|
Tardigrade posted:I think the problem, at least for an outsider, is that the events you mentioned are done by scattered individuals, while those are riots with (what appears to be) lots of people. Define lots of people. A crowd of even 300 is not a lot of people compared to the whole of Muslim community. Put this stuff into context.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
I've just put together a new blog post using UXO to identify the weapons by the Syrian Air Force, lots of fun UXO videos, etc. http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-weapons-of-syrian-air-force.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Religion is the opium of the people. Or, it's safer to demonstrate against a foreign nation than it is to demonstrate against your own government. Oxycontin is the opiate of the masses. Religion is just some stuff people believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
The Asian Oprah posted:Oxycontin is the opiate of the masses. Religion is just some stuff people believe. Yup religious institutions are never ever engaged in power politics with other institutions in society. These religious institutions never ever maintain their authority through social isolation and the threat/reward of the afterlife. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yup religious institutions are never ever engaged in power politics with other institutions in society. These religious institutions never ever maintain their authority through social isolation and the threat/reward of the afterlife. Oh man I'm high as gently caress on Religion right now  aaaaaahHHh ALLAHU ACKBAR Ughhh my boner is so permitted under sharia law I'm gonna come freedom  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
CJ Chivers has written another excellent article for the New York Times, this time looking at the DIY weapons of the Free Syrian Army, Syria’s Dark Horses, With Lathes: Makeshift Arms Production in Aleppo Governorate, Part I.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
Caro flew to Turkey today, then off to Syria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Did you try to stop him at all? He really shouldn't be gambling with death a second time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Caro flew to Turkey today, then off to Syria.  Seriously though, this is bad news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Caro flew to Turkey today, then off to Syria. Caro's going to end up dead if he doesn't stop his war tourist bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Caro flew to Turkey today, then off to Syria. Oh for poo poo's sake. Please don't anyone encourage him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Caro's going to end up dead if he doesn't stop his war tourist bullshit. Presumably he is going to end up dead anyway. This hobby is just going to speed up the process quite a bit. But hey! He's already an experienced combat medic, just what they need in Syria!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:CJ Chivers has written another excellent article for the New York Times, this time looking at the DIY weapons of the Free Syrian Army, Syria’s Dark Horses, With Lathes: Makeshift Arms Production in Aleppo Governorate, Part I. An interesting thing about the .22 blanks they are using as a primer for that artillery piece, these are probably the kind you get at the hardware store for use in powder-actuated nail drivers. Extremely similar a .22 short blank cartridge, but totally unrestricted under most firearms laws, at least here in the US. That cannon is made of stuff you can literally find in any hardware store.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Caro's going to end up dead if he doesn't stop his war tourist bullshit. Or on top of Syria's equivalent of the Reichtag waving the FSA flag. Dude is Internationalist as gently caress, Trostky would be proud of him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
CJ Chivers also updated his blog with more info on the DIY weapons. Regarding Caro, I don't think anyone could encourage him more than he already is, he's been desperate to get to Syria, scraping money together, and the only thing that'll stop him is the Syrian Army (or Turkish border police). I'm seriously concerned about him, Syria makes Libya look like a daycare centre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:I'm just fundamentally baffled by the idea that we can't or shouldn't make moral judgements about any form of speech simply because someone has a legal right to make it. It's such a stupid argument. There isn't a finite amount of blame or judgement in the world. I can use a lot of it on the people murdering innocents and still save a little for the assholes who unapologetically foment that sort of reaction. I'm not saying that we shouldn't speak out against people who say unpopular things. Indeed, as staunchly as I believe that those people need the freedom to say what they want, I believe that speaking out against them should also be allowed. But saying things like NippleFloss posted:If people wish to craft these sorts of insults against Islam then I'm certainly not prepared to censor them, but to suggest that they aren't at least tangentially culpable for the violence they intentionally precipitate is just stupid. A person can be morally responsible without being legally accountable. Myrdhale posted:Wrong. Free speech does not qualify you to be free of criticism. They are allowed to say or publish whatever they want, and I am allowed to call them out on it if I think they're reasons for it are lovely. You're strawmanning me, I never said it should be illegal, I'm saying in my opinion the only reason to publish a cartoon like the one that was published before is to antagonize Muslims. And yes, that's what I think the last one was for, because it was a racist depiction of Mohammed that broadly implied all Muslims are terrorists. They can say that all they want, they don't deserve to get firebombed for it, but guess what, I'm allowed to call them bad people for doing it. That's how free speech works. You've done everything in your power to lampoon me as a racist fascist who only wants to protect bigoted speech, but not done much to attempt to actually provide rebuttal to my actual points - so much as continuing to avoid having to defend your initial statements regarding the publication, it's responsibilities, and my criticisms of your outlook on matters. Furthermore in your attempts to tear down my basic position, you've becoming increasingly paradoxical about what your argument even is. Let's break this down for clarity's sake: Myrdhale posted:Yes But I'm still allowed to call a person saying stupid bigoted things with the goal of inciting violence a cockhead right? You indicate the cartoonists are intentionally attempting to incite violence. This being cartoons from a satirical paper. Yet you sidestep the purely reasonable issue I raised that if that is true, they'd also have to reasonably be aware they'd only be inciting violence against themselves - which is a little crazy compared to the simple explanation that they're a comedy publication doing what comedians always do - play with people's feelings. You try to make it sound like I'm singling out Muslims for this sort of irrationality, and in doing so paint me as some sort of bigot - despite the fact that we're specifically talking about the threat of Muslim retaliation over things like publishing of cartoons portraying Mohammad. You specifically call out comedic, offensive, portrayal of Jesus and what that would do. The Onion as you likely well know published a picture of a hermaphroditic Ganeesha manually stimulating Jesus while, at the same time anally fisting the Buddha. That image should be upsetting to christian extremists(involving jesus in a mixture of sodomy, group sex, homosexuality, beastiality), hindu extremists(ditto), buddhist extremists(ditto). But to my knowledge there have been no death threats, no closing of embassies, no attempts to exact vengeance over this - all from a paper with almost three times the circulation of the French paper. Myrdhale posted:2. There is a specific scriptural law against depicting the prophet Mohammed, and Christians and members of other religions when faced with something similarly sacrilegious to them have reacted just as violently (bombing abortion clinics for example) I love the fact that you keep bringing up abortion clinic bombings. It is a fantastic example of the sort of doublethink that you're advocating - it's almost more suitable than my example of The Onion publishing attacks on major political figureheads, because you've created an example around religion. You suggest that we should harshly condemn a paper utilizing their right to free speech to publish satirical, if not critical, and possibly offensive material that may incite an extremist minority - a factor you are expending great energy to reinforce - to violence. You point out that abortion clinics get bombed for the same sort of irrational, faith-driven logic. I agree, that's terrible. But by the same logic to which you blame a paper for offending muslim extremists, you need to be blaming every single person with a pro-choice bumper sticker for inciting christian extremists. Because by saying "I believe in the right to choose abortion" you are pushing an issue which has been repeatedly proven to incite christian extremists to violence, and therefore should bear culpability for that violence since it is that expression of a belief that potentially sparked it. It isn't a minor issue, in the eyes of those christian extremists - someone who believes and advocates for a woman's right to choose is, in their ideology, effectively advocating for the murder of innocents. But I suspect you're not blaming anybody other than the extremists themselves for the violence done to abortion clinics; that's my entire point right there. There's doublethink going on that's bordering on demanding a form of censorship that's cloak-and-dagger in it's approach. That through threat of violence we can, and should, control what people say to prevent the offending of the most violent amongst us. Might-makes-right determining our approach to free speech, a thought that should send shivers down your spine. Cuntpunch fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:CJ Chivers has written another excellent article for the New York Times, this time looking at the DIY weapons of the Free Syrian Army, Syria’s Dark Horses, With Lathes: Makeshift Arms Production in Aleppo Governorate, Part I. Discount Dan's Weapons Emporium!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Can someone fill me in on this Caro figure? Also, Russia looks to be moving towards blocking Youtube access to the Innocence of Muslims video. Move to ease any tension in Chechnyan sentiment or abuse of new Internet regulation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:You try to make it sound like I'm singling out Muslims for this sort of irrationality, and in doing so paint me as some sort of bigot - despite the fact that we're specifically talking about the threat of Muslim retaliation over things like publishing of cartoons portraying Mohammad. You specifically call out comedic, offensive, portrayal of Jesus and what that would do. The Onion as you likely well know published a picture of a hermaphroditic Ganeesha manually stimulating Jesus while, at the same time anally fisting the Buddha. That image should be upsetting to christian extremists(involving jesus in a mixture of sodomy, group sex, homosexuality, beastiality), hindu extremists(ditto), buddhist extremists(ditto). But to my knowledge there have been no death threats, no closing of embassies, no attempts to exact vengeance over this - all from a paper with almost three times the circulation of the French paper. The problem is statements like (i'm paraphrasing) "This is funded by a 100 jews + the israeli government" and the comment "this was made by america", unlike the Onion the video that made it to the egyptian media was effectively pinning this as "OFFICIALLY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ENDORSED/PRODUCED THEY OFFICIALLY HATE US", this is what the people over in the middle east effectively heard whether lost in translation or a deliberate attempt is up in the air at this point but its effect is much greater. I don't think the french paper will register a blip on the radar, i mean there were like how many draw muhammed days? and thats on facebook which has even greater circulation than the Onion, but no one was up in arms about it since the danish cartoons riots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Tortilla Maker posted:Can someone fill me in in this Caro figure? Caro, worth reading my interview with him at the end of that as well, even if it is lengthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Caro, worth reading my interview with him at the end of that as well, even if it is lengthy. The interview is really interesting stuff but I did laugh at: "Much like a fallout game this involved speaking to the other journalists and denizens of the Alnoran hotel and completing various side quests."
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Pakistan is apparently declaring this Friday a holiday to protest the youtube video http://www.businessinsider.com/pakistan-friday-will-be-a-holiday-to-protest-film-mocking-islam-2012-9 e: also saw this... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9552147/Syrian-regime-will-deploy-chemical-weapons-as-last-resort.html quote:Major-General Adnan Sillu said he defected from the Syrian army three months ago after being party to top-levels talks about the use of chemical weapons on both rebel fighters and civilians. mitztronic fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
 Why don't we get to have a holiday when shitlords do things?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:is an underhanded way to try and decry someone for using their ability to speak their mind. In doing so, you're not attacking what they're saying, you're attacking their act of saying it by casting moral judgments upon that act. There's a broad divide between "what he said is awful" and "saying that thing got people hurt, shame on him for saying it." The latter is only even remotely defensible in cases of direct incitement to violence, but "Hey I'm going to be critical or satirical about something you hold sacred" is not the same as "Please kill that person for me." To wit: they're being satirical or offensive - depending on whether we're talking about the paper or the film - but they're not issuing fatwas. I'm judging them for what they are saying, the way they are saying it, their reasons for saying it, and the act of saying it. If they were saying "I'm a pretty big fan of Ice cream" I wouldn't be judging them, so saying that I'm judging their speech act itself is pretty stupid. The act of speaking and the content of the speech are not separable. I don't feel the need to legislate my values. Just because I think something is unethical or even has the power to cause real harm to others, doesn't mean that I think it should be proscribed. But I have no problem hoping that social pressure can be brought to bear to prevent it. If some kid goes to school every day and gets called a human being by his classmates, I'm not going to hold the classmates legally responsible if he kills himself. I won't even hold them directly responsible in an ethical sense because ultimately that kid made the choice himself, for a variety of reasons. But I'm also not just going to say "well, they didn't do anything wrong, free speech and all, I definitely see nothing wrong with their behavior and certainly wouldn't wish that they could change it, after all, they really thought that kid was a little human being and were just offering up critical satire to help expound on their deeply held beliefs." Speech matters, and it influences behavior. If it didn't no one would bother posting on here. The idea that every person is an island unto themselves and as long as you aren't literally murdering someone then you are ethically pure is stupid. That's all I have to say on this derail. If you want to get in a final response that's fine, but I've done all I can to make my point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Well, since in this analogy the people being raped aren't the people doing the offending it's more like "that girl intentionally incited that mob of rapists and now they've gotten all hot and bothered and raped an innocent person, maybe that girl should stop going out of her way to incite those rapists with her hot body because literally nothing good ever comes of it and it has no constructive purpose so the net result is more raped people with no actual benefit". But there isn't a pithy saying for that to make you feel smugly superior so I'm not sure what to do about that. If it doesn't work as an excuse for rape, it shouldn't work as an excuse for being mad and killing people over a youtube video. (bolded words are my changes) 3 Tablets Daily fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Don't do rape analogies. They never work. Its like comparing things to hitler. It will never work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Are people in the ME under the mistaken impression that the video was either manufactured or condoned by the US government? Or that we could suppress it, but don't because "gently caress you Islam" or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Ghost of Babyhead posted:Some interesting excerpts from a recent article on TIME's website: Reminds me of the video where they display the new anti-aircraft weapons that were sent by "America" (or Russia, depending on who you're asking): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf1M1MR3kUw
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Caro flew to Turkey today, then off to Syria. Is he an American citizen? Excuse my cluelessness but how is this even legal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Don't do rape analogies. They never work. Its like comparing things to hitler. It will never work. VV can you prove it? 3 Tablets Daily fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
3 Tablets Daily posted:If it doesn't work as an excuse for rape, it shouldn't work as an excuse for being mad and killing people over a youtube video.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Crasscrab posted:
What, you're not happy with Columbus Day?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Caro, warrior of freedom  In all seriousness though, Caro is definitely going to get himself killed if he goes to Syria. Here is hoping he doesn't get let in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
3 Tablets Daily posted:The point I am trying to make is that we do not accept "she provoked me into raping her by wearing that miniskirt," but for some reason, people seem to be more sympathetic towards "he provoked me into killing people by posting a youtube video that insults the main character in my favorite book." Except this is more like "a woman on youtube was wearing a skirt so I raped the polite receptionist at my work because they both have red hair".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
3 Tablets Daily posted:If it doesn't work as an excuse for rape, it shouldn't work as an excuse for being mad and killing people over a youtube video. Criticizing someone for saying something does not equal excusing behavior. Also, the rape anology is stupid on all kinds of levels. (There is no link between 'provocative' victim behaviors and victimization in sex crimes, I don't think anyone is accusing the embassy of doing anything except getting attacked, etc, etc, etc). Basically every single thing you are saying is dumb and a derail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Are people in the ME under the mistaken impression that the video was either manufactured or condoned by the US government? Or that we could suppress it, but don't because "gently caress you Islam" or something like that? The short answer is yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Kombotron posted:The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that it's not even a totally crazy stance because most people holding such views live in countries where the government has significant power in approving or blocking media works. When you're used to that, it only makes sense that if something gets released, it must have at least passive support by the government, and possibly active approval, simply because it wasn't blocked. Free speech can be hard to understand when it's contrary to your experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
boxorocks posted:Caro, warrior of freedom We said the same thing about his trip to Libya, of course. Maybe he'll resurface leading a rebel battalion in a few months. Or in a Syrian prison getting electrodes attached to his balls
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
New Division posted:We said the same thing about his trip to Libya, of course. Maybe he'll resurface leading a rebel battalion in a few months. Or in a Syrian prison getting electrodes attached to his balls This time around there is the added difficulty of the Assad regime still having more workable aircraft and armour though. Then again, the craziest people seem to do pretty well in war I guess so maybe his paranoia will keep him alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Are people in the ME under the mistaken impression that the video was either manufactured or condoned by the US government? Or that we could suppress it, but don't because "gently caress you Islam" or something like that? It probably doesn't matter one way or the other if people -get- how the US works or who actually made the movie. American producer or american actors or made in the US is enough to condemn 'the west'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 23:12
|
|
