A 48-year-old Austrian with Turkish roots is said to have slaughtered four sheep in the garage entrance of a multi-party house in Haid on yesterday’s Saturday around 12.35 pm.The man therefore tied the sheep to their legs and killed the apparently not anaesthetized animals with a butcher’s knife by cutting their throats. The 48-year-old was charged with cruelty to animals.
A French “specialist of the Arab world”, justified the attack perpetrated in front of the former premises of Charlie Hebdo on Friday 25 September in Paris.
“Yes we could have avoided it by not reposting the cartoons,” declared Anne Giudicelli, a guest invited to BFM TV on Saturday. It was obviously very serious, said the “specialist in the Arab world” and founder of Terrorisc. She argued that not republishing the cartoons would not be “an act of surrender” but that it would “be an act of intelligence”.
Anne Giudicelli even went further and implied that it had been a provocation from Charlie Hebdo. “When we republish a caricature, we will play the game of these organizations, so we have to fight differently. Already, we can at least reduce the risk,” she said. For her, “the fight should be waged on other grounds”. The French react badly to a terrorist risk, she added. “This is where we lose, the way we react to amateurism.” She suggested that society should respond differently to Islam, but she could present no alternatives.
Her comments immediately caused an uproar on social networks, triggering a torrent of indignant reactions. “Indeed, submission guarantees peace,” mocked a user. Another recalled that “blasphemy has been a right in France since it was removed from French law by the law of July 29, 1881 on freedom of the press”.
One writer remarked: “The attack could have been avoided with borders,” while another said he was “stunned” by her “expert” findings. He denounced Giudicelli’s “totally irresponsible” comments.
Finally, the expert in safety and risk management, Gilles Sacaze, quipped: “The origin of stupidity and cowardice is awarded to Madame Anne Giudicelli. Should we remember that Islamist terrorism strikes many countries without caricature?”
According to French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, there is almost no doubt that the act was another “bloody attack on our country”.
The police prefecture meanwhile must examine why they underestimated the threat in that particular street, even if the editorial office of Charlie Hebdo had moved a long time ago.
During the attack on Friday afternoon, two journalists from an agency who were taking a smoking break in front of the building were injured by an attacker. He is said to have attacked them with a cleaver.
A short time later, the police arrested an 18-year-old Pakistani man who is said to be the alleged main culprit. According to French media, he was already known to the police.
According to the French news agency AFP, there have been five more arrests. Among them is said to be a former roommate of the 18-year-old Pakistani.
A trial of 14 alleged accomplices and backers of the fatal attacks on the Charlie Hebdo editorial team in 2015 has been ongoing in Paris since September.
In 2015, several Islamists with assault rifles broke into the editorial building and opened fire on the staff and a security guard. Eleven people were killed. The motive for the act was the publication of Mohammed caricatures by Charlie Hebdo.
To mark the beginning of the current court case, the magazine reprinted the caricatures in a special issue. Since 2015, 258 people have been killed in Islamist attacks in France.
freewestmedia.com/2020/09/27/terror-specialist-justifies-new-charlie-hebdo-attack/
On September 25, in Paris, two people were stabbed and seriously wounded outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 of the satirical magazine’s editors and cartoonists were murdered by extremist Muslims in 2015. The suspect, in police custody, is being investigated for terrorism.
The accused murderers in the 2015 attacks are currently on trial in Paris.
Shortly before the knifing attack, on September 22, Charlie Hebdo‘s director of human resources, Marika Bret, did not come home. In fact, she no longer has a home. She was evicted after serious and concrete death threats from extremist Muslims. She decided to make her “exfiltration” public for French intelligence to alert the public to the threat of extremism in France.
“I have lived under police protection for almost five years”, she told the weekly Le Point.
“My security agents received specific and detailed threats. I had ten minutes to pack and leave the house. Ten minutes to give up a part of one’s life is a bit short and it was very violent. I will not go home. I am losing my home to outbursts of hatred, the hatred that always begins with the threat of instilling fear. We know how it can end”.
Bret also claimed that the French Left abandoned the “battle for secularism“.
From the start of the trial of the men accused of committing the murders at Charlie Hebdo in 2015 — and especially since the renewed publication of Mohammed cartoons — Charlie Hebdo has received threats of all kinds — including from al Qaeda. Security today at the satirical magazine is massive. “The address of our headquarters is secret, there are security gates everywhere, armored doors and windows, armed security agents, we can hardly get anyone in”, Bret said.
Today, there are 85 policemen protecting Charlie‘s journalists.
Bret has become another example of the clandestine nature of freedom of expression in France, the country of Voltaire. The first was Robert Redeker, a professor of philosophy. On September 17, 2006, he arose early to write an articlefor Le Figaro on Europe’s grappling with Islam. Three days later, he was in a safe house and on the run.
Last January, Mila O., a 16-year-old French girl, made insulting comments about Islam during a livestream on Instagram.
“During her livestream, a Muslim boy asked her out in the comments, but she turned him down because she is gay. He responded by accusing her of racism and calling her a ‘dirty lesbian’. In an angry follow-up video, streamed immediately after she was insulted, Mila responded by saying that she ‘hates religion'”.
Mila continued, saying among other things:
“Are you familiar with freedom of expression? I didn’t hesitate to say what I thought. I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hatred; there is only hatred in it. That’s what I think. I say what I think… Islam is sh*t… I’m not a racist at all. One cannot simply be racist against a religion… I say what I want, I say what I think. Your religion is sh*t. I’d stick a finger up your god’s a**h*le…”
After her school’s address was posted on social media, she was forced to leave and transfer to a different school, this time kept secret.
The journalist Éric Zemmour was attacked several times outside his house; the French-Moroccan journalist Zineb el Rhazoui also found the address of her home published on social media.
Meanwhile, to his credit, French President Emmanuel Macron has been defendingCharlie Hebdo‘s right to freedom of expression. Blasphemy, he said, “is no crime.”
“The law is clear: we have the right to blaspheme, to criticize, to caricature religions. The republican order is not a moral order… what is outlawed is to incite hatred and attack dignity.”
A 2007 legal case ruled that “In France it is possible to insult a religion, its figures and its symbols … however, insulting those who follow a religion is outlawed.”
The courageous words of the French authorities, however, seem harmless, pale and dull, compared to the strength of extremist violence and intimidation.
Islamic fundamentalism has already managed to displace not only thousands of persecuted Christians — such as Asia Bibi, forced to flee for her life from Pakistan to Canada after she was acquitted of committing blasphemy. This brand of extremism has also managed to transform many European citizens into prisoners, people hiding in their own countries, sentenced to death and forced to live in houses unknown even to their friends and families. And we got used to it!
On the day of Iran’s death sentence against Salman Rushdie for his novel, The Satanic Verses, he and his wife, Marianne Wiggins, were taken from their home in North London by the British secret service, to the first of more than fifty “safe houses” in which the writer lived for the next ten years.
The Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders — whose name, as the next to be murdered, was found on a sheet of paper knifed into the murdered filmmaker, Theo van Gogh — has been living in safe houses since 2004. “I am in jail,” he says, “and they are walking around free.”
Ten years ago, a Seattle Weekly reporter, Molly Norris, in solidarity with the endangered makers of the television cartoon “South Park,” also drew a caricature of Mohammed. The last newspaper article that talked about her stated:
“You may have noticed that the Molly Norris strip is not included in this week’s issue. That’s because there is no more Molly… on the advice of FBI security specialists, she will be moving and changing her name…”
The Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, which first printed cartoons of Mohammed in 2005, gave up. The paper declined to republish the caricatures of the Prophet of Islam when Charlie Hebdo printed them again on its front page. The editor who published the cartoons at Jyllands Posten, Flemming Rose, is still escorted by bodyguards. “I really admire Charlie‘s courage,” he said.
“Heroes who have not succumbed to threats or violence. Unfortunately, they received limited support. No publication in France or Europe behaves like Charlie. That is why I believe that in Europe there is an unwritten law against blasphemy. I am not criticizing the journalists and editors who make this choice. We cannot blame people who, unlike Charlie, do not put their lives in danger. But let us not be fooled: this lack of courage to follow in Charlie‘s footsteps comes at a price, we are losing freedom of speech and an insidious form of self-censorship is gaining ground”.
In recent days, the new editor of Jyllands Posten, Jacob Nybroe, repeated:
“We will not publish them anymore. I confirmed this editorial line when I arrived and received a lot of applause. I may look like a coward, but we cannot do it”.
The names of Danish cartoonists appeared on the same “hit list” that Al Qaeda published with the name of Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in chief, Stéphane Charbonnier, murdered in the 2015 massacre. The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard is alive only because during a terror assault on his home, he hid.
Today Jyllands Posten‘s headquarters has bulletproof windows, metal bars and slabs, barbed wire and video cameras. It sits opposite the port of Aarhus, the second largest city in Denmark, and is under surveillance day and night. Each automatic door, each elevator, requires a badge and a code. You enter it as if it were a bank vault. One door opens and after it closes, the next door opens. The journalists who work there enter one at a time. “To put it simply, freedom of speech is in bad shape around the world. Including in Denmark, France and throughout the West,” Rose said, “These are troubled times; people prefer order and security to freedom.”
If all of us do not defend our freedoms, soon we will not have them anymore.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16550/france-terrorism-silence
By Monica Showalter
Forgetting who she is, Meghan Markle, duchess of Sussex, has decided she’d also like to become president of the United States.
Here’s the retch-inducing story as reported by Page Six of the New York Post:
[T]he 39-year-old former “Suits” star now has her eye on the White House, a close friend told Vanity Fair.
“One of the reasons she was so keen not to give up her American citizenship was so she had the option to go into politics,” the unidentified friend told the mag.
“I think if Meghan and Harry ever gave up their titles she would seriously consider running for president,” the friend added of rumors of a 2024 run.
Her biographer, Omid Scobie, also previously claimed that the former actress “has her eyes set on the US presidency.”
“Meghan is the embodiment of the American dream. One day we may see Meghan become president,” the author of “Finding Freedom: Harry, Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family” previously told a documentary, Vanity Fair said.
Seems that with duchess titles coming easily, shouldn’t presidential ones, too? All she has to do is smile pretty…and speak woke, and the American voters will be drooling for her.
Her foray into U.S. politics is getting particularly unseemly for someone who hasn’t renounced her title of duchess. First she started hanging out with Michelle Obama, “teaming up for female empowerment” as the press release, I mean USA Today article, put it. Then she gets a lucrative Netflix deal, too, kind of like what the Obamas got. Then she puts her husband, Prince Harry, in an embarrassing position by making a get-out-the-vote “public service” announcement, insisting that the election of 2020 would be “the most important election of our lifetimes,” which was clearly targeted at President Trump. She did her husband Harry, who has never voted in his life, a tremendous disservice by shoving him into that. After all, a quick read of the Declaration of Independence has some particularly harsh words for the British king, leaving him open to becoming the butt of humor in the U.S. as a result. She dragged him into that because what Meghan wants, Meghan gets. Then she’s floated “weather balloons” from so-called royal experts about running for seats in Congress, as well as the presidency itself. Now she’s making a joint appearance with Kamala Harris at some kind of woman-empowerment event and making unsolicited cold calls to potential voters who apparently will respond to celebrity appeal. Gee, if Meghan told me to vote and how to vote, then I just have to vote, right?
And gee, wouldn’t the Democrats, now in the throes of open socialism in the age of queen bee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, think having a Hollywood duchess to front them is just the thing?
File under barfulous.
Why anyone here would want to vote for such a trashy ingrate is beyond us. She first accepted a slew of honors of the queen of England, unusual ones, given that she was a commoner and an actress, no less, historically a disreputable profession, and then after taking those, as well as all the royal cash and servants for fancy cottages, etc., she decided they weren’t worth much to her; they were worth about as much to her as she paid for them, which was nothing. She didn’t want to put in the work, she said, didn’t want to go cut opening ribbons at hospitals in Yorkshire, because let’s face it: it wasn’t as glamorous and feel-good as the Hollywood red carpet. She reportedly said that being a duchess “wasn’t working” for her, signaling how unclear she was on the service component of being a royal. That much is clear to Americans, so you can bet the Brits notice.
It’s likely significant that the queen and the other royals left Meghan’s picture off on all their Twitter birthday greetings to Harry on his 36th. It very much sounds as though she’s persona non grata in those circles, and one can hope the snubs get louder. The Brits know how to do this when they put their minds to it.
Now President Trump is openly mocking her, wishing Prince Harry “lots of luck because he’s going to need it” for having to be around her and her growing political ambitions. That was her game all along, and poor Harry never knew what hit him.
Hollywood, it seems, isn’t good enough. Nor was the British royal family. Meghan, see, just really wants it all. She likes power.
In some of the valleys in Tirol it snowed today.
If it is worth having, moonbats will denounce it as “racist.” Nothing is sacred. Not even beer.
Next month, the book Beer and Racism: How Beer Became White, Why It Matters, and the Movements to Change It by Nathaniel Chapman and David Brunsma will go on sale on Amazon. Here’s the product description:
Beer in the United States has always been bound up with race, racism, and the construction of white institutions and identities. Given the very quick rise of craft beer, as well as the myopic scholarly focus on economic and historical trends in the field, there is an urgent need to take stock of the intersectional inequalities that such realities gloss over. This unique book carves a much-needed critical and interdisciplinary path to examine and understand the racial dynamics in the craft beer industry and the popular consumption of beer.
Some liberal killjoys must have no life outside of inventing racism to screech about.
Chapman appears to be making a career out of denouncing beer as racist. He also cowrote this:
[T]he modern craft brewery is a predominantly “white space”. While women represent a growing segment of craft drinkers, people of color, particularly African Americans, have not seen a rise in consumption. … Currently, there are fewer than 50 African American-owned breweries operating in the US. Given the rapid growth in the industry, and the sheer number of breweries opening each year, this is a tremendously disproportionate representation in the industry. This has trickled down to the culture as well. Less than two percent of craft beer is consumed by African Americans, a growing problem for a craft culture that promotes the idea that beer is without race or gender.
Obviously, nothing is without race or gender. To suggest otherwise is to challenge the fundamental truth that leftist dogma applies to every aspect of reality.
It is unsurprising that blacks aren’t as into craft beer as whites are, considering the importance of beer in European culture going back many centuries.
Since beer is not sufficiently inclusive, it must be canceled. As an interim step, look for Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors to start pushing African sorghum beer — if they can do it without Chapman accusing them of cultural appropriation.
moonbattery.com/now-beer-is-racist/
Ana Agre, a young Israeli musician, has lived in Germany for some time to work here.
On July 1, 2020 she came across an anti-Israel demonstration near her home, organized by the pro-Palestinian organization Samidoun. She went up to her apartment, fetched an Israel flag and stood with it on the square across which the demonstration procession of young Muslims and their German sympathizers passed. As can be seen on the video, which was taken by a friend, it was not even a particularly large flag, about the size of a kitchen towel.Ana Agre did not make any further statements, did not shout, did not speak (if only because she does not speak German, ” solely” English, Hebrew and Russian), yet the protesters obviously felt attacked by her, perhaps even insulted in their “dignity” – “dignity” is, as you can learn from her website, one of the basic demands of the Arab movement Samidoun. Several of the marching groups approached Ana and addressed her with slogans, including “Nazis get out!” In the minds of these young Muslims and like-minded Germans, an Israeli flag is obviously a Nazi symbol.A Frankfurt policeman approached Ana Agre in English, recorded her personal details and advised her to leave the square because her appearance provoked the young Muslims. Ana apparently engaged in an English discussion with the policeman, which the policeman finally concluded with a sending-off. When she wanted to know why she was not allowed to display her Israel flag here in Frankfurt, the officer replied: “Because I don’t like it.(„Weil mir das nicht gefällt.“)
Ana Agre is thus threatened with ” prosecution”.
Ana finally decided to withdraw, as ordered by the police, and believed that this was the end of the whole thing. Far from it. A few days later, a letter came to her house, a police subpoena from the Frankfurt Criminal Investigation Department for “insulting behavior according to paragraph 185 of the German Criminal Code” for October 7, 2020. The document with the file number ST 0697601/2020, drawn by Chief Police Commissioner J. Schmidt, concludes with the remark: “If you do not appear for your interrogation/hearing or do not name obstacles in time, it will be assumed that you do not want to make any statements to the police. The case will then be handed over to the responsible prosecuting authority (…)”.
Ana Agre is thus threatened with “persecution” because she displayed an Israel flag in Frankfurt on the Main. As a matter of course, the police take the side of the Muslim protesters and their leftist German supporters. What would have happened if not them, but right-wing radicals had shouted at and insulted the young Israeli woman? Then the incident would just as obviously have been classified as “anti-Semitic” and recorded in the statistics of “right-wing radical anti-Semitic crimes”.In Ana’s case, the “anti-Semitism” accusation is dropped (although what has happened could certainly be interpreted in this way: a Jewish woman was insulted as a “Nazi”, an Israel flag was called a Nazi symbol) and the crime is blamed on the Jewish woman. Germany in the year of the Lord 2020 under the rule of Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Autor: Chaim Noll – https://haolam.de/artikel/Deutschland/42163/Frankfurter-Polizei-ermittelt-gegen-beschimpfte-Jdin.html
Allah's Willing Executioners 