The myth of "free speech".....

[DarthFed]

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense. The gunmen are/were pieces of human garbage, but they weren't acting out of envy. Have Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs (yes, literally) in the past 50 years out of envy too?

what on earth makes you think the Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs in the past 50 years? are you blaming the Coalition forces for every murder conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq, other Sunni groups, and Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias? are you blaming Americans for standing idle while Syrians butcher themselves? should the US not have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11?

we can argue about the righteousness of the cause in going to Iraq, but the simple fact is once Saddam was ousted and the Coalition forces occupied the country, most of our soldiers' time was spent trying to prevent sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. in other words, they were trying to protect Arabs from killing each other, and thousands of our soldiers were killed in the process

 

[Riotbeard]

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense. The gunmen are/were pieces of human garbage, but they weren't acting out of envy. Have Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs (yes, literally) in the past 50 years out of envy too?

what on earth makes you think the Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs in the past 50 years? are you blaming the Coalition forces for every murder conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq, other Sunni groups, and Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias? are you blaming Americans for standing idle while Syrians butcher themselves? should the US not have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11?

we can argue about the righteousness of the cause in going to Iraq, but the simple fact is once Saddam was ousted and the Coalition forces occupied the country, most of our soldiers' time was spent trying to prevent sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. in other words, they were trying to protect Arabs from killing each other, and thousands of our soldiers were killed in the process

He means all the bombing in the war in iraq and other countries that took out tons of civilians. Also a lot of cia coups that supported dictators. Arming at different times the saddam, Iran, Bin Laden, Syria, Gaddafi, Isreal, Saudi Arabia. Ousting a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s to put the Shah back in which ultimately probably lead to the Iranian Revolution... The American footprint in the middle east is appalling. Not to mention all the horrible things the French and English did before we had a major presence.

 

[britbox]

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense. The gunmen are/were pieces of human garbage, but they weren't acting out of envy. Have Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs (yes, literally) in the past 50 years out of envy too?

what on earth makes you think the Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs in the past 50 years? are you blaming the Coalition forces for every murder conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq, other Sunni groups, and Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias? are you blaming Americans for standing idle while Syrians butcher themselves? should the US not have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11?

we can argue about the righteousness of the cause in going to Iraq, but the simple fact is once Saddam was ousted and the Coalition forces occupied the country, most of our soldiers' time was spent trying to prevent sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. in other words, they were trying to protect Arabs from killing each other, and thousands of our soldiers were killed in the process

Please... American forces weren't in Iraq to prevent Shiites and Sunnis killing each other, they were in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and then to implement a transitional government that they could work with.

Iraq had no connection with 9/11 and had no Al Qaeda presence at the time. They invaded to bring the oil industry back under the pro-western umbrella and to stop Saddam selling oil outside of the petro-dollar. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The perpetrators of 9/11 were by and large Saudi militants. Whoever was pulling their strings (the puppet masters) is regularly debated but those guys were the ones at least tangibly responsible.

The sanctions prior to the war killed hundreds of thousands before the bloodbath even began.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, the notions that these attacks are carried out because of jealousy of the west is utter nonsense. The gunmen are/were pieces of human garbage, but they weren't acting out of envy. Have Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs (yes, literally) in the past 50 years out of envy too?

what on earth makes you think the Americans slaughtered millions of Arabs in the past 50 years? are you blaming the Coalition forces for every murder conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq, other Sunni groups, and Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias? are you blaming Americans for standing idle while Syrians butcher themselves? should the US not have attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11?

we can argue about the righteousness of the cause in going to Iraq, but the simple fact is once Saddam was ousted and the Coalition forces occupied the country, most of our soldiers' time was spent trying to prevent sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis. in other words, they were trying to protect Arabs from killing each other, and thousands of our soldiers were killed in the process

Replace millions with thousands. Do you deny it?

How many civilians have Americans killed in Iraq? Afghanistan? Recent nondiscriminatory drone strikes? Are we rewriting history here?

Or is it fine unless it's under the "casualties of war" umbrella? It's funny how we justify killing when convenient. It's like when Bashar el Assad gassed his people. Everyone was up in arms. When he was bombing them to death, that was OK, apparently.

If you can't shoot 12 people to death (and you can't), then why can you bomb hundreds? One actually leads to far more casualties.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I really don't mean to offend when I say this:

But I always assumed that those naive enough to think that Americans went to Iraq for democracy and to make it a better place were the minority. I see this far too often recently.

 

[tented]

I really don't mean to offend when I say this:

But I always assumed that those naive enough to think that Americans went to Iraq for democracy and to make it a better place were the minority. I see this far too often recently.

I'm not sure what the stats are for this these days (I can't remember seeing a poll, at least), but I'd like to think most Americans now realize it was all about oil. Cheney et al. tried hard to convince the US (and the world) it was a humanitarian effort, but I think most people see beyond that now.

 

[kskate2]

Over ten years later, there are still a good number of naive flag bearers that won't believe our role in this was anything short of self-serving.

 

[Kieran]

Regardless of why the Americans went into Iraq, Darth's comment is valid: Muslims have been very adept at killing each other without any help from anybody else...

 

[britbox]

Not confined to muslims though is it mate? Not long ago that christians were murdering and blowing each other to bits in Britain and Ireland.

More of a "human" problem than just an islamic one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Regardless of why the Americans went into Iraq, Darth's comment is valid: Muslims have been very adept at killing each other without any help from anybody else...

That wasn't Darth's comments though. And the fact of the matter is Muslims have had help from others to kill each other. Unless we're supposed to ignore the role of United States in the financing, arming, etc... of many Muslim conflicts throughout the years. And that's not mentioning the thousands of dead Muslims the Americans took care of themselves.

The fact that Muslims kill each other doesn't negate, justify, or downgrade the importance of the above.

 

[Kieran]

Not confined to muslims though is it mate? Not long ago that christians were murdering and blowing each other to bits in Britain and Ireland.

More of a "human" problem than just an islamic one.

Exactly, and let's hope that nobody lays the blame for this "human problem" at the feet of the west, as well. At least we're free here to acknowledge and barter our differences.

Speaking of which, has anybody else been appalled at how few news outlets in the west have actually had the courage of their conviction and shown us the offensive satires that these murderers blamed for their actions? Aren't the terrorists winning, when the press censors itself for fear of reprisals?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, it's funny how we don't bring up religion unless it's explicitly mentioned. In other words, we don't look at WW II as Christians killing Christians because religion was not a motive in the war, or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as Muslims killing Muslims. Well, that doesn't really change what happened.

I'm not equating that to sectarian killing, just to be clear, or what ISIS is doing. But I find it funny how we as humans have come to accept death and killing as long as it's "within the rules."

 

[Riotbeard]

Not confined to muslims though is it mate? Not long ago that christians were murdering and blowing each other to bits in Britain and Ireland.

More of a "human" problem than just an islamic one.

Exactly, and let's hope that nobody lays the blame for this "human problem" at the feet of the west, as well. At least we're free here to acknowledge and barter our differences.

Speaking of which, has anybody else been appalled at how few news outlets in the west have actually had the courage of their conviction and shown us the offensive satires that these murderers blamed for their actions? Aren't the terrorists winning, when the press censors itself for fear of reprisals?

I do think we have a case of two groups behaving horribly. That America bombs countries does not make 911 right, but nor can 911 be a valid justification for years of drone bombing in 7 different countries under obama and the invasion of Iraq under Bush.

 

[Kieran]

I find it funny how we as humans have come to accept death and killing as long as it's "within the rules."

Hopefully, not everyone has. There are dreadful things happen in secular societies, under the guise of freedom. The "human problem" is unsolvable by force, but that's always been part of the problem. Religion gets brought into if that's cited as a cause of an atrocity. "I commit this act in the name of God/Freedom/Democracy/Whatever." We have to analyse such thinking, but the result is always the same. There is no one source of blame for these things, and there isn't only one victim who can claim justification for their actions.

But what about another issue which I've noticed in the last week: the press haven't published the satirical cartoons which so offended the killers. In little old Ireland, Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre has threatened legal action against any publication which prints them. This is a mild and acceptable protest, but made much worse by craven legislation in this country which states that anyone who "publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence."

The penalty here could be as much as €25,000. Now, you may think it was the repressive church who insisted on this legislation, but actually it only came about in 2009. I agree with you as you shake your face: it's backwards. There's more in that act, but I don't want to put you off your Sunday breakfast, lunch or dinner.

However, this is a country showing cowardice in the face of multi-culturalism. It's not the only one. No other countries have stood up and insisted we see the offending images.

Has terrorism won, in that case?

 

[britbox]

^ In a manner of speaking it has because "freedoms" are curtailed. In WWII Churchill was adamant that "business as usual" within reason was the best option to pursue to maintain order. What we are seeing in the current climate are knee-jerk reactions and freedoms being curtailed in the name of "national security".

I read an interesting article today regarding freedom of speech and it suggested that if the satirist cartoons related to jews rather than muslims there would have been a far bigger uproar and the freedoms would have been withdrawn on anti-semitic grounds. Food for thought... but I happen to believe that may have well been the case.

 

[Kieran]

"Far bigger uproar?"

Are you saying Jews would have killed journalists?

 

[britbox]

^ I'm talking about freedom of speech.

 

[Kieran]

The bigger threat to freedom of speech at the moment is posed by Islamist terrorists and their reactions to the funny pages at the back of your newspaper...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ In a manner of speaking it has because "freedoms" are curtailed. In WWII Churchill was adamant that "business as usual" within reason was the best option to pursue to maintain order. What we are seeing in the current climate are knee-jerk reactions and freedoms being curtailed in the name of "national security".

I read an interesting article today regarding freedom of speech and it suggested that if the satirist cartoons related to jews rather than muslims there would have been a far bigger uproar and the freedoms would have been withdrawn on anti-semitic grounds. Food for thought... but I happen to believe that may have well been the case.

Very good point actually.

Now let's be clear, nothing justifies what happened. But, for argument's sake, if a cartoonist in the USA depicted Dr. Martin Luther King engaging in sexual activities with the devil, what would be the reaction? Would it not be deemed racist?

This is not an extreme example by the way. This is the kind of cartoon Charlie Hebdo publish. Let me be clear, I think they have the right to, especially in a secular country like France. What they did was not illegal. However, freedom of speech does not take away people's freedom to criticize your work or hold you accountable for offensive drawings.

Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents. So let me be absolutely crystal clear again: What happened was a travesty and if there is an afterlife, I hope the assailants rot in hell. But, do I fully support the kind of drawings Charlie Hebdo publish in the name of free speech? Probably not, although they should be allowed to do their thing, the same way I should be allowed to criticize it, and this is coming from a non-religious person.

 

[Kieran]

Of course, there is a difference between holding people accountable and massacring 12 innocents. So let me be absolutely crystal clear again: What happened was a travesty and if there is an afterlife, I hope the assailants rot in hell. But, do I fully support the kind of drawings Charlie Hebdo publish in the name of free speech? Probably not, although they should be allowed to do their thing, the same way I should be allowed to criticize it, and this is coming from a non-religious person.

Let's be clear - and in fairness, you have been - "criticising it" and butchering innocent people are two different reactions. Totally different, actually.

The question I'm more interested in is this: have terrorists won, because even in the wave of sympathy and support for Charlie Hebdo, the press have still not shown us the images which the murderers claimed were offensive to them...