At least 10 dead in Paris shooting[W:163]

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 26, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

JP Cusick said:
There is no argument and the discussion is finished - that is what you are failing to recognize.

Even your feeling of abhorrence is part of the package.

This is a demonstration of the difference between hate speech and truth.

When hate speech gets silenced then it ceases to exist because it has no substance and no reality.

But silence the truth and the truth keeps popping back up because truth can not be suppressed for long.

==============================================

That "God" is based on weakness and cowardice, and it suits me just fine.

The problem is that you keep saying to "ignore ignore" but then you never go away.

===============================================

Just FYI:

This picture is not communicating anything.

It is incoherent and whatever you might mean by it is totally lost.

In case you do not know that - FYI.

Not really caring, this whole "white privilege" crap, is just that, crap/

JP Cusick · Jan 26, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
LOL yeah, those Charlie Hebdo cartoonists armed with pencils took on islamic extremists and terrorists armed with Kalashnikovs...

Unarmed satirists vs armed terrorists makes the satirists cowards.

That is not an accurate depiction.

The wars against Islam were not happening in France and those publishers saw their self as protected in there high security office building with bars on their windows and tight security locks on their doors and a couple French police standing guard outside their front door, and they did not expect any combatants to come into their secure sanctuary and shoot them down.

So yes those French publishers were acting brave and bold in their hate speech but they were nothing more than immoral cowards of the lowest kind.

Infinite Chaos said:
You aren't really familiar with western values and life in the west are you?

Yes I am very familiar with the Western values especially here in the USA, and one huge point is that we must recognize that the USA (and West) are a truly ignorant degenerate society, because without knowing that then any American (or Westerner) is just not self aware.

Things like satire and religious bigotry and hate speech are just some of the outgrowth of our barbaric population.

To view our society as if many TV show like "Saturday Night Live" does those ignorant things then thereby satire and ignorance are the right things to do - well no, they are not.

And our side is preaching to the Islamic people that in order to be liberated then the Muslim women must take off their clothing as like the Western Women expose their selves, and our side is trying to pressure the Islamic women to take off their clothing as if our perverted and licentious ways are superior, and our side will not respect their society or their customs and their traditions.

So too those French publishers are going to insult and degrade the most sacred things in the Islamic religion and the bigots of the Western mentality can not understand why killing those publishers was a righteous thing to do.

Of course there are decent people in the West who do understand, and now hopefully all of the religious hatred will stay suppressed.

Infinite Chaos said:
Does your profile pic and chosen name even reflect where you actually are?

Yes my profile is really myself and my location, as I could never be so bold if I was hiding behind lies.

In fact I ran for election twice to the US Congress, and even though I did not win those elections - the authorities all know who I am and where I stand and I feel proud of that.

See here = Maryland 2008 Democratic Party Primary Election Results - Cusick vs Hoyer

The Mark · Jan 26, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

JP Cusick said:
You keep leaving out the important detail that it was deliberate hate speech against the religion of Islam while the West (including the USA and France) have our ongoing violent wars against the religion of Islam and Drone assassinations against the religion of Islam.

I don’t mention it because as of yet I have seen no evidence that would lead me to believe your CLAIM that deliberate hate speech against Islam took place.
Further, the “west having an ongoing war against the religion of Islam” is ALSO something I have yet to see evidence of.

I find it interesting that you’re using the word “assassination” in a negative way when talking about drone attacks, but in a positive way when talking about the attack on the French publisher.
Additionally, I have seen no evidence that drone attacks are specifically targeted against the religion of Islam - against specific MEMBERS of said religion, perhaps, but only because of their actions, not because of their religion.

tl;dr I don’t mention it because I consider it hyperbolic spin with little or no basis in reality.

JP Cusick said:
Of course anyone can deny that it is war against that religion but those denials have no substance nor reality.

I disagree, obviously, since I just claimed that your claim had no basis in reality.

JP Cusick said:
It is not just hate speech as it is hate speech directly at a gigantic worldwide religion and history tells us that religious bigotry has been the cause of countless human atrocities both large and small.

Again, I do not know of any evidence that hate speech occurred originating from this French publisher.

JP Cusick said:
And there are very few things (if any) that get universal justification or "right" because humans disagree about virtually everything, and as such for killing the French publishers then it does not much matter if you are on the side which sees no justification because the other side is extremely large and extremely determined who do see it as justified and as righteous.

This is known as Argumentum ad populum – “…a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it.”
I will reiterate again that IMO:

The Mark said:
Speech (of any form), no matter how hateful or vile, does not IMO ever justify any form of violence from those it attacks/focuses upon.

Unless you come up with some really good argument to the contrary, that point will continue to negate nearly every statement you make.

JP Cusick said:
In my own case with me being far away on the extreme sidelines then I get to be the Judge and the Jury and my verdict is that the publishers were guilty and the assassins were righteous, and I really do believe that probably half (or much more) of the entire world population would agree with my verdict.

Your self-proclaimed position on the literal or metaphorical sidelines in no way legitimizes your judgment.
I seriously doubt that 50% of the world agrees with you.
I’d estimate less than 5% of the world at most, and likely less than 1%

But even if 99% of the world agreed with you, you would still be incorrect IMO. The majority is NOT always right.

JP Cusick said:
Well I told already that I will not post anything that has the hate speech on it, as that is NOT going to happen under my name.

In this case then anything which insults or degrades or ridicules the religion of Islam is hate speech - and that is not complicated.

How am I supposed to make an informed decision on whether a cartoon was hate speech or not without having seen it?
I asked for a description so you could avoid posting any images if you preferred.
But presenting something that is or may be hate speech, if presented in the context of discussion about whether it or similar things are hate speech or not…doesn’t seem like hate speech to me…

*****Continued in next post*****

The Mark · Jan 26, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

JP Cusick said:
In this one case of the French publishers then yes violence was used to silence it, but I truly do not see them as silenced based on that violence.

That assassination of those publishers simply brought rightful attention to the hate speech and it is being silenced NOT because of the violence but because their hate speech is recognized as being evil and as wrong.

That French publisher is now and will remain silent because now no one will house them, no one will guard them, no one stands with them, and the ones left over cannot maintain their self.

Those are condemned for their hate speech by every News source and by Politicians and even the Pope denounced them, so they are now finished and they will never rise again.

I have heard nothing indicating these publishers are silenced at all, and if they have been I consider it wrong.

The French publisher is not now and will not in future become silent (or at least no indications of such happening currently exist), because they are still housed, still guarded, much of the world stands with them, and the ones left over cannot justify the attacker’s actions to anyone except themselves and those few who incorrectly agree with them.

You appear to be one of the few who agrees with them.

JP Cusick said:
Because satire is cowardly.
Satire is especially wrong when it is directed at a protected group as in religion.

If a person really has a legitimate criticism then that needs to be spoken honestly and forthright so then the message can be respected, and that does not include satire.

I disagree.

As your link states:

The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
A literary genre comprising such compositions.

They are using satire to ridicule Islamic extremism.
Unless something is going on that I am unaware of, such actions were not, are not, and will never be…hate speech.
Disagreement with the a person’s method of expressing their opinion is not a valid reason to attack them.

JP Cusick said:
In the West our human standards have plummeted into the slime, so it took a very daring assassination to teach our side a simple lesson.

Our standards are different, surely. I’m unsure myself about some of the standards we now have, and how they have changed over the years, but one of the standards I still hold to is that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.
What I learned is that some people can’t handle criticism, and are willing to kill to stop being criticized.

I consider this reprehensible in the extreme.

JP Cusick said:
THAT was quite enough to ask for what they got.

I find this line disgusting. They neither asked for nor deserved what they got.

JP Cusick said:
You might view it as some matter of opinion, and my opinion is that those French publishers got what they asked for, and others in that building were very fortunate that the assassins were disciplined as NOT to purposely kill everyone in their sights.

They did not ask for nor did they deserve what happened.
The attackers did injure or kill people other than the French publishers. Their attack was not a precision assassination, but an attack designed to terrorize the French publisher into not publishing any more.

JP Cusick said:
I see it as absurd to name political things based on human emotions.

Human emotions ARE political things – in fact it could be argued that politics = human emotion. Or at least the manipulation thereof. For example our emotions about what is going on in the world led us to our current opinions on politics, and this debate.

JP Cusick said:
The fact that Westerners get afraid and we feel terror then that does not make a scary event into an act of terrorism.

Correct. An act of terrorism is an act designed to cause terror for the purpose of furthering a political goal – it does not need to actually cause terror to be terrorism. Or something like that…

*****Continued in next post*****

The Mark · Jan 26, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

JP Cusick said:
We know terror attacks like shooting indiscriminately as like killing school children just to watch them die, but the assassins of those French publishers targeted certain individuals and left other people unharmed while in the same room, and when the particular publishers were killed then the assassins left as their task was accomplished as they were not trying to kill any other people.

That is incorrect. The attacks on the French publishers may have focused on them, but they certainly did not harm them exclusively. Others were injured or killed.
The attack was designed to scare the rest of the publishers into stopping, I suspect.
The attackers failed to accomplish this.
The attackers DID succeed in focusing much attention on the situation, including my own.
And I suspect that the vast percentage of that attention sees the attackers in an extremely negative light.

JP Cusick said:
The targeting of specific individuals makes it as an assassination, and that is the beauty of it too.

Death is never beautiful.
If it was an assassination, it certainly was not without collateral damage. Much like many of the drone attacks I have read/heard about, actually…hmm.

JP Cusick said:
The people of the religion of Islam are now in charge of this department in deciding what is blasphemy and what is sacrilege and so they have the final decision whether to strike or not to strike.

Are you saying that the entire Muslim population of the world decides when and where someone will get attacked/killed for what they determine is blasphemy and sacrilege?

That can’t be what you mean, right? Because…that would be idiotic...

JP Cusick said:
Any hate speech against the religion of Islam, and especially against the Prophet, is now against the new international law being rightfully enforced by the Muslims.

That law is no longer subject to debate or to any approval.

I…

What?

When and where was this law passed? Which countries ratified it, or whatever?
Also, I don’t think this attack was in any way a rightful enforcement, even if such a law exists.
IF such a law exists, it is wrong and unjust.

-------

I read up on the French publisher in question here: Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presuming that is accurate, they did not publish hate speech so far as I can tell.
I warn that you may consider some of the images hate speech, although I did not see any.

The Mark · Jan 26, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

This may be getting out of hand...

JP Cusick · Jan 27, 2015

Re: At least 10 dead in Paris shooting

The Mark said:
Again, I do not know of any evidence that hate speech occurred originating from this French publisher.

Blind ignorance is no excuse, and playing dumb is no justification, so your opinion is thereby made irrelevant.

If you want to be relevant or respected then you will have to start addressing the established truth - and the assassination established that truth there rather matter of factually indeed..

Also the trial and verdict and the execution are all finished now so if you missed it then you missed it.

The Mark said:
How am I supposed to make an informed decision on whether a cartoon was hate speech or not without having seen it?

That is not your decision to make.

So if you or anyone wants to make any cartoon or criticism of the powerful religion of Islam then you take your chances that you might be killed by the blasphemy police at their convenience and not at yours.

The Mark said:
Are you saying that the entire Muslim population of the world decides when and where someone will get attacked/killed for what they determine is blasphemy and sacrilege?

That can’t be what you mean, right? Because…that would be idiotic...

No, not the entire Islamic population - certainly not.

Just a very few Muslims who have chosen to enforce the laws against blasphemy and sacrilege are the only ones who make those decisions, and in that then I certainly trust them to decide correctly.

It really is the same with any police force any where in the world that the police officers make the decisions on the spot.

Infinite Chaos · Jan 27, 2015

JP Cusick said:
That is not an accurate depiction.

The wars against Islam were not happening in France and those publishers saw their self as protected in there high security office building with bars on their windows and tight security locks on their doors and a couple French police standing guard outside their front door, and they did not expect any combatants to come into their secure sanctuary and shoot them down.

So yes those French publishers were acting brave and bold in their hate speech but they were nothing more than immoral cowards of the lowest kind.

This does not address what I said.

JP Cusick said:
Yes I am very familiar with the Western values especially here in the USA, and one huge point is that we must recognize that the USA (and West) are a truly ignorant degenerate society, because without knowing that then any American (or Westerner) is just not self aware.

Things like satire and religious bigotry and hate speech are just some of the outgrowth of our barbaric population.

To view our society as if many TV show like "Saturday Night Live" does those ignorant things then thereby satire and ignorance are the right things to do - well no, they are not.

And our side is preaching to the Islamic people that in order to be liberated then the Muslim women must take off their clothing as like the Western Women expose their selves, and our side is trying to pressure the Islamic women to take off their clothing as if our perverted and licentious ways are superior, and our side will not respect their society or their customs and their traditions.

Equality, liberation and the right to decide their own lives are "perverted and licentious ways" too huh?

JP Cusick said:
So too those French publishers are going to insult and degrade the most sacred things in the Islamic religion and the bigots of the Western mentality can not understand why killing those publishers was a righteous thing to do.

Like I said, you are not familiar with western values or you wouldn't condone killing innocents in the name of righteousness.

JP Cusick said:
Of course there are decent people in the West who do understand, and now hopefully all of the religious hatred will stay suppressed.

Yes my profile is really myself and my location, as I could never be so bold if I was hiding behind lies.

In fact I ran for election twice to the US Congress, and even though I did not win those elections - the authorities all know who I am and where I stand and I feel proud of that.

See here = Maryland 2008 Democratic Party Primary Election Results - Cusick vs Hoyer

I read you spent time breaking rocks for not paying child support and for damaging government property. Taking the law into your own hands seems to be something you are familiar with to the extent of calling murder "righteous."

JP Cusick · Jan 27, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
This does not address what I said.

I saw it as addressing your words then, but I will still address your words more directly now:

The cartoonist armed with pencils against militarist armed with assault rifles is not what makes the cartoonist into cowards, as that makes the cartoonist into being stupid, because a militant with a rifle tell a cartoonist to stop it and they keep on publishing then that is stupid indeed.

What made them as cowards was publishing their hate speech which stirred up troubles for other people while the publishers remained in their fortified building where they considered their self to be safe and secure from any rightful consequence for their hateful activity.

Infinite Chaos said:
Equality, liberation and the right to decide their own lives are "perverted and licentious ways" too huh?

In the case of Islamic people who are trying to live in peace and having religious bigots demanding the Muslim women to take off their clothing - then yes the West is promoting our perverted and licentious ways.

They have decided how to live their own lives, as they are determined and proud Muslims, and THAT is their decision.

You (and others like you) are just trying to make their decisions for them and they have rejected your immoral kind of freedom and your immoral liberties.

There is no logic with the idea that a religious person would want to be equal with the sinners, as like joining in with the sinning for equality - well no.

Infinite Chaos said:
Like I said, you are not familiar with western values or you wouldn't condone killing innocents in the name of righteousness.

You are twisting what I do say, and I realize that you want to be right and to win, but I would never say as you claim.

What I do say is that in this one (1) case then killing those publishers as a last resort was a righteous thing to do.

Those publishers were not innocent as they were in fact guilty as hell, and the assassins gave warnings and gave chances to stop those publishers and the publishers refused to stop and they got what they asked for - and rightly so.

Infinite Chaos said:
I read you spent time breaking rocks for not paying child support and for damaging government property. Taking the law into your own hands seems to be something you are familiar with to the extent of calling murder "righteous."

It is true that I have a lot of very real and very dynamic experiences, so that does give me lots of insights which I would not have had otherwise.

But I still try hard to explain every word of mine so that it can make sense and can be understood by anyone whether they reject it or not.

At least 10 dead in Paris shooting[W:163]

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

JP Cusick

The Expert

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

JP Cusick

The Expert

Infinite Chaos

JP Cusick

The Expert