The Killing Joke

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence. [/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Sorry, humor. I will be watching his choice of words though. [/quote]

In Washington, President Obama denounced the “horrific” shooting and said U.S. officials were ready to provide any assistance to help “bring these terrorists to justice.”

[/quote]

Terrorists not Radical Islamist Terrorists. Important point.
[/quote]

So the absence of those adjectives somehow constitutes a failure? [/quote]

No sir. It constitutes a worldview.
[/quote]

Could it not be public diplomacy? In your opinion, what is Obama’s Weltanschauung?[/quote]

I think it’s fair to say that the President’s risk-adverse posture prohibts him from calling evil by it’s true name: Radical Islam. It may go deeper than that also. He’s very thin-skinned and hates confrontation. He prefers to fight from afar (think drones). He’s not the roll-up-your-sleeves type. That is why he despises our shirtless Russian friend. Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.

How do you see Mr. Obama’s worldview Bismark?[/quote]

Oh I will tell you exactly how he sees our dear Sunni-in-Chief (sans the Shakespearian prose)!

He will say you have to appreciate the nuanced subtleties of his remarkable statescraft. He will laud his concessions in the ME as “victories”. State that his drone campaign is visionary. He will trump him as a coalition builder with steely leadership.

He will point to his perceived mis-steps with Syria, Egypt, Russia et al was actually an illusion where he had gained the upperhand. He will claim that unless you possess a B.S. in Bovine Scatology, you will not grasp the utility of his trading terrorists for deserters.

History is littered with the successes of appeasement and concession.

You do understand this lad?
[/quote]

I was going to say that he probably won’t answer the question. Bismark NEVER answers a direct question. EVER. He’ll latch onto some minor part of a sentence you wrote in passing and then tell you, “you’re not qualified to have this discussion” or some other bullshit like that.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]

Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.

We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).

RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.

I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.

Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

[/quote]What I find disturbing is that we let these fuckers operate freely. Just because they hide in a country that is our “ally”. Fuck Pakistan - those fucker hid Bin Laden. Bomb the shit out of them. Fuck Iran, those fuckers are funding most of the terrorists around the world. Bomb the shit out of them. If these fuckers had a CONSEQUENCE for supporting terrorism and giving terrorists safe haven, then perhaps they would run out of money and places to train. If we made it so painful for the countries that allow this, we would eventually stamp that shit out. [quote]

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]

Let’s use a similar analogy: if a member of the “G crew” from Greenmount and 33rd in Baltimore crossed a line and blew up a shop on the west side, any SANE person would probably not be walking out on the street near Greenmount and 33rd the next day because they would KNOW that the West side niggas would be turning that shit into a war zone. Notice, that DOESN’T HAPPEN very often, does it? Because there is a CONSEQUENCE. These terrorists don’t have CONSEQUENCES.

But we KNOW who funds them. We KNOW where they train. We KNOW who is in bed with them! But we do NOTHING. We smile and sell them airplanes, weapons and buy their oil. It’s fucking BULLSHIT.

^ Pretty much. Brothas on the 'hood ain’t very PC and don’t care if they hurt your feelings.

I can envision a hilarious SNL episode…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.
[/quote]

It’s all good. Like I said, in GAL (and sometimes here) I sometimes argue a position for the sake of argument. I like to argue, what can I say? I DO happen to hate Obama, so when HE does it, it’s a fucking LIE, damnit! LOL

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, it constitutes a LIE by omission. [/quote]

Lol, I’m just poking fun at you Angry, but I can’t believe you just wrote that…

As far as the thread goes, fuck these people. [/quote]

Ha ha, very funny. I can argue either side of that, you know this. So in that thread I chose to argue the other side? So what? Plenty of people were arguing AGAINST me and my argument in that thread, right? But you and several other people would rather take swipe at me than consider my point. And at the end of the day, it was hashed out that IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING in that thread, but no one remembers that…

And one MINOR detail: I didn’t get myself elected to the highest office in the land where I’m accountable to the citizens of a country… Slightly different standard, yes?[/quote]

lol, relax man I think you misunderstood why I posted the link. You said there’s no suck thing as a lie of omission and you were adamant about it. Now you say this is a lie of omission. I just found it funny that’s all. And yes that thread turned out fine and I think you’re a good guy in general. Not taking a swipe at you, lol.
[/quote]

It’s all good. Like I said, in GAL (and sometimes here) I sometimes argue a position for the sake of argument. I like to argue, what can I say? I DO happen to hate Obama, so when HE does it, it’s a fucking LIE, damnit! LOL[/quote]

Last I heard they caught 2 of them. One gave himself up. One is dead.

https://gma.yahoo.com/12-dead-terrorist-attack-paris-satirical-newspaper-162351662--abc-news-topstories.html

I haven’t found any verification of the above post other than this article, but on the 6:00 NBC Nightly News, they signed off saying they caught them all, and one of the suspects was dead. And that was 4 hrs ago.

update: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Pussies or prudent?

Oohhhhhhhhhh, this is a good one. Gay Muhammad.


“100 Lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”


This is the one that got the offices firebombed in 2007.

“Muhammad is overwhelmed by the Fundamentalistss”


“The film that embraces the Muslim world”

“And my butt? You love my butt?”


Let’s not forget the cartoon of the Pope holding up a condom instead of the Host.

It was after this that Catholics…uh…wrote…stongly-worded letters…?

Pussies or prudent…

Here’s my concern as an editor: I may make a decision that costs one of my employees their life. Maybe it’s an attack on the newspaper offices, maybe it’s an assassination on the way to work. But, by publishing the cartoon, are we doing it because it’s newsworthy or to be provocative?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
During a press conference of the French satirical weekly “Charlie Hebdo”, islamists burst in and gun down at least twelve people.

Witnesses claim to have heard the assassins shout out “revenge for the prophet!”, turning this without a doubt into the worst display of humourlessness of all times as the magazine did a cartoon years ago with the holy man on it’s cover.

A panicked Republic declares the highest threat level.
[/quote]
This will be declared an isolated instance of a few crazies acting alone…Bet on it. [/quote]

There is overwhelming data across that most muslims in most countries worldwide support exactly this reaction to the cartoons.

While other survey reports have mixed results depending on the country nobody can argue with the fact that most muslims support this attack.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]

Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.

We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).

RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

Yes there is overwhelming evidence that specifically on this question about insulting Muhammad most muslims worldwide are in support.

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.

Let’s remember you said “place restrictions on” religion…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

No, not less freedom, just less HATE. [/quote]

That isn’t remotely close to what you said, and I’ll be honest I doubt it is what you mean either.

Neither you, nor any government, nor any authority real or perceived can restrict the religious beliefs of any single individual and not be restricting freedom.

The only time what you said is justified is when one person violates another. Nothing said or believed in religion violates another until an individual takes action upon it, and even then it is on the individual, not the others that believe the same things.

The single biggest effect this would have is less poor people would get jackets and food. It wouldn’t accomplish anything remotely close to what you seem to think it would. (We’d have less quality hospitals and schools too.)

No, they don’t. Not even close, lol.

You’re history is just as biased as your view of religion.

Oh for fucks sake enough with the collective responsibility bullshit.

Individuals are responsible for their actions and deeds. Not entire groups. Shit.

Because if what you are implying here is true, I hope you’re paying every black person you meet reparations.

And BILLIONS of fucking people live their entire lives, for the last couple thousand years NOT DOING THAT SHIT.

Will you stop with this bullshit? How many time do I have to explain to you I’m not religious?

This is so utterly false I can’t believe you type it with a straight face. How you can read your own posts, every time it comes on, on religion, over and over and over and actually think what you’re saying here is remotely true is beyond me.

You seem to be confusing “hate speech” with “inciting a riot/violence, endangering the public”. But given your insane bias towards religion, it’s expected.

Oh, and another thing. I certainly can scream bomb in an airport, if there is one, or I reasonable expect one. As you typically do when you speak about religion, you ignore intent and individualism.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Your religion is JUST AS GUILTY of this as islam. [/quote]

Again with this bullshit. You dont’ get to call other out on “strawmen” when you fallacy all over the place too.

No. Not even close.

It’s power, wealth, resources. Religion is/was just a tool. You’re too bias to ever get it.

I see how ridiculous your perspective is, because you project the actions of 0.00000000000000001% of the religious people over the last 2000 years onto 100% of the religious people who have lived the last 2000 years.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Mr. Obama just referred to this as workplace violence.

I will bet a great swath in Paris support this. Paris has turned into a multiculturalism shithole.

Australia, Canda, France… “Muslims Acting Badly”, coming to a theater near you. [/quote]
Well, Europeans are racist as hell. So, I expect the citizens to act out and burn down a few mosques over this. [/quote]

Good. Give them a taste of their own medicine. The “moderate” muslims are just as guilty as the crazy ones. They KNOW who the crazy ones are. But they turn a blind eye to the craziness. Next thing you know, people are getting killed.

We need to have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards radical RELIGION (christians blowing up abortion clinics are JUST as fucked up as muslims blowing shit up).

RELIGION is not a reason to KILL people. We need to move towards a more secular society and place significant restrictions on religion. [/quote]

I’ve been thinking this way recently but more specifically toward Islam (surprise). Since more than three quarters of the world is not Muslim we should all demand that parts of the Koran be changed, outlawed and of course no longer taught.

I really think the only way to stop terrorism though is if we had a real asshole of a POTUS who would politely explain to the Islam world that if there is another organized terrorist attack anywhere in the world X city would disappear from the map. The city could rotate. One month we could announce the nukes are aimed at Tehran, the next month it could be Kabul. A nice little monthly announcement like “People of Islam, this month the citizens of Istanbul are counting on you to put an end to terrorism”. Make all of Islam our unwilling allies in the fight against terror.

Sigh… one can fantasize, right?[/quote]

About mass murder? Why not?[/quote]

They’ve got NO problem whatsoever murdering us, why should we have any qualms about murdering them? And besides, in that scenario, they are WARNED what will happen. If they choose to do it anyway, that’s on them. Last time I checked, they kill us indiscriminately and without warning.

We nuked the shit out of Japan twice, and it ended WWII in the Pacific. Why all of a sudden do we have a problem doing the same thing?

Let us win your hearts and minds, or we’ll burn your damn huts down![/quote]

Committing genocide against millions of people in response to a terrorist attack is absurd and I know both you and On Edge are aware of that. The thought process is disturbing though.

The people of Tehran, Kabul, and Istanbul (cities referenced in OE’s post) have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in Yemen (people responsible for the Paris terrorism). Nuking a random city with a majority muslim population is not remotely close to what happened in WW2. Japan was in open war with us and directly responsible for PH, the people of Instanbul are not in open war with us nor are they responsible for the actions of al-Queda in Yemen. Further, if you think this scenario would result in the ending of terrorism you are sorely mistaken.

It’s utterly ridiculous to suggest nuking Istanbul in response to 12 people dying at the hands of an organization with absolutely no ties to that city. “They” cannot refer to a group of over 1 billion people. If we want to be tough guys, we use strategic attacks against hotbeds of terrorism. The USA has complicated relationships with the GCC countries and Pakistan and that limits us from fighting terrorism. To be clear, I am totally against these bullshit relationships and have for a long time disagreed with the USA playing nice with certain countries and not demanding more accountability b/c of the shaky alliances we have.

One billion people do not act as a homogeneous unit. Should we bomb a random ghetto in New Orleans b/c a black person in California murdered a white person? Should we blow up the Oklahoma City PD b/c a cop in NYC illegitimately murdered a civilian?[/quote]

You don’t get it.

The idea is not revenge on the people who attack us, the idea is get the muslim people to stop aiding and abetting, harboring, idolizing and looking the other way for the terrorist who commit these act. The idea is to get them to start actively preventing terrorist in the first place.

Why do you think it took us so long to get Bin Laden? It took us that long because those people were helping him. In all those years he didn’t come across a single fellow Muslim who thought the events he mastermind were wrong. No one turned him in.

Put fear in them of the consequences and they will police themselves.