Murdoch: All Muslims “Must Be Held Responsible” for Paris Attack


In an astonishing tweet Saturday morning, the News Corp head declared that 1.6 billion muslims “must be held responsible” for the attacks that claimed 12 lives in Paris last week.

He didn’t elaborate how, but apparently all the hate speech, libel and disinformation against Islam disseminated by his countless news organizations is not good enough for the rabid media mogul. Perhaps some yellow crescents on our sleeves would satisfy his sadistic need to punish us all. But more likely than not, nothing short of worldwide internment of all practicing Muslims in western states and nuclear annihilation of any uncooperative Muslim state will meet the needs of this shameless scion, who advocates collective punishment against 1.6 billion human beings for the actions of 3.

Screen Shot 2015-01-12 at 12.27.11 PM


  1. That is like saying all the world’s Jews should be held liable for the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and Mavi Marmara, and the Lavon affair, etc. etc. until the Jews remove the Zionist cancer growing in their midst!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. ALL Jews must be held responsible for crucifying Christ.
    ALL Jews must be held responsible for murdering CHILDREN in FEMA Camp GAZA..
    ALL Murdochs must be held responsible for cowardly tapping of phones.


  3. This is prepping a war on Americans.A couple similar attacks here ….. they DEMAND all firearms be turned in……and the reason for the “militarization of police” is obvious as the Civil War explodes.


  4. Murdoch what about the little girl who was murdered in the UK and you tapped her phone to get some low down on her.. The Muslims of this world owe you NOTHING..So shut up

    Liked by 1 person

  5. OK, then does that mean all individual Jews can be held liable for each war crime committed by Israel? Let’s do it.


  6. Typical Jew reaction, collective punishment and or blame is the standard for them. When these children of satan are wiped off the face of the earth along with satan himself, then and only then can one begin to imagine a world of peace and beauty. The unfortunate thing is before that would happen the Jew and its followers will have made the planet unsafe to live on, and eliminated perhaps 7 billion people.


  7. muslim jihadists are a creation of mossad- they invented them, they run them like a boy scout troop. the real jihad religion is zionism: an atheist, racist, war-mongering, hate-mongering, slave-mongering ideology, with murdoch as it’s greatest cheerleader!


    • Ed, I won’t argue with you about the tenets of zionism, because I think you are just about right. Although I am sure zionists would beg to differ. But I think it’s important for non-Arabic speakers to understand that the Arabic (or Islamic) word “jihad” means only one thing and that is “struggle in the name of God.” There is only One God. Therefore, there can be no such thing as zionist jihad. It’s an oxymoron as zionists clearly worship themselves and power, not God, which is the basis of the problem to begin with. Jihad is not a dirty word. It’s been twisted by zionists to be so, because lying and twisting words is what they’re best at.


      • most words have more than one definition, so in this case i am arguing with you AND proving you wrong- my use of the word jihad is correct:

        2 jihad
        : a crusade for a principle or belief


      • there is only one god? says who? you? and if so, i invite you to prove the existence of ‘god’.


      • lol, obviously, I am speaking in the context of Islam, which is necessarily the context of the word “jihad,” which is, like or not, a distinctly ISLAMIC word. Sure, you can attach whatever meaning you like to the word, once you’ve exported it to the English lexicon, but that’s called twisting the meaning. It’s not a legitimate practice. It’s done by unscrupulous lawyers everywhere. I ought to know. I’m a lawyer and that’s part of why many lawyers are hated, rightly so. So, in short, I’m not about to argue with you over the existence of God, since I couldn’t care less if you believe in God.


      • And btw, it’s every human being’s right to believe or not believe in God. If it was mandatory or could be proven beyond all doubt then faith would be meaningless. It’s my position that I would rather believe in God to die and discover he does not exist, than believe he does not exist only to die and discover that he does.


      • again i am proving you wrong-the word jihad exists in the english language, hence the dictionary definition i supplied you with for your edification- it was an english language dictionary. i was not speaking arabic, nor was the author of the article. any foreign word can enter the english language when it’s usage becomes common as the word jihad is now a common english word. also- czar- it is a russian word, but now common in english. so when i say zionist jihad, i am using the term correctly. spaghetti and macaroni are also italian words which are now common in our language. a caveat- the actual ‘jihad’ warriors we commonly see in news reports are paid mercenaries- they care not what side they are fighting for, only that they get paid to slaughter. they are presented as holy warriors in the media, but they are anything but. your pretense that they have some sort of mandate from god that legitimizes them is a facade- they in fact and for the most part, have no such beliefs.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’m not saying that the so-called terrorists, whom the mainstream media conveniently (but incorrectly) labels islamic “jihadis” are indeed engaged in “jihad” in the conventional Islamic sense. We’re arguing over nothing. Jihad is an islamic word. It has been successfully imported to the English language, attached to a suite of decidedly un-islamic conduct and connotations.If I accept that the new corrupted English definition of the word is legitimate, where does that leave the original unadulterated meaning of the islamic term, which still exists in the Quran, its original source?


      • you made the statement- there is only one god- did you not? in fact there are many many gods and many many religions. you were speaking of the islamic faith when you made your statement- your failure to clarify that is what i was addressing.
        i accept that you are unable to prove the existence of your one god. anything which requires belief is contrary to facts and evidence, so you admit defeat in that arena- proving the existence of god. however, the fact that different religions exist proves that there are many different gods. they all may or may not have a physical existence in the universe, but they for sure exist in the social mores of our world’s cultures. so, there is in fact more than one god in evidence among our world’s cultures. it is arrogant and condescending to state otherwise. allah is not more important than ganesh to their respective worshipers.


      • You’re missing the point, because you would rather make your own, which is beyond what I’m saying. You used a word that comes from the Quran, and in it holds a specific meaning for muslims, who believe that there is only one God, notwithstanding everyone else’s beliefs. That is not condescending. It is distinguishing Islam from other religions that present multiple gods. Muslims are not authorized to judge others, God judges. Muslims seek guidance, pray, and struggle to live by God’s rules, as outlined in the Quran. To each his own religion.


      • you are not a recognized expert on the english language- the dictionary is the recognized authority- and i quoted it. in this case, your choice of preference for technical religious commentary is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the fact that jihad is now used in english in different contexts than it was originally intended. done deal- get over it. i can show you a current article form today’s headlines that uses jihad as i did- i noted it this morning. why don’t you write the dictionary and get them to delete the non-religious definitions? until you accomplish that, you lost the debate. my usage is already proven correct by the dictionary.


      • You do what you like. I don’t let other people define the world around me. Words are powerful weapons. You complain about zionists yet you embrace their language. Bravo. Good fight.


      • you claim i missed some point? wrong again. i made the point that the real jihadists are the zionists. meaning the guys who are really behind the supposed ‘muslim jihad’ are really israelis. your objection was that i used the word jihad incorrectly- i conclusively proved that i did not err. your mere insistence that i am incorrect cannot negate the fact that the authority of the english language, ie., the dictionary, refutes you utterly. you keep raising on a busted flush- my point was valid, my usage of the word is valid. we are not in a MADRASSA, madame, and your skirt is blown up and your pedantic pedagogy is showing.


      • hahaha, you get an A for effort. very creative, albeit irrelevant. I reject your “authority.” But no matter, we can at least agree that the publicized muslim jihad is an israeli concoction.


      • your claim seems to be that since muslims invented the word jihad- that i can only use ‘their’ word in the context that you personally define as acceptable. you are telling me what, when, where, and how i can and cannot use that word. yet you expose your hypocrisy in this matter by stating that YOU do not allow others to tell you how to use words- exactly what you are trying- unsuccessfully- to do to me. that is proof of your hypocrisy. and further- it is a fact that words gain meanings with extended usage. all these points reinforce your defeat in debate.


      • i get an ‘A’ because i did my homework and learned the modern english language and used an authoritative reference book- the dictionary, as well as cited precedent. your response was to attempt to convert me to islam. how is that working out for you?


      • rofl, very good for a laugh. I am not attempting to convert you to Islam. I don’t give a rat’s ass what God you believe in. Listen, you make a valid point. I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I am not trying to impose my definition of jihad on you. But if you are an honest truth seeker then you must recognize that there is an alternate definition of jihad, that predates the English common usage. You must leave room for it, if you want to understand reality as it exists beyond the confines of the zionist narrative.


      • “it’s every human being’s right to believe or not believe in God. If it was mandatory or could be proven beyond all doubt then faith would be meaningless.” RF

        your statement was that ‘there is only one god’. i proved that is not the case. the world’s religions contain many many gods. your statement that there is only one god was demonstrated as false- so i invited you to prove your statement by proving the existence of your god- you declined. right there you lost that debate- when you declined to provide proof. you decided to change the subject to faith- faith was never in the discussion- recall- you stated: there is only one god’. there is no mention of faith there- that was your attempt to divert the discussion away from your inability to prove the existence of god. if god exist, faith is irrelevant to that existence. belief is irrelevant to the existence of god. belief and faith are crutches that weak-minded simpletons use to tell themselves that the magic man in the sky with a beard is looking out for them. i need no crutch.


      • I reject your “authority.” RF

        you cannot reject the recognized authority of the english language- the dictionary. what you are really saying is: i reject logic and instead embrace superstition. because belief is in fact merely superstition.

        a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
        b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
        : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

        and once again, you are defeated in debate by the authority of the dictionary.


  8. pan murdoch by měl začít u sebe,tento teror. čin je stajné divadlo jako 11. září v USA , vpozadí je CIA a muslimové jen záminka, cíle jsou stejné – válka , nechcete válku s ruskem tak bude proti muslimum-zabíjet se bude …BILDERBERG tak rozhodl….


  9. “You used a word that comes from the Quran, and in it holds a specific meaning for muslims…” RF

    you keep attempting to make a point that has already been refuted, so i will again prove you wrong:
    1. i did not use a word that cam e from the koran: it is a word that has been in use in the english language for 20 years. if that word gained other meanings that you object to in it’s tenure here in ‘anglo-land’, that WAS NOT MY DOING. you are attempting to shoot the messenger- a logical fallacy.

    2. i offer you up the word karma- you are familiar with it- correct? i thought so. you imagine that the word means that your actions will have repercussions to balance the slate in this life. ie., if you do good things for people you can expect the same- and vice-versa? that is what the word means in english- it is now an english word- everyone knows it and many use it (have you EVER used it? fess up!). well- guess what- it was a hindu religious term and what it really means is that what you do in one life will be repaid to you in your next incarnation- not in this life, but in future lives after you are reborn- which could for them even mean being reborn as an animal IF their actions so dictate. so if you ever used that word in the english language, you likely used the unscriptural definition- and i assume you do NOT believe in reincarnation- am i correct? and do you correct others when you hear them using the word ‘karma’ incorrectly? that again exposes your hypocrisy- you object when an islamic word is ‘misconstrued’, but ignore ‘misconstrued’ hindu words. and clearly that indicates that you do not regard other religions as worthy of respect and understanding.

    and tell me- do you muslims have a derogatory word for hindus- such as ‘kufr’? yes, you say? and did you know that that the particular ‘unbeliever’ definition of that arabic word was unknown in the arabic language before the koran?- it did not exist in the arabic language before muhammed dictated the koran (since he could not write- you do know he was illiterate?)

    so what that means is your ‘prophet’ borrowed a RELIGIOUS definition from another language and inserted them with this new specific meanings in his new scripture.

    so he did just what you tried to correct me on- muhammed took a hebrew RELIGIOUS meaning for an arabic word from hebrew and inserted it into the arabic language for his own purposes.

    do you object to that the way you object to english speakers using the word jihad with expanded meanings? what’s that you say? no? well you again exposed you hypocrisy.

    muhammed stole this particlar religious definition of the word from jews (as he stole monotheism from the jews and xians), because the pagan polytheistic arabs (who existed for millenia before islam- their religion was around for longer than islam has been on earth)- did not have any religious connotation to this word. to summarize- muhammed took a jewish religious meaning to an arab word and used that excuse as a reason to exterminate polytheistic arabs. the polytheistic arabs had no animosity towards unbeleivers- they had no jihad either.

    and was not that the first jihad? why, yes- it was. it is also called FRATRICIDE.
    they slaugthered their own kinsman for refusing to convert to the NEW religion.

    SO MUCH FOR THE RELIGION OF PEACE- RIGHT? those poor camel hearder had no idea what was coming to them. do you pray for them?

    (a caveat- i am not attacking islam- xians and jews did the same thing- monotheism seems to really express a psychotic need to wipe out the opposition… perhaps it is because the first monotheistic religion- ATONISM, was exterminated by the polytheistic egyptians.)

    as to your attempt to again establish that there is only one god- again i invite you to prove it- because i have already established in this dialogue that there exist many religions and many, many gods. so clearly- there is not just one god. nor was monotheisim the first religion. you do not get to assert the existence of only one god unless you can prove it- that is an insult to the debate process- AND THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION WHICH YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE LEARNED IN LAW SCHOOL.

    i am well versed in the classic 4 pillars or argumantation.

    so unless you can definitively prove the existence of you one god- you are utterly defeated in every point you tried to make.

    nor did i begin this debate- you attempted unsuccessfully to correct me, and you failed miserably.

    let me give you some advice child- do not ever correct someone unless you can prove you are right. some of us have been around a long time- and no, i am not on facebook. that is like me asking you ‘are you an ISIS supporter?’.

    and further, the reason my debate style sounds familiar is that _it is the voice of logic_- the voice of reason (vs you: the voice of superstition).

    anything else i can help you with- some of your court cases maybe?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s