IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Understood, but I disagree.
No-one died for Piss Christ.

Twelve people died for the Charlie Hebdo cover.

It's craven and cowardly to take the advert hits and sales that will come as a result of publishing the Charlie Hebdo story without publishing what the actual fuck those twelve people died for.

New Yes, seems quite the ostrich position: both vulgar and vulnerable.
New Yeahbut...
We've been talking about "the cover" - the reason cited for the attack was "disrespecting the prophet" and the like. It wasn't one particular cartoon, AFAIK, though I haven't checked carefully...

Charlie Hebdo apparently republished the Dutch cartoons in 2006 and the firebombing was in 2011. They've been a target of the violent kooks for a long time.

12 people died there because they were shot-up by deranged gunmen who used religion as a reason. We shouldn't necessarily take their proclaimations as the truth, though. Perhaps they are looking for ratcheting up of laws against Muslims in France and the EU that they can point to as "western attacks on Islam" and thereby increase recruitment. Thus feeding into their desire to make this a religious conflict will help their aims....

The post-attack cover was certainly newsworthy, but I don't see not publishing it as being cowardly or selling out or something. There were were reasonable reasons not to, and it was easily available elsewhere. I doubt that the NY Times's traffic changed much as a result of their reporting.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New You're reaching and you know it :)
New Danish, not Dutch.
     Islamists win again. - (mmoffitt) - (29)
         Holy Cow. The NY Post is more responsible than the NY Times? - (mmoffitt) - (14)
             Why? - (Another Scott) - (13)
                 Here's why. - (mmoffitt)
                 I actually agree with mmoffit on this one - (drook) - (10)
                     Understood, but I disagree. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                         Hmm ... this is interesting - (drook) - (2)
                             Yup. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Re: It's not going to make ISIL or AQAP change their behavior. - (mmoffitt)
                         Re: Understood, but I disagree. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                             Yes, seems quite the ostrich position: both vulgar and vulnerable. -NT - (Ashton)
                             Yeahbut... - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 You're reaching and you know it :) -NT - (pwhysall)
                                 Danish, not Dutch. -NT - (CRConrad)
                     A rare subject heading indeed. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 The Charlie Hebdo paper is selling out like crazy. - (a6l6e6x)
         With fundamentalists, idiocy abounds! - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
             Tilt! -NT - (mmoffitt)
         So what did you think of the New Yorker cover in 2008? - (static) - (4)
             I understand that. And the article contains BS. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                 so the first ammendment is tango uniform? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     You mean it isn't? Where's the Hebdo drawing on CNN/NY Times/etc. sic nauseum. -NT - (mmoffitt)
             Thanks.. principled and illuminating. - (Ashton)
         More on Charlie and France... - (Another Scott) - (6)
             In a perfect world ... - (drook) - (2)
                 Interesting. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     Remember that "devil in the details" bit? - (drook)
             The Continental way - (scoenye) - (2)
                 Thanks for the confirmation of what I thought was the case. - (a6l6e6x)
                 Re: on the map... - (Another Scott)

Our job is to take as much of the beer flavor out of the water as we can without getting a customer revolt.
80 ms