"Slacktivism" and "Je Suis Charlie"

So should the French copy what the US did after 9/11 and 'bravely' bomb the shit out of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks? That worked out well..

For all these people calling others cowards, what would you do?

First:

1. The country responsible is France. Namely, the French islamic community. So they would be bombing themselves.

2. Afghanistan housed and trained Al'Qaeda. So, nice try there, but historically you haven't a pot to piss in if you think America just bombed a random country. That is just factually inaccurate.
 
First:

1. The country responsible is France. Namely, the French islamic community. So they would be bombing themselves.

2. Afghanistan housed and trained Al'Qaeda. So, nice try there, but historically you haven't a pot to piss in if you think America just bombed a random country. That is just factually inaccurate.

Didnt the gunmen get trained in Yemen!?
 
First:

1. The country responsible is France. Namely, the French islamic community. So they would be bombing themselves.

2. Afghanistan housed and trained Al'Qaeda. So, nice try there, but historically you haven't a pot to piss in if you think America just bombed a random country. That is just factually inaccurate.

1. So you don't think these terrorists were aided by anyone outside of France? That it's just 'internal' domestic terrorism? These types of terrorist attacks aren't defined by borders.

2. I don't think America bombed a 'random' country. You mention Afghanistan (a country originally radicalized by the CIA to create and fight a war with the soviets -Operation Cyclone), but what about Iraq? Shall we just forget about this whole country?!
 
1. So you don't think these terrorists were aided by anyone outside of France? That it's just 'internal' domestic terrorism? These types of terrorist attacks aren't defined by borders.

2. I don't think America bombed a 'random' country. You mention Afghanistan (a country originally radicalized by the CIA to create and fight a war with the soviets -Operation Cyclone), but what about Iraq? Shall we just forget about this whole country?!
How does the CIA go about "radicalizing" a country exactly? Agents with beards and Korans went around introducing people to islamism? Supporting the enemy of your enemy does not mean you created either of those enemies. Further the connection of the west to the radicals is very arguable and weak, especially compared to all that was really going on. Yet you present it front and center creating a massively-warped view of history.

And what's this about the cia "creating" the war? the communists started the war when they toppled the republic then invited the soviet invasion.

On point 2, Iraq was already the blatantly-obvious premise of the post he was responding too. And was about wmd's and weapon inspections, for those too young to remember. Though it did partly turn into a war against an al qaeda group.
 
How does the CIA go about "radicalizing" a country exactly? Agents with beards and Korans went around introducing people to islamism? Supporting the enemy of your enemy does not mean you created either of those enemies. Further the connection of the west to the radicals is very arguable and weak, especially compared to all that was really going on. Yet you present it front and center creating a massively-warped view of history.

And what's this about the cia "creating" the war? the communists started the war when they toppled the republic then invited the soviet invasion.

On point 2, Iraq was already the blatantly-obvious premise of the post he was responding too. And was about wmd's and weapon inspections, for those too young to remember. Though it did partly turn into a war against an al qaeda group.

The same way the CIA goes about organizing a coup and overthrowing Governments. Its well known the CIA created and distributed radical literature (including text books that were used in schools) and they are still even used today by the Taliban. Even the former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto told the US "you are creating a Frankenstein".

You're right there was already civil war between communist party and the islamic mujahideen, so I was wrong to say US created a war. I meant they funded (and radicalized) the mujahideen with the intent to drag the soviets directly into the war and give them their own vietnam.

Of course all this this happened 35 or so years ago and plenty has happened since then, but its an important part of history (like the Iraq war) that people shouldn't forget.

He made no reference to Iraq. Yes it was 'supposedly' about WMD but GWB and co tried to link Iraq to 9/11 without any evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm

Maybe the 3rd Iraq war will be against al-Qaeda.
 
This is my only account. I am surprised you don't recognize this.

Yeah. It just so happens you started an account on an MMA message board on the day the shootings occurred in France. In order to comment on those shootings.

My advice: Grow a pair. Take ownership of your convictions. The irony of a guy who is criticizing the lack of backbone in slacktivists after feeling the need to start a shadow account just to type certain political statements on the fucking internet is priceless.
 
Yeah. It just so happens you started an account on an MMA message board on the day the shootings occurred in France. In order to comment on those shootings.

My advice: Grow a pair. Take ownership of your convictions. The irony of a guy who is criticizing the lack of backbone in slacktivists after feeling the need to start a shadow account just to type certain political statements on the fucking internet is priceless.

Stop acting so dense. It isn't hard for you to figure out things. I mean, really. Seriously. It's out in the open here. The clues are right infront of you. If you want, you can even PM me to ask me. In fact, I'll do you the favour and PM you, and let's see if you're man enough to apologize after.
 
The same way the CIA goes about organizing a coup and overthrowing Governments. Its well known the CIA created and distributed radical literature (including text books that were used in schools) and they are still even used today by the Taliban. Even the former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto told the US "you are creating a Frankenstein".

You're right there was already civil war between communist party and the islamic mujahideen, so I was wrong to say US created a war. I meant they funded (and radicalized) the mujahideen with the intent to drag the soviets directly into the war and give them their own vietnam.

Of course all this this happened 35 or so years ago and plenty has happened since then, but its an important part of history (like the Iraq war) that people shouldn't forget.

He made no reference to Iraq. Yes it was 'supposedly' about WMD but GWB and co tried to link Iraq to 9/11 without any evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3119676.stm

Maybe the 3rd Iraq war will be against al-Qaeda.

As for overthrowing govt's, while it's no doubt fun to tie all the various it's-all-the-US's-fault narratives together into one, in Iran the CIA supported a monarch and a coup to restore him to power. Did they create generations of radical monarchists? If you would like to blame the US for the radical revolution that followed decades later, as I'm sure you would, then you should be blaming the USSR for the much more immediate blowback from the coup they supported in afghanistan. Conversely you could blame the soviets for the Iranian revolution because they actually supported it, quite unlike the US.

As for people being "radicalized", given the huge role of the Saudis and Pakistan, and the fact that the foreign fighters seem to be the radicals, you'll have to be more specific about how the CIA fit in. What books?

There's not much point in arguing further after someone goes "yes, supposedly but...". You've just discounted all evidence apart from that which confirms your theory.
 
Stop acting so dense. It isn't hard for you to figure out things. I mean, really. Seriously. It's out in the open here. The clues are right infront of you. If you want, you can even PM me to ask me. In fact, I'll do you the favour and PM you, and let's see if you're man enough to apologize after.

Oh I get it now

giphy.gif
 
As for overthrowing govt's, while it's no doubt fun to tie all the various it's-all-the-US's-fault narratives together into one, in Iran the CIA supported a monarch and a coup to restore him to power. Did they create generations of radical monarchists? If you would like to blame the US for the radical revolution that followed decades later, as I'm sure you would, then you should be blaming the USSR for the much more immediate blowback from the coup they supported in afghanistan. Conversely you could blame the soviets for the Iranian revolution because they actually supported it, quite unlike the US.

As for people being "radicalized", given the huge role of the Saudis and Pakistan, and the fact that the foreign fighters seem to be the radicals, you'll have to be more specific about how the CIA fit in. What books?

There's not much point in arguing further after someone goes "yes, supposedly but...". You've just discounted all evidence apart from that which confirms your theory.

Iran was an ally of the US prior to the coup and were pretty moderate. Yes the US aren't completely responsible for everything that happens after, but they laid the foundations by propping up a thug dictator and removing a moderate leader in Mohammed Mosaddegh.

Not saying the soviets weren't involved, but they weren't the ones funding, training and radicalizing the Islamic mujahideen.

As for the CIA involvement, just google Operation Cyclone. Regarding the books, again just google 'CIA textbooks Afghanistan', it's not difficult to find information on.

The reason I said 'supposedly' is because a lot of people believe the WMD reason for going to war with Iraq was a crock of shit.
 
Save...

"Talk is cheap". Do something.

Ironic to say this in a freedom of speech thread.

Besides I think you are on the fundies side on some big issues, since woman should not vote and all that.

Oh and je suis stands "I am" not "we are". The French are picky with that verb conjugation shit.
 
The slogan "Je Suis Charlie" (we are Charlie) has become something of a rallying call for the masses, both in person and on twitter, to show solidarity with the cartoonists and others murdered by the Jihadis. But in spite of how it might make the people feel to contribute in some way to the war against murderous Islamic terrorists, isn't it all mere vanity?

"Slacktivism" would usually by one of those stupid neologisms that are made up in order to sound cool, but it really seems quite apt here. The whole "Je Suis Charlie" nonsense lets people feel as if they are influencing world events, while all the time being cowards who contribute nothing, least of all the most obvious way to fight against them: publicizing the cartoons.

It is a "safe" way to protest without actually supporting the murdered, fighting the murderers, or endangering oneself in anyway. Moreover, it completely misses the point. Islam is far more dangerous than simply murdering a few cartoonists, as the Islamists have eyes upon a Europe-wide (and American) jihad whereby they systematically impose their way of life upon us.

So I ask you: Is there really any value whatsoever in silly "pencil" cartoons, placards, hashtags, and other half measures?

I think you make a lot of good points. At a certain point "Je Suis Charlie" becomes no different then people posting selfies of themselves on the internet Tebowing or "Faith Hilling" Whether consequently or purposefully, "Je Suis Charlie" will, for awhile at least, exist as the medium in which the liberal media and the global interest (the same ones that brought in third worlders to begin with, and promoted multi-culturalism, and smeared any dissenters) continue to promote and glorify multi-culturalism, diversity, and the one world mantra that "we are all one" and in this case "we are all Charlie"

Its just like the the ice bucket challenge. It starts off grass roots. A guy with ALS starts a challenge to either donate money to ALS or dump a bucket of cold water on your head. It gains some attention, its a good cause, it bridges all races and all identities, so it gets picked up by the wider media. Suddenly the ice bucket challenge is the new fad, its everywhere. All over the place people are dumping buckets of cold water on their head. Eventually it just becomes another way for people to participate in a new fad and gain a little notoriety by posting a video of themselves doing something altruistic on the internet. In the end half of the people dumping water on their head don't even know what ALS is or what ALS foundation to support, and don't donate money themselves.

Another example I can think of are the ridiculous dances like the Macarana or the Dougie that pop up every now and then. Some little fad emerges somewhere, it gets adopted and promoted by the wider media, and next thing you know some small cultural anomaly from one regional community is extended to the rest of the masses, sometimes across the world, through touchdown celebrations and internet selfies, which are always highlighted on the sports shows and daytime TV. You show a video collage of white, black hispanic, jewish, asian etc people ( if celebrities are involved all the better) all doing the dougie and that is what is promoted as culture (non-whites, third world immigrants in the West, and especially Muslims often dont relate to Western culture, so to protect their sensibilities, the media created the dougie and rap music so their could be a new culture for everybody) "Je Suis Charlie" is the new way for the media to show that there is solidarity in multi-culturalism, its Frances new culture, a culture devoted to proving the success of multi-culturalism.

In reality the oligarchs are trying to get out in front of and distract from the fact that there are religious and racial wars emerging in Western Nations, at least being waged on some sides.

Obviously, I don't mean to be dick. This is a sad time and the idea of supporting a good cause in these times is beneficial, same with the ice bucket challenge, in the end its a good cause. To be honest I'm not coming from a pessimistic standpoint but a political and ideological one. The whole Western mainstream media is jerking off to the tv ratings and internet hits they are getting in the last few days because to a degree these major events are the only thing that keep the MSM afloat. The media and political classes pushed these policies and their failure to address them continue to drive the viewers away.

These attacks were predictable. The Right and Honourable J. Enoch Powell predicted them in 1968 (edit* it was 1968, what a year for the radical left). Rivers of Blood. Its not the migrants of the day that Powell was admonishing, it was the people who were paving the way of their arrival. All in all your just another brick in the wall.

What about the free speech of the 1400 English girls in Rotterdam who were systematically groomed, drugged, raped, and prostituted by Paki rape gangs, only to be ignored by the authorities for over a decade, so as not to offend muslim sensibilities and the lie that mass foreign immigration was working? There still hasn't been a fraction of the rapers brought to justice and no accountability or consequence within the government.

The people of the Front National have been expressing their concerns with the situation in France for a long time now. Up until recently, they didn't have much of an influence in the public affairs. NF and French people of that political persuasion are with France everyday. Everyday they concern themselves with the well being of France. Before this attack FN was with France. When the media moves on to another plane crash FN will still be with France. When The media moves on to some American political gaffe FN will still be with France. When the story dies down but the problem persists the FN will still be with France. When all the world leaders go home from their photo op I am Charlie march FN will still be with France.

Free Speech never stopped the leftist media from attacking FN, discrediting FN, silencing FN when possible, and trying to destroy the FN Party from the beginning. The left in France doesn't actually believe in our kind of free speech. There are so many hate speech laws and what not that its not hard to shut down dissent.

Don't let the media who was partially behind all of this from the beginning highjack the love we have for our Nations at a time when we need to focus on Western demographics, Western birthrates, Western immigration/asylum/amnesty policies, and the realities that befall our people with some simple mantra meant to rally us behind the very cause that brought the initial threat.

Don't let the mainstream media play dumb. They knew what was afoot. Where were they when Bridget Bardot was on trial for thought crimes for criticizing muslims?

http://topconservativenews.com/2008/04/bridget-bardot-faces-fifth-thought-crimes-charges-in-france/

"French icon faces heavy fines and possible jail time for honest statement about Muslim immigrants. This is the fifth time Bridget Bardot has been prosecuted under France’s Orwellian “thought crimes” laws.

“I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population [Muslim immigrants] which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts,” Bardot said.

Prosecutors asked that the Paris court hand the 73-year-old former sex symbol a two-month suspended prison sentence and fine her 15,000 euros ($23,760) for saying the Muslim community was “destroying our country and imposing its acts”.

Prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court she was seeking a tougher sentence than usual, adding: “I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.”


Where are they in this case? You cant even have paternity tests in France.

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/02/socialist-regime-in-france-upholds-ban-on-paternity-tests/

"You are not … going to know if your really the father. Fathers face a year in prison for trying to test paternity!"

Where were they when Antoine died defending his girlfriend from a muslim who assaulted her?

1457467_468579323250882_923680423_n.jpg


I heard one guy say, "I am not Charlie, I believe in the right to bear arms and believe in shooting back"

As long as the systems in place continue to displace Western people and deprive us our sovereignties and protections we are not all Charlie...maybe Charlie the Hammer
 
Last edited:
I think you make a lot of good points. At a certain point "Je Suis Charlie" becomes no different then people posting selfies of themselves on the internet Tebowing or "Faith Hilling" Whether consequently or purposefully, "Je Suis Charlie" will, for awhile at least, exist as the medium in which the liberal media and the global interest (the same ones that brought in third worlders to begin with, and promoted multi-culturalism, and smeared any dissenters) continue to promote and glorify multi-culturalism, diversity, and the one world mantra that "we are all one" and in this case "we are all Charlie"

Its just like the the ice bucket challenge. It starts off grass roots. A guy with ALS starts a challenge to either donate money to ALS or dump a bucket of cold water on your head. It gains some attention, its a good cause, it bridges all races and all identities, so it gets picked up by the wider media. Suddenly the ice bucket challenge is the new fad, its everywhere. All over the place people are dumping buckets of cold water on their head. Eventually it just becomes another way for people to participate in a new fad and gain a little notoriety by posting a video of themselves doing something altruistic on the internet. In the end half of the people dumping water on their head don't even know what ALS is or what ALS foundation to support, and don't donate money themselves.

Another example I can think of are the ridiculous dances like the Macarana or the Dougie that pop up every now and then. Some little fad emerges somewhere, it gets adopted and promoted by the wider media, and next thing you know some small cultural anomaly from one regional community is extended to the rest of the masses, sometimes across the world, through touchdown celebrations and internet selfies, which are always highlighted on the sports shows and daytime TV. You show a video collage of white, black hispanic, jewish, asian etc people ( if celebrities are involved all the better) all doing the dougie and that is what is promoted as culture (non-whites, third world immigrants in the West, and especially Muslims often dont relate to Western culture, so to protect their sensibilities, the media created the dougie and rap music so their could be a new culture for everybody) "Je Suis Charlie" is the new way for the media to show that there is solidarity in multi-culturalism, its Frances new culture, a culture devoted to proving the success of multi-culturalism.

In reality the oligarchs are trying to get out in front of and distract from the fact that there are religious and racial wars emerging in Western Nations, at least being waged on some sides.

Obviously, I don't mean to be dick. This is a sad time and the idea of supporting a good cause in these times is beneficial, same with the ice bucket challenge, in the end its a good cause. To be honest I'm not coming from a pessimistic standpoint but a political and ideological one. The whole Western mainstream media is jerking off to the tv ratings and internet hits they are getting in the last few days because to a degree these major events are the only thing that keep the MSM afloat. The media and political classes pushed these policies and their failure to address them continue to drive the viewers away.

These attacks were predictable. The Right and Honourable J. Enoch Powell predicted them in 1968 (edit* it was 1968, what a year for the radical left). Rivers of Blood. Its not the migrants of the day that Powell was admonishing, it was the people who were paving the way of their arrival. All in all your just another brick in the wall.

What about the free speech of the 1400 English girls in Rotterdam who were systematically groomed, drugged, raped, and prostituted by Paki rape gangs, only to be ignored by the authorities for over a decade, so as not to offend muslim sensibilities and the lie that mass foreign immigration was working? There still hasn't been a fraction of the rapers brought to justice and no accountability or consequence within the government.

The people of the Front National have been expressing their concerns with the situation in France for a long time now. Up until recently, they didn't have much of an influence in the public affairs. NF and French people of that political persuasion are with France everyday. Everyday they concern themselves with the well being of France. Before this attack FN was with France. When the media moves on to another plane crash FN will still be with France. When The media moves on to some American political gaffe FN will still be with France. When the story dies down but the problem persists the FN will still be with France. When all the world leaders go home from their photo op I am Charlie march FN will still be with France.

Free Speech never stopped the leftist media from attacking FN, discrediting FN, silencing FN when possible, and trying to destroy the FN Party from the beginning. The left in France doesn't actually believe in our kind of free speech. There are so many hate speech laws and what not that its not hard to shut down dissent.

Don't let the media who was partially behind all of this from the beginning highjack the love we have for our Nations at a time when we need to focus on Western demographics, Western birthrates, Western immigration/asylum/amnesty policies, and the realities that befall our people with some simple mantra meant to rally us behind the very cause that brought the initial threat.

Don't let the mainstream media play dumb. They knew what was afoot. Where were they when Bridget Bardot was on trial for thought crimes for criticizing muslims?

http://topconservativenews.com/2008/04/bridget-bardot-faces-fifth-thought-crimes-charges-in-france/

"French icon faces heavy fines and possible jail time for honest statement about Muslim immigrants. This is the fifth time Bridget Bardot has been prosecuted under France
 
Iran was an ally of the US prior to the coup and were pretty moderate. Yes the US aren't completely responsible for everything that happens after, but they laid the foundations by propping up a thug dictator and removing a moderate leader in Mohammed Mosaddegh.

Not saying the soviets weren't involved, but they weren't the ones funding, training and radicalizing the Islamic mujahideen.

As for the CIA involvement, just google Operation Cyclone. Regarding the books, again just google 'CIA textbooks Afghanistan', it's not difficult to find information on.

The reason I said 'supposedly' is because a lot of people believe the WMD reason for going to war with Iraq was a crock of shit.

The CIA didn't remove anyone in Iran. They provided support for Iranians who did. Very important difference. If this game of boiling things down to stereotypes known as social sciences was a real science, you would have to actually prove causality by a controlled experiment, see what happens in Iran with and without CIA involvement. Instead we are left with a guessing game. We know they tried to make a coup happen and one happened--in between multiple other coups and revolutions that went on there. Yesterday I did a rain dance to try and make it rain and it worked too. A US govt stupid enough to believe they have the power to make worlds is also stupid enough to believe that when something they tried to make happen, actually happens, that they accomplished it. Meanwhile real enemies of the US survive for decades, where's the CIA and the infinite power of its cash-filled-suitcases?

A much better way to word things is a claim that without the cia, it wouldn't have happened. At least this claim, while still going beyond what is proven, doesn't mislead one into imagining cia operatives kicking down doors and seizing thrones. For example, historians believe the american revolution would likely not have succeeded without French support, yet no one says the french overthrew the british. Such wording also implies the need for more than just evidence that they "played a role".

As for Afghanistan, yes we all know about operation cyclone. Sans the part about radicalization. Considering you claim quite a big beyond the mainstream narrative about it, I think you need a bit more than just evidence that, again, they simply played a role.
 
The CIA didn't remove anyone in Iran. They provided support for Iranians who did. Very important difference. If this game of boiling things down to stereotypes known as social sciences was a real science, you would have to actually prove causality by a controlled experiment, see what happens in Iran with and without CIA involvement. Instead we are left with a guessing game. We know they tried to make a coup happen and one happened--in between multiple other coups and revolutions that went on there. Yesterday I did a rain dance to try and make it rain and it worked too. A US govt stupid enough to believe they have the power to make worlds is also stupid enough to believe that when something they tried to make happen, actually happens, that they accomplished it. Meanwhile real enemies of the US survive for decades, where's the CIA and the infinite power of its cash-filled-suitcases?

A much better way to word things is a claim that without the cia, it wouldn't have happened. At least this claim, while still going beyond what is proven, doesn't mislead one into imagining cia operatives kicking down doors and seizing thrones. For example, historians believe the american revolution would likely not have succeeded without French support, yet no one says the french overthrew the british. Such wording also implies the need for more than just evidence that they "played a role".

As for Afghanistan, yes we all know about operation cyclone. Sans the part about radicalization. Considering you claim quite a big beyond the mainstream narrative about it, I think you need a bit more than just evidence that, again, they simply played a role.

"The CIA didn't remove anyone in Iran"
This is wrong. I suggest you read 'All the Shahs men' for an account of what actually happened and the CIA's involvement.

Oh and I'm not claiming anything. You're just making a lot of assumptions.
 
"The CIA didn't remove anyone in Iran"
This is wrong. I suggest you read 'All the Shahs men' for an account of what actually happened and the CIA's involvement.

Oh and I'm not claiming anything. You're just making a lot of assumptions.

Did you read my post or just the part you quoted?

The first paragraph of the wikipedia page for that book says it discusses a coup where the Prime minister was overthrown by Islamists, and described the US's role as supporting. Anyway books are poor sources as they are not peer reviewed even to the pathetic degree wikipedia is.

You claimed that the CIA radicalized Afghanistan, no?

Insisting that metaphorical language (which is by definition just broad analogies) is the truth does not move the argument forward.

Would you prefer to go back to the Iraq war? Do you actually think a history professor who summarizes the war as being a response to 911 is accurately describing history to his students? Versus say a claim that it happened as a result of an incorrect claim about wmd's?
 
"Slacktivism" is a new word for an old trend:

Performing a token action to feel as if one is contributing, while doing virtually nothing at all.

It's like wearing a poppy on what used to be called Armistice day. It means nothing, and yet people feel they are doing something meaningful by contributing.

Well, wearing that poppy usually means you have actually paid for the poppy, which does help the veterans. We call it Remembrance Day here in Canada and to get a poppy you usually must pay a quarter, though people often give much more. I usually put around $100 in to get mine.
 
Just saw the policeman killed in this incident was named Ahmed. Guess there was at least 1 Muslim against this.
 
Back
Top