Shooting in Paris

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

If you cant see the difference in actively inciting your attacker, and being a victim of an attack simply because you existed in a certain space time location they did not like either your blinded by your views, or your consciously ignoring it to continue to be a troll here and argue with people.

Once again, when you have to distort reality so badly to make your point you should consider that it might be time to give up.

None of the western ISIS victims 'simply existed' in the same place as ISIS, they purposefully travelled there with the intention of doing things they knew ISIS wouldn't like.

You said 'actions have consequences' but you seem to be arguing that 'only offensive actions have consequences'. It defies reason or logic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 905]

I just thought he was a dumb, backwoods, uneducated, redneck simply looking for attention and was an embarrassment to us as a nation.
It wasn't in anyway satirical humor.

[HighJB 0]

Anvilbrother

Its like our drunk guy in a bar example. Hebdo was the drunk asshole yelling insults in the air at a certain race, creed, or religion, and got beat up V.S. the Journalists who were beheaded were simply sitting at the bar quietly and got sucker punched in the back of the head for simply being in the wrong neighborhood.

Clearly it never happened and they were struggling against xenophobia.
Some organisations sued them for incitating to racial hatred, Charlie won their trials.
It seems that you really don't know what this paper was about.

ça passe ou ça frotte

[rehmwa 2]

Anvilbrother

Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for.

What did they 'ask for'? a mass shooting? I doubt it.

most likely they were just trying to titillate their customer base and sell some ad revenue.

I'd accuse them of being naive and stupid at best, purposefully provoking at worst, but certainly NOT culpable for the killing in anyway. Is this really your point?


HOW one responds to provocation is 100% the responsibility of that person.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Once again, when you have to distort reality so badly to make your point you should consider that it might be time to give up. None of the western ISIS victims 'simply existed' in the same place as ISIS, they purposefully travelled there with the intention of doing things they knew ISIS wouldn't like.

Your the one distorting things. The beheaded journalists did not travel there to take pictures BECAUSE they knew Muslims would not like it. There are risks for journalist in a war zone but they were not out there with cardboard cutouts of Mohammed asking terrorists to stand next to them so they could photograph them. There is a difference in the intent and actions of Charlie Hebdo(staff) that Steven Sotloff, and James Foley did not exhibit.. Its clear we will not agree on this, and your just being a troll.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[wmw999 2,600]

Well I was going to pick a portion of your post to reply approvingly to, but the whole post was good.

So: what he said

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[champu 1]

Skyrad

But yet we live in the real world where not everyone obeys the law. CH decided to pitch their insulting and offensive content directly at terrorists (the last thing they published online before the shooting was a pop at Al Bagdadi) they knew what IS do and have done to people who the believe insult their beliefs and they knew that they would be targeted. Sure they were free to do so but the outcome is far from surprising.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the outcome was unsurprising. I understand how cause and effect works. What I am arguing is that a predictable outcome is not sufficient to transfer or share "blame" or "fault" or whatever you want to call it.

The critical link in the chain of events is the one where Islamists interpret insult as being in the same bucket as a physical attack. This is why an insult of their profit is met with murder. This is a link that absolutely no one is required to respect. This is a link whose existence is entirely within the minds of those who espouse it. It is a "blame diode" in any chain of events in which it exists.

Here's another analogy for us to chew on (maybe chew apart, I dunno... analogies are seldom perfect.) Suppose I work at a company that makes widgets and, in the course of my job, I find out part of the widget making process is causing massive damage to the environment, but in a way that won't be apparent for a while. I bring it up with management and they tell me to shut up if I know what's good for me. I take the issue to the press and, in return, the company fires me, pulls strings to have me harassed by landlords, etc. and generally tries to run my name into the ground to destroy my credibility.

It wouldn't have been that difficult to predict that would happen, hell they told me to shut up if I knew what was good for me, but you wouldn't say it was my fault I got run through the mud.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Your the one distorting things. The beheaded journalists did not travel there to take pictures BECAUSE they knew Muslims would not like it.

But they did travel there, and they did know it wouldn't be liked - so a) you're admitting your description of the circumstance is bullshit and b) those are positive actions. Again, you said 'actions have consequences'. Did you simply mean 'actions I don't like have consequences'?.

Quote

Its clear we will not agree on this, and your just being a troll.

So far only one person agrees with you, so...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,610]

rehmwa

***Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for.

.
.
.
I'd accuse them of being naive and stupid at best, purposefully provoking at worst, but certainly NOT culpable for the killing in anyway. Is this really your point?

Told you so.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

There is a difference in being the only white man in a bar that is 100% black where you know you probably are not welcome and getting beat up while quietly drinking in the corner VS Being in the same bar, standing in a table and yelling nigger until your beat up...... However you take it if it makes you feel better I will say it this way. I'm not supprised by what happened due to their actions.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

There is a difference in being the only white man in a bar that is 100% black where you know you probably are not welcome and getting beat up while quietly drinking in the corner VS Being in the same bar, standing in a table and yelling nigger until your beat up

In this case the bar would have a sign on the door saying 'Crackers not welcome, we're gonna fuck you up" and they went in anyway. Are they morally responsible for people around them getting hurt?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Is there a sign in the Middle East that says that, or it is just understood? Pls provide proof of picture. If not your making up shit arguments.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[lawrocket 3]

Anvilbrother

If you cant see the difference in actively inciting your attacker, and being a victim of an attack simply because you existed in a certain space time location they did not like either your blinded by your views, or your consciously ignoring it to continue to be a troll here and argue with people.

Just like those Jews at the Deli in Paris were inciting. 4 of them dead. How about eight Shiites dead in Pakistani mosque? Suicide bomber in Egypt kills nine in a cafe. Eight Shiites killed by a bomber in Baghdad. Those were this weekend. Boko haram took out 2000 people last week.

It does not seem as though one necessarily has to do something to be killed. Obviously, your chances improve of getting blasted if you publish something viewed as insulting, such as a cartoon depicting Allah or Muhammed.

Actively inciting an attacker? That's too close to, "well, she was drunk and did you see how she was dressed? She was asking for it." No. Post hoc justifications are disgusting.

The editors didn't just pick on Islam. They went 360 degrees. But any fear rests with one religion that seems to have greater that its pro tanto share of murderous villains.

And these villains are fucking gangsters. Thugs. People who are psychopaths who found a religion that gives them another outlet for their desires.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Anvilbrother

There is a difference in being the only white man in a bar that is 100% black where you know you probably are not welcome and getting beat up while quietly drinking in the corner VS Being in the same bar, standing in a table and yelling nigger until your beat up.

And a difference between those things and circulating a flier ridiculing them for being bigots.

And a difference between a black man entering a bar that is 100% white. Do ypu expect that guy to get out of there without getting beaten up?

I do. And I expect the white guy to be fine in that bar. Because I have expectations of people regardless of their race. Do you expect more brutality and less tolerance from black men than white men? If so, consider the basis for that belief.

It'd be nice to see Islam return to its roots before it got perverted. It's too bad that the extremists have become the public face of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Bolas 5]

jakee

Quote

There is a difference in being the only white man in a bar that is 100% black where you know you probably are not welcome and getting beat up while quietly drinking in the corner VS Being in the same bar, standing in a table and yelling nigger until your beat up

In this case the bar would have a sign on the door saying 'Crackers not welcome, we're gonna fuck you up" and they went in anyway. Are they morally responsible for people around them getting hurt?

Can we drop this moronic bar analogy? It's a magazine. Nothing was said, it was written/drawn. Far easier to ignore than speech (unless you're BillyVance ). They're operating in their own country, not a Muslim one.

Here's a better one.

Guy in a Starbucks is writing satirical blog posts about all kinds of famous people. Guy gets some followers. Guy writes about one celebrity and it offends some of that celebrity's fans. Those fans threaten the guy in his comments. Guy writes posts about the threats and how he won't back down. The fans threatening the guy actually get him more followers vs. had they just ignored him and continue to do so the more they threaten.

Cycle continues until a deranged fan finds the Starbucks and punches the guy.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,610]

Anvilbrother

Is there a sign in the Middle East that says that, or it is just understood? Pls provide proof of picture. If not your making up shit arguments.

OK, but first you have to prove that James Foley and Peter Kassig were drinking in a bar full of black people when ISIS abducted them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Nothing was said, it was written/drawn. Far easier to ignore than speech

I was keeping that up my sleeve

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

Anvilbrother

Is there a sign in the Middle East that says that, or it is just understood? Pls provide proof of picture. If not your making up shit arguments.

Here's the sign

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Are they morally responsible for people around them getting hurt?

I already stated my answer to this. -Post #221

Quote

Criminally liable probably not, civilly liable could be, morally liable you bet your ass he is.

Obviously not criminally liable. Wouldnt supprise me if family members sued civilly, in the court of public opinion it is 50/50 on them being responsible, or at least the cause of the hostage deaths. Even the Al Jazeera staff are torn about it.

Quote

Leaked emails revealed Friday that Al Jazeera correspondents are in disagreement over whether French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is partly responsible for a terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 12 people.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al-jazeera-staff-torn-over-whether-charlie-hebdo-provoked-terrorists/article/2558476

How about Obamas words after Benghazi, it speak alot to being tolerant and not inciting other religions as that breeds an excuse for violence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.

Now, let me be clear: Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans. However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. (Applause.)

It is time to marginalize those who -- even when not directly resorting to violence -- use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence.

That brand of politics -- one that pits East against West, and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews -- can’t deliver on the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education. Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children, and creating the opportunities that they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends, and we will stand with our allies. We are willing to partner with countries around the world to deepen ties of trade and investment, and science and technology, energy and development -- all efforts that can spark economic growth for all our people and stabilize democratic change.

But such efforts depend on a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company, no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnerships to be effective our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger -- one based on dividing the world between "us" and "them" -- not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces.

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunni and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. And extremists understand this. Because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They don’t build; they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." (Applause.) Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine. (Applause.) Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

OK, but first you have to prove that James Foley and Peter Kassig were drinking in a bar full of black people when ISIS abducted them.

Wut......

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

I already stated my answer to this. -Post #221

I am asking, quite obviously, if the same answer applies to the western hostages/victims in Syria.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How about Obamas words after Benghazi, it speak alot to being tolerant and not inciting other religions as that breeds an excuse for violence.

And it turned out that some movie on youtube had nothing to do with it. Anyone looking for an excuse for violence will find it. Right down to, "that guy didn't look at me. He dissed me."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,610]

Anvilbrother

Quote

OK, but first you have to prove that James Foley and Peter Kassig were drinking in a bar full of black people when ISIS abducted them.

Wut......

What? Why would the analogous sign exist if the analogous bar doesn't exist?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

Hi Anvil,

Quote

Does everyone deserve free speech YES. Does anyone deserve to die because of it NO.

Quote

Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for. Sadly YES.

I accept that you can see consistency in these two statements, but I cannot.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 3,132]

>Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get
>what they were asking for. Sadly YES.

I guess the victims of 9/11 got what they asked for too, sadly.