# Satyrical French magazine is bombed, website is hacked by Muslim extremists



## impersonal (Nov 2, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350


> Attack on French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo
> 
> The attack on Charlie Hebdo comes a day after it named the Prophet Muhammad as "editor-in-chief"
> 
> ...


Because fuck freedom of expression and the right to criticize and debate other people's ideologies. The message is clear: wherever you are, you can be fire bombed if these people think you are not acting like a good Muslim. So don't talk badly about Islam.

PS: sorry about the spelling of the title... Anyway "satyrical" fits the magazine quite okay as well. The magazine's all about slightly aggressive adult humor, typically about politics and society issues. It is distinctly left-wing and against religious involvement in politics; in particular by extremists. The magazine's last issue mentioned both some attacks and protests by Christian extremists against a theatre play in Paris, and the victory of the Islamist party Ennahda in Tunisia.


----------



## Wolfarus (Nov 2, 2011)

Dont think anybody is going to be suprised by this outcome.

"Peacefull" islam is showcased again 

Good that nobody was hurt this time, though.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 2, 2011)

Religion of people blowing themselves to pieces...well not in this case. Business as usual for Radical Islam.


----------



## tnorbo (Nov 2, 2011)

its funny just finished reading the other article and already knew what this one was about


----------



## Borel (Nov 2, 2011)

This is so fucking ridiculous. Well, at least no one was hurt.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 2, 2011)

Borel said:


> This is so fucking ridiculous. Well, at least no one was hurt.



First the culprits give muslims a bad name and then they can't even manage to kill a single person. Epic fail.


----------



## Horu (Nov 2, 2011)

I honestly expected this to be a link to an Onion article


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 2, 2011)

Lol, the moderate Muslims who didn't liked this charia hebdo are now in a big mess because, they can"t critics this magazine without be seen as supporters of this attack.

[dailymotion]xm3ana_charlie-hebdo-part-en-fumee_news[/dailymotion]

Edit: This kind of new help her.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Nov 2, 2011)

Not surprised that they would attack but they didn't kill anybody with it.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.

I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.
> 
> I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.


So getting annoyed justifies bomb attacks now? Interesting. I'm sure the american military will love to hear that.


----------



## MunchKing (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> No one was hurt never mind killed,* so it's not such a bad thing.*



The fact that no one was hurt doesn't make it okay. There is damage done to their property. 

It's the intent that counts. 

And jeez people can be so saddle sore these days.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.
> 
> I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.



Yes, so a rocket attack on a town that ends up not hurting anyone is still not such a bad thing.

See this is the problem we're encountering with some Muslims here.  You may or may not be one, but this is the problem.  You're still justifying it.  So far what I'm going to expect is a "Well if you guys don't want to attract violence then you should never do it in the first place!"  No.  See...that violates what Western countries like to embrace, the freedom of expression.  I mean, Jesus is parodied a million times over and no Christian firebombs, and the same could go for Buddha or Krishna.  All this further proves is that there's no curb or sense of moderation with some Muslims.  It's "their way or the high way" and sooner or later this is going to get nasty to completely religious intolerance.  No, Muslims of Europe, it's not "your way" when you settle in Paris.  It's the fucking French way and your lack of understanding is sickening.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 2, 2011)

Wolfarus said:


> Dont think anybody is going to be suprised by this outcome.
> 
> "Peacefull" islam is showcased again
> 
> Good that nobody was hurt this time, though.



It's not the fault of Islam. It is the fault of two things working in perfect tandem.

1: You have religious people
2: You have a culture that accepts and encourages violence

Islam cannot "encourage" violence in a culture without a tradition of violence. What do you think christians do in the more radical shitholes of Africa?



In short. Our objective is not to fight Islam. It is to fight the culture of acceptable violence. Religion is harmful only in cultures where that violence is seen as normal and acceptable.


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

I knew this was gonna happen, surprised it happened so fast. 

I don't get it, even though they label a drawing as the prophet Muhammed, doesn't mean it holds weight of any kind. Why are Muslims so riled up cause of this? They can label anything they want as Muhammed, doesn't mean anything really cause it's not him. Plus making fun of him doesn't really mean anything unless you take offense. Muslims should learn to ignore these things.

It shit like this people. 

Also on the magazine, seriously they should have known the outcome of doing something like this, so I don't feel bad for them at all. This was an expected result.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Syed said:


> *Also on the magazine, seriously they should have known the outcome of doing something like this, so I don't feel bad for them at all. This was an expected result.*



Ok that's bullshit.  No, in a developed country like France, I guess putting faith in a group of people you could expect to show some restraint is wrong now.  If anything it's proving a point now that Muslims can't control their anger and have some serious issues when it comes to adopting to cultural norms of a country.  No magazine or journal should have to expect a fucking petrol bomb in a place like France.  It just shows how you can take the people out of the savage land but you can't take the savage out of the people.


----------



## JH24 (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.
> 
> I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.



No, it's not the fact that no one was hurt or killed (good to hear), it's the action itself that makes it bad and totally unacceptable. You almost make it sound as if the bombing was understandable.


If people are not happy with what someone is saying, then they can resort to peaceful means to express their feelings. Violence is never, ever acceptable in these situations.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> Ok that's bullshit.  No, in a developed country like France, I guess putting faith in a group of people you could expect to show some restraint is wrong now.  If anything it's proving a point now that Muslims can't control their anger and have some serious issues when it comes to adopting to cultural norms of a country.  No magazine or journal should have to expect a fucking petrol bomb in a place like France.  It just shows how you can take the people out of the savage land but you can't take the savage out of the people.



It was just one guy.



Mael said:


> "Well if you guys don't want to attract violence then you should never do it in the first place!"  No.  See...that violates what Western countries like to embrace, the freedom of expression..



tbh........that's kinda what I was gonna go for.
I still don't see the functional purpose of doing it though.
I think the problem is that it gets circulated on News Sites very quickly like they're expecting a response.
If it didn't get put in the news, it would've just passed by uneventfully.

No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.

I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.



xxSasorixx said:


> No one was hurt never mind killed, so it's not such a bad thing.
> 
> I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.



OK, people don't like this post, to clarify: I just meant it seemed sort of like throwing paint on a person wearing a fur coat.

Also I'd need to know weather the property was deserted at the time (& if the bomber knew this) before condemning them.


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> Ok that's bullshit.  No, in a developed country like France, I guess putting faith in a group of people you could expect to show some restraint is wrong now.  If anything it's proving a point now that Muslims can't control their anger and have some serious issues when it comes to adopting to cultural norms of a country.  No magazine or journal should have to expect a fucking petrol bomb in a place like France.  It just shows how you can take the people out of the savage land but you can't take the savage out of the people.



Lets see. A dutch film director who pissed off some people with his views which resulted in him being killed, cartoonists getting threats, massive anger by some Muslims in Europe cause of other similar things which caused protests and mob attacks, and your telling me this was not expected at all? Cause honestly the only thing that was unexpected was the way they were gonna take out their rage which happened to be a petrol bomb.

Again this is not reflective of ALL Muslims.

Also a lot of the European Muslims (not all) come from poor backgrounds from their respective countries. That means religion is a big deal to them, which tends to be the case with people who are poor. They aren't savage like your saying.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> It was just one guy.
> 
> tbh........that's kinda what I was gonna go for.
> I still don't see the functional purpose of doing it though.
> ...



One guy is all it takes.  One guy just carried out what hundreds if not thousands were likely thinking.

And no, just no.  Again this violates the principles of freedom of expression.  You can uproar, and no one is denying that, but so far we've seen only one group of individuals go that extra step further.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> One guy is all it takes.  One guy just carried out what hundreds if not thousands were likely thinking.
> 
> And no, just no.  Again this violates the principles of freedom of expression.  You can uproar, and no one is denying that, but so far we've seen only one group of individuals go that extra step further.



Define 'uproar'
If you mean protest, then lots of protests get violent.

Do you disagree that the publishers were looking for attention?


----------



## impersonal (Nov 2, 2011)

Syed said:


> Also on the magazine, seriously they should have known the outcome of doing something like this, so I don't feel bad for them at all. This was an expected result.


It's like fighting against oppression. You know you're going to get tortured and killed. So I don't feel bad for anyone getting tortured and killed fighting oppression. Whatever happened to them was an expected result.


... See the kind of reasoning you're using? This is called the_ "stupid nonsense fallacy"_. It's pretty bad, you should make sure you don't let yourself be fooled by it in the future: just check whether or not your arguments are stupid nonsense before you post them.


			
				xxSasorixx said:
			
		

> I get free speech but I don't see what purpose that 'editor in-chief' thing served other than to annoy people.


Well, this paper is like that. They present news in humorous fashion and sometimes they like to shock people a little bit. That's part of how humor works. With regards to religions, they took a stance that they will not let themselves be intimidated -- and thus they treat religion like every other subject, AS IF there were no threats and intimidation going on. It's not a provocation. It's just a refusal to censor themselves.

They treat other religions the same way, and they're not nice with politicians or political ideas either. In all, they treat everybody like shit... But when it's Islam, it's a provocation? They just refuse to give special status to the bully!


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> Define 'uproar'
> If you mean protest, then lots of protests get violent.
> 
> Do you disagree that the publishers were looking for attention?



I mean like the ones in Muslim nations that had people trampled to death over a fucking cartoon and firebombs thrown, not like your Occupy Denver protests.  There's a degree of civilization I guess.

Attention or not, it's within their right.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> Do you disagree that the publishers were looking for attention?



I'm  going to camp in front of your house and punch you whenever you leave it, because I find your face offensive.

What will you rather do? Never leave the house again or call the cops on me?
According to you, it's better to do the former.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 2, 2011)

Islam is straight out of 1984. 

Religion of Peace


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 2, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Islam is straight out of 1984.
> 
> Religion of Peace



It's the culture and not the religion.

Christianity would be just as bad in the same situation. Luckily we got out of that shit a few hundred years ago (but some people are still stuck in it, like Breivik)


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> It's the culture and not the religion.
> 
> Christianity would be just as bad in the same situation. Luckily we got out of that shit a few hundred years ago (but some people are still stuck in it, like Breivik)



When it's supposedly in an edict or scripture within their holy book taken over the edge, it's more like religion is PART of that culture.  You can't separate the two of them.

And how do we know?  Christianity never had any text that said you couldn't use the Lord in terms of parody, and Brevik has absolutely nothing to do with this.  He if anything was a narcissistic nationalist against multiculturalism.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

So do you guys all think right is right regardless of the consequences?


----------



## impersonal (Nov 2, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> It's the culture and not the religion.
> 
> Christianity would be just as bad in the same situation. Luckily we got out of that shit a few hundred years ago (but some people are still stuck in it, like Breivik)



The distinction is largely moot. A religion cannot be reduced to its pure sacred texts -- a religion involves all sorts of rites and behaviours that are part of the religion (considered as such by the practitioners themselves) and yet are not in the book, and vice versa. For example, many christians do not apply the bible's teaching literally. Many muslims consider the burqa of utmost religious importance even though the qur'an barely mentions veils in passing.

Now, it might be bad to mix together all the different sects of one religion; for example, you can't blame all christians for Fred Phelps or for Mormonic behaviour. It might be argued that Islam in Europe might change its practices and adopt some of the local ones. That's what has been expected originally. So far, the results are mixed. It's not a complete disaster, it's not really good either.

If it turns out badly in the end, people will say that Islam, generally speaking, is "intrinsically" bad: as a set of cultural/religious practices, it is incompatible with the values of modern western civilization and cannot even adapt to them.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> So do you guys all think right is right regardless of the consequences?



No, but the basis for the consequences matters. If every right could be circumvented by someone being a goddamn shithead, then say goodbye to all your rights.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> So do you guys all think right is right regardless of the consequences?



Don't Rorschach this.

In this regard, since it's a protected right, yes.  You're pussyfooting around the fact that you've somehow justified the firebombing.  They weren't giving out names or ruining lives, but instead doing a parody.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> When it's supposedly in an edict or scripture within their holy book taken over the edge, it's more like religion is PART of that culture.  You can't separate the two of them.



They are connected but you can separate them.

Look at christianity in the middle ages. Look at christianity now. Look at christianity in Africa. Compare.

See any difference? Why? Change of culture. How much has the religion itself changed? The interpretations, maybe, and they depend on culture. Do you think Islam is static, that it cannot change? Of course it can change.



Mael said:


> And how do we know?  Christianity never had any text that said you couldn't use the Lord in terms of parody, and Brevik has absolutely nothing to do with this.  He if anything was a narcissistic nationalist against multiculturalism.



Do we need a text for it?

Travel back in time and insult Jesus. What do you think people would do to you?

Breivik was a narcissistic nationalistic christian who saw himself a templar. His text made many references to christian values and christianity itself. He was a supporter of that norwegian nationalist party which is also, interestingly enough, christian conservative. He had many supports in sweden from the Swedish Democratic party, which is also extremely conservative, and obviously christian.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> So do you guys all think right is right regardless of the consequences?



I think it is wrong to shut up because a bully asks you to.

Of course there are consequences, including the bully beating you up. Well, so what? That doesn't mean you deserved it, and that doesn't mean it is better to do as he says.

In addition, speaking up and showing resistance might eventually force the bully to change his own practices, whereas submitting is not going to lead to any kind of improvement.

So while the short-term consequences seem to be bad for everyone, the long term consequences are good... That kind of situation is studied in game theory in simplified forms. Basically, you got a bully and a victim. If the victim submits, he doesn't get beat up, so he has incentives to submit and he does so; the bully is also happy with that situation. That's one equilibrium (victim/bully); it's the most immediately available one, the one that agents with limited reasoning ability would chose.

But if the victim fights back, the bully doesn't benefit from his strategy any more. Eventually, he'll give up on it. So there is a transition period after which another equilibrium(both minding their own business) is then found, in which both parties are relatively happy (compared to the previous situation, the bully is a bit less happy as he doesn't get his way, and the victim is a bit more happy as he isn't a victim anymore). That's a long term strategy that involves teaching mechanisms, but the outcome is far superior for anyone but the bully.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> They are connected but you can separate them.
> 
> Look at christianity in the middle ages. Look at christianity now. Look at christianity in Africa. Compare.
> 
> ...



Yes but you're taking one example and trying to apply it elsewhere.  So far no one religion has been so ingrained into a culture than Islam has in the Middle East and to its adherents abroad.  No, you really cannot separate them so far apart.  You're almost trying to absolve Islamic followers completely just because they were raised in parts of the world with violence.  No, you can't do that.  Something fuels the violence, and when it's brought over to a place like Europe, the separation b/w culture and religion becomes all the harder, even when long-time residents start to fuel up.

And we can't make the basis for Christianity because no such incidents have occurred, and even then given where we are now and how everybody knows Jesus has been parodied both home and abroad, we haven't seen the death threats, attempts on lives (or successfully amirite Theo van Gogh?), and outright fueling of violence the way Islam has prompted.

As for Brevik, I still cannot consider him this mastermind seeing how utterly narcissistic he was and how there was never this ultimate upswing in reactionary Christianity the way we've seen this time and time again.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> Yes but you're taking one example and trying to apply it elsewhere.  So far no one religion has been so ingrained into a culture than Islam has in the Middle East and to its adherents abroad.  No, you really cannot separate them so far apart.  You're almost trying to absolve Islamic followers completely just because they were raised in parts of the world with violence.  No, you can't do that.  Something fuels the violence, and when it's brought over to a place like Europe, the separation b/w culture and religion becomes all the harder, even when long-time residents start to fuel up.



Something fuels violence, yes. Provocations tend to do that. What provokes people is different from religion to religion and culture to culture. What their response will be will also differ.

I don't think its as simple as saying islam is a violent religion. I think that the culture connected to islam is violent and that, were they instead christians (with the same upbringing and acceptance of violence), they would be just as violent.



Mael said:


> And we can't make the basis for Christianity because no such incidents have occurred, and even then given where we are now and how everybody knows Jesus has been parodied both home and abroad, we haven't seen the death threats, attempts on lives (or successfully amirite Theo van Gogh?), and outright fueling of violence the way Islam has prompted.



As we don't have a culture of violence here the same way we do in the middle east we don't have cases as extreme, but they do exist. Most of them are just death threats though.

It would likely be quite different if violence was seen as more acceptable.



Mael said:


> As for Brevik, I still cannot consider him this mastermind seeing how utterly narcissistic he was and how there was never this ultimate upswing in reactionary Christianity the way we've seen this time and time again.



Breivik is a psycho. I never said anything about him being a mastermind of anything. I'm just pointing out the connections between him and Christianity.


----------



## soulnova (Nov 2, 2011)

Remind me to never make jokes about him.


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It's like fighting against oppression. You know you're going to get tortured and killed. So I don't feel bad for anyone getting tortured and killed fighting oppression. Whatever happened to them was an expected result.
> 
> 
> ... See the kind of reasoning you're using? This is called the_ "stupid nonsense fallacy"_. It's pretty bad, you should make sure you don't let yourself be fooled by it in the future: just check whether or not your arguments are stupid nonsense before you post them.



That's assuming they were trying to fight for freedom of expression/speech. I doubt it considering the crude way they went about it. It seems like they wanted a reaction. Looks like they got it. 

So yep I'll say it again, I don't feel bad for them at all. 

Next time they should use their heads to win peoples hearts and to help the Muslims in Europe understand this right by different means instead of making cartoons. Cause they'll just make their assumed noble cause turn back and bite them in the ass.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Nov 2, 2011)

Lol, people should totally be tolerant of intolerant and offensive effigies of them and their religious figures.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 2, 2011)

Evil Ghost Ninja said:


> Lol, people should totally be tolerant of intolerant and offensive effigies of them and their religious figures.


This comment is intolerant and offensive to me, I demand you delete it.


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

Evil Ghost Ninja said:


> Lol, people should totally be tolerant of intolerant and offensive effigies of them and their religious figures.



Didn't you know? All Arabs and Muslims in general look like that cartoon.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 2, 2011)

Evil Ghost Ninja said:


> Lol, people should totally be tolerant of intolerant and offensive effigies of them and their religious figures.


Yes, they should. It's called a civilized society where people settle disputes constructively.

Naturally, I wouldn't expect medieval savages to understand this.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm gonna start firebombing everyone who ticks me off.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Nov 2, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> This comment is intolerant and offensive to me, I demand you delete it.



if you don't like my bigotry you can go to Canada cause I got freedom of speech.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Syed said:


> Didn't you know? All Arabs and Muslims in general look like that cartoon.



Yet you people do yourself no favors launching firebombs, breaking and entering into the homes of cartoonists with intent to kill, hacking, etc.

You rise to the bait.  You are the ultimate troll catch.  Regardless of what they were doing, these people rose to the bait and thus you all suffer.  A better idea is to just evolve and take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> *Yet you people do yourself no favors launching firebombs, breaking and entering into the homes of cartoonists with intent to kill, hacking, etc.*
> 
> You rise to the bait.  You are the ultimate troll catch.  Regardless of what they were doing, these people rose to the bait and thus you all suffer.  A better idea is to just evolve and take it with a grain of salt.



Mael you shouldn't lump 1.5 billion people into one single unit. Some do resort to violence. But most Muslims don't, a lot of us are just trying to get by like any other person.

And yes I agree some Muslims do fall for this bait. That's the problem with Muslims in general these days, instead of looking at bigger issues like eliminating poverty or helping our fellow man, we're more concerned about issues like this. 

Yep we all suffer. It can't be avoided since the media has done a great job making a few bad apples represent the whole global Muslim population as a whole.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 2, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> Yes, they should. It's called a civilized society where people settle disputes constructively.
> 
> Naturally, I wouldn't expect medieval savages to understand this.



oh please we live in a society where people riot over blackberry messenger going down and britney spears.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

I like what Mael sort of said.

The magazine guys were trolling.

With the large number of Muslims in France someone is gonna take the bait.

I think the publishers wanted something like this to happen. for the attention for their magazine



Coteaz said:


> Naturally, I wouldn't expect medieval savages to understand this.



Do you mean all Muslims or just the brown ones?

Are you including the 20+ million Chinese

Or in Russia where Islam is considered one of it's traditional religions and part of it's historical heritage?


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Outlandish said:


> oh please we live in a society where people riot over blackberry messenger going down and britney spears.



Do we firebomb and attempt assassinations over those two?

Yes or no?


----------



## Syed (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> *Do we firebomb *and attempt assassinations over those two?
> 
> Yes or no?





The birth place of Democracy. 

So civilized.

Also Vancouver going nuts after a hockey game lol.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

Syed said:


> The birth place of Democracy.
> 
> So civilized.



You failed to answer the question since this was about Blackberries and Britney Spears.  This is a riot over their economy, a larger and legitimate concern.

As for Vancouver, again were there actual assassination attempts and zero alcohol involvement?  Go ask the Canadians.


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 2, 2011)

Mael said:


> You failed to answer the question since this was about Blackberries and Britney Spears.  *This is a riot over their economy, a larger and legitimate concern.*
> 
> As for Vancouver, again were there actual assassination attempts and zero alcohol involvement?  Go ask the Canadians.



So it was OK then?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 2, 2011)

It never fails that bunch of sorry liberals and Muslims too afraid to admit any wrongdoing by other Muslims will always show up to defend stupid shit like this. Stay classy guys.


----------



## Gnome (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> So it was OK then?



Rioting over something tangible is more justified than attacking someone because they hurt your feelings. If you can't sleep at night because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs, that's your problem.


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> So it was OK then?



Because livelihoods and an entire nation's economy are at stake, yes.

Don't give me this bullshit.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 2, 2011)

Yes it's deplorable that someone bombed them.  However, the satirists were pretty much making a calculated move to piss someone off.  It's like being in a bar, and insulting drunk people.  You'll probably get hit for being a jerk-ass.  This doesn't make the person hitting you right, it just makes you a dumb-fuck.

Essentially they were flame-baiting and got flamed.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 2, 2011)

They've only further shown how incompatible the religion has become with modern society.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Nov 2, 2011)

Shit France get it together.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 2, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They've only further shown how incompatible the religion has become with modern society.


Yes because all religion is represented by a small group of one religion.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 2, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yes because all religion is represented by a small group of one religion.



Weren't you just bitching about people coming to the defense of this? Just shut up. I'm not gonna act like all religions are the same and all its followers are the same when they aren't. Islam clearly has a larger problem with radicalism and adjusting to modern society than the other two related to it. This is just one of many examples of that.


----------



## Jin-E (Nov 2, 2011)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Breivik was a narcissistic nationalistic christian who saw himself a templar. His text made many references to christian values and christianity itself. He was a supporter of that norwegian nationalist party which is also, interestingly enough, christian conservative. He had many supports in sweden from the Swedish Democratic party, which is also extremely conservative, and obviously christian.



False. If you are thinking about the Progress Party, many of their core values(cutting foreign aid, less restrictions/taxes on buying alcohol etc) hardly coincide with the values of typical Christian conservative parties. They do try to appeal to the Christian conservatives on some issues, such as strong support for Israel. But the party does not identify itself as Christian.

Breivik identified himself as a cultural christian, he spells it out in his manifest.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 2, 2011)

Don't want to quote the other. Just want to say that in France, there are many ways to show your disapprove like protests or sue the offender but this terrorist action shouldn't be tolerate like few people here seems to accept as a "legitimate answer".


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 2, 2011)

Freedom of expression is highly overrated. It?s like the thread a couple of weeks back about some slob troll being prisoned for targeting grieving families over the net with abuse and vile content with intent to cause more grievance.

Cue the hordes of internet crusaders and would be intellectuals: you can?t do that, it?s freedom of speech!

And now what we have here is this tacky magazine (and French no less) avoiding debating and criticising but intentionally stirring antagonism.

But freedom of expression is magical and we should cherish it because it?s wonderful thing.


----------



## Xion (Nov 2, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Freedom of expression is highly overrated. It’s like the thread a couple of weeks back about some slob troll being prisoned for targeting grieving families over the net with abuse and vile content with intent to cause more grievance.
> 
> Cue the hordes of internet crusaders and would be intellectuals: you can’t do that, it’s freedom of speech!
> 
> ...



In the case of that grievance thing, that's different. That guy was an asshole intentionally harassing people for some psychopathic reasons. While I don't think that's ever an excuse for more draconian laws, if you do that through Facebook venues and the like against family and friends without relent, you kind of deserve to be punished if you're stupid enough to be caught.

Here people should be able to say what want how they want it.

I only think violence is an answer when it becomes the logical choice.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 2, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Freedom of expression is highly overrated. It?s like the thread a couple of weeks back about some slob troll being prisoned for targeting grieving families over the net with abuse and vile content with intent to cause more grievance.
> 
> Cue the hordes of internet crusaders and would be intellectuals: you can?t do that, it?s freedom of speech!
> 
> ...



We talking about a bomb attack. It won't be a big deal if a Muslim community sue the magazine, it's already happened in the past with the danish cartoon published by Charlie Hebdo. The Muslim in France, like the family in your example, are free to sue the offender, it's their right. But the use of bomb attacks wrong, whatever the offender.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 2, 2011)

Why depict Muhammad if it’s a taboo? Of course people are going to do so because it’s the whole psychology of doing something you are told not to but doing it anyway.

It’s like the draw Muhammad day thing here on NF; there’s nothing to gain from it except deliberately antagonising others to stroke your dick and feel good. So you depicted Muhammad now what, you’ve exercised your FOS. Showing sensitivity is beyond the average persons grasp so situations like this continually pop up.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 2, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Why depict Muhammad if it?s a taboo? Of course people are going to do so because it?s the whole psychology of doing something you are told not to but doing it anyway.
> 
> It?s like the draw Muhammad day thing here on NF; there?s nothing to gain from it except deliberately antagonising others to stroke your dick and feel good. So you depicted Muhammad now what, you?ve exercised your FOS. Showing sensitivity is beyond the average persons grasp so situations like this continually pop up.



No, the Muhammad day on NF was just an excuse to draw Muhammad but prove nothing. I didn't even understood why people did this. 

"Wow I draw Muhammad, I so courageous......."

This magazine don't do treatment in favor for any religion. They draw Muhammad like they can draw Jesus or the others. It's a satiric magazine that could make fun of Islam today and can mock Christianity the next day. You must understand that France is a secular country and shouldn't be run by the religious laws or taboos.

The magazine can be charged if the Muslim community prove the magazine try to spread hate speech with their cartoons.

BTW here few draw by Charlie Hebdo


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 2, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Freedom of expression is highly overrated. It’s like the thread a couple of weeks back about some slob troll being prisoned for targeting grieving families over the net with abuse and vile content with intent to cause more grievance.
> 
> Cue the hordes of internet crusaders and would be intellectuals: you can’t do that, it’s freedom of speech!
> 
> ...


You've offended my sensibilities.  Prepare to die.



> No, the Muhammad day on NF was just an excuse to draw Muhammad but prove nothing. I didn't even understood why people did this.
> 
> "Wow I draw Muhammad, I so courageous......."


This was internet wide phenominon started on youtube.  It was to let these stupid savages know that shit like this will not be tolerated and that we will not be silenced out of fear.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

As for this, how wonderful.  They've succeeded in temporarily shutting the paper up by destroying everything that's used to make it.  This is acceptable HOW!?


----------



## Mael (Nov 2, 2011)

menstrual_flow said:


> Why depict Muhammad if it?s a taboo? Of course people are going to do so because it?s the whole psychology of doing something you are told not to but doing it anyway.
> 
> It?s like the draw Muhammad day thing here on NF; there?s nothing to gain from it except deliberately antagonising others to stroke your dick and feel good. So you depicted Muhammad now what, you?ve exercised your FOS. Showing sensitivity is beyond the average persons grasp so situations like this continually pop up.



Coming from the dude who loves to post anti-US threads to stroke his own ego/dick...this is highly ironic.


----------



## Milo- (Nov 2, 2011)

Anyone else strongly convinced that this is exactly what the magazine expected/wanted? It all plays well if you want to banish Muslims from France. The more people that want them out, the better, and this will increase their numbers.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 2, 2011)

Milo- said:


> Anyone else strongly convinced that this is exactly what the magazine expected/wanted? It all plays well if you want to banish Muslims from France. The more people that want them out, the better, and this will increase their numbers.



It's not a far right magazine. I think they expected that Muslim organizations will sue them as usually but not an attack on their offices. I msut admit that I was surprised that it happened in France because the huge mojarity of our Muslims are moderates. About the hack, it's from abroad (text in English and turk but not in french....).


----------



## ExoSkel (Nov 2, 2011)

Milo- said:


> Anyone else strongly convinced that this is exactly what the magazine expected/wanted? It all plays well if you want to banish Muslims from France. The more people that want them out, the better, and this will increase their numbers.


It's easy to touch muslims feelings with this kind of tactic. 

Solution? Get over it, muslims. Every time some publishing company start a headline with this kind of stuffs in future, muslims will react to it in violent way, and it's supporting the French population and European population to fuel the hate on you muslims.

Evolve like the rest of the world.


----------



## Tkae (Nov 3, 2011)

How come when the Danes do shit like this, there's threats but nothing tangible. But the French do it and the very next day or two they get bombed and hacked? 

French fail


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 3, 2011)

i feel bad for the EU  the crashing of cultures and religion seems a lot worse over there then i thought..then again, over here, it can be bad too


----------



## zuul (Nov 3, 2011)

I hope the magazine is going to become even more offensive toward Islam.

The best way to react to that sort of threat.

If their nasty action leads to much insults and mockity mocking maybe they will learn to stop being violent assholes.

Anyway it's all good for Charlie Hebdo, they sell more than ever. 
They must be rejoicing.


----------



## dummy plug (Nov 3, 2011)

apparently violence is a convenient, if not the only, option available to these people...


----------



## xxSasorixx (Nov 3, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> BTW here few draw by Charlie Hebdo
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



Those aren't funny, just really distasteful



zuul said:


> Anyway it's all good for Charlie Hebdo, they sell more than ever.
> They must be rejoicing.



There printing presses were destroyed


----------



## abcd (Nov 3, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> Those aren't funny, just really distasteful



its a matter of perspective 

Muslims are turning very radical and sensitive in the past few millennia


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 3, 2011)

xxSasorixx said:


> Those aren't funny, just really distasteful



It's your opinion. It's doesn't mean it's an absolute truth



> There printing presses were destroyed



They receive receive the help of other french newspaper to keep publishing. And the Charia Hebdo was already printed before their offices were bombed.


----------



## Mael (Nov 3, 2011)

Reprint. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-france-fire-magazine-idUSTRE7A26MO20111103


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

If I go into a black area and use the word n***** and preach white racial superiority, I'll probably get beaten if I'm lucky. If I go up to a large man and start talking about his mom, same. You make a cartoon in France about Muhammad, you're going to be targeted. 

None of this shit actually makes any logical sense, your mom probably doesn't care that some random guy is talking shit about her. This picture of Mohammad wasn't even bad. Just use care when treading on emotional issues like race, a man's mother or their religion.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Nov 3, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Yes it's deplorable that someone bombed them.  However, the satirists were pretty much making a calculated move to piss someone off.  It's like being in a bar, and insulting drunk people.  You'll probably get hit for being a jerk-ass.  This doesn't make the person hitting you right, it just makes you a dumb-fuck.
> 
> Essentially they were flame-baiting and got flamed.



Your analogy is actually wrong.

You're not in a bar insulting people. You run your own pub where the whole point of it is for you to insult the patrons and other people. And every person in the pub is there laughing at the stupidity of the insults.

Then this fuckwad comes in, feels insulted, and beats you senseless.

It's his fucking fault for being insulted because he walked into your pub.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> If I go into a black area and use the word n***** and preach white racial superiority, I'll probably get beaten if I'm lucky. If I go up to a large man and start talking about his mom, same. You make a cartoon in France about Muhammad, you're going to be targeted.



Last time I checked muslims in france were a <10% minority. How does that even remotely compare to being in a "black area" or personally walking up to someone's face and insulting his mom?
How do clear insults compare to a non-offensive drawing? (non-offensive by the standard of people being allowed to draw whatever they want. The prohibition of depicting muhammad in islam is a bullshit rule of the most extreme level and anyone who believes in it should not even be allowed to partake in a western society)


----------



## Watchman (Nov 3, 2011)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (4 members and 6 guests)
Watchman*, *Perseverance*, Shinigami Perv, very bored

Oh god he's back. :/


----------



## very bored (Nov 3, 2011)

Watchman said:


> Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (4 members and 6 guests)
> Watchman*, *Perseverance*, Shinigami Perv, very bored
> 
> Oh god he's back. :/


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

Zaru said:


> Last time I checked muslims in france were a <10% minority. How does that even remotely compare to being in a "black area" or personally walking up to someone's face and insulting his mom?
> How do clear insults compare to a non-offensive drawing? (non-offensive by the standard of people being allowed to draw whatever they want. The prohibition of depicting muhammad in islam is a bullshit rule of the most extreme level and anyone who believes in it should not even be allowed to partake in a western society)



I don't personally find the drawing insulting, but the turban and nose looks like an obvious penis and testicles. Some might find that offensive. 

It's not the situation that is important, it's the fact that there are issues that send people over the edge. You don't have to walk up to a black person and insult them, it could just be an offhand reference or a view that a police officer is unfairly discriminating. Race is a touchy enough issue that just using the word n***** at the wrong time can set people off. Sleeping with a man's wife is perfectly legal, she's totally free to make her choice about bed partners, the other man wasn't intending to insult the husband in any way, but don't expect for the husband to not react violently to something like that. Religion, women, mothers, family, race, these are things that can easily provoke people to violence, tread with care. 

As far as I'm concerned, just like everyone knows that using racial slurs could earn a beat down, people who draw Muhammad cartoons know the consequences. I'll still support arresting and prosecuting the perpetrators same as I would a black guy who beats down a white supremacist, but don't expect any sympathy from me for the dumbass who put himself in that situation.


----------



## Watchman (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm fine with that so long as those prepared to act out the 'consequences' for drawing Mohammed cartoons are aware that there are consequences for their own behaviour. 

Also, semi-obligatory "Other religions don't act this way geez guys" comment.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> As far as I'm concerned, just like everyone knows that using racial slurs could earn a beat down, people who draw Muhammad cartoons know the consequences.


So what you're saying is, if I draw muhammad saving innocent children, I shouldn't be surprised if someone throws a molotov cocktail through my window?

This whole thing is a scenario where the victim is undoubtably in the right. That there are millions of easily offended, potentially violent idiots doesn't change that.

You know, the problem here is that you're looking at this from too small of an angle. It's not about some cartoonists offending some muslims.
It's about *some* muslims offending the *entirety of non-muslim europe*.
They shit on our freedom of speech, they shit on our ability to have a sense of humor, they shit on THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY THEY VOLUNTARILY LIVE IN. Who should back the fuck up? Cartoonists, or muslims?

If european muslims don't want to be treated like jews in nazi germany in the not so far future, they should beat the metaphorical shit out of anyone who endorses this kind of behaviour. Not justify it.


----------



## Mael (Nov 3, 2011)

Oh great, Perseverance is back. 

Bring on the violent apologism.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

Zaru said:


> So what you're saying is, if I draw muhammad saving innocent children, I shouldn't be surprised if someone throws a molotov cocktail through my window?



If someone attacked you for that, I think the attackers are mentally retarded. You should probably be surprised if something that harmless is attacked. 



> This whole thing is a scenario where the victim is undoubtably in the right. That there are millions of easily offended, potentially violent idiots doesn't change that.
> 
> You know, the problem here is that you're looking at this from too small of an angle. It's not about some cartoonists offending some muslims.
> It's about *some* muslims offending the *entirety of non-muslim europe*.
> ...



They don't really shit on your freedom of speech. 99.9% of Muslims probably didn't plan on firebombing this paper. It's the .1% that you have to worry about. I'm sure if you fucked the wives of 1,000 men, you would find at least 10 who would try to hurt you. Making a cartoon about Muhammad where his face resembles genitalia is, to Muslims, like fucking their wives, and millions were exposed all at once to this perceived insult. Now to me this is silly, I'm actually one of those people who isn't offended in the least if someone insults my mother. So the whole thing is strange to me, but I damn well know not to insult religion or other people's mothers. I'm not going to run around claiming that my freedom of speech was violated because I feel threatened after shit talking some guy's race/family/mother, or my freedom to fuck was violated by an angry husband. 

I honestly think some (here in the US especially) are getting sick of the French trying to dress up these drawings as freedom of speech. It really has lowered my opinion of the French in general, and I'm not alone. Even Time fucking magazine can see this shit for what it is. 



> Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr
> 
> Read more:



Look, we get it. You Europeans feel oppressed if you can't draw insulting pictures without consequence. That's a very childish way to view human society, as a place where any insult should be tolerated without reaction rather than a place where everyone should try to respect others. Try respecting other people's feelings and maybe this wouldn't happen.


----------



## Yachiru (Nov 3, 2011)

How much more proof do we need that Islam is in fact not peaceful? I say deport these terrorists.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Look, we get it. You Europeans feel oppressed if you can't draw insulting pictures without consequence. That's a very childish way to view human society, as a place where any insult should be tolerated without reaction rather than a place where everyone should try to respect others. Try respecting other people's feelings and maybe this wouldn't happen.


The USA basically still haven't got rid of Christianism as a state religion(cf. the recent congress vote), whereas France had to deal violently with its clergy during the revolution. So obviously the US have a different approach.

That type of caricatures are often made about catholic figures. Some catholics protest. They rarely if ever turn violent. This allows for criticism of Islam in all the ways in which other ideologies are criticized. Including harsh portrayals of the Great Leader. I mean I'm sure soviets feel insulted when they see a caricature of Stalin.

Too bad for them.

Finally, the prophet in the picture hardly looks like genitalia. You're really pushing the interpretation.


			
				Shinigami perv said:
			
		

> Even Time fucking magazine can see this shit for what it is.emy against Jesus Christ should be banned.


Look at the readers' comments under that piece of shit article.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

Well good for French Catholics then. They don't react violently when their religion is trolled. I guess you can print Jesus cartoons in the knowledge that you probably won't be harmed. 100% of French Catholics won't react violently if Jesus is trolled, and 99.99% of French Muslims won't. Congrats. 

But what does that have to do with what I'm saying? Some people will react violently if you insult them, others won't. Try not to pointlessly insult them. 

I guess what really bothers me is the notion that the French actually believe printing insulting cartoons is some crusade for free speech.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 3, 2011)

South Park deliberately summed this whole phenomenon up best when they had Jesus snort a line of coke then tried to show a non-insulting image of Mohammad (which was censored out of fear). Guess who tried to carbomb Comedy Central Headquarters shortly after.

And I love SP's notion of "you better do what we say or you'll be firebombed" (submission to terrorism) or that criticizing Islam is Islamophobic. His leftist white guilt has gone to the point of condoning violence. Religious figures of every religion are consistently displayed in unflattering fashion in media, Jesus especially. Muslims are no different except they'll try to kill you for it instead of not caring or caring in non-psychotic fashion like everyone else.

Though perhaps I'd be a bit more sympathetic to them if Arab media wasn't so stunningly anti-semitic.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

I guess that's similar to saying that my position is "don't fuck my wife, or you'll be rightly shot at." 

Do you put any intellectual effort into your post, MH?


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 3, 2011)

did SP's account got Hijacked by Perseverance ?


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> His leftist white guilt


You sure about that?
I was convinced he was in the middle east, or at least an immigrant from one of these countries. His position is usually in line with Muslim/Arab views, more so than with the left-wing.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> I guess that's similar to saying that my position is "don't fuck my wife, or you'll be rightly shot at."


Fucking someone's wife serves no purpose in terms of freedom of expression. Making a (tame) caricature of a well-known character is different.

And if you think that drawing Muhammad is like fucking your wife, you're a lunatic...  If I thought that drawing L. Ron Hubbard was like fucking my wife, I would be put in a mental institution (I would also draw tons of L. Ron Hubbards).


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 3, 2011)

Bring Muhammad in to anything and see how barbaric people become. They think their actions are justified. For instance I was threatened by my own Brother after I stupidly argued with him over the Prophets teachings.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Fucking someone's wife serves no purpose in terms of freedom of expression. Making a (tame) caricature of a well-known character is different.
> 
> And if you think that drawing Muhammad is like fucking your wife, you're a lunatic.



I could argue that using racial slurs is freedom of expression. It proves I'm free to express myself without fear of violence. Or even proposing that whites are superior to blacks and giving reasons why I believe it. Certainly that's my freedom of expression, right?


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I could argue that using racial slurs is freedom of expression. It proves I'm free to express myself without fear of violence.


Race doesn't come with an ideology. There is no "book of black people" to which black people adhere, and not all of the Chinese are communists. But unlike races, religions usually come with political goals; and thus it is important to be able to criticize them.

The specific magazine we're talking about was published after the victory of an Islamist party in Tunisia, which claims it will implement charia principles (though in a relatively light and gentle way). That was the inspiration for that edition of the magazine, and what they meant to criticize and warn against.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Race doesn't come with an ideology. There is no "book of black people" to which black people adhere, and the Chinese are not all communists.



There is white racial supremacy theory. Why isn't that the same? Shouldn't I expect to publish those views without expecting blacks to react violently?

I mean fuck, if we're protecting freedom of expression, shouldn't all expression be equal under that law?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I could argue that using racial slurs is freedom of expression. It proves I'm free to express myself without fear of violence. Or even proposing that whites are superior to blacks and giving reasons why I believe it. Certainly that's my freedom of expression, right?



Em, yes. It's not the same as criticizing a religion but it certainly falls under freedom of expression. What's your point?


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Nov 3, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> You've offended my sensibilities.  Prepare to die.
> 
> This was internet wide phenominon started on youtube.  It was to let these stupid savages know that shit like this will not be tolerated and that we will not be silenced out of fear.



See this is what I don?t get. Islam has no influence in your life so why smear their precious prophet in the first place? It?s all about you and what you want and if that means defiling something some persons is passionate about you wouldn?t think twice about it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I guess that's similar to saying that my position is "don't fuck my wife, or you'll be rightly shot at."
> 
> Do you put any intellectual effort into your post, MH?



You shouldn't shoot someone for fucking your wife. I guess I'm not as draconian or tribal as you or your buddies. 

Really, Muslims should be mature enough to accept what every other religion in the world accepts. They shouldn't get a free pass for violence or an excuse that they're "special". Insulting Jesus is viewed as bad by Christians yet he's insulted basically daily some place or another to no consequence, because by and large Christians (whose domination's in the American South you have dubbed as Taliban-esque) simply don't care or have learned to express displeasure in non-psychotic ways. 

Your excuse is rather insulting to both Muslims and their victims, basically that they're violent babies and everyone should accept they're violent babies and if you don't accept they're violent babies you should die. Really you're the one being Islamophobic here, some of us believe that Islam is capable of modernizing and acceptance of criticism or even accepting pure racism/hate without resorting to violence is part of this modernization process.

Really your anti-progressive mindset is dangerous. It condones the persecution of gays in the Muslim world. After all, they acted gay in a place that doesn't accept them and they paid the price. It's like shouting ^ (use bro) in a ghetto! You self-proclaimed far-leftists and your boner for the Muslim world despite standing against everything you claim to value is really astonishing.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

Rob said:


> Em, yes. It's not the same as criticizing a religion but it certainly falls under freedom of expression. What's your point?


That if someone attacks me for expressing it, claiming my free speech is being attacked is sort of ridiculous? Blacks wouldn't be trying to shut down free speech, they're just pissed off by what I'm saying.

Claiming that I'm a martyr for free speech after expressing such is silly.



Megaharrison said:


> You shouldn't shoot someone for fucking your wife. I guess I'm not as draconian or tribal as you or your buddies.



That was my point if you bothered to read it. 



> Really, Muslims should be mature enough to accept what every other religion in the world accepts. They shouldn't get a free pass for violence or an excuse that they're "special". Insulting Jesus is viewed as bad by Christians yet he's insulted basically daily some place or another to no consequence, because by and large Christians (whose domination's in the American South you have dubbed as Taliban-esque) simply don't care or have learned to express displeasure in non-psychotic ways.
> 
> Your excuse is rather insulting to both Muslims and their victims, basically that they're violent babies and everyone should accept they're violent babies and if you don't accept they're violent babies you should die. Really you're the one being Islamophobic here, some of us believe that Islam is capable of modernizing and acceptance of criticism or even accepting pure racism/hate without resorting to violence is part of this modernization process.



That goes for every hot button issue. Kids at school shouldn't resort to violence over what other people say, bar patrons shouldn't get into fights over perceived slights. Of course that doesn't mean I'm sympathetic toward the guy who gets beaten up for shooting his mouth off, even if I agree that the attacker should be prosecuted.


----------



## dr_shadow (Nov 3, 2011)

As a commentor in _Dagens Nyheter_ put it, there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Most of them are not violent. However, even if only 1/1000 of them would consider using violence, that's still 1 600 000 extremists spread out across the globe that we have to worry about.

Numbers are scary...


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

SP, your arguments show that you have no idea what you're talking about. You criticize the magazine but you don't know what's in it. It's just like the Turkish retards who hacked the website. They think that the cartoonists are Christians mocking Islam.



Shinigami Perv said:


> There is white racial supremacy theory. Why isn't that the same? Shouldn't I expect to publish those views without expecting blacks to react violently?


(a) drawing a character
(b) calling people inferior

Why isn't that the same?


			
				Rob said:
			
		

> What's your point?


I think he wants to get at French legislation against "incitation to racial hatred" (which can largely be explained by, you know, WWII). I think that while he has a point in that the two are similar in nature, they are obviously different in degree -- for example by ignoring that religion always has an ideological aspect whereas race does not, but let's not go into the _"details"_. 

And of course, if we had to throw pragmatism out the window, we would have to maintain freedom of expression rather than "social peace laws" about racial hatred.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 3, 2011)

mr_shadow said:


> As a commentor in _Dagens Nyheter_ put it, there are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Most of them are not violent. However, even if only 1/1000 of them would consider using violence, that's still 1 600 000 extremists spread out across the globe that we have to worry about.
> 
> Numbers are scary...



A depraved terrorist like Hassan Nasrallah who has an actual pro-baby killing platform was declared the most  recently. Yes, Arabs represent a minority of Muslims but that's more scary.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> SP, your arguments show that you have no idea what you're talking about. You criticize the magazine but you don't know what's in it. It's just like the Turkish retards who hacked the website. They think that the cartoonists are Christians mocking Islam.
> 
> 
> (a) drawing a character
> ...



I saw the character on the front clearly depicting genitals for a face. That didn't take an insensitive person to imagine, don't pretend like you can't see it too.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I saw the character on the front clearly depicting genitals for a face. That didn't take an insensitive person to imagine, don't pretend like you can't see it too.



why not draw a anti-christian/whatever cartoon in response ?

are they that primitive that they have to respond with physical destruction against a piece of "offensive" paper and ink.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I saw the character on the front clearly depicting genitals for a face. That didn't take an insensitive person to imagine, don't pretend like you can't see it too.



Okay, tell me exactly what forms a clear penis or vagina in there. I'm not playing stupid. I do see the drawing as intentionally vulgar in its style. But I don't see any genitals.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 3, 2011)

butcher50 said:


> why not draw a anti-christian/whatever cartoon in response ?



Because I'm not out to provoke anyone. I guess that's my point, reacting by drawing Jesus with balls for a beard and a penis for a nose would be childish. It would only worsen the situation. Sure anyone has a right to do it, by why act like a douche? I'm not out to prove that I can do something that will piss people off. 

If I genuinely wanted to exercise freedom of expression, it would be to write an article about how violence isn't the correct response when confronted with things that make me angry. 

Reacting to this by drawing more Muhammad cartoons that will only inevitably piss people off and further division isn't an adult response.



impersonal said:


> Okay, tell me exactly what forms a clear penis or vagina in there.



The turban had two balls and the nose was an elongated penis. Maybe I just have a sick mind or something but there is no way I'm alone.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 3, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The turban had two balls and the nose was an elongated penis. Maybe I just have a sick mind or something but there is no way I'm alone.


Big noses are common in French/belgian drawings and caricatures. (
)

Nothing phallic about them.

The turban does look a bit stupid. Wouldn't say it looks like balls. Really really weird inflated shaved balls perhaps. Besides the turban and nose don't combine well. Perhaps you'd have better luck with the nose and eyes. But again, meh. If you want to see a penis you'll find one.

I think you're reading too much into this.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 3, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Big noses are common in French/belgian drawings and caricatures. (
> )
> 
> Nothing phallic about them.



More importantly, check out the massive racial stereotype of black people on that page. Who made an uproar about THAT?


----------



## Altron (Nov 3, 2011)

Zaru said:


> More importantly, check out the massive racial stereotype of black people on that page. Who made an uproar about THAT?


Silly Zaru, the only place that image would make an uproar is in the US.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 4, 2011)

> *French paper reprints Mohammad cartoon after fire-bomb*
> 
> 
> in
> ...



http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-france-fire-magazine-idUSTRE7A26MO20111103


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 4, 2011)

butcher50 said:


> why not draw a anti-christian/whatever cartoon in response ?
> 
> are they that primitive that they have to respond with physical destruction against a piece of "offensive" paper and ink.



Charlie hebdo is not christian, they are atheist and crap on all religions.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 9, 2011)

The cover of the new Charlie Hebdo.


----------



## Mael (Nov 9, 2011)

Ppffffhahahahahaha!

Brilliant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

Good for them, they didn't back down.


----------



## WT (Nov 9, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> A depraved terrorist like Hassan Nasrallah who has an actual pro-baby killing platform was declared the most  recently. Yes, Arabs represent a minority of Muslims but that's more scary.



The only reason why I mildly like Iran is because you guys hate them (its illogical I know, but its the truth ). 

It doesn't matter what that man does, as long as he hates Israel, he'll be loved. Take that out of the equation and people will begin to see his baby killing agenda and will most probably disassociate themselves from him. In other words, its not because he kills babies that people love him. If it is, you need to prove that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The only reason why I mildly like Iran is because you guys hate them (its illogical I know, but its the truth ).
> 
> It doesn't matter what that man does, as long as he hates Israel, he'll be loved. Take that out of the equation and people will begin to see his baby killing agenda and will most probably disassociate themselves from him. In other words, its not because he kills babies that people love him. If it is, you need to prove that.



That's insanity. That level of hate is probably part of the reason why you guys fall behind your Abrahamic brethren.


----------



## Huntress (Nov 9, 2011)

it most probably was some enraged extremist muslim.
But i cant help but wonder if it was actually a government (or whatever) setup job. cause of course, everyone would be like "damn islam, they hate freedom of speech etc" which would keep support for all the shit thats going down atm.
i dont know what the extremist situation is like in France, so i cant judge really.


----------



## Watchman (Nov 9, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> The only reason why I mildly like Iran is because you guys hate them (its illogical I know, but its the truth ).
> 
> It doesn't matter what that man does, as long as he hates Israel, he'll be loved. Take that out of the equation and people will begin to see his baby killing agenda and will most probably disassociate themselves from him. In other words, its not because he kills babies that people love him. If it is, you need to prove that.



He never said people love him because he kills babies, but they love him _despite_ that, which is still sickening.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter who on earth it is - it could be the next fucking Gandhi for all I care - if a guy advocates the murder of children in pursuit of a political goal, he's evil. You'd think that would be obvious to anyone, and not just forgotten because he happens to oppose Israel.


----------



## WT (Nov 9, 2011)

Watchman said:


> He never said people love him because he kills babies, but they love him _despite_ that, which is still sickening.



It disgusting but its human nature.

People still love Obama despite the fact that he's administered the deaths of more kids than that guy ever will. It happens everywhere.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

Don't try to warp collateral damage as being the same as acting on the intent of killing children. It makes you look desperate.


----------



## WT (Nov 9, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Don't try to warp collateral damage as being the same as acting on the intent of killing children. It makes you look desperate.



No its worse. Constant collateral damage is what produces this mindset. Besides, its disgusting that you defend someone whose directly responsible for the deaths of uncountable kids. All in all, my point proven.


----------



## Watchman (Nov 9, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> No its worse. Constant collateral damage is what produces this mindset. Besides, its disgusting that you defend someone whose directly responsible for the deaths of uncountable kids. All in all, my point proven.



How on earth can you claim collateral damage is worse than directly aiming to kill children? Are you fucking serious?


----------



## spaZ (Nov 9, 2011)

I really hope this means war these extremist need to be destroyed.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

White Tiger, no point is proven as you're trying to warp two completely different scenarios with two completely different intentions in mind.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 9, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Don't try to warp collateral damage as being the same as acting on the intent of killing children. It makes you look desperate.



The word "collateral damage" just seems like a rationalization of the inevitable and entirely avoidable tragedy of war. 

They're not kids tragically killed by bombs, they're collateral damage, a word that implies a false sense of acceptable inevitability.

It's funny that killing children goes from unacceptable to acceptable merely by lacking intent, but with the full knowledge that making the decision to engage in war will kill children. It's like the difference between killing someone intentionally or a death resulting from being intentionally reckless.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The word "collateral damage" just seems like a rationalization of the inevitable and entirely avoidable tragedy of war.
> 
> They're not kids tragically killed by bombs, they're collateral damage, a word that implies a false sense of acceptable inevitability.



That's because in a warzone, it is an inevitably. It's always unfortunate, but it's a reality when a nation is embroiled in war, and the intent isn't to kill them hence the term "collateral damage". That's in stark contrast to the various Muslim terrorists you guys celebrate, as well as Hamas, which specifically go after civilians. Most often, their own fellow Muslims.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 9, 2011)

lol you guys, I'm not even religious. 

Like I said, it's similar to intentional killing vs. intentional recklessness that you know will lead to someone being killed. It would be like drinking and driving with the 100% certainty that children will be killed. Not buying that the latter is acceptable, sorry.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> lol you guys, I'm not even religious.
> 
> Like I said, it's similar to intentional killing vs. intentional recklessness that you know will lead to someone being killed. It would be like drinking and driving with the 100% certainty that children will be killed. Not buying that the latter is acceptable, sorry.



It's not recklessness when those strikes go through constant calculations and measures to ensure the closest thing to 100% precision of eliminating the desired target(s), and minimizing civilian casualty. There is no such thing as perfection though, and an occupied warzone will have casualties. That's just the facts.

That's a shit comparison. Given primarily for the reasons I explained above.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 9, 2011)

Then don't go to war and be 100% certain.

If you go to war, you know full well you're sanctioning the death of children in that war. Call it collateral damage and give yourself a big fucking pat on the back all you want.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 9, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Then don't go to war and be 100% certain.
> 
> If you go to war, you know full well you're sanctioning the death of children in that war. Call it collateral damage and give yourself a big fucking pat on the back all you want.



That's a pretty stupid and unrealistic suggestion. War is many times unavoidable, or necessary to prevent a larger-scale one from occurring, or to deal with an entity (like the various Islamic terrorists groups) from acquiring the means to do more harm than they are already capable of.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 9, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> War is many times unavoidable, or necessary to prevent a larger-scale one from occurring, or to deal with an entity (like the various Islamic terrorists groups) from acquiring the means to do more harm than they are already capable of.



Not the two we're currently fighting.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 9, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Then don't go to war and be 100% certain.
> 
> If you go to war, you know full well you're sanctioning the death of children in that war. Call it collateral damage and give yourself a big fucking pat on the back all you want.



1. Have children with you at all times in all military bases, hideouts etc.
2. Watch how the morality of your enemies doesn't allow them to strike you
3. ???
4. Profit

As funny as it sounds, sometimes you have to bomb the shit out of innocent little children, because otherwise, your enemies would use them against you.


----------



## BillionYearsAgo (Nov 9, 2011)

Nothing.ever. surprises me anymore.

But really why can't religions Muslim hackers handle satire?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 9, 2011)

Zaru said:


> 1. Have children with you at all times in all military bases, hideouts etc.
> 2. Watch how the morality of your enemies doesn't allow them to strike you
> 3. ???
> 4. Profit
> ...



They can only use kids against us because we went to war in the first place. Hard for them to use kids against us from the other side of the world.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> They can only use kids against us because we went to war in the first place. Hard for them to use kids against us from the other side of the world.



*facepalm.....


----------



## Circe (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> They can only use kids against us because we went to war in the first place. Hard for them to use kids against us from the other side of the world.


Not understanding this logic.


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

Circe said:


> Not understanding this logic.



Lost cause, beautiful.

See the logic here is that the underdog can't be a moral piece of shit, so it's obviously the greater power's fault, always.


----------



## Grep (Nov 10, 2011)

Frenchies were talkin all sorts of shit too.


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 10, 2011)

The saddest thing is that people who are too damaged to be societally useful are now smart enough to be detrimental.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> They can only use kids against us because we went to war in the first place. Hard for them to use kids against us from the other side of the world.



Lol are you serious.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

Circe said:


> Not understanding this logic.



In other words, if we go in to fight Hamas/Hizbollah, we know that they're going to use kids against us. This tactic has been used against the US military since Vietnam, we're well aware of it. They use civilian cover against us in Somalia too. Why put yourself in that situation when you don't need to? 

We really didn't need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, or policing Waziristan with drones.

In fact, the next time we start banging the drums for war in an impoverished tribal society, I'll tell you the same thing: don't.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2011)

I completely agree with Shinigami. 

The oppressed have been pushed to limits where they are forced to use such desperate tactics. Its like cutting off someones legs and bawwwwing about why they crawl.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> In other words, if we go in to fight Hamas/Hizbollah, we know that they're going to use kids against us. This tactic has been used against the US military since Vietnam, we're well aware of it. They use civilian cover against us in Somalia too. Why put yourself in that situation when you don't need to?
> 
> We really didn't need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, or policing Waziristan with drones.
> 
> In fact, the next time we start banging the drums for war in an impoverished tribal society, I'll tell you the same thing: don't.



the "underdog" are always right and never wrong.

and it's an automatic sin to be strong.

got it


----------



## Blue (Nov 10, 2011)

You fucking creatures are trying to justify the conversion of children into suicide bombers to murder innocents.

I don't fucking know what to say. That is not remotely justifiable on any moral scale. 

Suicide bombers? I'll give you them. In desperate times, some people are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe in. 
They believe in bullshit and lies and a God that surely hates them with all His righteous fury if he exists, but hey.

But children don't believe in anything. They're telling these kids that they're off to fight Satan and when they press the button, they'll come home to a hero's welcome.

I'd send you to the gulag myself and forget you exist.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 10, 2011)

oh look, my favorite two terrorist apologists, Shinigami Perv and White Tiger. 

White Tiger, _NOTHING_ justifies using children as meat shields or weapons.

Civilian deaths during wartime is an inevitability, it's a fact, deal with it.

However, intentionally using the civilians as a shield or brainwashing the children so they can be used as a mini-soldier or a human hand grenade is a different scenario completely, and the fact that you would hint otherwise is truly despicable.

If all you Muslim extremist/terrorist apologists love them so much, go live among them for a few months and bear witness to the cruelty they force upon their own people. And if you survive, tell us about how your tune has changed as a result.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> You fucking creatures are trying to justify the conversion of children into suicide bombers to murder innocents.
> 
> I don't fucking know what to say. That is not remotely justifiable on any moral scale.
> 
> ...




Aww its cute that your trying to show you care. If the situation was reversed and you lived in the shit hole and misery they call life, I'm willing to bet you'd advocate things far worse than this, but hey your an admin on this superb forum so I guess you probably know what they are going through.


----------



## Blue (Nov 10, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Aww its cute that your trying to show you care. If the situation was reversed and you lived in the shit hole and misery they call life, I'm willing to bet you'd advocate things far worse than this


You know what? That's the real fucking tragedy, the same shit I was just talking to you in PM about. If my childhood had been raped and pillaged by the Taliban, the Soviets, Al Qaeda, religious zealots and a uncle who sodomized me?

I might just be as fucked up as you. Maybe. 

And I'd need to be clensed from the Earth.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> oh look, my favorite two terrorist apologists, Shinigami Perv and White Tiger.
> 
> White Tiger, _NOTHING_ justifies using children as meat shields or weapons.
> 
> ...



You think I like taliban and terrorists?! 

here's my position, and understand it very clearly:

I DESPISE the Taliban but at the same time, I also DESPISE what the US is doing in Afghanistan/Iraq.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 10, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> You think I like taliban and terrorists?!
> 
> here's my position, and understand it very clearly:
> 
> I DESPISE the Taliban but at the same time, I also DESPISE what the US is doing in Afghanistan/Iraq.



there's a difference being liking something and being an apologist. 

"love them so much" was just a phrase, try not to take it so literally.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> You know what? That's the real fucking tragedy, the same shit I was just talking to you in PM about. If my childhood had been raped and pillaged by the Taliban, the Soviets, Al Qaeda, religious zealots and a uncle who sodomized me?
> 
> I might just be as fucked up as you. Maybe.
> 
> And I'd need to be clensed from the Earth.



You forgot the US assholes who wiped clean their entire villages as well. Just thought that would have been valid.


----------



## Blue (Nov 10, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> You think I like taliban and terrorists?!
> 
> here's my position, and understand it very clearly:
> 
> I DESPISE the Taliban but at the same time, I also DESPISE what the US is doing in Afghanistan/Iraq.



You're justifying child suicide bombers.

I would never try to justify, say, The Kill Squad.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> there's a difference being liking something and being an apologist.
> 
> "love them so much" was just a phrase, try not to take it so literally.



You seem to confuse "I don't want to war with them" with actually being an apologist for them.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 10, 2011)

regardless of what yours and his standpoint on the issue actually is, Shini, what you two have been saying suggests that both of you are apologists.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> You're justifying child suicide bombers.
> 
> I would never try to justify, say, The Kill Squad.



I would never justify that, it may have come out like that but its disgusting. Like I said, I despise what the Taliban are doing. Going back to my comments, however and re reading them, reality has hit and I have been quite unreasonable.

And oh, not justifying them, I am only explaining as to why they might do this.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Nov 10, 2011)

what would classify as "desperate"?

i believe during the cold war years, we gave them money, supplies and weaponry to fight off the Russians Soviets, which seemed like a good idea at the time I'm sure.

but then they decided to turn on us, and they still had - and still _have_ - plenty of weaponry and supplies to do so.

so they're not really in a position of desparation, they're _choosing_ to use children as shields and human bombs.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> In other words, if we go in to fight Hamas/Hizbollah, we know that they're going to use kids against us. This tactic has been used against the US military since Vietnam, we're well aware of it. They use civilian cover against us in Somalia too. Why put yourself in that situation when you don't need to?
> 
> We really didn't need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, or policing Waziristan with drones.
> 
> In fact, the next time we start banging the drums for war in an impoverished tribal society, I'll tell you the same thing: don't.



So, when your enemy is willing to use their own children as shields, they are allowed attack your childen with impunity. 

Congrats, you have been able to a new low I didn't realize existed.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> So, when your enemy is willing to use their own children as shields, they are allowed attack your childen with impunity.
> 
> Congrats, you have been able to a new low I didn't realize existed.



Where are they killing our children with impunity?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Where are they killing our children with impunity?


With impunity? no where, because thankfully no one follows your idiotic ideals that human shields give them such a status.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

You might as well have thrown in raping our women and pissing on Old Glory if you're going full hyperbole/patriotism mode. 

Your argument doesn't make any sense because people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Waziristan aren't killing our children.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You might as well have thrown in raping our women and pissing on Old Glory if you're going full hyperbole/patriotism mode.
> 
> Your argument doesn't make any sense because people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Waziristan aren't killing our children.



Your first example was "if we go in to fight Hamas/Hizbollah" which is definetly killing/trying to kill Israeli children.

Afghanistan support and housed Al-Quaeda which did and continues to try to do this. 

Iraq I will give you, but don't support that war.

-

But you seem to be running from your argument that you can't attack anyone willing to use human shields. Where is your defense of this position?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Your first example was "if we go in to fight Hamas/Hizbollah" which is definetly killing/trying to kill Israeli children.



I'm not Israeli, I'm giving examples of organizations who use children as human shields. Could just as easily been Lord's Resistance Army or something. 




> Afghanistan support and housed Al-Quaeda which did and continues to try to do this.
> 
> Iraq I will give you, but don't support that war.



And we went there and compounded the tragedy by killing god knows how many people who didn't participate in 9/11. And despite killing bin Laden, the man ultimately responsible, we're still using drone strikes that kill children. 

But the whole "killing our children with impunity" is quite a comically sensational charge.



sadated_peon said:


> But you seem to be running from your argument that you can't attack anyone willing to use human shields. Where is your defense of this position?



I'm not really. I asked the question "Why put yourself in that situation when you don't need to? " In other words, a war against Afghanistan and Iraq was a terrible overreaction to what happened on 9/11. Why do it when we really just wanted the people behind 9/11 dead? Acting like war is inevitable and by extension the collateral damage resulting from it isn't acceptable to me.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm not Israeli, I'm giving examples of organizations who use children as human shields. Could just as easily been Lord's Resistance Army or something.


Wait, so if it's not "your" countries children but another countries children they don't have teh right to respond to the threats when the enemy uses human shields.

Or it just the Jews who are not allowed to defend themselves?



Shinigami Perv said:


> And we went there and compounded the tragedy by killing god knows how many people who didn't participate in 9/11. And despite killing bin Laden, the man ultimately responsible, we're still using drone strikes that kill children.
> 
> But the whole "killing our children with impunity" is quite a comically sensational charge.


We are still in Afghanistan because we have a responsibilty to the people there. 

No it's a sensational charge, you decry attacking people using human shields EVEN THOUGH those same people are targeting innocent civilians. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm not really. I asked the question "Why put yourself in that situation when you don't need to? " In other words, a war against Afghanistan and Iraq was a terrible overreaction to what happened on 9/11.


The quote I was responding to mentioned not only Iraq and Afghanistan but also Hamas and Hezbola

and it was put in a general context of impunity for people who use human shields.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Wait, so if it's not "your" countries children but another countries children they don't have teh right to respond to the threats when the enemy uses human shields.
> 
> Or it just the Jews who are not allowed to defend themselves?



I can only really speak for what my own country does as I'm a voter and taxpayer of my own country. Who said anything about Jews? 



> We are still in Afghanistan because we have a responsibilty to the people there.
> 
> No it's a sensational charge, you decry attacking people using human shields EVEN THOUGH those same people are targeting innocent civilians.



I'm decrying the US starting a war in a country where human shields are inevitable when there is no reason to do so. That's why I used Vietnam and Somalia as examples. And lol we only have a responsibility now because we took on that responsibility when in hindsight we probably shouldn't have. I'm starting to think the whole Afghanistan thing was a massive mistake. 



> The quote I was responding to mentioned not only Iraq and Afghanistan but also Hamas and Hezbola
> 
> and it was put in a general context of impunity for people who use human shields.



I was saying, for instance organizations that use human shields. Like if the US needed to contemplate a response to something Hizbollah or Hamas did to us, which it obviously has not. That's why it was a hypothetical. 

But now that you're square on that, there should be no more misunderstanding.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 10, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I can only really speak for what my own country does as I'm a voter and taxpayer of my own country. Who said anything about Jews?


You brought up Hamas and Hezbollah, I mentioned them because you referred to actions against Hamas and Hezbollah. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm decrying the US starting a war in a country where human shields are inevitable when there is no reason to do so. That's why I used Vietnam and Somalia as examples.


Sorry, I decry ANY war with no reason to do so. That they use human shields or not is immaterial. 

Are you for starting war for no reason whey they don't use human shields. 
This is a completely INANE criteria, and seems like nothing but an avoidance to get away from your previous ludicrus position. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> I was saying, for instance organizations that use human shields.
> 
> But now that you're square on that, there should be no more misunderstanding.


Not really, I am seeing is a back peddling.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Sorry, I decry ANY war with no reason to do so. That they use human shields or not is immaterial.
> 
> Are you for starting war for no reason whey they don't use human shields.
> This is a completely INANE criteria, and seems like nothing but an avoidance to get away from your previous ludicrus position.



I'm for starting a war in that circumstance only when absolutely necessary. Knowing that the tactics that the enemy use will cause children to die would make me cautious, yes. That urban guerrilla warfare would be required might make me think of alternatives. 



> You brought up Hamas and Hezbollah, I mentioned them because you referred to actions against Hamas and Hezbollah.
> 
> Not really, I am seeing is a back peddling.



Only if you want to see one. I'm referring to the US and not Israel, which should be obvious when I say "we" and I'm from the US and not Israel. Either you can reread the thread and acknowledge that obvious fact, or not, I don't care.


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 10, 2011)

Mahmmud Abass...........Pidaras


----------



## Bleach (Nov 11, 2011)

ANON              ?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 11, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm for starting a war in that circumstance only when absolutely necessary. Knowing that the tactics that the enemy use will cause children to die would make me cautious, yes. That urban guerrilla warfare would be required might make me think of alternatives.


If the war is just the tactics the enemy uses don't play into it other than strategy used to fight the war. 

If you feel that we shouldn't fight a war because the enemy is willing to use human shields, then accept that using human shields allows them to attack us with impunity. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> Only if you want to see one. I'm referring to the US and not Israel, which should be obvious when I say "we" and I'm from the US and not Israel. Either you can reread the thread and acknowledge that obvious fact, or not, I don't care.


No, your just trying to be pedantic to avoid the argument you made. You spoke generally about not attacking a country that uses human shields.


----------

