Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrance is not the only one killing millions, look at Turkey and the Armenian massacre, over a million killed. Look at Pol Pot, also over a million killed. You can't just hold out this card against one country and just say it's their own fault. Boko Haram I'm sure could give a rat's ass who the French killed. They just want a barbaric society and will do any sort of violence to get it.
The seeds of these killings go much further than the mere portrayal and mocking or religious figures in a magazine. Paris is surrounded by slums of disenfranchised North Africans. The French government brutally killed in the Algerian war 1.5 million people. Religious hypocrisy as pointed out by Duchess64 permeates Europe. Corporate Americas interve ...[text shortened]... rds of Robert Marley, 'every day the bucket goes to the well, one day the bottom will drop out'.
They are EXACTLY like cancer cells in the body. They have to be killed to stop their spread. You don't talk people like that down and all of a sudden they become civilized.
They RELISH the killing. It gives them pleasure. What surprises me is the lack of response by the civilized (so-called civilized) world that they don't mount a million man army composed of French, Americans, Germans, Brits, Asians and so forth and wipe these sub-humans off the face of the map. Anyone who kills children by the hundreds because they have had a partial western education does not deserve to live. Period. They think of women as their sex toys to be bought and sold like cattle. Actually, they think more of cattle then they do their women.
This is not a human trait, it is a symptom of mass insanity.
I was in Israel in '93 after the first world trade center bombing and I saw personally literally thousands of Palestinians having a victory party in the streets of Bethlehem. That made me sick. To see people shooting weapons in the air in joy at innocent people being killed is insane, pure and simple.
I was lucky to get out of their in one piece.
One thing that got me about the second world trade center attack, 300 MUSLIMS were killed also.
It seems the extremists don't even care their own religion was attacked also. I assume they must have thought they weren't Muslim ENOUGH.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo one has said that it is the only country and if you read my text again you will see also that i don't claim that its solely their own fault. You have created a straw man argument.
France is not the only one killing millions, look at Turkey and the Armenian massacre, over a million killed. Look at Pol Pot, also over a million killed. You can't just hold out this card against one country and just say it's their own fault. Boko Haram I'm sure could give a rat's ass who the French killed. They just want a barbaric society and will do any ...[text shortened]... cattle then they do their women.
This is not a human trait, it is a symptom of mass insanity.
Subhuman? did you get your rhetoric from the Nazi war ministry? I am quite sure they also portrayed others as subhuman and used it as a justification for killing.
You appear hysterical.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStraw man or no, these people are literally insane. They are literally a cancer.
No one has said that it is the only country and if you read my text again you will see also that i don't claim that its solely their own fault. You have created a straw man argument.
Subhuman? did you get your rhetoric from the Nazi war ministry? I am quite sure they also portrayed others as subhuman and used it as a justification for killing.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessI still don't get what you mean. How does increasing the level of insult do this? Surely pretty much all Muslims are already insulted and all but a very small number of them have not lifted a hand in violence by way of response. They've just taken the insult on the chin, which is what you want them to do. Right? So your "up the insults" thing is specifically aimed at would-be mass murderers only? I don't know if I am getting what you seek exactly. Why wouldn't maintaining the same level of insult be exactly the same?
Right now, I think it's important to up the insults (as long as they make a point), so as to show extremist muslims that over here in Europe we don't succumb to violence.
16 Jan 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseSo when will you accept the culpability of the US government. Are you disputing that they have trained Islamic militants, provided them with weapons? left huge regional grievances? Kill innocent women and children by remote control? How is that any different?
Straw man or no, these people are literally insane. They are literally a cancer.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't quite understand what you're on about sonhouse. Who is it you think opposes tracking them down, prosecuting them, and punishing them? You are speaking as if there are people here who respect their reasons for killing and who don't want to see them caught and punished.
France is not the only one killing millions, look at Turkey and the Armenian massacre, over a million killed. Look at Pol Pot, also over a million killed. You can't just hold out this card against one country and just say it's their own fault. Boko Haram I'm sure could give a rat's ass who the French killed. They just want a barbaric society and will do any ...[text shortened]... heir own religion was attacked also. I assume they must have thought they weren't Muslim ENOUGH.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFWhat makes you say they "wanted to insult" anyone?
I am not disputing the right of the Charlie Hebdos of this world to publish cartoons that may offend. I am more interested in why you think the right thing to do now is to be even more offensive when they have already succeeded in offending everybody they wanted to insult.
Originally posted by Great King RatWell one good indicator might be how, by contrast, they explicitly don't want to insult Jews. And they don't. As a former editor Stephane Charbonnier was quoted as saying about some suggested anti-Jewish humour, as cited by Duchess64 on page 1: "When it comes to freedom of expression that there are limits, not everything can be said". But anyway, I support their right to want to insult people, but as champions of free speech, they are not impressive or a useful ally to the human rights activists I have worked with over the years. What makes me say they "wanted to insult" anyone? Well I don't think they showed much "want" to be funny or to be persuasive or to inform. So that's three motivations struck out, leaving only "to insult". I don't think they even try to disguise it, do they?
What makes you say they "wanted to insult" anyone?
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFI'm afraid I cannot explain it better. Yes, it may very well be that, certainly in certain parts of the world, things are going to get worse before they get better. As far as I know, this is more or less the gist of the phrase "The only way out is through".
I am interested in what you claim is the "only way" forward in the promotion of freedom of speech around the world. My view is laid out in the long post of mine on page 1 which you've not really touched on. I support the right of cartoonists to be offensive but I don't see them as being impressive advocates for the furthering of human rights around the world. I ...[text shortened]... better to me, I think your 'now be even harsher' suggestion would set the cause back even more.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatSo if you came to Indonesia to give a talk to human rights activists your advice would be that 'the right to offend, the harsher the better, pick the most sensitive sensibilities and aim for them' is the key to freedom of speech? I'm curious as to whose interests exactly you have in mind or think you have in mind.
I'm afraid I cannot explain it better. Yes, it may very well be that, certainly in certain parts of the world, things are going to get worse before they get better. As far as I know, this is more or less the gist of the phrase "The only way out is through".
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFI fail to see how the fact that CH may or may not be satirizing Jews means they might therefore be aiming to insult Muslims. As far as the case of the fired cartoonist goes: I have googled this earlier and have found it difficult to judge it. From what I have found, the cartoonist was an outspoken anti-sematic who had said some rather nasty things about Jews, including how they should be wiped of the earth. I paraphrase, I’d have to google it to find the exact quotes.
Well one good indicator might be how, by contrast, they explicitly don't want to insult Jews. And they don't. As a former editor Stephane Charbonnier was quoted as saying about some suggested anti-Jewish humour, as cited by Duchess64 on page 1: "When it comes to freedom of expression that there are limits, not everything can be said". But anyway, I support their ...[text shortened]... otivations struck out, leaving "to insult". I don't think they even try to disguise it, do they?
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatWould you support his freedom of speech in saying nasty things about the Jews?
From what I have found, the cartoonist was an outspoken anti-sematic who had said some rather nasty things about Jews, including how they should be wiped of the earth. I paraphrase, I’d have to google it to find the exact quotes.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMF“Human rights activist” is an incredibly broad term. I was talking specifically about satire – and this case cartoonists. I was also talking specifically about the situation in France, or The Netherlands or Denmark for that matter.
So if you came to Indonesia to give a talk to human rights activists your advice would be that 'the right to offend, the harsher the better, pick the most sensitive sensibilities and aim for them' is the key to freedom of speech? I'm curious as to whose interests exactly you have in mind or think you have in mind.
Originally posted by Great King RatWell if you don't understand where I am coming from you should just read what I wrote in page 1. You talked about increasing the insult and making it harsher. Is this the same as increasing the "satire" and making the "satire" harsher? What would be the harshest possible "satire" of Muslims you could imagine?
“Human rights activist” is an incredibly broad term. I was talking specifically about satire – and this case cartoonists. I was also talking specifically about the situation in France, or The Netherlands or Denmark for that matter.