Well, maybe we should talk about gun control and break out the second amendment stuff too then. After, American centric board and all.
Yes I am from Scandinavia and so says my profile. Is it not visible to other than me?
We’d have to click on your name and then select “user profile”. So yeah, visible, but not without a little effort. If you’re a paid member, it shows right under join date in your post.
Perhaps I used a unsuitable word. A vicious campaign against Islam is perhaps more suitable description.
It’s debatable whether it’s “vicious” or not, but let’s assume it is-- a vicious verbal campaign, to be clear. Can you explain how that justifies a violent response?
Did he ever say it justified a violent response? Because I’m not seeing that.
Many could see it that way, especially after the rhetoric by Bush that included words like crusade and evil.
However, US can’t escape the mess they created in Iraq. A mass that led to many things, among those the radicalization of many muslims around the world. US also have some responsibility for the phony president (Malaki) that ruled Iraq after Saddam and the sectarian politic he led, especially after US troops left in 2011. Malaki marginalized the sunnis and made Isil a mass movement.
ISIL really blossomed in Syria which is harder to directly lay blame on America. The U.S. had them mostly neutered in Iraq before the pullout.
You seem to be more interested in ranting about the US invasion of Iraq than in defending your own thesis. Should we ask a mod to move this to the Pit*, or are you going to address the gaping holes that posters have been pointing out concerning your OP?
*FYI, the BBQ Pit (the Pit) is the forum for rants. GD, this forum, is for debates.
The OP is conveniently omitting the facts about how Islamic extremists vow to kill even their own if they: Don’t believe as told.
Attempt to educate girls.
Commit adultery.
Are homosexual.
Actually the list is seemingly endless. They believe there’s hundreds (thousands?) of reasons for capitol punishment among these radicals. They are at war with nearly everyone…not just CH.
As muddles as the OP is, your response is not really on point. Yes, all those things are true, but so what?
I’m not clear why you’re thinking about the invasion of Iraq in connection with the Charlie Hebdo attack, given that France did not participate in the invasion of Iraq.
Except that’s not what that quote is about. Holmes isn’t talking about the Constitution, he’s talking about the principle of freedom of thought, which is a principle pretty much every Western democracy values. And Holmes is someone who is justly famous for his ideas about the role of freedom of thought in liberal democracies. While he was usually discussing the topic in the context of the US constitution, the principles underlying his ideas about the importance of freedom of thought (and by extension, speech) are universal - and the original quote is dead-on topic for this thread.
The fact that the barbarians had limited resources and thus could not wage war as broadly as they desired is not relevant.
Are you conflating Islam and evil? Are you unaware of the stuff that Saddam did that is evil in pretty much anyone’s book? Bush was tone deaf, sure, but much as I despise the guy he is innocent of hatred of Islam.
One of the many reasons the invasion was stupid was that Saddam was stomping on Islamists without our assistance. Be that as it may, Iraq has nothing to do with the issue. 9/11 predated the invasion, for example.
The OP implies the killing at CH was rational. I’m pointing out that not only was it irrational,
so many on the “must die” list of extremists are there for barbaric, irrational reasons.
You fail to see, or won’t see this. The invasion led to the radicalization of many Muslims all over the world. After radicalized they have off course a lot of anger against USA, but also against elements they now see as an enemy of Islam. One of them would be press that’s very hostile towards Islam, even if it lays in a country that didn’t participated in the attack of Iraq.
USA, UK, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Poland was part of the coalition that invaded Iraq.
Whether this was true or not, it doesn’t change the fact that shooting people because of what they drew or wrote is an attack on free speech.
Um… No? Charlie Hebdo did not “make it their goal to humiliate Muslims”. Their goal was to humiliate everyone. Every sacred cow, every “untouchable” institution, everything. They weren’t anti-muslim, they were anti-institution. However, when they published issues criticizing the pope, I think the most extreme reactions from Christians came in the form of “I don’t like that and I will say so publicly”. When they printed Mohammed, they got killed.
It’s easy enough to say “oh, this is just part of the war” (and wrong, as others have pointed out), but that’s not what’s going on here. These people aren’t lashing out because of the war. They’re lashing out because they don’t want it to be legal to create images of the prophet. That’s their higher goal in killing these people - “stop drawing our prophet”. The entire purpose of this is to curtail free speech, to tell people “you can’t say that, you can’t draw that”.