While they usually have ulterior motives, I prefer when world powers police other countries that have a history of barbaric acts.
They do this to all religions.
They do it through cartoons.
If you are one of those ppl that feel disrespected, don't buy, read or look at the publication. If someone out in the world disrespects any of your beliefs on purpose it is not okay to kill them for it. That's what you're advocating with your they asked for it/don't poke the bear rhetoric. It's bull ****. Bull ****. bull ****. BULL ****. It'll never not be bull ****.
I don't know who the **** you're talking about but I'll be clear and specifically directly tell you I'm not one of those ppl. Address the topic instead of trying to draw parallel comparisons to things that don't hold water here.
You must be out your ******* mind thinking I'm okay with the police let alone the gov't ignoring the law or the constitution whenever they think they have a reasonable cause to do so. ******* completely out your mind. I aint the one. Save that for them **** boys with no principles that'll flip flop whenever the wind blows in a different direction.
Do you even have a reply or explanation for your stance or are you admitting you feel you should just bend over and take it in the *** from the terrorists?
This is very simple, the ppl who thought it was classless were wrong. Next?
Seems you just in here whining that this other cause you feel strongly about didn't get the same reaction this got. If true, that's not a reason to play devil's advocate or pretend to adopt such an idiotic view about freedom of expression.
We aint no ******* christian nation. Take that **** to FOX news. I don't know who you pandering to with this sarcastic angle.
**** Christianity. There were plenty and probably still a few extremist and fundamental Christians. They go by many names in America today. I wouldn't mind at all if news media in the East referred to Christianity as such a thing if some radical Christians were running around mass murdering ppl on a daily basis.
Quite frankly seems your problem is the semantics of words and what the media has ran with as far as labels. Is Islam as a whole some extremist violent religion? No but does it have scripture that can be interpreted to advocate and commit violence? Yes. The same exact way Christians used scripture from the bible to okay slavery and every other inhumane act in the name of their religion (Crusades, witch hunting, etc). Pretty sure many unconverted yet to be conditioned Africans referred to white ppl and their religion as some similar label as terrorists when they were being bought and sold like cattle.
You can't approach me this way. I'm not some guy sitting in superiority on the side of Christianity looking down on Islam because of what some so called Muslims choose to do in the name of their religion. There's really not a scenario you could concoct by switching labels that would have me contradict my stance on this.
If you think the ppl at Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves because their free speech purposely offended and disrespected a religion or thinking/saying some form of they shouldn't be doing that because there are crazy murderers in the world that might be offended or any other way to imply that the victims are to blame you're probably a coward and undeserving of rights you're entitled to.
You took a stance where i never labeled you specifically & answered in response to yourself... I'm not gonna sit here and argue your personal views. America is seemed as a christian nation by the Majority, the mainstream media promoted & showed the various amounts of people who Felt black lives matter was classless and opposed cops.
I already said those ppl were wrong.
Also lets not pretend all American media have painted the ppl who felt black lives matter with the same brush. That would be ignorant and flat out false, basically lying on your part.
You have also taken this small time rant of yours to accuse me of 1) being jealous of the amount of headlines the Charlie Hedbo attack got compared to black lives matter
I didn't accuse you of being jealous. I just said you purposely made a comparison where there is none based on ppl who are against one thing but are in this thread agreeing with this thing.
If you're gonna reply to my posts, reply to my posts. Not what you think "others" have said or just based off of your emotions.
2) "bending Over" for terrorist.
I specifically said if you agree with those sentiments and have been spreading it. If you want to ignore that in order to stand up on your soap box to pretend defend yourself filling your post with fluff instead of addressing what I'm talking about save it on the next reply.
BOTH OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY LONG.
If I actually made those accusations I might be.
I clearly stated that these attacks aren't justified due to the antics of the magazine.
And I clearly said if you're in this thread stating one thing while implying another you're a coward. If you're not doing that why take the time to reply? Could simply say that's not what you're doing and actually reply to something.
However i am not gonna sit here and act like the magazine doesn't have blood on their hands and isn't using this tragedy to draw more attention and hype to their publication.
This is the exact bull **** I'm talking about.
The shoe fits bruh.
In a time where Islam is already under scrutiny and hatred from a myriad of directions, you pretty much blame the god of an entire religion for the deaths of a few people.
Where is Charlie Hebdo doing that? Who are you really talking about here. Seems you're on something completely else. No need to leep replying to me if you have your own agenda bruh. Go ahead and just freely post this rant and get it off ya chest.
While in the national spotlight, this magazine pretty much put up a poster saying **** Islam... not **** extreme minority terrorist who killed my people, but **** Islam as a whole.
So?
They got the right to do that whether or not there are ppl out there killing in the name of Islam.
They did and do the same thing to Christianity when it was dominating all of Europe and the New world.
I don't give a **** about someones rights when they use it to spread hate
See this is where we get to the heart of the matter and where you're wrong.
What Charlie Hebdo does is free speech. Not hate speech. You need to seriously educate yourself on this and try your best to remove your emotions from the equation. If you can't there isn't any point in you discussing this.
Just because something offends you, just because you don't like it doesn't allow you to label it hate speech and then say **** those person's rights. This is the exact thinking of those mass murderers.
and turn people against eachother.
That is the exact opposite of what Charlie Hebdo does.
Guess what the KKK uses their ability of free speech
Bull ****.
This is the equivalent of bringing up Hitler and the nazis to make your whole argument jump the shark when a comparison doesn't directly apply.
am i suppose to agree with them because they have their rights?
This is where you're severely confused.
You don't have to agree with anyone but once you start saying you don't care about anyone's rights cuz you don't like it you'll be ignored.
It's freedom of speech not make everyone agree with your opinions and ideas. Just because someone has rights doesn't mean you have to agree with them but just because you disagree with them doesn't mean they should lose their rights.
It's insane that you don't see what kinda of path you'll end up on thinking this way.
Am i giving up my rights to our government because i deplore a group speaking freely about dehumanizing and killing blacks?
No but since you brought up this highly inflammatory example.
Show me where Charlie Hebdo is freely speaking about killing Muslims?
You know in an outright direct way?
You seriously don't understand the difference between free speech you disagree with and hate speech. You'll continue to be wrong until you do.
It makes no sense **** this magazine and their "Free Speech" when you use your speech to harm yea i do think it should be taken away.
Again this is the thinking of those mass murderers. Hope you smarten up.
Putting quotations around Free Speech doesn't make it not free speech. You don't know the difference between speech you disagree with and hate speech.
Charlie Hebdo do not use their speech with the intent to harm. At least educate yourself on their publication
Furthermore, which obviously bears repeating, no one is forcing you or anyone who does not like what Charlie Hebdo has to say to buy read or look at their magazine. You choose to and you're choosing to submit yourself to something that offends you.
It's as simple as that.
My baring on the magazines message doesn't equate with the people killed deserved it, so you can cut that option A or B narrative right now it's not gonna work.
Actually your further explanation of your opinion on Charlie Hebdo isn't a far cry from the same thinking of the terrorists that killed the ppl that worked at Charlie Hebdo.
You'd stifle free speech because you don't agree with it. You'll lie and say their intent is to harm with their speech, you'll lie and say their speech is hate speech, you'll lie to make it so that they're in the wrong and you are in the right all because you disagree with what they have to say instead of ignoring and avoiding them. It's beyond despicable.
Fact of the matter is yes innocent people were killed, yet the very same magazine is involved in spreading a message and blame for the world to see which can cause hatred and death amongst more innocent people... so once again **** Charlie Hebdo & their "free" speech. Should they just quit? yea they should not because their pissing off terrorist but because they are instigating hate between religions... Not like people haven't died over that tho
This is a straight contradiction. You can't accuse Charlie Hebdo of hate speech, of spreading a message of hatred and death, saying the cause hatred and death amongst innocent ppl and then turn around and say innocent ppl were killed. That's some two faced double speak bull ****. It's insulting as ****. Those ppl that died are the ones that worked to allegedly spread this message of "hatred and death" you're claiming Charlie Hebdo practices with their free speech. So don't play dumb. There's no way around it. You're saying those ppl had it coming due to the work they did. You're giving murderers an excuse and reason for what they did because you disagree with what Charlie Hebdo has to say. It's ******* disgusting.
Plus your just making up bull ****. Where are they instigating hate between religions? Where are they pitting one religion against the other? They make satire against all religions, politicians, etc. You simply disagree with that so you'll make up any excuse you can to vilify them and then come through here with that weak *** reasoning about "it's bad that those ppl died but..." there's no ******* but you're just actually not for free speech like you pretend to be.
cause.
. I'm still waiting to hear the justification for the associate of the other 2 murderers attacking that kosher supermarket. Did they have it coming to them for shopping at a kosher store?
