JoseB, I am ashamed of you.
I’m against torture, but damnit, if we were going to do it to these particular guys it should be Últimos de Filipinas-style 
Are you going to tell me you haven’t watched that movie?
(Old Spanish movie; a scene which was very controversial was a torture scene involving pig skins and Muslim prisoners)
Which is it? Are Muslims predominantly onboard with violence and terrorism, or is it a religion of peace whose image is ruined by a few bad apples?
I would suggest that if the entire Muslim world turned against the west, and radicalized and turned violent over some satire, then it is obviously mischaracterized by liberal apologists as being a religion of peace.
To cave in and stop risking offending Muslims is anathemic to all of Western values. But for only a few isolated outlets to publish such materials, while very brave, also gives terrorists specific targets. If the entirety of western media were to join in solidarity on this issue, they couldn’t all be attacked.
People in the US like to talk a big game and talk about how America will never bow down to terrorists and all that nonsense, but they scurry and shit their Depends when it comes to showing any sort of real backbone.
Fuck that. Fuck caving in to terrorists. Fuck being apologists for a bunch of barbarians. Fuck dancing around worrying if a harmless piece of satire will offend someone enough that they’re going to turn to terror and murder. And if the average Muslim is radicalized by our refusal to compromise our values, then the whole idea that they’re all good people except for a few bad apples is bullshit, and their entire culture is toxic and backwards. Fuck them too.
This old article from Time has been getting a lot of criticism today.
Simple. Cave in, never ever do or say anything that could possibly ever offend even the most insane among them…
And then get shot or bombed anyway.
:dubious:
Let’s all have a good round of blaming the victims now, since that is the next step in that sort of reasoning.
Indeed. And that would not happen. I expect some people would be nudged toward radicalism and violence, but they must have had some susceptibility.
Is there not a difference between risking offending Muslims, in the course of one’s political and cultural discourse; and, going out of the way to offend, to make a point?
Wait, which issue? Offending Muslims, or upholding freedom of speech and press?
Do we have to actually republish offensive (to whoever) materials, to uphold the right of publishing them? Think about the substitutions that could be made in the scenario (in the nature of the offensive material and the offended party) before you answer.
Germany has been having anti-islamization rallies, with lots of counter-protesters. I wonder if the ratios will change?
Because of this very surprising, unexpected news that a small number of radicalized Muslims express themselves in violence, you mean?
That’s… Well, yeah, you’re right. It’s just that a telephone dynamo (or a car battery) is easier to obtain than a fresh pig’s skin in today’s urban environments…
Speak for yourself.
Laura Ingraham blames Charlie Hebdo attack on France’s immigration policies.
Fox News expert on Paris attack: “Political correctness is killing us”.
I think we have already done all that we can do to address the issue. Several Twitter hash tags have been created and people are posting one and sometimes even two short sentences to express their outrage. #JeSuisCharlie
That’s about all we can do until another picture of Kim Kardashian’s butt is posted, then it will be time to move on.
I only read the first link. I think Ingraham has a reasonable enough point even if you disagree with her. Basically she’s saying that France is struggling with some aspects of multiculturalism particularly Islam. It’s a struggle found not only in France but throughout much of the Western world.
Walking up to the craziest motherfucker in the bar and insulting his girlfriend is brave, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
I wouldn’t put Ingraham’s position so (ironically) PC. She doesn’t like immigrants. The struggle is that too many are there and they aren’t being forced to assimilate, according to her views. Those are the exact opposite things that need to happen, the French should embrace their Muslim population and help them to carve out their own unique niche in French society
People have to want to assimilate. Also, the host country should allow immigration in a way that encourages it. That means keeping it to a trickle. Particularly this groups that are not eager to assimilate.
And the professional trolls are appearing. Didn’t “doctor” Laura use up her fifteen minutes of fame years ago?
Not to hijack this thing even further than it’s been trending, but could we maybe once and for all stop with the idiotic “pork is Islamic Kryptonite” meme? Thanks in advance.
Interesting illustrations of what I view as right-wingers’ blind spot when it comes to terrorism, particularly of the Islamic variety.
Mass shootings in the US are a particularly appalling form of crime that is rare but unfortunately does occur on a regular basis. Liberals often react to mass shootings in a rather hysterical fashion, recommending broad, dramatic changes to the law in hopes of making sure it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. Conservatives respond by pointing out that while various efforts should be made to reduce the frequency or severity of mass shootings, rash measures like confiscating every gun in America reflect a massive overreaction to a problem that kills relatively few people, and would lead to all kinds of harm to law-abiding citizens and perhaps bad unintended consequences. Frankly, I tend to think conservatives are generally the cooler heads when mass shootings occur, notwithstanding the NRA’s malign influence in blocking reasonable gun control.
Yet, now that there has been another horrific Islamic terrorist attack, the Fox news commentator in the second link seems to be advocating some sort of war on Islam (if that’s what he means by “hold accountable”):
(not actually a complete sentence, but I think I follow his drift)
Why is that the proper response? Why is antagonizing a billion people the right way to address terror attacks that seem to bubble up in the Western world at a rate of maybe a handful per year, with death tolls that barely register statistically? This issue is nowhere near the top 10 list of concerns plaguing mankind at the moment, but anyone breathlessly agonizing over the scourge of COPD would lose their Fox News talking head job.
How does it help matters to reinforce the “us against them” mentality of these people? Wouldn’t efforts to better assimilate Muslim immigrants, especially young men, into Western society do more to reduce the pull of jihadist ideology? The notion that we should wall ourselves off from Islam and from Muslims is an absurd overreaction. This is the world we live in. A world where homicidal fuckheads shoot people for publishing cartoons. With the right kind of effort, we may be able to reduce the frequency of these events, but over-the-top claims suggesting a clash of civilizations do not promote that goal.
Laura Ingraham isn’t “Dr. Laura”, if that is what you were implying.
Jews often aren’t enthusiastic about assimilating, either. Historically in Poland it meant hanging around with a bunch of guys who regularly became drunk at night and beat their wives. Jews left Poland and Russia because folks were killing them. I do not know why Muslims want to immigrate to a country that is not Islamic.