The title of your post is the title of this thread. Something is missing, and not just in your initial post - seriously. I can't see what you have described as the "title" of your post.

And due to the misguided beliefs of people who cannot see, or don't care about, the impact of the present on the future.

So hard to keep track of quotes on here. They are shown from the wrong people most of the time and it becomes very confusing.

I agree with posts here regarding PC...it may have been based upon good intentions, but it has run amok. I agree that we must be at war with terrorism. Just because there is not a "country" declaring war on us does not me that war has not been declared. It has and we need to respond accordingly.

One thing that has been mentioned a few times though that I cannot agree with is that American citizens are somehow partially responsible. We have all sorts of craziness and disagreement in our country, but we are in no way responsible for the murderous, evil acts of the terrorists.

The terrorist that have killed and plan to keep killing are the only ones responsible for such incomprehensible acts.

Thanks for opening this aspect of the discussion, although I'm concerned about the thread going political.

Couple of thoughts:

1. This thread is not about 'gun control' in the U.S.

2. This is about terrorism once again coming into our homes.

3. Terrorism is meant to create widespread terror to persuade a people to submit or acquiesce to a particular group or segment, or to create an atmosphere where more and more terror will occur.

4. Did you notice the proliferation of signs "Je Suis Charlie?" It affects all of us.

5. What would you talk about if this latest tragedy was caused by a bomb? Like Boston's Marathon? The Twin Towers?

Why didn't we think of that before?!? Pass some sensible gun restrictions and the terrorists will be stopped forever!! :shocked:

Polar - I hope you have not interpreted my initial post on this thread as implying that "we" are responsible for such acts. My point was that "we" let ourselves be led as sheep toward more and more political correctness without really considering the consequences.

I know you didn't mean that, dbussone. In fact yours is one of the posts that I was referring to that I largely agree with. I just get a little edgy if even a hint of direct responsibility for such atrocious acts is attributed to the U.S. in any way.

12 killed in Paris by extreme Islamists.
 

Sorry. I just wanted to be sure what you were saying. No offense intended, Polar. And what do you mean "largely?" I thought I nailed it pretty well.

I wasn't discussing Alinsky. I had to look him up to know who he was.

Rubicon has taught me so much about debate such as the use of a "red herring" and changing the subject rather than addressing the subject. And since I am from Ohio, I know about comparing apples to oranges.

What I don't understand are those unwilling to really face the terrible danger we are in from terrorists. Maybe not here today...but the black clouds are trying to cover the sun. If we do not know WHO our enemy is, we cannot survive his attacks.

I too am continuing to wonder why the moderate and "peaceful" Muslims don't more often speak out more and disavow themselves and separate themselves from these individual acts. It would make ME feel better. They do every once in awhile...but I don't see it as wide spread.

Heheh. I don't agree with anybody about everything. :)

This was not a surprise. In France they have what they call NO GO zones where everything in that zone is ruled by muslims. Those not of the muslim persuasion may not enter and Muslim law prevails There are also a few of these in England and look around our country....we are creating the same kind of "zones".

The only comment I will make about Alinsky is this...one of his weapons was creating GUILT. I mentioned this in the discussion on police and the riots and it was sort of ignored. THIS IS A ALINSKY tactic as we are made to feel guilty if these kind of zones or neighborhoods are not allowed.

This is beginning in this country. Each generation has had communities, not zones where ethnicity was prevelant but never to the point of turning the back on american LAW. If you wanted to survive you HAD TO assimilate, It is not that way any longer in this country or around the world. If you do not want to assimilate you will be defended and told that is your right, and those who oppose this are made to feel guilty. That is an Alinsky tool.

I concur with your comments about Zones and guilt. This will become a major issue if we do not change the political correctness push by so many who think it is the nice thing to do. All they are doing is abetting future discord

:agree::agree:

The push to make many feel guilty is not new. Recall the posts here on various race issues.....if you felt that anyone of color was wrong, or violated the law or whatever, you were made to feel guilty. Just recently on posts talking about police in New York, the tactic was to attack the police instead of discussing the root cause of the issue. It is the way it has been for a time now. I posted then that that guilt thing is just what is done now.

AND think how we are establishing these zones here in the USA !!!!!

I lived in downtown Tampa for a few years and can tell you without a doubt there are no white zones in Tampa. BOTH black and spanish have zones where they do not want any white folks to visit and the police restrict their visits sparingly. This, to me, is where we go wrong....we are a country of LAWS and those laws apply to EVERYONE and need to be upheld. You cannot break apart and establish your own little area. They start out as simply "unwritten" as they did in France and then become accepted....it is happening.
HOPE CARL IN TAMPA IS AROUND. I am betting he can speak to that area !

1] Is this violence or is it terrorism?
2] How do you feel about this?
3] What should be done?
4] Does this scare you?

1] I think it's violence. They must have sent death threats and warnings to stop mocking Mohammed or else. They killed the people they came to kill. It looked like a contract hit.

2] I think it is a dangerous world especially if you expect others to leave you alone when you provoke them. I wouldn't go to an Eagles/Dallas football game in Philadelphia dressed in a Cowboy jersey even though I have a right to. I wouldn't dress in Crypt colors and go into a Blood neighborhood even though I have a right to. I'm sure you can think of parallel examples.

3] I would tell newspapers satirical or otherwise that if they need protection because they are insulting terrorists then they should hire there own security and not risk the lives of policeman. I would tell employees that by working for a company like that it is risky.

4] I'm not scared at all. I have enough sense to stay out of dangerous areas or provoke a fight with someone who sees their own death as a reward to a better life.

I was in the area with my family when The Beltway terror was active. That was terror to me. The murders were random and in daylight. The area was large. The gunman did not warn anyone and was difficult to find. No one knew if there was more then 1 gunman or what the motivation was.

Someone else asked this question earlier.

Would you have "provoked" Hitler? Simple question really. A world bully knocking on your door and wanting your house. Would you provoke him?

I believe with all my heart in the right of people to say what they want. In Free speech, in the first amendment. I think it was risky, and in some ways wrong...but no one should be killed for insulting another's religion, in this day and age. You have to learn to get along. People on this forum insult religion way too frequently and I don't like it...in fact the ones who defend these terrorists are usually atheists. I am not a good example of a Christian. I don't go to church, but I hate when people deride Christians. All the Christians that I know personally are nice people and would never kill or steal or .........

Everyone should be a little more scared than they were last year. Infidels, those who are NOT Muslims are the targets of the extremists...and I believe they will come to this country...and apparently so do the people who are involved in National intelligence. I heard them talk on CNN a few minutes ago.

I have dealt with bullies in my life. They got hurt much more then I did. That's the first thing my dad taught me.

Are you asking me if Hitler knocked on my door and try to take my house what would I do? I would not give it to him.

And the correct answer.

Violence is terrorism...
 

and while not all violence is caused by "terrorists"....all violence causes terror.

How do I feel? Like any sane person would feel...anger...fear would come if it happened close to home...hopefully it wouldn't paralyze me.

What should be done? If anyone had that answer they'd be worldwide heroes. Be aware...that's all you can do...if you think you see something suspicious then you call it in to the police...keep on living...if you stop living then they win...

it was a trick, survey like question designed to seek a certain response.

I do not view not letting anyone take my home as provoking anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think I could stand up to a terrorist or say anything that would evoke violence. But that doesn't make it right what they do.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...aab1622964e359
Elena Brower

So… "provoking" a certain minority of people by publishing a cartoon or disparaging article on a particular subject is crossing a line? A line resulting in death?

Or… it is not provoking?

IF it is provoking as Tomwed and others suggest, then suspend free speech and stop provoking everyone.

If it's NOT provoking, then treat this as a terrorist attack and get the bad guys.

it is obviously in the eye/mind of the beholder. I answered that my not letting someone take my house is not viewed by ME as provoking anybody.

And I won't be provoked into a counterpoint variation on the theme:)

I'm NOT arguing with you, per se, as I almost always agree with your point of view. :wave:

I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of being wishy-washy in free speech. Either a society has free speech or it does not. If we begin down the road of limiting "provocative speech" so as to not offend any group and receive their wrath, then it is surely a very slippery slope to limited speech.

I agree with this, and also with Tal.

The location of the police officer who was shot as he lay on the sidewalk was less than half a block from our apartment in Paris. I would be walking past that site to go to the Sunday outdoor market up by Place de la Bastille. The paper's offices were a few doors away from a small store we frequented. We have been watching video of our apartment building and familiar streets all day. It is a solidly middle class neighborhood with many children. We used to walk a friend's elementary school son home from school past there. I am just heartsick.

The French have as strong, if not stronger, a dedication to freedom of speech as we Americans. They do not mess around with political correctness very much. They are also at the forefront in the fight against terrorists. However, there is a lot prejudice against Muslims and Jews there, esp. in Paris. There have been laws passed limiting the wearing of certain items of clothing in certain places (mostly schools) and others proposed that would seem to be designed to limit religious freedom of immigrants. I could see how this could cause the French to be targeted by religious fanatics.

As someone who has lived there, can you speak to the ZONES established there ? That concept is spreading around Europe

I'm sorry, neither my husband nor I are familiar with the zone concept, at least under that name. Can you explain?

No--I think the profit making magazine has a right to provoke anyone they want but be prepared to defend yourself. Don't use the local police as your own security team. Hire your own team to protect your employees.

They are called NO GO ZONES. The entire story concerns me because I think, and this is me, that the trend is coming here in a fashion and sort of how it came to these countries.

First,

"PARIS -- Violent crime can happen anywhere and to anyone and for many reasons, but in Muslim-controlled parts of France, it has become especially dangerous to be white.

Surveillance camera video shows white French being beaten up by predominantly Muslim immigrant gangs in the Metro and on the street.

Islamic immigrants consider it their territory and whites enter at their own risk. The French call them "sensitive urban zones" -- no-go zones where the police don't enter or don't enforce the law.

Some call them little Muslim caliphates inside the borders of France.

"And it's like that because these parts of the country are in the hands of drug traffickers, gangs and imams [Islamic leaders]," French commentator Guy Milliere explained.

Native French under Attack in Muslim Areas - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

"The French government has announced a plan to boost policing in 15 of the most crime-ridden parts of France in an effort to reassert state control over the country's so-called "no-go" zones: Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are largely off limits to non-Muslims."

France Seeks to Reclaim 'No-Go' Zones | EuropeNews

It is not restricted to France either.

This is from Australia...

"The federal government’s intention to make it a crime for Australians to travel to “no-go zones” appears to be unprecedented among western democracies, according to terrorism experts, with countries such as Britain, Canada and France choosing not to go that far.

In the UK, the prime minister, David Cameron, recently unveiled a package of new anti-terrorism measures to counter the threat of British citizens fighting with Islamic State (Isis) and returning home to potentially plan domestic attacks."

No-go travel zones unprecedented among western democracies | Australia news | The Guardian

These zones also exist in Belguim, Sweden and a number of other countries, including the UK. Similar to those that existed in Rhodesia, South Africa and Northen Ireland

I really have a fear because in our country, that is the way we seem to be going.

I am a big believer in LAW...ONE LAW...not two or three. As I said in my earlier post, I have seen this in Tampa, obviously to a smaller scale, and the recent protests AGAINST police presences in certain areas just raised my antennae !

Also because of your background, you may "enjoy" this video on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIy8snQrpYU

Why would a profit making magazine have to pay to defend itself ...moreso than a government magazine or a nonprofit???

It is a national freedom the police would be protecting. In our case the first amendment to the constitution. There are all kinds of foolishness that the..... is it ACLU....says it is protecting. Even that ugly church that carries horrible signs at veteran's funerals are allowed to do it, even if they have a space limit. Even when it is abused, most nations recognize the right of freedom of expression.

I often think that all this concentrating on being politically correct in speech is itself a limiting of free speech or free expression as the French call it.

A man might as well be dead if he cannot say what he thinks. Even if I am too cowardly most of the time. This forum has changed me.

That is sort of like saying the protestors in Ferguson has a right to burn down their town but do not rely on the police to help !!!

Police are there to defend us against those who break the law. That is their job. Yes, security teams and they had them, unarmed as they seem to have been, but the police do get involved at some point as in this country !

Hard for me to comprehend the tone of some responses on this thread. Words to the effect that the magazine publishers should have known that Muslims are extremely "sensitive" people and easily offended by comments or expressions in regard to their religion or it's prophet. Thus they should have expected some type of retaliation to their intentional provocations.
I can remember recent discussions on this site on the topic of the Big Bang Theory. Certain religious types attempted to define the role of our Judeo-Christian God in the creation of the universe. And certain atheists or agnostics implied that the religious types were either ignorant, or unsophisticated, or superstitious, or stuck in the dark ages, or just plain stupid.
Should these non-believers rightfully expect that someday their homes will be invaded and they will be shot to death, or blown to pieces, because they offended the sensibilities of the religious folk???
This is not how things work in America. And should not work that way anywhere on the world. Tolerance has it's limitations.

As to the first part, concerning no-go zones in Paris, we viewed those outer suburbs as places we wouldn't go under any circumstances, the same way we would not go into certain ghetto areas in NYC or even Grand Rapids, MI. I don't think there were laws restricting travel there back then (2009/2010), but what law-abiding citizen would want to? I do not remember hearing big stories of a lawless society in those suburbs but we were pretty much limited to watching the news channel France 24 in English, as our French is not very sophisticated.

I am going to look more into the Australian no-go law. Thanks for pointing that out. Our son and DIL have been living there since 2007. So far their opinion of the attacks there is that they have been "in house," i.e., mentally unstable, lone-working, non-connected violent people who are using the terrorist label, and the media has been feeding a frenzy. On the other hand, he's cannot exactly be relied on to tell his mother the truth of what is going on when she is worrying about his safety.

Thanks for your response. I was interested in your views as someone who was there because it staggers me as I research this.

The birth of these no go zones can be seen in the USA as we speak. I KNOW there are areas already in this country where the police just will not go to enforce the law and that is scary and can only build. These zones whether racial, religious or whatever threaten us at the base.

I need to get more information and read on this, because as I read what is happening, I can see it in our country developing.

Keep us posted on what your son reports

Why would a profit making magazine have to pay to defend itself ...moreso than a government magazine or a nonprofit???

The more they insulted Muslims the more they sold issues. It's wrong to kill under any circumstances. I'm not defending the act. They are not the victims. The magazine also insulted Christians just as well but probably knew it would not be as dangerous. It's not hard to find the cartoons. It's very raw. They have a right to insult anyone. But do they have a right to ask for all that is needed from the public for protection? I feel very sorry for all who died over a cartoon.

And I could be all wrong. I usually stay away from this type of thread.

The cartoons are about as funny as Mad magazine. I can understand if the magazine was hoping to improve the life of it's citizens like Dickens did or Thomas Paine did. I think they just want to make money.

Rags, you are jogging my memory. When we were living in north Jersey in 1980s, it was a known fact that there were parts of NYC where the police simply wouldn't go. It just wasn't a published fact.

I know what my son will say about Australia and safety. But I will ask him about the law.

France became an immigration utopia after WWII, with the majority of immigrants centering around Paris and other big cities. There is a lot of violence in these outer suburbs, much poverty, and the authorities don't have a handle on it. That much we saw while there.

Charlie Hebdo killings condemned by Arab states

Early in this thread there was a call for condemnation from Islamic nations.
If you look you will find similar condemnations from both American and international non- jihadist Muslims to similar past events.
While this particular act like those in the past is indefensible, it is worth remembering that the huge percentage of jihadist killing is being done not against Western targets but rather within the Sunni vs Shia conflict and the assault of fundamentalists against more liberal Muslims in their own countries. Sort of like the Catholics spent a couple centuries killing the Protestants and vice versa.

I am proud that our country, with a few exceptions, has done a good job of protecting free speech, and that means even offensive free speech. That means that the Nazis can march in Skokie, that means that Mapplethorpe can produce art that might offend many. All part of that old "I detest what you write but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write..." from Voltaire, ironically a Frenchman.





Does anyone actually think that anyone in the middle east cares what an American Muslim group or individual says about this issue? Or for that matter what the King of Saudi Arabia says?