So when Time pokes fun of my
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:29pm.
So when Time pokes fun of my Catholic faith, it's OK to throws granades at them for being Cathic-phobic? Maybe they had it coming?
Time
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:36pm.
Is consistent.Their propaganda is the same every issue.
Islamophobia? Blaming the victim? Screw you, Time Magazine.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:40pm.
We can not allow ourselves to be intimidated by radical Islam. Islamists do NOT have the right to commit acts of violence, regardless of what their bassackwards medieval 'faith' tells them.
We must not tolerate Islamic violence and intimidation at all. We can not give an inch.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
It is men like Crumley....
Submitted by zenman1661 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:48pm.
who in a future predicted in a Sci-Fi novel will become firemen who's job it is to burn books instead of putting out fires.
Once Sharia law's current toehold in the West has expanded...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 12:25am.
...beyond the borders of Michigan and Canada, and the godless liberals are among the first rounded up and packed off to the chopping blocks, I wonder what the Crumleys of the world will be saying then?
After all, the Canadian camel-flea infested 7th Century illiterate primitives nearly got Mark Steyn packed off to the hoosegow for telling the truth about Islam not too terribly long ago.
And if you know anything about Islam, the robe, turban and sandle wearers have a much higher level of respect for the Mark Steyns of the world than for camel ass-kissing appeasers like Crumley.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Pretty wide brush there, Dave.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:44am.
You are aware that there are Canadians who are just as concerned with the Jihadists as you are, right?
...and our numbers are growing.
Those of us who think like you and I don't like our HRC's (human rights commisions -- who put Mark Steyn into a vulnerable position) any more than you do. We look to Americans for support for our common interests. I would hope that you would understand that, and that not all of us are rabid socialists.
We have, after all, elected a majority conservative government (at least they SAY they're conservative), and if you look at recent polls, you'd see that there are ever more increasing numbers who resent our current status quo regarding abortion.
All this shows that when Canadians are informed of the issue, they tend to lean Conservative. The problem is our media and our politicians. Like your media, they tend to obscure the facts, and thus generaly,the population, I'm sorry to say, are seriously uninformed... much like many Americans.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Canuck,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:10am.
I spent a couple of months in Ottawa in the mid 90s and was told repeatedly in the many nice bars downtown that ethnic and religious differences had nothing to do with the with what was happening in the former nation of Yugoslavia - it was all about land supposedly. There was even a group of very attractive young ladies fresh from the slopes that let me know that I was an uninformed American because Yugoslavia was not in the ME so there were no Muslims there.
I let it pass and changed the subject. I was on foreign soil and did I mention they were very attractive?
Eric Holder should hire this
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 12:43am.
Eric Holder should hire this loser.
Time Magazine Has Always Firebombed Journalists.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 1:44am.
I had the rare experience as a teenager in the seventy of reading every Time Magazine going back to WWII. My Grandparents were saving magazines for paper drives and never stopped for Time and the National Geographic’s went back to the Leather bound ones that my great grandfather had in his waiting room. Doctor offices did not change much in the twentieth century.
Time magazine nearly Democrat campaign literature coming out of WWII and moved left from there. If they could have lynched Joe McCarthy I believe that they would have.
Avitar, are you sure it was TIME magazine?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:26am.
The TIME magazine founded by Henry R. Luce and who served as its managing editor well into the 1960's? The Henry Luce who detested FDR and was a Republican to the bone? That TIME magazine?
Jer
Just wow
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:38am.
I would have expected an islamic apologetic ranting on behalf of the 'peaceful' half of Islam from the American media, but to out and out condemn the publication for DARING to mock this one 'untouchable' class among the many things that have been mocked, satirized, what-have-you, that was a little unexpected. To suggest they deserved it, even more so. I have always been a fan of South Park, as example, because they are equal-opportunity button-pushers, and I love that. IMO, this article is way over the top and a little disgusting and a tad scary. Are TeaParty's, then, now permitted to attack the offices of Teapartyphobic Demorat politicians and liberal rags?
"Excuse me, Time magazine, but as a conservative/libertarian, you have offended me, and as per your philosophy, the firebombing should be expected, clearly." How's that grab ya, Charlie?
Next week in Time
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 5:13am.
Rapists explain how women's dress is the REAL cause of rape.
Attended Murder?
Submitted by wouldubelieveit on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 6:33am.
If Christains would have done this kind of crap you Blankn libs would have called it attended MURDER And don't say you would, cause LIERS go to HELL
No need to comment here.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:30am.
Tim's last paragraph stole my thunder.
Thanks for pointing that out, Tim.
Oh, but I will add that if you fully extend Crumley's argument, you'd be justifying the act of Catholics firebombing Time Magazine's offices.
Wonder what Crumley would say to that. No... don't bother. I already have a good idea. That was intended to be a rhetorical question.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Catholic firebombs?
Submitted by Tim Graham on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:08am.
I would never suggest that firebombing a newspaper is in any way a proper response to crude anti-Catholic ridicule. What's maddening is that the Crumleys of the world seem to make excuses for people who actually do find it proper -- and grant no credit to Christians who believe in tolerating the insolent humorists.
Islamophobia is rampant in our country
Submitted by needle on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 11:24am.
Islamophobia constantly spews from liberals, who are terrified to call a spade a spade, and Islam a threat to peace and civilization.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
as i've maintained for years here
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:53pm.
creating a united partnership with islamic moderates is the best way out of this problem of radical islam, it fact it is inevitable
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
What does that even mean??
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:58pm.
A united partnership? Are you kidding me?? What do you mean a united partnership? There's no such thing as co-existing with Islam.
The ONLY way you can have a "partnership" with them is if you become one of them, otherwise, wear some protection around your neck.
But side-by-side with them? No way that's gonna happen.
-Jon
TM,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:06pm.
I'm sure it is well intended but their religion prevents the possibility of such a partnership and there is no division between their religion and political class.
i don't know for sure
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:32pm.
but the trend is growing...
here's a group working on it...
http://muslimchristiandialogue.org/
and here's a site about muslims becoming Christians
http://www.answering-islam.org/Testimonies/
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Muslim - Christian dialogue
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:58am.
The second is not exactly the two groups working together as it is a list of some very brave people sharing their stories on why they left Islam.
The first seems to be primarily an effort to teach Muslims enough about Western culture to be able to attend our universities. While the effort may be noble it is interesting to note how quick the Keffiyeh comes out at some university demonstrations. But if they are having success - good for them.
islamic moderates
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 8:48pm.
can be found with unicorns and leprachans.
Islamaphobia or fear of being fire-bombed
Submitted by Zepppo on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 1:00pm.
There is no justification for returning words with firebombs. But I guess this episode only proves that Islamaphobia is justified just as being scared of anything else that might kill you for a careless word or action is justified.
Is this not similar to blaming the rape victim for being raped because they did not dress appropriately?
Vets, what would you do?
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:13pm.
here are a couple of the latest videos from Libya that show why there should be a reason for Islamophobia. When they are all out to get you it isn't paranoia. Please heed the 'graphic' warning.
Vets - for a special measure the administration and the political hacks in the Pentagon have now decided to, "...publish(ed) a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify Islamic jihad by describing it as the “communal military defense of Islam and Muslims when they are threatened or under attack.”. The goal of the handbook is to create a military more 'culturally literate' of Islam which would not a bad idea if it balanced their excuses with videos like those above.
So, Crumhole, it's okay to kill Christians but not mock Muslims?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:13pm.
Last time I looked, it was not mainstream Christians who were killing converts to Islam. Last time I looked, it was not mainstream Christians who were stoning men and women for a variety of petty offenses. Last time I looked, it was not mainstream Christians who advocated beheading those who insult their religion. Last time I looked, it was not mainstream Christians who advocated pedophilia, wife-beating, execution of gay people or wanting to de-evolve back to the 11th century.
Of course, without a radical rectocraniotomy, Crumhole, it's probably easier for you to think of the walls of your rectum as reality.
dr Sam
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:04pm.
another example of the hierarchy of the protected classes (and not so protected)