France attack...

[zitothebrave]

Thats because this is the way you perceive the human spirit to be. The reality is people in the middle east view life in a drastically different way than you and I do.

This has happened with other religions becuase of the advance of technology. Guess what? We are at our most advanced stage and these people still want to live like animals. Its not going to change.

Sorry but this post proves your historical ignorance. It wasn't technology that brought catholicism out of the dark ages and into the Renaissance. While the development of the Printing press sure did help, it was the desire to improve life (Italy had some healthy upwards mobility) it was a desire to learn more, to grow more, etc. It was a focus on secular humanism rather than just plodding through life. Same thing that helped lead to the end of the USSR, and other things. WHen people care about their lives they're not willing to die for a religiion.

 

[thethe]

No, it waa the access to information that changed the way we lived our lives. It doesn't just evolve naturally. Its all based on knowledge.

 

[zitothebrave]

No, it waa the access to information that changed the way we lived our lives. It doesn't just evolve naturally. Its all based on knowledge.

Nope. I'll let you see if you remember what I've taught you so far rather than repeat myself

 

[thethe]

Nope. I'll let you see if you remember what I've taught you so far rather than repeat myself

I loved how you glanced over the importance of the printing press when that was truly the reason that people got out of the stoneage.

 

[gilesfan]

These guys are gone now. 3 less terrorists in the world.

 

[goldfly]

These guys are gone now. 3 less terrorists in the world.

i thought one was caught or turned themselves in the other day?

did i read that wrong?

edit: i guess the third you are talking about is the friend who took over the deli that was trying to help them escape?

 

[BedellBrave]

Anonymous declares war. Link

 

[thethe]

Anonymous declares war. Link

Rest of the world is catching on. These people need to be stopped and eradicated.

 

[goldfly]

honestly, depends which Anon accounts you follow on twitter etc

it isn't like there is a leader and all of them follow said plan or whatever. their isn't a structure to the group really

btw, video of the cops or whatever killing the **** out of the terrorist at the grocery store: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=869_1420833044

 

[BedellBrave]

honestly, depends which Anon accounts you follow on twitter etc

it isn't like there is a leader and all of them follow said plan or whatever. their isn't a structure to the group really

btw, video of the cops or whatever killing the **** out of the terrorist at the grocery store: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=869_1420833044

You mean some of Anonymous aren't wanting to declare war?

 

[goldfly]

You mean some of Anonymous aren't wanting to declare war?

correct

some don't want to come to the defense of the paper cause how they (anon) think the paper depicts blacks, immigrants and muslims as a whole in their eyes.

they don't think they should be killed for it but they don't really like them either. it is a tough balancing act since they hate the world the radical muslims want to have as well where they will kill people over **** like this.

anyway, just what i get from reading twitter and some that i follow

but it is good to remember though that there isn't any hierarchy in place for that group.

 

[50PoundHead]

People should be afraid of a group of people that are willing to kill themselves in the name of a deity. Those are the most dangerous people in the world and are incredibly sophisticated with their organization and tactical skills.

Are you talking about all my fellow Christians who killed each other during the Thirty Years War?

Here are a few of interesting links from The New Republic.

#1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120718/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-can-be-defended-and-criticized

#2: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...hallenges-frances-treasured-national-identity

#3: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...difference-between-american-and-french-satire

I found #3 particularly interesting. We have a real softball culture in this country (and it's only partially due to the overweening political correctness that has been prevalent in post-WWII America). The only thing I can think of that was remotely irreverent is the old National Lampoon (which featured smart writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Michael O'Donoghue who could be both irreverent and nasty). Bill Maher comes close some days, but I tend to think he's more a curmudgeon in the Mencken mode than anything else.

 

[BedellBrave]

correct

some don't want to come to the defense of the paper cause how they (anon) think the paper depicts blacks, immigrants and muslims as a whole in their eyes.

they don't think they should be killed for it but they don't really like them either. it is a tough balancing act since they hate the world the radical muslims want to have as well where they will kill people over **** like this.

anyway, just what i get from reading twitter and some that i follow

but it is good to remember though that there isn't any hierarchy in place for that group.

Yeah, good reminder. An hierarchical structure wouldn't exactly fit them would it?

But I am disappointed that they aren't all on board - particularly for the reasons given in the Douthat article.

 

[goldfly]

if it makes you feel better

they wish neither were around

 

[BedellBrave]

Are you talking about all my fellow Christians who killed each other during the Thirty Years War?

Here are a few of interesting links from The New Republic.

#1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120718/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-can-be-defended-and-criticized

#2: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...hallenges-frances-treasured-national-identity

#3: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...difference-between-american-and-french-satire

I found #3 particularly interesting. We have a real softball culture in this country (and it's only partially due to the overweening political correctness that has been prevalent in post-WWII America). The only thing I can think of that was remotely irreverent is the old National Lampoon (which featured smart writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Michael O'Donoghue who could be both irreverent and nasty). Bill Maher comes close some days, but I tend to think he's more a curmudgeon in the Mencken mode than anything else.

Not wild about #1. Think the argument is a bit off. Instead of, "If an Islamist kills a westerner for a particular blasphemy, then the blasphemy itself must be embraced," I think the argument ought rather to be, "If an Islamist kills a westerner for a particular blasphemy, then the blasphemy itself must be defended (or recognized as being within one's right - or even must be seen as necessary, ala Douthat's argument)." I don't have to like the blasphemy but I probably ought to be defending the right of the person to make it, if I hope for the right to exist for long.

 

[thethe]

Are you talking about all my fellow Christians who killed each other during the Thirty Years War?

Here are a few of interesting links from The New Republic.

#1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120718/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-can-be-defended-and-criticized

#2: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...hallenges-frances-treasured-national-identity

#3: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...difference-between-american-and-french-satire

I found #3 particularly interesting. We have a real softball culture in this country (and it's only partially due to the overweening political correctness that has been prevalent in post-WWII America). The only thing I can think of that was remotely irreverent is the old National Lampoon (which featured smart writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Michael O'Donoghue who could be both irreverent and nasty). Bill Maher comes close some days, but I tend to think he's more a curmudgeon in the Mencken mode than anything else.

Yes, the Christians were awful at some point in time. Now we are dealing with radical Islams destroying any hope of world peace. They need to be dealt with and eradicated like the animals they are.

 

[BedellBrave]

Are you talking about all my fellow Christians who killed each other during the Thirty Years War?

Here are a few of interesting links from The New Republic.

#1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120718/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-can-be-defended-and-criticized

#2: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...hallenges-frances-treasured-national-identity

#3: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...difference-between-american-and-french-satire

I found #3 particularly interesting. We have a real softball culture in this country (and it's only partially due to the overweening political correctness that has been prevalent in post-WWII America). The only thing I can think of that was remotely irreverent is the old National Lampoon (which featured smart writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Michael O'Donoghue who could be both irreverent and nasty). Bill Maher comes close some days, but I tend to think he's more a curmudgeon in the Mencken mode than anything else.

Enjoyed #2. It is important not to have a reductionistic understanding of the French situation. Yes, indeed, France's Enlightenment history is at play and its colonialism. Nevertheless, understanding shouldn't, imho, mean that the acts are defended.

We also shouldn't have a reductionistic take on the 30 Years War. Religion wasn't the only factor (hardly ever is) in the 4 phases of the war - and that's particularly seen when France entered the fray fighting the remnants of the HRE for that was a Roman Catholic on Roman Catholic phase. Nationalism was as much a part of it as anything.

Fellow Christians killed each other in the English Civil Wars, the French & Indian War, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI and WWII. We need to be careful with the sort of knee-jerk equivalences that we want to make whenever we get to this topic of Islamic jihadism.

 

[BedellBrave]

Are you talking about all my fellow Christians who killed each other during the Thirty Years War?

Here are a few of interesting links from The New Republic.

#1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120718/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-can-be-defended-and-criticized

#2: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...hallenges-frances-treasured-national-identity

#3: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...difference-between-american-and-french-satire

I found #3 particularly interesting. We have a real softball culture in this country (and it's only partially due to the overweening political correctness that has been prevalent in post-WWII America). The only thing I can think of that was remotely irreverent is the old National Lampoon (which featured smart writers like P.J. O'Rourke and Michael O'Donoghue who could be both irreverent and nasty). Bill Maher comes close some days, but I tend to think he's more a curmudgeon in the Mencken mode than anything else.

Yeah, #3 is helpful. Southpark should be mentioned.

 

[50PoundHead]

Enjoyed #2. It is important not to have a reductionistic understanding of the French situation. Yes, indeed, France's Enlightenment history is at play and its colonialism. Nevertheless, understanding shouldn't, imho, mean that the acts are defended.

We also shouldn't have a reductionistic take on the 30 Years War. Religion wasn't the only factor (hardly ever is) in the 4 phases of the war - and that's particularly seen when France entered the fray fighting the remnants of the HRE for that was a Roman Catholic on Roman Catholic phase. Nationalism was as much a part of it as anything.

Fellow Christians killed each other in the English Civil Wars, the French & Indian War, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, WWI and WWII. We need to be careful with the sort of knee-jerk equivalences that we want to make whenever we get to this topic of Islamic jihadism.

Of course we shouldn't. But there's more at play here than just religion as well. God almost always gets dragged into this stuff by somebody, often times tenuously.

And I forgot about South Park.

 

[BedellBrave]

Of course we shouldn't. But there's more at play here than just religion as well. God almost always gets dragged into this stuff by somebody, often times tenuously.

And I forgot about South Park.

Yeah, that's why I said in the first paragraph that we shouldn't have one in this French incident. That said, we should not be shy to say that these attacks were in direct response to blasphemy. The primary and publicly stated reason was Islamic, religious. The broader context of immigrant grievances and former colonialism can be, and should be factored in, but not given a weight that diminishes the Jihadist ideology.