French Mohammed cartooons

[Purple]

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

I mean sure, the French were evil in the past. And arguably (if we look at the way they seem to have censored the protests) they might be evil now. But poring evil unto evil does not equal good and is not excusable in any sort of civilized society.

[Flagg]

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

Has anyone said it's a valid excuse? At all? I don't think that idiot Ray even did.

[Akhlut]

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

I mean sure, the French were evil in the past. And arguably (if we look at the way they seem to have censored the protests) they might be evil now. But poring evil unto evil does not equal good and is not excusable in any sort of civilized society.

Psst, the Algerian Revolution ended in 1962, so there are still people alive who remember the French shooting civilians because those damn sand diggers were getting uppity again.

[Col. Crackpot]

Of course it is. I never said any different. Shit is there no differentiation in your mind between "can" and "should"?

Could have fooled me. The whole point of my argument was people need shut up and deal with assholes who push free speech to it's limit in order to call ourselves a free society. So yes i get the can and should.

[Flagg]

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

I mean sure, the French were evil in the past. And arguably (if we look at the way they seem to have censored the protests) they might be evil now. But poring evil unto evil does not equal good and is not excusable in any sort of civilized society.

Psst, the Algerian Revolution ended in 1962, so there are still people alive who remember the French shooting civilians because those damn sand diggers were getting uppity again.

Didn't they ban headscarves recently too?

[Dark Hellion]

Again you're a lying sack of shit. I never said speech should be banned, I simply said people shouldn't intentionally try to start a fucking holy war.

And again, where do you draw the line? If deliberately mocking Islam with the intent to provoke violence and mocking Islam just because you think the religion is goofy both draw the same fucking reaction, why should we care about the motive of the speaker? It's the person reacting to the speech who is the problem.

I agree that the main problem is that if you insult their religion the extremists will go apeshit. But that's the reality of the world we live in. We cannot control them. We've tried. Twice. Hasn't worked worth a shit. We can either deal with the real world and the FACT that if you produce a video that insults Mohammed people will die, or we can pretend live in Wald Disney's America where nothing bad happens unless it's by the evildoers who hate us for our freedom and we end up with another unwinnable Mid-East clusterfuck. Over a bad video.

And therein lies the rub. We seem to have forgotten that the freedoms we hold dear are not protected by any inherent force of the universe; that people really do die for them. As a society we have become rather ignorant of this fact. At some point you have to take a stand because appeasement almost never works.

Also, I think there is a bit of hypocrisy in all this. I am pretty sure we would all be flipping our shit if the Chinese killed the man who for example painted a pro-tibet mural in Oregon (heard it on NPR today). So why is it unacceptable if the Chinese do it but not Muslims. It feels similar to the old "white man's burden" in that we are labeling the Muslims as being too ignorant of savages to control this. Frankly, I think this is untrue.

[Purple]

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

Has anyone said it's a valid excuse? At all? I don't think that idiot Ray even did.

Actually I was attempting to point out the obvious and reassert my old tangent from before the threads were merged. That being the double standard by which we judge religion compared to other extremists. If someone is a Neo Nazi advocating the murder of homosexuals or jews than he is a villain. If someone is religious and does the same than it's his culture. Kind of fucked up if you ask me.

Just because someones grandfather was treated badly by someone else's grandfather does not excuse him from acting like a rabid animal at the slightest provocation. Nothing can excuse such behavior. Thing is thou that for some reason people are far more lenient when someone cites religion as an excuse than when someone tries to cite something else.

I mean sure, the French were evil in the past. And arguably (if we look at the way they seem to have censored the protests) they might be evil now. But poring evil unto evil does not equal good and is not excusable in any sort of civilized society.

Psst, the Algerian Revolution ended in 1962, so there are still people alive who remember the French shooting civilians because those damn sand diggers were getting uppity again.

So? I am relatively sure that there are still Germans out there who remember the bombings that happened during WW2 (or at least there were until a few decades ago). Should they go out and murder the British ambassador every time Jeremy Clarkson makes a war joke?

[Zwinmar]

From what I have seen, this is what we trained for during workups for going on float. They want to get violent, that the job of the Marines to put down.

[Flagg]

And therein lies the rub. We seem to have forgotten that the freedoms we hold dear are not protected by any inherent force of the universe; that people really do die for them. As a society we have become rather ignorant of this fact. At some point you have to take a stand because appeasement almost never works.

Also, I think there is a bit of hypocrisy in all this. I am pretty sure we would all be flipping our shit if the Chinese killed the man who for example painted a pro-tibet mural in Oregon (heard it on NPR today). So why is it unacceptable if the Chinese do it but not Muslims. It feels similar to the old "white man's burden" in that we are labeling the Muslims as being too ignorant of savages to control this. Frankly, I think this is untrue.

Oh for fucks sake... NO ONE IS SAYING WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED THE US EMBASSY IN LIBYA DID WAS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACCEPTABLE.

[Akhlut]

So? I am relatively sure that there are still Germans out there who remember the bombings that happened during WW2 (or at least there were until a few decades ago). Should they go out and murder the British ambassador every time Jeremy Clarkson makes a war joke?

Remember, you can't go from an "is" to an "ought". Basic philosophy there, kiddo.

However, no one should be particularly surprised if a bunch of French people taking a shit on Muslims gets a lot of Muslim people irate. Because, you know, the French have a history of oppressing and brutalizing Muslim people.

[Akhlut]

From what I have seen, this is what we trained for during workups for going on float. They want to get violent, that the job of the Marines to put down.

I'm sure that's a great way to get a long-term peace out of the deal. After all, look how well that worked for the British in Afghanistan! Or the Soviets in Afghanistan! Or the Americans in Afghanistan!

[Purple]

So? I am relatively sure that there are still Germans out there who remember the bombings that happened during WW2 (or at least there were until a few decades ago). Should they go out and murder the British ambassador every time Jeremy Clarkson makes a war joke?

Remember, you can't go from an "is" to an "ought". Basic philosophy there, kiddo.

However, no one should be particularly surprised if a bunch of French people taking a shit on Muslims gets a lot of Muslim people irate. Because, you know, the French have a history of oppressing and brutalizing Muslim people.

I have no problem with the Muslims being irritated by that. This is their full right. I even have a problem with the French baning them from protesting over it. The thing I have a problem with is them going from peaceful protest to violent lashing out like what happened with the American embassy.

[Akhlut]

From what I have seen, this is what we trained for during workups for going on float. They want to get violent, that the job of the Marines to put down.

I'm sure that's a great way to get a long-term peace out of the deal. After all, look how well that worked for the British in Afghanistan! Or the Soviets in Afghanistan! Or the Americans in Afghanistan!

Additionally, I'm sure that will win us many, many, many friends in the region for a long time to come. After all, it's not like anyone in Latin America is still angry over the US using the marines nearly everywhere in Latin America for a century or anything!

[Akhlut]

So? I am relatively sure that there are still Germans out there who remember the bombings that happened during WW2 (or at least there were until a few decades ago). Should they go out and murder the British ambassador every time Jeremy Clarkson makes a war joke?

Remember, you can't go from an "is" to an "ought". Basic philosophy there, kiddo.

However, no one should be particularly surprised if a bunch of French people taking a shit on Muslims gets a lot of Muslim people irate. Because, you know, the French have a history of oppressing and brutalizing Muslim people.

I have no problem with the Muslims being irritated by that. This is their full right. I even have a problem with the French baning them from protesting over it. The thing I have a problem with is them going from peaceful protest to violent lashing out like what happened with the American embassy.

You mean the attack that probably going to happen anyway and wasn't likely connected to any goddamn thing done by some asshat with a Mac anyway?

[Purple]

You mean the attack that probably going to happen anyway and wasn't likely connected to any goddamn thing done by some asshat with a Mac anyway?

There is a reason why I said the word "like". The use of this word indicates that the example provided is used as just that, an example for a more general principal that is what is actually being presented as the main tangent of the post. Knowing that, consider my words once more. (Focus on the principal and not the example)

Also, I did notice that people here get confrontational quite often and end up bashing the example and going with the whole "If example is wrong (or just wrong for the point in question) than the point is also invalid" routine. What is up with that?

[Akhlut]

You mean the attack that probably going to happen anyway and wasn't likely connected to any goddamn thing done by some asshat with a Mac anyway?

There is a reason why I said the word "like". The use of this word indicates that the example provided is used as just that, an example for a more general principal that is what is actually being presented as the main tangent of the post. Knowing that, consider my words once more. (Focus on the principal and not the example)

Maybe if western nations weren't supporting dictators in their nations and bombing people with drones they wouldn't feel the need to get super-defensive and snap at the last straw when it feels like they're hated merely for being Muslim? Perhaps? Just maybe? I mean, after all, Captain Shithead up there already advocated an invasion of the nation despite the fact that the head of state said it was fucking terrorists responsible for the embassy bombing. And I can tell you that sentiment like that is far from uncommon (look at Shep's stellar example of advocating genocide, for instance). So maybe extremism in the face of what feels like an all-out war isn't all the surprising? Shit, maybe if we stopped supporting dictators (lol, Assad, Mubarak, the Saud family) and drone-bombing people without trial, they wouldn't turn to religious extremism in the first place?

[Jub]

Akhlut, so what would you have us do? We can't tell people not to say things and at the same time say they have free speech, and speaking freely seems to piss off the crazies. I say we piss off the crazies more, that way they come forward and we can identify the dogs that would kill a man for a picture another man drew.

Also, these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything. If they want to be that way in their own nation bothering nobody they can do so, but when they can't prevent unsanctioned attacks against other nations from being planned from their nation then they clearly shouldn't be allowed to run their nation without outside supervision.

[FSTargetDrone]

On a related note:

Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law

Robert Evans

Reuters

4:35 p.m. CDT, September 19, 2012

GENEVA (Reuters) - A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

The bid follows uproar across the Muslim world over a crude Internet video clip filmed in the United States and cartoons in a French satirical magazine that lampoon the Prophet Mohammad.

But it appears unlikely to win acceptance from Western countries determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and already concerned about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said the international community should "come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression", a reference to Western arguments against a universal blasphemy law that the OIC has sought for over a decade.

He said the "deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom" were a danger to global security and stability.

Separately, the Human Rights Commission of the OIC, which has 57 members and is based in Saudi Arabia, said "growing intolerance towards Muslims" had to be checked and called for "an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material".

Western countries have long argued that such measures would run counter to the U.N.'s core human rights declaration on freedom of expression and could even open the door to curbs on academic research.

As if to underline the point, a conference in Geneva of the World Council of Churches (WCC), which groups the world's major Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical churches, urged Pakistan to abolish its blasphemy law, which carries a possible death penalty.

Critics say the law is widely misused to persecute non-Muslims, and cite this month's case of a Muslim cleric detained on suspicion of planting evidence suggesting that a 14-year-old girl had burned Islamic religious texts.

Pakistani Christians and Hindus at the WCC gathering said a global law against blasphemy, or "defamation of religion", would only endorse on an international scale the religious intolerance seen in Pakistan and in other Islamic countries.

[Purple]

You mean the attack that probably going to happen anyway and wasn't likely connected to any goddamn thing done by some asshat with a Mac anyway?

There is a reason why I said the word "like". The use of this word indicates that the example provided is used as just that, an example for a more general principal that is what is actually being presented as the main tangent of the post. Knowing that, consider my words once more. (Focus on the principal and not the example)

Maybe if western nations weren't supporting dictators in their nations and bombing people with drones they wouldn't feel the need to get super-defensive and snap at the last straw when it feels like they're hated merely for being Muslim? Perhaps? Just maybe? I mean, after all, Captain Shithead up there already advocated an invasion of the nation despite the fact that the head of state said it was fucking terrorists responsible for the embassy bombing. And I can tell you that sentiment like that is far from uncommon (look at Shep's stellar example of advocating genocide, for instance). So maybe extremism in the face of what feels like an all-out war isn't all the surprising? Shit, maybe if we stopped supporting dictators (lol, Assad, Mubarak, the Saud family) and drone-bombing people without trial, they wouldn't turn to religious extremism in the first place?

That much we can agree on.

[Akhlut]

Akhlut, so what would you have us do? We can't tell people not to say things and at the same time say they have free speech, and speaking freely seems to piss off the crazies. I say we piss off the crazies more, that way they come forward and we can identify the dogs that would kill a man for a picture another man drew.

Somebody obviously doesn't understand how context works.

Also, these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything.

European Colonialism in Dar al-Islam has been occuring since the late 18th/early 19th century, so, no, "these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything" is plain fucking wrong.

If they want to be that way in their own nation bothering nobody they can do so, but when they can't prevent unsanctioned attacks against other nations from being planned from their nation then they clearly shouldn't be allowed to run their nation without outside supervision.

You remember how I said that colonialism is at the root of some of the problems being experienced now? And you only want to go fucking crazy gung-ho about it?

[Alyeska]

Except the people who are attacking the embassies aren't even bullying or threatening you until you provoke them!

My existence provokes some Muslims. These aren't choices. My simple existence and the fact that I am an Atheist would offend a significant number of Muslims.

We should not limit our freedoms based on the actions of the lowest common denominator. If that were the case, we would have no freedoms.

[Jub]

On a related note:

Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law

Robert Evans

Reuters

4:35 p.m. CDT, September 19, 2012

GENEVA (Reuters) - A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

The bid follows uproar across the Muslim world over a crude Internet video clip filmed in the United States and cartoons in a French satirical magazine that lampoon the Prophet Mohammad.

But it appears unlikely to win acceptance from Western countries determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and already concerned about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said the international community should "come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression", a reference to Western arguments against a universal blasphemy law that the OIC has sought for over a decade.

He said the "deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom" were a danger to global security and stability.

Separately, the Human Rights Commission of the OIC, which has 57 members and is based in Saudi Arabia, said "growing intolerance towards Muslims" had to be checked and called for "an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material".

Western countries have long argued that such measures would run counter to the U.N.'s core human rights declaration on freedom of expression and could even open the door to curbs on academic research.

As if to underline the point, a conference in Geneva of the World Council of Churches (WCC), which groups the world's major Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical churches, urged Pakistan to abolish its blasphemy law, which carries a possible death penalty.

Critics say the law is widely misused to persecute non-Muslims, and cite this month's case of a Muslim cleric detained on suspicion of planting evidence suggesting that a 14-year-old girl had burned Islamic religious texts.

Pakistani Christians and Hindus at the WCC gathering said a global law against blasphemy, or "defamation of religion", would only endorse on an international scale the religious intolerance seen in Pakistan and in other Islamic countries.

Dumb stuff like this is why people don't take the followers of Islam seriously. It's also what goads people into drawing these comics or making these movies just to see what crazy thing the middle east will do next.

Akhlut, so what would you have us do? We can't tell people not to say things and at the same time say they have free speech, and speaking freely seems to piss off the crazies. I say we piss off the crazies more, that way they come forward and we can identify the dogs that would kill a man for a picture another man drew.

Somebody obviously doesn't understand how context works.

If I want to write blasphemies on my cock, draw Mohammad on my ass, and make a video of me insulting Islam while jerking off on their holy book before uploading the video to the internet I have every right to. Anybody that gets mad enough to kill over that is a dog more than he is a man.

Also, these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything.

European Colonialism in Dar al-Islam has been occuring since the late 18th/early 19th century, so, no, "these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything" is plain fucking wrong.

And they were just forward thinking bundles of well adjusted peace before that? I somehow doubt that.

If they want to be that way in their own nation bothering nobody they can do so, but when they can't prevent unsanctioned attacks against other nations from being planned from their nation then they clearly shouldn't be allowed to run their nation without outside supervision.

You remember how I said that colonialism is at the root of some of the problems being experienced now? And you only want to go fucking crazy gung-ho about it?

There isn't much other choice. If we leave them alone they're not likely to leave us alone and just become a functional government.

[Akhlut]

Except the people who are attacking the embassies aren't even bullying or threatening you until you provoke them!

My existence provokes some Muslims. These aren't choices. My simple existence and the fact that I am an Atheist would offend a significant number of Muslims.

I bet that has absolutely no correlation at all with how most of the time the only real opposition to US/Soviet/Western supported/installed dictators were, in fact, extremist Islamist parties.

[Akhlut]

Akhlut, so what would you have us do? We can't tell people not to say things and at the same time say they have free speech, and speaking freely seems to piss off the crazies. I say we piss off the crazies more, that way they come forward and we can identify the dogs that would kill a man for a picture another man drew.

Somebody obviously doesn't understand how context works.

If I want to write blasphemies on my cock, draw Mohammad on my ass, and make a video of me insulting Islam while jerking off on their holy book before uploading the video to the internet I have every right to. Anybody that gets mad enough to kill over that is a dog more than he is a man

Yes, because their anger certainly isn't compounded by feelings of powerlessness in the world due to how Western nations continually fuck them over and have been doing so for centuries.

Also, these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything.

European Colonialism in Dar al-Islam has been occuring since the late 18th/early 19th century, so, no, "these people were packs of nutbags before we did anything" is plain fucking wrong.

And they were just forward thinking bundles of well adjusted peace before that? I somehow doubt that.

Someone needs to take a fucking history course, it seems. Dar al-Islam was, on the whole, relatively more peaceable than Europe, was probably responsible for the Renaissance due to the maintenance of Greek classics and passing on their own science to Europe, and so on. Of course there was still warfare and shit, but, then again, Europe only stopped engaging in brutal warfare since, oh, whenever Russia stops getting involved in Chechnya. If you want to exclude Russia from Europe, for whatever crazy reason, I guess we can go back to that wondrous era of peace that has existed ever since Kosovo stopped being host to internecine warfare, all the way in 1999.

If they want to be that way in their own nation bothering nobody they can do so, but when they can't prevent unsanctioned attacks against other nations from being planned from their nation then they clearly shouldn't be allowed to run their nation without outside supervision.

You remember how I said that colonialism is at the root of some of the problems being experienced now? And you only want to go fucking crazy gung-ho about it?

There isn't much other choice. If we leave them alone they're not likely to leave us alone and just become a functional government.

If we leave you alone, how likely is it that you'll stop being a complete douchebag? Guess I better invade your home and keep you under armed guard until you shape up. :V

[Akhlut]

Out of curiosity, Jub-Jub, do you advocate going into these nations and walling off the cities and enforcing strict curfews? What about some sort of special marking for the super-extremists? If those super-extremists then committed crimes, what do you propose on doing to them? Please, lay out your plan for how to deal with this problem. What is your final solution?