Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

[NobleSavage]

Are you guys telling me that all the tough gun laws in France didn't prevent this?

 

[untermensche]

No different from shooting abortion doctors.

Nothing that special about Muslim nuts.

So, is it something to do with religion, or isn't it?

Why violence?

It has something to do with regional politics of the Middle East.

Why is Iran being run by religious fanatics?

It has something to do with the history of Iran.

Why is Saudi Arabia a religious state?

Because Islam demands it?

 

[dismal]

So, is it something to do with religion, or isn't it?

Why violence?

It has something to do with regional politics of the Middle East.

Why is Iran being run by religious fanatics?

It has something to do with the history of Iran.

Why is Saudi Arabia a religious state?

Because Islam demands it?

Cartoons.

 

[untermensche]

Not nuts?

By what standard?

By the standard that they fully understood the nature and implications of their actions.

They see their actions as fulfilling a command from some invisible god.

It is nuts.

- - - Updated - - -

Why violence?

It has something to do with regional politics of the Middle East.

Why is Iran being run by religious fanatics?

It has something to do with the history of Iran.

Why is Saudi Arabia a religious state?

Because Islam demands it?

Cartoons.

Why violence in response?

Is there a climate of violence anywhere in the world?

 

[maxparrish]

Obama flashback, to the same speech from which the (mis)quote in the OP/Title [see maxparrish's post above] was cherry-picked:

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

Context, max, context...

The "misquote" can easily be corrected without loss of a grain of meaning “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

And I'm all for context. The context was Obama's speech before the UN, done two weeks after the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and a terrorist led mob murdered a US ambassador and three other US State Department employees in Benghazi. The context was also in the administrations duplicitous denial of terrorism, their blaming it on the film makers who dared to "slander Islam", followed by a Jay Carney condemnation of the Paris satirists mockery of Islam.

And finally, after blaming critics of Islam, the "context" was Obama's groveling and creepy formulation is a free speech sell out to Muslim terrorists. "The future SHOULD belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" or any other religious prophet or ideology they damn well please.

Apparently the killers are in agreement with Obama about denying some futures. Is that enough context?

 

[Axulus]

Cartoons, actually.

No different from shooting abortion doctors.

Nothing that special about Muslim nuts.

What is special is the number of nuts - meaning these type of incidents are far more common from Islamist nuts than Christian nuts

Furthermore, there is no plausible interpretation of the Christian Bible that says vigilante justice should be carried out. The same can't be said of Islamic holy texts and the various interpretations of jihad.

 

[dismal]

By the standard that they fully understood the nature and implications of their actions.

They see their actions as fulfilling a command from some invisible god.

It is nuts.

Well, at least it's not religious.

Why violence in response?

To avenge the prophet.

 

[Axulus]

I am concerned that I will be forced to submit to Islam or my family will be in peril. Living free may be hard to achieve.

Why are you worried about that? Muslims haven't won an offensive war against a non muslim country since 1420. They are still grotesquely underdeveloped. They can't cooperate. They can't produce their own weapons (not on enough of a scale). They are no real threat.

What he have is muslim leaders, concerned about violence between muslims, attempt to redirect it outwards, towards non muslims. This in turn favors non muslim leaders, who use fear of islam as a means of rallying their own followers, again directing violence back towards the muslims.

If nuclear weapons proliferate throughout the middle east (Iran obtaining a nuke could be the triggering event, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt soon follow), that could be a serious threat.

 

[maxparrish]

Are you guys telling me that all the tough gun laws in France didn't prevent this?

Well, hopefully the guns were registered and the shooters took a gun safety course!

 

[fta]

Are the team over at The Onion getting edgy?

 

[dismal]

Obama flashback, to the same speech from which the (mis)quote in the OP/Title [see maxparrish's post above] was cherry-picked:

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

Context, max, context...

Assuming one were the sort of person who did not have a need to reflexively defend Obama or attack Max, would anyone here actually agree with Obama's statement?

Why *must* the future not belong to those who slander the Islam?

They seem like a decent class of people.

 

[Axulus]

They see their actions as fulfilling a command from some invisible god.

It is nuts.

Well, at least it's not religious.

Why violence in response?

To avenge the prophet.

It's more than avenging the profit - it strikes at the heart of one of our core values - freedom of the press and freedom of expression

 

[Sarpedon]

If nuclear weapons proliferate throughout the middle east (Iran obtaining a nuke could be the triggering event, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt soon follow), that could be a serious threat.

Nuclear weapons are a different kind of threat. What I was reacting to was the fear of Islam being forcibly imposed. In order to do that, it would be necessary for the other side to defeat us and subjugate us. There are no winners in a nuclear war; only death.

 

[dismal]

Well, at least it's not religious.

Why violence in response?

To avenge the prophet.

It's more than avenging the profit - it strikes at the heart of one of our core values - freedom of the press and freedom of expression

But that's not why they did it. The could strike at our core values by killing people who put on Tony Award winning plays mocking Mormons.

They do this because they're pissed that someone published cartoons about the prophet.

 

[arkirk]

Well, at least it's not religious.

Why violence in response?

To avenge the prophet.

It's more than avenging the profit - it strikes at the heart of one of our core values - freedom of the press and freedom of expression

But that's not why they did it. The could strike at our core values by killing people who put on Tony Award winning plays mocking Mormons.

They do this because they're pissed that someone published cartoons about the prophet.

Can you document this? Was there a statement? Europe is awash in refuges from all the western triggered violence against Muslims in the ME. I could do as you do and guess you are probably right, but that kind of hatred is a little stronger than just "pissed off."

 

[Mageth]

Obama flashback, to the same speech from which the (mis)quote in the OP/Title [see maxparrish's post above] was cherry-picked:

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

Context, max, context...

Assuming one were the sort of person who did not have a need to reflexively defend Obama or attack Max, would anyone here actually agree with Obama's statement?

Why *must* the future not belong to those who slander the Islam?

They seem like a decent class of people.

Read the speech!

"those who slander the prophet of Islam" was just one example of the type of people to which Obama stated "the future must not belong"...namely, divisive people...context, dismal, context!

For example, here's another part of the same speech:

It is time to marginalize those who -- even when not directly resorting to violence -- use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel, as the central organizing principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who do resort to violence.

That brand of politics -- one that pits East against West, and South against North, Muslims against Christians and Hindu and Jews -- can’t deliver on the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag does nothing to provide a child an education. Smashing apart a restaurant does not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children, and creating the opportunities that they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

 

[Mageth]

Obama flashback, to the same speech from which the (mis)quote in the OP/Title [see maxparrish's post above] was cherry-picked:

"There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

Context, max, context...

The "misquote" can easily be corrected without loss of a grain of meaning “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

And I'm all for context. The context was Obama's speech before the UN, done two weeks after the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and a terrorist led mob murdered a US ambassador and three other US State Department employees in Benghazi. The context was also in the administrations duplicitous denial of terrorism, their blaming it on the film makers who dared to "slander Islam", followed by a Jay Carney condemnation of the Paris satirists mockery of Islam.

And finally, after blaming critics of Islam, the "context" was Obama's groveling and creepy formulation is a free speech sell out to Muslim terrorists. "The future SHOULD belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" or any other religious prophet or ideology they damn well please.

Apparently the killers are in agreement with Obama about denying some futures. Is that enough context?

No...you're still cherry-picking that one sentence, given as one example among many. SHEESH!

 

[Metaphor]

The "misquote" can easily be corrected without loss of a grain of meaning “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

And I'm all for context. The context was Obama's speech before the UN, done two weeks after the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and a terrorist led mob murdered a US ambassador and three other US State Department employees in Benghazi. The context was also in the administrations duplicitous denial of terrorism, their blaming it on the film makers who dared to "slander Islam", followed by a Jay Carney condemnation of the Paris satirists mockery of Islam.

And finally, after blaming critics of Islam, the "context" was Obama's groveling and creepy formulation is a free speech sell out to Muslim terrorists. "The future SHOULD belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" or any other religious prophet or ideology they damn well please.

Apparently the killers are in agreement with Obama about denying some futures. Is that enough context?

No...you're still cherry-picking that one sentence, given as one example among many. SHEESH!

If the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet (peace be upon him), then the future will belong to those who would murder you for drawing a cartoon.

I fervently hope the future belongs to the slanderers.

 

[Mageth]

No...you're still cherry-picking that one sentence, given as one example among many. SHEESH!

If the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet (peace be upon him), then the future will belong to those who would murder you for drawing a cartoon.

I fervently hope the future belongs to the slanderers.

As I earlier quoted from the SAME GODDAM SPEECH:

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There's no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

Obama's speech contradicts your absurd assertion.

 

[Axulus]

No...you're still cherry-picking that one sentence, given as one example among many. SHEESH!

If the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet (peace be upon him), then the future will belong to those who would murder you for drawing a cartoon.

I fervently hope the future belongs to the slanderers.

It's a very curious choice of words as well - what exactly is the issue with slandering a person who died long ago? If he said the future must not belong to those who slander Muslims, that would've been far more agreeable.