Paris

[Mister Moose]

So according to our secretary of state the attacks at Charlie Hedbo were legitimized, oh wait after realizing what he said he changed it to rationalized. Really. Yes if you believe in Sharia Law . The infidels are not innocents.

The attack on Charlie Hezbo was qualitatively different than the recent attacks in Paris. The Hezbo attack was promoted as a direct response to an organization that publishes satirical cartoons regarding Islam – an insane cause and effect however tenuous and however irrational, but the average Parisian did not necessarily feel directly targeted. The recent attacks were specifically designed to hit everyone and anyone, regular folks going about their normal business. Again, that’s qualitatively different, even more frightening and virtually impossible to understand for regular folks not engaged in the complicated and bizarre dynamics of the Middle East.

Neither attack is justifiable, but Kerry was correct in pointing out the difference, regardless of the typical hyperbolic Faux spin.

I don't get the import of the difference, whether from you or Kerry, and I haven't heard the Fox spin yet so I don't follow your comment. The sin of being an infidel seems to be equally applied by the fanatical extremists. Those that were beheaded didn't publish any satirical cartoons. Neither did any of the people in the Metrojet flight that was shot down. Or any of the thousands of other civilians killed by extremists. How many of the 12 dead at the Hezbo shooting had a hand in drawing the cartoon, vs someone "going about their normal business" while at work? If I view the cartoon, am I any less of a target than the author? How much less? What if I just buy the magazine and don't look at the cartoon? Where does unencumbered free speech start and stop? Am I more of a target if I use the phrase Muslim Extremist than if I just say Extremist? Do I get less protection from my government either way? (If not, why embolden the perpetrators to feel any more justified in who they target, ie it was more 'legitimate'?)

Like Bubba is fond of saying, it is a distinction without a difference.

Looks like Charlie Hebdo hasn't been cowed very much:

[Coydog]

I don't get the import of the difference, whether from you or Kerry, and I haven't heard the Fox spin yet so I don't follow your comment.

Like Bubba is fond of saying, it is a distinction without a difference.

How personally threatened did you feel when a Muslim extremist brutally murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh? Van Gogh’s works were critical of Islam. His murderer nearly decapitated him and left a note implanted with a knife into his lifeless chest that threatened Western countries.

Dutch guy, made movies critical of Islam and was murdered by some Muslim extremist nut job. Terrible thing, but the murderer did not and probably would not have targeted you.

Charlie Hebdo? French satirical newspaper that lampoons Islam and 12 of its people are brutally murdered by terrorists presumably looking for some perverse sense of retribution. Terrible thing, but once again you were not the target.

But extremists murder 100 people at a rock concert in Paris or patrons of a local restaurant - absolutely no mistaking it, they are targeting you.

And that’s a distinction with one hell of a difference. We've known it here since 9/11. Now, tragically, if they didn't before, the good people of Paris know this difference too.

[Mister Moose]

I don't get the import of the difference, whether from you or Kerry, and I haven't heard the Fox spin yet so I don't follow your comment.

Like Bubba is fond of saying, it is a distinction without a difference.

How personally threatened did you feel when a Muslim extremist brutally murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh? Van Gogh’s works were critical of Islam. His murderer nearly decapitated him and left a note implanted with a knife into his lifeless chest that threatened Western countries.

Dutch guy, made movies critical of Islam and was murdered by some Muslim extremist nut job. Terrible thing, but the murderer did not and probably would not have targeted you.

Charlie Hedbo? French satirical newspaper that lampoons Islam and 12 of its people are brutally murdered by terrorists presumably looking for some perverse sense of retribution. Terrible thing, but once again you were not the target.

But extremists murder 100 people at a rock concert in Paris or patrons of a local restaurant - absolutely no mistaking it, they are targeting you.

And that’s a distinction with one hell of a difference. We've known it here since 9/11. Now, tragically, if they didn't before, the people of Paris know this difference too.

I understand, (and previously understood) the difference you draw. It still just doesn't create any functional difference to me. I don't go to large concerts, I don't live in Paris or NYC, I don't work for a film maker or magazine publisher, and I don't eat in urban cafes. They are all equally somebody else getting unlucky, and they all equally threaten my countrymen. I should feel more reactive to a concert I don't go to vs an office I don't work in?

Only if I think my life has more value than that of a magazine publisher, or his receptionist or columnist or bookkeeper can I agree with you. Only if my politics follow the self interest of my own personal preservation over the preservation of others can I agree with you.

When they came for the film maker I said it was legitimate, because I didn't help make the film.
When they came for the publisher and his employees I said it was legitimate because I didn't work there.
When they came for the Russian airline passengers, I said it was legitimate because Russia had defended it's ally, and you know, it's Russia.
When they came for the train passengers, I said it was legitimate because it was just one deranged guy.

Sound at all familiar?

[biged]

So according to our secretary of state the attacks at Charlie Hedbo were legitimized, oh wait after realizing what he said he changed it to rationalized. Really. Yes if you believe in Sharia Law . The infidels are not innocents.

The attack on Charlie Hezbo was qualitatively different than the recent attacks in Paris. The Hezbo attack was promoted as a direct response to an organization that publishes satirical cartoons regarding Islam – an insane cause and effect however tenuous and however irrational, but the average Parisian did not necessarily feel directly targeted. The recent attacks were specifically designed to hit everyone and anyone, regular folks going about their normal business. Again, that’s qualitatively different, even more frightening and virtually impossible to understand for regular folks not engaged in the complicated and bizarre dynamics of the Middle East.

Neither attack is justifiable, but Kerry was correct in pointing out the difference, regardless of the typical hyperbolic Faux spin.

Isn't the Secretary of State suppose to believe in the Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It would appear that if he can justify the attack he isn't a suitable person for his current position, one might question whether he believes in the United States Constitution.

[Coydog]

When they came for the film maker I said it was legitimate, because I didn't help make the film.
When they came for the publisher and his employees I said it was legitimate because I didn't work there.
When they came for the Russian airline passengers, I said it was legitimate because Russia had defended it's ally, and you know, it's Russia.
When they came for the train passengers, I said it was legitimate because it was just one deranged guy.

Sound at all familiar?

Sounds like you've missed the point. None of the attacks are legitimate.

As to what Kerry actually said:

“There’s something different about what happened with Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus, and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘O.K., they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong; it was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”

Incredibly inartful, yes. Probably better off not to have said anything at all, but obviously Kerry is not claiming the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate. Later, he clarifies:

“Let me make my point as clearly as I can. There are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics, economic disadvantage or personal ambition that justify the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the bombing of public places or indiscriminate violence towards innocent men, women and children, and such atrocities can never be rationalized, and we can never allow them to be rationalized. There’s no excuse. They have to be stopped.”

[Mister Moose]

As to what Kerry actually said:

There was a sort of particularized focus, and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘O.K., they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong; it was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”

Incredibly inartful, yes. Probably better off not to have said anything at all, but obviously Kerry is not claiming the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate. Later, he clarifies:

“Let me make my point as clearly as I can. There are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics, economic disadvantage or personal ambition that justify the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the bombing of public places or indiscriminate violence towards innocent men, women and children, and such atrocities can never be rationalized, and we can never allow them to be rationalized. There’s no excuse. They have to be stopped.”

Again, in Kerry's words, one case is an "understandable rationale", the other is "absolutely indiscriminate".

In the view of an Islamic extremist, both are an understandable rationale. Neither is indiscriminate, they are both against infidels. There is a grading system of infidels we should publish? Kerry comparatively downplayed, and therefore cheapened the loss at Charlie Hebdo.

Kerry chose to place more justification on one attack compared to the other. That was... inartful at the least. I would think that's why he's getting heat on it. His follow up does not clarify your explanation, he moves away from it. He moves to "no grounds" from the previous "understandable rationale".

[deadheadskier]

I don't know why Kerry even bothered saying what he said. It was pointless. To be honest, all the politicians from both sides sound like idiots over the past few days. Obama is acting like a child, Cruz a school yard bully, Trump acting like Trump and on and on. I think Putin had the best Arnoldesque line of them all regarding terrorists.

Hard to say no to the refugees as a lot of them lost their homes and families from not just ISIS attacks, but US bombs. If you blow up an innocent person's house, you kind of need to build them a new one and there's no stability to do it over there anymore.

That said, there's for certain going to be some extremists coming over with these refugees (to deny that is foolish) and we're going to see people die in this country because of it. The next Dzjokar Tsarnaev is within this group of people. No doubt in my mind. It goes against American tradition to say no refugees, but there's legitimate safety concerns.

What I'd like to hear is a long term strategy towards peace. No more of this "containing" sh*t.

I really don't want to admit it, but I think at this point there's really no option other than a decades long broad based coalition occupation and to treat the people that remain in the area like freaking gold. If we don't rebuild it better than what it was, the resentment, hate and terrorism simply continues. It's going to cost trillions upon trillions of dollars to do it. This should be a world security matter, and everyone should be sending in security forces and rebuilding resources.

It's a viscous cycle. How do you rid the world of extremists without creating more extremists in the process.

And that's just the middle east.

How do you solve the problems in Nigeria and the rest of Africa?

What a mess

[madhatter]

I don't get the import of the difference, whether from you or Kerry, and I haven't heard the Fox spin yet so I don't follow your comment.

Like Bubba is fond of saying, it is a distinction without a difference.

How personally threatened did you feel when a Muslim extremist brutally murdered Dutch film director Theo van Gogh? Van Gogh’s works were critical of Islam. His murderer nearly decapitated him and left a note implanted with a knife into his lifeless chest that threatened Western countries.

Dutch guy, made movies critical of Islam and was murdered by some Muslim extremist nut job. Terrible thing, but the murderer did not and probably would not have targeted you.

Charlie Hedbo? French satirical newspaper that lampoons Islam and 12 of its people are brutally murdered by terrorists presumably looking for some perverse sense of retribution. Terrible thing, but once again you were not the target.

But extremists murder 100 people at a rock concert in Paris or patrons of a local restaurant - absolutely no mistaking it, they are targeting you.

And that’s a distinction with one hell of a difference. We've known it here since 9/11. Now, tragically, if they didn't before, the people of Paris know this difference too.

I understand, (and previously understood) the difference you draw. It still just doesn't create any functional difference to me. I don't go to large concerts, I don't live in Paris or NYC, I don't work for a film maker or magazine publisher, and I don't eat in urban cafes. They are all equally somebody else getting unlucky, and they all equally threaten my countrymen. I should feel more reactive to a concert I don't go to vs an office I don't work in?

Only if I think my life has more value than that of a magazine publisher, or his receptionist or columnist or bookkeeper can I agree with you. Only if my politics follow the self interest of my own personal preservation over the preservation of others can I agree with you.

When they came for the film maker I said it was legitimate, because I didn't help make the film.
When they came for the publisher and his employees I said it was legitimate because I didn't work there.
When they came for the Russian airline passengers, I said it was legitimate because Russia had defended it's ally, and you know, it's Russia.
When they came for the train passengers, I said it was legitimate because it was just one deranged guy.

Sound at all familiar?

[wanderer7453]

When they came for the film maker I said it was legitimate, because I didn't help make the film.
When they came for the publisher and his employees I said it was legitimate because I didn't work there.
When they came for the Russian airline passengers, I said it was legitimate because Russia had defended it's ally, and you know, it's Russia.
When they came for the train passengers, I said it was legitimate because it was just one deranged guy.

Sound at all familiar?

Sounds like you've missed the point. None of the attacks are legitimate.

As to what Kerry actually said:

“There’s something different about what happened with Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus, and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘O.K., they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong; it was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”

Incredibly inartful, yes. Probably better off not to have said anything at all, but obviously Kerry is not claiming the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate. Later, he clarifies:

“Let me make my point as clearly as I can. There are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics, economic disadvantage or personal ambition that justify the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the bombing of public places or indiscriminate violence towards innocent men, women and children, and such atrocities can never be rationalized, and we can never allow them to be rationalized. There’s no excuse. They have to be stopped.”

When you hold the position Kerry holds he has to measure his words carefully. The fact is that he and the Administration he works for felt it was a legitimate attack. That's what came out. That's what was on his mind. That is how he feels. Either he and the administration are at best idiots, at worse sympathizers with radical terrorists.

[madhatter]

When they came for the film maker I said it was legitimate, because I didn't help make the film.
When they came for the publisher and his employees I said it was legitimate because I didn't work there.
When they came for the Russian airline passengers, I said it was legitimate because Russia had defended it's ally, and you know, it's Russia.
When they came for the train passengers, I said it was legitimate because it was just one deranged guy.

Sound at all familiar?

Sounds like you've missed the point. None of the attacks are legitimate.

As to what Kerry actually said:

“There’s something different about what happened with Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus, and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘O.K., they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong; it was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”

Incredibly inartful, yes. Probably better off not to have said anything at all, but obviously Kerry is not claiming the Charlie Hebdo attack was legitimate. Later, he clarifies:

“Let me make my point as clearly as I can. There are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics, economic disadvantage or personal ambition that justify the slaughter of unarmed civilians, the bombing of public places or indiscriminate violence towards innocent men, women and children, and such atrocities can never be rationalized, and we can never allow them to be rationalized. There’s no excuse. They have to be stopped.”

When you hold the position Kerry holds he has to measure his words carefully. The fact is that he and the Administration he works for felt it was a legitimate attack. That's what came out. That's what was on his mind. That is how he feels. Either he and the administration are at best idiots, at worse sympathizers with radical terrorists.

exactly... the rhetoric from this administration has been one of apologies, sympathy and support...like trump said, obama seemed more angry with the GOP and reporters who dared question him in any way than he was about the "set back" in paris...

[madhatter]

[thedev]

Can we conduct a screening process and have a background check on each gumball?

[madhatter]

Can we conduct a screening process and have a background check on each gumball?

I'm sure each gumball has a unique serial number, chain of custody and source of origin imprinted on it...

[brownman]

Easy solution ... if color was the singular factor
Throw 'em all away, especially the red 'DIE' ones.
FDA outlawed this years ago ... didn't require an Executive order.

[Highway Star]

It's a viscous cycle. How do you rid the world of extremists without creating more extremists in the process.

And that's just the middle east.

- 2 Million troops from the US, Europe, Russia and China.
- Re-Partition the entire region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Pet ... ime_change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map ... ddle-east/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Solved.