whembly wrote:
Hey… those golf balls ain’t gonna hit themselves, ya know.

Seriously, I can be convinced that Obama/Biden may be too busy, but we couldn't send anyone there? Seems very odd.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I seriously doubt it was Catholic motivated. Not with this timing.

Second time in this thread that my sarcasm wasn't detected. Is it too subtle?

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?

Pfft, as horrible as this is, its not even close to 9/11.

You can't compare an attack on a satirical newspaper and ensuing manhunt, which only left 20 people dead including the attackers, with an attack that completely destroys 2 iconic buildings, damaged our central military command structure, attempted to damage/destroy the White House, and left over 5000 dead.

Thats the interesting thing about terror attacks, they're not solely designed to inflict casualties and collateral damage. Not saying 9/11 wasn't bad, just that there's psychology involved and a 'lesser' target can do more damage if it's the 'right' target in this context. Will need time to see how this plays out amongst the civilian population.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Apparently America "snubbed" the Paris memorial/rally thing by not sending a senior representative like Obama, Biden etc. Its a Daily Mail story so take with a bucket of salt if you must, but considering that this is effectively France's 9/11 (as close as they've gotten anyway), is not not poor form for Obama not to attend?

Pfft, as horrible as this is, its not even close to 9/11.

You can't compare an attack on a satirical newspaper and ensuing manhunt, which only left 20 people dead including the attackers, with an attack that completely destroys 2 iconic buildings, damaged our central military command structure, attempted to damage/destroy the White House, and left over 5000 dead.

Thats the interesting thing about terror attacks, they're not solely designed to inflict casualties and collateral damage. Not saying 9/11 wasn't bad, just that there's psychology involved and a 'lesser' target can do more damage if it's the 'right' target in this context. Will need time to see how this plays out amongst the civilian population.

That is true. I imagine Europe might be a little more susceptible to the psychological effect, especially since this has been so hyped up.

France divided despite uplifting rallies

The BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris says that while the rally in the city by more than a million people reflects the determination of its inhabitants to bounce back from the horror of the recent attacks, the deep divisions of French society cannot be glossed over.

The urge to demonstrate is the urge for mutual reassurance.

When terrible things happen, first we rush for shelter. Then we re-emerge to show each other that we are all still alive.

It is probably what cavemen did when the sabre-toothed tigers passed by.

This week in Paris, many people felt the instinct to hasten home. Murder stalked the streets.

At one point on Thursday we heard that the Kouachi brothers were driving back to town. There were police marksmen at the city gates.

Something primal said: Stay with your loved ones.

But then it was over. And now the urge is to come back onto the streets and to reclaim the land.

That is what it has felt like through the extraordinary scenes of Sunday.

People have made the comparison with the Liberation demonstrations in 1944, and it is apt.

It is apt not just in terms of numbers, but also in how at that moment too French men and women were putting down a marker: France is ours.

But people demonstrate also because they are afraid.

People demonstrate for causes that they feel are under threat. Demonstrating reveals our insecurity.

We demonstrate because we want the hope that comes from knowing there are others who feel as we do.

In France, national unity was the theme of Sunday's monster rally.

But by the logic of demonstrations, national unity is therefore not nearly as secure as the outpouring of mass emotion would tend to suggest.

'Je suis Kouachi'
If you want a sobering counterblast to the dominant mood, have a look at the "Je ne suis pas Charlie" Facebook page. It has received more than 21,000 likes in the last few days.

The mainly Muslim French people who have given a thumbs-up to the page are not supporters of violence. The vast majority have no truck with the Kouachis and Coulibaly.

But they also make clear they will not take part in a national movement that backs people who insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

Over and again they express their anger at what they see as double standards:

Why so much fuss over 17 dead when thousands have died in Gaza and Syria?

Why is it all right for Charlie Hebdo to mock Islam when the controversial comic Dieudonne M'bala M'bala is prosecuted for mocking Jews? Why is one defined as "inciting hatred" and not the other?

Then there are the schools in the high-immigration banlieues where the minute's silence on Thursday in memory of the Charlie Hebdo victims was interrupted by pupils or not observed at all.

France-Info - the national news radio station that normally plays down dissent in the banlieues - ran an extensive report on it, with quotes from distressed teachers.

And if you really want to be shocked, there is a "Je suis Kouachi" hashtag which was briefly trending on Twitter on Saturday.

All of which only goes to prove that there are many French men and women who feel their primary attachment is to Islam, not to the Enlightenment values of post-18th Century Europe.

They feel a constant sense of humiliation, and where they can, they strike back. Normally in petty acts of insubordination. But sometimes in terror.

So France is not united, and the danger is real.

But that is why demonstrations matter. People take part because they work. Seeing such vast numbers of people - of all faiths and backgrounds - united behind a single idea was indeed a moving and uplifting experience.

At the end of a horrid week, morale is back. For a time at least, we are reassured.

 whembly wrote:
Hey… those golf balls ain’t gonna hit themselves, ya know.

Seriously, I can be convinced that Obama/Biden may be too busy, but we couldn't send anyone there? Seems very odd.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All of which only goes to prove that there are many French men and women who feel their primary attachment is to Islam, not to the Enlightenment values of post-18th Century Europe.

They feel a constant sense of humiliation, and where they can, they strike back. Normally in petty acts of insubordination. But sometimes in terror.

So France is not united, and the danger is real.

But that is why demonstrations matter. People take part because they work. Seeing such vast numbers of people - of all faiths and backgrounds - united behind a single idea was indeed a moving and uplifting experience.

At the end of a horrid week, morale is back. For a time at least, we are reassured.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All of which only goes to prove that there are many French men and women who feel their primary attachment is to Islam, not to the Enlightenment values of post-18th Century Europe.

They feel a constant sense of humiliation, and where they can, they strike back. Normally in petty acts of insubordination. But sometimes in terror.

So France is not united, and the danger is real.

But that is why demonstrations matter. People take part because they work. Seeing such vast numbers of people - of all faiths and backgrounds - united behind a single idea was indeed a moving and uplifting experience.

At the end of a horrid week, morale is back. For a time at least, we are reassured.

Meanwhile in the same weekend that all of those people were sharing that "amazing", "moving" and "uplifting" experience in the streets of Paris (yes, I'm being sarcastic, those demonstrations in Paris are the worst kind of useless PC trite), a few more supporters of the "Religion of Peace" in Nigeria used two 10 year old girls as suicide bombers in two separate attacks on civilian markets...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All of which only goes to prove that there are many French men and women who feel their primary attachment is to Islam, not to the Enlightenment values of post-18th Century Europe.

They feel a constant sense of humiliation, and where they can, they strike back. Normally in petty acts of insubordination. But sometimes in terror.

So France is not united, and the danger is real.

But that is why demonstrations matter. People take part because they work. Seeing such vast numbers of people - of all faiths and backgrounds - united behind a single idea was indeed a moving and uplifting experience.

At the end of a horrid week, morale is back. For a time at least, we are reassured.

Meanwhile in the same weekend that all of those people were sharing that "amazing", "moving" and "uplifting" experience in the streets of Paris (yes, I'm being sarcastic, those demonstrations in Paris are the worst kind of useless PC trite), a few more supporters of the "Religion of Peace" in Nigeria used two 10 year old girls as suicide bombers in two separate attacks on civilian markets...

Didn't you get the memo? They're not Muslims.

 Da Boss wrote:
On the 9/11 comparisons, I don't think that is appropriate at all. Europe has had many terrorist attacks, none on that scale. I think we might be more accepting of small scale terrorist activity to an extent - at least the British are very used to it. But we've not had something that big happen outside of wartime. It's a singular event.

 Da Boss wrote:
Care to elaborate on that? I don't think 7/7 was on the same scale as 9/11.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
ITT we have a dick measuring contest about national tragedies and who has a license to think terrorists suck more.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey… those golf balls ain’t gonna hit themselves, ya know.

Seriously, I can be convinced that Obama/Biden may be too busy, but we couldn't send anyone there? Seems very odd.

Hilariously enough whether or not a senior official was present will likely matter more to the American people, especially those who lean Republican, than the French people.

 Jihadin wrote:
Word is that there are six cell members still RUNNING AROUND LOOSE.

Edit

Nice size terrorist cell eh.

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word is that there are six cell members still RUNNING AROUND LOOSE.

Edit

Nice size terrorist cell eh.

Erm... how would they know?

Source?

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Word is that there are six cell members still RUNNING AROUND LOOSE.

Edit

Nice size terrorist cell eh.

Erm... how would they know?

Source?

Huh.

First you expect Jihadin to know the inner working of the French intelligence services, and then that he would spill the relevant documentation on Dakka Dakka.

Try some Google Fu, it only takes a second:

http://news.sky.com/story/1406696/french-police-six-terrorists-still-at-large

 Da Boss wrote:
Care to elaborate on that? I don't think 7/7 was on the same scale as 9/11.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
ITT we have a dick measuring contest about national tragedies and who has a license to think terrorists suck more.

 Bullockist wrote:
Indeed Jihadin, but running round with a 9/11" is impressive.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Cleric holds funeral for "heroes" in Pakistan

stay classy, Pakistan!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
To be fair, their English is better than my Pashto or whatever other of the 20 languages they speak over there.

They were not ordinary Jews, he said, but a “hybrid race of shape shifters” who have extraordinary abilities.

Paris’s Muslim Suburbs Blame Jews for Charlie
In France, the projects don’t look like ghettoes, but they’re filled with a poisonous mix of conspiracy theories and a some support for murderous jihadis.
SEVRAN, France — As more than 1.5 million people, including 40 world leaders, converged on Paris on Sunday to rally for unity after terrorist attacks that left 17 innocent people dead, three young men in tracksuits and hoodies lounged outside a fast-food restaurant 10 miles north of the city in Sevran, one of France’s poorest suburbs.

Mehdi Boular, 24, who said he was married with two children, and two of his friends, did not attend Sunday’s rally.

“We’re Muslims,” Boular said. “They might have killed us if we’d gone.”

But even though the flags of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia were flying at the rally in Place de la République and Muslims were well represented among the marchers Sunday, Boular said the attacks in Paris were part of a plot masterminded by Jewish conspirators.

“The Kalashnikovs, the identity cards the [killers] supposedly left behind, it was all staged,” said Boular, as his friends nodded in agreement. “It was a conspiracy designed by the Jews to make Muslims look bad. We’d rather just stay where we are.”

No use arguing. No use pointing out that one of the terrorists murdered four Jews. Conspiracy theories have their own unassailable logic, and this is a world apart from the displays of unity in Paris after the carnage of last week. French newspapers reported that some students in these neighborhoods—as well as other heavily Muslim areas near cities like Lille—refused to participate in Thursday’s national moment of silence for the victims of the terror attacks. One teacher said up to 80 percent of his students didn’t want to observe the silence, and some said they supported the attackers. “You reap what you sow,” a student who refused the moment of silence told his teacher in reference to the terrorists’ victims, according to Le Figaro.
Sevran is one of the many notorious banlieues just outside Paris that are home largely to second- and third-generation immigrants from former French colonies in North and West Africa. The town is studded with cement and brick public housing, mostly built in the 1960s and ’70s. Unemployment rates are as high as 35 to 40 percent. Sevran often is lumped in with places like Saint-Denis and nearby Clichy-sous-Bois, the epicenter of weeks of rioting and car burning in 2005. Riots here back in the summer of 1981 led to some of the first mass demonstrations to illustrate the plight of immigrant Algerians, Tunisians, and Moroccans in France.

He called the Paris terrorist attacks “un complot,” or conspiracy, and launched into a lengthy explanation of the “magical Jews” behind it.
The 19th arrondissement in Paris has also become synonymous with immigrant frustration and despair after it became known that the Kouachi brothers, Chérif and Saïd, who died in a hail of gunfire last week after killing 12 people, including eight journalists at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine, moved there as teenagers and were recruited by a jihadi network. Born in France, the Kouachis were the orphaned sons of Algerian parents.

The popular narrative is that France’s minority populations, specifically those of North African descent, are marginalized and isolated in what are invariably called “gritty,” or “hardscrabble” areas. Shunned by the French majority, reports often say, the children of North African immigrants are frustrated and resentful because they are blocked from traditional routes of advancement.

But many of the Parisian banlieues appear to an outsider much tamer than gun-ridden American ghettoes and bear no resemblance to, say, a typical favela in Rio de Janeiro or the mafia-run Scampia ghetto in Naples. Much of the 19th arrondissement in Paris, where Cherif Kouachi joined the Buttes-Chaumont terror network 10 years ago, looks about as rundown and sketchy today as Brooklyn’s Park Slope.

Indeed at the McDonalds in Sevran, called one of the most dangerous towns in France, the floor is so clean you can almost eat off it and the server actually brings your hamburger and French fries to you in a pristine booth.

“A lot of what you hear about how bad it is here is just not true,” says Pathe Ndiay, 29, whose parents are Senegalese but who was born in France. Ndiay works as a security guard in Sevran and lives nearby. “There’s a lot of unemployment here but not that many young people are out looking for jobs.”


Ndiay said many young men in the banlieues prefer the easy money they can get selling drugs rather than seeking what is likely to be boring, poorly paid employment in Paris.

“They don’t want to be bothered with getting a job,” Ndiay said. “Some can make up to €1,000 to €2,000 a day selling drugs. They want to be rappers. They don’t want to start at some boring job and work their way up the ladder.”

When Boular and his friends were asked if they were looking for work, they said yes. “We try every day,” said one of his friends, who did not want to give his name, but then he started laughing and his friends joined in. They stand in front of McDonalds in Sevran, Boular said, pretty much all day and well into the middle of the night. Boular said he runs home “every now and then” to see his wife and children.

Boular said he recently was released from prison after a two-year sentence for involvement with a car theft. He says he was beaten by guards frequently because he was an Arab. Boular said he and his friends are “blocked” from advancing in French society because they are Arabs and added that his only dream is to “go to Miami and be a rapper and drive a jet-ski.”

A cross-section of young men interviewed in several suburbs last week, including Sevran, Saint-Denis, and Paris’s 19th arrondissement, all spoke of being devout Muslims. None said they supported the Kouachi brothers or their associate Ahmed Coulibaly, who killed four hostages at a kosher supermarket in Paris on Friday, although they all believed the cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine did not have the right to caricature the prophet Muhammad.

Many spoke out against Israel and Jews as well as the United States but did not seem to have much of a grasp of geopolitics nor did they appear to be very religious in the traditional sense of the word.

Another young man of French-Algerian descent interviewed outside a gas station in the Saint-Denis suburb reacted angrily to a reporter’s presence and demanded to know her religion. “The worst thing is to be atheist,” he said.

The man, who gave his named as “Mohamed,” also said he was a devout Muslim but then changed his demeanor and added, grinning, that he was also “a delinquent.” Then he said he was a drug dealer and without prompting, invited the reporter into the (also very clean) gas station to show an array of hashish for sale in broad daylight on a shelf next to the ATM.

He also called the Paris terrorist attacks “un complot,” or conspiracy, and launched into a lengthy explanation of the “magical Jews” behind it. They were not ordinary Jews, he said, but a “hybrid race of shape shifters” who have extraordinary abilities. “They know how to get in everywhere,” he said. “They are master manipulators.”

Mouhanad Khorchide, a professor of Islamic pedagogy at the University of Munster in Germany told The New York Times last week that while he sees many young Muslims identifying more strongly with their religion he considers it a “hollow religiosity.”

“They would say, ‘Islam is really important for me,’ but they had just dealt drugs,” Khorchide said. “They had a Quran in their backpack and said, ‘With the Quran, I am strong.’ But if you asked if they had read it or knew what it contained, they said no.’”

A French-Algerian named Bentaha Tahar, 30, and his friend who gave his name as Alouane, 31, stood outside Danny Hills restaurant in the 19th arrondissement, right across from the Buttes Chaumont park where Cherif Kouachi received early jihadi training from a charismatic janitor from the nearby Addawa mosque. Mothers pushing babies in expensive strollers and joggers of all ages filled the large, green quite beautiful park.

“The Kouachis insulted Islam,” Tahar said. “They had no right to do what they did. It is against our religion. People need to understand that.”

At the same time, the two grew very heated when they spoke of the resentment they said many French Algerians feel about the United States “and the powers behind it.”

“The Americans are very naïve,” Alouane said. “They get all caught up in a story like this but they don’t see what their own government is doing every day, every week, every year. What right do they have to go out and start wars? The answer is they have no right. They’re out to grab money and power and they always have been.”

 nels1031 wrote:
Not suprising, the comments on the English language facebook page of Al-Arabiya had conspiracies brewing before the blood even dried at the crime scenes. Blaming Jews immediately.

"Hybrid race of shape shifters" is pretty good though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Damn, my username's origin are now revealed for all to see!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If you get DCM, you can change your rank to “Magical lizard Jew”. Hmmmm…



Funniest part is that I am even considered Jew by, for instance, Israel's Law of Return, and all kind of anti-Semites, though I do not feel Jew at all.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm sure many victims of the Holocaust felt the same way.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
If you get DCM, you can change your rank to “Magical lizard Jew”. Hmmmm…



Funniest part is that I am even considered Jew by, for instance, Israel's Law of Return, and all kind of anti-Semites, though I do not feel Jew at all.

 Ahtman wrote:
Eh, what the hell.

Ultra Orthodox Newspaper Photoshops Female Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March Photo

 Ahtman wrote:
Eh, what the hell.

Ultra Orthodox Newspaper Photoshops Female Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March Photo

 Jihadin wrote:
Here we go
Dutch Mayor said
"If you don't like freedom, pack your bags and leave."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2907941/Moroccan-born-mayor-Rotterdam-tells-fellow-Muslims-not-appreciate-freedoms-living-West-pack-bags-f-live-TV.html

 nels1031 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Eh, what the hell.

Ultra Orthodox Newspaper Photoshops Female Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March Photo

Well done, Ahtman.

That's clear cut proof of hybrid shape shifting magical jews.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So...
Does that mean you can transform yourself into an animal or different human form?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Funniest part is that I am even considered Jew by, for instance, Israel's Law of Return, and all kind of anti-Semites, though I do not feel Jew at all.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Don't worry, there are hard liners in Israel that will buy commercials on TV to tell you how not Jewish you are, or are at least insufficiently Jewish.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

But I already know I am not Jewish. Just like I am not Swiss either. This sure will not stop me from reaping any benefit I can from having the Swiss nationality, and the Jewish “not-nationality-but-almost”.

I would certainly do a better job at pretending to be Swiss than at pretending to be Jewish, and I do not even know the history of Switzerland .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I do not know you, and therefore I have no idea why people will argue about this. Could you please explain ?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I do not know you, and therefore I have no idea why people will argue about this. Could you please explain ?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because I'm actually from the Seneca Nation of Indians.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because I'm actually from the Seneca Nation of Indians.

That is pretty cool. I did not even knew this existed.

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because I'm actually from the Seneca Nation of Indians.

That is pretty cool. I did not even knew this existed.

Yeah... this pretty cool Baron...

So, are you saying that be default, you have a dual-citizenship? (Seneca + USA)

 Hordini wrote:
The Iroquois have actually issued passports, but from what I've read, they aren't accepted by anyone, and when they've been used to travel the holders have run into problems and been denied access or visas.

 Ahtman wrote:
Eh, what the hell.

Ultra Orthodox Newspaper Photoshops Female Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March Photo

 whembly wrote:

So, are you saying that by default, you have a dual-citizenship? (Seneca + USA)

Relapse wrote:
It's too bad Nigeria can't get the level of global outrage that was generated in France.

 reds8n wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Eh, what the hell.

Ultra Orthodox Newspaper Photoshops Female Leaders Out of Charlie Hebdo March Photo

... Maybe that's how they think Frenchmen dress

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Yes, death by airbrush, that most dreaded of fates!

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

France's lower house of Parliament on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved extending French airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq.

The vote came after France's worst terrorist attacks in decades. Last week in Paris, a man claiming allegiance to the Islamic State group killed four people in a kosher grocery and a policewoman, while two brothers that he knew for years claimed ties to al-Qaida in Yemen as they killed 12 people at a newspaper office.

"France is at war with terrorism, jihadism and radical Islamism," Prime Minister Manuel Valls told the National Assembly to thundering applause ahead of the vote. "France is not at war with a religion. France is not at war with Islam and Muslims."

The vote was 488 to 1. One lawmaker argued not to extend the campaign, saying the situation on the ground was improving and warning that more bombing could invite more extremist violence but the government and other lawmakers vigorously defended the campaign.

France quickly joined the United States in conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State group last year after the militants took over sections of Iraq and Syria. French law requires a vote on extending such operations after four months. France is not bombing in Syria.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

Whenever I see news stories on Reddit about those Ultra Orthodox guys, there's always people saying "I'm an Israeli and even I don't like them."

Usually in response to one of those news stories involving planes and delaying them for hours over seating...

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Yes, death by airbrush, that most dreaded of fates!

Ah PhantomViper, back again. Think please.
It is a dreaded fate indeed. Ask anyone whom understands the history of the Soviet Union.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Yes, death by airbrush, that most dreaded of fates!

Ah PhantomViper, back again. Think please.
It is a dreaded fate indeed. Ask anyone whom understands the history of the Soviet Union.

People in the Soviet Union "disappeared" from photos usually after they were murdered by the state, I don't think that anyone would have such a problem with the practice if it didn't involve actually killing the concerned persons...

But hey, don't let actual facts interfere with your narrative of the world, keep on fighting the good fight brother!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Yes, death by airbrush, that most dreaded of fates!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Yes, death by airbrush, that most dreaded of fates!

Ah PhantomViper, back again. Think please.
It is a dreaded fate indeed. Ask anyone whom understands the history of the Soviet Union.

People in the Soviet Union "disappeared" from photos usually after they were murdered by the state, I don't think that anyone would have such a problem with the practice if it didn't involve actually killing the concerned persons...

But hey, don't let actual facts interfere with your narrative of the world, keep on fighting the good fight brother!

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

Whenever I see news stories on Reddit about those Ultra Orthodox guys, there's always people saying "I'm an Israeli and even I don't like them."

Usually in response to one of those news stories involving planes and delaying them for hours over seating...

 Orlanth wrote:


You miss the point, no surprise there.

 Orlanth wrote:

Propaganda works by controlling information, and in turn this skews action along the lines of moral truth rather than actual.
The best standpoints for a real democratic society is to maintain a freedom and integrity of the press and to prevent dangerous propaganda from rewiring the populace.

 Orlanth wrote:

As this isn't happening, Israelis are being conditioned to accept airbrushing out of unwanted truths. This is how they can believe such racist and bigoted twaddle as the old rallying cry:

"A people with no land, for a land with no people."

In case you hadn't noticed there are people in the land. However if you airbrush them out the moral truth is easier to enforce.

 Orlanth wrote:
If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

Israelis aren't being conditioned to accept anything, as you've already been told by several people, this is a ultra-orthodox newspaper, without any relevance to actual Israeli society and whose religious rules prohibits them from publishing pictures of women.

To even try and link such a piece with any actual policy regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is... well, I would probably be banned from OT for stating what I think about that.

PhantomViper wrote:

And here is where facts collide with your particular world view, again.

PhantomViper wrote:

Israelis aren't being conditioned to accept anything, as you've already been told by several people, this is a ultra-orthodox newspaper, without any relevance to actual Israeli society and whose religious rules prohibits them from publishing pictures of women.

PhantomViper wrote:

To even try and link such a piece with any actual policy regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is... well, I would probably be banned from OT for stating what I think about that.

 Scrabb wrote:
I just had to log in to thank Orlanth for that excellent comedy routine.

PhantomViper wrote:
Also, the ultra-orthodox Jews wan't to "erase" Palestinians so badly that they take western women out of the photos but leave the President of the Palestinian Authority in them...

 Orlanth wrote:

Rant...

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

Notorious French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala has been arrested for being an “apologist for terrorism” after suggesting on Facebook that he sympathised with one of the Paris gunmen, a judicial source has said.

Prosecutors had opened the case against him on Monday after he wrote “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – mixing the slogan “Je suis Charlie”, used in tribute to the journalists killed at magazine Charlie Hebdo, with a reference to gunman Amédy Coulibaly. Dieudonné was arrested on Wednesday.

Coulibaly killed four people at a Jewish supermarket on Friday and a police officer the day before.

The comedian made international headlines in 2013 when French footballer Nicolas Anelka was banned for five matches by English football authorities for using a gesture created by Dieudonné that many consider to echo the Nazi salute.

Dieudonné posted his controversial Facebook post after attending Sunday’s unity march against extremism that brought more than 1.5 million people on to the streets of Paris in the wake of the attacks.

He described the march – considered the biggest rally in modern French history – as “a magical moment comparable to the big bang”.

The French government has in the past banned Dieudonné’s shows because it considers them “antisemitic”.

Dieudonné has removed the remark from his Facebook page.

PhantomViper wrote:

Does anything in there even remotely pertains to the published picture by any chance or perhaps the explanation about how you make the logic leap from ultra orthodox Jewish newspaper wants to erase Palestinians by removing western women from pictures but leaving actual Palestinian leader in it?

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Close enough?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

This is appeasement and history has shown that it doesn't work.

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Close enough?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

This is appeasement and history has shown that it doesn't work.

So, let me get this straight, North Korea threatens to use violence against the US because of the portrayal of their leader in a movie and it constitutes a terrible offence against the principles in which the USA was founded...

Islam threatens violence against... well... everyone, because of the portrayal of their prophet in a few newspapers and suddenly its a provocation to show those images.

Nice!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

 Orlanth wrote:
It makes sense if you look at it with a rational understanding of asocial conditioning.

The only people conditioned to consider Kim Jong Un as a special-snowflake are the North Korean people.
Admittedly they are very heavily conditioned, but are totally irrelevant
However there is a fair amount of conditioning to accept and apologise for Islamic extremism.
Admittedly Islam is a far bigger threat than North Korea, but the reaction is not just one of White House dictat. We have already seen this play out over Draw Mohammed Day, and not some extent Inocence of Moslems both of which favoured not offending sensibilities over free speech laws.
As free speech is so central to US philosophy a counter philosophy had to be used to prevent this being a non contest issue by which 1st Amendment right trumps all other arguments.


Islamic extremism also makes sense when you look at it. These guys dont have much and are not in general well organised well equipped or rich compared to the collective West. They dont back down however, and take advantage to move a step forward whenever someone else does. Analysts are now trying to work out when and where the first Islamic country in Western Europe will emerge, not if.
While individual footsoldiers of Islam are often stupid the movement as a whole has a reasonable chance of obtaining its goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

This is in fact an intelligent point. The trick is, can you define hate speech PhantomViper and more relevantly can you ascertain how the Law defines hate speech?

You will find that the definition is entirely flexible and is again linked to conditioning. Hate crime is less or more actionable depending on who the victim is, and who the alleged prepetrator is.

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

 Frazzled wrote:

Israelis aren't being conditioned to accept anything, as you've already been told by several people, this is a ultra-orthodox newspaper, without any relevance to actual Israeli society and whose religious rules prohibits them from publishing pictures of women.

To even try and link such a piece with any actual policy regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is... well, I would probably be banned from OT for stating what I think about that.

Indeed, Islam prohibits images of ALL people as well. Not seeing what the issue is. Thats their religious belief. I don't agree with it, but its not harming anyone.

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

i would love to agree with you. But free speech can and sometimes will land you in court, depending on who complains about what they find offensive.

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

We ain't free over here that's why. It'd be great if we had Ameican levels but we don't. Freedom is the only way!

There's an ever creeping restriction on free speech as people say "I'm all for free speech, but..." and more and more clauses are put onto free speech. It's pretty Orwellian and you think that Europe would know better.

It's spineless and insipid behaviour at its worst.

Don't let anybody take your guns and don't let them restrict what you say.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Don't let anybody take your guns and don't let them restrict what you say.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Who's asking to declare death and harm?

A fine strawman.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

While they are not suicide bombers these radicals do cause social problems and have an unhealthy contempt for others. They are in a way a microcosm of the worst facets of Israel in general, but Israelis notice the difference as the people they show total contempt for are other Israelis.
You fail to grasp the salient points, what the ultra orthodox are to other Jews most Israelis (but very clearly not all) are to the 'goyim'

If a section of society is willing to airbrush out other sections of society. What does that say about that society. Israel is well down the slippery slope

However it is nice to see Nuggz appreciate that the extremists are different from the general population. We have been waiting a while for him to have this epiphany. So next time an extremist sends a rocket into Israel and Israel 'responds' with large scale airstrikes or artillery strikes, he will know to condemn the overreaction like any reasonable person would. I wont hold my breath waiting for such a U turn though.

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't think comparisons will do it justice properly as it seems to be a fairly unique situation.

The kind of voting power/tight knit of the community seems to be a fairly important factor. I can't think of any direct comparisons off the top of my head.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What you define as Hate Speech and what we define as Hate Speech are two different things.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ann Coulter gives me the fear. More from how she looks than anything else. Definition of "crazy eyes".

We've had a few cases like that over here. The American pastor that burned the Quran for example. You can face imprisonment or face a substantial fine for burning the Quran over here but I don't see anybody going to jail over burning Bibles.

Certainly when I was in school we were all giving a copy of the New Testament, I still have mine but many were burned or torn up that day. It shouldn't be illegal and it is purposefully disrespectful, but not everybody and everything has automatic respect.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice. Our culture, like ever other culture, has to draw a line at what provides the most pragmatism and workability with the most freedom, and as a whole we've decided that fighting words, fraud, inciting riots, and hate speech should not have protection of law, but rather prohibition.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice. Our culture, like ever other culture, has to draw a line at what provides the most pragmatism and workability with the most freedom, and as a whole we've decided that fighting words, fraud, inciting riots, and hate speech should not have protection of law, but rather prohibition.

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

i would love to agree with you. But free speech can and sometimes will land you in court, depending on who complains about what they find offensive.

In the UK? Probably...

In the US? Very rare... almost non-existent.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

You are lumping the ultra-orthodox in with right wing Israelis which is completely idiotic.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for your estimates of what constitutes a reasonable response, most Israelis supported the nation's response to daily rocket and mortar attacks against the civilian population. None of them give a damn about YOUR notion of "reasonable" sitting comfy thousands of miles away from the fighting.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Let's not forget how we got here - your completely absurd assertion that Ultra-Orthodox Jews photoshopping women out of a picture somehow equates to genocide against Palestinians.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Your bias borders on hilarious and your understanding of Israeli politics is laughable.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Your reply constitutes nothing more than trolling and I'm not going to be dragged into a moronic slugfest with the ignorant.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Spoiler:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's actually more common than you'd think, at least as far as civil action goes.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Yes, the UN was biased when it agreed with the findings of the Israelis own Kahan Commission that Ariel Sharon was ultimately responsible for the deaths of 1500 to 3500 civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Spoiler:

Israels hands are far from clean in this matter, and were actually the first side to engage in terrorism against civilians in 1948, when Zionists killed almost 10,000 civilians in a series of terror attacks.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs.

Well, no,, the second example was Zionists against Arabs, but the first one it was the IDF sealing the camps and taking direct action to support the death squads. The level of slaughter achieved would have been impossible without the IDF's support.

On the second issue, the UN isn't biased, the US is. That sort of tilts things there. The UN can condemn Israel until it's blue in the face, but without the US allowing anything to be done about it, all it would be is hot air.

 Orlanth wrote:
I wasnt sitting thousands of miles from the fighting in Northern Ireland. We know what terorism is like in the UK. We also know that you dont stop it with large scale retaliation.
And its clear that some Israelis give a damn about our notion of reasonable, which is based on reason and humanity, I hope that a growing number will see that madness of the Israeli right for what it is

Pope Francis on Thursday defended freedom of speech but said there are limits and that "you can't make a toy out of the religions of others."

Francis spoke about the Paris attacks while en route to the Philippines. He defended freedom of expression as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good "without offending."

Seventeen victims and three terrorists died in the three-day rampage of violence across France last week. The offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, were attacked.

"You cannot provoke," the pope said. "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

Francis also briefly discussed reports that U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials had warned that he could be a target of Islamist militants.

Francis expressed confidence in Vatican security measures, Canada's CBC News reported. The pope said he was more concerned about others being injured if an attack took place.

"I am in God's hands," he said, then adding lightly: "Am I afraid? You know that I have a defect, a nice dose of being careless. If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The UK by and large was content to ignore a lot of what went on during The Troubles because it was 'over there'. It wasn't until there were attacks in GB that the British government started to get more involved in Northern Ireland with a view to ending the conflict.

 whembly wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/15/pope-islam-paris-charlo-hebdo/21796053/

Pope Francis on Thursday defended freedom of speech but said there are limits and that "you can't make a toy out of the religions of others."

Francis spoke about the Paris attacks while en route to the Philippines. He defended freedom of expression as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good "without offending."

Seventeen victims and three terrorists died in the three-day rampage of violence across France last week. The offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, were attacked.

"You cannot provoke," the pope said. "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

Francis also briefly discussed reports that U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials had warned that he could be a target of Islamist militants.

Francis expressed confidence in Vatican security measures, Canada's CBC News reported. The pope said he was more concerned about others being injured if an attack took place.

"I am in God's hands," he said, then adding lightly: "Am I afraid? You know that I have a defect, a nice dose of being careless. If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain."

The Pope doesn't understand what freedom of expression means either.

You cannot condemn the murder of these journalists and then, add a “but” to that denunciation if you truly believe in the freedom of expresson.

Again... it's another form of appeasement at work here.

sigh...

 whembly wrote:

The Pope doesn't understand what freedom of expression means either.

You cannot condemn the murder of these journalists and then, add a “but” to that denunciation if you truly believe in the freedom of expresson.

Again... it's another form of appeasement at work here.

sigh...

Spoiler:

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

 Frazzled wrote:

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Bigot much?

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

 Frazzled wrote:
BAXX.

this is what he said:

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

I don't know about the other nonsense BAXX typed, other than it revealed some issues.

 d-usa wrote:
You can be pro-freedom of speech and be against what people say. Acknowledging that what they are saying is offensive and hurtful to others doesn't make you anti freedom of speech.

You can be for something even if you don't like the result.

I'm pretty sure that wembly is pro-democracy even though he doesn't like that Obama was the result. Pretending that wembly is "anti-democracy" because he doesn't like the result of two democratic elections is asinine just as it is asinine to say that it is anti free speech to acknowledge that speech can have consequences because people won't like what you have to say.

 Frazzled wrote:
BAXX.

this is what he said:

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

I don't know about the other nonsense BAXX typed, other than it revealed some issues.

 d-usa wrote:
You can be pro-freedom of speech and be against what people say. Acknowledging that what they are saying is offensive and hurtful to others doesn't make you anti freedom of speech.

You can be for something even if you don't like the result.

I'm pretty sure that wembly is pro-democracy even though he doesn't like that Obama was the result. Pretending that wembly is "anti-democracy" because he doesn't like the result of two democratic elections is asinine just as it is asinine to say that it is anti free speech to acknowledge that speech can have consequences because people won't like what you have to say.

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Baxx wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
BAXX.

this is what he said:

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

I don't know about the other nonsense BAXX typed, other than it revealed some issues.

Completely irrelevant to what I said. The fact is you can easily ridicule any religion and any religious founders. This has been done increasingly for centuries if not millenias.

It is too late to demand respect now and immunity to satire and ridicule, with all the damage done throughout history.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Of course you can insult any religion.
The question is, why would you want to insult a religion? What does insulting religions accomplish beyond making people really mad and more likely to kill each other?

Baxx wrote:
I think blasphemy is a necessary tool to flush out all the rotten extremists.

Charlie Hebdo publishes art, really tasteful from the little I have seen. This is what people enjoy, what people pays for.

I've heard a norwegian national commentator and journalist give this week's magazine top score.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can be pro-freedom of speech and be against what people say. Acknowledging that what they are saying is offensive and hurtful to others doesn't make you anti freedom of speech.

You can be for something even if you don't like the result.

I'm pretty sure that wembly is pro-democracy even though he doesn't like that Obama was the result. Pretending that wembly is "anti-democracy" because he doesn't like the result of two democratic elections is asinine just as it is asinine to say that it is anti free speech to acknowledge that speech can have consequences because people won't like what you have to say.

Good point... who's this "wembly" dude?

In any case, I didn't like the result... I'm free to express those sentiment without any fear of reprisals.

I just wanted to reiterate that being supportive of free-speech does not equal to free from consequences. Folks far too often conflate the two.

However, the Pope's not to subtle excuse for the indefensible acts of violent extremists, so long as those who engage in murderous bloodletting do so in the defense of their religion... is very disappointing.

Baxx wrote:
I think blasphemy is a necessary tool to flush out all the rotten extremists.

Charlie Hebdo publishes art, really tasteful from the little I have seen. This is what people enjoy, what people pays for.

I've heard a norwegian national commentator and journalist give this week's magazine top score.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Of course you can insult and ridicule any religion.
The question is, why would you want to insult a religion? What does insulting religions accomplish beyond making people really mad and more likely to kill each other?

All people should respect the values of others and leave them in peace, even if they disagree with it. Religious people do not always do this, but that is no reason for doing the same back to them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Extremists won't be flushed out by blasphemy, quite the contrary. It will only reinforce them.
Extremism can only be destroyed by fighting ignorance. Blasphemy, insults and ridicule do more harm than good for that.

Also, I thought Charlie Hebdo explicitly aimed not to be tasteful? Looks like they failed after all.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Woah dude. Saying most religious leaders are the same as Kim Jong Un is not only completely untrue, but its also needlessly offensive. Sure, you can do it all you want, but it accomplishes nothing besides make you look like a colossal douche.

 Frazzled wrote:

The voices in your head may say you typed that. What you actually typed was this:

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders.

Again, bigot much?

Baxx wrote:
Really? I know the type, the self-justifiable, holier than thou kind of type.

Instead of saying "listen to my rules" which they know has little effect, they say "listen to my god's rule".

And dogmatic faith, believing blindly in scripture, now that got infinitely potential for damage.

Baxx wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The voices in your head may say you typed that. What you actually typed was this:

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders.

Again, bigot much?

Not on behalf of all the people chained, tortured and killed throughout history by these institutions. There is no demanding to be immune to ridicule anymore. Not after all that killing.

Baxx wrote:
Really? I know the type, the self-justifiable, holier than thou kind of type.

Instead of saying "listen to my rules" which they know has little effect, they say "listen to my god's rule".

And dogmatic faith, believing blindly in scripture, now that got infinitely potential for damage.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Woah dude. Saying most religious leaders are the same as Kim Jong Un is not only completely untrue, but its also needlessly offensive. Sure, you can do it all you want, but it accomplishes nothing besides make you look like a colossal douche.

Far less people have died for religious reasons than for political reasons. Communism, Fascism, the Roman Empire, the Mongol invasions, British Empire, etc...

nkelsch wrote:

Dogmatic belief in secularism in France is leading to a bigoted 'pure-blooded frenchmen' movement which is gaining political power where the population is out to rid their country of jews, islam, minorities in a thinly disguised white supremacist movement. And we all know how Europeans deal with such issues... they have a 'final solution' which fits all needs in that part of the world.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on extremist views which harm others and result int he death of people and removal of human freedoms. More often than not it is the Human Ego which is the driving force, and religion is a tool. As we can see from this incident, Secular beliefs can be just as extreme and destructive.

 Frazzled wrote:
In this instance, I'd say the paper's printing of such articles was stupid and in low taste-13 year old virgin type humor.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Not on behalf of all the people chained, tortured and killed throughout history by these institutions. There is no demanding to be immune to ridicule anymore. Not after all that killing.

Baxx wrote:
First off, and maybe most importantly, it teaches extremists one repeatingly important message: Your religion is not outside what can be ridiculed! Your religion is not immune to satire and critics. This is very important, even the pope haven't learned. More blasphemy will perhaps also make the pope learn that religion indeed can be joked with and ridiculed.

Baxx wrote:
No way can I respect the values of others!

Baxx wrote:
I can never respect the values of Kim Yong Un. And the severe ridicule of Kim Yong Il by for instance South Park was important. Important to mock mad crazy demagogues. Most religious characters are of the same type.

Baxx wrote:
After all the blood that has been shed, their values, their religions are no longer have any right to be left with respect. Not after all the victims who have died because of these ideologies.

Baxx wrote:
Other than that, blasphemy is an important part of long traditioned art. Some genres are even founded on blasphemy, having it as its fundament. So it can be used as a source for creativity. And by enjoying such art, you get a community, a cultural phenomenon.

Baxx wrote:
And personally, it helps to vent a lot of anger that builds up after watching what kind of idiocy happening all over the world because of deranged religious scripture.

Baxx wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Extremists won't be flushed out by blasphemy, quite the contrary. It will only reinforce them.
Extremism can only be destroyed by fighting ignorance. Blasphemy, insults and ridicule do more harm than good for that.

Also, I thought Charlie Hebdo explicitly aimed not to be tasteful? Looks like they failed after all.

I don't know if tasteful was the right word, but certainly enjoyable, humorous. Valuable. Necessary.

In my opinion extremists are flushed out. I've heard several local extremists say that sharia requires death penalty for drawing Muhammad. Well, they are flushed out. And those who want to kill and murder are flushed out just like in Paris. And also today in Belgium. So blasphemy flushes them out and then the police can shoot them.

Strange how you say blasphemy do more harm than good. Because during the last 3 decades, there has been a tremendous blasphemic assault on christianity, specially in Norway but also in England, USA, Brazil, Germany and many many other countries. And christian extremism is almost non-existant. And they certainly have given up caring about blasphemy any more.

Baxx wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Woah dude. Saying most religious leaders are the same as Kim Jong Un is not only completely untrue, but its also needlessly offensive. Sure, you can do it all you want, but it accomplishes nothing besides make you look like a colossal douche.

Far less people have died for religious reasons than for political reasons. Communism, Fascism, the Roman Empire, the Mongol invasions, British Empire, etc...

Kim Jong Un is no less holy for the north koreans as any religious character is to anyone else.

Baxx wrote:
Today's pope is a continuation of previous popes. Luckily with a lot less power.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Kim Yong Un is not a religion. Mocking demagogic religious leader and mocking religious extremists is important. But mock the people themselves, not their religion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Their religions never shed any blood, those people did.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I know of no artistic genres founded in blasphemy. Blasphemy is something that is illegal in most of the world, even in the West. Why you would want to have a community around insulting others is beyond me. Are you sure you are feeling allright?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
And personally, it helps to vent a lot of anger that builds up after watching what kind of idiocy happening all over the world because of deranged religious scripture.

That makes you no better than the extremists.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Today's pope is a continuation of previous popes. Luckily with a lot less power.

I suggest you actually look up Pope Francis and his actions and words beyond this single case before making that claim.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Kim Jong Un has the power of the state behind him, the Pope and any other religious leader, absent a supreme theocrat who has control of a state, does not. If somebody in North Korea does something that Kim Jong Un doesn't like then Kim Jong Un can send armed men to imprison that person or kill that person because the state always has a monopoly on force. If a Catholic anywhere does something that the Pope doesn't like, the absolute worst thing the Pope can do is excommunicate that person, which does zero physical harm, has no impact on their liberty and merely makes them no longer an official, recognized member of the Catholic faith. That's a huge difference.

In Western democracies religious leaders aren't capable of wielding the kind of power that a dictator like Kim Jong Un or a theocrat like the Supreme Leader of Iran or a monarch like the King of Saudi Arabia, unless the people elect a religious leader to office but even then that leader would be constrained by the laws.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Kim Yong Un is not a religion. Mocking demagogic religious leader and mocking religious extremists is important. But mock the people themselves, not their religion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Their religions never shed any blood, those people did.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I know of no artistic genres founded in blasphemy. Blasphemy is something that is illegal in most of the world, even in the West. Why you would want to have a community around insulting others is beyond me. Are you sure you are feeling allright?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
And personally, it helps to vent a lot of anger that builds up after watching what kind of idiocy happening all over the world because of deranged religious scripture.

That makes you no better than the extremists.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Today's pope is a continuation of previous popes. Luckily with a lot less power.

I suggest you actually look up Pope Francis and his actions and words beyond this single case before making that claim.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Kim Jong Un has the power of the state behind him, the Pope and any other religious leader, absent a supreme theocrat who has control of a state, does not. If somebody in North Korea does something that Kim Jong Un doesn't like then Kim Jong Un can send armed men to imprison that person or kill that person because the state always has a monopoly on force. If a Catholic anywhere does something that the Pope doesn't like, the absolute worst thing the Pope can do is excommunicate that person, which does zero physical harm, has no impact on their liberty and merely makes them no longer an official, recognized member of the Catholic faith. That's a huge difference.

In Western democracies religious leaders aren't capable of wielding the kind of power that a dictator like Kim Jong Un or a theocrat like the Supreme Leader of Iran or a monarch like the King of Saudi Arabia, unless the people elect a religious leader to office but even then that leader would be constrained by the laws.

Baxx wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Today's pope is a continuation of previous popes. Luckily with a lot less power.

I suggest you actually look up Pope Francis and his actions and words beyond this single case before making that claim.

And I haven't?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apparently not if you regard the removal of intimidating gold furniture from the popes chamber in the vatican and the cessation of protecting paedophiles and actively highlighting them as a problem and calling them a cancer in the church, not to mention calling for greater tolerance for homosexuality and transgender peoples.

That is all pretty big steps away from previous policy.

Really? In my opinion that makes me a hell of alot better than any extremist. Everyday I see the world filled with religious crazyness, killing, torture, injustice. Extreme blasphemy helps me cope with that.

Baxx wrote:
Helps me cope with what I mentioned. Please rephrase question as I didn't quite get it.

Baxx wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The voices in your head may say you typed that. What you actually typed was this:

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders.

Again, bigot much?

Not on behalf of all the people chained, tortured and killed throughout history by these institutions. There is no demanding to be immune to ridicule anymore. Not after all that killing.

 Jihadin wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Helps me cope with what I mentioned. Please rephrase question as I didn't quite get it.

I am going to hazard a guess you are extremely religious but not have violent tendencies towards others

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, you have issues. Painting an entire group of people because of your frankly up perception is no different than any other bigot or racist.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In this instance, I'd say the paper's printing of such articles was stupid and in low taste-13 year old virgin type humor.

Okay, please tell me you are not opposing the 13 years old virgins that have bad sense of humor to the 13-years-old that already had sex and therefore have better sense of humor. That would be extremely creepy. In fact, I would say I find even the expression “13-years-old virgins” creepy by itself.

Again, you have issues. Painting an entire group of people because of your frankly up perception is no different than any other bigot or racist.

Baxx wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Kim Yong Un is not a religion. Mocking demagogic religious leader and mocking religious extremists is important. But mock the people themselves, not their religion.

I am more in favour of mocking religions than mocking religious people.

Baxx wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Their religions never shed any blood, those people did.

By specific instructions from scripture. Beliefs have consequences. Different ideologies give different actions.

Baxx wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I know of no artistic genres founded in blasphemy. Blasphemy is something that is illegal in most of the world, even in the West. Why you would want to have a community around insulting others is beyond me. Are you sure you are feeling allright?

I'm not sure if we speak about the same thing, you mention insulting others. I'm talking about insulting power regimes, bloody ideologies and dogmatic religions.

Blasphemy is illegal? You know how crazy that is? It opens up just an absurd worm-whole of crazyness. If blasphemy is forbidden, everything is.

Ok so you have never heard about Black Metal? It's been around since the early 80's. Today it is a flourishing genre with bands from all over the world playing all over the world. One of the key ingredients in much of extreme metal is the search for the absolute blasphemy. Even much of the early thrash metal was very much about blasphemy.

Baxx wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
And personally, it helps to vent a lot of anger that builds up after watching what kind of idiocy happening all over the world because of deranged religious scripture.

That makes you no better than the extremists.

Really? In my opinion that makes me a hell of alot better than any extremist. Everyday I see the world filled with religious crazyness, killing, torture, injustice. Extreme blasphemy helps me cope with that.

 Frazzled wrote:

Every post you've made. You're making broad strokes about every religion. That lacks clarity of thinking.

Baxx wrote:
I guess there's a bit of a culture shock here.

I obviously come from a different background. I come from a society where ... is deeply rooted in the culture

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Again, why?
Mocking religion in general, instead of just the extremists and their actions will accomplish nothing but antagonising the non-extremist believers.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There is no religion with scripture containing specific instructions to kill others (apart from Germanic paganism maybe, there it is actually a requirement to get into heaven ). Most religions (at least the Abrahamic ones) specifically state that killing another person is one of, if not the greatest possible sin, and that the decision of life and death falls to God alone.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.
You should not insult ideologies or religions, because most ideologies or religions an sich, are not bloody or dogmatic at all. It is the extremists that are bloody and dogmatic, not the religion. Insult the extremists, not the religion.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Everyday, the extremist sees exactly the same, but caused by the infidels and blasphemers. Raging against them helps him cope with that.
Blasphemy only reinforces extremism on both sides. It drives people toward extremism and away from each other. Extremism can only be fought by taking away ignorance and creating mutual understanding.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Baxx wrote:
I guess there's a bit of a culture shock here.

I obviously come from a different background. I come from a society where ... is deeply rooted in the culture

Ah... That isexactly the same thing that I always say when trying to explain why beating up homosexuals is considered perfectly okay in Russia
On the contrary, blasphemy gets you sent on a free, state-sponsored holiday to the beautiful untouched nature reserves of Siberia, where you can work out in the fresh air to lose all that excessive weight.
As you can see, we Russians are a very tolerant, friendly people.

 d-usa wrote:
This thread went to a weird place...