People will lie about being democratic to gain power with no intention of implementing democracy. People will lie about being socialist to gain power with no intention of implementing socialism. People lie. Yes, it’s that simple.
(I should start by saying that Palestine always has the right to use violence against Israel as long as Israel continues to occupy stolen Palestinian land. This is true even according to international law and the international community. People living on stolen property are never innocent. Unfortunately, Palestinians don’t have an organized state or military powerful enough to rid themselves of the illegal occupying power.)
This is what actually happened leading up to the 2014 Gaza massacre:
“Something had to be done, and an occasion arose on June 12, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. Early on, the Netanyahu government knew that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie.
One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”
The 18-day rampage after the kidnapping, however, succeeded in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7.
Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.”
Hamas denied responsibility for the attacks, but many headlines would eventually say that Hamas claimed responsibility for the attacks. Examples:
However, when one actually reads the articles, one quickly realizes that Hamas did not claim responsibility:
Aruri said the operation to abduct the teens was not approved by the Hamas leadership or its military wing, the Qassam Brigades.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who is in exile in Qatar, denied knowledge of the abduction but praised its perpetrators.
Being from a dissident clan from the same region, the real perpetrators of the crime likely had weak ties to Hamas. Some of them might have been members of Hamas in the past.
The man, Hussam Qawasmeh, 41, part of a sprawling clan in the West Bank city of Hebron with ties to the militant Islamist Hamas movement, was convicted last week of handling $60,000 in five installments from the Gaza Strip to buy two cars, two M-16 rifles and two pistols for use in the operation. In September, Israeli troops cornered and killed the two men they believe carried out the kidnapping and murders: Marwan Qawasmeh, 29, a relative of Mr. Qawasmeh’s, and Amer Abu Aisha, 33.
Having ties or former association with Hamas does not mean Hamas was responsible. Hamas praising the act does not mean Hamas carried out the act.
Likewise, the fact that some of the alleged suspects behind the Paris attacks have/had some affiliation with the Islamic State is still not proof that the Islamic State itself was behind the Paris attacks:
The Islamic State praising the Paris attacks is not proof that the Islamic State was behind the Paris attacks.
Here is another article that says ISIS claimed responsibility, but then gives very specific information that ISIS likely was not responsible:
“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”
The following statement implies ISIS did not claim responsibility by implying they might still claim it later:
“None of this is to argue that ISIS is thus not responsible; it is entirely possible the group may later release more information to establish its role.”
People have to be very careful when reading these articles. The headline and first paragraph say ISIS claimed responsibility:
However, they specifically imply throughout the article that ISIS did not claim responsibility. (The New York Times and many papers did this with Hamas during the 2014 Gaza massacre. The headlines would say Hamas claimed responsibility while the rest of the article implies that they didn’t.)
ISIS celebrated the attacks. They never said they did it. Here is a translation of one of the messages from the groups encrypted messaging accounts:
In fact, throughout The New York Times article, there is continued debate between whether to blame ISIS or Al Queda. (Obviously, if ISIS had actually claimed responsibility, they wouldn’t be debating between blaming ISIS or Al Queda throughout the article.) The reality is that it might not have been either group but they need to pin it on either ISIS or Al Queda so they can declare war. If it was just homegrown terrorism exploiting Islam, they would not be able to go to war, so they pretend it’s not even a possibility.
Additionally, if ISIS was going to claim responsibility and declare open war on France, an encrypted internal communique isn’t going to achieve that.
(Another scenario is that ISIS was trying to do it in secret, didn’t want France to know, and the internal communique accidentally exposed that they were responsible. However, the encrypted message only showed that ISIS knew of the attacks and praised the attackers. They never said they did it.)
The best evidence they have linking ISIS to the crime is the encrypted internal communique which actually implies ISIS didn’t do it.
ISIS say they were impressed with the way the Paris terrorists executed the attack and applauded them on a job well done, but imply that the Paris terrorists were people they didn’t actually know.
Additionally, if ISIS had orchestrated a terrorist attack they considered impressive and successful, why wouldn’t they be patting themselves on the back for a job well done? Why wouldn’t they be cockier and more full of hubris?
If ISIS had done it, they would have been more arrogant and self-congratulatory rather than merely applauding the work of others.
Thus, I highly doubt it was ISIS.
Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech. However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.
Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary. Again, this is easy to test: Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion? Of course not.
Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children. I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.
Charlie Hebdo says they are making a religious critique by displaying a Christian walking on water while a Muslim child drowns. In my opinion, Charlie Hebdo merely wants to display images of Muslim children drowning to desensitize Westerners to the death of Middle Eastern children.
Charlie Hebdo is creating imperialist propaganda. They know that most Westerners are still Christian and they are exploiting Christianity to turn Christian Westerners against Muslim Middle Easterners as a way to maintain imperialism. They are also trying to show that the life of a Muslim child is something that should be shrugged off.
Charlie Hebdo will say that they are critiquing Christianity.
Well we can test that.
Would Charlie Hebdo ever depict a French or American child who grew up in an atheist household drowning?
Why not display the words “Christians walk on water…children of atheist Westerners sink” as a way to critique Christianity?
The fact that Charlie Hebdo would never do the same with the children of atheist Westerners proves my point that they are merely trying to make Muslim children look expendable so it doesn’t matter how many of them are wiped out by Western militarism.
They are trying to imply that shamelessly letting a Middle Eastern child drown is acceptable.
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo will pretend they are being satirical, utilizing free speech, and representing the truly radical when the reality is that they are driven by Western elitist and imperialist motives. To say they are obedient to Western imperialist forces is an understatement when they are the type that try to ignite such fires when they are not even burning.
The ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement was a complete farce and showed so many qualities of Western Devadom: being an excessive crybaby, blowing things out of proportion, putting on a grand display, simulating depth and sincerity, pretending to be a dissident while being squarely in line with elitist/imperialist agendas. Westerners involved in the movement behaved as if they were facing systematic oppression like the third estate of pre-revolutionary France. A single act of terrorism is not systematic oppression. If the French government were prohibiting free speech and using unjust violence to enforce such measures, that would count as systematic oppression and rebellion against such would constitute real defiance and rebellion. However, when the Western political elite (who have more blood on their hands than any independent terrorists) are willing to join the Paris march, what great oppressive monster are people truly standing up to? What bravery is there marching behind those who use the most advanced military weapons to slaughter and subdue the rest of the planet?
The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo seem to love depicting the death of Muslims. They will make up excuses that they are actually pointing out religious hypocrisy or making a social critique. In my opinion, they are merely finding excuses to justify their juvenile desire to depict the death of Muslims as something trivial.
They are first and foremost trying to trivialize the death of Muslims to serve an imperialist agenda. It’s a form of propaganda. The cartoonists are fully aware that they are sending a subliminal message that Middle Eastern lives are expendable. However, they will then add extra accessories to the images to make it look like they are doing some type of social critique.
It’s easy to figure out whether or not such things are a tool for Western imperialism or not. One merely needs to ask: “Would these cartoonists ever depict French or American children in the same fashion?”