This.
3 Likes
It makes perfect sense if you view the West as the devil.
2 Likes
1 Like
I never said Hebdo deserved it, but they certainly did flirt with death by printing more cartoons to inflame Islamic radicals after receiving a whole bunch of death threats the first time. What did they expect from fanatical terrorists?
The only problem with Wikileaks is that the info they released is selective, they only go after certain people/governments. Itâs better than nothing, and certainly better than killing innocent civilians (which both the US and Islamic terrorists have done and continue to do).
OK with who? It doesnât bother me, but it got them killed. There is no use in being right but dead.
So CNN and most other news outlets arenât actually providing news since they are all biased?
His big mistake was going to the UK in the first place, he should have just gone to Russia.
You are an idiot.
So your opinion is clearly biased and therefore meaningless.
We should appease aggressive people that donât like free speech? How Canadian are you?
Appeasement is a great strategy when your adversary is homicidal and emboldened by soft targets.
Why donât we just raise the ISIS flag in Paris now and skip all the conquering business?
3 Likes
He aided Bradley fighting vehicle Manning in hacking the government and gaining more access to classified files (allegedly).
If we made a physical world analogy: That would be akin to the NYT handing someone a lock pick so they can go get more classified documents.
Publishing leaked material is protected speech. Aiding and abetting theft of classified material is not protected speech.
1 Like
Thatâs the whole fucking point for them - murder people in their respective countries where they are supposed to feel safe for trivial offenses like an art movie and soon auto-censorship sets in.
2 Likes
Like the US government?
OK, so maybe they should just continue printing cartoons that offend Muslims and face the consequences. Is that a better solution? You could tell the Muslims not to kill them, but that doesnât appear to work very well.
It would have been a better idea not to let anyone and everyone into Europe in the first place, but itâs a bit late to fix that.
Is hacking into a computer to gain info on war crimes worse than the war crimes themselves? It seems like the US government has its priorities mixed up. Maybe they should hack Assange (or waterboard him for the password, since that appears to be legal) and release all the info on Russia, Trump, etc.
- Destroy other countries through war and economic measures
- Allow unrestricted immigration into your country
- Piss of the same people whose country you have destroyed and are now in your country
- Cry when they attack you, say something about moral superiority and so forth
Hereâs something else to think about, who really benefitted from Wikileaks anyway? People are going on about Russia, but it looks like the allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign are baseless and heâs not even on good terms with Russia anyway. Trump has some policies which may be good for the US itself (although that is debatable and many arenât in force) but he hasnât really done anything positive for the rest of the world except one country - Israel. He increased their funding, moved the US embassy to occupied territory in Jerusalem, and recognized the occupied territory of the Golan Heights as part of Israel. But it was Russia who funded Wikileaks to help Trump get elected, right?
Is that a serious question?
Sweden and Denmark are notorious for destroying other countries through war. Unfortunately, itâs been almost 950 years since Harald Hadrada invaded England and there were no recent vile acts from Sweden that I recall, yet there were terror attacks in Sweden.
How exactly are you pissing them off? Through verbose and tiresome prose from Salman Rushdie or obscure plays and movies?
Compared to Salafis pretty much anyone can claim the moral high ground.
Russia. And Trump. Next question.
Yes.
3 Likes
If I throw litter on the street and you punch me in the face for doing it, you are guilty of assault just as Iâm guilty of littering.
The charges heâll be brought up on will be independent of the crimes of the US government. âBut I was going after the bad guy when I broke the lawâ is not a valid defense.
A better solution is an entire culture not being cowed to a few aggressive jerks with rifles and explosives. You either have an argument with words, or you have an argument with weapons when words stop working.
Oh itâs you again. âWhah, the Jews have some nice beaches and a really tiny country. And theyâre allied to the US! Whah.â
Theyâre dug in. Theyâre tired of being murdered by everyone across time. They donât care what everyone else thinks of them. I know itâs crazy that the US would actually act like an ally of their only ally in the ME. just perplexing.
If you want crazy conspiracy theories then Trump has let SA off the hook multiple times.
1 Like
We were talking about Charlie Hebdo.
No comment on Israel? They didnât benefit from Trump getting elected?
Then how come the US uses that defense all the time?
Thatâs what happened, the Muslims argued against the publication of offensive materials and when that didnât work the offices of Charlie Hebdo were attacked.
So even entertaining the idea that Israel might have something to do with Wikileaks is anti-Semitic? Is that your argument? Do past events give them the right to interfere in US elections? Israel benefitted far more than Russia from Trump getting elected, plus there is no proof of any collusion with Russia anyway.
And I was talking about Theo Van Gogh and numerous other cases - by their world view even if youâre an infidel you cannot infringe on Godâs rights because it is their duty to kill you.
Do you seriously think that someone sent a strongly worded letter to Charlie Hebdo? No, that stance that theyâve somehow âhad it comingâ is nothing more than terrorist apologia - the salafis would have found any other âtransgressionâ that warranted torture and murder, like teaching women how to read as is still the case in Afghanistan.
Seriously, pretty much every establishment candidate in US presidential elections has to prove himself in front of AIPAC so the idea that the Jooos somehow engineered Trump for a marginally better treatment is frankly ridiculous.
Yes, when youâre desperately fishing for some far fetched theories when Russia / Wikileaks coordination is documented and proven.
No and no.
2 Likes
Yeah. Well thatâs not how the west works. Weâve spent thousands of years getting to the point where I can stand outside the White House lawn and shout âTrump is and idiot!â As loud as I can.
Just think about how incredibly profound that is for a second through the lens of history. Imagine standing in front of a Hapsburg palace, or in front of Caesar Augustusâ residence doing that. Try doing it with Xi Jinping or Putin todayâŠ
Reason, evidence and the ability to debate are the reason that the west is worth invading with âasylumâ claims. It will not be pretty when/if the populists backlash with violence.
No. Using the âJOOOOS!â as a mustache twirling bond villain and wrenching them into a conversation it doesnât belong is just silly.
At no point was Mossad indicated. Of all the millions of articles written on all of this, nobody right or left suspects Israel⊠or at least no evidence has been brought to light.
The only thing the extreme fringe right and extreme fringe left can agree on is hating Jews and blaming them for everything⊠I just find it funny. With zero evidence, thereâs a big international conspiracy and some people jump to: Israel did it!
Also, Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel. Having an embassy there just makes sense.
Israel does de facto hold the Golan Heights.
Trump didnât give them anything they didnât have already.
2 Likes
That is complete fucking lunacy
2 Likes
All opinions are biased; theyâre opinions after all.
But if the question is would I feel bad if we killed people for being anti-America, then yes, I would feel it was wrong to kill someone because if that.
Isnât it a bit bigoted to say âthe Muslimsâ as if all Muslims supported what happened?
Yes, complete lunacy.
Wrong. Refugee benefits, welfare, free healthcare, higher wages and higher standard of living, plus relative peacefulness are the reasons.
One quick search found this:
Illegally occupied under international law does not equal âde facto capitalâ.
Who said anything about hating anyone? You accuse Russia of a âbig international conspiracyâ to rig the election with zero evidence, is that not anti-Slavicism?
He gave official US recognition to things no other president did.
Was that not an accurate description of the events?
Where did I say that all Muslims supported the attack on Charlie Hebdo? But you can be certain that all Muslims were offended by the cartoons.
The controversy started long before the attack.
Hereâs a few excerpts:
In 2007 the Grand Mosque of Paris began criminal proceedings against the chief-editor of Charlie Hebdo , Philipe Val, under Franceâs hate speech laws for publicly abusing a group on the ground of their religion. The lawsuit was limited to three specific cartoons, including one depicting Muhammad carrying a bomb in his turban. In March 2007 a Paris court acquitted Val, finding that it was fundamentalists, rather than Muslims, who were being ridiculed in the cartoons.[26]
In November 2011, the newspaperâs office in the 20th arrondissement[36][37] was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were presumed to be linked to its decision to rename the edition of 3 November 2011 âCharia Hebdoâ, with Muhammad listed as the âeditor-in-chiefâ.
So after legal action and a firebombing they continued with their nonsense and people ended up dead. Sounds like a smart idea to you?
Sounds like freedom to me. And worth standing up for.
4 Likes