iDemo Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 A i svedok tvrdi da je napadač imao plave oči. Na slikama ubijenih jasno se vidi da su crnooki. Video ja kod master teoretičara zavera, Davida Ickea, još u subotu. čekaj, čekaj - ti tvrdish da je napadači = ubijeni? Nikad od tebe jedan ljuCki teoretičar zavere.
iDemo Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Per capita? Ono - realno - svi lazu, narocito kad vidish na prilozenoj mapi da u USofA nema novinara po zatvorima...
iDemo Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I, naravno, u svakom zlu ima i poneko "dobro" pa tako i fajdica za 'tv news channels'... http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/12/charlie-hebdo-coverage-ratings-boost-tv-news-channels-sky-bbc Sto me potseti na Kondolizu i cunami od onomad...
Weenie Pooh Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Charlie Hebdo cartoons: press strives to balance freedom and responsibility Roy Greenslade, The Guardian Why did the British press, unlike some newspapers elsewhere in Europe, refuse to republish the caricatures of Muhammad that led to the slaughter of 12 Charlie Hebdo staff? Plenty of commenters on the Guardian site, not to mention many hundreds on Twitter, asked that question of this newspaper, and all national paper editors, soon after the massacre.The simplest answer is that freedom is, or should always be, tempered by responsibility. Drawing the line between the two is difficult at the best of times. That task is made exceedingly onerous in the face of murderous irrationality. The issue is not, however, about heroism nor its opposite, cowardice. Editors, imbued with their own society’s cultural norms, need to take account of several factors – including their staff’s safety – but the overriding determinant must be the very reason they are given editorial authority in the first place, their answer to one question: is it right for me to publish this material?Despite the tragic circumstances of the massacre, after which journalists everywhere wished to signify their full-hearted support for their murdered brethren, editors had to ask themselves whether to publish cartoons they would otherwise reject. Clearly, some journalists do believe that in such extreme circumstances, it was necessary to show solidarity with the murdered French cartoonists by republishing their images.British national paper editors, who are hardly noted for their unwillingness to publish and be damned, collectively decided otherwise, although the Times did dare to reproduce one small controversial image. It showed the magazine’s front page cartoon of Muhammad from the issue that prompted the firebombing of its offices in 2011. It was surely key to British newspaper editors’ thinking that, in the normal run of things, they would not have published such cartoons in the first place. That’s not to say they did not support the right of Charlie Hebdo’s editor and staff to have done so. It simply means that, imbued with British culture and British sensitivities, they did not believe it right for them to follow suit. In other words, despite the widespread belief that our press is imbued with a publish-and-be-damned devil-may-care attitude, editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by legal restrictions, but by a sense of what is fair and tolerable within British society. This surely is the point about the difference between freedom and responsibility. Press freedom has never been taken to mean that we can publish anything we like. Legal constraints aside, editors have always taken account of society’s wider sensibilities in deciding where to draw the line. When it comes to physical threats, they also have to show concern for their staff. It was a point well made by the Independent’s editor, Amol Rajan, who said he wished he could, in time-honoured fashion, have published. But, out of duty to his staff, his self-censorship had been necessary to “balance principle with pragmatism”. There was another balancing act, however, which gets to the heart of this dilemma. Should British editors ever carry material, whatever the circumstances, that they would not normally publish? At a “Je suis Charlie” seminar staged by the Guardian last Thursday, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, explained there were “offensive” Charlie Hebdo cartoons “that the Guardian would never in the normal run of events publish”. It was all very well to defend the magazine’s right to exercise its freedom and right to offend – including what Rusbridger called its “ethos and values” – but that could not be the defining issue for another publication.To borrow and paraphrase the maxim erroneously attributed to Voltaire, it was a case of disapproving of what Charlie Hebdo had published, but expressing a willingness to defend its right to do so. Rusbridger said: “It felt to me there was some tokenism in demanding that the Guardian should change [its editorial values].” Clearly, other editors felt the same way: their natural support for the cartoonists’ rights was offset by the fact that they would not have normally published such images themselves. Their refusal to publish such cartoons cannot be adduced as proof of cowardice, nor as a sign that they capitulated to intimidation. It should be seen instead as editors, as they do daily, taking account of the effects of what they publish. In essence, they had to ask themselves if they should gratuitously insult a religion and its adherents, because a very small group of fanatics had misused its teachings in order to justify murder. Indeed, would publication of the offending cartoons serve only to provoke others to take retaliatory action or, at the very least, encourage yet more alienation of Muslims in British society?One Guardian columnist, Timothy Garton Ash, has called on editors across Europe to republish Charlie Hebdo’s front covers in order to show solidarity with the murdered cartoonists. It is a heartfelt and natural reaction to savagery. The criminals who masquerade as martyrs, and their supporters, need to know that western values, which allow for satire, will not be changed by murder. So British editors will surely reject a call to publish on the grounds that intolerance is best fought by tolerance.
Gandalf Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Ovo boldovano nije tacno. KIna je prva na ovom spisku: http://cpj.org/imprisoned/2014.php pa dobro, momak je par puta i omasio. sustina ostaje ista. Davutoglu se ni na koji nacin ne da opisati kao sampion slobode govora i misljenja, naprotiv. Edited January 12, 2015 by Gandalf
yolo Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Мухаммед Хамди Јусуфспахић 2 hrs · Edited · Боже, Својом Наградом Награди Иринеја Буловића, Владику-Епископа бачкога, за исказану истину поводом изругивања Теби и Твоме посланику коначном, ближеном, миреном Ахмеду Мухаммеду, и поводом убиства Твојих створења. Награди, Боже и свакога ко се са том истином слаже, и за њу се залаже.
Weenie Pooh Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Bog ga prati na tviteru, a ne prati Portparola Irineja pa ovaj mora da retvituje njegovu poslenicu?
Cane Vukic Prebranac Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Super onda Izrael i Francuska su na istoj talasnoj dužini. Ja sam više mislio zbog ovoga
Conspirator Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) eto jedan "bingo" za kontruktore raznih teorija Ma jok, nije to ništa. Slučajnost. Dešava se kao na primer kad ti jedan od najvećih eksperata za terorizam pogine u WTC. Jebiga. Edited January 12, 2015 by Conspirator
Recommended Posts