The terrorist thing
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 6:56 pm
The attack in Paris conversation has pretty much boiled down to a free speech issue.
Should a newspaper, magazine,any media outlet, or individual have freedom of speech? My answer is absolutely, but with that freedom of speech comes the real world, the possibility of someone taking offense at your statement and handing down a beating or worse yet a bullet to the head.
Charlie Hebdo has a long history of anti religion rhetoric not just pointed at muslims, they attacked every faith with some of the most vile messages and cartoons ever printed. Well it seems that ole Charlie's employees had gotton comfortable with never having to answer to well mounted attacks by Christians or Jews or anyone else they took a poke at. Anyone except the muslims who had warned them, since the magazine had gotten by before they continued to swat at the hornets nest.
Now don't get me wrong I deplore the attack by the muslims,but if you persist on calling (insert the group you dislike here) stupid sooner or later you're going to get punched out by a radical in that group.
You have to tread very carefully around a religion who thinks that their leader is too weak to defend his views personally, mohammed is such a leader. His followers must feel that his brand of gospel is so disgusting to non believers that since he can't convince everyone to follow him with his words they must intervene with bullets and beheadings to get his point across.
My God is so powerful that he doesn't need me to interfere with his plan, so it must be very depressing to a muslim to think their prophet has such a weak message that he needs violence to help spread the word.
So here we are left with a conundrum, do we continue to prod the beasts of the muslim faith to try and convince the moderates in the muslim community that the terrorists have chosen an absolutist version of islam and to join others to denounce that path?
Or do we choose to cower in the corner, the president of this country has decided that we will not even label these nutjobs as radical islamists, in my very small view that makes him a sympathizer of these acts of violence,if you can't even bring yourself to recognize the horror of the acts how can you fight them.
My thought is the people with a large podium should call out the acts and the actors for what they are, animals who have no rights in my world. If you are a radical muslim who murders an innocent person in the name of your perverted religion, I am going to kill you right back, then I'm going to take out 50 of your buddies and put the bodies on a flat bed trailer and drag it all over where you lived to show the radicals that Yea tho I walk through the valley of death, I fear no evil because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.
Islomphobia is BS, muslim radicals are the issue not the people that don't understand their feelings.
So to sum it all up, mohammed , until he gets the gumption to convince the world that it's OK to kill infidels, rape children, subjugate women, and kill people if they are gay, I say suck it mohammy boy.
Should a newspaper, magazine,any media outlet, or individual have freedom of speech? My answer is absolutely, but with that freedom of speech comes the real world, the possibility of someone taking offense at your statement and handing down a beating or worse yet a bullet to the head.
Charlie Hebdo has a long history of anti religion rhetoric not just pointed at muslims, they attacked every faith with some of the most vile messages and cartoons ever printed. Well it seems that ole Charlie's employees had gotton comfortable with never having to answer to well mounted attacks by Christians or Jews or anyone else they took a poke at. Anyone except the muslims who had warned them, since the magazine had gotten by before they continued to swat at the hornets nest.
Now don't get me wrong I deplore the attack by the muslims,but if you persist on calling (insert the group you dislike here) stupid sooner or later you're going to get punched out by a radical in that group.
You have to tread very carefully around a religion who thinks that their leader is too weak to defend his views personally, mohammed is such a leader. His followers must feel that his brand of gospel is so disgusting to non believers that since he can't convince everyone to follow him with his words they must intervene with bullets and beheadings to get his point across.
My God is so powerful that he doesn't need me to interfere with his plan, so it must be very depressing to a muslim to think their prophet has such a weak message that he needs violence to help spread the word.
So here we are left with a conundrum, do we continue to prod the beasts of the muslim faith to try and convince the moderates in the muslim community that the terrorists have chosen an absolutist version of islam and to join others to denounce that path?
Or do we choose to cower in the corner, the president of this country has decided that we will not even label these nutjobs as radical islamists, in my very small view that makes him a sympathizer of these acts of violence,if you can't even bring yourself to recognize the horror of the acts how can you fight them.
My thought is the people with a large podium should call out the acts and the actors for what they are, animals who have no rights in my world. If you are a radical muslim who murders an innocent person in the name of your perverted religion, I am going to kill you right back, then I'm going to take out 50 of your buddies and put the bodies on a flat bed trailer and drag it all over where you lived to show the radicals that Yea tho I walk through the valley of death, I fear no evil because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.
Islomphobia is BS, muslim radicals are the issue not the people that don't understand their feelings.
So to sum it all up, mohammed , until he gets the gumption to convince the world that it's OK to kill infidels, rape children, subjugate women, and kill people if they are gay, I say suck it mohammy boy.
