What is the difference??

[healthmyths]

CARNEY: Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution
Flashback WH Condemned Judgement of Deeply Offensive Charlie Hebdo - Breitbart


So the Hussein administration questions the magazine's judgement where the 12 people were shot for publishing the cartoon because it would be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.
So where was the same concern by the USA MSM recognizing the offensive nature of these photos?

Weren't these offensive???

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

 

[Clementine]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

 

[Clementine]

12 dead over a cartoon. Typical of extremists. They yelled 'Allah Akbar' as they murdered people in cold blood, including a cop who begged for his life. Cop was laying on the ground after being shot once and they responded to his pleas by delivering a shot to his head.

The gun control laws in France did nothing to stop these Muslim terrorists.

Of course, Obama is calling it an act of violence and the liberal media isn't showing a fraction of the outrage they did over Palin's son standing on a dog. This is just radical Muslims reacting in typical fashion after being offended by a cartoon and it's hardly worth wasting their energy on.

I'm not surprised that Obama won't address radical Islam or call this the terrorist act that it is. No doubt he still stands by his words spoken in an address to the U.N.:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam"

Well, those people in France joined many others who dared to offend the idiots. They have no future. Apparently, only those who embrace Allah have a right to live.

Those who offend Allah will never be defended by Obama. Regardless of how cruel Muslims are to infidels, Obama will only criticize those who offend the murderers. Terrorists will never face the harsh criticism that the filmmaker did after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Even as Obama denounces the violence, and I bet it's only because he feels obligated to do so, he won't call it what it is. It's clear where he stands and it's not with this country or any who believe in freedom, particularly freedom of speech.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/12-dead-muslims-retaliate-french-cartoon-0

 

[gipper]

Sure is hypocritical of the lib American press to critize this French publication for publishing inflammatory material.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

99% of the protestors in NY were NOT calling for violence. They ALL got blamed here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

12 dead over a cartoon. Typical of extremists. They yelled 'Allah Akbar' as they murdered people in cold blood, including a cop who begged for his life. Cop was laying on the ground after being shot once and they responded to his pleas by delivering a shot to his head.

The gun control laws in France did nothing to stop these Muslim terrorists.

Of course, Obama is calling it an act of violence and the liberal media isn't showing a fraction of the outrage they did over Palin's son standing on a dog. This is just radical Muslims reacting in typical fashion after being offended by a cartoon and it's hardly worth wasting their energy on.

I'm not surprised that Obama won't address radical Islam or call this the terrorist act that it is. No doubt he still stands by his words spoken in an address to the U.N.:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam"

Well, those people in France joined many others who dared to offend the idiots. They have no future. Apparently, only those who embrace Allah have a right to live.

Those who offend Allah will never be defended by Obama. Regardless of how cruel Muslims are to infidels, Obama will only criticize those who offend the murderers. Terrorists will never face the harsh criticism that the filmmaker did after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Even as Obama denounces the violence, and I bet it's only because he feels obligated to do so, he won't call it what it is. It's clear where he stands and it's not with this country or any who believe in freedom, particularly freedom of speech.

[URL='http://www.mrctv.org/blog/12-dead-muslims-retaliate-french-cartoon-0[/QUOTE']http://www.mrctv.org/blog/12-dead-muslims-retaliate-french-cartoon-0[/QUOTE[/URL]]

When the administration first blamed Benghazi on the movie, people like you said that was because they didn't want that considered terrorism.

So now, since we know this was because of cartoons, etc., are you saying this wasn't terrorism?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

So, for the record, you believe that Al Sharpton, who NEVER called for violence,

is totally blameless for the cop killing in NYC???

 

[Uncensored2008]

Carney is a fucking idiot, representing a pile of shit.

Muzzie Beasts murder 12, and Obama, through Carney, chastises the victims.

What fucking scumbags the Obama administration are.

 

[Clementine]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

99% of the protestors in NY were NOT calling for violence. They ALL got blamed here.

Al Sharpton attended a riot where they chanted 'What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want that? Now.' He said nothing to discourage that. He has a long history of inciting violence with his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech means you can disagree or offend people. Liberals offend Christians all the time.

It's different when you support violence, particularly murder, of people. And once Sharpton heard the rioters calling for murder, he kept up the rhetoric.

The cartoonists did not encourage anyone to murder Muslims or anyone else. Muslims never come forth and discuss things. They just kill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

99% of the protestors in NY were NOT calling for violence. They ALL got blamed here.

Al Sharpton attended a riot where they chanted 'What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want that? Now.' He said nothing to discourage that. He has a long history of inciting violence with his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech means you can disagree or offend people. Liberals offend Christians all the time.

It's different when you support violence, particularly murder, of people. And once Sharpton heard the rioters calling for murder, he kept up the rhetoric.

The cartoonists did not encourage anyone to murder Muslims or anyone else. Muslims never come forth and discuss things. They just kill.

lol how quickly you changed your tune. Asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Carney is a fucking idiot, representing a pile of shit.

Muzzie Beasts murder 12, and Obama, through Carney, chastises the victims.

What fucking scumbags the Obama administration are.

Carney is gone. Catch up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, this wasn't terrorism, it was people angry at a cartoon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Carney is gone. Catch up.

His condemnation was when the cartoons were published.

Try and follow along.

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol, this wasn't terrorism, it was people angry at a cartoon.

You sure it wasn't "work place violence," moron?

 

[LoneLaugher]

The RWnuts around here almost unanimously agreed that the protests in NY over the Garner killing were TO BLAME for 2 cops being killed.

Do those same RWnuts blame the cartoonists for getting themselves killed?

Were the cartoonists calling for violence? No. They made fun of a ridiculous religion.

The rioters were calling specifically for violence against cops.

I don't expect the feeble minded to understand the difference.

You have shown what a robot you are by supporting the violent people in both cases. You support the murderous rioters and the terrorists.

99% of the protestors in NY were NOT calling for violence. They ALL got blamed here.

Al Sharpton attended a riot where they chanted 'What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want that? Now.' He said nothing to discourage that. He has a long history of inciting violence with his rhetoric.

Freedom of speech means you can disagree or offend people. Liberals offend Christians all the time.

It's different when you support violence, particularly murder, of people. And once Sharpton heard the rioters calling for murder, he kept up the rhetoric.

The cartoonists did not encourage anyone to murder Muslims or anyone else. Muslims never come forth and discuss things. They just kill.

No he did not. You are wrong and have been lied to.

 

[Vigilante]

The CHIEF ENABLER of all things related to Islamic Terrorism...

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, this wasn't terrorism, it was people angry at a cartoon.

You sure it wasn't "work place violence," moron?

Have you forgotten that you people attacked the administration for saying that Benghazi was a reaction to the anti-Muslim movie,

instead of calling it terrorism?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The CHIEF ENABLER of all things related to Islamic Terrorism...

Should the future belong to those who slander Christianity?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Carney is gone. Catch up.

His condemnation was when the cartoons were published.

Try and follow along.

These victims were alive then.