PDA

View Full Version : Religion America becoming more like Europe? I WISH!


AustinChief
09-20-2012, 06:39 PM
*EDITED for Cosmo and his ilk...*

Sadly, the discourse in America has become one of apology and appeasement. Things I have come to expect from Europe. YET while we have articles like this...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/18/opinion/la-oe-chayes-innocence-of-muslims-first-amendment-20120918

There are brave Europeans who are pushing back on the bullying, ignorant fanatics in the Middle East...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/world/europe/french-magazine-publishes-cartoons-mocking-muhammad.html?_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-satire-magazine-editor-explains-muhammad-issue-decision-a-857005.html

When people in FRANCE and Germany are putting us to shame in the free speech arena... we have serious issues here at home.

BTW.. this fits perfectly with my idea that our best course of action is to FLOOD the media with insulting anti-radical Islam images and videos over the next few months. (hell, every day for the next year) After a while the outrage and idiocy will simply burn itself out.

On the other hand, if we continue to kowtow and apologize appease and tiptoe around these assholes... we only invite further problems.

KC native
09-20-2012, 06:44 PM
So one opinion column is appeasing these idiots?

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 06:51 PM
So one opinion column is appeasing these idiots?

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

No you fucking moron... but the constant apologies for the video coming from the highest levels of our government is appeasement. It VALIDATES their outrage, even if we say "there is no excuse for the violence" after we have stressed how wrong the video is. STRESS how wrong they are and then if asked, say the video is garbage but then AGAIN stress that it is irrelevant because free speech is paramount. That is the EXACT opposite of the tone I have seen coming from this administration and from most of the media.

The article just shows that there are far too many here in America who are willing to bend over and take it up the ass from radicals because they are afraid of them.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 06:52 PM
No you ****ing moron... but the constant apologies for the video coming from the highest levels of our government is appeasement.

None? That is quite a lot.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 06:59 PM
None? That is quite a lot.

Hmm, just one of many...


Clinton stating, “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

Sorry the worlds "WE ARE SORRY" don't appear... You know what, fuck it.. I will retract the apology claim just so disgusting people like you can't take it off track. I'll instead call it what it CAN NOT be denied... which is APPEASEMENT. I'll go back and put in alternate wording now.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 07:04 PM
Hmm, just one of many...




Sorry the worlds "WE ARE SORRY" don't appear... You know what, **** it.. I will retract the apology claim just so disgusting people like you can't take it off track. I'll instead call it what it CAN NOT be denied... which is APPEASEMENT. I'll go back and put in alternate wording now.

Denying involvement, expressing disagreement with something--on what fucking planet are such things considered an apology? Or even appeasement? You're simply a moron on this stuff.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:13 PM
Denying involvement, expressing disagreement with something--on what fucking planet are such things considered an apology? Or even appeasement? You're simply a moron on this stuff.

You are either too stupid to see how this appears or you are blinded by your partisanship or(most likely) you are a worthless, spineless piece of shit who honestly thinks this is the way America should be represented.

I have let this play out until now because I wanted to get past the initial shock and let the facts play out some and see how everyone reacted... but now it is past time to speak up. This is a HUGE deal that is being brushed aside by the media. A U.S. AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED. Am I the only one who sees what a massive blow this is to America? Then, for the President and his administration to disavow the VIDEO on an equal footing with them disavowing the MURDER and violence... is just DISGUSTING.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 07:18 PM
So you're mad that we're not offending Muslims enough?

I guess I'm missing the point.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:22 PM
No you ****ing moron... but the constant apologies for the video coming from the highest levels of our government is appeasement. It VALIDATES their outrage, even if we say "there is no excuse for the violence" after we have stressed how wrong the video is. STRESS how wrong they are and then if asked, say the video is garbage but then AGAIN stress that it is irrelevant because free speech is paramount. That is the EXACT opposite of the tone I have seen coming from this administration and from most of the media.

The article just shows that there are far too many here in America who are willing to bend over and take it up the ass from radicals because they are afraid of them.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


You're right:

Islamic states to reopen quest for global blasphemy law
September 19, 2012|Robert Evans | Reuters
GENEVA (Reuters) - A leading Islamic organization signaled on Wednesday that it will revive long-standing attempts to make insults against religions an international criminal offence.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/news/sns-rt-us-protests-religions-blasphemybre88i1eg-20120919_1_blasphemy-law-muslim-cleric-ekmeleddin-ihsanoglu


This deserves a giant "**** You!" to anyone supporting it.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:27 PM
So you're mad that we're not offending Muslims enough?

I guess I'm missing the point.

Ha, yeah you missed the point, but in fairness I muddled the point by adding that in.

I am ANGRY over the tone and representation coming from the administration and some of the media which is one of appeasement. Not appeasing the violence but appeasing the insult. VALIDATING them.

The other point I am not angry or upset about, I just think it would be an effective COUNTER for us to step up the "insulting" images/video/etc... and let their outrage burn itself out. But you are right, that really is a separate conversation.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:29 PM
I don't see what's off topic about what I posted. You say they're ahead of us on this and I disagree because Germany is not. You can boot me all you want because I have to go anyway. You can't handle disagreement on part of your OP.

Good. because you are too dense to follow along I will delete your crap and try to get the thread back on track. Feel free to start a seperate thread on whatever nonsense you want to talk about. The point was clearly about PEOPLE in Europe (which is what I said) not the governments of.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:34 PM
Austin Chief: Along the lines of your point, I would certainly condone a "Freedom Of Speech" art exhibit. Either as a traveling performance or something done locally in major cities. Artists would create depictions of religious figures or concepts in the most provocative way that they could imagine.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 07:35 PM
Good. because you are too dense to follow along I will delete your crap and try to get the thread back on track. Feel free to start a seperate thread on whatever nonsense you want to talk about. The point was clearly about PEOPLE in Europe (which is what I said) not the governments of.

Oh my bad, I just thought the people were represented by their govts and passed those laws with their permission.

I'll say one last thing. I don't think your idea is rational. Freedom comes with responsibility. So if you want to incite and flame for more violence, even if it's legal, doesn't make it the right choice.

KC native
09-20-2012, 07:36 PM
Ha, yeah you missed the point, but in fairness I muddled the point by adding that in.

I am ANGRY over the tone and representation coming from the administration and some of the media which is one of appeasement. Not appeasing the violence but appeasing the insult. VALIDATING them.

The other point I am not angry or upset about, I just think it would be an effective COUNTER for us to step up the "insulting" images/video/etc... and let their outrage burn itself out. But you are right, that really is a separate conversation.

So covert operations in Iran, constant drone strikes, and assassinations in countries where our military isn't even supposed to be operating equals appeasement to you?

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:37 PM
Austin Chief: Along the lines of your point, I would certainly condone a "Freedom Of Speech" art exhibit. Either as a traveling performance or something done locally in major cities. Artists would create depictions of religious figures or concepts in the most provocative way that they could imagine.

Exactly. I hate the fact that it would insult the moderates of many different religions but that is a cost I think is worth paying to take the fight to the radicals.

KC native
09-20-2012, 07:38 PM
No you fucking moron... but the constant apologies for the video coming from the highest levels of our government is appeasement. It VALIDATES their outrage, even if we say "there is no excuse for the violence" after we have stressed how wrong the video is. STRESS how wrong they are and then if asked, say the video is garbage but then AGAIN stress that it is irrelevant because free speech is paramount. That is the EXACT opposite of the tone I have seen coming from this administration and from most of the media.

The article just shows that there are far too many here in America who are willing to bend over and take it up the ass from radicals because they are afraid of them.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Also, did/do you support the Patriot Act?

BIG_DADDY
09-20-2012, 07:39 PM
Also, did/do you support the Patriot Act?

HELL NO!!!!

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:40 PM
Oh my bad, I just thought the people were represented by their govts and passed those laws with their permission.

I'll say one last thing. I don't think your idea is rational. Freedom comes with responsibility. So if you want to incite and flame for more violence, even if it's legal, doesn't make it the right choice.

It's more about declaring that we absolutely will follow the laws of our own country in protecting our citizens, and that we will not allow their freedoms to be denied by a foreign power. This is our culture. This is one of the ideas that our nation was founded on.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:41 PM
So covert operations in Iran, constant drone strikes, and assassinations in countries where our military isn't even supposed to be operating equals appeasement to you?

Once again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. I don't think our ACTIONS represent appeasement (for the most part) our REPRESENTATION and TONE does. THAT is what disgusts me. Yes, if we were also appeasing them in DEED instead of just words then I would be even more upset, but I don't think anyone but the FURTHEST left American would condone that.

How we REPRESENT ourselves in this regard DOES matter.. no amount of drone strikes in Pakistan will change that.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 07:42 PM
I am ANGRY over the tone and representation coming from the administration and some of the media which is one of appeasement. Not appeasing the violence but appeasing the insult. VALIDATING them.

I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:43 PM
Exactly. I hate the fact that it would insult the moderates of many different religions but that is a cost I think is worth paying to take the fight to the radicals.

Yes, it would. I recall an artwork depicting Jesus, on the cross, in piss. I can see how that would offend people. But they don't have the right not to be offended.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 07:43 PM
It's more about declaring that we absolutely will follow the laws of our own country in protecting our citizens, and that we will not allow their freedoms to be denied by a foreign power. This is our culture. This is one of the ideas that our nation was founded on.

Are you referring to that international law on this? I don't support that idea either. It violates our sovereignty. That doesn't mean freedom doesn't come with responsibility because it does. Lots of stupid or bad things are legal.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 07:43 PM
Once again, your reading comprehension skills fail you.

So you're mad over something purely symbolic.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:44 PM
Also, did/do you support the Patriot Act?

I RAILED against it at the time and still do. Until Obama's recent Executive power grabs I saw it as one of the biggest threats to freedom in my lifetime... and it's still right up at the top (even if it did go through proper legislative approval).

No one will ever be able to convince me the Patriot Act was a net positive for our country. And you are 1000% correct in bringing it up, because it is a perfect example of giving up rights for (apparent) safety. Disgusting in every way.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:45 PM
So you're mad over something purely symbolic.

Since you aren't 12 years old, I will hold you accountable on this... YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. It is far more than symbolic. That assertion is ridiculous and shows a distinct lack of understanding of how the world works.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 07:46 PM
Since you aren't 12 years old, I will hold you accountable on this... YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. It is far more than symbolic. That assertion is ridiculous and shows a distinct lack of understanding of how the world works.

I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:47 PM
Are you referring to that international law on this? I don't support that idea either. It violates our sovereignty. That doesn't mean freedom doesn't come with responsibility because it does. Lots of stupid or bad things are legal.

Yeah, because that is what is being pushed here. It exemplifies a belief that non Muslim countries have to follow Muslim law. I would suggest that a Catholic Bishop sit down with the clerics (I presume that they are clerics) and hammer out some Christian laws that Muslims can be forced to follow in their own countries. We'll call that a starting point. Let's see if they are willing to do that.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 07:49 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

When you place the focus on the denouncement and on the video.. you VALIDATE their anger. Instead that should be an afterthought and the focus FIRST AND LAST should be on the principle of Free Speech and THEIR FAILINGS in understanding and respecting it. That is NOT the tone we have have put out there and only the most BLIND partisan would pretend otherwise.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 07:51 PM
Yes, it would. I recall an artwork depicting Jesus, on the cross, in piss. I can see how that would offend people. But they don't have the right not to be offended.

Andres Serrano work Piss Christ was actually more serious art than that Muslim movie which was amateurish. The latter had one purpose in mind. ( There are interests in this country that want the two sides of this war inflamed for their own purposes due to failing support for more war.) But Serrano does outrageous art exhibitions. One was on shit and titled "Shit." It was photos of all kinds of crap in different locations. He's free to do that but that's just his kind of art.

Let's look at what happened regarding Piss Christ. It was attacked on two separate times. Torn off the wall and kicked. The guy did get a suspended jail term for it. The other was by two teenagers using a decoy action to use a hammer 8 times on it.

"The gallery director subsequently closed the exhibition in order, he claimed to protect the safety of the gallery and its staff. "

A CC " attempted to procure an injunction to stop the show going ahead on the basis that the work was blasphemous. "

http://www.artcrimes.net/piss-christ

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:52 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

Are you referring to comments directed at Mohammed and Islam?

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 07:54 PM
Yeah, because that is what is being pushed here. It exemplifies a belief that non Muslim countries have to follow Muslim law. I would suggest that a Catholic Bishop sit down with the clerics (I presume that they are clerics) and hammer out some Christian laws that Muslims can be forced to follow in their own countries. We'll call that a starting point. Let's see if they are willing to do that.

Yeah, I know. I don't agree with it. I'd would rather handle this whole matter by denying them funds because they can't provide security for our embassies.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:55 PM
Andres Serrano work Piss Christ was actually more serious art than that Muslim movie which was amateurish. The latter had one purpose in mind. ( There are interests in this country that want the two sides of this war inflamed for their own purposes due to failing support for more war.) But Serrano does outrageous art exhibitions. One was on shit and titled "Shit." It was photos of all kinds of crap in different locations. He's free to do that but that's just his kind of art.

Let's look at what happened regarding Piss Christ. It was attacked on two separate times. Torn off the wall and kicked. The guy did get a suspended jail term for it. The other was by two teenagers using a decoy action to use a hammer 8 times on it.

"The gallery director subsequently closed the exhibition in order, he claimed to protect the safety of the gallery and its staff. "

A CC " attempted to procure an injunction to stop the show going ahead on the basis that the work was blasphemous. "

http://www.artcrimes.net/piss-christ


Yes. A lot of people had some animosity towards Piss Christ. The actions of those people who were trying to deface it or destroy it were wrong. It's a shame that the exhibit was closed. The terrorists won.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 07:56 PM
When you place the focus on the denouncement and on the video.. you VALIDATE their anger.

Well they're allowed to be pissed off, mocking their prophet is tantamount to pissing on their faith.

Their anger is validated. It's the violence that's invalid.

Instead that should be an afterthought and the focus FIRST AND LAST should be on the principle of Free Speech and THEIR FAILINGS in understanding and respecting it. That is NOT the tone we have have put out there and only the most BLIND partisan would pretend otherwise.

I've always found that the best way to promote free speech across the earth is to piss all over less free countries and tell them how glorious your urine is.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 07:57 PM
Yes. A lot of people had some animosity towards Piss Christ. The actions of those people who were trying to deface it or destroy it were wrong. It's a shame that the exhibit was closed. The terrorists won.

Well, at least I know one of them was punished.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I know. I don't agree with it. I'd would rather handle this whole matter by denying them funds because they can't provide security for our embassies.

That is an option. I think the administration needs to release a statement supporting our freedom of speech, and denying the possibility of our country following a global blasphemy law.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 07:58 PM
Their anger is validated.

Everyone gets angry. What you do afterwards is all your fault.

stonedstooge
09-20-2012, 08:01 PM
So what in the movie mocked and was despicable? Haven't seen too much actually what the movie contained

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:02 PM
Yes. A lot of people had some animosity towards Piss Christ. The actions of those people who were trying to deface it or destroy it were wrong. It's a shame that the exhibit was closed. The terrorists won.

The truth of the matter is, Western Christianity is far more tolerant in the 21st century of criticism and blasphemy than Middle Eastern Islam. It's not even close, either.

What people forget is that, in the grand scheme of things, we just got there. For the vast majority of Western history, and even much of modern Western history, criticizing and blaspheming Christianity was like begging to be sequestered from society.

We progressed, we improved, and now we're far more tolerant. It's fantastic.

Islam, especially in the Middle East, is behind. Partially because they are poorer, less educated, techologically lagging, and thus less modern. Plus there are inherent differences between the two religions (such as making external, tangible things "holy" and "sacred").

But Islam can still get here. Hopefully that day comes sooner, not later.

But let's not forget the fact that we just got here. And there are non-Western parts of the world where Christianity is still struggling to catch up.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:03 PM
Well they're allowed to be pissed off, mocking their prophet is tantamount to pissing on their faith.

Their anger is validated. It's the violence that's invalid.

I've always found that the best way to promote free speech across the earth is to piss all over less free countries and tell them how glorious your urine is.

This post shows how insanely naive and ignorant you are in this regard. This type of thinking and actions based on it will get you more and more pushed around and abused. Do you tell battered women that maybe it'd be best if they just kept quiet sometimes? And, I mean, you really DID burn his dinner, so he has every right to mad about that. There is NOTHING wrong with me mentioning that the dinner WAS burnt and that he had a right to get angry.. Right? It's ok if I focus on him beating you after I make certain to point that fact out first... right?

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:03 PM
Everyone gets angry. What you do afterwards is all your fault.

I echo that 100%.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:04 PM
This type of thinking and actions based on it will get you more and more pushed around and abused. Do you tell battered women that maybe it'd be best if they just kept quiet sometimes? And, I mean, you really DID burn his dinner, so he has every right to mad about that. There is NOTHING wrong with me mentioning that the dinner WAS burnt and that he had a right to get angry.. Right? It's ok if I focus on him beating you after I make certain to point that fact out first... right?

...battered women? What?

You lost me. Come back to earth.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:04 PM
The truth of the matter is, Western Christianity is far more tolerant in the 21st century of criticism and blasphemy than Middle Eastern Islam. It's not even close, either.

What people forget is that, in the grand scheme of things, we just got there. For the vast majority of Western history, and even much of modern Western history, criticizing and blaspheming Christianity was like begging to be sequestered from society.

We progressed, we improved, and now we're far more tolerant. It's fantastic.

Islam, especially in the Middle East, is behind. Partially because they are poorer, less educated, techologically lagging, and thus less modern. Plus there are inherent differences between the two religions (such as making external, tangible things "holy" and "sacred").

But Islam can still get here. Hopefully that day comes sooner, not later.

But let's not forget the fact that we just got here. And there are non-Western parts of the world where Christianity is still struggling to catch up.


State+Religion=Evil

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 08:07 PM
So what in the movie mocked and was despicable? Haven't seen too much actually what the movie contained

Mohammed was portrayed as a pedophile and gay for two points.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:08 PM
...battered women? What?

You lost me. Come back to earth.

No, try to follow the analogy. It fits perfectly. I'll make it clearer.

Let's say a woman gets beaten and goes to the police. The media wants a statement so the police come out and say "Mrs. X was violently beaten by her husband. To be fair, she had burnt his dinner and this angered him. He has every right to be angry and we all agree that burning dinner is an awful thing. Of course, that does NOT justify violence."

Would you have a problem with that statement?

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:09 PM
Mohammed was portrayed as a pedophile and gay for two points.

Off the top of my head, didn't Mohammed have a very young concubine? Maybe a wife or lover?

stonedstooge
09-20-2012, 08:09 PM
Mohammed was portrayed as a pedophile and gay for two points.

Thanks

-King-
09-20-2012, 08:10 PM
Guess I'm a dumbass too because I didn't see that Clinton comment as an apology. He denied involvement in something that we weren't involved in. What the hell do you want him to say?

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:12 PM
Off the top of my head, didn't Mohammed have a very young concubine? Maybe a wife or lover?

It's wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt:


Aisha

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha), who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad,<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-0" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup> and nine, or according to al-Tabari, ten, when the marriage was consummated.<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-1" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Armstrong_21-0" class="reference">[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Armstrong-21)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-22)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-23)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference">[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-24)</sup> American historian Denise Spellberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Spellberg) states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-2" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup> Colin Turner, a professor of Islamic studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_studies),<sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference">[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-25)</sup> states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin), Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference">[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-26)</sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference">
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-26)</sup>
Critics such as Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists) pastor Jerry Vines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Vines) and Netherlands Party for Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom) leader Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine year old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile).<sup id="cite_ref-Wilders_14-1" class="reference">[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Wilders-14)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Vines_27-0" class="reference">[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Vines-27)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference">[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-28)</sup> Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative was to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.<sup id="cite_ref-chamupati1924_19-1" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-chamupati1924-19)</sup>

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:12 PM
No, try to follow the analogy. It fits perfectly. I'll make it clearer.

Let's say a woman gets beaten and goes to the police. The media wants a statement so the police come out and say "Mrs. X was violently beaten by her husband. To be fair, she had burnt his dinner and this angered him. He has every right to be angry and we all agree that burning dinner is an awful thing. Of course, that does NOT justify violence.

Would you have a problem with that statement?

Honestly, this analogy is Saul Good-esque bad. It might be worse.

You're equating refusing to stand up to defend hate speech with excusing domestic violence.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:13 PM
Guess I'm a dumbass too because I didn't see that Clinton comment as an apology. He denied involvement in something that we weren't involved in. What the hell do you want him to say?

SHE. That was Hillary Clinton our Secretary of State. Bill can say whatever he wants... he doesn't represent ME.

KC native
09-20-2012, 08:14 PM
I RAILED against it at the time and still do. Until Obama's recent Executive power grabs I saw it as one of the biggest threats to freedom in my lifetime... and it's still right up at the top (even if it did go through proper legislative approval).

No one will ever be able to convince me the Patriot Act was a net positive for our country. And you are 1000% correct in bringing it up, because it is a perfect example of giving up rights for (apparent) safety. Disgusting in every way.

Leaving aside the red herring of Obama power grabs, good. Patriot act is bullshit.

KC native
09-20-2012, 08:14 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

Damn it. I was getting there.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:15 PM
Damn it. I was getting there.

Heh. I'm not into foreplay.

You're probably a more attentive lover than I am.

Just a guess.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:17 PM
Honestly, this analogy is Saul Good-esque bad. It might be worse.

You're equating refusing to stand up to defend hate speech with excusing domestic violence.

You are fucking dense.

No I am showing how by focusing on the wrong aspect of the situation you downplay what is important and EXCUSE the insignificant part.

Just like the burnt dinner.. the video was used as an excuse for the violence.. it is NOT the root cause. bringing so much focus on it is disgusting and my analogy points out how ridiculous it is. If you can't see that you're a fucking idiot.. if you REFUSE to see it, that is more understandable given your blind faith in the current administration.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:18 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

Are you referring to comments directed at Mohammed and Islam?

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:19 PM
Leaving aside the red herring of Obama power grabs, good. Patriot act is bullshit.

It's not a red herring, but it is best left to another thread.

stonedstooge
09-20-2012, 08:19 PM
It's wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt:


Aisha

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha), who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad,<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-0" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup> and nine, or according to al-Tabari, ten, when the marriage was consummated.<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-1" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Armstrong_21-0" class="reference">[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Armstrong-21)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-22)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference">[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-23)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference">[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-24)</sup> American historian Denise Spellberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Spellberg) states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."<sup id="cite_ref-Spellberg_20-2" class="reference">[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Spellberg-20)</sup> Colin Turner, a professor of Islamic studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_studies),<sup id="cite_ref-25" class="reference">[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-25)</sup> states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin), Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference">[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-26)</sup>
<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference">
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-26)</sup>
Critics such as Baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists) pastor Jerry Vines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Vines) and Netherlands Party for Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom) leader Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine year old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile).<sup id="cite_ref-Wilders_14-1" class="reference">[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Wilders-14)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Vines_27-0" class="reference">[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-Vines-27)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference">[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-28)</sup> Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative was to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.<sup id="cite_ref-chamupati1924_19-1" class="reference">[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad#cite_note-chamupati1924-19)</sup>

My short research showed it has been debated for quite some time.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:19 PM
You are ****ing dense.

No I am showing how by focusing on the wrong aspect of the situation you downplay what is important and EXCUSE the insignificant part.

Just like the burnt dinner.. the video was used as an excuse for the violence.. it is NOT the root cause. bringing so much focus on it is disgusting and my analogy points out how ridiculous it is. If you can't see that you're a ****ing idiot.. if you REFUSE to see it, that is more understandable given your blind faith in the current administration.

I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

You do.

One of us is being reasonable. The other person is being dense.

I'll let you decide which.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:20 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

You do.

One of us is being reasonable. The other person is being dense.

I'll let you decide which.


Are you referring to comments directed at Mohammed and Islam?

-King-
09-20-2012, 08:21 PM
SHE. That was Hillary Clinton our Secretary of State. Bill can say whatever he wants... he doesn't represent ME.


Ok... SHE. Still don't see anything wrong with what she said. Was she supposed to take responsibility in something we had no part of?

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:23 PM
Are you referring to comments directed at Mohammed and Islam?

Sure, some comments towards those can be counted as hate speech.

I don't necessarily know if I'd consider the video hate speech, as I have no desire to see it. But the Muslim world does, including the people we've hired to build diplomatic relations with them, in the Egyptian embassy (among other places).

I don't agree with the Muslim world that anti-Muslim hate speech should be banned, but it's hard to argue with them getting pissed off over it. It's hard to argue with them protesting over it. But it's super-easy to argue with them creating violence over it.

listopencil
09-20-2012, 08:26 PM
Sure, some comments towards those can be counted as hate speech.

I don't necessarily know if I'd consider the video hate speech, as I have no desire to see it. But the Muslim world does, including the people we've hired to build diplomatic relations with them, in the Egyptian embassy (among other places).

I don't agree with the Muslim world that anti-Muslim hate speech should be banned, but it's hard to argue with them getting pissed off over it. It's hard to argue with them protesting over it. But it's super-easy to argue with them creating violence over it.

I don't agree that it can be classified as hate speech. Mohammed is a religious/historical/mythological figure depending on your belief system. Islam is a concept. Hate Speech laws protect people. It's an example of the fundamental differences in our laws and the laws that Muslim countries follow.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:28 PM
Ok... SHE. Still don't see anything wrong with what she said. Was she supposed to take responsibility in something we had no part of?

Of course not, but she sure as hell wasn't supposed to spend over half of her speech focused on disavowing the video instead of denouncing the violence and intolerance.

Do you not see how wrong that is and how it completely changes the tone of the conversation and how we are representing ourselves?

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 08:32 PM
It's wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt: Aisha



That was also common in the West right through the Renaissance where 12 year old girls were married off to older men like age 40. They liked to marry them young so they could have fun without getting children right from the act right away.

It took us 2000 years to change some things we did including our concept of rights. It didn't happen overnight.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't agree that it can be classified as hate speech. Mohammed is a religious/historical/mythological figure depending on your belief system. Islam is a concept. Hate Speech laws protect people. It's an example of the fundamental differences in our laws and the laws that Muslim countries follow.

I agree with you on the last part, to be sure.

I think reasonable people could disagree on whether it's hate speech. At the very least, showing images of Mohammed is deeply culturally insensitive. The right to be able to do so is cherished in our country. But it's hard to argue with a billion Muslims getting upset by it.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:34 PM
Of course not, but she sure as hell wasn't supposed to spend over half of her speech focused on disavowing the video instead of denouncing the violence and intolerance.

Do you not see how wrong that is and how it completely changes the tone of the conversation and how we are representing ourselves?

You know Hillary Clinton is a diplomat, right? Our chief diplomat?

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:39 PM
I don't see how denouncing what is considered by some to be hate speech is appeasement.

You do.

One of us is being reasonable. The other person is being dense.

I'll let you decide which.

Well, it's pretty obviously you. You think it's a-ok to denounce the video. That's fine. Where you are being a fucking moron is that you refuse to see how spending 50% of your time denouncing the video puts it on a level EQUAL to the denouncement of the violence. Which is why my battered wife analogy is perfect. The fact that you can't make the connection is your own failing. When a woman gets beaten, you don't focus on what excuse the man used for beating her. PERIOD. Unless of course, you don't think that the video was just an excuse and you think it REALLY was the primary cause for all the violence. I can't imagine you are THAT stupid.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:41 PM
Unless of course, you don't think that the video was just an excuse and you think it REALLY was the primary cause for all the violence. I can't imagine you are THAT stupid.

We don't know exactly what the source of the violence is at this point. Some investigation suggests it was an organized group of Islamicists waiting for a protest to use as cover for their attack.

I am pretty fucking stupid. I wish you'd stop assuming I'm not.

Brock
09-20-2012, 08:43 PM
Well, it's pretty obviously you. You think it's a-ok to denounce the video. That's fine. Where you are being a fucking moron is that you refuse to see how spending 50% of your time denouncing the video puts it on a level EQUAL to the denouncement of the violence. Which is why my battered wife analogy is perfect. The fact that you can't make the connection is your own failing. When a woman gets beaten, you don't focus on what excuse the man used for beating her. PERIOD. Unless of course, you don't think that the video was just an excuse and you think it REALLY was the primary cause for all the violence. I can't imagine you are THAT stupid.

Direckshun lowers the bar for them because they're poor. See, the reason they lop people's heads off and drag them through the street and hang them from bridges like a trophy is just because they're uneducated, it's not because they're dirty, mean, bloodthirsty brutes.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 08:44 PM
We don't know exactly what the source of the violence is at this point. Some investigation suggests it was an organized group of Islamicists waiting for a protest to use as cover for their attack.

I am pretty fucking stupid. I wish you'd stop assuming I'm not.

Even if you claim the video was the primary SPARK for the violence and protests, it still doesn;t represent the cause anymore then an uppity woman's mouthing off is the root CAUSE for her being beaten.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 08:57 PM
Even if you claim the video was the primary SPARK for the violence and protests, it still doesn;t represent the cause anymore then an uppity woman's mouthing off is the root CAUSE for her being beaten.

I didn't say it "caused" the violence, in a sense that Muslims were driven to it.

They went there on their own accord.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 09:01 PM
Direckshun lowers the bar for them because they're poor. See, the reason they lop people's heads off and drag them through the street and hang them from bridges like a trophy is just because they're uneducated, it's not because they're dirty, mean, bloodthirsty brutes.

They do all that shit because they are lagging far behind in the world's march towards modernity. Far, far behind.

That lagging can be attributed to many things, including systemic poverty, shit education, and a lack of technological progress.

These conditions lead to a decidely non-modern populace, which is one far more prone to this type of brutal shit.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 09:11 PM
I didn't say it "caused" the violence, in a sense that Muslims were driven to it.

They went there on their own accord.

Just like the abusing husband beats his wife on his own accord. Focusing on the burnt dinner(video) only downplays the horrendous crime and sets a tone that NO ONE can justify.

THAT is why the discourse from the administration is disgusting and vile. Just like YOU would find it disgusting in the case of an abused woman... even if she really did burn his dinner.

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 09:13 PM
Just like the abusing husband beats his wife on his own accord. Focusing on the burnt dinner(video) only downplays the horrendous crime and sets a tone that NO ONE can justify.

THAT is why the discourse from the administration is disgusting and vile. Just like YOU would find it disgusting in the case of an abused woman... even if she really did burn his dinner.

Probably wouldn't hurt you to find a less terrible analogy. You're marrying yourself in this thread to a shit comparison.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 09:23 PM
Probably wouldn't hurt you to find a less terrible analogy. You're marrying yourself in this thread to a shit comparison.

Again, it's not at all a shit analogy.. you just can't seem to understand it... hardly my fault.

You have yet to explain why it is a shit analogy... except to focus on specifics.. which pretty much shows that you aren't clever enough to understand how analogies work.

I'll try to put it in general terms...

X = really really bad thing for which there is never an excuse (murdering our ambassador or beating your wife)

Y = bad or disagreeable thing (offensive video or burnt dinner)

Z = third party responsible for disseminating facts (State Dept or Law Enforcement)

Z publicly states that X has happened. Z then explains that Y appears to be the proximate cause for X and that Y is a really bad thing too, one that they understand being upset by. Z then goes on to say that there is no excuse for X regardless.

Now do you see how the analogy works? You may be right, you may actually be really dumb.

BIG_DADDY
09-20-2012, 09:29 PM
Direckshun lowers the bar for them because they're poor. See, the reason they lop people's heads off and drag them through the street and hang them from bridges like a trophy is just because they're uneducated, it's not because they're dirty, mean, bloodthirsty brutes.

LMAO

stonedstooge
09-20-2012, 09:31 PM
I wonder if the gays are offended by Hillary's remarks

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 09:40 PM
Again, it's not at all a shit analogy.. you just can't seem to understand it... hardly my fault.

You have yet to explain why it is a shit analogy... except to focus on specifics.. which pretty much shows that you aren't clever enough to understand how analogies work.

I'll try to put it in general terms...

X = really really bad thing for which there is never an excuse (murdering our ambassador or beating your wife)

Y = bad or disagreeable thing (offensive video or burnt dinner)

Z = third party responsible for disseminating facts (State Dept or Law Enforcement)

Z publicly states that X has happened. Z then explains that Y appears to be the proximate cause for X and that Y is a really bad thing too, one that they understand being upset by. Z then goes on to say that there is no excuse for X regardless.

Now do you see how the analogy works? You may be right, you may actually be really dumb.

I'm really dumb, I promise you. From now on, for the rest of our existence on ChiefsPlanet, I would just appreciate you knowing that I am super stupid. Please. Thank you. I would like this to formally conclude the totality of AustinChief's running commentary on the degree of Direckshun's intelligence. We've estalished it. I have none. Absolutely nothing bores me more than questioning whether or not Direckshun is smart or stupid. Let's move on forever. Please god.

I don't like having huge conversations about shit analogies because every time I dispute one, even the worst ones, it goes on for 50 posts and the thread topic gets lost -- I've done it enough with Saul Good to know.

Condemning what can be considered hate speech is the diplomatic, respectful thing to do for a Muslim world we're trying to connect with. It does not excuse the violence, it doesn't apologize, and it doesn't even condemn free speech.

I fail to see how that's enabling of violence. Wouldn't blindly defending it enable violence?

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 09:43 PM
You are either too stupid to see how this appears or you are blinded by your partisanship or(most likely) you are a worthless, spineless piece of shit who honestly thinks this is the way America should be represented.

I have let this play out until now because I wanted to get past the initial shock and let the facts play out some and see how everyone reacted... but now it is past time to speak up. This is a HUGE deal that is being brushed aside by the media. A U.S. AMBASSADOR WAS MURDERED. Am I the only one who sees what a massive blow this is to America? Then, for the President and his administration to disavow the VIDEO on an equal footing with them disavowing the MURDER and violence... is just DISGUSTING.

If that had happened, it would be disgusting. It's like you have hallucenated a whole alternate reality. The whole theme of 'apologizing' has been going for 4 years and it's a complete fantasy.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 09:49 PM
Condemning what can be considered hate speech is the diplomatic, respectful thing to do for a Muslim world we're trying to connect with. It does not excuse the violence, it doesn't apologize, and it doesn't even condemn free speech.

I fail to see how that's enabling of violence. Wouldn't blindly defending it enable violence?

Gotcha. So you have ZERO problem with the Sheriff's dept mentioning that they hate burnt dinners as well. It doesn't offend you in the least nor do you think it sets the wrong tone.

EVERY excuse you have offered for our statements about the violence and video can be applied equally to the analogy I provided. Let's try it...

Condemning [a burnt dinner] is the diplomatic, respectful thing to do for a [world that likes tasty food] we're trying to connect with. It does not excuse the violence, it doesn't apologize, and it doesn't even condemn [cooking].

If you disagree with law enforcement giving equal time to the burnt dinner... please tell me why? If you don't disagree then you at least are logically consistent with your ridiculous stance on the administration's crap.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 09:51 PM
Once again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. I don't think our ACTIONS represent appeasement (for the most part) our REPRESENTATION and TONE does. THAT is what disgusts me. Yes, if we were also appeasing them in DEED instead of just words then I would be even more upset, but I don't think anyone but the FURTHEST left American would condone that.

How we REPRESENT ourselves in this regard DOES matter.. no amount of drone strikes in Pakistan will change that.

Our tone? You're a 1st-grade teacher now--I don't like your tone, young man!

Forget actions, concentrate on the tone (the tone you perceive anyway). This is a whole new way to look at things. What's that saying? Tone speaks louder than actions? Yeah, that's it.
This is just completely stupid.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 09:53 PM
If that had happened, it would be disgusting. It's like you have hallucenated a while alternate reality. The whole theme of 'apologizing' has been going for 4 years and it's a complete fantasy.

You are fucking delusional you worthless hypocritical gasbag. READ the transcripts of Clinton's statement.. she talks as much about the video as she does Free Speech or the violence. THAT'S a problem, even if you can't see it in your partisan blindness.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 10:07 PM
You are ****ing delusional you worthless hypocritical gasbag. READ the transcripts of Clinton's statement.. she talks as much about the video as she does Free Speech or the violence. THAT'S a problem, even if you can't see it in your partisan blindness.

Are you counting the words or some sort of time measurement, or...what?
First it was an apology, then appeasement, now the word volume was not properly apportioned. At least you are kind of moving in the right direction.

Worthless and gasbag are your opinions, but what is hypocritcal?

Direckshun
09-20-2012, 10:19 PM
Gotcha. So you have ZERO problem with the Sheriff's dept mentioning that they hate burnt dinners as well. It doesn't offend you in the least nor do you think it sets the wrong tone.

EVERY excuse you have offered for our statements about the violence and video can be applied equally to the analogy I provided. Let's try it...

If you disagree with law enforcement giving equal time to the burnt dinner... please tell me why? If you don't disagree then you at least are logically consistent with your ridiculous stance on the administration's crap.

Just, no. I'm not buying into your ridiculous analogy. I'm not wasting time with it.

When you want to talk about rhetoric, free speech, and the Middle East, I'm back in the game.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 10:22 PM
Just, no. I'm not buying into your ridiculous analogy. I'm not wasting time with it.

When you want to talk about rhetoric, free speech, and the Middle East, I'm back in the game.

Gotcha. You can't defend your position when put in terms that show how ridiculous it is, so instead you will ignore that. Hypocritical asshat.

La literatura
09-20-2012, 10:32 PM
There's no problem with the Administration's take on the video. You're just complaining to complain. Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush had a speech in which he said:

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect."

Appeasement? No. Responsible? Very.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 10:38 PM
There's no problem with the Administration's take on the video. You're just complaining to complain. Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush had a speech in which he said:

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect."

Appeasement? No. Responsible? Very.

Austinchief is going to have a stroke when he sees that W is the cause of all these problems, with his apologies, appeasement, and of course, most importantly, the tone.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 10:44 PM
Austinchief is going to have a stroke when he sees that W is the cause of all these problems, with his apologies, appeasement, and of course, most importantly, the tone.

You're a fucking idiot. I'll address Literature's complete failure of a post here as well.

Bush's response was about Islam as a religion and trying to keep people from forming angry mobs and blaming an entire group that was not responsible for 9-11. If you two morons can't differentiate that from a constant barrage of statements that focus on a video that some find offensive then you are beyond intelligent conversation.

You want to draw a comparison? Find me where Bush spent as much time talking about things American's may or may not have done to CAUSE 9-11 as he spent focusing on the evil of the act itself. PLEASE, show me where the administration said. "9-11 was tragic. We have heard that it is in response to {insert bullshit here} and while we agree that {insert bullshit here} is also horrendous. {insert bullshit here} is no excuse for the actions of terrorists."

FIND THAT. ASSHOLES.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 11:03 PM
You're a ****ing idiot. I'll address Literature's complete failure of a post here as well.

Bush's response was about Islam as a religion and trying to keep people from forming angry mobs and blaming an entire group that was not responsible for 9-11. If you two morons can't differentiate that from a constant barrage of statements that focus on a video that some find offensive then you are beyond intelligent conversation.

You want to draw a comparison? Find me where Bush spent as much time talking about things American's may or may not have done to CAUSE 9-11 then he spent focusing on the evil of the act itself. PLEASE, show me where the administration said. "9-11 was tragic. We have heard that it is in response to {insert bullshit here} and while we agree that {insert bullshit here} is also horrendous. {insert bullshit here} is no excuse for the actions of terrorists."

FIND THAT. ASSHOLES.

You are very creative, I'll give you that. I realize you feel the need to spin like crazy to try to save face regarding your borderline-retarded assertions about apologies and the devastating results of using an inappropriate tone. But frankly, I'd be shocked if you actually believe this crap.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 11:10 PM
You are very creative, I'll give you that. I realize you feel the need to spin like crazy to try to save face regarding your borderline-retarded assertions about apologies and the devastating results of using an inappropriate tone. But frankly, I'd be shocked if you actually believe this crap.

Got it. So, just like Direckshun. You have lost any ability to defend this crap so you turn to "you are spinning." Fuck off you worthless hack. You cling to Literature's ignorant post that has NOTHING to do with the topic and when that is clearly shown.. you claim I am trying to save face.

Seriously you are one dumb worthless piece of shit.

BTW I have never ONCE mentioned the "results" of these statements. I don't think these statements will have many "results" (they certainly won't mollify the radicals, so please explain why we even bother?) except to EMBARRASS us and make us look like a bunch of simpering weak assholes... so basically, America now accurately represents YOU. No wonder you don't have a problem with them.

AustinChief
09-20-2012, 11:15 PM
You are very creative, I'll give you that.

And the words you are looking for are "honest and accurate" or simply "not a giant pussy like me." It doesn't take much creativity to show how wrong you and your cohorts are on this.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 11:26 PM
BTW I have never ONCE mentioned the "results" of these statements. I don't think these statements will have many "results" (they certainly won't mollify the radicals, so please explain why we even bother?) except to EMBARRASS us and make us look like a bunch of simpering weak assholes... so basically, America now accurately represents YOU. No wonder you don't have a problem with them.

Geez...it just gets worse and worse. So you're throwing a tantrum over statements that you say don't even have many 'results.' :facepalm:

Well, other than the meaningless and ambiguous "embarassment" and that we look weak. Weak compared to what? Is there any country in the world that acts stronger? Shit, we'll invade a country even without much of a reason (W). Osama or other terrorists living in your country? We'll be by with some drones or a SEAL team--we don't need no permission (Obama).

You have your head up your ass on this and sound dumber than the worst of the right-wing nutjobs that post on here.

La literatura
09-20-2012, 11:26 PM
This is typical drunk Austinchief ideas. "Hey! We need a reactionary, counter-protest flooding the media with anti-Islamic images! And then we need the United States government to either not say anything or passively support it."

Arguing that Clinton's statement is appeasement is just as silly as arguing that Bush's statement is appeasement. Silly.

Rarhhr! Rage!

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 11:31 PM
And the words you are looking for are "honest and accurate" or simply "not a giant pussy like me." It doesn't take much creativity to show how wrong you and your cohorts are on this.

If you're not being creative to come up with the spin about apologies and appeasement and outrage over "tone" then it means you're being sincere. And that would mean you are a deranged lunatic.

nstygma
09-20-2012, 11:53 PM
They do all that shit because they are lagging far behind in the world's march towards modernity. Far, far behind.

That lagging can be attributed to many things, including systemic poverty, shit education, and a lack of technological progress.

These conditions lead to a decidely non-modern populace, which is one far more prone to this type of brutal shit.
interesting.
"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel Defeat Jihad." link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19665225)

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 12:00 AM
This is typical drunk Austinchief ideas. "Hey! We need a reactionary, counter-protest flooding the media with anti-Islamic images! And then we need the United States government to either not say anything or passively support it."

Arguing that Clinton's statement is appeasement is just as silly as arguing that Bush's statement is appeasement. Silly.

Rarhhr! Rage!

YOUR A FUCKING TOOL. And to be clear, I am not drinking this evening, I am stuck working.

You are obviously too fucking stupid to see the problem. That's fine. Shut the fuck up and quit talking. OR would you like to ADDRESS my response to your idiotic post that was completely irrelevant? Bush's statement has ZERO relevance to the subject at hand. The fact that you don't see that makes you look as stupid as these morons you are taking common cause with.

La literatura
09-21-2012, 12:05 AM
YOUR A ****ING TOOL. And to be clear, I am not drinking this evening, I am stuck working.

You are obviously too ****ing stupid to see the problem. That's fine. Shut the **** up and quit talking. OR would you like to ADDRESS my response to your idiotic post that was completely irrelevant? Bush's statement has ZERO relevance to the subject at hand. The fact that you don't see that makes you look as stupid as these morons you are taking common cause with.

Seriously? You're not drinking? You should probably say that you've been drinking hard liquor for several hours.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 12:24 AM
Seriously? You're not drinking? You should probably say that you've been drinking hard liquor for several hours.

Sorry that this kind of shit doesn't bother or upset you. The fact that our ambassador was murdered and our response was just short of an outright apology .. disgusts me. It is sad that you aren't more upset about it as well. You just keep on being as upset as the media let's you be... when THEY tell you to be upset, I'm sure you'll step and fetch it.

La literatura
09-21-2012, 01:09 AM
Sorry that this kind of shit doesn't bother or upset you. The fact that our ambassador was murdered and our response was just short of an outright apology .. disgusts me. It is sad that you aren't more upset about it as well. You just keep on being as upset as the media let's you be... when THEY tell you to be upset, I'm sure you'll step and fetch it.

And I'm not sorry that you interpret affirmations of religious tolerance (America is theoretically a religiously tolerant country, which is supposed to make us exceptional) as appeasement and near apologies, when it's quite clear that the United States has nothing to apologize for regarding the video and never has apologized for the video.

Maybe right-wing media wants you to be enraged, and you have stepped up to fetch.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:30 AM
Gotcha. You can't defend your position when put in terms that show how ridiculous it is, so instead you will ignore that. Hypocritical asshat.

I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 01:31 AM
And I'm not sorry that you interpret affirmations of religious tolerance (America is theoretically a religiously tolerant country, which is supposed to make us exceptional) as appeasement and near apologies, when it's quite clear that the United States has nothing to apologize for regarding the video and never has apologized for the video.

Maybe right-wing media wants you to be enraged, and you have stepped up to fetch.

I was outraged and extremely upset at 5am the next day when I found out about it, before any of the networks were reporting it. Swing and a miss on that one. I have just waited to react. I have no problem with being tolerant. I DO have a problem with giving that equal time and placement with condemnation of the MURDER of a US AMBASSADOR and other attacks on US SOIL. As I said in my analogy which is actually perfect for the situation regardless of Direckshun's inability to follow along. There is nothing wrong with saying that burnt dinner is a bad thing. THERE is something wrong with placing it front and center when discussing an abused wife.

How can I make that any clearer?

Let's dumb it down.

You have read my analogy. Would you be perfectly ok with law enforcement making a statement to the press just like I laid it out? If NOT (and no one would be).. please explain how it is substantially different from what Clinton did? I have even provided an E-Z guide to analogies in a past post... if you have trouble following like Direkshun did.

So far... NO ONE will address why one situation is clearly wrong yet the other is a-ok. My guess.. pure partisanship. Please try to prove me wrong.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:32 AM
Bush's response was about Islam as a religion and trying to keep people from forming angry mobs and blaming an entire group that was not responsible for 9-11.

Irony of ironies.

Maybe the embassy's response was about respect towards other cultures, to keep people from forming angry mobs and blaming an entire group that was not responsible for the YouTube video.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:32 AM
FIND THAT. ASSHOLES.

Jesus Chris, AC.

Calm the fuck down.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 01:35 AM
I don't know what you want me to do with this information.

In a perfect world. you'd man up and admit that the analogy fits and you can see how both situations are wrong. Of course that won't happen. So you avoid addressing that fact by claiming BAD ANALOGY with ZERO reasoning why. I provided you a handy analogy guide. Where does it fail?

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:37 AM
In a perfect world. you'd man up and admit that the analogy fits and you can see how both situations are wrong. Of course that won't happen. So you avoid addressing that fact by claiming BAD ANALOGY with ZERO reasoning why. I provided you a handy analogy guide. Where does it fail?

And on and on you go.

Your analogy was, and is, shit. But you're married to it for reasons that pass understanding.

Have at.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 01:38 AM
Jesus Chris, AC.

Calm the fuck down.

Se.. here is an example where I ACTUALLy am upset. this pisses me off to NO end.. and it pisses me off that you fucking assholes are defending it out of pure partisanship. I was even worse during the Patriot Act crap. Straight up borderline real fights with right wing assholes who KNEW all that was wrong with it but defended it simply to defend their "guy" Bush.

And if you are too fucking stupid to not see the difference between Bush's statement and this one... God help us all. I made it pretty clear how it doesn't even come close to being on topic. I am at the very limit of my tolerance for the amount of stupidity here.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 01:41 AM
And on and on you go.

Your analogy was, and is, shit. But you're married to it for reasons that pass understanding.

Have at.

got it. So you can't tell me why.. your entire argument is " I won't address the point because the analogy suxors!!!" So I explain the analogy in specific terms (X,Y,Z) and you won't address that either... you are a complete pussy dude. You want to be in the conversation... man up and address something directly instead of this "bad analogy... waaa waaa" crap.

And I am married to the analogy because it succinctly proves my point and shows you to be a fucking hypocrite. You probably can see that but are too big of a puss to admit it.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:42 AM
Se.. here is an example where I ACTUALLy am upset.

You don't say.

this pisses me off to NO end.. and it pisses me off that you ****ing assholes are defending it out of pure partisanship. I was even worse during the Patriot Act crap. Straight up borderline real fights with right wing assholes who KNEW all that was wrong with it but defended it simply to defend their "guy" Bush.

And if you are too ****ing stupid to not see the difference between Bush's statement and this one... God help us all. I made it pretty clear how it doesn't even come close to being on topic. I am at the very limit of my tolerance for the amount of stupidity here.

And back to the "you're stupid," shit.

Jesus. I have gone rounds with dozens of conservatives on this board, and I have never once met somebody who needed to constantly validate himself of what he believed to be his own superior intelligence towards what he considered to be the inferior intelligence of those he was arguing with.

Just, stop. Please. This act is getting stale.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:45 AM
your entire argument is " I won't address the point because the analogy suxors!!!"

you are a complete pussy dude.

You want to be in the conversation.

man up and address something directly instead of this "bad analogy... waaa waaa" crap.

it succinctly proves my point and shows you to be a ****ing hypocrite.

You probably can see that but are too big of a puss to admit it.

Have you ever considered staging a one man play?

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 01:46 AM
You don't say.



And back to the "you're stupid," shit.

Jesus. I have gone rounds with dozens of conservatives on this board, and I have never once met somebody who needed to constantly validate himself of what he believed to be his own superior intelligence towards what he considered to be the inferior intelligence of those he was arguing with.

Just, stop. Please. This act is getting stale.

As I said, I am on my last nerve with your crap.

You going to address the topic or just dance around it nancy?

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:48 AM
As I said, I am on my last nerve with your crap.

You going to address the topic or just dance around it nancy?

I'm dying to address the topic. Always.

You want to talk about your shit analogy. That is the only conceivable path you are willing to walk down in this thread.

Have at it, if that's the case.

When you want to move on, we have a thread you can use.

Direckshun
09-21-2012, 01:51 AM
Let's try to re-track this thread. I've thought of an interesting angle.

You're the American ambassador to Libya, AC. Or at the very least, you're in charge of issuing the embassy's statement.

What statement would you have issued?

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 02:03 AM
Let's try to re-track this thread. I've thought of an interesting angle.

You're the American ambassador to Libya, AC. Or at the very least, you're in charge of issuing the embassy's statement.

What statement would you have issued?

This isn't about the embassy statement this is about the administration's statements after the fact. Don't confuse the two. I have problems with both but the embassy statement was disavowed by the administration so let's forget it entirely. I have made it pretty clear which statements.. and I even quoted Clinton's statement. THAT is what is inexcusable. THAT is what fits the analogy perfectly.

If you want that statement.

In General terms ... I would condemn the violence, defend free speech and make a point of saying that using an offensive video as an excuse is not acceptable and never will be... at which point I would finish with more condemnation of the violence. Obviously you could throw in some promises of action or justice or whatever.. that would all depend on what actionable intel I would have at the time.

Notice that the video is barely mentioned and is an afterthought.. as it should be if it is even mentioned at all. There is a MASSIVE difference in tone here. I don't need to go off on religious tolerance or explain myself or the values of my nation. You know why? because much like the battered wife situation.. it isn't the point and it detracts from the importance of how VILE the actions were and that there is NO EXCUSE for them. Period.

btw I would rather not even mention the video.. but since it was so prominent in the media.. NOT mentioning it would be more conspicuous... so an offhand reference and done... that puts the spotlight where it belongs... on the violence and murder. I sure as shit wouldn't sent the UN ambassador on FOUR (or was it FIVE) morning talk shows to LIE about the situation (possibly she didn't know better, which may actually be worse) and SOLELY blame the video for the attacks. She actually tried to sell the idea that the video caused a protest in Libya which spurred a spontaneous attack on our ambassador.

WoodDraw
09-21-2012, 02:20 AM
France has some serious issues resulting from large Muslim and African immigration recently. From societal to cultural and so on, it's quite complex. I'm not saying that in a good way or a bad way, but just to make the point. If you've been there recently, it becomes apparent fairly quickly.

I point that out only to say you need to take French reactions to these in context. It's quite a different situation that we have here locally.

AustinChief
09-21-2012, 02:29 AM
France has some serious issues resulting from large Muslim and African immigration recently. From societal to cultural and so on, it's quite complex. I'm not saying that in a good way or a bad way, but just to make the point. If you've been there recently, it becomes apparent fairly quickly.

I point that out only to say you need to take French reactions to these in context. It's quite a different situation that we have here locally.

I haven't been since 2001.. of course I spent most of that year in Spain so I know about large Muslim populations and how they are treated. Different animal with Spain though. Many there don't hate Muslims.. to hate them would be to recognize them as HUMAN.. which many do not. It was pretty screwed up.

My point on that was really just to emphasize how poor our response has been here.

WoodDraw
09-21-2012, 03:18 AM
I haven't been since 2001.. of course I spent most of that year in Spain so I know about large Muslim populations and how they are treated. Different animal with Spain though. Many there don't hate Muslims.. to hate them would be to recognize them as HUMAN.. which many do not. It was pretty screwed up.

My point on that was really just to emphasize how poor our response has been here.

There's a lot of racism throughout Europe, and it's gotten worse lately. I haven't noticed it as much in Spain, but it can be especially bad in Italy, France, and the Netherlands. If not racism, at least openly accepted xenophobia.

But when someone in France publishes cartoons like that, or whatever, realize that he's looking for the fight and political argument.

You have the stupid video here, and as far as I know, no one in the states gives a fuck. Sure, Muslim leaders denounce it. But there's no violence or meaningful protest of any type. The opposite, really. So if "news" organizations here want to publish whatever about the prophet and Islam, they're free to do so. I'm just not sure what they're accomplishing. At best, no one cares. At worst, all they do is incite violence in remote places.

What's an appropriate response? You say "Yes, this shit is stupid. But people have the right to be stupid, and reacting violently has no place and only further incites people." I'm not sure there's much more that can be done. It's important to keep it all in perspective.

In Egypt, very little of this has to do with anti-American feelings, or Islamic feelings. The vast majority of the "protesters" out there just want a fight with the police. It's been an ongoing problem in Egypt, as has been seen through pretty bad soccer hooliganism recently.

In Tunisia, you have a pretty progressive, moderate state. I had a friend that just recently got back from studying Arabic there, and she loved it. Said it was a different world, but great people and the pictures are beautiful. But there's a group of hardline muslims there right now that have been targeting secular institutions post-revolution, trying to destabilize the new government.

In Libya, you have similar issues. The approval of the US there is as high in a country in that region that in god knows how long. Some of the reactions to the violence have been pretty positive in my eyes - support from the government, and citizens there holding counter protests. There are pictures of memorials being set up at US interests around there. A major issue there is the high level of tribalism and that the government has very little security ability right now.

Other countries are more worrying - Sudan and Syria for example. And I'm not saying radical Islam isn't a problem. It's a huge one. But in all of the above countries, there are factions - popular factions - that we can work with and want to work with Western countries.

So I'm not sure what a "strong response" entails or accomplishes. Obviously you defend free speech and denounce the violence. But it's a carrot and a stick moment - you want to make it known to these governments that they have certain responsibilities, and we expect them to live up to them. But also given that, we know they're unstable, new regimes, we know the actions of a percentage don't represent the whole, and we're willing to work with the responsible factions to help develop the countries. The last thing you want to do is incite any more violence or any more anti-americanism.

Comrade Crapski
09-21-2012, 03:22 AM
As I said, I am on my last nerve with your crap.



He has that effect on me, too.

nstygma
09-21-2012, 04:07 AM
What statement would you have issued?
maybe something a little bs like this while we figure out who to bomb in retaliation :thumb:


Some of our country's core values are expressed in the Bill of Rights. One of which is our citizens' right to speak freely and express ideas and opinions. We also value the right to disagree with those opinions, and express that disagreement in a civilized manner. Some groups in your country chose to do just that on the night of 9/11, that is, gather and express disapproval of a certain news item that was broadcast to you. Unfortunately, your peaceful demonstrations were used as a backdrop to carry out a premeditated attack on 4 Americans. On that night, murderers who want to destabilize your peace, infiltrated and created violence, hate, and destruction, all the while making it seem as though you, the citizens, were responsible for the mayhem. As despicable as it is, there are those who hate you simply because you are striving for freedom. It is important to not let them dissuade you. We are dedicated to supporting you in your growth as a democratic nation and stand side by side with you in your effort to advance on the global scale.

La literatura
09-21-2012, 07:11 AM
I was outraged and extremely upset at 5am the next day when I found out about it, before any of the networks were reporting it. Swing and a miss on that one. I have just waited to react.

My statement was a counter to your own, which was similar. Like you, I was fine with the Secretary's message before any of the networks were reporting it. Actually, I haven't seen any network coverage on it. Swing and miss on that one.

I have no problem with being tolerant. I DO have a problem with giving that equal time and placement with condemnation of the MURDER of a US AMBASSADOR and other attacks on US SOIL. As I said in my analogy which is actually perfect for the situation regardless of Direckshun's inability to follow along. There is nothing wrong with saying that burnt dinner is a bad thing. THERE is something wrong with placing it front and center when discussing an abused wife.

How can I make that any clearer?

Let's dumb it down.

You have read my analogy. Would you be perfectly ok with law enforcement making a statement to the press just like I laid it out? If NOT (and no one would be).. please explain how it is substantially different from what Clinton did? I have even provided an E-Z guide to analogies in a past post... if you have trouble following like Direkshun did.

So far... NO ONE will address why one situation is clearly wrong yet the other is a-ok. My guess.. pure partisanship. Please try to prove me wrong.

Yeah, your analogy is very bad. Here are some reasons why:

1) Condemnation of the film has not been 'front and center.'
2) In your hypothetical, the police are almost making an excuse for the domestic violence; but Secretary's comments can't reasonably taken as an excuse for the protests
3) Making mention our foundation of religious tolerance and non-approval is, like George W. Bush's comments after 9/11, is a responsible thing for government leaders to do, because lives, liberties, and peace are at stake. Police have a monopoly on violence and imprisonment; countries and other people in foreign countries are not under the jurisdiction of the United States government. Police and prosecutors follow the law by investigating, enforcement of remedies, and proving and punishing criminals who beat their wives; sovereign states have diplomacy. The Secretary of State is our chief foreign diplomat. The office is our peaceful connection to other countries and foreign people. Improving relations peacefully is everything that office is about.

You are a) exaggerating, b) being unreasonable, and c) refusing to see the larger context and roles of responsibility. That's why your analogy is misguided. Your statements of attack towards others who think, as I do, that the Secretary of State's sentence about non-approval and non-ownership is a responsible message, are more than misguided.

Brainiac
09-21-2012, 07:14 AM
AustinChief obviously needs no help from me or anyone else in this thread, so I'll just make an observation: his analogy comparing this situation to domestic violence was 100% spot on. Watching the partisan hacks deny it was both predictable and hilarious.

blaise
09-21-2012, 07:34 AM
If ridiculing someone's religion is hate speech then I guess Dave Lane and 5 or 6 others here must be guilty of hate speech.

La literatura
09-21-2012, 07:47 AM
AustinChief obviously needs no help from me or anyone else in this thread, so I'll just make an observation: his analogy comparing this situation to domestic violence was 100% spot on. Watching the partisan hacks deny it was both predictable and hilarious.

First of all, burning a steak is not commercial speech intended for the public designed to incite reactions that conveys an intentionally stirring message, which possibly contributed to the death of an ambassador and attacks on U.S. embassies.

Secondly, for the reasons I mentioned in the above post, there are key insights to why the analogy is faulty.