Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (42 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maddy
- Start date
You say this as if we never heard of this before.
Clearly you've leapt to misjudgments and false conclusions about what is or is not well known and hotly debated in other cultures.
And the sad part is that people like ReBeL doubly criminalize their own ideological allies in this: they're criminalized once for publicly calling their own government's actions into question and account, and they're criminalized on the other side by people like ReBeL who make sweeping judgements that all Westerners either don't know or don't care about dead civilians in places like Syria.
This is pretty much the non-Muslim equivalent of the terrorist or infidel treatment.
Dude, a jewelry store?
I mean, attentions are heightened and all. But every crime that normally happens in a day in France isn't suddenly linked to Charlie Hebdo.
No, we all know you're the biggest asshole in Bolivia.
Actually, to a large degree, there isn't much of a difference. If you and I agree on everything, who cares about freedom of speech? You could have that in a North Korean totalitarian state with microphones bugging the room.
Freedom of speech only matters when there are disagreements. When people speak out against the status quo or disagree with those in power. Surely much of the Arab world has suffered immensely because of that very same issue.
I think the Charlie Hebdo guys were little more than partly anonymous, mouthbreathing troublemakers, and they are hardly bastions of democracy and great thought. But whether it's the hypocrisies of the Jewish state or lunatic Muslims who can't bear the existence of someone with a different opinion of their own that they have to kill them all, those are legitimate targets of oppression on the freedom of speech.
I think from your average Muslim perspective, a Charlie Hebdo (or South Park for that matter) seems to want to insult all of Islam. When in fact the targets are those who ideologically cannot tolerate a world where these differences exist. The unfortunate part is that the rest of the more moderate Muslim world will see the attack on fundamentalist psychopaths as somehow a personal attack on themselves. And that's the unfortunate collateral damage.
But freedom of speech cannot exist without collateral damage. As long as they are limited to words and thoughts and not guns and bombs.
See my previous paragraph. I think this is a factor where you seem to feel the whole Western world is against all Muslims, when in fact it is not.
RUS, I still don't follow what you're babbling about here.
Clearly you've leapt to misjudgments and false conclusions about what is or is not well known and hotly debated in other cultures.
And the sad part is that people like ReBeL doubly criminalize their own ideological allies in this: they're criminalized once for publicly calling their own government's actions into question and account, and they're criminalized on the other side by people like ReBeL who make sweeping judgements that all Westerners either don't know or don't care about dead civilians in places like Syria.
This is pretty much the non-Muslim equivalent of the terrorist or infidel treatment.
Juventino[RUS];4784514 said:
New hostages in Montepellier 
fucking radicals right after hostages in Paris were saved so the visitors of the fucking stores are to blame for the cartoons too, right??
fucking radicals right after hostages in Paris were saved so the visitors of the fucking stores are to blame for the cartoons too, right??
I mean, attentions are heightened and all. But every crime that normally happens in a day in France isn't suddenly linked to Charlie Hebdo.
No, we all know you're the biggest asshole in Bolivia.
Actually, to a large degree, there isn't much of a difference. If you and I agree on everything, who cares about freedom of speech? You could have that in a North Korean totalitarian state with microphones bugging the room.
Freedom of speech only matters when there are disagreements. When people speak out against the status quo or disagree with those in power. Surely much of the Arab world has suffered immensely because of that very same issue.
I think the Charlie Hebdo guys were little more than partly anonymous, mouthbreathing troublemakers, and they are hardly bastions of democracy and great thought. But whether it's the hypocrisies of the Jewish state or lunatic Muslims who can't bear the existence of someone with a different opinion of their own that they have to kill them all, those are legitimate targets of oppression on the freedom of speech.
I think from your average Muslim perspective, a Charlie Hebdo (or South Park for that matter) seems to want to insult all of Islam. When in fact the targets are those who ideologically cannot tolerate a world where these differences exist. The unfortunate part is that the rest of the more moderate Muslim world will see the attack on fundamentalist psychopaths as somehow a personal attack on themselves. And that's the unfortunate collateral damage.
But freedom of speech cannot exist without collateral damage. As long as they are limited to words and thoughts and not guns and bombs.
See my previous paragraph. I think this is a factor where you seem to feel the whole Western world is against all Muslims, when in fact it is not.
RUS, I still don't follow what you're babbling about here.
And that is horrible and should absolutely stop. You think I support the Israeli government in any way? Hell no. But that is not the topic at hand here.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...ing-to-justify-the-paris-shooting--x1iSuyGYce
Read that whole thing.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...ing-to-justify-the-paris-shooting--x1iSuyGYce
Read that whole thing.
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/770518
Read this and put in your mind that this Chechen thing is a Russian dummy in his country. He could not take it anymore even if they pay his salary.
Read this and put in your mind that this Chechen thing is a Russian dummy in his country. He could not take it anymore even if they pay his salary.
