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

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

Well, all of Palestine IS occupied. That's reality. You can keep trying to spin it any way you want, you can never escape this matter of fact.

That's a complete revision of history. The land transferred from the Ottoman Empire to the British after World War I via the British Mandate of Palestine, and the British had already promised to create a Jewish state and an Arab state in that land before the end of World War I. The British subsequently carved Jordan out of almost 75% of the Mandate, and in the late 1940s they turned over the rest of the lands in the Mandate to the UN, which sought in 1947 to partition it into an Israel and Palestine. Under the partition plan, Israel would have a 55% Jewish majority and Palestine would have over a 90% Arab majority.

Israel was about 55% of the remaining Mandate, but when taking the creation of Jordan into account, it meant Israel comprised about 13% of the entire British Mandate of Palestine. That was seen as a perfectly reasonable size since Jews privately owned about 13% of the land in the Mandate before the 1948 war. I know this may come as quite a surprise to you, but Jews have lived in Jerusalem and the Levant for the last 3,000 years, and Jews were a majority of the population in Jerusalem until the Jordanians expelled them all from East Jerusalem in 1948.

As for you thinking all of Palestine is occupied, I'm not sure who you think the land was occupied from. The land passed from the Jews to the Assyrians to the Jews to the Babylonians to the Jews to the Romans to the Byzantines to the Arabs to the Crusaders to Arabs to the Ottoman Turks to the British and to the UN before the 1948 war. The Arabs living in the Mandate hadn't been independent in about 500 years, and there has never been a sovereign state of Palestine governed by Palestinians in the area in all of history.

Given all of that, I'm not sure why you think Jews who owned private land and comprised a majority of the population in the land partitioned into Israel in 1947 shouldn't have been given their own state. Please enlighten me.

Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006 because Hezbollah decided to be assholes and stir up the pot for no reason and kidnap three Israeli soldiers. But somehow, Israel's response to that was to pretty much destroy the country in its entirety, including bombarding Christian areas that have no Hezbollah presence.

Actually, Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets and used those attacks to launch their cross-border attack that summer. Hezbollah continued to launch thousands of rockets throughout the summer, and the IDF entered southern Lebanon to try to root them out. Almost all of the fighting took place south of the Litani River (and you can see the course of the river at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litani_River#mediaviewer/File:Lebanese_rivers_litani.jpg )

Asserting that Israel practically destroyed the country in its entirety is ridiculous. The IDF killed about 1200 Lebanese out of a total population of 5 million, and a majority of those killed were Hezbollah fighters. The IDF is the only army in the world that is precise enough to kill 1 fighter for every civilian in urban combat; NATO and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan averaged about 3-4 civilians killed for every fighter.

You're entitled to continue living in your own simple bubble fantasy world where Jews never lived in the area, stole everyone's land, and slaughter civilians for sport, but if you keep spouting off nonsense in this thread I'm going to keep smacking it down and make you look like a fool.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hezbollah only launched rockets that summer AFTER Israel had started its areal assault. Hezbollah instigated matters by kidnapping 3 soldiers, upon which Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, and that's when Hezbollah launched its missiles. Good god you're misinformed. I mean, this is literally a Google search away from reaching you.

Also, major LOL @ the majority of the 1,191 Lebanese deaths in the 2006 being Hezbollah fighters. Jesus Christ, some people are gullible. UN reported that the majority are civilians, but hey, I'm sure Israel disputed that and they have zero interest in lying, naturally.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Asserting that Israel practically destroyed the country in its entirety is ridiculous.

Uh, I was in Lebanon at the time. No, Israel didn't literally destroy the country in its entirety. It just completely destroyed its power plants, bridges, airport runways, forced an embargo on its port, etc... So yeah, no.

You're entitled to continue living in your own simple bubble fantasy world where Jews never lived in the area, stole everyone's land, and slaughter civilians for sport, but if you keep spouting off nonsense in this thread I'm going to keep smacking it down and make you look like a fool.

Jews did live in the area. But by the same logic, I think we should hand back America to native Americans? What say you?

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

Hezbollah only launched rockets that summer AFTER Israel had started its areal assault. Hezbollah instigated matters by kidnapping 3 soldiers, upon which Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, and that's when Hezbollah launched its missiles. Good god you're misinformed. I mean, this is literally a Google search away from reaching you.

"On 12 July 2006, militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[37] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two Israeli soldiers were abducted and taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[37][38]"

"During the war, the Hezbollah rocket force fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at a rate of more than 100 per day, unprecedented since the Iran-Iraq war.[121][122]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

You're right, that was a simple Google search away.

Also, major LOL @ the majority of the 1,191 Lebanese deaths in the 2006 being Hezbollah fighters. Jesus Christ, some people are gullible. UN reported that the majority are civilians, but hey, I'm sure Israel disputed that and they have zero interest in lying, naturally.

UN estimated 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Lebanese officials themselves estimated over 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Israel estimated 600-800 killed. Add in the other 100 militia fighters killed during the fighting and whaddya know, somewhere between 45-66% of the killed were combatants.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070530003725/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid404.xml

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

Uh, I was in Lebanon at the time. No, Israel didn't literally destroy the country in its entirety. It just completely destroyed its power plants, bridges, airport runways, forced an embargo on its port, etc... So yeah, no. [/quote}

Air and naval blockades are pretty standard during an ongoing war. Hell, even the UN has ruled Israel's current naval blockade of Gaza legal.

Yes, Israel targeted roads and bridges to disrupt the movement of Hezbollah's fighters and the flow of weapons through Lebanon via Syria (thus the reason the Israelis hit the Beirut-Damascus highway). These are all pretty standard military objectives in a war against an entrenched enemy, and again, if you want to blame someone for the infrastructure being targeted, it should probably be the terrorist groups using them.

Jews did live in the area. But by the same logic, I think we should hand back America to native Americans? What say you?

Nobody said what happened to the Native Americans was just, but I guess if you want to go back to the original occupants of a land, the Jews did have a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah there first didn't they.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hezbollah only launched rockets that summer AFTER Israel had started its areal assault. Hezbollah instigated matters by kidnapping 3 soldiers, upon which Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, and that's when Hezbollah launched its missiles. Good god you're misinformed. I mean, this is literally a Google search away from reaching you.

"On 12 July 2006, militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[37] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two Israeli soldiers were abducted and taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[37][38]"

"During the war, the Hezbollah rocket force fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at a rate of more than 100 per day, unprecedented since the Iran-Iraq war.[121][122]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

You're right, that was a simple Google search away.

Also, major LOL @ the majority of the 1,191 Lebanese deaths in the 2006 being Hezbollah fighters. Jesus Christ, some people are gullible. UN reported that the majority are civilians, but hey, I'm sure Israel disputed that and they have zero interest in lying, naturally.

UN estimated 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Lebanese officials themselves estimated over 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Israel estimated 600-800 killed. Add in the other 100 militia fighters killed during the fighting and whaddya know, somewhere between 45-66% of the killed were combatants.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070530003725/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid404.xml

Except you said:

"Actually, Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets and used those attacks to launch their cross-border attack that summer."

That is simply not true. Launching rockets as a diversion is different than bombarding with "hundreds of rockets." Regardless, I don't deny that Hezbollah are pieces of $hit who brought destruction on Lebanon. Your problem is you deny that the Israeli government is a murderous piece of human waste with a history written with blood.

The moment you can justify their numerous war crimes, which have been classified as such, then we can talk.

I cited no less than 3 massacres, one you were completely uninformed about (Qana. Again, read the UN report and the Israeli account), and two you just completely failed to address, including Sabra and Chatila which is one of the most infamous 20th century massacres.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hezbollah only launched rockets that summer AFTER Israel had started its areal assault. Hezbollah instigated matters by kidnapping 3 soldiers, upon which Israel retaliated by attacking Lebanon, and that's when Hezbollah launched its missiles. Good god you're misinformed. I mean, this is literally a Google search away from reaching you.

"On 12 July 2006, militants from the group Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence.[37] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two Israeli soldiers were abducted and taken by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[37][38]"

"During the war, the Hezbollah rocket force fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at a rate of more than 100 per day, unprecedented since the Iran-Iraq war.[121][122]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

You're right, that was a simple Google search away.

Also, major LOL @ the majority of the 1,191 Lebanese deaths in the 2006 being Hezbollah fighters. Jesus Christ, some people are gullible. UN reported that the majority are civilians, but hey, I'm sure Israel disputed that and they have zero interest in lying, naturally.

UN estimated 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Lebanese officials themselves estimated over 500 Hezbollah fighters killed. Israel estimated 600-800 killed. Add in the other 100 militia fighters killed during the fighting and whaddya know, somewhere between 45-66% of the killed were combatants.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070530003725/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid404.xml

So that's what, on average, 50% of those who died civilians. The fact that you find this acceptable says a lot.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

Except you said:

"Actually, Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets and used those attacks to launch their cross-border attack that summer."

That is simply not true. Launching rockets as a diversion is different than bombarding with "hundreds of rockets." Regardless, I don't deny that Hezbollah are pieces of $hit who brought destruction on Lebanon. Your problem is you deny that the Israeli government is a murderous piece of human waste with a history written with blood.

I'm not following what you're trying to say here. Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets on July 12 as a diversion to launch a cross-border ambush. From that point forward, they fired an average of over 100 rockets a day. Should Israel not have been expected to try to get their kidnapped soldiers back by attacking Hezbollah immediately after that ambush?

I cited no less than 3 massacres, one you were completely uninformed about (Qana. Again, read the UN report and the Israeli account), and two you just completely failed to address, including Sabra and Chatila which is one of the most infamous 20th century massacres.

You cited Qana, which (as I already pointed out) took place while the IDF and Hezbollah were engaged in fighting outside the immediate vicinity of the UN compound. What I don't understand is why you think the IDF would intentionally target civilians during counterinsurgency operations. Mistakes can certainly happen (like the killing of 4 boys on a Gaza beach this summer), but the whole purpose of counterinsurgency operations is to minimize civilian casualties, and when Israel is fighting non-state forces like Hamas and Hezbollah who rely on civilian casualties as propaganda and to bring international pressure to bear on stopping the Israeli operation, there is simply no motive to target citizens, no matter how evil you think their army or leaders are.

I'm not sure which other two you mentioned. Sabra and Shatila was carried out by a Christian Phalangist militia, which was allied with Israel. Israel's own investigation found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Indirectly responsible": Sharon's headquarters were located directly above the camp, allowing him to oversee the operations, and the Israeli army lit up the camp for the Phalangists. And about 2,000 Palestians, other than the ones who were massacred were never heard from again after they were taken by the Israelis to the Cite Sportive Stadium.

If you actually care about learning more about civilian casualties in the 2006 war, here's the Human Rights Watch report: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/lebanon0907.pdf

As far as Israel attacking Hezbollah, if you think the attack was about getting the kidnapped back, you're fooling yourself. Everyone and their mother knew these soldiers weren't captured alive, and died in the explosion that hit their petrol. This was later proven by Hezbollah when they published a video of the attack.

Now, Israel should have absolutely retaliated. Not disputing that. What I take issue with is the Civilian casualties, which you sweep under the rug. Oh and by the way, during the 2006 war, Israel once again targeted a the UN, something they have a history of doing. But yeah, sure, "mistakes happen," such as dropping missiles on an ambulance carrying children.

Regarding Qana, until you actually read the UN report, don't talk to me about "mistakes." Don't be so naive.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

So that's what, on average, 50% of those who died civilians. The fact that you find this acceptable says a lot.

I don't find it acceptable. What I said is that it is historically unprecedented for the ratio of civilian casualties to be that low in urban combat. The fact that the IDF is able to kill as many combatants as noncombatants has no parallel and is why Britain's commander of forces in Afghanistan, Richard Kemp, has called it the most moral army in the world. It's also why the IDF trains other Western armies in urban combat.

The difference between you and me is that I blame the civilian casualties on the terrorist groups (Hamas and Hezbollah) using them as human shields. In the case of those two groups, they not only use civilian locations for military purposes but literally keep civilians in places they have fired from to either deter Israel from responding or to use their subsequent deaths for propaganda purposes.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/watch-ndtv-exclusive-how-hamas-assembles-and-fires-rockets/332910

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABwLwSNwCeU

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

As far as Israel attacking Hezbollah, if you think the attack was about getting the kidnapped back, you're fooling yourself. Everyone and their mother knew these soldiers weren't captured alive, and died in the explosion that hit their petrol. This was later proven by Hezbollah when they published a video of the attack.

Without the bodies in real time, is it any surprise the IDF didn't immediately know the fate of the soldiers and tried to stop Hezbollah from escaping with them or their remains? Even their remains are valuable because Israel has a history of trading live prisoners for them, so that's beside the point.

Now, Israel should have absolutely retaliated. Not disputing that. What I take issue with is the Civilian casualties, which you sweep under the rug.

You seem to think that there should magically be no civilian casualties in war. When Hezbollah entrenches themselves in urban centers and uses them to fire rockets, civilian casualties are inevitable. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Oh and by the way, during the 2006 war, Israel once again targeted a the UN, something they have a history of doing.

Yes, a UN outpost was hit. That's because Hezbollah was firing from 20 meters away and Hezbollah fighters ran into it, once again using a civilian location for cover.

One of the UNIFIL peacekeepers killed in the attack you cited wrote in an email shortly before his death, “What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity.”[29] According to retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie, interviewed on CBC radio on 26 July, Hess-von Kruedener's phrase ‘due to tactical necessity’ was “veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them.”

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you actually think my problem is I don't understand why innocents die at war, then you've missed my point all along. Which isn't surprising considering you seem way too hellbent on propaganda.

My whole point is I do NOT believe in casualties of war. When you kill that many innocents, you're held accountable, and you're no different than others doing it outside the confines of war. Just because the West made up arbitrary rules that make killing children somehow acceptable doesn't mean it actually is.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

My whole point is I do NOT believe in casualties of war. When you kill that many innocents, you're held accountable, and you're no different than others doing it outside the confines of war. Just because the West made up arbitrary rules that make killing children somehow acceptable doesn't mean it actually is.

I don't like war or any civilian casualties either, but until we somehow manage to end all forms of combat, the best we can do is come up with norms/customs/rules to govern how people fight.

 

[calitennis127]

The magazine aren't putting lives at risk, the terrorists are.

No, Kieran, they both are. The cartoonists deliberately provoked the Islamists into doing what they did. Actions have consequences and the cartoonists aren't so dumb that they didn't realize this. They wanted to get a reaction and they got it, and to that I can only say "if you wanted to die, then you got your wish".

The reality is that there are now over 40 million Muslims in Europe. Whether one likes it or not is irrelevant. They are there now and they should be respected as human beings. Unless they are repulsive scumbags like Ibrahim Hooper, they shouldn't be spat in the face of (metaphorically speaking) with deliberate insults to what they value as sacred. Like I have said, I have a good friend who is Muslim and I would never contemplate making a joke about Muhammad to him during Ramadan or telling him that "Allah is a fake sky daddy". I leave that to ill-mannered, knowledge-free atheists to do.

With so many Muslims in Europe, we can either learn to co-exist to some degree, or we can engage in the utterly depraved game of insulting sacred religious images and taunting otherwise decent people about their faith. I think there are some pervese elements to the religion of Islam, but there are some undoubtedly good ones as well, and I have far more respect for many Muslims than the modern-day science-fiction knowledge-free Western atheists who go around spewing ignorant nonsense every time they type a sentence on their keyboards.

This is a very important distinction and there's a principle which I bet the magazine feel is at stake: Western values can't just bow down to threats and practice self-censorship for fear of offending minorities.

NOTICE TO RIOTBEARD for his earlier stupid retort to me, when he asked "who is saying that free speech is a cornerstone of Western civilization?" To which I gave a couple names, including Sean Hannity, and I could have just said "everybody". Now Riotbeard can add Kieran to the list.

So, Kieran, "Western values" amount to showing religious symbolism in a perverse, cruel way? Did you like how Charlie Hebdo showed the three persons of the Holy Trinity sodomizing each other? I'm sure murat would see that as a sign of kind moral advancement on the part of atheist humanity, that they can be so considerate of other people's sensibilities.

"Free speech" is not an important fundamental Western value. The fact that the West defines itself in such a meaningless fashion is why, in large part, Western civilization is very nearly dead.

And if Westerns wanted to draw up cruel cartoons about the prophet Muhammad without Muslims retaliating in Western countries, then they shouldn't have let so many emigrate to their countries. Now that they are there, the Muslim populations should be respected and such cartoons are created in terribly poor taste. They are un-Christian and vicious, and not even funny.

I agree that the cartoons are ignoble - although this time the cover depicts Muhammad in tears, under the banner "Je Suis Charlie" - but the principle of free speech, where nothing illegal is being printed?

Why do you as a Catholic value a principle of "free speech" that doesn't exist anyway? "Free speech" is just a codephrase for being able to insult Christianity. That's all it ever was. It has nothing to do with genuine kindness or a genuine disposition of toleration. It is entirely about insulting sacred symbols that some misinformed intellectual does not like.

I understand the poison chalice, because there are nuts out there trying to foment trouble, but unfortunately they win if we go silent...

No, they win if they have the opportunity to kill people, and that is exactly what they did in Paris because of these cartoonist buffoons.

 

[calitennis127]

PS: To Cali, there's a documentary called "War Of Lebanon" on Youtube. It's pretty extensive. Try finding a subtitled version and watch it in its entirety. Christians have committed some pretty messed up acts in the names of Christianity and the extermination of Muslims in Lebanon. This isn't a read in between the lines kind of thing, this was explicitly stated by Lebanese Christians at the time. Of course, the massacres were mutual, to be clear, by Christians were the instigators. "Black Saturday" remains one of the darkest days in Lebanese history.

The problem with living in the West is very few actually fully understand what goes on in the Middle East. I don't mean to condescend on anyone but most in this thread are pretty uninformed about these things.

I don't believe that your second paragraph directly connects to your second, but you should be clear that I am in full agreement with you on the Israeli government and I have enjoyed reading your remarks in this debate on the Israelis.

Regarding the first paragraph, I do not deny that Christians have done violent things in the name of their religion at certain points in history, or that they have used Scripture to justify it. But I am first and foremost a Catholic, and one reason is that I believe in having a final arbiter of doctrine to avoid the madness of infinite opinions that you see in Protestantism. The question of whether actions are justified comes down to set-in-stone doctrinal teachings, and, in that regard, there is no comparison between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the variations of Islam when it comes to justifying violence.

Also, even if the Lebanese Christians behaved abominably (which I am sure they did - and for the record, I have been around plenty of Christians who were either complete scum or acted like it on various occasions), their behavior would only amount to a small fraction of what Muslims across the Middle East have done in persecuting Christians. I think we can agree on that.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

The cartoonists deliberately provoked the Islamists into doing what they did. Actions have consequences and the cartoonists aren't so dumb that they didn't realize this. They wanted to get a reaction and they got it, and to that I can only say "if you wanted to die, then you got your wish".

If you think an appropriate response to blasphemy or being personally offended is to commit murder, you're sick. It's even more disgusting that the people who murder the cartoonists take no issue with grossly anti-Semitic cartoons in the Middle East or blasphemous cartoons of any sort so long as the religion being offended is not Islam.

With so many Muslims in Europe, we can either learn to co-exist to some degree, or we can engage in the utterly depraved game of insulting sacred religious images and taunting otherwise decent people about their faith.

People who can be driven to murder as a result of a cartoon image are not "otherwise decent people." Your comments do a disservice to the billions of people who have had their religious sensibilities offended and did not resort to murder.

So, Kieran, "Western values" amount to showing religious symbolism in a perverse, cruel way? Did you like how Charlie Hebdo showed the three persons of the Holy Trinity sodomizing each other?

Western values tolerate blasphemy and other forms of insensitive speech. That's the whole point of free speech; so long as it does not threaten people with physical harm or incite violence, it should be allowed.

And if Westerns wanted to draw up cruel cartoons about the prophet Muhammad without Muslims retaliating in Western countries, then they shouldn't have let so many emigrate to their countries. Now that they are there, the Muslim populations should be respected and such cartoons are created in terribly poor taste. They are un-Christian and vicious, and not even funny.

Not only is this a dumb comment on its face, but the general rule when letting immigrants in is the expectation that diversity adds to society. Of course, that requires assimilation in both directions. In France, religious criticism has been fair game for centuries. It's not asking too much for immigrants and second generation Frenchmen to respect their home nation's laws.

No, they win if they have the opportunity to kill people, and that is exactly what they did in Paris because of these cartoonist buffoons.

The men who murdered the cartoonists had been arrested on charges related to terrorism several times in previous years, which was obviously unrelated to Charlie Hebdo. And what excuse do you have for the guy who murdered Jews in a kosher deli a few days later?

The simple truth is that murderers and terrorists can make up whatever justification they need to commit their acts.

 

[Kieran]

I missed the reply you made to me, Cali, but Ernie's post above says it better than I can...

 

[calitennis127]

CanIHaveYourRacquet - I am truly tired of reading your neoconservative propaganda already.

If you think an appropriate response to blasphemy or being personally offended is to commit murder, you're sick.

That's not what I said or even implied. What I have made clear is that the cartoonists who were murdered were depraved human beings and they were deliberately provoking a violent response from Muslims. What they did in depicting both Muhammad and Christ as they did was vile. I really do not have much sympathy for them.

People who can be driven to murder as a result of a cartoon image are not "otherwise decent people." Your comments do a disservice to the billions of people who have had their religious sensibilities offended and did not resort to murder.

Anyone who knows anything about Islam understands that blasphemy against the prophet is akin to petting a bee hive - one of the bees or a couple of bees is going to come out and sting that hand. The cartoonists accomplished nothing. They were vile people who should not be viewed as heroes.

Western values tolerate blasphemy and other forms of insensitive speech. That's the whole point of free speech; so long as it does not threaten people with physical harm or incite violence, it should be allowed.

Pure and utter nonsense. No society has ever had "free speech" - least of all ours. The same people defending Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech were up in arms just 7 months ago demanding that Donald Sterling sell his business for someone illegally recording him saying something that most people don't like. Juan Williams was fired from NPR for saying that being on a plane with Muslims makes him nervous. NFL players have been fined and/or sent to sensitivity training for making remarks about gays that were deemed unacceptable. Pat Buchanan was fired from MSNBC for not saying what they wanted to be said on their Obama network. Every society and institution has limits on what can be said publicly. The EU has a litany of hate speech laws on the books. Contemporary Europe is the last place in the world that should be trumpeting "free speech".

In France, religious criticism has been fair game for centuries. It's not asking too much for immigrants and second generation Frenchmen to respect their home nation's laws.

Maybe the boneheaded mistake was allowing millions of Muslims to migrate in a short space of time and create areas with the potential of being enclaves. Assimilation is not an easy process when people don't share the same language or geographic origins, let alone when you mix in elements of religion, race, class, and profound historical differences. Assimilation is not so simple as getting the new immigrants "to respect their home nation's laws", because their culture might not regard some laws as legitimate or worth respecting. Again, you are just repeating neoconservative Fox News nonsense.

The men who murdered the cartoonists had been arrested on charges related to terrorism several times in previous years, which was obviously unrelated to Charlie Hebdo.

So what relevance does that have? It is common knowledge that there is an international jihadist movement growing by the month mostly because of Obama's cluelessness and ignorance. Did you just get the memo on that?

And what excuse do you have for the guy who murdered Jews in a kosher deli a few days later?

I don't have one. That is a separate issue.

The simple truth is that murderers and terrorists can make up whatever justification they need to commit their acts.

This is an oft-repeated cliche that demeans the intelligence of Muslims and in particular militant jihadists. These people are very specific about what their gripes are with the West and why they are fighting and what they wish to achieve. They are not nihilist madmen like Bush, Obama, and countless Democrats have argued. They are by and large very intelligent people with deep convictions and clearly set out goals. To just make them out to be ordinary psychopaths is to resign your side of the war to defeat. Know thy enemy - actually study it and pay attention to it.

The West does have many virtues and values to defend against the jihadist movement. One of those is not the mythical "free speech", contrary to the neoconservative propaganda that has overtaken your mind.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

That's not what I said or even implied. What I have made clear is that the cartoonists who were murdered were depraved human beings and they were deliberately provoking a violent response from Muslims. What they did in depicting both Muhammad and Christ as they did was vile. I really do not have much sympathy for them.

Blasphemy does not and should not deliberately provoke a violent response from anyone. the Charlie Hebdo guys also made fun of Christians and Jews, and there was no violent response. Satire is meant to be offensive, and those who have problems with it should not do business with them and/or criticize them in their own writing or cartoons. They sure as hell shouldn't go murdering cartoonists.

Anyone who knows anything about Islam understands that blasphemy against the prophet is akin to petting a bee hive - one of the bees or a couple of bees is going to come out and sting that hand. The cartoonists accomplished nothing. They were vile people who should not be viewed as heroes.

This is an oversimplification, but it's also an indictment of Islam and its practitioners, not Westerners.

Pure and utter nonsense. No society has ever had "free speech" - least of all ours. The same people defending Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech were up in arms just 7 months ago demanding that Donald Sterling sell his business for someone illegally recording him saying something that most people don't like. Juan Williams was fired from NPR for saying that being on a plane with Muslims makes him nervous. NFL players have been fined and/or sent to sensitivity training for making remarks about gays that were deemed unacceptable. Pat Buchanan was fired from MSNBC for not saying what they wanted to be said on their Obama network. Every society and institution has limits on what can be said publicly. The EU has a litany of hate speech laws on the books. Contemporary Europe is the last place in the world that should be trumpeting "free speech".

The Sterling and Williams stories are perfect examples of free speech rights. They were both allowed to legally say racist and socially unacceptable things without getting in trouble. What Juan Williams does not have an absolute right to do is say things that would embarrass his employer while he's on the air. In the U.S., employers have the right to fire an employee for anything other than on the basis of ethnicity/race/gender/sexuality/disability. When the employee says something that reflects poorly upon the employer, especially when that employee is a journalist on the air, it's no surprise they get canned. That is not a violation or restriction of free speech.

I agree the EU's hate speech laws are too restrictive, but speech there is freer than the vast majority of the world.

Maybe the boneheaded mistake was allowing millions of Muslims to migrate in a short space of time and create areas with the potential of being enclaves. Assimilation is not an easy process when people don't share the same language or geographic origins, let alone when you mix in elements of religion, race, class, and profound historical differences. Assimilation is not so simple as getting the new immigrants "to respect their home nation's laws", because their culture might not regard some laws as legitimate or worth respecting. Again, you are just repeating neoconservative Fox News nonsense.

The main driver behind the Muslim population in France is that when the French pulled out of Algeria, which they had occupied/colonized for decades, they allowed Algerians to claim French citizenship. This made sense because the French had ruled the Algerians for generations, and since they had previously been subjects, France felt obliged to let those Algerians move to France and/or become French citizens as they withdrew from the area.

It is common knowledge that there is an international jihadist movement growing by the month mostly because of Obama's cluelessness and ignorance. Did you just get the memo on that?

The relevance is that Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with it. The men who murdered Charlie Hebdo journalists were terrorists before Charlie Hebdo made AQAP's shit list, and they had been arrested on terrorism charges before Obama was president at that.

This is an oft-repeated cliche that demeans the intelligence of Muslims and in particular militant jihadists. These people are very specific about what their gripes are with the West and why they are fighting and what they wish to achieve. They are not nihilist madmen like Bush, Obama, and countless Democrats have argued. They are by and large very intelligent people with deep convictions and clearly set out goals. To just make them out to be ordinary psychopaths is to resign your side of the war to defeat. Know thy enemy - actually study it and pay attention to it.

I'd be amazed if you could tell me off the top of your head what bin Laden's main gripe with the U.S. was when he issued the fatwa declaring war on America in 1998. Bin Laden's main gripe was that American soldiers were stationed in Saudi Arabia ("the Holy Land") during the First Gulf War and were still there, all at the Saudis' request. Bin Laden felt slighted because the Saudis had turned down his own request to help in the fight against Saddam. But of course, even if Americans weren't in Saudi Arabia, he would've (and did) cited American support for Israel as the justification. And if Israel didn't exist, it would've been (and was) something more intangible like American involvement in the Middle East at large.

The point is that terrorist groups come up with as broad a list of perceived offenses as possible to recruit disaffected individuals and potential fighters. It doesn't matter how legitimate or how strong these "gripes" truly are. If the terrorists hadn't attacked Charlie Hebdo, they quite likely would've picked some other target and justified it with a different excuse. A terrorist shot up a Jewish deli in Paris for no reason other than to target Jews.

Nobody's saying these terrorist groups are unintelligent. ISIS didn't overrun so much of Iraq and Syria by being clueless madmen. But that obviously doesn't make their gripes or their goals legitimate either.

 

[CanIHaveYourRaquetErnie?]

also, I forgot to point out how ironic it is that you accuse me of neoconservative propaganda in the same post that literally justifies murdering someone who hurts your feelings. that's about as illiberal as it gets, but congratulations, you have an even stricter criminal justice system than the Saudis.