Paris

[JohnR]

Want to say unbelievable but that would be untruthful.

No surprise whatsoever.

[Piscator]

I hope they don't torture them when they catch them...saw one of the maggots turned himself in...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Want to say unbelievable but that would be untruthful.

No surprise whatsoever.

probably entirely predictable

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-problem-out-/

[Fishpart]

A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered.

So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.



The terrorist wants to sow fear. The destruction of an individual is not just meant to be a tool of vengeance, but a tool of instruction. It shows others what will happen to them if they dare do the same. It is generates self-regulating peer pressure. Others, fearing the fall out, will being to self-police and self-regulate. They will silence others on behalf of the terrorists. Out of fear, they will drive the ideas from the public square and society will make them off limits.

It is not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas offend a group that can destroy and tear down.

So when a publisher published something that mocked and offended a group prone to offense at such things, something had to happen.

The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender.

[Raven]

an attempt at comedy turns to Horror years later.

Imagine if every satirical comedy about JESUS was
responded to in a similar fashion.

[Nebe]

What a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world we live in. It's amazing what people will do to justify their imaginary friends and what they are willing to do to prove that their imaginary friend is better than yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What a #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up world we live in. It's amazing what people will do to justify their imaginary friends and what they are willing to do to prove that their imaginary friend is better than yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some imaginary friends, in terms of "can't we all just get along", are better then other imaginary friends. They're even better than some real folks who pretend to be friends. Certainly better than real folks who pretend to be friends in order to more easily "turn" you to their way of thinking, even if it eventually means that you give up real freedoms for phony promised ones.

Really "real" friends would value you for your unique "person" and not try to mold you into a tool or drone for the maintenance of some utopianized society. That is, in-the-flesh real friends would accept you, warts and all, and not propose to make you a robotic version of a human being. Some imaginary friends (good ones?) have room in their paradise for the variety created by God, or Nature, or Random Accident (take your pick of "creator"). Really real friends also do.

In-the-flesh but phony friends secretly despise the infinite variety which makes it more difficult to operate an efficient, trouble free society. But real friends would ask, if you cannot accept them as they are, that you would not force them to accept you. That if the difference is so great, then disassociation would be more friendly than forced association.

"Real" friends are not necessarily better than "imaginary" ones. And if you believe the relativist, all are imaginary anyway. And if you believe the statist, only those who are servants of the state can be friends--all others are enemies of the imaginary public good or public friendship.

Back to the topic of the thread, "Paris,"--that horror is a slice of what to expect worldwide until the unfriendly enemy is defeated. The manner we seem to be using to defeat it is being as friendly to it as possible. That's a secular Christian-like gesture toward a very un-secular un-Christian non-friend. It might aid Christians to a quicker path to heaven, but might well lead secularists, and the rest of us with them, to a living "real" hell.

Why, in the face of demographic evidence, of forthright Islamic mission statements, and of expanding militant Islamic violence, do we keep turning a bruised cheek? Or, at best, resort to half measure retaliation? It doesn't make a lot of rational sense to allow the threat to grow larger until it becomes so apparently huge that only then, when the enemy has become stronger and stronger, only then to be serious about defeating it.

I wonder if, like the communist infiltration into the U.S government, and especially the FDR administration, of the 1930's and 1940's, which actually had an impact on our policies toward the Soviets, and China, and Japan, and was a factor in instigating the war with Japan, to the benefit of communism in the East--if something similar, perhaps on a smaller scale at this point, is happening by an infiltration of Islamists into our federal administration? We certainly, and strangely, seem to favor Islamists in our policies and rhetoric over old allies such as Israel. Just a thought.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It doesn't make a lot of rational sense to allow the threat to grow larger until it becomes so apparently huge that only then, when the enemy has become stronger and stronger, only then to be serious about defeating it.

.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's a failure of not seeing the truth,we are at war with terrorists. It will be a different kind of war that we must prepare to fight. Sound familiar around 9/11 ???
Meantime over the last 6 years it's been bury your head in the sand, don't call it a war on terror, shackle our intelligence , fall asleep at the switch, manana, the blind leading the blind, and a day late and a dollar short.
After all, it's just a JV Team.

[nightfighter]

Sad, yet ironic that the policeman whose execution was shown worldwide was in fact a muslim, who died protecting the rights of others, at the hand of those professing the word of Islam....

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Sad, yet ironic that the policeman whose execution was shown worldwide was in fact a muslim, who died protecting the rights of others, at the hand of those professing the word of Islam....

Sad and ironic that he gave his life for others.

Deplorable that some feel we need to modify our truths and freedoms to placate those that are so backwards and oppressive.

Deplorable that some try to hoist Christianity to the same horrors as Radical Islam

In unrelated news: http://www.catholicvote.org/catholic...nybody-in-2014

[BMEUPSCOTTY]

Gendarmes closing in now, hopefully nobody else is going to die... Except the suspects of course...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Sad and ironic that he gave his life for others.

Deplorable that some feel we need to modify our truths and freedoms to placate those that are so backwards and oppressive.

Deplorable that some try to hoist Christianity to the same horrors as Radical Islam

In unrelated news: http://www.catholicvote.org/catholic...nybody-in-2014

Great post, very dishonest to suggest that any other religion poses the threat that is posed by Islamic jihadists.

Interesting debate on some networks, on whether or not it was wise to publish the cartoons. I don't think so. Yes, we all have the freedoms to do things like that, but the fact that we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we have the obligation to do something.

I read that the publisher of that periodocal once said he'd "rather die on my feet than live on my knees". Three cheers for him, he got his wish. Unfortunately, his needlessly provoking the jihadists cost the life of the police officer, and now there's another hostage at risk. All for the ability to publish purposeless cartoons? Some things are worth risking lives for. I don't put the publication of silly doodles in that category.

If Salman Rushdie wants to put a bulls-eye on his own forehead, that's his business. But I don't want him announcing a book signing at my kids' nursery school.

[Jim in CT]

Now there's a seperate multi[ple murser in a kosher deli in Paris, another pais of jihadists have killed 2 and have a handful of hostages.

What a mess. Is Obama still saying that it's just "a few" that we need to be concerned about? A few million, maybe.

No easy solution, that's for sure. At the very least, we need to concede that this Islamic problem exists, and that we cannot make it go away by trying to make nice with these people. Europe tried that with Hitler in the 1930s...

[Cool Beans]

I yelled at the tv this morning, the news anchor was explaining how with over 90,000 law enforcement and support all focused on the 2 guys holed up in the one location, it would be a perfect time for terrorists to attack other locations in France... then a few hours later I'm at work and see the headlines.. a second group of 2 people who identify themselves as muslims were in a deli store after killing 2 people had 5 hostages. Will not be surprised in the least if other attacks occur in other areas of France and possibly in other countries....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Great post, very dishonest to suggest that any other religion poses the threat that is posed by Islamic jihadists.

Interesting debate on some networks, on whether or not it was wise to publish the cartoons. I don't think so. Yes, we all have the freedoms to do things like that, but the fact that we have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean we have the obligation to do something.

I read that the publisher of that periodocal once said he'd "rather die on my feet than live on my knees". Three cheers for him, he got his wish. Unfortunately, his needlessly provoking the jihadists cost the life of the police officer, and now there's another hostage at risk. All for the ability to publish purposeless cartoons? Some things are worth risking lives for. I don't put the publication of silly doodles in that category.

If Salman Rushdie wants to put a bulls-eye on his own forehead, that's his business. But I don't want him announcing a book signing at my kids' nursery school.

That's exactly the attitude the terrorists want to instill in the rest of the world, especially in the West.

Yes, we are obliged to exercise freedom. Use it or lose it. Habit is created by continuous doing, or not doing.

When freedom is restricted by fear, it becomes hostage to tyrants. And if "wisdom" restricts freedom to a service for others rather than an inalienable right to express what you feel compelled to say, or what you wish to say, or even for the sake of what you "need" to say in order to be who you desire to be, or, crass at it may seem to others, to make a living . . . then wisdom is a tyrant.

In my opinion, wisdom would be on the side of defending freedom rather than restricting it. I would think, Jim, with your protective posture toward religion, which in its deepest sense is a form of expression, and which, when freely practiced, "expressed," can be and has been the cause of so much death, that you would not be so ready to caution others about being "wise" not to provoke others merely by expressing what you believe.

Ultimately, we are free to do whatever we wish. And, yes, there will be consequences for our actions. At best, and wisest, is to abide by agreeing not to harm others directly by our actions. When others react violently to our actions, it is they, not us, who are responsible, and who do not abide by the "wise" social contract. The cartoonists disagreed with you. They did not consider their cartoons to be "purposeless." And they saw what you characterize as "silly doodles" worth risking their lives for. And if it is wise to practice personal freedom in order to keep it, then they paid the price of that wisdom, and by it, have further shown to the rest of us, what we should know, that we must stand for freedom, fight for it. And if we die for it, let it be an example for the living that those who wish to deprive us of freedom are the ones who must submit to the wise social contract. Or else, it is they who must suffer the consequence. Otherwise, freedom is lost.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's exactly the attitude the terrorists want to instill in the rest of the world, especially in the West.

Yes, we are obliged to exercise freedom. Use it or lose it. Habit is created by continuous doing, or not doing.

When freedom is restricted by fear, it becomes hostage to tyrants. And if "wisdom" restricts freedom to a service for others rather than an inalienable right to express what you feel compelled to say, or what you wish to say, or even for the sake of what you "need" to say in order to be who you desire to be, or, crass at it may seem to others, to make a living . . . then wisdom is a tyrant.

In my opinion, wisdom would be on the side of defending freedom rather than restricting it. I would think, Jim, with your protective posture toward religion, which in its deepest sense is a form of expression, and which, when freely practiced, "expressed," can be and has been the cause of so much death, that you would not be so ready to caution others about being "wise" not to provoke others merely by expressing what you believe.

Ultimately, we are free to do whatever we wish. And, yes, there will be consequences for our actions. At best, and wisest, is to abide by agreeing not to harm others directly by our actions. When others react violently to our actions, it is they, not us, who are responsible, and who do not abide by the "wise" social contract. The cartoonists disagreed with you. They did not consider their cartoons to be "purposeless." And they saw what you characterize as "silly doodles" worth risking their lives for. And if it is wise to practice personal freedom in order to keep it, then they paid the price of that wisdom, and by it, have further shown to the rest of us, what we should know, that we must stand for freedom, fight for it. And if we die for it, let it be an example for the living that those who wish to deprive us of freedom are the ones who must submit to the wise social contract. Or else, it is they who must suffer the consequence. Otherwise, freedom is lost.

It probably doesn't suprise you that I agree with most of what you say, but we'll disagree on this point.

"Yes, we are obliged to exercise freedom. Use it or lose it. Habit is created by continuous doing, or not doing."

I agree to a certain point...i will continiue to vote on election day and vote for leaders who will aggressively fight the terrorists. That's a necessary expresison of freedom. If the jihadists threatened to attack us unless we elected a candidate who was soft on terrorism, I would refuse to cower to that and vote for who I wanted anyway.

Some things are so vital that we have to do them, even if it means the possibility of inviting attacks by terrorists. The Civil Rights leaders of the 1950s are a good example...they refused to be cowered by the KKK, and did what was necessary, and unfortunately, innocent blood was shed. Freedom isn't always free.

But in my opinion, not every single human impulse is necessarily worth risking innocent blood. There is a difference between using common sense and good judgment, and being cowered by terrorism. Not everything imaginable is worth dying for. Silly doodles, in my opinion, are not worth the loss of innocent lives.

Given what I know now...I would tell the Civil Rights leaders of the 1950s that they were right to provoke the Klan the way they did, because it was necessary to end segregation. However, I would now tell the employees of that magazine, that they should not have printed those cartoons. It wasn't worth it. The cartoons had no real purpose, they weren't going to change anybody's mind about any issue that mattered.

"And they saw what you characterize as "silly doodles" worth risking their lives for"

Here's the flaw. By provoking the jihadists, the cartoonists aren't just putting themselves at risk, because this particular enemy could care less about collateral damage. Therefore, the cartoonists are putting everyone at risk. Some freedoms are worth that risk. Not every imaginable freedom is worth that risk.

The freedoms that we have here in this country are worth fighting and dying for. The freedom to publish provocative cartoons? Yes, we have the right to do that. Having the legal right, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Displaying common sense, isn't always the same thing as giving in to terrorism. I think we should hunt these pepole down and kill every last one of them. That will involve the loss of innocent life, but in the end, it's a price we have to pay. But there's no reason why we can't use our judgment on a case-by-case basis. Some fights, not all fights, are worth fighting. Sometimes, in certain cases, it's better to avoid a confrontation. Not always, but sometimes.

A good debate, though.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

However, I would now tell the employees of that magazine, that they should not have printed those cartoons. It wasn't worth it. The cartoons had no real purpose, they weren't going to change anybody's mind about any issue that mattered.

The issue mattered to them, but, of course, they were too insignificant in the sphere of "real purpose" to care about. Get with the big picture or shut up, otherwise you'll cause trouble. You may stir up those who want to kill the rest of us, not just you, so please be sensible, be quiet.

Here's the flaw. By provoking the jihadists, the cartoonists aren't just putting themselves at risk, because this particular enemy could care less about collateral damage. Therefore, the cartoonists are putting everyone at risk. Some freedoms are worth that risk. Not every imaginable freedom is worth that risk.

Let's see . . . provoking the jihadists puts everyone else at risk. What, exactly, does provoke these types of jihadists. Practicing or expressing Christianity, Judaism, any religion other than Islam. So-called "Western values." So-called freedom of expression or the "right to free speech." Equal rights for women, or for any but Islamists. Oh . . . just about anything that threatens or goes counter to their version of God and State. Let us not provoke them by practicing any of these items of provocation.

The freedoms that we have here in this country are worth fighting and dying for. The freedom to publish provocative cartoons? Yes, we have the right to do that. Having the legal right, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Let us take the practice of a legal, even an inalienable right, to the higher court of "good idea" to determine whether it should be done. After all, we have the judges there who can determine what are good ideas. Of course, there is the danger that the majority of those judges may not agree with you, Jim, then we will be cast into the hell of provoking Jihadists.

Displaying common sense, isn't always the same thing as giving in to terrorism. I think we should hunt these pepole down and kill every last one of them. That will involve the loss of innocent life, but in the end, it's a price we have to pay. But there's no reason why we can't use our judgment on a case-by-case basis. Some fights, not all fights, are worth fighting. Sometimes, in certain cases, it's better to avoid a confrontation. Not always, but sometimes.

A good debate, though.

Common sense would tell us that cessation of printing cartoons would not lead to any peace between us and the "Jihadists." As you can see, if what is going on in the rest of the world which hasn't printed cartoons isn't enough, by the further attacks in France on others who didn't print cartoons. The terrorists don't need cartoons to give them motivation to kill. But they certainly can pretend that they justify their killing. They can use them as an excuse to do what they are going to do.

They have told us, and demonstrated over and over, that they do not wish to live in co-existence with us, but to kill those with whom they are in contact, or convert them, or make them submissive. If we belittle the cartoonists as an unimportant fringe which should be quiet or they will put us all in danger, we give the terrorists another niche into our souls. A place to inhabit in the way we live. A room from which to oppress us in our own house of freedom. You probably think that the quote attributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it," is extreme. Some things are just too silly to die for.

Perhaps. Or, some things are precursors to what will come. If we suppress the "silly" in order for a the larger, more
"serious" freedom, we will have chipped away a part of who we are, and more chips will surely fall.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Common sense would tell us that cessation of printing cartoons would not lead to any peace between us and the "Jihadists." As you can see, if what is going on in the rest of the world which hasn't printed cartoons isn't enough, by the further attacks in France on others who didn't print cartoons. The terrorists don't need cartoons to give them motivation to kill. But they certainly can pretend that they justify their killing. They can use them as an excuse to do what they are going to do.

They have told us, and demonstrated over and over, that they do not wish to live in co-existence with us, but to kill those with whom they are in contact, or convert them, or make them submissive. If we belittle the cartoonists as an unimportant fringe which should be quiet or they will put us all in danger, we give the terrorists another niche into our souls. A place to inhabit in the way we live. A room from which to oppress us in our own house of freedom. You probably think that the quote attributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it," is extreme. Some things are just too silly to die for.

Perhaps. Or, some things are precursors to what will come. If we suppress the "silly" in order for a the larger, more
"serious" freedom, we will have chipped away a part of who we are, and more chips will surely fall.

"Common sense would tell us that cessation of printing cartoons would not lead to any peace between us and the "Jihadists."

Common sense tells me that 12+ people would be alive at this moment if the cartoons were not published. And I don't know what the gain was, except a few jihadists revealed themselves long enough to be killed.

"what is going on in the rest of the world which hasn't printed cartoons isn't enough"

Agree 100%. In my opinion, we get closer to doing "enough" by killing all o fthem, not by provoking further attackes, for no discernable gain. I already knew they had the right to publish the cartoons.

"we give the terrorists another niche into our souls"

Very true. So is it conceivable that there is a niche small enough in your soul, that you'd give to th eterrorists, even temporarily, to save innocent lives? If the terrorists agreed to surrender if we adopted Sharia law, it would not be worth it. An insignificant accommodation might be a price worth paying (and hopefully only temporary, as we still need to be hunting them down) to save lives. That's my point, and you obviously disagree.

"The terrorists don't need cartoons to give them motivation to kill."

Which is why we need to be relentless in our quest to kill them all. But while pursuing that, I don't see that every single opportunity to provoke them, must always be taken advantage of, 100% of the time.

"Some things are just too silly to die for" That's what I'm saying. Let's risk human capital where it makes sense to do so - specifically, where we need to protect vital interests, or where we can kill dangerous jihadists. In those cases, we should take risks.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Common sense would tell us that cessation of printing cartoons would not lead to any peace between us and the "Jihadists."

Common sense tells me that 12+ people would be alive at this moment if the cartoons were not published.

There is what the French economic philosopher Frederic Bastiat referred to as "the seen and the unseen." His notion applied to economic evaluations. But it can be applied in most other ways. In this case, you see a number of people killed under the pretext of the cartoons. You postulate that if it weren't for the cartoons they would be alive. What you don't see is that the terrorists were killing for a far greater, to them, reason than the cartoons. And if the cartoons did not exist, they would have killed another number of other people--or even possibly the same ones. When you "see" through the blindfolds of immediate professed causation, you are blinded to the possibilities of the "unseen."

And I don't know what the gain was, except a few jihadists revealed themselves long enough to be killed.

Again, the seen and the unseen. You see what you consider a loss of life for no significant reason. What you don't see is the enrichment of life provided to the cartoonists when they were doing what they wanted to do, while, no mean feat, making a living at it, and enjoying life as they saw fit. You fail to see what is significant, certainly no less significant to the cartoonists than what is personally significant to you, but also what is significant to a society of free individuals. Because you see triviality, you don't see what is fundamentally important to our way of life.

Not to mention, of course, that the terrorists gained the attention they desired as well as instilling an amount of fear which would provoke some to caution against "insulting" their God--dying would not be "worth it."

"what is going on in the rest of the world which hasn't printed cartoons isn't enough"

Agree 100%. In my opinion, we get closer to doing "enough" by killing all o fthem, not by provoking further attackes, for no discernable gain. I already knew they had the right to publish the cartoons.

What you see is cartoons provoking an attack. Because that seems so silly to you, you, for the moment, dismiss that attacks have been, would have, and will occur with or without the cartoons. Thus you inadvertently feed into the narrative that we who offend are the guilty party. That there is some "reason" for their attacks, a reason we provide.

Well, there is a reason we cannot help but provide. By existing as who we are, and by daring to interface with them as we are, EVEN IF THEY MIGRATE INTO OUR MIDST AND INTERFACE WITH US, we offend them. Wherever they are in this universe is sacred land to them and their God. And those who profane it by doing anything other than what is prescribed by their religion is an enemy who must submit or die.

"we give the terrorists another niche into our souls"

Very true. So is it conceivable that there is a niche small enough in your soul, that you'd give to th eterrorists, even temporarily, to save innocent lives?

There is no niche small enough that they would overlook. If they will kill over what you consider so insignificant and silly, what would they not kill for?

Nor is it my place to tell others to give up their inalienable niche. Rather it is more my place, and I believe yours, to stand with them, to all stand together against tyranny.

If the terrorists agreed to surrender if we adopted Sharia law, it would not be worth it.

Would it be worth it if we adopted a piece of Sharia law which is antithetical to our principles? Sharia law calls for the death of those who would insult their Prophet.

An insignificant accommodation might be a price worth paying (and hopefully only temporary, as we still need to be hunting them down) to save lives. That's my point, and you obviously disagree.

The seen and unseen are less obvious, more murky here. You are blinded by what appears to be "pragmatic." And your pragmatism extends primarily, if not only, to saving lives. Thus you fall into the appeasement trap. Your first pragmatic error is to judge an accommodation which strikes against principles as insignificant. And by this error you can accommodate the pragmatic goal of saving lives. But the first pragmatic error nullifies the need "to be hunting them down." If the goal is to save lives, and the accommodation is the abandonment of principle, then there is no further need to fight and kill. Simply appease the terrorists by submitting to their demands, their principles, and all lives from then on will be saved.

"The terrorists don't need cartoons to give them motivation to kill."

Which is why we need to be relentless in our quest to kill them all. But while pursuing that, I don't see that every single opportunity to provoke them, must always be taken advantage of, 100% of the time.

Provoking them does not require opportunity. It only requires our existence. 100% of the time.

"Some things are just too silly to die for" That's what I'm saying. Let's risk human capital where it makes sense to do so - specifically, where we need to protect vital interests, or where we can kill dangerous jihadists. In those cases, we should take risks.

Gosh. You're so pragmatic. This statement sounds a lot like something Spence would say.

As a Christian, I would think for you there would be no insignificant accommodation. As in Matthew 25:31-46 "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

If we abandon the supposedly insignificant practice of our rights to the least of us, in order to convenience the rest, we abandon the authority of those rights altogether.

[detbuch]

Interesting take on Sunday's unity march in Paris.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting take on Sunday's unity march in Paris.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

probably had one hell of a dinner afterward celebrating themselves at the tax payers expense too!

I know we're all upset about the cartoon and the Paris "workplace violence" incident but....are these "leaders" going to Nigeria to march arm in arm next?

reported by NBC

BY ALEXANDER SMITH

Three suicide bombings by girls aged as young as 10 suggest that Nigeria's Boko Haram has employed a new tactic of forcing abducted children to blow themselves up, according to experts.

The Islamist sect has been carrying out almost daily killings and kidnappings across northeast Nigeria in a campaign of violence now in its sixth year. Deadly attacks on Saturday and Sunday were carried out by three young female suicide bombers. These came just days after a week-long killing spree by Boko Haram, in which the group torched at least 10 towns leaving around 2,000 people unaccounted for.

It is not clear if the girls were coerced or were even aware they were strapped with explosives, which may have been detonated remotely. But experts say that Boko Haram appears to be using the children it kidnaps — such as the 276 Chibok girls who sparked the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign — and using them as a readily available supply of suicide bombers.