Innocence Riots

On what basis are you convinced that those undertaking the attacks are doing the necessary moral calculus? So you think the US is entirely justified in it’s actions. Those who see the US as the "oppressor" think they are entirely justified in their actions.My question to you is — How do you see this ending? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Offhand, it seems that many of the recent messages belong in the The US Gov't is Guilty of Murder topic, which had hit the "summations mode" at 300 messages, and currently rests at 300 messages. I have just removed the "summations mode" from that topic - Go there.Adminnemooseus Added by edit #2:

​

I've just plastered a bunch of "off-topic" banners on recent messages. That DOES NOT mean that there were not other equally off-topic messages upthread.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweek.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

The western world is so big and powerful that merely rolling over in its sleep can have a huge impact on the third world. We've been offending in the Arab world for centuries, and now with modern technology they are making their frustrations felt.Trying to identify who is at fault won't help, even if a clear balance of fault exists somewhere. We need to find better ways of dealing with the Arab world. There's no way to pretend that centuries of interference and intervention haven't happened, and violence isn't a solution because it causes more enmity. We will be paying in blood for what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades, and all the claims that we were justified or that it was necessary won't change that fact.What we need instead of invasions and drones is approaches that make friends of enemies. I don't know how we do that when the enemies are legitimate madmen like Saddam Hussein or Moamer Gaddafi or even just completely irrational governments like Iran, but if we don't figure it out then we'll be forever embroiled in Arab wars while hunkered fearfully down behind the walls of fortress America.--Percy

We are at war. Its backed by NATO. The other main participant is the United Kingdom. The countries we're helping are condoning our actions.But I suppose its really easy to sit in your office and go: "Naw, that's not a war"

Um, quite to the contrary. Charlie Hebdo gets death threats every time they publish one of his Mohammed-depicting cartoons. Quite targeted against him, specifically, and everybody involved in publishing the newspaper.I mean it's not like Hebdo and his colleagues don't have reason to believe that they're "gettable." They murdered Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, in broad daylight. I don't understand why you believe that Hebdo is "behind cover." Your own link details a Jihadist bombing right in downtown Paris. I don't think anyplace is "cover" from these guys, in the sense that you think it is.

You're right, we need mind-control and psy-ops to convince our enemies to love us. That will sure rehabilitate our image! I kid, but my point is that it's trivial to construe genuine efforts to win hearts and minds as pernicious propaganda and psychological manipulation if you're already inclined to view those efforts in bad faith.You've never been an asshole, so let me explain to you what it's like. Once everybody thinks you're an asshole, they interpret everything you do as assholish. Even when you're being nice, they assume you're doing it sarcastically or with some hidden agenda or ulterior asshole motive. There's just no way to convince someone you're not an asshole at that point because any effort you make to do so simply proves what an asshole you actually are.Look, if you've got a plan, I'd like to hear it. But you admit that you really don't. Well, here's another plan - exact such an incredible toll on those who would threaten us that nobody dares do so. It has it's obvious downsides, yes. I'd love to hear workable alternatives that don't rely on magic, aren't predicated on the very conditions they're meant to create (good faith attitudes towards the US in the Muslim world), and aren't just relying on someone smarter to solve all of our problems.

Charlie Hebdo isn't a person. It's a magazine.But yes, they are inviting risk on themselves. I think I read somewhere one of their offices was firebombed last time they printed Mohammad pictures.It's not that their actions are risk-free for themselves - it's that they aren't only putting themselves at risk, nor are they the primary ones at risk. If the reaction expected from this sort of thing was only a targeted fatwah against the magazine, then going ahead and publishing would be a courageous statement in honour of free speech. But they know that the expected reaction is an explosion of violent rage against anything that looks French in several different countries. They're putting other people at risk without their consent - this is what's irresponsible. And that's exactly why I posted that link - to point out the sheer, bullheaded, irresponsible stupidity of the fuckwit who posted it. He puts up the pictures because they're offensive to Muslims and then writes - 'and look how the silly Muslims react - they blow up some Jews who had nothing to do with it!'I have no idea if this bombing has any connection to the cartoons. But if you expect the reaction to their publication to be random attacks on Jews who have nothing to do with it, don't publish them.

Meanwhile those who have been incredibly tolled have nothing to lose and are prepared to go to almost any length, including blowing themselves and their families up, in order to exact some sort of revenge on the oppressor.....And so it goes on..... Such as not working? Such as exacerbating the situation? Well as one asshole to another (perhaps arsehole in my case) - Recovering from the asshole label is indeed fraught with cynicism and peril. But if you genuinely are an un-repentant asshole you can't really be justifiably upset about being treated like an asshole.....

They're not putting anybody at risk, caffeine. They're publishing cartoons. Their offices weren't firebombed by an act of nature or by forces outside of human control. They were firebombed by barbarians who believe that all must live as though Islam is true, and because Islam is true, blasphemy against the Prophet is a crime to be punished by death.The people who are putting others at risk are the extremists who believe that cartoons justify murder. But I don't see any opprobrium in your post for the murderous extremists who enforce censorship by death and the threat of death. This is, frankly, incredibly offensive and pusillanimous. The publishers of Charlie Hebdo haven't put even a single person at risk. I think the publishers of Charlie Hebdo and the rest of the French citizenry have the right to expect - and demand - that the reaction to publication should be, at worst, "I find that offensive but it's your right to publish it." Sorry if that seems insensitive but French citizens absolutely have that right and Muslims who reside within France and elsewhere are obligated to have that response. That they instead chose violence is not the fault of Charlie Hebdo or anyone but themselves, and it's an act of the most extreme and offensive racism, on your part, to say "oh, what did they expect, everybody knows that Muslims respond to blasphemy with murder."

So you say, but what's the evidence that this is actually true or significant? Who was the terrorist who was just a regular guy until he was radicalized by the collateral damage of a US attack? No, you can't be upset about it. But neither can you afford to hold the delusion that anyone is ever going to see you differently. Once they start interpreting your actions as being those of an asshole, it's impossible to get them to stop. US disengagement from the Muslim world would just be assumed to be a ruse. US aid would be assumed to be a trick (as it currently is.) And we'd continue to be blamed for every misfortune in the Muslim world, due to our obvious and readily-apparent alliance with Satan.What would convince militant Muslims that the US was no longer a threat would be the armed overthrow of the US government and the installation of sharia law. I'm not one who fears that's even possible (that's absurd.) But that's the only "win condition" for our enemies. Could Hitler have ever done anything that would have made you love him, and forget about the Holocaust? That's who we are to those people. The very forces of evil.

Unfortunately one of the realities of the world is that our actions have an impact outside our immediate sphere of influence, and pretending this reality doesn't exist does not absolve one of responsibility. It can be grating to realize that one's freedom of expression must be tempered by one's sense of responsibility due to the fact that some people are nutty and violent, but it is a reality of the world we live in. Certainly one can choose to deny any responsibility, but that doesn't impose any necessity on others to draw the same conclusion about one, and nonetheless the connection still exists.--Percy

I'm sorry, but this is victim-blaming. People in the West have free speech - full stop. People in the West have a right to blaspheme a religion - full stop. It's not wrong to publish a cartoon with Mohammed's naked butthole, or with a turban shaped like a bomb. It's wrong to kill and threaten to kill to intimidate people from doing those things. And it's wrong, as you and caffeine do, to build a false equivalency between blasphemy and murder.There's absolutely no difference between what you're saying, and the people who excuse rape because of what the woman chose to wear to the club. Women get raped, and embassies bombed, because of the actions of rapists and bombers. Not because of the actions of clubbers and cartoonists.

You're correct, but I understood you to be arguing that one has no responsibility to temper one's free speech even when one knows it will incite others to violence, which by the way was not the case with the movie that is the topic of this thread.--Percy

There's no such thing as "speech that you know will incite others to violence." People aren't puppets, they're understood to be able to make choices, and we obligate people to make the choice not to respond violently to provocation. Even religious provocation. If people decide to make a different choice, that's entirely on them."Don't be a dick" (aka "Wheaton's Law") is my watchword. But it's being more of a dick - much more - to kill innocents because of religious offense than it is to cause religious offense in the first place. Neither the "Innocence of Muslims" filmmaker nor the publishers of Charlie Hebdo were under any moral obligation not to offend Muslims. Sure, sure. The IoM film was meant to inflame Muslims to murderous intent. But maybe we should be more concerned about what it means for them to have been able to predict that so accurately, and why so few people's first impulse is to say "you know, maybe the problem here is with extremist Islam, not with people who make stupid YouTube videos."

Hi Crash,Again, you may not understand what I thought you were arguing. I thought you were arguing that there can never be any constraints on free speech, and that one is free from responsibility no matter what one says or when and where one says it.I don't think anyone here has staked out the position you're arguing against. You made some pretty extravagant claims about one bearing no responsibility for the consequences of one's speech, so naturally it has raised questions.--Percy