If your response to terror is "Yeah that was awful, but here is a hundred reason why the victims

[Kurska]

are actually horrible people. What do you mean I'm justifying and diminishing the murder of 12 innocent people? jeez all I'm doing is calling them vicious horrible racists (against a religion somehow) for publishing cartoons I don't like. "

You are a jerk and I am using the nicest word possible there. You're grave dancing on people's sons, daughters, husbands and wifes. You're carrying water for vicious murderers who massacred not only journalists, but innocent janitors and police officers who had literally nothing to do with what the magazine published that you found objectionable.

Just consider this a public service announcement, not directed at anyone in particular.

As poster in this thread said

"I don't know why it's so difficult for people to just say: "Murder is not justified for any reason" and proceed to shut the **** up.

Because if there's a "but..." that follows that statement, anything after it has a 110% chance of being both ignorant and disgusting."

[uppityperson]

1. Who is saying that?

[Kurska]

3. Here let me just call out individual duers calling them jerks here I gooooo

Waiiiit a second, you wouldn't be trying to trick me are you?

[uppityperson]

8. sorry, not meant to trick you. I haven't read this, except by a troll or 2 and thank you MIRT

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Here is an example:

It was careless, at the very least, to carry on in the way they did, with decidedly insulting cartoons and knowing full well that violent reactions might occur.

That is victim blaming at its finest.

[Roy Rolling]

40. 100% correct

Only a moron would blame them for being massacred. I can't believe DU has someone so stupid lurking in its midst.

[Ykcutnek]

2. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to just say:

"Murder is not justified for any reason" and proceed to shut the fuck up.

Because if there's a "but..." that follows that statement, anything after it has a 110% chance of being both ignorant and disgusting.

[Kurska]

4. WHY CAN'T I RECOMMENDED POSTS. EOM

[Ykcutnek]

5. Go right ahead.

[Kurska]

6. Thank you you're awesome

[Boomerproud]

7. I couldn't agree with you more.

No justification. Period.

[calimary]

37. SPOT ON!!!

THIS! For all those "guilty... with an explanation" folks. Nope. Just plain GUILTY.

NOT justified. In ANY way.

[Nye Bevan]

9. It's like saying "yeah, it's horrible that she was raped, but her skirt WAS very short" (nt)

[Kurska]

10. Victim blaming suddenly becomes acceptable on DU

It bewilders me too.

[nichomachus]

19. Who has said that? n/t

[Doctor_J]

25. no one

But don't let that spoil the fun

[LanternWaste]

32. I think there's a distinct difference between saying "it's like..." and "they've said.."

I think there's a distinct difference between saying "it's like..." and "they've said.." Almost as if someone is attempting to draw a cogent and accurate analogy...

[cleanhippie]

11. Plenty of that going on right now in the Relgion Group.

You just might be surprised at who is saying just that. Or you might not be.

[ecstatic]

12. I view it as at least 2 separate issues:

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

1. The terror attack - horrific, completely unacceptable.

2. Freedom of speech, Hate speech, satire, feelings, etc. - Completely valid and appropriate discussions that don't take away from the first point.

Your post reads like what Giuliani, Lynch, and the NYPD were saying after the 2 cops were killed: stfu about police brutality because if you don't, cops will get killed.

[riderinthestorm]

15. The satire of Charlie Hebdo is not hate speech. Sorry but its not nt

[ecstatic]

17. I didn't say it was

but it's a valid debate because billions of people think that it is.

[randys1]

51. Are you saying ALL Muslims consider it hate speech? I mean I guess that could be true the same

way Christians think almost any criticism of them and their bible is also, but that doesnt mean they support violence toward the speech, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Well they aren't separate when they are being discussed together, are they?

because an implication of (2) within the context of (1) is that some sort of speech should not be allowed because it results in 1.

The way that has been phrased here is "they knew they were going to be martyrs" "they should have expected something like this". In a different conversation this is the "she was asking for it" excuse.

[ecstatic]

27. I haven't seen that phrasing but if someone has

said something like that then that's f'd up.

[yardwork]

22. I think it's just the opposite.

Blaming protesters for murder committed by others is similar to blaming magazine publishers for murder committed by others.

[kelly1mm]

24. I don't understand the 'freedom of speech vs. hate speech' part. In the US at least, it is not

either/or. It is both. Something can be hate speech (admittedly subjective) and still be protected by freedom of speech. Non offensive speech does not need 1st amendment protection. Offensive speech, including hate speech, does.

[ecstatic]

30. I agree. nt

[kelly1mm]

33. Then I supose I am confused. What legitimate discussion is to be had involving 'hate speech vs.

free speech' then?

If we are discussing what is hate speech, then the protection granted that speech (hate speech or not) is immaterial. Thus no conflict between hate speech and free speech. (in the US)

If we are discussing free speech, the protection of which DOES NOT infer agreement with the speech, then again what conflict exists?

[ecstatic]

36. I shouldn't have said "vs."

It's hard to be articulate while mobile. Appropriate debates can include our freedom of speech laws, what constitutes hate speech, what constitutes satire, etc.

Also, I personally haven't formed a conclusion on what limits (if any) should be placed on speech.

Eta: the reason why I haven't formed a conclusion is because I'm not ok with organizations like fox news that purposely lie and mislead millions of people to the point where elections are affected.

[kelly1mm]

38. Ok - thanks for the clarification. I think I was hung up on the 'vs.' too. Thanks again! nt

[whatchamacallit]

13. Do you justify the murders of thousands of innocents in our oil wars? n/t

[Kurska]

14. I never supported the Iraq war EOM

[pennylane100]

16. Your post does not make sense to me.

No one here (that I am aware of) has disagreed with the statement that these people are terrible, I liked to think of them as depraved psychopaths. Sometimes the but is not used to justify their actions BUT to try to make sense of how human beings can turn into such monsters.

I cannot believe that any member of DU would try to justify their actions, and a but does not always end but as you described. For instance, these POS deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison if France does not have the death penalty but there will often be more scum to take their place as they seem to think that they are on a mission from a higher power. It is hard to combat that kind of fanaticism when they think their god has sanctioned them.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. That's not what the OP is saying...

I haven't seen anyone on DU say their actions were justified. But I have seen plenty of victim blaming that is being brushed off as "just being realistic" or "seeking to understand." It's that kind of stuff that some have just reached their limit on seeing.

It really isn't all that much different from saying a girl who got raped should have known better than to wear a short skirt or a guy who got mugged should have known better than to walk down that street at night. Does it justify the crime or excuse the criminals? Of course not. Is it being realistic? Perhaps. But in reality, it doesn't do anything other than insult the victim and yes, shift a bit of the blame.

[pennylane100]

29. Oops, totally misread post.

I must admit I thought it was strange to say that the word BUT was not appropriate when criticizing actual terrorists, not the victims.
I will take a remedial course in paying attention, although at my age it may not help.

[Skittles]

20. anyone who thinks CARTOONS justify murder

is as mentally deficient as the killers

[Cal Carpenter]

23. It's not directed at anyone in particular because no one here said that

there are a "hundred reasons why the victims are horrible people".

You aren't avoiding naming names because you are worried about call-outs, but rather because there are no names here to name.


This OP is intellectually dishonest garbage. The speed at which DU can go from nuanced discussion of real events in the context in which they occur to over-simplified "you're-with-us-or-against-us-and-if- you-dare-bring-up-any-other- related-issues-you-are-a- terrorist-apologist" bullshit is quite remarkable.

[Union Scribe]

31. Great post. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

35. See my post 26.

There are in fact people here engaged in equivocation and victim blaming.

[Pacifist Patriot]

46. I'm glad you're willing to take the time to do that.

I'm still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor that people really aren't seeing this. I'm a hit and run DUer and for heaven's sake, I've seen a lot more than I care too!

[Fred Sanders]

42. The Internet Armed Camp Syndrome. No nuances or deviation allowed, pick a side and fire away.

[grasswire]

45. ...and exhausting. nt

[jeff47]

53. Nope, people here said that.

With rights comes responsibility ... My right to deliberately piss you off, does/should not protect me when you get pissed off.

It seems many want the right, without having the responsibility of considering others (i.e., watch their tongue or owning the result

You'll find the thread on the "Greatest" page even.

[1bigdude]

28. Talking to those who committed the murders is the best route to go...

Once we CLEARLY understand their motives and whatever beefs they have, only then can we even begin to remotely understand how to prevent this kind of behavior. Hillary refers to this as "smart power," and it is indeed powerful!

[Maedhros]

43. In every case in which Muslim terrorists have been asked about their motivations,

they have stated that the reason for their actions was the widespread and unrepentant murder of innocent Muslim civilians by American military power.

[CJCRANE]

34. If someone drew anti-Semitic cartoons or caricatures of black people

you can justifiably call them bigoted while at the same time saying they don't deserve to be killed for drawing them.

[FairWinds]

39. Read Juan Cole . .

today for thoughts on how the killers became radicalized.
Of course their is ZERO justification.
But it is also true that people who object to assassination, torture, and murder of innocents
should not themselves engage in it, or tolerate it under any circumstances.

[dead_head]

41. Freedom

Hi! I might be a jerk from your standards but if this whole thing is about freedom of speech, should there be tolerance towards people with who you strongly disagree?


Thanks.

Have a nice day.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. Giving this a rec! Victim Blaming is NOT cool (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Reminds me of this cartoon.

'but'.

[The Wizard]

49. Criticizing

an invisible sky hero is not a violent crime against humanity. Killing innocent people in cold blood because your feelings are hurt is wrong. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. In this case religion is brain poison.

[RoccoR5955]

50. Any time someone adds "but" to a sentence

It means that there is an exception.
Often times I bring this to the attention of someone when they make this kind of comment to me.
They always reply with another "but."
When I say that a "but" nullifies their blanket statement, they never realize this and continue with another, "but."
At that point, my humorous sarcasm gene kicks in, and I say, "But, but, but. You sound like a tugboat!"
This is the point where I turn away, and gently ignore their statement, and tell them this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Not always, but often.

Formally, "A, but B" is synonymous with "A is true, and B is also true".

But idiomatically, it is usually used to mean "B is true, and A is not really true".