jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (105 posts)

Paris attack on 1/7/15

  1. KU37 profile image80
    KU37posted 23 months ago

    I apologize if this is not the right place to post this kind of message.  I have written a short article which you can link to at http://igibud.com/hebdo/  It's called "I am Charlie Hebdo".  It simply reflects some of my feelings about the January 7 terrorist attack in Paris.  I decided not to publish it as a Hub, primarily because I'm not sure if HubPages would be 100% comfortable hosting it.  There is no messaging functionality on my page, but please feel free to comment on it here.  I want to emphasize that it has absolutely no advertising or commercial value to me whatsoever.

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      What a horrible loss. 10 employees and 2 responding police officers, I heard this afternoon.

    2. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      An afterthought:  I would be very grateful for the services of a translator so that I could post my short article in French (not Google French, folks, real French).  If you would like to donate your services, please let me know.  Thanks.

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 23 months ago in reply to this

      These kind of attacks should be a wake up call to us in the free world. The french have bent over backwards to accommodate Muslim immigrants and their religion. From what I've heard most Muslim's in France have no desire to be french or assimilate and they most stay in their own tight knit community. One has to wonder why they moved to France to begin with? I understand many of these Muslim communities are under Sharia law and the french police will not even patrol there.

      So what is the response of the french Muslim community to these brutal murders? We've heard barely a peep of condemnation against the perpetrators. The first police to show up at the seen were on bicycle and unarmed and they were quickly gunned down. That's right the police were unarmed, while these Muslim thugs had rocket launchers. In my opinion I think the french have gone soft in the brain.

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I definitely made the right choice by choosing not to host my article on HubPages.

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
          wba108@yahoo.composted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Is it because this subject is too touchy? Usually the things worth talking about do have an emotional component attached. I like to think I'm just speaking my mind right or wrong.

        2. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Well, if that response bothers you, then you were probably right not to use HP to publish it. Looks like the forums might not have been the right place to promote it either.

          Just sayin'

          GA

          1. KU37 profile image80
            KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

            My article was about freedom of expression.  I know this discussion has only been here a couple days, but I'm sort of surprised that nobody here has anything to say about freedom of expression, and what a bummer it would be to lose it.

            Just sayin'

            HubPages is a an open community of passionate people - writers, explorers, knowledge seekers, conversation starters. Interacting and informing. Sharing words, pictures, and videos. Asking questions. Finding answers.

          2. KU37 profile image80
            KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

            GA, in response to your comment that HP might not be the place to publish or promote my article, a question occurred to me.  My article contains images that might offend some people.  I selected them on purpose.  That purpose was to offend some people.  A reasonable person might argue, "the internet is not the right place to offend people on purpose.  HubPages is not the right place to offend people on purpose.  Those are not our values."  The offices of Charlie Hebdo had been attacked by terrorists four years ago, in 2011.  The people who continued working in that office knew that it was a dangerous place to work.  GA, I have worded this honest question in the same spirit as my article:  what would Charlie do?

      2. Sed-me profile image82
        Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Im not sure if you've been listening to the reports, but the Muslim community has tried to make it clear that these extremists do not represent them in anyway. This includes picketers who have held up signs that say, "We are Muslim and we are Charlie Hebdo."

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          The way to do that is to do whatever they can to eliminate the terrorist threat.  That does requires a lot more than standing aside and saying "We're not terrorists".

          Fully recognizing that that will put them in the sights of the terrorists, it is still what must be done.

          1. Sed-me profile image82
            Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, Im sure they would like to "do a lot more than say, "We are not terrorists."" After all, if you were living a normal family life, wouldn't *you want to go to war with Jihadists? I know I would. Im sure they can imagine their children and grandchildren living long healthy lives, if only they would do more than they are now... which is publicly denouncing the acts and separating themselves from the works of the most dangerous men on earth.

            Easy to spout off when your safe in the wilderness.

            1. KU37 profile image80
              KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

              It is unfair to require the "Muslim community" (that is to say, one of them, or two of them, or every single one of them that you might be able to round up) to do anything at all in this case, let alone "eliminate the terrorist threat."  For one thing, I suspect the French police are being somewhat more discriminating right now than questioning people because they're 1) in France, and 2) Muslim.  If they follow the example of the USA after 9/11, they might round up some shepherds and lock them away.  That did not prove to be effective, either as prevention or deterrent.  Whining to your pals about an entire population of people because of the isolated acts of some extremists is just that - whining.

              1. Sed-me profile image82
                Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Pretty sure you didn't understand a word I said, considering you just agreed with me. If I were a less wonderful soul I would ask for an apology, but since I am actually just kind of an average soul, I forgive you in spite of your inability to recognize sarcasm. smile

                1. KU37 profile image80
                  KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  I was replying to wilderness.  I agreed with your post wholeheartedly.  Many apologies for the misunderstanding.

                  1. Sed-me profile image82
                    Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    No problem at all. You responded to my post. I am wondering if you have "threaded" highlighted at the top right corner of your screen instead of "chronological."  You might try the latter and see if it works better for you.

      3. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        This demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge. Rather than bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim immigrants and their religion France has for decades worked hard at destroying Muslim traditions, culture and dress.
        If so tolerant why have they deported so many French born Arabs?
        Why have they banned the wearing of the burqa?
        Why is French law biased against Muslims?

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Thank you for sharing your article.  It was a good thing to write to support those that got killed, even though I personally might not have liked some of the jokes they have said against my personal belief system.  I agree with you, that the authors from America in the past, have written all kinds of things, many that might have been very uncomfortable, but we are a better country for it.

      I don't agree with and stand firmly against the cowardly killings and silencing, and the terrorizing ripple effects from that that will likely go on for a long time of those journalists.  My hope is that more people look deeply into why they felt so justified in doing it, as more people seem to be doing, and stop letting people die or be hurt in order to hold up political correctness.  That kind of reactionary response, that seems to simmer in a hot stew of hatred and revenge for a long time before its actualization.  This has no place in a civilized world or society.  Let us all get angry at the right things. Like taking the lives of people that are doing a job, that their community loved.  The irony that will come from it is what is interesting, and you end with that tone in your piece there.  (in the link....) Because people that esteem good over bad, and that love freedoms for all people, take this kind of killing and turn it around and will make the point all the more.  This is because good trumps evil, truth trumps lies, and reason trumps irrationality, and much more.

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you.  I did not know how to select the proper images for my article.  I gave it a good deal of thought.  I was hoping this discussion would be more about freedom of expression and less about terrorism.  As I mentioned elsewhere, I chose the images on my site on purpose to offend people.  I had to think about where to draw the line.  When I express myself on HubPages, I have to think about whether my contributions might fall foul of their moderators or algorithms.  That is how it should be.  Whether you want to refer to it as "political correctness" or "self-censorship", there need to be boundaries for civil discourse, and public speaking, and there will always be.  I think there have been a lot of conversations in board rooms in media outlets around the world this week about where to draw the lines.  Many of them decided to digitally blur images of cartoons of Muhammed, and some of them might have decided to edit things differently or to not show the images at all.

        I appreciate your original thoughts.

  2. KU37 profile image80
    KU37posted 23 months ago

    The topic of my article is freedom of expression, and your comment is about revenge.  I'm glad that my article can stand by itself, independent of HubPages.  On my site, I choose not to add your comment to the page, as I think it's off-topic.  And at the same time I can use HubPages site to have a discussion with you.  The terms you used ("wake-up call", "peep of condemnation") are familiar ones to anybody who was around after 9/11.  We may disagree on whether it's right or wrong to try to avenge acts of terrorism.  But all these years later, it's hard to argue that revenge of terror is in any sense effective.  If you believed US leaders who started a war with an unrelated country under the pretense of revenge, rounded up and tortured some dark-skinned "folks", and then years later came on TV to brag about it, said they would do it again, and then suggested that somehow all those lies, the war, the crimes and the torture prevented another 9/11 attack, then congratulations to you.  Believing 100% of that qualifies you to be the librarian of the Dick Cheney Vice Presidential Library.  If you've ever been outside the US you may have had a conversation with someone who follows politics.  They may bring up the overthrow of the Shah, the Bay of Pigs, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Terry Jones, McDonald's, Roswell and John Tesh and expect you to satisfy them with some sort of explanation.  After all, you're an American, right?  What - not a peep of condemnation?  It's pretty dishonest to expect somebody to answer for everything done by their group.  There are 1.8 billion Muslims in dozens of countries around the world.  It's naive to suggest they're all somehow constantly keeping tabs on each other because they're all Muslim.  And it's dishonest to associate the terrorist act with "French Muslim community".

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I'm just stating the facts as I see them and am not advocating revenge. It's interesting how you lecture me with such a certainty as to what is in my heart or that I had a Muslim roommate from Iran for a couple years. It also seems that your willing to believe the worst about America including some half baked conspiracy theories. You said its dishonest to associate this terrorist act with the french Muslim community, really? I think their silence speaks volumes and remember a few years ago when they were burning neighborhoods down in France. Recently a french Imam representing the Muslim community sneered at the French culture while declaring that one day they would take control of France because they don't abort their children and the french do. Again, not a word of rebuke from the french Muslim community.

      Let me ask you a question, do you think the German people as a whole bear any responsibility for enabling the NAZI's to come to power? I think they should take some responsibility for what went on. The same could be said for many brutal regimes throughout history, the actions of their nations had to have a certain level of support from the populous.  Should I make a moral distinction between cultures, nations or even religions? I believe I should. For example in WW2 I saw the western allied nations as more moral than the axis nations. Why? We'll the allies certainly were't angels but they weren't poisoning children gas chambers, killing priests, using civilians for bayonet practice ect. You get my point.

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        First of all, which conspiracy theory are you referring to?  I pressed lots of ideas into a few short sentences, so something I wrote might not have been understood, and I'd like to clear that up first.  I think we're finding things in common.  Thanks.

      2. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I'll make a guess about the conspiracy theories you're referring to.

        I am not a "Truther".  Reasonable people understand that hijackers crashed planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11.  If I were to say something like "Bush lied", I would mean that his rhetoric before the Iraq War was deceitful, mainly because it conflated Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

        "Roswell".  I don't know much about this, other than there were some wild conspiracy theories about it in the 90s.  I used "Roswell" as an example of one of the things an American living abroad might be expected to explain.  A couple times when I lived abroad, people would mention, grumbling, "You American?  McDonald's on every street".  I would think, "okay ... it's a restaurant, don't go there, I never worked there, I'm from America ... what am I supposed to say?"  You get my point?

        You suggest I'm willing to believe the worst about America.  Not so.  If some politician does something I agree with, I usually won't bother saying something about it on the internet.  When I lived abroad, for every person who asked me pointed political questions about America, there were dozens of others who said only good things.

        Your question about Germany is very cogent.  I think you would also want to consider the adage "history is written by the victors."  If WWII had somehow ended up a stalemate, I sort of doubt there would have been Nuremburg trials.  And if you were to visit Japan, you might want to avoid bringing up the topic of WWII altogether.  But I definitely think the German people as a whole bear some responsibility for the actions of their leaders in WWII.  Likewise, as a US citizen and voter, I personally feel responsibility for the actions of my leaders post 9/11.  Do I feel any responsibility for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, for example, who bombed Oklahoma City in 1995?  He was an American.  No, I don't.  Timothy McVeigh was not a national leader.

  3. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    Wow , where do I begin . I believe that you , the O.P. started out great ! I wholeheartedly believe in free speech .  So I believe that the terror attacks in Paris was an attack against that same free speech that you profess to love !  {Responsible}  - Free Speech is another question matter .    However ,  Truthers that think that G.W.Bush  actually  flew the planes into the W.T.C. are  ignorant and fools .  or that Dick Cheney is the  devil himself  are less than authentic  in  their grasp on reality !     

    Terrorism , is here to stay . It is here forever ,  it is  very real  ,  So is Islamic terrorism .  But to compare  all of America's foreign policies to terrorism  is  pure and simply unmitigated ignorance . Let me ask you  ALL  something . Would  Weapons of Mass Destruction include  the evidence of nerve agents and chemical weapons ? Would they include  an army that in  an unprovoked  fashion , attacks another peacetime  country ?  If you answer yes , then you have to admit that GW Bush had every right to invade Iraq and  Afghanistan !   

    Back to terrorism , It  is so real that it WILL happen again here in America and  I  will make this statement as  someone who can face reality  ,    There will inevitably  be more 9/ 11 's  and in all probability , worse ones than the original !   What every free person in this world had better do right now is the following ,   Accept that  the freedoms that you enjoy right now and especially pre- 9-11  are  disappearing before your eye's . Why ? Because of terrorism .!  Get on a plane recently ?  Try to cross into the us. from somewhere else recently ? 

    Some part of me almost can't wait to see the awakening in  the eye's of the fools  who profess  that freedom is here to stay , that the war on terror is a phony war ,  Especially those who abuse free speech  so profusely ,  who just love to hate America and all  it's policies whatsoever !   

    I truly believe that  these same fools will never see  it clearly,  the idiocy of their  rant filled dialogs against this country , until they sit in the street  holding the bloody hands of their loved ones ,  like that which happened in New York City on  9--I I.   Every school high school student should be required to watch  "The Falling Man "  , a documentary about  those dozens  of  people who jumped to their deaths , from the WTC's rather than wait for the  jet-  airplane fueled fires of Terrorism to burn them alive .  Instead  though ,  our liberal education system will require that --Your children-- , Not say the lords prayer ,  not pledge allegiance to the flag of America , not sing the national anthem , and not  wear a tea shirt professing love for country!.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I agree with every word you said. The failure to distinguish between America and murderous regimes in the middle east is nuts. The failure to recognize an enemy and pretend he's a friend will get you killed. This kind of thinking is a form of suicide, and like you, a part of me would like to see the shock on the faces of these ignoramuses when reality finally dawns on them.

    2. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      You have misrepresented and misunderstood what I have written.  I'll say it again, I am NOT a Truther.  I agree with you completely that Truthers are ignorant.  No reasonable person believes any of that nonsense.  Secondly, I did not intend in any way to compare American foreign policy -- in whole, or in part -- to terrorism.  Terrorism is almost always carried out by individuals or small non-state groups, and not (by definition) on behalf of CIVILIZED countries.  My original article has absolutely zero to say about American foreign policy, I only mention Western values.  My political rant (admittedly) about Cheney was in response to someone's response.  Their response, like yours, reflected the traditional Us vs. Them thinking that many weapons-manufacturer-purchased politicians on both sides of the political spectrum would be pleased to have dominate the discussion.  Add to that a sort of rosy-colored glasses delusionary view of American history.  My views on Cheney pertain not because he is a terrorist, but because we are discussing the appropriate responses of civilized countries to terrorism.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Well said, and fair points.  I worry too, that many that are just not going to wake up or get more reasonably minded until they hold a dying loved one in their arms, at the hands of those they wanted to protect so much in some form or fashion.

  4. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 23 months ago

    ahorseback. "you are terrorists" " we are freedom fighters".

    Such acts of terrorism as Dresden and Hiroshima are not mitigated by the fact that we did them.
    Until we start to realise that terrorism is not one sided we can do nothing to overcome it.

    1. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Mr Holden . Neither Dresden nor Hiroshima were acts of terrorism .  But necessary acts of war to save unknown hundreds of thousands  and possibly millions of  American and allied soldiers and civilians  from a protracted land battle  and the possibility of a land invasion of North America  , and you already know that  I'm sure !   

      As well as  the  major fear ,  at the time  !, that  Germany and  Japan  and quite possibly The Soviet Union  ,were also working on the atomic bomb or similar such devices  . Other WMD's were already being used !   Nerve gas , mustard gas , Nazi  genocide .  I believe that you are too easy to compare the use of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima  , to the terroristic acts like  9--II  , and  shame on you if you are !

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        ahorseback, you are correct about Dresden and Hiroshima.  They were not acts of terrorism.  They were planned and carried out by a civilized country.  These distinctions are important.  When the leaders of a civilized country, for example, Milosevic of Yugoslavia, commit terrible acts on behalf of their country, we refer to the acts as crimes, and put the leaders on trial as alleged criminals.  When non-state participants, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, commit terrible acts, we refer to the acts as terrorism.  We have not yet all fully agreed on how to refer to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, other than as a terrorist.  Possibly by the end of the current US President's term, all of those people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be brought back to the continental United States, or released, or put on some kind of a trial.  (Once that has happened, it would be good to talk about trying to resuscitate the idea of habeas corpus.  Habeas corpus, any sense of credibility in the world, and any sense of moral authority in the world are a few of the things that the leaders of the US flushed down the toilet after 9/11.)  I for one would welcome a full investigation of the activities of the leaders of the US after 9/11, with respect to alleged crimes, and potentially a trial, like they had for Milosevic.  Many people in the US would agree with me, but say there is no realistic possibility of that happening given the current political climate.  Other people on this forum have mentioned what the US did to Americans of Japanese descent during WWII, and how unfair that was.  "Well," Ronald Reagan issued a formal apology to those Japanese Americans when he was president.  It took more than a generation for the US to formally acknowledge that its leaders had made this mistake.  How long will it take the US to formally examine the actions of its leaders after 9/11?  We're a civilized country, right?

        Right?

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Try telling all those who fled in terror from the bombing of Dresden or the annihilation of Hiroshima that they weren't being subjected to acts of terror!
        Try telling inhabitants of Iraq, Afghanistan etc that they aren't being terrorised by that constant bombing of civilians.

        Terrorism is terrorism whether it is the twin towers or Charlie Hebdo or an art gallery in Germany or a cathedral in England.

        1. KU37 profile image80
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          All of the things you mention are terrible.  But some of them were done in times of war, and some of them were done by vandals.  Very very very very bad vandals.  How do you stop vandalism?  That is a naive question.  Nobody has ever stopped vandalism.  Nobody ever will.  Vandalism is going to happen.  Again.  And again.  How do you prevent vandalism?  You can put more cops on the beat.  You can open after-school basketball courts.  You can try to reason with them.  You can sing "cumbaya".  You can try to improve the economic conditions of the neighborhood.  All of these things have worked to a greater and lesser extent to lower the RATE of vandalism.  But you will not stop it.  Why are Dresden, Hiroshima, Iraq, and Afghanistan different?  Because they were carried out by a civilized country, not by vandals.  In each of those cases you mention, it wouldn't make sense to say the country that did those things "lost" the war.  So there is very little likelihood that anybody will ever be held accountable for any terrible things that might have happened during the war.  How do you stop war?  The late US Senator Byrd made a habit of waving his copy of the US Constitution on the Senate floor insisting that Congress declared war, not the President.  He did this for many many years, until near the end, he would wave his copy of the Constitution trembling with palsy.  Seeing how Congress recently decided to go home for the holidays instead of debating ISIS demonstrates that they either have a short attention span, or that they remember Senator Byrd, but assume their constituents (the few of them who still vote) have short attention spans.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            I'm sure you have seen and remember that iconic photo of the naked Vietnamese child running along the road after her village had been bombed by the civilised USA.

            Was her expression one of hope and joy or was it one of stark terror?

            1. KU37 profile image80
              KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I have and I do.  It was an expression of terror.  War is atrocious.  I grew up during Vietnam, and I was absolutely dumbstruck by the tenor of the debate leading up to the War in Iraq.  I now consider those the "good old days".  There was something going on that at least sounded like a debate.  Senator Byrd that I mentioned above grew up in a period before the US had aircraft carriers stationed around the globe at all times.  The questions debated before wars in that time were like "MUST we do this thing?"  Senator Byrd's ideas about the Constitution now seem to be quaint, naive anachronisms.  Nowadays, the questions prior to wars are more like "CAN we do this thing?"

  5. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 23 months ago

    Sallam ibn Abu al-Huqayq (Abu Rafi) was a Jew, who helped the troops of the Confederates and provided them with a lot of wealth and supplies, on the one hand [7] and used to mock Muhammad with his poetry, on the other. When the Muslims had settled their affair with Banu Quraiza; Al-Khazraj tribe, a rival of Al-Aws, asked for Muhammad's permission to kill him (which Muhammad accepted) in order to merit a virtue equal to that of Al-Aws who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … bn_%27Atik

    Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (Hebrew: כעב אבן אלאשרף‎ Ka'b iben al-Ashraf, Arabic: كعب بن الاشرف‎, died 624) was a poet who criticized and mocked the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, who, in turn, ordered him to be killed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf

    List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killi … y_Muhammad

    1. PhoenixV profile image80
      PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      In my opinion, it would seem "self evident" that killing people who write poetry or write anything that mocks Muhammad, was started by Muhammad himself, in the beginning. Today people are still being killed, that mock Muhammad. In at least that one instance it appears that Muhammad was okay, with the use of lying, to get it done.

    2. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I say this as someone who has very little knowledge of the history of Islam or the biography of Muhammad.  The citations of Muhammad's killing those who mocked him strike me as "cherry-picked" information.  They do not jive with other articles I have read about the beliefs of modern-day Muslims.  Modern-day Muslims are not monolithic.  Any attempt to sum up the beliefs of 1.8 billion people in a Tweet-sized text strikes me as suspect, and I would never draw any conclusions from it regardless of how well it fit with my preconceived notions.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        What articles say about the beliefs of modern-day muslims and historical fact are two different things, aren't they. The articles reverenced are extensive. I could have posted/pasted the entire 3 articles and much more.  Opinions via argumentum ad populum does not change historical fact. The main religious leader is historically documented as supporting assassinations of anyone that mocks him, even if they have to lie to get it done.  That stands unrefuted. 

        Now if it was today and some religious leader in the USA, was ordering followers and/or sanctioning the deaths of people that mocked him via poetry or cartoons, and they actually caused the death of someone and lied about it, then they would all probably wind up in prison on charges of premeditated first degree murder. If you build a religion around a person that murders people for what they say, how can anyone believe that the practice will not continue? Seeing that it does continue?

        1. KU37 profile image80
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Your original post simply referenced what (for the sake of argument let's call) historical fact.  I agree with your hypothetical regarding a religious leader in the USA. I'm thinking of something like Branch Davidians.  Your original post made no mention of the beliefs of modern-day Muslims.  In fact, when you mention absolutely nothing about how your historical facts may or may not represent modern people's views, you are broadbrushing the entire population of 1.8 billion people.

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            All I have done is posted historical facts about Muhammad, a religious leader who advocated murder to people that mocked him. Branch Davidians followed David Koresh, who may or may not have been stockpiling illegal weapons, gunpowder, material to construct grenades I believe and claims of sexual misconduct. Some of the men and women, parents and children there may, have been completely innocent. At the very least the children were. But they died anyway.

            Some religious leaders and their past actions that could be mimicked are inherently dangerous. If  followers pattern themselves after those leaders in such a way, that can be dangerous too.  I think if people patterned themselves and their beliefs from people that actually existed or exist that espoused non-violence in their life and teachings, it would be better. People like Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha or MLK, comes to mind. If someone writes something negative or creates a cartoon about those people, I don't think they worry about one of the followers killing them.  I suggest that 1.8 billion people find someone that espoused non-violence in their life to follow.

            1. KU37 profile image80
              KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

              You may have been working on your debating skills for ten or more years, and I'm green.  Your line of thinking and the recent history of "USA vs. Muslims" speak for themselves.  If you find all that history satisfactory, then keep selling your weapons.  But as far as I'm aware, HubPages is strictly anglophone, and I think you would probably want to start posting on French language sites.

              1. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                I don't sell weapons, I do not even own a weapon. My line of thinking is not USA vs muslims, nor would excluding comments or opinions about anything else, automatically default to broad-brushing or some unspoken or assumed stance.  I happen to be an American who advocates peaceful religious leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi or those types. He was from India who advocated ahimsa, meaning 'not to injure' or  nonviolence ( all according to wikipedia) :  Ahimsa is one of the cardinal virtues and an important tenet of major Indian religions (Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism). Jesus or Jewish men like Hillel or others that not only expressed the Golden Rule, but here is the most relevant part- they LIVED the Golden Rule. Other than MLK that I mentioned in passing, most were not just American or expresses an "Americans vs muslims" mentality.  These people that LIVED the Golden rule came from all over the planet, from different religions and different countries. What they have in common and what I support, is they lived a life of non-violence and preached non-violence. But mostly they actually lived it.

                1. KU37 profile image80
                  KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Good for you.  I'm completely on board with you re: non-violence.  I don't know enough about Islam to debate that with you any further, except to point out again that the Muslim world is not monolithic.  Many Americans were surprised to hear of "Sunni" and "Shia" for the first time, after the fall of Bagdad.  However, I am familiar with The Old Testament.  As a matter of fact, I read the entire thing a few years ago.  I was an educated adult at the time, so I read it critically, and not in the worshipful sense that many read it.  I could write several Hubs on the surprising things I found out from reading it, but I'll share just two observations with you.  The first is that it is very long and boring.  The second is that, although there are many different kinds of books included, if you could identify any one main uniting theme of the entire Old Testament it would be this:  God prefers the Jews.  Why?  Because they are his chosen people.  Why?  Because he prefers them.  Etc. along those lines.  The peaceful virtues you talk about may be prominent in the New Testament.  I never read the New Testament critically.  But I can assure you that if you try to find those kinds of peaceful sentiments in the Old Testament, that is "cherry-picking" of the most dishonest sort.  I hasten to add that I have no antisemitic tendencies, and that I disagree with many of Israel's current policies.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    I am not sure that Jesus would disagree with some of what you say. That was, I believe, one of Jesus' missions in the NT was to admonish or reprimand the eye for an eye or any kind of vengeance type mentality, you allude to.  East or west, many countries are guilty of perpetuating violence. Sometimes I wonder how much people could get along with each other if it were not for those in power stirring the pots.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        For whatever this is worth...I have done some of my own study on this religion and its prophet.  What he shared was in line with that, and these particulars were new to me, though not very far from everything else I read.  For a time, for a very short time, it was more peaceful.  It changed, and radically so.  This is such a tough subject, because it sounds SO not "politically correct", That fact, ends up tying the hands of those that might want to really just discuss the subject without fear of some kind of very negative response.   People also assume the worst about you too. 

        My goal is to encourage views that truly believe in a live and let live world, and would be totally in keeping with what I took your article in the link, to be communicating.  This is such a tough subject, I daresay some don't want to look into it more deeply.  Is ignorance truly bliss in this case, like it so often can be, or is it potentially harmful in this case?

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Thank you for sharing this.  It isn't pleasant information, but needs to be known.  I was one of those that I now wonder about sometimes, that just honestly didn't know about this religion, and their prophet.  It is high time people become more educated.  Sadly, and unless I am misunderstanding things, this seems to be needed among followers themselves.  This is assuming the best about them, and that they say they are peace loving, etc.  I think  many honestly don't know?    That is the best I can conclude, to make sense of what I and we are all observing. 

      Getting to the crux of what this and other similar discussions isn't really a comfortable or pleasant, but when free societies that worked SO hard to get there, are having these situations like in Paris, its high time.  Long long ago, I believe it was France that stopped one of the Islamic crusades, and finally brought a long line of victories for them, to an end.  Long ago, they said enough was enough. 

      In this new era, and in a world of WMD's, some things have changed.  We need to wake up, and people need to stop being afraid of terrorists ideologies, or else they continue to win.  Then it could be the same thing, that those that get so ridiculed for talking about the tougher points, and even demonized for it, might turn out to be right after all, but no one will have to realize that until its too late, and damage is done.  Speaking in general some here.  Anyway, I appreciate the education, and hope all do.

  6. Sed-me profile image82
    Sed-meposted 23 months ago

    Just to be clear. I didn't read the OP's hub. I am only responding to the posts here on this thread.
    I believe in freedom of speech/religion. If this magazine (Charlie Hebdo) is not free to post its opinions, fearing for their lives, and law abiding Muslims are not free to worship as they believe, then my faith is next. There is a law, in every land and lawbreakers must be held at bay or stopped. These to me, are obvious statements.

    What I don't think is fair is to hold law abiding ppl responsible for the actions of terrorists just b/c the terrorists claim the same name. I know, as a Christian how it makes me feel when ppl blame my ilk for the Crusades, when the Crusades go against everything the Bible teaches. (Which is a whole other argument that Im not trying to get into, hopefully you get the point.)

    1. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      You make good points.  Thank you.  Obvious statements, as you said.  But they are worth saying, since we are still allowed to say them.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think (and I don't know of anyone) that is blaming law abiding citizens for the actions of the terrorists.  I think we need to carefully separate out a few things though, because of the questions that arise at least.   

      Actions are one thing.  Ideas are another.  Some actions are obviously bad.  Some ideas are bad, no matter what.  Its the mixing or twisting together the two that are confusing up what could be a very clear and concise conversation, the way I see it.

      Its a matter of divorcing the ideas that precipitate such actions, which news was disclosing some of over recent days.  The studying, the training, the preparation and rhetoric.  A lot comes before these kinds of brutal acts.  The ideas matter, the philosophy matters. I wish more talked about that and have to say again that most of this post is in general, and not directed so much at you, but your post and others got me thinking and then I responded to yours.

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with the tone of your various comments, but I would make one quibble.  You mention that mixing good and bad actions and good and bad ideas could be a very clear and concise conversation, except for the mixing or twisting together of the two.  Frankly, I don't think there's going to be any satisfactory concise conversation any time soon.  Like racism, this is a very complex issue that defies simple solutions.  Many people prefer to be willfully ignorant, but that's not going to make the issues disappear.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you.  I could be a bit more clear, perhaps too.  When I speak of actions of some, and the ideas of some people, I think in these cases we are only going after the actions which are more black and white.

          The "territory" that I think needs to be looked into is not an easy one.  I am speaking of ideas only.  We all hold them, and have a philosophy on the world and what we personally believe.  Those ideas, to me, are more important sometimes because they precipitate so much.  All we are seeing, is precipitated by thought.  We don't have access to the thoughts of the people we are speaking about, and then can only judge by their actions.  Some are clearly terrorists, by actions.  I perhaps might be confusing it even more in my saying what I am here.  And what I am going to say next is even more telling...  I actually don't feel comfortable discussing here, what I want to really say at this point.  It comes from my studying of these topics though, and my observation at pivotal points in history, where we get rare glimpses in.  I think actions speak the loudest, and I also don't think we can believe all we hear people say. 

          Bad ideas, and the support of them, leads to problems, no matter what else we desire to be true.  Ideas can hurt people, ultimately, and thus our societies.  This is not a favorite topic, but sadly one that must be discussed.  Or else we are just sitting ducks to people with the biggest clubs and the least morals.

          Edit: I think you are right its tricky, like with the topic of racism.  I think even there though, that our ideas and philosophies on things can be discussed, talked through.  Its not easy, and maybe sounds too ideal, but it helps us to get to the core of things, that need addressing.  Like if this were a physical ailment, harming a persons body, the doctor would be looking deep for the problem, and no matter how unpleasant, and even painful to treat, this is how we uncover what is hurting our greater body of human beings I think.  It takes bravery, and ability to be honest, and goodness, etc.

          1. KU37 profile image80
            KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Maybe I'm not reading you right, but when you mention "don't feel comfortable discussing here," I think what I hear you saying is that you are censoring yourself.  I'm guessing maybe to avoid offending some group, but I might be wrong.  We should have a good way of openly discussing the issue of self-censorship, but I'm not sure what that is.  (I don't equate self-censorship with "politically correct", which is sort of over-used and meaningless.)

  7. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    Wrong ! The Japanese incarceration in camps here on US soil is the only case worth apologizing for . Why ? Because they were mostly Americans  and were incarcerated here !  The Prisoners of war in Gitmo , are not US  citizens , they are prisoners of the  foreign wars on terrorism , which will probably never end !    So , they do not deserve to be tried here , as  a US citizen  would always be tried in a court of law by his peers . Blah blah blah,,  !  Thier rights weren't "flushed down the toilet " they were never earned because they are   enemy combatants !  They 're from foreign countries , they commit crimes against American and allied soldiers  fighting  this war and are NOT eligible for a  speedy trial in an American court of law .  In other words , They didn't jay walk in NYC . so they are not  on trial here !  Think of this as , What did we do with German POWS ?
    After the second world  war and the surrender of Germany , they were released .!
    Have the terrorist's  surrendered ?

    1. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Just a tip for you, ahorseback.  The term "WMD" no longer holds any rhetorical weight.  That happened five or so years ago.  The only people you are going to impress by using the terms "WMD", "EIT", "enemy combatants", etc. are other true believers like yourself.  The rest of the world sees these terms for what they are.  In "the bunker" on 9/11, Cheney decided that the ends justified the means, and that nothing was off the table.  Nothing.  Over the course of the next few months, a group of lawyers and think-tankers got together and invented all these hair-splitting terms and acronyms that nobody had ever heard before in order to allow the leaders to do whatever they wanted to do using any means necessary.  When asked recently on FOX News about the opinions of a terrorism expert on the effectiveness of torture, Cheney's brief response was "he wasn't in the bunker."  Should we expect our leaders to be just a (little) bit more enlightened than basing government policy on decisions made in a bunker during a national crisis?  If you want to talk about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, fine.  The last I heard about that was a few months ago when we found out that some US soldiers who had been searching in Iraq got sick from the chemical weapons they found.  However, the soldiers were being denied admission to hospitals because all the weapons they found in Iraq had originally come from the US and Europe.  Similarly, you're on pretty shaky ground with "enemy combatant".  Gitmo is a fiasco and an ongoing disgrace.  I am by no means the only American around who's ashamed of Gitmo.  "Speedy trial" - it is to laugh.  Or it would be if it was not so awful.

      You might conclude from my posts that somehow I'm anti-American.  On the contrary.  I think that the people who watch all the attack ads, get disgusted and overwhelmed with it all, and then decide NOT to vote are the ones who are anti-American.  I do not consider myself a person of faith.  Faith is when you believe in something that there is no evidence for.  However, I do have a sort of "faith" in democracy, even though there is scant or non-existent evidence that it is still working.

      1. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        There is this element of naiveté in those of you who cry for peaceful resolution   from the attacks  against the free world that is  quietly irritating to those who can see through to the ends of todays political  realities . -- Scenario :   and its just a matter of time ! ---  because of the break up of the soviet union a few years ago  ,  a terrorist organization acquires one small "suitcase "  type nuclear device . ,  It is carefully  transported into the mostly unguarded , over the sea , cargo container, shipping routes , Where does it end up  ?   Let's say  Montreal ,   New York City ,  or perhaps near the huge fuel depot in Boston harbor ,  maybe  in  St Louis Mo.  who knows . Maybe next door to your own small town American town or city or actually no , It ends up next door to where your son or daughter lives  !     

        When this or another style of  major terrorist attack, and again it will happen ,  is pulled off by whatever terrorist organization ,  each and every pacifist  mommy and daddy , every peace  loving Grammy and every idealistic  college student activist within six  thousand miles of Ground Zero is going to beg  for  the "Dick Cheney's ,  G W Bush's and  Donald Rumsfeld's " to come out of retirement immediately !

        Again , The Naiveté of some people  is shocking . This or something like  it WILL  happen ! I repeat .It will happen and  In a twisted  and imaginative sort of way ,  I almost can't wait  to watch the tides of change in liberal  pacifist opinions come about and change . .
        You will  then gladly  call for the "gloves to come off " when it comes to the war against terrorism !

        1. KU37 profile image80
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Friend, please dive back into your Tom Clancey stories.  But spare the rest of us the crocodile tears and warmongering.  We're living in the 21st century.  You know, after the "epilogue" part of the book.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      But they never have the opportunity to show that they weren't enemy combatants!
      To incarcerate a man without showing why he is incarcerated and without ever giving him the opportunity to show that he wasn't an enemy combatant is an act of terrorism.
      To be, for instance, of Pakistani origin is NOT proof of anything other than origin. It does not prove intent to commit acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, the USA does think that is sufficient proof.

      As I said, we are freedom fighters, you are terrorists.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Do you really think the US is simply gathering up anyone of Pakistani origin and sticking them in Gitmo for no other reason?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Yes

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Do you have evidence or just unsupported opinion on that?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I don't have the time at the moment to search up references and all that but well remember one British citizen of Pakistan origin who was held in Gitmo for about five years. Eventually he was returned to Britain (still under arrest) for punishment in the UK.
              Along with him came all the evidence of his wrong doings. In about a week the UK security forces and the government concluded that he had committed no offence and that he was exactly what he claimed to be, to whit, a British citizen who had gone to visit family in Pakistan.

              He was immediately released and returned to being a family man.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                A Brit was mistakenly caught and that means the US indiscriminately rounds up anyone from Pakistan and imprisons them? 

                Sorry, the logic doesn't follow well there.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Held prisoner for five years without trial and then found not to have any involvement. Some mistake!

                  He wasn't the only one.

        2. KU37 profile image80
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          It's well-documented that things like that happened.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Link, please, plainly showing that someone was sent to Gitmo for being from Pakistan?  Not for suspected or witnessed terrorism, but for the documented reason of being Pakistani?

            1. KU37 profile image80
              KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this
              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry - zero indication I could find that they were put away because they were Pakistani.  That they came from the country does NOT indicate that that was the reason for incarceration.

                Can you provide a copy/paste showing that they were sent to Gitmo because they were from Pakistan, not just that that is where they were captured?

                1. KU37 profile image80
                  KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  No, I can't right now, but I might in the future if I have the time.  That does not constitute any sort of proof that it never happened.  Also, I would add that it's a bit off-topic.  I would refer anybody interested to the wikipedia link.  The small part of it that I read was interesting.

                2. KU37 profile image80
                  KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  Guilty until proven innocent, right?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    That seems to be what you're saying, or at least I can't see any other reason to make the claim.

  8. Writer Fox profile image82
    Writer Foxposted 23 months ago

    I just want you to know that a Muslim, an employee at the Kosher store where the attack occurred, rescued the lives of six Jewish customers by leading them to the store's freezer as a place to hide.  Then, he risked his life to escape and to "give the police valuable information about what was happening inside and where the hostages were hiding."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -warm.html

    Also, one of the policemen killed by the terrorists was a Muslim. 

    You cannot paint all Muslims as terrorists, because that simply isn't true.

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      True.

  9. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    And  That mentality , that intellectual  fantasy based   ideology  is just the problem with peacetime  teddy bear warriors like yourselves . . Too much time sitting comfortably in the cradle of someone else's  heavily contributed  house of  freedom .

    1. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Did you look at my article?  Can you understand why I decided not to publish it as a Hub?  Who are you to call me a teddy bear warrior?  Who is naive?  Who is Charlie Hebdo?  Who remembers the Alamo?  (Not me)  Who remembers the Maine?  (Not me)  But I will never forget 9/11.  I will never forget that fear.  I will live with it the rest of my life.  All of us live with some element of risk at all times.  Some more than others, because of the color of their skin.  I got lucky and was born white.  Some of us make choices that increase risk, like being in the military.  I decided not to.  Does that make me a coward?  Possibly.  Nevertheless, I have a lot of appreciation for those in the military who sacrifice so that we can take our freedoms for granted, and we don't have to think about risks every single day.  People who live in certain other countries are not so lucky.  Do you have any appreciation at all for HubPages, and how they make it so incredibly simple for you and I to have this discussion, like civilized people?  Do you take HubPages for granted?  Do you take your right to express yourself for granted?  Have you been banging out the same six sentences on your keyboard for so many years now that you have become desensitized to what you are actually saying?

  10. PhoenixV profile image80
    PhoenixVposted 23 months ago

    Why don't more people speak out against radicals in islam? Whether they are westerners or muslim?

    It could be that if they do, they might be labeled islamophobic.

    It could be that if they criticize Mohammad,  they might get murdered. (a practice started by Mohammad) which continues today.

    If they try to leave the religion:

    In South Asia, support for applying religious law to family and property disputes is coupled with strong backing for severe criminal punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves (median of 81%) and the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith (76%). In the Middle East-North Africa region, medians of more than half favor strict criminal penalties (57%) and the execution of those who convert from Islam to another faith (56%). http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … -overview/

    Background information.

    Qisas

    Qiṣāṣ (Arabic: قصاص‎) is an Islamic term meaning equal "retaliation" or revenge. In the case of murder, it means the right of a murder victim's nearest relative or Wali (ولي) (legal guardian) to, if the court approves, take the life of the killer Qisas is one of several forms of punishment in Islamic Penal Law, others being Hudud, Diyya and Ta'zir.


    Girl bride as punishment for relative's crime

    In Afghanistan and Pakistan, Qisas is practiced as Vani (ونی)[18] and Swara (سوارہ, also called Ba'ad[19]) wherein young girls are forcibly given away as a bride as part of punishment and Qisas compromise settlement (Badal-i-Sulh) for a crime committed by her male relatives

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      The Christian "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"?

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Jesus

            You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Mt 5:38–39, NRSV)

        This saying of Jesus is generally interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as implying that "an eye for an eye" encourages excessive vengeance rather than an attempt to limit it.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an … ristianity

        Vengeance is not justice. A mentality of revenge is a sickness.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          You conveniently forget that Islam also says that if the victims family forgive the killer then the killer can go free.

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            That is not justice either. The rest of the population does not want an unpunished killer roaming their neighborhood, (for whatever reason) Diyya, blood money and payoffs to families, as well as cutting peoples hands off or body parts off, in retaliation to bodily injuries is just barbarism, not justice. Justice is supposed to be about fairness, ethical practice, reasoned judgements with checks and balances and equity,- not the whim of family members of the victim.  Intricate justice systems are far from perfect, but they are not vigilantism or bloodthirsty. That kind of mentality gets passed on to children, generation after generation. We do not live in the dark ages anymore.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              From what I've seen of USA justice there is a fair bit of bloodthirsty vigilantism involved in it.

        2. KU37 profile image80
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          "Vengeance is not justice. A mentality of revenge is a sickness."  Common sense regardless of the source.

    2. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      There is another question on HubPages which is still active, called "What Can Peaceful Muslims Do To Stop Terrorism?"  Your post might be more relevant there.

      1. PhoenixV profile image80
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Okay thanks KU37 I did not see it.

  11. Singular Investor profile image78
    Singular Investorposted 23 months ago

    It is worth also pointing out that Charlie Hebdo had very few readers and was about to go bankrupt - by their actions the terrorists have actually ensured that it will continue even stronger, with 1 million copies being printed next week. How ironic.

  12. RoadWarrior2166 profile image60
    RoadWarrior2166posted 23 months ago

    Crazy people do brutal acts and they can neither be anticipated  nor prevented. However, being alert and not yielding to terror by leading our lives is the best response. These groups inevitably fail as was amply demonstrated here. What is not discussed is the overwhelming power of the world's police networks whichs  hunts  these people out of existence.

    One  desparate action does not represent a victory for terror it shows how many are prevented and stopped otherwise these would become common and more deadly. Let me ask now that the French Police hunted down and killed most of the attackers do you think this terrorist cell will have new followers lining up to join?

    1. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I suppose it will get new followers because of the publicity, but I might be wrong.  I don't think it matters very much whether or not they kill the attackers.  Whatever they do, it is not going to put a stop to terrorism.  Allow me to refer you to a thoughtful article I read.  If you're looking for some brief Tweet that confirms your preconceived notions, don't bother clicking the link.  This requires a little bit longer attention span.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … nt/384322/

  13. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    What I mostly gain from these forums is that  those who can distance themselves from any blood on their hands , be they  pacifists or anti- war or anti - death penalty in a court of law . Will never be convinced of the necessity of ANY kind of  punishment by law or  military  action . 

    That is , until they become the victim in one way or another and then the gloves Will  come off ! Such shallow mindedness is almost shocking .

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      I'm not distancing myself from blood on my hands. I'm facing up to the fact that we have been as responsible for acts of terrorism as the "enemy" have.

      Until we all face up to that there can be no meaningful discussion or resolution.

      1. KU37 profile image80
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I think you should refer to the acts carried out by countries as "war crimes".  War crimes have been and are being prosecuted.  They are terrible terrible deadly things, and they continue happening all over the world.  You gain absolutely nothing by calling them "terrorism".  You're not going to change the mind of people who disagree with you, and you're tying the hands of the people who agree with you.  Nobody has yet agreed on what we're supposed to do after we've caught a live terrorist.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          I can't agree that nothing is gained by recognising what you call war crimes or vandalism as terrorism.

          I think the first thing we should do after catching a real live terrorist is to put them on open trial and then prove without doubt that they are indeed real live terrorists,
          What we shouldn't do is lock them up and throw away the key without a trial, not even letting them see the charges against them. On the occasion when we do put them on trial we shouldn't try them in secret military courts that are so secret even the accused is not allowed access.

          Until we start to do that it doesn't matter what names you apply to it we are behaving exactly like terrorists and terrorising people.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            The laws and rights guaranteed by your country are then extended to everyone, whether they agree or cooperate to support those laws and rights, then? 

            And you are happy exposing military and spy secrets to the world for every terrorist caught?

            Neither seems very productive...

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              That's a ridiculous idea!  If a foreigner commits a crime on British soil (and I suspect the same goes for the US) they are put on trial just as they would be if they held British citizenship then if appropriate they are put in British prisons with the same right of appeal as anybody else. The concept of people being outside the law has been dead for many years now. (Oh by the way, British law has now been modified to allow the trial of people who commit crimes in none British countries)

              What military and spy secrets would be exposed by telling the prisoner that they had, for instance, been seen at a terrorist training camp or seen associating with known terrorists?

            2. KU37 profile image80
              KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

              I have not bothered to do a search, but I find it hard to fathom that Gitmo has never been discussed on HubPages.  I will do some research on HubPages etc. and let you know what I think, but none if this is "news" by any stretch of the imagination.

    2. KU37 profile image80
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      ahorseback:  Punishment?  Did I say I was against punishment?  Civilized countries have the police and military.  Do we give the police and the military a blank check?  Do we allow politicians to hoodwink us?  If so, for how many months or years do we allow them to hoodwink us?  Do we allow them to hoodwink us a little bit or a whole lot?  Are we capable of exercising any degree of discernment at all?  Is there no difference between a "just" war and a costly adventure?  Back in the 70s or 80s some smartaleck ad execs came up with the phrases "War on Crime" and "War on Drugs".  When it first came out, people said, "what's up with that?  That's not a war."  "Well, we want to put a lot of resources into it and it's going to take a long time, so let's just call it a war."  Did anybody ask how we're supposed to WIN this war?  When will it end?  Is somebody suggesting that crime and drugs are going to be somehow eradicated from the country never to return?  "Yeah, well, whatever, War on Drugs sounds good."  There's a sucker born every minute.  So now people don't even think about it.  Then 9/11 happened, and the thinktank guys seized their moment, and got together with the ad execs and came up with "War on Terror".  George Orwell's finest moment!  A punishment that never ends!  A revenge that never ends!  A war that never ends!

  14. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    Wilderness , Than you !

  15. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 23 months ago

    I must say that I truly love  and admire the image of terrorists held in a  gitmo  prison cell . The strength , the resolve , the character that it must take to force oneself to endure the hardships of incarceration  , of being  interrogated constantly  , of   bacon and eggs , coffee ,  cheese , and a lotta wine !
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12125036.jpg

 
working