Posted on 01/07/2015 2:35:26 PM PST by Olog-hai
On “America’s Newsroom,” Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.) reacted to the deadly terror attack on the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper and called out the “cowardly” English-speaking media. […]
Peters said that no publication in the English-speaking world had the guts to take on Islamic fanaticism and mock Islamic fanatics as Charlie Hebdo did.
“The correct response to this attack, by all of us in journalism … if we had guts, those cartoons would be reprinted on the front page of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times tomorrow. They won't be. Brave journalists died and cowardly ones will profit.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
Well, Ralph, they have no guts and even if they did they are more likely to side with the terrorists.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3244515/posts
Look at the NY Times reponse. Incredible crap.
Where is Pope Urban II when you need him?
Capitulating means not doing something you were going to do. It does not mean backing down from bullies trying to force you to do something you never wanted to do in the first place.
You did not like my comparison simply because you know you would not reprint a Jesse Jackson racist rant. It is just an example chosen because it was something I figured you would find repulsive. Replace it with anything of your own choice so long as it is something you do not want and never will want to print. That is the issue. No one is obligated BEFORE or AFTER to print or not to print. It is not the printing. It is the murder that is the issue.
Propagandists…GUTS? Wake up Ralph. They only have an agenda.
Unfortunately Global Terror's war on us... not so much.
There's a picture of Obama taken today where he just looks stricken. The question is, does he look that way because the scales are falling from his eyes and he is beginning to see Islam for what it really is - or because being a good pol he sees that this will have a bad effect on his ideological agenda? (I have my opinion.)
![](http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/01/07/obama-france-newspaper-attackjpeg-0f89c_s877x617.jpg?d10cdd630b7deb0fa65ab6aa78b69c406e85147a")
I don’t think you have to show the cartoons for people to understand that savage mass murder is wrong.
If they murdered Hugh Hefner because of his Playboy magazine would all news organization be required to print the porn? I don’t think so. People can get the idea. Those who print it before will print it after and vice versa
“Capitulating means not doing something you were going to do.”
No, it doesn’t, so if your argument is based on that, you may need to go back to the drawing board:
ca·pit·u·la·tion
2 a : the act of surrendering or yielding
b : the terms of surrender
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitulation
capitulate
1.
to surrender unconditionally or on stipulated terms.
2.
to give up resistance:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitulate
So, the Muslims demand that you do not depict their prophet, under threat of violence. If we accede to their demands, surrender to their demands, cease resistance to their demands, then that’s capitulation.
“You did not like my comparison simply because you know you would not reprint a Jesse Jackson racist rant.”
No. The situation where there is some organized conspiracy to suppress a racist rant by Jesse Jackson under threat of violence doesn’t exist, and there is no foreseeable set of conditions where a person would think it might come to exist. So it’s just a fantasy, and it is silly to try to compare a fantasy like that to the real world.
“Replace it with anything of your own choice so long as it is something you do not want and never will want to print. That is the issue. No one is obligated BEFORE or AFTER to print or not to print. It is the murder that is the issue.”
They aren’t murdering for the sake of murder, they are murdering in order to get us to surrender to their wishes, to do what they want us to do. That’s the essence of terrorism.
So, if you say “well, I didn’t want to do that anyway”, it may be true, but they will still claim victory and walk away believing that their terror tactics caused us to do their wishes. That’s why I think it’s important, if only as a matter of principle, to refuse their demand and show them the futility of their tactics. Besides simply hunting them down and exterminating them, I don’t know how else to discourage their barbarity, except by showing them that it will never work.
:)
THESE PICTURES ARE great !!!
They don’t even bother to interview victims, relatives, or someone directly impacted by the violence. Nope, let’s get our reporters out first thing to get quotes from random Muslims about “islamophobia”.
Shameless.
and not just once, every damn day. don’t like it, leave.
all’we’gotta do is convince the liberals muslims are conservative christians and they’ll do it willingly in a heartbeat.
Yep! But they don’t..and I hope they don’t know where you live, gal!
I thought the UK Telegraph used to be better than a clone of the NY Times.
ENJOY the movie! The second picture you posted could have come from this link?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/eBEU-OiEvII
Yup. Just heard a Muslim call into Michael Medved, acknowledge that videos of the attack clearly recorded the attackers shouting “Allah Akbar!” and “mohammed is avenged!” but the caller insisted the attack had nothing to do with religion, it was just some guys pissed off about something.
Perfecto.
THAT ^^ needs to be slapped over EVERY one of those stinking bumper stickers.
LOVE the piggies!
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.