Here are the cartoons that got 12 innocent people at Charlie Hebdo slaughtered

Scary Black Man wrote:

It is not going to end well for the people of Europe.

Sure it will. The US will step up and defend Europe with our well funded military which saves Europe billions by protecting them for free. Then they can go back to making fun of Americans on Facebook for being uncivilized and militaristic using their Apple computer, after conducting a search on Google.

SBM,

When did I ever claim that every enlisted and officer on base is walking around with a sidearm? Anyone who's ever been on a base knows that. Police responded quickly and I believe the second responding police officer successfully disabled Hasan.

People that commit mass shootings like that usually aren't concerned with surviving them. I don't think Hasan had any expectation of coming out of Fort Hood alive.

Great idea. THANK YOU Wejo!

agip wrote:

Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.

Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/david-brooks-i-am-not-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0

Thank you for posting this article.

I've been thinking of something similar over the last day: Would all the people in the U.S. (Obama, Fox News and local hipsters included), be so vociferous in their defense of freedom of speech if the cartoon would have been mocking the Ferguson protestors or the people shot by police? Remember that nutcase church Westboro that protested at funerals? Wasn't that freedom of speech?

In the U.S. it's my perception before freedom of speech is defended, it has to pass through the PC filter of the media and politicians.

All should remember this the next time a subject they are sensitive about is the subject matter. There are no grey areas, if you want it you have to accept all forms, not just the ones you agree with.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

SBM,

When did I ever claim that every enlisted and officer on base is walking around with a sidearm? Anyone who's ever been on a base knows that. Police responded quickly and I believe the second responding police officer successfully disabled Hasan.

People that commit mass shootings like that usually aren't concerned with surviving them. I don't think Hasan had any expectation of coming out of Fort Hood alive.

Jeff,

The fact remains the same. Nidal exploited the base policy. Nidal knew his victims were helpless.

The difference between the U.S. And Europe.....

In the U.S. Nidal was stopped by armed security on sight. In Europe the scum bags are currently hold up with hostages. More people are going to be murdered in Europe by the same scum bags.

Your absurd anti gun arguments are tired and irrelevant. This is the reason they have always been rejected by the American People.

Your blind liberal idealogy will never allow you the ability to see this. You will live your whole life in a blind denial of reality.

Older guy wrote:

In the U.S. it's my perception before freedom of speech is defended, it has to pass through the PC filter of the media and politicians.

Protecting free speech means that you can't be assaulted for what you say and government forces can't stop you from speaking your mind (public safety exemption noted).

An institution, such as the University of Kansas, doesn't have to associate itself with someone that it believes is harming the image of the university, even though it's a publicly funded institution. If a professor there said that he hated all Chinese people, the university would have a rightful case for termination. But the police can't arrest or assault that person for his racist beliefs.

It's official, you have completely lost it.

I hope that whatever has been destroying your integrity for the past few weeks is something that you can overcome.

Older guy wrote:

...Remember that nutcase church Westboro that protested at funerals? Wasn't that freedom of speech?

In the U.S. it's my perception before freedom of speech is defended, it has to pass through the PC filter of the media and politicians.

All should remember this the next time a subject they are sensitive about is the subject matter. There are no grey areas, if you want it you have to accept all forms, not just the ones you agree with.

You appear to not understand the concept of freedom of speech.

you, never willing to make an argument or be specific where I have gone so utterly wrong.

If you want any credibility, you'll actually have to say what you mean.

There is a bit of a problem with the Brooks article in that he does not acknowledge that colleges with hate speech codes do not intend the hate speaker to be killed or arrested. Just expelled.

But

universities have a unique role in the west as places of free thought. Brooks points out how far from that ideal colleges in this country have moved.

You have to acknowledge the shame universities should feel at being so eager to shut down speech. again and again.

So he doesn't draw an exact parallel, but the heart of what he says is right.

OK, I'll bite.

"Is that why Nidal Malik Hasan was able to kill 13 people on an Army base? Because no one was armed?"

Your questions imply that a US military base has many or a higher proportion of people armed, and that the attack happened despite this. The fact is that US military bases actually have a lower amount/percentage people armed than the surrounding area outside of the base. From my simple perspective, gun free zones like this are target rich environments.

It is my opinion that if those soldiers had been armed, the action with the perpetrator would have been terminated in less time. The police responded in more time than it would have taken any of those soldiers to respond, if armed.

I won't even attempt to debate with you on the merits of liberty, with regards to arms and their use. I will simply say this... Evil exists. You and your way of life are protected from that evil by men with guns. These situations are evidence of a trade off. Denying the presence of arms decreases the chance of firearms related accidents, suicides, murders, etc, but increases reliance on those men with guns to get there in a timely manner, and having the wherewithal and means by which to rectify the situation. In the case of Fort Hood, the MPs did that. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, at this time, they have yet to and those at the point of attack failed. I would prefer to be in the position (armed) and at least have the chance to take care the evil myself. I believe it is wrong for you to deny me that.

wejo wrote:

I went back to page 6 and cleaned up the thread removing posts just discussing TRex and not his ideas.

Anyone posting a variation of TRex's names or calling him out in this thread will get banned as well

Well thanks wejo. If you did this on every thread it would be a full-time job for you. And it's already gotten "results"- the guy who pretends to be me, and then also posts under his clever "Butthurtosaurus Rexing" name (and many, many others) and writes "LIBTARDS!! HA HA HA....You're all a bunch of BUTTHURT LIBTARDS!!! Your BUTT is so HURT I can't believe it ! Stupid LIBTARD PUSSIES!!!" over and over and over and over and over, usually at me, whether i ignore him or not, (yes, honestly he seeks me out and does this CONSTANTLY) has decided to use real words and try and form complete thoughts, as "SCARY BLACK MAN." (check the IP) Bravo. (I find his points still offensive and wrong, but I suppose this a big step up)

And I will e-mail you and see what you thought my transgressions were.

This:

"universities have a unique role in the west as places of free thought. Brooks points out how far from that ideal colleges in this country have moved.

You have to acknowledge the shame universities should feel at being so eager to shut down speech. again and again. "

is pretty good.

This:

"campus leftists need to STFU, right now"

is WAY beneath you.

Hope you are feeling better soon. This place needs a sane voice or two.

ok well cheers mate. I see your point now.

but

is it not ok to ask people who threaten free speech...to STFU?

it's rude but I'm not sure it's wrong.

but

I shoulda said 'campus leftists who threaten free speech need to STFU now'

instead of lumping all campus lefties together.

agip wrote:

It's Official wrote:

This:

"universities have a unique role in the west as places of free thought. Brooks points out how far from that ideal colleges in this country have moved.

You have to acknowledge the shame universities should feel at being so eager to shut down speech. again and again. "

is pretty good.

This:

"campus leftists need to STFU, right now"

is WAY beneath you.

Hope you are feeling better soon. This place needs a sane voice or two.

ok well cheers mate. I see your point now.

but

is it not ok to ask people who threaten free speech...to STFU?

it's rude but I'm not sure it's wrong.

but

I shoulda said 'campus leftists who threaten free speech need to STFU now'

instead of lumping all campus lefties together.

Totally with you.

You, my friend, appear to be engaged in a spectacular combination of double think and ignorance.

Let's start with the objective fact that the USA has more guns, and more gun murders than France.

let's continue with the objective fact that, regardless of what else they do, US military action, especially drone strikes and Yemen and Pakistan, have been an explicit and objective factor in radicalising Muslims and terrorists thoughout the world. Explicit in that terrorists have explicitely cited this as a factor behind their violence. No, it is not the only factor, the radicalised Islamic ideology obviously is one too, but it is a factor.

Let's now deal with you blatant, complete ignorance of French society and politics.

As I said earlier, France does not do liberal multiculturalism. It provides no statistical recognition of religious or ethnic minorities, and it is the country that has banned all religious symbols, including the veil, in schools; and has banned the burqa in public places.

Let's also talk about some of th factors in France that has been a cause for radicalising young Muslims - these include the fact that French society is quite explicitely racist, French Muslims often live in segregated ghettos and often feal completely left behind by French society. Like with blacks in the USA, this is an obvious cause for violence among those who feel they have no stake in society, and unlike in the US, there is not even any official support for members of ethnic minorities. Obviously, in these circumstances, radical Islam provides a very convenient emotive appeal to angry, alienated young men.

Finally, let me make a couple of more points. One, a Muslim police officer was killed defending free speech. Two, Charlie Hebdo is a left wing magazine, in France, like much of Europe, left wing and liberal are different; liberal in France means right wing, and your failure to understand this underlines your complete and utter ignorance of the context of this attack.

Anyway, it appears the terrorists have now been killed, I can't say I am particularly devastated about this as a result.

My gut reaction was that, between MPs and armed guards at the entry points, military bases should be a more secure place than a civilian office building. Looking at the statistics, my gut reaction was wrong. It's not as if entrants with valid military IDs are searched and have weapons confiscated when they go on base. US bases don't seem to be any more secure than any other workplace when it comes to shootings.

But I stand by the fact that it is very rare for a gun to be successfully used in self-defense and a firearm kept at home is far more likely to be used against a member of the household than agains an intruder.

[quote]

Denying the presence of arms decreases the chance of firearms related accidents, suicides, murders, etc, but increases reliance on those men with guns to get there in a timely manner, and having the wherewithal and means by which to rectify the situation.{/quote]

So are people in Tokyo more likely to be the victims of gun violence than in Dallas>?

You ignore how France and all of Western Europe have folded like a cheap chair to Muslim immigrants.

Yes the terrorist are dead, but not without murdering 4 hostages.

Yours is a reactive not proactive society. Evil has learned from this and will exploit it to the tune of many more dead people.

Your apologist idealogy will continue to perpetuate the problem.

Scary Black Man wrote:

It looks like you are choosing to attack others with your nonsense. It is only a matter of time before you are banned from LR.

Good riddance. You can't help but to attack those whom your blind idealogy are in disagreence with.

It is clear that you are someone with no self control and who's only refuge is to attack others with liberal hate and call it an "argument."

blah, blah, blah. A) I was replying to wejo, not you, and B) Nothing I wrote was incorrect and you know it. Your behavior on here has been utter disgrace and you know it. Don't try and sweep it under the rug because wejo has given you some sort of temporarily clean slate. And yes, its' comical that you claim I have "blind idealogy" (you seriously don't have spell check on your computer???) when your views are straight out of the ultimate right wing extremist textbook.

Give it rest and move one (but really, I miss the "BUTTHURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!" already)

Scary Black Man wrote:

You ignore how France and all of Western Europe have folded like a cheap chair to Muslim immigrants.

Yes the terrorist are dead, but not without murdering 4 hostages.

Yours is a reactive not proactive society. Evil has learned from this and will exploit it to the tune of many more dead people.

Your apologist idealogy will continue to perpetuate the problem.

How many times to you want me to repeat the same point? There is no way that you caould argue that France, of all places, has folded "like a cheap chair", you have made it abundantly clear that you know nothing, but nothing about French politics.

Also, explain how I am being an apologist? When have I ever said anything that has justified the attacks?

It is people like you, who believe that any attempt to explain what drives people to undertake these kinds of actions is the same as justifying them, who perpetuate the problem. Only by understanding why radical islam appeals to people, can we ever seek to actually prevent future attacks.