This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Was Charlie Hebdo A "Convenient" Incident For Policymakers?
Submitted by Claudio Grass via Acting-Man.com,
Many Questions
On the 7th of January two gunmen attacked the office of Charlie Hebdo, a French weekly magazine. The shooters were two brothers who belonged to the Yemeni branch of the Islamist terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. The attack resulted in 11 casualties and many injured, while the shooters were shot a few days later in an exchange of fire with the police. Charlie Hebdo is a satire magazine, and its jokes and cartoons and its secular approach are widely considered anti-religious. Social media went into a frenzy with the hashtag “Je suis Charlie”. Four days later two million people including tens of world leaders participated in a rally for national unity in Paris, and over three million participated across France. A lot of questions were raised by this tragic event and its aftermath that we will look at in this article.

The gunmen who attacked Charlie Hebdo and their get-away car
Photo via Reuters TV
How Free Should Free Speech be When it Comes to Religion?
Let’s start with the obvious: What was the motive of the shooters? According to witness reports of the attack, one of the shooters said “You are going to pay for insulting the Prophet”. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons and jokes are regarded as quite controversial, as they mock all religions, whether Islam, Christianity or Judaism. When respect to Islam, they repeatedly published cartoons of Mohammed, which infuriated Muslim communities worldwide as images of the Prophet are not allowed to be depicted according to Islamic teachings. Not only was the magazine sued for this, its editor-in-chief, who was killed in the attack, had been on the hit list of the Al-Qaeda branch in Yemen for some time.
Certainly these attacks have added to a climate of tension and fear, and many would classify Charlie Hebdo’s satire as hate speech or a discriminatory form of expression. But the bottom line is that it is an opinion, which you can choose to agree or disagree with. To redress an opinion with a barrel of a gun is never the right answer. Freedom of speech has been widely established, but is constantly under attack. Even after having codified freedom of speech and expression into their constitutions, many Western countries have introduced contradictory defamation laws. The line has clearly not been drawn. However, why should there be a line in the first place?
In my view, the right to speak freely should be absolute, and shouldn’t be restricted in any way. The essence of liberty lies in freedom from restrictions and control by an external entity. Ideas and thoughts are entitled to be expressed and circulated freely to whoever wishes to listen to them. This is what distinguishes democracies from authoritarian regimes. But what should govern controversial ideas, particularly when it comes to “sensitive” subjects like religion? Like the free market, free speech will govern itself and find its own equilibrium. In a society that upholds the right to free speech, there will be disagreements and these disagreements will lead to debate between the conflicting parties. The significance however lies in that these parties agree to disagree, and are willing to defend the right to free speech and expression at all costs.

Cartoon by David Pope
Renowned economist and strong advocate for libertarianism, Murray N. Rothbard, offers an interesting perspective, as he argues that free speech is connnected with where we can exercise this right. In other words, the right to speak is connected with the right to property. A man can exercise his right of free speech within the parameters of his own property, or within the property of someone who has willingly agreed to allow him to exercise this right on his premises. According to Rothbard:
“A person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).”
Because it is a matter of property rights, you can exercise your right within your own property, but others can restrict you from exercising it on their property. At the end of the day, if you watch a show on TV that you disagree with, you can simply turn it off, and should you find an interesting article you can choose to read it or not. It is this freedom that should be and deserves to be defended!
I recently read an interesting article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, which contained the following paragraph:
“The State in its long history has made some people richer and others poorer than they would have been otherwise. It killed some people and let others survive. It moved people around from one place to another. It promoted some professions, industries or regions and prevented or delayed and changed the development of others. It awarded some people with privileges and monopolies and legally discriminated against and disadvantaged others, and on and on. The list of past injustices, of winners and losers, perpetrators and victims, is endless.”
Although he wasn’t discussing freedom of speech in his article, I think the above is applicable to our discussion here. Even if a case could be made for limiting freedom of speech in certain cases such as discrimination or inciting violence, do we really want to entrust the government, historically the biggest killer and discriminator, with the task of defining where these limitations should lie?

Research into democide by R.J. Rummel suggests that governments killed altogether 262 million people in the last century.
Is Charlie Hebdo a “Convenient” Incident for Policymakers?
Since 9/11 the global war on terror was used to “justify” excessive legislation that restricted many basic and fundamental civil liberties and legitimized violation of privacy by the State. States have and will continue to misuse such incidents to further violate the civil liberties of citizens. By fueling hatred and anger against different religions and ethnic groups, states are very much applying the old political strategy of divide and conquer. The war on terror wouldn’t have gained this much support if it weren’t for fueling anger against Islam worldwide (let’s not forget that the US conveniently allied with Osama Bin Laden and his followers against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s).
It is astonishing how states get their way when tying their policies to emotionally-driven topics linked to identity and human life. The American public suddenly gave away its right to privacy through the Patriot Act, which was introduced under the pretext of deterring terrorism and to better support the authorities in finding and hunting down criminals that are targeting the American public. This leads us to recall our recent interview with former Czech President Mr. Václav Klaus, who made a rather honest and realistic statement:
“We experienced it in 2001 in America and it had very negative repercussions for us in Europe. I am afraid there will be a new wave of attempts to limit our personal freedom due to the so-called war against terrorism.”
Looking back on the interview his fears were more than justified, as we are now seeing similar developments such as in the US after 9/11! The lower house of parliament in France just passed a bill that has already been dubbed the “French Patriot Act”. Due to the huge majority in the lower house we expect it to pass the upper house as well. This bill lays down the rules regarding surveillance of all forms of communication without prior approval by a judge.

Furthermore, starting in September of this year, there will be massive new restrictions on the use of cash in France. Cash transactions over 1,000 Euro will no longer be allowed (down from 3,000 Euro). Foreign exchange transactions over 1,000 Euro will have to be recorded with an ID or passport of the person in question (down from 8,000 Euro). All cash deposits or withdrawals higher than 10,000 EUR per month will have to be reported to the anti fraud and money laundering agency. I think these developments only a few months after the Hebdo attack show clearly how this event is being misused to implement further restrictions on the civil liberties of the French population.
How Selective is Media Coverage in Connection with Acts of Terrorism and Violence?
Charlie Hebdo remained a focal topic in the media, the march in Paris was widely celebrated, and “Je suis Charlie” was everywhere on Facebook and Twitter. Other attacks did not receive this much attention, although they were equally gruesome and violent. Between the 3rd and 7th of January (the same day as the Charlie Hebdo attack) there were mass killings by Boko Haram in Nigeria. Boko Haram is a violent militia group that operates in northeastern Nigeria since 2009. In these four days it burned down 16 towns and villages, and overran the headquarters of the joint task force. The estimated number of casualties was ranging between hundreds and thousands.

Boko Haram djihadists in Nigeria
Photo credit: AP
How can such a mass killing be ignored? Isn’t terrorism a violation of human rights everywhere? On February 11th a gunman shot three citizens, a young Muslim couple and the woman’s sister, in the US town of Chapel Hill. The motive? Apparently it was a dispute over a parking issue. Meanwhile the families of the victims labeled it a hate crime. However, an article published in the British Independent newspaper put the real issue at the forefront:
“Would the media have covered the tragedy if Twitter didn’t exist, and what would have happened if the murderer was Muslim?”
What about hate crimes after Charlie Hebdo? France saw more attacks following the incident, which were not widely covered in the media, and certainly the list goes on around the world. An article in the UK’s Telegraph was entitled “’We’re leaving Britain – Jews aren’t safe here anymore’”. Yes, we knew racial and religious profiling was a problem, but how many of us knew that it has become so bad that people felt threatened and at constant risk? The article cited figures from the Community Security Trust (CST), which monitors anti-Semitism in Britain, which revealed a record 1168 incidents of anti?Semitism in 2014, which more than doubled from just a year earlier.
Where are the media reports on all this? What is at issue here is the selectivity of media coverage. Why do some stories deserve more coverage than others? We’ve established our case that free speech should be free from restrictions, but we also argue that media outlets should not be exploited for pushing certain political agendas.
Where Would we be if it Weren’t for Social Media and the Internet?
It takes revolutionary means to promote revolutionary ideas. The invention of the first European movable printing type with the Gutenberg Press was a revolutionary discovery which played a significant role during the time of reformation, as it enabled the mass-exposure of the ideas and concepts of the protestant faith, and the case for religious decentralization and secularism that threatened the power of political and religious authorities.

Johannes Gutenberg inspects the output from the movable type printing press he invented in the mid 15th century. It would prove to be a truly revolutionary invention
Image via Bettman-Corbis
Then why shouldn’t we be able to make the best out of today’s mass media and social networks – to exercise our right to post our opinions online with no Big Brother watching over our shoulders controlling what or what we cannot say on the worldwide web? Whether Charlie Hebdo, or other cases of religious violence, all have certainly put media coverage in the spotlight. If it weren’t for social media, we may not have noticed the biased mainstream coverage or how states are manipulating racial profiling to satisfy their agendas. The media and the State are under great scrutiny nowadays. Ever since Western countries have signed up for the global war on terror, they have willingly and knowingly aggravated and encouraged more and more discrimination, while further infringing on the very civil liberties they claim to be protecting.
For me, the most important takeaway from the tragic events in France is that we need to stay as vigilant as ever in defending our freedoms. As the aftermath of the Hebdo attack has shown, governments will misuse any opportunity they see to further restrict our freedom and arrogate more power to themselves. This is especially easy when people are faced with an understandably emotionally tense situation like 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. However, thanks to the Internet we are less prone to accept State propaganda and are able to get a more objective view of what is really happening in the world around us.
- 12144 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The government carry out "false flag" attacks? Incroyable!
Yes, our precious freedumbs. We'll deal with those Blackwater studs it they ever make it to my neighborhood (or we might ambush them...shhh).
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Look at the results of Charlie Hebdo, and see who benefited.
As the "terrorist" murderers were making their getaway they purportedly yelled and saluted "Allah akbar," raising the wrong hand in jesture, something a real Muslim would never do, I'm told.
Even Mossad agents can make mistakes under pressure.
And let's not forget the western military hand signals during the raid -- and the ID they just happened to leave in the car after a flawlessly precision-excuted attack in broad daylight.
Or some strange aspects of the supermarket raid;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCngJCAovk
DavidC
The attackers were well known to the security services. The woman accompanying the man in the supermarket store managed to escape unharmed and un-noticed, later reportedly seen crossing the border from Turkey into Syria.
Oui Latina vous avez entierement raison, c'est tellement évident que c'est un false flag et que se sont les Supects Habituels qui en profitent.
Another straw-man question: How Free Should Free Speech be When it Comes to Religion?
Ah hah! Paly the "religious card" and get the folks a arguing. Free speech means that if somebody wants to talk about religion or anything else, they get to do so. There may be repercussions, but it's your right. It may offend, but that's your right to be offended as well.
Free speech means free speech.
In the US freedom of religion was never meant to be freedom from religion.
Might I also point out that the First Amendment provides for the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and to petition. In that very order.
And pray tell, what is our loving, caring big bro trying to limit?
Each and every one of those.
Yes, to lay the burden on the free-speech of the victim is a bit of a ruse. After all, they were gunned down and murdered. The issue is not what was said, but what was done.
Well we certainly have not had freedom from the religion of corporate corruption...
In Canada we can't discuss the Khazars or we go to jail.
Fucking pathetic
"The Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash
By Paul Craig Roberts
January 14, 2015 "ICH" - The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.
Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40703.htm
Don't be so naive!
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.jobs-review.com
I am sure you are . Between this and Uber you and all the rest of the world should be kicking total ass! How much do you think I could get renting out my other pairs of shoes I am not wearing right now.....ah shit, just gave away a 2 billion tech startup app idea...oh well, I got spare undewear too....ah shit..socks...Im out.
Language never means what it says. It is always mis-interpreted. Speech can be funny and used to trigger emotions. It is more versatile than art but not necessarily more potent.
“If you’re offended by any word in any language, it’s probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child. They were too stupid, they should have been neutered, because all it is is a sound you can make with your mouth! It’s not a weakness that you have naturally. When you come out of that pink ugly hole onto this planet, you’re nothing but a gooey, shrinking, wrinkled ball of weakness. That’s all you are: you’re weak, you’re nothing but weak, and your parents look at that, and they think, “Not weak enough! We can make this thing even weaker by training it to react poorly to different sounds that you can make with your mouth.” We’ll list them out, this is the worst thing, if anyone ever says this sound, that’s the worst thing they can call you, so make sure to recoil and cry, and be hurt and devastated, and eat ice cream on a couch for days, and then write a song about it. You wouldn’t do that otherwise, you’d just be happy if your parents didn’t fuck it up. You’d just be a happier person. I could walk right up to you and go, “Hey, cunt!” and you’d go, “No, I’m Rebecca! But I guess I have a face that looks like a lot of different people. What’s your name? Welcome to Salt Lake!”
— Doug Stanhope
Let's just keep thinking about it, that way we never have to do anything!
Gutenberg was a religious nut - so narrow minded, he thought the printing press would be used exclusively to print Christian Bibles and nothing else... much like many inventors of information processing devices thought they would be used for the manufacturing of mass murdering weapons. The space exploration, the GPS in your car - they were a byproduct of an arms race between 2 nuclear superpowers. The flight of first man into space was conducted 6 months apart with the test of the world's biggest atomic bomb as a hint: "We can have a man fly and land anywhere. Next time there may be something else in that orbital module. Duck and cover motherfuckers!" Then we went to put a man on the moon: "This time it's a man. Next time it may be a military base or a colony. We've got a flag up there, so the ball of dust is ours!"
So many great inventions and achievements were either unintentional flukes or a result of deliberate misuse as in case with the internet and Gutenberg's printing press.
August 24, 1456. On or near this day, the great Bible from Johann Gutenberg's press emerged complete from the bindery in Mainz, Germany. Few events merit the breathless statement, "and the world would never be the same!" But the creation of the first book printed with movable type is one of them. Thinking about this event and how it has contributed to the spread of the Gospel around the globe, I muse, "God surely worked through Gutenberg!"
("The rise, fall, and redemption of the Father of the Information Age" by Chris Armstron)
I suggest that laws go back to the adage "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." The invention of the term "hate speech" and its subsequent incorporation into law was a sad day for liberty. Ditto "hate crimes". All people should have the right to be as abrasive in their speech as they deem appropriate. I do, however, draw the line at threatening or inciting to violence. The same standards should apply to verbal threats as apply to physical threats here in Florida. If someone threatens me, even verbally, I should have the right to return the favor, and that includes physically. Perhaps, facing the possibility of retaliation for threats of violence, people would be more circumspect in their rantings.
I suggest that laws go back to the adage "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."
Very old school. I heartily agree. Unfortunately today we are obsessed with everybody's feelings and are terrified to offend others. Why is offending others such a terrible thing? I can say with honesty sometimes when I was horribly offended by someone, the resulting introspection actually provided a great epiphany. A window to an area in my life I needed to change. Now we shield our children from such " nastiness" and they are told they can do anything they set out to do. No wonder today kids seem so neurotic when reality butts up against their dreams.
Miffed
Dual problem - free speech, you'll have many voices clamouring over each other. Eventually, the most populist will win out and be promoted by committed and motivated factions that slowly silence and overpower other voices.
"The only justifiable purpose of political institutions is to ensure the unhindered development of the individual." ~ Einstein
The right of way of any individual can only be impeded by compulsion. Therefore, the removal of compulsion is the only justifable means to secure the purpose identified by Einstein.
A governing body that uses compulsion to remove an existing compulsion is in the right. A governing body that establishes compulsion, that initiates the compulsion, is in the wrong.
The Charlie Hebdo headshot was fake, 100%.
Watch this video:
http://stormcloudsgathering.com/charlie-hebdo-shootings-censored-video
What do we conlcude from this, obvious, 100%, in your face, fake shooting?
Well, the cop was fake (an actor), and the "terrorist" was fake - also an actor. Ok, if they have actors running around playing pretend terrorism, what else is staged?
A lot of dual citizens were involved in the obviously fake Charlie Hebdo incident. Are there any other dual citizens involved in any other questionable incidents?
The Charlie shootings were the work of professional killers in the pay of French intelligence, the aim being to remove a longstanding gadfly (Charlie itself) and drum up support for the unpopular Hollande government. Not a few criminally disturbed banlieusards, who by themselves can only manage the occasional carbecue. They were just the fall guys. The real murderers were in Switzerland by that evening to collect their winnings at USB, and in Beirut the next morning, to retire rich.
Hate is control. Fomenters of hate are fomenters of control.
Radical Islam...brought to you by the same salesmen that represent they protect freedom but seek to destroy it.
Beware of the firemen reeking of gasoline.
Speach is not now, nor ever has been property. It is a freedom of experssion. Once again the definetions of things are being basterdised for changing perceptions.
we cannot allow this to happen again
we must all do better as a collective
we must believe in what are eyes wide shut see
we must force are mossad,mi6 and 5 are cia and fbi to try harder.
with these false flags
are people must be allowed to believe the news is real not 70% fake
shite.
we must force are film makers to shoot better,write better and use all the tools the royal tavistock institute for psychologiculls have given us since the ww1 rothschild money wars.
support rupurt murdoch rita katz,vice and the simply divine child loving bbc.
we can believe again my friends
critical thinking
sherlock holmes and columbo are dead.
falk and brett rip
forget the rational brain bicameral
believe in hd pixel
There are a few choice facts that the author decided to omit in this article:
The author and I share the same view that freedom of speech is absolute, yet he shies away from the obvious fact that it is completely selective about who we can and cannot criticize while giving the overt impression that ONLY muslims enforce their view at the barrel of a gun. Really? Al Queda is the product of western intelligence - they were trained, funded and recruited by MI6 and the CIA for the Afghan war in the 80s - to become a convenient bogeyman the last decade and a half to facilitate the American Empire of Batshit Crazy Chaos in the Middle East that has ultimately served Israel and the MIC.
If you truly value free speech, then let's actually fucking have it. Instead of favouring one set of people as untouchable and going all-out hate mongering towards another. If you truly value your own personal honour, then let us all be personally responsible for the consequences of the things we say and do. Instead of whining like little girls when the person you insult and throw spiteful hatred towards actually says the same back to you.
There are absolutely no excuses for violence as a solution to problems and those who use it must be condemned for it, but one must first identify and objectively clarify just who is using violence against whom on a daily basis to gain geopolitical advantages, enrich themselves and gain power over the populace.
Bang on!
the sad fact is we will probably never know the full story of the tragic singular holocaust of charlie hebe dough..
as freedum lovers we all must saturn pray that are pull it sir prize winner and jewish man of cia letters, semen hersh of the new yorker or gnome chumpski of the whatever will get to write the off fecal version in the next 3 6 or 9 years.
whatever numbers that would be talmud best
That chart revealing death by state domicide compared to war death is a very sobering reminder of the dangers of statism. Communization of Eastern Europe and Chinese land reform...holy shit, blood bath!
On the topic of holy shit, the bickering between Christians, Muslims and Jews is getting more than a bit old. Much of it is fake but there are plenty of fundamentalist nutters among all three ranks if real problems need be started.
It should be pretty obvious to any thinking person that fundamentalist arms of any of these groups are nothing more than a fine tool to enslave and cudgel humanity over the head with. People who constantly cry for more religion in government obviously missed more than a few chapters of history, Israel is a perfect example of this in current times.
NWO ---> Israel. Fuck Zion.
short answer to the question in this articles title....yes.
The only tragedy here is that people actually believe this bullshit
it was.
the hint was the photo-session, all world puppet leaders had a timeframe open?
not without preparation
additionally
have some leftist killed for not so good art
and be partied as the defender of the free world afterwards,
thats too much of wag-the-dog-good-effects in one event to have not been staged by cynical secret service departments
Apparently the photoshop artist created different versions of the "world leader" photo for different national markets, rubbing out the "leaders" that would be considered culturally unacceptable for certain countries.
I give the guy credit. You need to recognize skillz when you see them.
Also, some very interesting videos show how the 5-million marchers were created using computer graphics animation technology.
Charlie Hebdo was an obvious, sloppy zio false flag.
Lets just all quit pretending it's something else and get wise.
"See this, this is this" - Robert DeNiro