Suspects Shot Dead At $10K Muhammad Cartoon Contest

[Shady]

To kimmy - My point is that there should be a good reason to irritate or cause hurt to someone.

No, there doesn't need to be a good reason. A "good" reason is completely subjective.

[eyeball]

No, it actually doesn't. Not when the "tango" consists of one dance partner shooting someone walking by the dance hall in the face because they feel affronted by something.

Except it's two cultures taking shots at one another not just two people. It takes two to Tango is what my teachers used to say when anyone caught in a fight whined about being wrongly singled out.

Recall however I went to school's back when liberals and socialists had taken over the public school system. Maybe you went to something more like a Klingon military prep school where kids are encouraged to vindictively kick the crap out of each other.

Edited May 12, 2015 by eyeball

[Argus]

Except it's two cultures taking shots at one another not just two people. It takes two to Tango is what my teachers used to say when anyone caught in a fight whined about being wrongly singled out.

Recall however I went to school's back when liberals and socialists had taken over the public school system. Maybe you went to something more like a Klingon military prep school where kids are encouraged to vindictively kick the crap out of each other.

No, I went to one of those weird schools which often had bullies who simply liked to pound on smaller kids. I guess by your measure and that of your socialist teacher the kid being picked on needed to be punished just as much as the one picking on him, huh?

[eyeball]

No. I'm clearly talking about two bullies going at each other.

[cybercoma]

Like I said, the American constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens residing in other countries. That's undeniable.

International law applies. The problem is that Omar Khadr wasn't charged with anything that exists in international law, which means the military tribunal was out of its jurisdiction with the charges. Edited May 12, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

People shouldn't act surprised if Muslims don't like the cartoons, but that doesn't give Muslim extremists and fanatics the right to kill. You lost me there.

Good thing I never argued that they "have the right to kill."

You're saying that as you would get upset over things you hold dear, so would Muslims. But I'd like to think you wouldn't arm yourself and kill as many offenders as you can before they take you down. That's the mindset of the Muslim fanatics. To suggest it's a reasonable response baffles me.

People are not justifying these things. They're explaining why they happen. There's a big difference. Edited May 12, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

There is nothing extreme about peaceful expression, especially if it inconveniences no one, as in this case.

There's nothing extreme about crapping all over something people find sacred?

[Guest]

Not really. It happens a lot. It's only when it results in actual extremism that it makes the news.

Edited May 12, 2015 by bcsapper

[Shady]

There's nothing extreme about crapping all over something people find sacred?

Nope. What somebody finds sacred doesn't define what's extreme. Some people find gay marriage crapping on something sacred, traditional marriage. Does that mean we change our rights and freedoms? In this case, it's much more trivial. Somebody drawing a picture in a private building, a picture that you can't even see. You just think it's happening. Honestly, how can you people defend this stuff? It's absurd. You're making idiots of yourselves.

[sharkman]

Good thing I never argued that they "have the right to kill."

People are not justifying these things. They're explaining why they happen. There's a big difference.

And all I'm saying is that there is no RATIONAL explanation of why they want to kill you.

[Shady]

Good thing I never argued that they "have the right to kill." People are not justifying these things. They're explaining why they happen. There's a big difference.

No worries. I'm not justifying rape. I'm just explaining why it happens when a girl wears revealing clothing.

[Smallc]

LOL, I'm glad I got to see that actually. Thanks for quoting it. Offending someone - the new extreme.

[Shady]

LOL, I'm glad I got to see that actually. Thanks for quoting it. Offending someone - the new extreme.

Yep! Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are major extremists! Same with 2 Live Crew and Madonna! Who knew?! Lol.

[On Guard for Thee]

No worries. I'm not justifying rape. I'm just explaining why it happens when a girl wears revealing clothing.

Id really like to hear that explanation.

[Shady]

Id really like to hear that explanation.

It's similar to the cartoon explanation.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's similar to the cartoon explanation.

Thats the best you can do!

[Je suis Omar]

Once again, free speech ought to not bring upon itself a death sentence.

That is why this discussion is so asinine: you minimize the killing and inflate the drawing of cartoons as if people deserve to be killed for poking the "hornets nest."

Discussing this tempest in a teapot, this piece of empty nothingness is asinine. None of the "good guys" died, whereas, estimates run to half a million Iraqi dead from the massive war crimes of the USA and its band of junior war criminals.

Count all the dead, like the half a million Iraqi children in the 1990s, and you're in partnership with the Nazis.

This is nothing but a dandy example of an amoral abyss.

[Je suis Omar]

You're making idiots of yourselves.

Would this be a good time for you to explain how the USA constitution works?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

Discussing this tempest in a teapot, this piece of empty nothingness is asinine. None of the "good guys" died, whereas, estimates run to half a million Iraqi dead from the massive war crimes of the USA and its band of junior war criminals.

Count all the dead, like the half a million Iraqi children in the 1990s, and you're in partnership with the Nazis.

This is nothing but a dandy example of an amoral abyss.

Do you ever get off your nazi screed long enough to deal with the actual issue being discussed, or are you forever stuck in one track

[cybercoma]

Nope. What somebody finds sacred doesn't define what's extreme. Some people find gay marriage crapping on something sacred, traditional marriage. Does that mean we change our rights and freedoms? In this case, it's much more trivial. Somebody drawing a picture in a private building, a picture that you can't even see. You just think it's happening. Honestly, how can you people defend this stuff? It's absurd. You're making idiots of yourselves.

I'm not defending anything. That's your problem. You can't seem to understand what it is people are arguing here. I'm providing an explanation as to why people might get violent. When you crap all over something people find sacred, they get incensed. I would give you an example, but you're not even willing to meet me halfway and be reasonable about this discussion. If you refuse to see how doing one of the most extremely offensive things to a person and crapping all over their culture and religion might incite them to violence, then I don't know what else to say to you. You just plainly refuse to understand it.

[cybercoma]

No worries. I'm not justifying rape. I'm just explaining why it happens when a girl wears revealing clothing.

Well then your understanding of why people rape fits right in with the Taliban and the Muslim extremists you denounce. It's infantile and incorrect according to nearly all of the research in the area. But you're not actually interested in understanding things, are you? You're more interested in pretending to score cheap points in internet arguments.

[Guest]

I'm not defending anything. That's your problem. You can't seem to understand what it is people are arguing here. I'm providing an explanation as to why people might get violent. When you crap all over something people find sacred, they get incensed. I would give you an example, but you're not even willing to meet me halfway and be reasonable about this discussion. If you refuse to see how doing one of the most extremely offensive things to a person and crapping all over their culture and religion might incite them to violence, then I don't know what else to say to you. You just plainly refuse to understand it.

I think there are parallel arguments here. Of course everything you say is true. It's just that there is no comparison between the act and the response. One is an insult, the other is a murder. (Or it would have been, in this case.) It really doesn't matter how egregious the insult.

Nor does the intent matter. The Texicans might have been intentionally provacative. So what? The response was still insanely wrong. Salman Rushdie wasn't being intentionally provocative. Same insane response. Theo Gogh wasn't either. Same insane response.

The culture and religion is the problem here. Not the insult.

Edited May 12, 2015 by bcsapper

[Je suis Omar]

Do you ever get off your nazi screed long enough to deal with the actual issue being discussed, or are you forever stuck in one track

The parallel is apt, OGFT, the Nazis worked on genocide, the USA has too, only more widespread, longer running and with greater diligence.

[Je suis Omar]

The culture and religion is the problem here. Not the insult.

The problem is most assuredly with the culture and the religion.

Were at War! And We Have Been Since 1776: 214 Years of American War-Making

by Danios on December 20, 2011 in Feature, Loon Politics

I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one. -President Theodore Roosevelt, at the turn of the century [1]

Islam is inherently more violent than other religions. This is the Supreme Islamophobic Myth. Yes, there are other core beliefs of Islamophobia (Islam is sexist, oppressive, discriminatory, the list goes on), but nothing is more critical to anti-Muslim bigots than associating Islam with violence, war, and terrorism. This, in turn, is used to justify bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim countrieswhat I call the Supreme Islamophobic Crime.

We see this quite clearly in the jingoistic rhetoric against Iran, a Muslim country that is portrayed as being inherently violent and warlike. This is then flipped around, using the argument that we must attack them before they attack us.

Yet, this is a Myththe Mother of all Myths. It is the United States that has been waging wars of aggression, not Iran. Ahmed Rehab challenged Bill OReilly on this point by asking him: How many countries has Iran attacked in the past 50 years? The answer is, of course, zero. Meanwhile, the United States and her stalwart ally Israel have attacked numerous Muslim countries, as I recently portrayed in this graphic:

The U.S., in the name of fighting terror, is waging seemingly Endless War in the Muslim world. The We are at War mentality defines a generation of Americans, with many young adults having lived their entire lives while the country has been at war. For them, war is the norm.

But if the future of America promises Endless War, be rest assured that this is no different than her past. Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of Americas wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.

To put this in perspective:

* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.

* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered war presidents.

* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.

* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

When we look at the present situation (see map above) and our violent past (see timeline below), is it not a bit hypocritical of us to point the finger at Muslims? Whenever I hear good Judeo-Christian American patriots telling me how violent Muslims are and how Islam supposedly endorses Perpetual WarI cannot help but think of how their own Judeo-Christian nation has been locked in perpetual warfare since its inception.

...

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/we-re-at-war-and-we-have-been-since-1776/

[Guest]

The problem is most assuredly with the culture and the religion.

It's funny, you were spot on about the golf...