Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State of the world, state sponsored terror, terror and war in general

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
    ^
    ^^

    What a bunch of BS. The cartoonists did nothing wrong. They offended some people. Big deal. Different things offend different people. There is nothing wrong with creating art that offends people. Calling out a bull**** religious system and radicals who kill gays, oppress women, and murder people for saying the wrong thing is fair game in a free society. The offended people are free to loathe the work and to proclaim how it's disgusting to them.

    There is no mark to miss with this. These people drew cartoons that offended some people. There is nothing wrong with that. If anything, it's something to be celebrated. These attacks were not provoked, because a cartoon can't logically provoke an attack. Does it provoke anger? Absolutely. But not an attack.

    Let's not lose sight of this - these cartoonists were murdered because a few thin skinned people with an impotent, evidently insecure deity got their panties in a bunch. Don't think for a second that an attack was provoked. Both of you are smarter than that.
    You read my post wrong. I never said the cartoonists were bad or wrong. Just careless. I am very sad about this. I hope people are more careful and think twice about making fun of these crazy people without heavy security. There may be radicals reading C2E so I will say no more about them. Who knows. Say too much and one could show up my door or office for a short visit. Any one of us for that matter. I for one am scared $hitless of them. They lurk among us.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 09-01-2015, 08:10 PM.
    Just enjoying another day in paradise.

    Comment


    • Just bumping this earlier post. I think it somewhat explains the mental state of the religiously radical mind that the cartoonists angered.

      Originally posted by KC View Post
      Author's journey inside ISIS: They're 'more dangerous than people realize'
      By Frederik Pleitgen, CNN, Dec 22, 2014


      excerpts:


      One of the most remarkable episodes of Todenhoefer's trip to the ISIS-controlled region came when he was able to conduct an interview with a German fighter who spoke on behalf of ISIS's leadership.
      The man -- clearly unapologetic about the group's transgressions -- vowed there was more to come; he also issued a warning to Europe and the United States.

      "So you also want to come to Europe?" Todenhoefer asked him.
      "No, we will conquer Europe one day," the man said. "It is not a question of if we will conquer Europe, just a matter of when that will happen. But it is certain ... For us, there is no such thing as borders. There are only front lines.

      "Our expansion will be perpetual ... And the Europeans need to know that when we come, it will not be in a nice way. It will be with our weapons. And those who do not convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax will be killed."


      ...

      "What about the 150 million Shia, what if they refuse to convert?" Todenhoefer asked.
      "150 million, 200 million or 500 million, it does not matter to us," the fighter answered. "We will kill them all."

      ...

      "I would say that slavery is a great help to us and we will continue to have slavery and beheadings, it is part of our religion ... many slaves have converted to Islam and have then been freed. ..."




      http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/world/...html?hpt=hp_t4

      Comment


      • So very scary.
        Just enjoying another day in paradise.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
          Jonathan Freedland makes a strong case in a Guardian column in support of not publishing the offending cartoons.

          "If the challenge, then, is to frustrate the killers’ desire to fuse themselves with Islam, then that puts a burden on non-Muslims too. They have to take great care that nothing they do, especially in response to this threat, treats the Muslim majority and the jihadist cult as if they were one group. They are not. Our politicians have to observe that distinction in every decision they take. If a policy appears aimed at Muslims rather than at the handful of jihadist fanatics, then it’s the wrong policy.

          Those of us in the media have a version of that obligation too. Wednesday’s deaths brought a loud chorus insisting that Charlie Hebdo was vulnerable because it had been left out on a limb. That was down, they said, to the cowardice of the rest of the press, lacking the guts to do what the French magazine had done. Now, if the declarations of Je Suis Charlie were to mean anything, papers like the Guardian ought to make amends and either republish the magazine’s offending cartoons or do its own depictions of the prophet – just to prove that it could.

          Behind this argument is an assumption that Islam is a unique case. Yet for that to be true, a paper like the Guardian would be running images every day that it knew trampled on the sensibilities of, say, women or Jews or people of colour or myriad others – holding back only when it came to Muslims and what matters to them. But that’s not how it is. Mostly we do our best, not always successfully, to avoid causing that kind of pain.

          And this is the key point. It is not only violent jihadists who resent representations of the prophet: such pictures trouble many millions of peaceful Muslims too. To print one now would be to take a stand against the former by offending the latter.

          And that makes no sense. Not when our every move must now be aimed at confounding the killers’ wish to make this a holy war, pitting Muslims against everyone else. It is no such thing. Theirs is a dirty little war, a handful of wicked fanatics against the rest of us. And they must lose."

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ist-death-cult
          Most of the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons that I saw are offensive, more so that the infamous Danish Cartoons of a few years back. For that reason I do support media outlets in not reprinting them simply to show solidarity. The important thing is to show solidarity in upholding free speech, not in making offense.
          The bit of this guardian editorial that seems to be missing is a distinction between avoiding the kind of clearly disrespectful depictions that Charlie Hebdo published, and what should be editorially neutral images. In a publication that takes free speech seriously Mohammed should be treated exactly like any other person. Non Muslim institutions and people in general should feel no need to follow (non- core and non-quranic) rules about art than we should be compelled to wear beards or headscarves just because certain sects demand it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
            So very scary.
            When 911 occurred they were interviewing people on the street of NY city and I recall one guy saying that America should go over to the middle east right now and nuke the whole place. This was before anyone knew who had even conducted the attack. Even today I bet you can find people like that - everyone is guilty by association (or in the case of ISIS, if not all of Islam, guilt by disassociation).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by highlander View Post
              Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
              Jonathan Freedland makes a strong case in a Guardian column in support of not publishing the offending cartoons.

              "If the challenge, then, is to frustrate the killers’ desire to fuse themselves with Islam, then that puts a burden on non-Muslims too. They have to take great care that nothing they do, especially in response to this threat, treats the Muslim majority and the jihadist cult as if they were one group. They are not. Our politicians have to observe that distinction in every decision they take. If a policy appears aimed at Muslims rather than at the handful of jihadist fanatics, then it’s the wrong policy.

              Those of us in the media have a version of that obligation too. Wednesday’s deaths brought a loud chorus insisting that Charlie Hebdo was vulnerable because it had been left out on a limb. That was down, they said, to the cowardice of the rest of the press, lacking the guts to do what the French magazine had done. Now, if the declarations of Je Suis Charlie were to mean anything, papers like the Guardian ought to make amends and either republish the magazine’s offending cartoons or do its own depictions of the prophet – just to prove that it could.

              Behind this argument is an assumption that Islam is a unique case. Yet for that to be true, a paper like the Guardian would be running images every day that it knew trampled on the sensibilities of, say, women or Jews or people of colour or myriad others – holding back only when it came to Muslims and what matters to them. But that’s not how it is. Mostly we do our best, not always successfully, to avoid causing that kind of pain.

              And this is the key point. It is not only violent jihadists who resent representations of the prophet: such pictures trouble many millions of peaceful Muslims too. To print one now would be to take a stand against the former by offending the latter.

              And that makes no sense. Not when our every move must now be aimed at confounding the killers’ wish to make this a holy war, pitting Muslims against everyone else. It is no such thing. Theirs is a dirty little war, a handful of wicked fanatics against the rest of us. And they must lose."

              http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ist-death-cult
              Most of the Charlie Hebdo Cartoons that I saw are offensive, more so that the infamous Danish Cartoons of a few years back. For that reason I do support media outlets in not reprinting them simply to show solidarity. The important thing is to show solidarity in upholding free speech, not in making offense.
              The bit of this guardian editorial that seems to be missing is a distinction between avoiding the kind of clearly disrespectful depictions that Charlie Hebdo published, and what should be editorially neutral images. In a publication that takes free speech seriously Mohammed should be treated exactly like any other person. Non Muslim institutions and people in general should feel no need to follow (non- core and non-quranic) rules about art than we should be compelled to wear beards or headscarves just because certain sects demand it.
              "The important thing is to show solidarity in upholding free speech, not in making offense." I almost agree.

              Urging every news body to print more of the cartoons is just an emotional vindictive reaction and not really about free speech. Demands for solidarity in defence of free speech are really demands against liberty, free will and free speech if they are too forceful in putting pressure on other organizations to print what they don't want to print.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
                I hope people are more careful and think twice about making fun of these crazy people without heavy security. There may be radicals reading C2E so I will say no more about them. Who knows. Say too much and one could show up my door or office for a short visit. Any one of us for that matter. I for one am scared $hitless of them. They lurk among us.
                I don't agree with any of this.

                Art should be dangerous. These artists died because somebody got upset and offended at their drawings, but it demonstrated just how powerful these satirical cartoons really are. The fact that some pen strokes on paper can shake someone so deeply to their core that they will perform monstrous acts against fellow humans, show us that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

                It also illustrates how powerful thoughts and ideas can be, and proved how terrified the fundamentalist Muslims are of anyone who questions the world around them.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by KC View Post
                  Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
                  So very scary.
                  When 911 occurred they were interviewing people on the street of NY city and I recall one guy saying that America should go over to the middle east right now and nuke the whole place. This was before anyone knew who had even conducted the attack. Even today I bet you can find people like that - everyone is guilty by association (or in the case of ISIS, if not all of Islam, guilt by disassociation).
                  the attitude you describe exists and is indefensible. but change new york to tehran or baghdad or kabul or islamabad and it will exist there as well, simply with different targets. the difference is in the support those attitudes receive or don't receive and what happens as a result. you don't see those new yorkers setting up terrorist cells in france and killing cartoonists and grocery shoppers. there's not much we can do about someone's attitude except educate and try to change. there is more we can - and should - do in response to those that take action against others based on those kinds of attitudes. and allowing them to take those kinds of actions without responding or by acceding to their ever escalating demands to do or not do certain things - from imposing sharia law to not printing cartoons - to avoid those actions is not a productive response.
                  "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                  Comment


                  • The only thing thast should be done in reaction to these attacks -- beyond the usual criminal proceedings for murder, etc. -- is to strengthen the hate propaganda laws and apply them with the maximum possible harshness.

                    As far as I am concerned, all statements of the form "all X is Y" where X is an identifiable group and Y is anything at all should be punished by jail at minimum, and death at maximum, if death is what results or is in the minimum way implied.

                    The cartoons were as culpable as the attacks.

                    And, by the way, murder is murder, not terrorism.

                    Comment


                    • Murder intended to induce fear and change behavior of the murdered people community absolutely is terrorism. Racial lynchings in the american south were terrirism. So was this.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AShetsen View Post
                        The only thing thast should be done in reaction to these attacks -- beyond the usual criminal proceedings for murder, etc. -- is to strengthen the hate propaganda laws and apply them with the maximum possible harshness.

                        As far as I am concerned, all statements of the form "all X is Y" where X is an identifiable group and Y is anything at all should be punished by jail at minimum, and death at maximum, if death is what results or is in the minimum way implied.

                        The cartoons were as culpable as the attacks.

                        And, by the way, murder is murder, not terrorism.
                        And so Ashetson believes that 80% of the Muslim population should be put to death for saying that the punishment for leaving Islam should be death.

                        And Ashetson should be put to death for saying so.

                        And on it goes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AShetsen View Post
                          The only thing thast should be done in reaction to these attacks -- beyond the usual criminal proceedings for murder, etc. -- is to strengthen the hate propaganda laws and apply them with the maximum possible harshness.

                          As far as I am concerned, all statements of the form "all X is Y" where X is an identifiable group and Y is anything at all should be punished by jail at minimum, and death at maximum, if death is what results or is in the minimum way implied.

                          The cartoons were as culpable as the attacks.

                          And, by the way, murder is murder, not terrorism.
                          aren't you making an "all x is y" statement here yourself???

                          as for culpability, do you really believe those dead shoppers - who were guilty of nothing more than grocery shopping at the time - were killed by cartoons?

                          and do you also believe it was completely random that it was a kosher grocery store and not a halal market that was chosen to hold hostages for ransom to secure the release of their partners in murder even if you don't want to call them partners in terrorism?

                          there should most certainly be strong anti-hatred laws that should be enforced, something we have still not managed to put in place and enforce here but we have made some progress in the last thirty years but that's no reason to take up arms and put them use.

                          even without the cartoons, that premeditated killing and kidnapping using automatic weaponry would have found another reason/excuse for similar action and that's what makes it more than murder, particularly when others who die have absolutely no connection to those who penned a cartoon or those who did whatever constitutes the chosen excuse to take those actions.

                          when what is being planned for is being planned prior to to the selected precipitating event and would occur regardless with a different precipitating event, i would disagree with your classifying it as "just" murder and not terrorism, just as I disagree with your equating cartoons and murder/terrorism as equivalent culpable events.
                          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
                            There may be radicals reading C2E so I will say no more about them. Who knows. Say too much and one could show up my door or office for a short visit. Any one of us for that matter. I for one am scared $hitless of them. They lurk among us.
                            Yeah, I hear some of those save-the-Muni types can be pretty militant!

                            Je Suis YEG.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                              Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                              Poking those factions with whatever stick we can does not result in assuaging that cause it foments it.

                              In the case of Hebdo it is arguably this nature of action which serves to perpetuate hate in the factions that are incited. Indeed Hebdo would be unable to come up with more effective ways in which to further the motivations of those that they sought to satire.

                              So thank you to all the responsible media sources in the world who have chosen not to run in this foolish and highly irresponsible manner.
                              Responsible? That's an awful attitude to have - that people must walk on eggshells around one specific group so that we don't accidentally offend them. Those nutcases would've found another excuse to do something like this.
                              I stated my rationale clearly and chose my words carefully. If you quote in isolation it removes that context in what is a very volatile topic.

                              So I have to repeat some of the premise.

                              1)Hebdo action to depict and satire the Deity was inacted without purpose. Why do that. What was ACTUALLY achieved through that action?

                              2)This is not about Freedom of Speech, this does not even help freedom of speech if one was to argue that angle as people have attempted. If you rebuke this please outline how "freedom of speech" was furthered.

                              3)Decisions to do what Hebdo did had predictable tragic consequence. Known consequence. As soon as Hebdo decided to do this there was going to be a tragic reaction. Despite you stating "this would happen anyway" would we be talking about the deaths of 17 innocents in Paris had this not occurred? At this point its illogic to not connect the two. They are intertwined.

                              4)The decision, as mentioned, resulted in the deaths of innocents. 17 innocents. Yet all we hear from some pundits is "Terrorists Killed" as if there was any victory here. In this action, there is only loss, and tragedy, thus my response thanking the many "responsible" media sources that exercise much better judgement.
                              Last edited by Replacement; 10-01-2015, 10:23 AM.
                              "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                                Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
                                I hope people are more careful and think twice about making fun of these crazy people without heavy security. There may be radicals reading C2E so I will say no more about them. Who knows. Say too much and one could show up my door or office for a short visit. Any one of us for that matter. I for one am scared $hitless of them. They lurk among us.
                                I don't agree with any of this.

                                Art should be dangerous. These artists died because somebody got upset and offended at their drawings, but it demonstrated just how powerful these satirical cartoons really are. The fact that some pen strokes on paper can shake someone so deeply to their core that they will perform monstrous acts against fellow humans, show us that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

                                It also illustrates how powerful thoughts and ideas can be, and proved how terrified the fundamentalist Muslims are of anyone who questions the world around them.
                                Pen 3 Sword 17.

                                Does not compute.
                                "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X