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

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thanks for posting that. It goes right to the heart of Al Jazeera's bias and agenda. People complain about FOX and MSNBC but then, strangely, go to praise the garbage coming out of RT, Press-TV and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera has bias and agenda, and it is not anything that freedom loving people want.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

The quote in the OP ignores the fact that the religion of the terrorists frequently advocates the "justified" killing of infidels. That is why the cartoons existed in the first place, past acts of mass killings by terrorists that have religion as its common denominator. That religion in many of its forms and practices is quite simply a barbaric religion and has no place in the modern world. It is wanting to set the clock back and that is not going to happen.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Al Jazeera is some of the best and most in depth reporting in the world... can't have that now can we?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Thanks for posting that. It goes right to the heart of Al Jazeera's bias and agenda. People complain about FOX and MSNBC but then, strangely, go to praise the garbage coming out of RT, Press-TV and Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera has bias and agenda, and it is not anything that freedom loving people want.

true that, ff, true

a reply to: Kali74
It's biased and full of agenda ... just like the rest.
The OP leaked memo is more evidence of it.

originally posted by: MrMaybeNot

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.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not you believe they were racist. That is why I said "arguably racist".

If the question is, whether I consider what he wrote reasonable, then no. Caricatures and cartoons are often not funny, not respectful, not politically correct, but straight to the point in capturing a host of data and trends in one or several pictures. For example, in BC, a political cartoonist published a picture of Bill Vander Zalm pulling the wings of flies, for his massive abuse of the poor and his nastiness. Now, to get a true idea of things, you don't ask the unaffected, you'd have to interview huge percentages of the poor who all agreed. Well that cartoonist was charged and possibly sentenced. Cannot remember the full details of the outcome after all these years, but remember the heat of the debate.

I wrote up a piece in the town paper, it for English but I had a few pieces in the paper. In any case, its a very important and very valuable service to humanity to point out whats in our face, and in a rude disturbing manner, as often IS THE CASE with caricatures, poke people with a stick. That is the point of them.

And YES, they are true freedom of speech.

a reply to: ToneDeaf

Thank you for sharing that information.
I think that's rather important to include in the overall equation, since every MSM outlet is screaming "freedom of speech", which this very sad incident have little to do with.

...the double standards...



source

independent extreme provocateurs, not agenda driven ? Of course, it is still not OK to kill anyone, over a freakin' cartoon

Carictatures are not by definition polite, politically correct, but instead their sole purpose is to point out in glaring shocking and disturbing clarity what is wrong with the world, or point out flaws in people's belief systems, and rock the boat, shake the tree. And disturb some people. That is their duty and purpose, and its a very necessary one, and is the backbone of what free speech means. ie. yes, free speech even extends to that role.

a reply to: kloejen

Well its not double standards as far as the caricatures go, as that one is also showing a pointed truth. All sides use them. And they point out what needs to be said.

a reply to: kloejen

Once again they did draw about Jews and Christians

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
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.

I'm left of center, and I do not agree at all.....who are these "many on ATS" that agree with Al Jazeera?...and where is this "lot of love"? I don't see it....by the way, the HB publication skewers western Christians, western leaders, western Icons of many different cultural areas....you do not see them going out and murdering the people that write about them....

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

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.

Absolutely.
I get the point about standing together for free speech and not being intimidated and swayed by the threat of violence and showing solidarity against terrorism... so I get that and I support that.
But I am definitely not Charlie and think many of the cartoons were offensive.... I still support them, their campaign and their right to draw the cartoons.

For heavens sake! I tune into Al Jazeera several times a day! It's just the news! Only without all the goofball wanna-be celebrities on CNN, and the constant personal editorializing like fox and MSNBC, and the others.

Most of time it's actual journalism, which is hard to find anymore. A dying profession.


Agenda? You think Al Jazeera has 'agendas'? The others have agendas so large they slap you in the face the minute you tune in. I know you all know that, you're no dummies. Al Jazeera simply *reports the news*.

Okay, I am doing an experiment right now, in real time.

CNN: Showing the news in France with (sounds like Fareed Zacharia narrating) and I really like him though, he's typically only on, on Sunday.) He just said the entire Islam population needs to rise up and protest these killings. (Fareed is from India, born into a Muslim family). Nobody would know that unless you watched the program about his biography.

MSNBC: A talk show talking about the movie "Selma", and we all need to remember MLK, Jr.

FOX: can't find fox news. Wish my TV had a 'search function'.
Okay, found it. They are talking about football.

Al Jazeera America: Covering marches in France with 1.5 million people marching. Narrated by a Qutar University Professor. He is concerned that democracy could become undervalued.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
‘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:
...
Salah-Aldeen Khadr
​Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English

Uh, are we even sure this leaked email is legitimate?
Salah-Aldeen Khadr on LinkedIn

Editor
Al Jazeera English
June 2011 – Present (3 years 8 months)

Al Jazeera English
Executive Producer
Al Jazeera English
June 2010 – June 2011 (1 year 1 month)

Furthermore, the National Review is the source...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

What do I think?

I think they ask some good questions - and of course, by asking good questions people question their motives

Stormdancer - I want to ask you a question since this is your thread: If someone questions the work of Charlie Hebdo , or questions the I am Charlie movement, does that mean they support terrorism?

Does it mean they endorse the murders of those people killed at Charlie Hebdo ?

Is questioning any of it somehow a threat to western civilization - or our ways...

Our love and defense of freedom of speech is the only point

Charlie Hebdo was incredibly offensive and provocative - I can simultaneously support their right to say what they said - without supporting what they said

Some of it was on target and brilliant. Much of it was nothing but vile bigotry. Is there a difference in your mind? Should we be quiet now - and never question satire?

Do you think that because I call out Charlie Hebdo for it's bigotry that I have an agenda and actually support terrorism?

Should we all march now in lockstep - again - because supporting Charlie Hebdo is the same thing as fighting terrorism ?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Not so much. I think it's only there if one inserts it there.

a reply to: blupblup

I also support the right to draw offensive cartoons but I don't support drawing offensive cartoons. A lot of people won't be able to make sense of that statement.

a reply to: Greven

Interesting... I've become lazy about checking things before commenting. Time to stop that. Still... the letter as written is not what it's being made out to be. It's honest without making excuses.