I say lose the perps defining qualifier

[Guest Peeves]

I say lose the perpetrators defining qualifier, whether it be religious/political/or geographic.

It's usually redundant,superfluous and unnecessary. Whether writing, speaking, call in show or forum,simply refer to the deed.

I'm tired of those that bitch" you're making it sound like every __________________ is a _______________-.

"You're an """""""aphobe!"

"You know 'they' were incited by that guy that____________" first"

Yada yada, blah, blah, ad nauseam.

We all know not everyone of the _____________ is guilty. We all know by now that it's not _________________, or_____________,

it's simply one segment of the earth's population ....usually. We need not add _____________,everyone knows who __________________ are.

Still I see the POTUS and the USA are apologizing for a film, and did earlier also for a minister's behavior.

Many have suggested in the past that other ____________ should not have to apologize for a few _____________. Yet, Somehow the USA leaders are doing that...? Why? No laws broken. Well, except by those ______________ in ____________ and ____________ and___________ and the embasy attacks by the ____________'

Now far be it for me to judge, not being a political/religious pundit as some here seem to deem themselves, but, as a rank amateur I can usually conclude who is doing what to who and if it's a crime, whose guilty, and if the riots, murders and burning is or is not justified.

If no law is broken and yet reactionary, demonstrations and violent riots takes place in ________________geographical locations populated by ____________, I can simply conclude that _____________ were responsible for the the madness, murder and mayhem.

I condemn those that attempt to qualify, quantify,or minimize the resulting deaths etc. as being enablers and apologists for criminal___________ and _____________.

I credit most other amateurs with rational minds to look at a riot and the perps. realistically and it would seem that in a major proportion of such events, rabid followers of __________________ are to be condemned. Those that condemn the lawful publication, film, or depiction of the ___________ as inciting

violence are simply giving support to deranged berserk,fanatical,foaming at the mouth, _____________'s.

Hint, they ain't Quakers, or even Scientologists, wouldn't want you to think that.

So please, from now on simply write that "those murdering, deranged berserk,fanatical,foaming at the mouth, fanatics that (insert crime), are committing (or behaving) in unacceptable acts and there are NO -not any- justification that can discount, dismiss, apologise for or minimize the deeds.

NONE!

[Black Dog]

I say lose the perpetrators defining qualifier, whether it be religious/political/or geographic.

It's usually redundant,superfluous and unnecessary. Whether writing, speaking, call in show or forum,simply refer to the deed.

I'm tired of those that bitch" you're making it sound like every __________________ is a _______________-.

"You're an """""""aphobe!"

"You know 'they' were incited by that guy that____________" first"

Yada yada, blah, blah, ad nauseam.

We all know not everyone of the _____________ is guilty. We all know by now that it's not _________________, or_____________,

it's simply one segment of the earth's population ....usually. We need not add _____________,everyone knows who __________________ are.

Still I see the POTUS and the USA are apologizing for a film, and did earlier also for a minister's behavior.

Many have suggested in the past that other ____________ should not have to apologize for a few _____________. Yet, Somehow the USA leaders are doing that...? Why? No laws broken. Well, except by those ______________ in ____________ and ____________ and___________ and the embasy attacks by the ____________'

Now far be it for me to judge, not being a political/religious pundit as some here seem to deem themselves, but, as a rank amateur I can usually conclude who is doing what to who and if it's a crime, whose guilty, and if the riots, murders and burning is or is not justified.

If no law is broken and yet reactionary, demonstrations and violent riots takes place in ________________geographical locations populated by ____________, I can simply conclude that _____________ were responsible for the the madness, murder and mayhem.

I condemn those that attempt to qualify, quantify,or minimize the resulting deaths etc. as being enablers and apologists for criminal___________ and _____________.

I credit most other amateurs with rational minds to look at a riot and the perps. realistically and it would seem that in a major proportion of such events, rabid followers of __________________ are to be condemned. Those that condemn the lawful publication, film, or depiction of the ___________ as inciting

violence are simply giving support to deranged berserk,fanatical,foaming at the mouth, _____________'s.

Hint, they ain't Quakers, or even Scientologists, wouldn't want you to think that.

So please, from now on simply write that "those murdering, deranged berserk,fanatical,foaming at the mouth, fanatics that (insert crime), are committing (or behaving) in unacceptable acts and there are NO -not any- justification that can discount, dismiss, apologise for or minimize the deeds.

NONE!

Cool story bro.

[Michael Hardner]

Took a few reads to determine what was being talked about

Still I see the POTUS and the USA are apologizing for a film, and did earlier also for a minister's behavior.

That's a valid point of discussion. Clearly they were trying to mitigate damages but in doing so, they condemned free speech. A very interesting point of discussion.

I can simply conclude that _____________ were responsible for the the madness, murder and mayhem.

...

I credit most other amateurs with rational minds to look at a riot and the perps. realistically and it would seem that in a major proportion of such events, rabid followers of __________________ are to be condemned.

But this isn't a CONDEMNATION board - it's a discussion board. We generally don't condemn criminals on here for crimes, and less frequently whole cultures for crimes.

I thought of another example - the problem of Civil rights and the culture of the Southern US states in the modern period of the 20th century. People DID condemn the culture, rightly or wrongly but there was a state associated with that culture, so those assertions led to discussions, and calls for policy change.

So please, from now on simply write that "those murdering, deranged berserk,fanatical,foaming at the mouth, fanatics that (insert crime), are committing (or behaving) in unacceptable acts and there are NO -not any- justification that can discount, dismiss, apologise for or minimize the deeds.

NONE!

Sorry, but it's still no excuse for you throwing whole peoples under the bus. I can tell you're mad but probably not as mad as people whose existence is diminished to the point where others feel they can bomb whole cities to get rid of the criminal element.

[dre]

That's a valid point of discussion. Clearly they were trying to mitigate damages but in doing so, they condemned free speech. A very interesting point of discussion.

I totally disagree. Condemning something that was expressed is not condemning the right to expression. The people condemning this idiots expression as a deplorable attempt to get people hurt are simply excersizing their free speech as well.

Freedom of speech doesnt mean your expression is protected from condemnation or critisism.

[Michael Hardner]

I totally disagree. Condemning something that was expressed is not condemning the right to expression.

The slippery slope is when does the state get involved in criticizing art and when does it not ? I would rather they stay out of it.

[dre]

The slippery slope is when does the state get involved in criticizing art and when does it not ? I would rather they stay out of it.

So you wish to restrict the first amendment rights of politicians?

[Michael Hardner]

So you wish to restrict the first amendment rights of politicians?

One can disagree with their communications without stating that they don't have the right to communicate in that way.

[dre]

One can disagree with their communications without stating that they don't have the right to communicate in that way.

Yup fair enough. I personally dont have the problem with the government trying to distance itselfs from statements made by a private citizen especially when the perception is out there that the government agrees with them, and government buildings around the world are on fire as a result.

I think statements condemning the content of this guys expression and prudent, and reasonable, and in no way threaten free speech.

[Michael Hardner]

I think statements condemning the content of this guys expression and prudent, and reasonable, and in no way threaten free speech.

I don't think they threaten free speech either. But the fact of the matter is that a government, in doing this, will end up in a situation where they're defacto defending one religion and not another. It gives an appearance of favouritism. I don't think they have bad motives for making those statements, but I wish they didn't make them. It didn't seem to help much in the end.

[dre]

I don't think they threaten free speech either. But the fact of the matter is that a government, in doing this, will end up in a situation where they're defacto defending one religion and not another. It gives an appearance of favouritism. I don't think they have bad motives for making those statements, but I wish they didn't make them. It didn't seem to help much in the end.

I understand and respect your opinion.

But look at it this way... We are constantly going on about the muslim world does not "speak loudly enough", in condemning their extremists. Governments and the public at large both get this critisism.

So perhaps we need a truth and reconciliation process! "We have some scumbags, you have some scumbags!", and we find them all repugnant

[Mr.Canada]

There is no time for playing with words, these are dangerous times we live in. Islamic fundamentalists are flying planes int buildings, bombing innocent people and generally are at war with the west which includes Canada. We need to have frank discussions without worrying about hurting someones feelings. Things are getting worse and worse. 30 years ago it was almost unheard of nowadays it's everyday.

Islamic Jihadists are getting stronger and stronger, we simply cannot ignore it any longer. The longer we bury our heads in the sand the worse it's going to be. The time for CSIS to root out these elements in our society is now. The time to hunt them down and deport them is now. Extremism of any kind isn't welcome in Canada.

These Jihadists are following the Medina(violent) verses of the Koran and are ignoring the Mecca(peaceful) verses. This is very real and happening today. pretending it doesn't exist won't save you from the violence.

[Jiblethead]

There is no time for playing with words, these are dangerous times we live in. Islamic fundamentalists are flying planes int buildings, bombing innocent people and generally are at war with the west which includes Canada. We need to have frank discussions without worrying about hurting someones feelings. Things are getting worse and worse. 30 years ago it was almost unheard of nowadays it's everyday.

Islamic Jihadists are getting stronger and stronger, we simply cannot ignore it any longer. The longer we bury our heads in the sand the worse it's going to be. The time for CSIS to root out these elements in our society is now. The time to hunt them down and deport them is now. Extremism of any kind isn't welcome in Canada.

These Jihadists are following the Medina(violent) verses of the Koran and are ignoring the Mecca(peaceful) verses. This is very real and happening today. pretending it doesn't exist won't save you from the violence.

agreed. You can't just turn your back on a worsening problem. And now we are seeing massive riots from Islam because of 1 small insignificant indie film. Its a parabola and we are heading towards the top

[Michael Hardner]

I understand and respect your opinion.

But look at it this way... We are constantly going on about the muslim world does not "speak loudly enough", in condemning their extremists. Governments and the public at large both get this critisism.

Our governments haven't said that, at least not recently.

I just think they should stay out of it on philosophical grounds.

[Michael Hardner]

There is no time for playing with words,

There's no better example of playing with words than your original post above.

We need to have frank discussions without worrying about hurting someones feelings.

The only people I see complaining about their feelings getting hurt are the ones who don't like being called racist.

I would frame it this way: we need to have frank discussions based on IDEAS not on directionless ANGER.

Being angry is understandable, but you need to channel it into practical ideas. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

Things are getting worse and worse. 30 years ago it was almost unheard of nowadays it's everyday.

We're just looking at things more closely. Did protests in Arabian countries even make the news 30 years ago ?

Islamic Jihadists are getting stronger and stronger, we simply cannot ignore it any longer.

According to the US government, they've been decimated and are on the run ?

The longer we bury our heads in the sand the worse it's going to be. The time for CSIS to root out these elements in our society is now. The time to hunt them down and deport them is now.

I'm sure they're working on it.

[Guest Peeves]

There's no better example of playing with words than your original post above.

The only people I see complaining about their feelings getting hurt are the ones who don't like being called racist.

I would frame it this way: we need to have frank discussions based on IDEAS not on directionless ANGER.

Being angry is understandable, but you need to channel it into practical ideas. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

We're just looking at things more closely. Did protests in Arabian countries even make the news 30 years ago ?

According to the US government, they've been decimated and are on the run ?

I'm sure they're working on it.

When the country's leader's apologize for and condemn freedom of the press or speech, it's wrong.

By now most countries in the West..free world,have concluded that any sign of concession or appeasement or apology is considered a weakness by those that have declared war or have designs on a world dominion.

Potus positions since taking office has encouraged rather than detoured our enemies designs.

And yet, he/they continue on that apologist path.

In 2009 Obama granted his first t.v. interview to al-Arabiya network. It's been downhill since then, but he set the course.

He Said, " My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that Americans are not your enemy."

As anti-American riots burn and kill and attacks are incited on American embassies, American ambassador's death is orchestrated, one might ask "hey Obama, 'hows that plan going?"

Straining credulity are the naive or apologist fools that can't see that on SEPT 11TH, with an Iranian " America the great Satan," communicator at the UN.the 'film' was simply used as pretext

American 'leaders' are simply attempting to appease and deny the obviously planned and timed Sept. 11th attacks by using the same ploy as our enemy. Dumb! Simply DUMB!

As those in the past have learned turning a blind eye4 or apologizing, appeasing radical factions fermented by probably Iran, ANY concession is viewd as a weakness.

Congrats. Obama et al to most rational people that can see the realities,you are naught but fools...yet again.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

by Eli Lake Sep 26, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

Sources say intelligence agencies knew within a day that al Qaeda affiliates were behind the attacks in Benghazi, Libya—they even knew where one of the attackers lived. Eli Lake reports.

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

'Tariq Ramadan discusses the uprisings in the Middle East.'

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. "We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

[Michael Hardner]

When the country's leader's apologize for and condemn freedom of the press or speech, it's wrong.

I'm actually with you on that one.

He Said, " My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that Americans are not your enemy."

What is wrong with that ? Iraq, Afghanistan were attacked to put US-friendly leadership in place weren't they ? Why would he change the direction that GW Bush himself started when he said "Islam means peace" ?

As anti-American riots burn and kill and attacks are incited on American embassies, American ambassador's death is orchestrated, one might ask "hey Obama, 'hows that plan going?"

How much better would it be going today if he told them "we will crush your religion".

Look, GW Bush went in with the classic American "bomb 'em then pay 'em" model, to set up western style democracy. Agree or not, he tried to give them what the West has. This is a continuation of his plan.

[Guest Peeves]

I understand and respect your opinion.

But look at it this way... We are constantly going on about the muslim world does not "speak loudly enough", in condemning their extremists. Governments and the public at large both get this critisism.

So perhaps we need a truth and reconciliation process! "We have some scumbags, you have some scumbags!", and we find them all repugnant

Seriously, those you define as our 'scumbags' are to be considered equal to al Qaeda, rioter murdering ambassador, Iranian's with genocide in mind, Assads and Ghadaffis and Saddams, and repugnantly alike.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm actually with you on that one.

What is wrong with that ? Iraq, Afghanistan were attacked to put US-friendly leadership in place weren't they ? Why would he change the direction that GW Bush himself started when he said "Islam means peace" ? Very much an over simplification. While I will not condone Iraq, It was not the USA that invaded Afghanistan, and it was to eradicate terrorist training camps. Now 11 years later, the goal is lost in history. But I seriously doubt nor can it be shown, that the objective was to put US friendly leadership into power. Shit with billions in bribery,Pakistan is still basically an enemy of the USA AND the West harboring al Qaeda and the likes of bin Ladin.

How much better would it be going today if he told them "we will crush your religion".

Well first off it isn't a 'religion', more a broad doctrine perhaps.*

Secondly, there is no need to take such a position, we need simply say we respect your beliefs up to the point they become a threat, and then you will face our determination to protect and respond to our maximum. Peace be with you. Salām.

Look, GW Bush went in with the classic American "bomb 'em then pay 'em" model, to set up western style democracy. Agree or not, he tried to give them what the West has. This is a continuation of his plan.

Just what is a continuation of "his plan." Surely not Obama's position vis-à-vis. Bushs? Obama has attempted to use his name, his Muslim relatives, his Indonesian half sister as if that would indicate American policy. Every extended hand in the circumstance of al Quaeda or Iran, or radical Islamists is viewed as a weakness. It's well past time to arrive at that conclusion, one accepted long ago by foes of Isla-mists!

Appeasement, apology, restricting free press/speech? That's one denial.......Or foolishly, nay STUPIDLY,blaming a silly film or silly preacher for murder, riot and mayhem on the anniversary of 9-11 that's as bad.

"One thing we can definitely say about Islam is that is it not solely confined to a belief system. If it is a religion it is not a religion only. Islam is a total system of life and contains within itself a particular social system, judicial system, and political system which includes geo-political aspirations - the conquest and administration of territory."

* http://newenglishreview.org/Rebecca_Bynum/Why_Islam_is_Not_a_Religion/

[Michael Hardner]

"One thing we can definitely say about Islam is that is it not solely confined to a belief system. If it is a religion it is not a religion only. Islam is a total system of life and contains within itself a particular social system, judicial system, and political system which includes geo-political aspirations - the conquest and administration of territory."

* http://newenglishreview.org/Rebecca_Bynum/Why_Islam_is_Not_a_Religion/

I got 2 points from this:

1) Islam is more than a religion. That link you dropped is pretty much a hit-piece and opinion only.

2) You ignored the entire Bush administration effort to make in-roads with these countries. He said "Islam is peace" and he promised democracy. Do you have nothing to say about that?

[dre]

When the country's leader's apologize for and condemn freedom of the press or speech, it's wrong.

Nobody did that. Condemning the CONTENT of something that expressed is entirely different that condemning the right of someone to say it. And condemning something that someone said is an excersize of free speech in itself.

[Guest Peeves]

Nobody did that. Condemning the CONTENT of something that expressed is entirely different that condemning the right of someone to say it. And condemning something that someone said is an excersize of free speech in itself.

True..Good point.

"In his speech Tuesday to the General Assembly, President Barack Obama described the anti-Islam film as “crude and disgusting,” but mounted a defence of freedom of expression.

He warned that “in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities.”

“The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect,” Obama said."

Certainly anyone is justified in criticizing an expressed opinion. Still there are those that would restrict free speech,and some groups are demanding just that.

I like Bill Clinton's response.. "Touching on the controversial amateur film that sparked much of the current violence across the Middle East, Clinton defended the U.S. government's handling of the event.

"We weren't disrespecting Islam by not squelching a film trailer that nobody in authority knew anything about; that 99 percent of us think was crude, and disrespectful, and awful," he said. "We have learned the hard way, over more than 200 years, that in order to preserve freedom, and liberty, including the freedom of religion, you have to allow people to say and do things that you find abhorrent. And you can't react every time you're insulted."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57519582/bill-clinton-on-anti-islam-film-you-cant-react-every-time-youre-insulted/

[Guest Peeves]

I got 2 points from this:

1) Islam is more than a religion. That link you dropped is pretty much a hit-piece and opinion only.

The conclusion that Islam is not simply a religion is undeniable based on factual details of its history and inherent tenets,practice and doctrine. Whether you consider it as a 'hit piece' changes nothing, it's your opinion. There are numerable pieces that reach the same conclusion. Regardless,it's my informed position as well.

2) You ignored the entire Bush administration effort to make in-roads with these countries. He said "Islam is peace" and he promised democracy. Do you have nothing to say about that?

I might have. In my opinion though he did no such thing, he kicked a hornet's nest after being attacked by terrorists and suckered into a UN fight with Saddam. He openly declared a war against terror,the terror being from one particular quarter. He might have given concessions,Iran in particular, but over all I don't see his term of office to have made any favorable inroads * with middle Eastern countries. In actuality many then and now suggest that he only provoked them.

* Except perhaps the Saudis.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Peeves