Shooting in Paris

tonyhays · January 11, 2015

ISIS just called. They want their attitude back.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

ryoder · January 11, 2015

Last Friday night, Salman Rushdie was a guest on Bill Mahers show.
Having had personal experience with this sort of thing, he was quite opinionated:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgdPAEu8vA

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Anvilbrother · January 11, 2015

Quote
Asked for?

I don't think in nany version of reality does a cartoon deserve a violent death.

A simplified inciteful remark without taking in the variables as expected.

Norm if you were in a bar and you kept saying Jesus is a faggot to the psycho catholic asshole in the corner, and he told you he has a gun and he will kill you if you keep it up, and you do, and he shoots you dead. You got what you asked for. Did you deserve it no, but you.....got.....what....you....asked....for. Plain and simple.

-They had a history of drawing these.
-Its well known world wide that Muslims freak out about it.
-He had death threats before
-It was credible enough to warrant GOVERNMENT security
-He replied with saying he was ready to die if that's what it took, he had no family, no children, and had horrible credit.

He got what he was asking for. Is free speech good HELL YEA, is terrorism bad FUCK YEA, did he deserve to die NOPE, but there are consequences to your actions.

Because this guy is being played off as a martyr for free speech hes being played as a hero, here is a quote of what other writers thought of his writing,

Quote
Some of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo were not just offensive but bigoted, such as the one mocking the African sex slaves of Boko Haram as welfare queens. Others went far beyond maligning violence by extremists acting in the name of Islam, or even merely depicting Mohammed with degrading imagery, and instead contained a stream of mockery toward Muslims generally, who in France are not remotely powerful but are largely a marginalized and targeted immigrant population.

Someone else stood up to the Muslims stating that "We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam. We will no longer be controlled and dominated by their fears and threats." His name was Terry Jones, and just about every one here called him an idot. Why wasnt he cheered for his attempt to stand up to Muslim extremist?? He was going to burn a Quaran, how much different is that to constantly drawing disrespectful pictures of Mohammad?

Quote
Jones believes Islam promotes violence and that Muslims want to impose sharia law in the United States.[1] He authored a book titled, Islam Is of the Devil,[1] but did not become widely known until after announcing plans to burn copies of the Qur'an.[31]

In July 2009, Dove World Outreach Center posted a sign on its lawn which stated in large red letters "Islam is of the Devil," resulting in objections from the community and media attention.[32] Students from the church attended area schools in August 2009 wearing t-shirts with "Islam is of the Devil" printed on the back, for which they were sent home.[33]

The plan to burn Qurans was first announced on Twitter on July 12, 2010, and was promoted on Facebook and on YouTube.[34] National and International discussion, objections and protests contributed to extensive media coverage.[35][36][37]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida with a church of no more than fifty people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get, you know, the world's attention."[38]

The commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus said, "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community." The pastor responded to Petraeus' statement that, "We understand the General's concerns. We are sure that his concerns are legitimate. [Nonetheless] [w]e must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam. We will no longer be controlled and dominated by their fears and threats."[39][40][41]

President Barack Obama was asked on September 9, 2010, on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the Quran burning controversy. He said, "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." He said, "I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making." "I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in.” Asked if the event could be stopped, Obama replied, "My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning … but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us.

I will point you all to that thread and show you how two faced the people here are being about this.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3944285;search_string=quran;#3944285

Grimmie-I'm all for freedom of speech, but this is yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
Andy9o8-No, it's freedom of speech. But he is a vile fuckwad.
Normiss-Sadly, it was the lead story on ABC national news tonight. I can only hope that was his only 5 minutes, but I doubt it.
Skydeker-Because you can blame multiple people or organizations for the same incident.
Nobody is forcing him to burn the Koran, just as nobody will force him not to burn the Koran. If he decides to burn the Koran, it may come with the price of a soldier.
Billvon-Oh, I bet there are plenty of bigots across the US who will support him 100%
Skydekker-I don't think they should be held responsible. I do think both parties would have some responsibility towards the outcome.

Like a skydiving death, there is usually a chain of events leading up to it. If you remove one item of that chain, the end result will be different. Situations like this are very similar. Actions (legal or not) have consequences. Every right comes with a price. In this case the right to burn the Koran may well have the price of an American or Canadian soldier.

The best part FORESHADOWING what can happen!!
Skyrad-Bottom line is that this clown Jones has a constitutional right to burn the book under freedom of speech, however with rights come responsibilities. With actions come reactions. By burning the Quran he will be directly responsible for the deaths of other Americans, maybe even his own. Not saying I support that, its just a fact waiting to happen.

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

Anvilbrother · January 11, 2015

Quote
They're called illustrations for a reason. I am absolutely positive they weren't trying to incite acts of violence, but illustrating their view of what was already happening.

Im not the only one saying this, Charlie knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900519/Cartoonists-mocked-Islam-refused-threatened-Quranic-law-killed-Charlie-Hebdo-massacre-terrorists-asked-name.html

Quote
They were men who stood up for free speech in the face of barbaric threats from extremists. And in the end, their principled stance cost them their lives.

I do have to make a correction it was Charbonnier not charlie that said this but it clearly doccuments that they knew what they were doing, and what could happen if they were to continue.

Quote
While others may have left Islam alone amid constant warnings of violence, Mr Charbonnier refused to relent.

‘I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no children, no wife, no car, no credit,’ he said after receiving death threats two years ago. ‘It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.’

Quote
Y'know, this thread is bringing out defenders of islamic extremists I never would have expected.

You missed the part where I have stated many times already in this thread that Terrorism is not right, what they did was not right, and he did not deserve to die.

Charlie was the equivalent of a comic troll attacking the Muslim religion, and I guess I should accept that fact that other trolls will cover for his actions.

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

ryoder · January 12, 2015

Anvilbrother

Im not the only one saying this, Charlie knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions.

He?
"Charlie Hebdo" is the name of a magazine, not a person.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

jakee · January 12, 2015

Quote
Im not the only one saying this, Charlie knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...ists-asked-name.html

No-where there does anyone say he wanted to incite violence.

(And by the way, I'd probably be inclined to treat your opinion a little more seriously if you weren't so misinformed that you believe Charlie Hebdo was a person.)

Quote
I do have to make a correction it was Charbonnier not charlie that said this

See? Charlie who?

Quote
You missed the part where I have stated many times already in this thread that Terrorism is not right, what they did was not right, and he did not deserve to die.

You know I actually did miss that part, maybe you could point it out for me? As far as I can see, by the time I made that post your strongest stance was that you weren't actually saying "Yay terrorism" but that Charlie Hebdo were morally responsible for the attacks.

Oh, and since you skipped it completely I'll ask again - James Foley, Peter Kassig et al. Responsible for their own beheadings?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

turtlespeed · January 12, 2015

wmw999
However, the fault is still entirely the attackers'. Had they engaged in a yelling spree, or an insult spree, that'd be different.

Apparently France has a long-standing tradition of very mordant (to say the least) satirical cartooning. It's what was allowed historically in times when other types of free speech were more seriously abridged.

People who live in France need to understand that, just as people who live in the US need to understand about our gun laws. They may not like it, but it's a part of the landscape. Why would someone move to Venice and complain about the water?

Wendy P.

I would say the FAULT lies in the basics of their religion.
The responsibility lies jointly on the magazine, and the attackers.
The Accountability lies squarely on Charlie's shoulders.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Anvilbrother · January 12, 2015

Quote
And by the way, I'd probably be inclined to treat your opinion a little more seriously if you weren't so misinformed that you believe Charlie Hebdo was a person.

Excuse me, I thought there was an actual person named Charlie involved in it also, I did not google everyone that worked there, or died. The name Charlie Hebdo is being thrown out there by every media, im sure I am not the only one. Im not an expert on bigoted comics like you seem to be.

From above me

Quote
The Accountability lies squarely on Charlie's shoulders.

See its not just me.

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

Anvilbrother · January 12, 2015

Quote
Oh, and since you skipped it completely I'll ask again - James Foley, Peter Kassig et al. Responsible for their own beheadings?

Yea I skipped it because to my knowledge James and Peter were not over there burning the Quran, or drawing inciteful pictures of Mohammad, so its a fucking useless topic to address as it has no comparison to what happened in France.

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

turtlespeed · January 12, 2015

Anvilbrother
Quote
And by the way, I'd probably be inclined to treat your opinion a little more seriously if you weren't so misinformed that you believe Charlie Hebdo was a person.

Excuse me, I thought there was an actual person named Charlie involved in it also, I did not google everyone that worked there, or died. The name Charlie Hebdo is being thrown out there by every media, im sure I am not the only one. Im not an expert on bigoted comics like you seem to be.

From above me
***The Accountability lies squarely on Charlie's shoulders.

See its not just me.

Charlie Hebdo is the name of te Rag that printed the cartoon.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Anvilbrother · January 12, 2015

Quote
Charlie Hebdo is the name of te Rag that printed the cartoon.

Yea I know now. I have watched zero tv, or listened to zero radio on this shooting only read, and it always referred to Charlie, or Charlie Hebdo shooting easy to see how the business name could be humanized.

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

Boomerdog · January 12, 2015

Quote
I should be able to say FUCK any time I chose.

I think normiss was referring to speech NOT the action.

Bolas · January 12, 2015

This paper is an equal opportunity offender. They pull no punches with anyone.

The only physical attacks they've sustained are from Islamic terrorists. Twice.

Says more about them and their inferiority complex over their beliefs than anything else.

The poor widdle Prophet Muhammad is delicate and very thenthative...

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

BillyVance · January 12, 2015

Bolas

This paper is an equal opportunity offender. They pull no punches with anyone.

The only physical attacks they've sustained are from Islamic terrorists. Twice.

Says more about them and their inferiority complex over their beliefs than anything else.

The poor widdle Prophet Muhammad is delicate and very thenthative...

Their fucking Muhammad is a fucking pedophile and statutory rapist. And they worship him. Says a lot about that fuckwad of a religion.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

quade · January 12, 2015

"...and statutory rapist."

Statutory? Probably not at the time and therefore no.

This is something that tends to bother me quite a bit about modern society, we tend to judge based on our currently held beliefs as to when sex is and isn't proper, but in ancient times and cultures sex began quite early in life. There's a reason some ancient cultures believed a person was an adult at 13. Today, and by most that's almost unthinkable, but even in the US and only a short time ago 14 was the legal age of consent in a number of states.

BTW, you know that story of Romeo and Juliet? How old do you think she is? Yep. 13.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

skypuppy · January 12, 2015

quade
"...and statutory rapist."

Statutory? Probably not at the time and therefore no.

This is something that tends to bother me quite a bit about modern society, we tend to judge based on our currently held beliefs as to when sex is and isn't proper, but in ancient times and cultures sex began quite early in life. There's a reason some ancient cultures believed a person was an adult at 13. Today, and by most that's almost unthinkable, but even in the US and only a short time ago 14 was the legal age of consent in a number of states.

BTW, you know that story of Romeo and Juliet? How old do you think she is? Yep. 13.

yup. and in some cultures it's customary even today to stone or flog a woman for committing adultery after she was raped. Guess maybe we shouldn't be judging them either, eh? consistent at all?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

quade · January 12, 2015

If that's your takeaway from my post, then you've misunderstood the issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

jakee · January 12, 2015

Quote
I would say the FAULT lies in the basics of their religion.
The responsibility lies jointly on the magazine, and the attackers.
The Accountability lies squarely on Charlie's shoulders.

Again the question, if a girlfriend doesn't put out, is it her responsibility if her boyfriend goes and rapes someone?

Were Foley, Kassig and the rest accountable for their own executions?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

jakee · January 12, 2015

Quote
The name Charlie Hebdo is being thrown out there by every media, im sure I am not the only one.

Yes, it is. Like I said, it's a sign of how misinformed you are about the whole thing that you don't seem to know why.

Quote
Quote
The Accountability lies squarely on Charlie's shoulders.
See its not just me.

Yes, it is just you. Turtle at least knows what Charlie Hebdo is.

And I noticed that you skipped the bit where I asked you to show when you had condemned the terrorists rather than the victims, and that you skipped the bit where I asked you if you blamed the ISIS beheading victims as much as you blame the cartoonists.

Funny that.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Skyrad · January 12, 2015

champu
Terrorists are not bears, nor hornets, nor are they gravity. They are people. Rule of law means we hold people accountable for criminal actions no matter how predictable they might be. Dehumanizing your adversary with analogies like this isn't helpful.

The whole of the entire world is not Compton, nor Harlem, nor Mecca. Charlie Hebdo did not "go somewhere and yell obscenities" and get what was coming to them. Terrorists came to them (a place where you're legally allowed to say the things they said) and enforced rules that no one is interested in abiding by (formally or informally.)

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.