Sharia Compliant: Bruce Crumley, Paris Bureau Chief For TIME Magazine

Dhimmie of the Month or Asshole of the Month?

That choice is all yours, dear readers. Bruce Crumley  seems to believe that the suit he wears makes him an adult who is “sensitive” enough to understand Islamic terrorism, and  if it wasn’t for our  ” childish, Islamophobic, idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts”  which force Muslims to firebomb newspapers they don’t like,  we could all sing kumbaya and pretend we like each other.

Next he’ll be blaming Parisian women for their rapes for not  “voluntarily” covering up with a burqa.  Yes folks, that’s where we are headed with dim bulbs like this…… ( thanks to KGS for the reminder….)

Diana West:

What journalist wouldn’t want to be Paris Bureau Chief for Time magazine, or anything else? Sounds so glamorous. But look closer and the job qualifications — sharia-compliance — are more than a little off-putting, certainly as exemplified by the man with the job, Bruce Crumley, on weighing in on the bombing of Charlie Hebdo. Poor man. Full-blown, late-stage and terminal Dhimmitude.

Excerpts from his Time piece:

1) “Not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy …”

2) It’s “hard to have much synpathy for [Charlie Hebdo] after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam.”

3) The “issue was certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot.”

4) “…do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile? If so, good luck with those charcoal drawings your pages will now be featuring.”

5) “If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. In 2007, Charlie Hebdo re-published the infamous (and, let’ face it, just plain lame) Mohamed caricatures initially printed in 2005 by Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.:

6)”Apart from unconvincing claims of exercising free speech in Western nations where that right no longer needs to be proved, it’s unclear what the objectives of the caricatures were other than to offend Muslims—and provoke hysteria among extremists.”

7)” It’s yet to be seen whether Islamist extremists were behind today’s arson, but both the paper’s current edition, and the rush of politicians to embrace it as the icon of French democracy, raises the possibility of even moderate Muslims thinking “good on you” if and when militants are eventually fingered for the strike.”

8)”So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit,Charlie Hebdo‘s current edition is all of the above, too.”

A hopeless case.

Four years ago, Charlie Hebdo was one of the few European publications willing to reprint a Danish newspaper’s controversial Muhammad cartoons.

The New York Slimes, Washington Compost, La-La Land Times, and every other gutless publication that didn’t have the belly to run the innocuous Danish cartoons should be hanging their heads in shame.

Michael Coren:

Sometimes islam makes me want to scream!

 But there’s some good news also:

Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed

 Defiance in the face of Islamic supremacist intimidation and thuggery. Bravo. “French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb,” by Brian Love for Reuters, November 3:

Time Magazine calls for censorship, blames victims of Islamic attack on French magazine that lampooned Muhammad

Robert Spencer:

In my article at Front Page today I wrote this: “The worst aspect of this firebombing is that there are certain to be voices in the West over the next few days – some of them no doubt quite prominent and respected – who will call on Westerners to be more ‘sensitive’ toward Muslims, and to end this unacceptable hurting of Muslim feelings by drawing cartoons of him and making him the honorary editor-in-chief of a comedy magazine.”

And here we are. The reason why this is the worst aspect of the firebombing is that these pleas to be more “sensitive” to Muslims amount essentially to calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech and the creation of a special, privileged class that is beyond criticism. That is the death of free society and the road to tyranny, for the class that is beyond criticism will have a free hand to do whatever it wants, and what will anyone be able to say?

But Bruce Crumley of Time Magazine, like so many other enlightened liberals, camouflages his slouch toward totalitarianism in the guise of “sensitivity” and resistance to “Islamophobia.” The huge, gaping hole in his argument, however, is that he is making it after Muslims reacted violently to satire. Judaism and Christianity are lampooned on a regular basis, but Bruce Crumley never lifted a finger to call for “sensitivity” toward the religious feelings of others when Piss Christ was being displayed as a serious work of art. So Crumley’s argument boils down to saying that we should capitulate in the face of violent intimidation. This is not really about being sensitive. It is about doing what the thugs want so they won’t hurt us again.

I’d rather die first.

“Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr,” by Bruce Crumley for Time Magazine, November 2 (thanks to Jihad Watch):

4 thoughts on “Sharia Compliant: Bruce Crumley, Paris Bureau Chief For TIME Magazine”

  1. Death threats against Charlie’s host

    The Charlie site is still down, and the host, based in Belgium, refuses to reopen it. So, Charlie may need to look for new host.

    Charlie on the street:

    – We thought, after we had heard a lot of talk about sharia not being all that serious, we’d make a sharia issue, only to realize, after all, that, no, there is no soft sharia.

    – They’ve been threatening us for 20 years. If we should listen to all the threats, we’d have had to stop making newspapers and pack up years ago. But we’re still around, and we keep on doing our work. We couldn’t go into hiding like shaking rabbits.

    – We can’t be afraid. That’s what they want. Our best answer to the attack is not to be afraid. This only makes us ever more determined to keep making Charlie Hebdo!

  2. ““If that weren’t enough to offend Muslims sensitive to jokes about their faith, history helped raised hackles further. ”

    I find face covering in public incredibly offensive to feminists, an affront to Emily P. and no one sensitive to the feelings of atheists and 21st. century women would dare to wear a burka.

    Does that mean it is OK if I set fire to a mosque?

Comments are closed.