The Killing Joke

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

If you order more than 200 dollars worth of Brain Candy you get 15% off! Hint hint[/quote]

Someone doesn’t hold the same opinion or world view as you, they must not be very intelligent, right?

[/quote]

I disagree with people all the time who I know are very smart. The idea that morality is based on spirituality is just silly. As is calling atheism a religion. It all really just smacks of a desperate need to convince everyone they really are spiritual.[/quote]

On what, pray tell, is atheist morality derived?

And morality isn’t based on spirituality, it is spirituality. Good and evil are spiritual. I’m not trying to convenes anyone, I’m stating fact.

[quote]nrt wrote:
Very disappointed in the North American press. LOTS of European papers printed the cartoons - even the far left Guardian has them online - but in Canada, it seems only the National Post actually cares about freedom of speech, while Fox News seems to have deactivated the page they had with the cartoons. Quite apart from solidarity, which everyone ought to be showing, these cartoons are very much a part of the news right now.

The USA Today has them online, so I’m fine with the fact that the published a piece effectively defending the attackers, in the name of freedom of speech. At least plenty of news websites carried them. Go give some hits to the Huffington Post, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Business Insider … and TNation.[/quote]

Fox had a number of them online.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Reverse the socioeconomic conditions of the West and the Islamic world and someone very may well have been.
[/quote]

So no… No one was shot. Not here, not in areas were Christians are a minority, not anywhere…

Okay… Good to know.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You’ll never get it while inside it.

[/quote]

Inside WHAT???

Never mind.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Indeed they would, which is why the nonsense complaints about Carney’s 2 and 1/2 year old comment are just that.

However, as an aside, you could take our hypothetical drawing, bring it into a city center in any majority-Christian country on the planet, stand holding it up and smiling…and be entirely confident that you are in no real danger.[/quote]

This is essentially what’s getting lost in a lot of the debate, and for many it boils down to some ignorance about what is and is not sacred with regards to various religious beliefs, and how the believers are compelled to respond to threats against their religion. I’m not disagreeing with any of the above, just adding a few additional thoughts…

With Christianity, objects such as the Bible as a written work, or depictions of Christ, the saints, etc., are not, in and of themselves, sacred, at least not to the degree that Islam considers depictions of Muhammad or objects such a the Quran itself to be sacred.

That’s not to say that Christians wouldn’t be offended by such actions as noted previously in this thread, but there is a reason that cartoons depicting Muhammad or burning of books such as the Quran are sparking or have previously ignited these acts of local terrorism. Sure, it’s not all or arguably the majority of Muslims, but there are tenets of that faith that are specifically lending itself of exacerbate these regional incidents, and those are, as with any situation, unique to fundamentalist interpretations of that one faith.
[/quote]

Some good points, though I don’t think they change anything, other than to further develop the point that there are more dangerously radical Muslims than dangerously radical Christians, and the former have much bigger and sharper sticks up their asses, and they are offended much more easily, and part of that offense has to do with a set of silly structures they inherited from the mainstreams of their religion – viz., the defamation of a pile of paper covered in printed text, or the drawing of a doodle, as something over which to spill blood.

Or, to think about this a different way: Say I take the transubstantiated body of Christ – i.e., sacramental bread over which the Words of Institution have been uttered by a priest – to St. Peter’s Square, and I smear it with pigeon shit. Surely the body of his god is as sacred to the Christian as is Mohamed’s image to the Muslim. And yet I still prefer my odds at the Vatican to my odds anywhere in the Muslim world.

There is no context in which killing people over pictures is anything but barbaric, and fucking insane. Dont bring up examples from the past and try to justify the actions of the uncivilized today, it’s ridiculous.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]nrt wrote:
Very disappointed in the North American press. LOTS of European papers printed the cartoons - even the far left Guardian has them online - but in Canada, it seems only the National Post actually cares about freedom of speech, while Fox News seems to have deactivated the page they had with the cartoons. Quite apart from solidarity, which everyone ought to be showing, these cartoons are very much a part of the news right now.

The USA Today has them online, so I’m fine with the fact that the published a piece effectively defending the attackers, in the name of freedom of speech. At least plenty of news websites carried them. Go give some hits to the Huffington Post, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Business Insider … and TNation.[/quote]

Fox had a number of them online.[/quote]

CNN has been rotating the safe for TV caricatures that poke fun at Islam throughout the day.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]

The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.

The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.

Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.

Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]

that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]

Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.

I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]

Because they are hypocrites. as stated in the post by magick if the current situation was that Muslims were the majority and had dominance Christians would be fighting the same way. it is the Christians that turn this into a religious issue. it’s a human issue not a religious one. These peaceful Christians follow a book filled with murder. It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

There have been and still are some minority powerless Christians in the middle east that turn this notion on it’s head.[/quote]

Yeah and you can find that situation with any religion. Like I said this is not a religious issue it’s a human issue. and Islam is currently being used as a mask to hide their true motive which is simply power.

[quote]Aggv wrote:
There is no context in which killing people over pictures is anything but barbaric, and fucking insane. Dont bring up examples from the past and try to justify the actions of the uncivilized today, it’s ridiculous. [/quote]

Thank you.

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? [/quote]

Dominance? No, not at all. Presence? Sure. Large one in the western world? Yup. Dominance? Nope. Not unless Christianity is suddenly green and comes bundled with pictures of Ben Franklin on them.

AC already tried going down this road. You’ll be just as wrong as he is.

Unless you’re going to start blaming sagging pants and braded hair on why some gangbangers shot a 17 year old last week down the street from my house.

[quote]No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

This view is appreciated.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Your proposed strategy of threatened genocide would turn the clash of civilizations into an outright war. It isn’t geopolitical hardball, it isn’t Realpolitik; it’s simply untenable naivete . Such an approach would literally precipitate a forth world war in which exponentially more blood and treasure would be spent than in current anti and counter terrorism efforts. If you want wish for the deaths of literally millions of innocents and for terrorism to consume the West, your strategy is great.[/quote]

I’m open to better ideas.[/quote]

Human intelligence is the crux of successful anti and counterterrorism.

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

What about all that Christian terrorism in Muslim dominated areas of the world? That should surely prove your point huh?

Agreed re: the fucking cowardice/PC-ness of media outlets.

And AP’s response is to go back and blur Piss Christ rather than be forced to show the Charlie Hebdo drawings. At least it is now consistently stupid, craven, and fatuous…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not unless Christianity is suddenly green and comes bundled with pictures of Ben Franklin on them.
[/quote]

When it’s a question of money, everybody is of the same religion.

  • Voltaire

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]

The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.

The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.

Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.

Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]

that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]

Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.

I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]

Because they are hypocrites. as stated in the post by magick if the current situation was that Muslims were the majority and had dominance Christians would be fighting the same way. it is the Christians that turn this into a religious issue. it’s a human issue not a religious one. These peaceful Christians follow a book filled with murder. It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

You are 100% incorrect. In Iraq, is it the Christian minority that is fighting and blowing shit up. The reality is that they are being murdered or forced to leave while having their belongings confiscated. But you keep talking out your ass.

As of 21 June 2007, the UNHCR estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighbouring countries with a large majority of them Christians, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.[11][12] A 25 May 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq were granted refugee status in the United States.[13]

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, violence against Christians rose, with reports of abduction, torture, bombings, and killings.[14] Some Christians were pressured to convert to Islam under threat of death or expulsion, and women were ordered to wear Islamic dress.[14]

In August 2004, International Christian Concern protested an attack by Islamists on Iraqi Christian churches that killed 11 people.[15] In 2006, an Orthodox Christian priest, Boulos Iskander, was beheaded and mutilated despite payment of a ransom, and in 2008, the Assyrian clergyman Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of the Chaldean Catholic church in Mosul died after being abducted.[14] In January 2008, bombs exploded outside nine churches.[14]

In 2007, Chaldean Catholic priest Fr. Ragheed Aziz Ganni and subdeacons Basman Yousef Daud, Wahid Hanna Isho, and Gassan Isam Bidawed were killed in the ancient city of Mosul.[16] Ganni was driving with his three deacons when they were stopped and demanded to convert to Islam, when they refused they were shot.[16] Ganni was the pastor of the Chaldean Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul and a graduate from the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum in Rome in 2003 with a licentiate in ecumenical theology. Six months later, the body of Paulos Faraj Rahho, archbishop of Mosul, was found buried near Mosul. He was kidnapped on 29 February 2008 when his bodyguards and driver were killed.[17]

In 2010, reports emerged in Mosul of people being stopped in the streets, asked for their identity cards, and shot if they had a first or last name indicating Assyrian or Christian origin.[7] On 31 October 2010, 58 people, including 41 hostages and priests, were killed after an attack on an Assyrian Catholic church in Baghdad.[18] See October 2010 Baghdad church attack. A group affiliated to Al-Qaeda, Islamic State of Iraq, stated that Iraq’s indigenous Christians were a “legitimate target.”[19] In November, a series of bombings and mortar attacks targeted Assyrian Christian-majority areas of Baghdad.[19]

Half the Christian population has allegedly fled en masse immolation in 243 cathedrals and additional churches and mass beheadings including of pregnant women and children, with an estimated 330,000 to Syria and smaller numbers to Jordan.[14] Some fled to Iraqi Kurdistan in northern Iraq and to neighboring countries, such as Iran. Christians who are too poor or unwilling to leave their ancient homeland have fled mainly to Arbil, particularly its Christian suburb of Ainkawa.[7] 10,000 mainly Assyrian Iraqi Christians live in the UK led by Archbishop Athanasios Dawood, who has called on the government to accept more refugees.[20]

Apart from emigration, the Iraqi Christians are also declining due to lower rates of birth and higher death rates than their Muslim compatriots. Also since the invasion of Iraq, Assyrians and Armenians have been targeted by Islamist extremist organisations and Arab nationalists.[21]

During the 2014 Northern Iraq offensive, the Islamic State of Iraq issued a decree in July that all Christians in the area of its control must pay a special tax of approximately $470 per family, convert to Islam, or die.[22] Many of them took refuge in nearby Kurdish-controlled regions of Iraq.[23] Christian homes have been painted with the Arabic letter Ã?? (nÃ?«n) for Nassarah (an Arabic word Christian) and a declaration that they are the property of the Islamic State. On 18 July, the Jihadists seemed to have changed their minds and announced that all Christians would need to leave or be killed. Most of those who left had their valuable possessions stolen.[24] According to Patriarch Louis Sako, there are no Christians remaining in Mosul for the first time in the nation’s history.[23]

[/quote]

You’re right Christians have never done wrong.

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]

The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.

The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.

Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.

Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]

that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]

Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.

I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]

Because they are hypocrites. as stated in the post by magick if the current situation was that Muslims were the majority and had dominance Christians would be fighting the same way. it is the Christians that turn this into a religious issue. it’s a human issue not a religious one. These peaceful Christians follow a book filled with murder. It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

There have been and still are some minority powerless Christians in the middle east that turn this notion on it’s head.[/quote]

Yeah and you can find that situation with any religion. Like I said this is not a religious issue it’s a human issue. and Islam is currently being used as a mask to hide their true motive which is simply power.
[/quote]

But these many of these attacks do nothing to earn anyone power. In fact they actually usually serve the opposite purpose. You cannot compare these to acts of war to go about earning power. You can compare them to wingnut Timothy McVeigh who performed his action out of pure retaliation with disorder being his only purpose. The only difference is, about half or more of the people practicing the Islamic faith agree with what these wingnuts are doing making it not longer a fringe element that has nothing to do with Islam.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? [/quote]

Dominance? No, not at all. Presence? Sure. Large one in the western world? Yup. Dominance? Nope. Not unless Christianity is suddenly green and comes bundled with pictures of Ben Franklin on them.

AC already tried going down this road. You’ll be just as wrong as he is.

Unless you’re going to start blaming sagging pants and braded hair on why some gangbangers shot a 17 year old last week down the street from my house.

[quote]No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

This view is appreciated.
[/quote]

Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]

In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
You’re right Christians have never done wrong.
[/quote]

Did I say that, you stupid little shit? All that information directly refuting your idiotically biased point and that was the best you had. If you could read you would recognize that I acknowledged that Christians have done wrong and men seeking power have used the name of God to gather masses to advance their own agenda.

With that said, if you asked many Christians TODAY what they thought about violence as a means of dealing with issues that go against their faith, what do you suppose the percentage would be of them that said it was ok? 1% fringe maybe? Because 30% of Muslims say that and 3 out of 10 is not a fringe.