French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead

france voted the web censorship : now the governement can decide to shut down a web page without advice from the judges.

http://www.lepoint.fr/chroniqueurs-du-point/guerric-poncet/loi-antiterroriste-les-deputes-ont-vote-la-censure-du-web-francais-18-09-2014-1864329_506.php

freedom of speech my ass.

So this is an inside job right?

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/centcoms-twitter-hack/?mbid=social_twitter

  Quote

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

~ Benjamin Franklin

Seems pretty fitting right now. Although I agree with better security I think the majority should come from your average citizen.

I mean twice the GIGN got the overhand by heroic civilians who called to give information.

And it's sad to see politicians take advantage of the situation, but hey, theyre politicians after all....

Terrorists win. Their plan is for the Western countries to undermine their own freedom in their panicked reactions to terrorism. They are also looking to add suspicion from the majority towards the muslims already living in Western countries and add to their marginalization and increase radicalization among them. All going to plan. Inshallah.

  On 1/13/2015 at 11:14 AM, azatoth said:

Terrorists win. Their plan is for the Western countries to undermine their own freedom in their panicked reactions to terrorism. They are also looking to add suspicion from the majority towards the muslims already living in Western countries and add to their marginalization and increase radicalization among them. All going to plan. Inshallah.

I don't think they're that smart or focused, to be honest. but these events will play into their hands, yes.

  On 1/13/2015 at 11:14 AM, azatoth said:

Terrorists win. Their plan is for the Western countries to undermine their own freedom in their panicked reactions to terrorism. They are also looking to add suspicion from the majority towards the muslims already living in Western countries and add to their marginalization and increase radicalization among them. All going to plan. Inshallah.

The terrorists are part of the bigger plan.

Nothing to do with the complotist theories here, but the next Charlie Hebdo cover has been unveiled and it's pure genius imo

Translation : "Everything is Forgiven"

[youtubehd]pwIXBRZi2jE[/youtubehd]

Not sure if this was posted already.. didn't see it.

Makes my head spin
I don't like Sean Hannity but found his barking off a bit too pleasurable in this one. Is it just me, or does Cowdery come across like a textbook sociopath? The way he smirks and smiles all the time weirds me out. He'd never blow himself up or shoot someone probably, but he's perfectly content trying to convince other people to do it.

  On 1/13/2015 at 4:36 PM, fiznuthian said:

Makes my head spin

I don't like Sean Hannity but found his barking off a bit too pleasurable in this one. Is it just me, or does Cowdery come across like a textbook sociopath? The way he smirks and smiles all the time weirds me out. He'd never blow himself up or shoot someone probably, but he's perfectly content trying to convince other people to do it.

I also thought about how willing the imams and various fundamentalist leaders would be to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up for the cause as they encourage young people to do. I doubt they would do it. Not much different than our leaders who are fine in sending their young ones to fight and die in a dumb war.

  On 1/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic.

Then why hasn't the entire world of Arab leaders officially and outspokenly joined to respond militarily to the US and British invasions if it was such a cataclysmic murderous genocidal anti-Muslim crusade as it's being made out to seem like by Jihadists and Islamists? Why haven't there already been missiles fired and attacks launched from actual governments/kingdoms rather than from rogue terrorist groups and extremist factions? For several reasons- because for one, it's just more fuel for jihadists to use as a way to mobilize more terror and extremism. Do you think these already murderous groups give an actual shit if a few of their neighboring countries leaders are being taken out in US-led campaigns with casualties in the process? No, that region was already bubbling with chaos with their maniacal leaderships slaughtering their own people, and at the very least, using totalitarian-style oppression since day 1. The myth that these terrorist attacks are "retribution" or "responses" is a joke. They're excuses, nothing more... Excuses added to that long-list of disconnected reasons for hatred of the west/US. It's a religious fundamentalist thing, it's a civilization thing, it's a nationalist thing, and it's power thing, which explains why the most of the times we hear about how the "US is just killing Muslims" is coming from radical imams rather than citizens, more secular Arab leaders, etc. If it were that simple that the west wanted to just go on a killing spree, we'd simply start wiping Arab countries off the map, and the "axis of evil" would have been long gone. The-US-is-commiting-genocide-against-Muslims rant is just conspiracy/propaganda nonsense used by people like Choudary ^ in order to stir things up and recruit young disillusioned followers.

  On 1/13/2015 at 4:36 PM, fiznuthian said:

[youtubehd]pwIXBRZi2jE[/youtubehd]

 

Not sure if this was posted already.. didn't see it.

 

Makes my head spin

I don't like Sean Hannity but found his barking off a bit too pleasurable in this one. Is it just me, or does Cowdery come across like a textbook sociopath? The way he smirks and smiles all the time weirds me out. He'd never blow himself up or shoot someone probably, but he's perfectly content trying to convince other people to do it.

that guy is fuckin parasite of the highest possible order......any opportunity to stir the pot he's in there like some black-magic chef.

freedom of speech = yes

spouting frothing hate and picketing funerals? fuck off to fuck, mate

  On 1/13/2015 at 5:22 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic.

 

Then why hasn't the entire world of Arab leaders officially and outspokenly joined to respond militarily to the US and British invasions if it was such a cataclysmic murderous genocidal anti-Muslim crusade as it's being made out to seem like by Jihadists and Islamists? Why haven't there already been missiles fired and attacks launched from actual governments/kingdoms rather than from rogue terrorist groups and extremist factions? For several reasons- because for one, it's just more fuel for jihadists to use as a way to mobilize more terror and extremism. Do you think these already murderous groups give an actual shit if a few of their neighboring countries leaders are being taken out in US-led campaigns with casualties in the process? No, that region was already bubbling with chaos with their maniacal leaderships slaughtering their own people, and at the very least, using totalitarian-style oppression since day 1. The myth that these terrorist attacks are "retribution" or "responses" is a joke. They're excuses, nothing more... Excuses added to that long-list of disconnected reasons for hatred of the west/US. It's a religious fundamentalist thing, it's a civilization thing, it's a nationalist thing, and it's power thing, which explains why the most of the times we hear about how the "US is just killing Muslims" is coming from radical imams rather than citizens, more secular Arab leaders, etc. If it were that simple that the west wanted to just go on a killing spree, we'd just wipe the "axis of evil" of the map.

 

so, 1stly yer asking why haven't more Arab/middle eastern leaders condemned the invasion of Iraq?

because the US administration is either paying them or covertly fighting them. See the Saudis (as allies of sorts), like Jordan, what was Mubarak's crew in Egypt, the Israelis = allies.....then you had your hostiles = Sadam, Gaddafi & the Persians.

you know about the Iran/Iraq War right? you know who funded that (CIA)?

you know that the UK effectively placed arbitrary boundaries across Sunni/Shia tribal areas in the 19th/early 20th centuries and thus fucked the entire region hard in the arse (unlubed) for decades?

you know the UK's role in the foundation of Israel?

what you're seeing now is an "ideological" war, predicated on the grounds that just to the north-east of Iraq exists one of the largest petro-mineral fields on earth. If you think that isnt relevant the i honestly dont know how to reply other than you can take a horse to water,,,,,,

please dont try & defend US foreign policy in the middle east because, while it might not seem like genocide on face-value, there has been an inestimable amount of meddling, murdering and raping of this region by the US AND the UK for far far too long. Someone like Kissinger would call this Realpolitik, but thats just more smoke n mirrors. Its all in the public domain and if you turn your attention further east the US drone strike record and civilian death estimates for Pakistan is an absolute disgrace to humanity. It also highlights the sacrifices of western military personnel as an abhorrent waste of life and resources too.

so at what point does "intent" & "outcomes" reach a point where, as a voter/activist/human being you say "enough is a fuckin 'nough"?

  On 1/13/2015 at 5:22 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic.

 

Then why hasn't the entire world of Arab leaders officially and outspokenly joined to respond militarily to the US and British invasions if it was such a cataclysmic murderous genocidal anti-Muslim crusade as it's being made out to seem like by Jihadists and Islamists? Why haven't there already been missiles fired and attacks launched from actual governments/kingdoms rather than from rogue terrorist groups and extremist factions? For several reasons- because for one, it's just more fuel for jihadists to use as a way to mobilize more terror and extremism. Do you think these already murderous groups give an actual shit if a few of their neighboring countries leaders are being taken out in US-led campaigns with casualties in the process? No, that region was already bubbling with chaos with their maniacal leaderships slaughtering their own people, and at the very least, using totalitarian-style oppression since day 1. The myth that these terrorist attacks are "retribution" or "responses" is a joke. They're excuses, nothing more... Excuses added to that long-list of disconnected reasons for hatred of the west/US. It's a religious fundamentalist thing, it's a civilization thing, it's a nationalist thing, and it's power thing, which explains why the most of the times we hear about how the "US is just killing Muslims" is coming from radical imams rather than citizens, more secular Arab leaders, etc. If it were that simple that the west wanted to just go on a killing spree, we'd simply start wiping Arab countries off the map, and the "axis of evil" would have been long gone. The-US-is-commiting-genocide-against-Muslims rant is just conspiracy/propaganda nonsense used by people like Choudary ^ in order to stir things up and recruit young disillusioned followers.

 

Please. Paragraphs. You're committing terrorism against the English language.

Official condemnation of the Iraq War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Official_condemnation

Why haven't there been more missiles fired? Because you know - the leaders in those countries getting bombed by the US are already getting bombed, why would they want to invite more?

I wish I had time to give you a full introductory course on international relations and global politics.

Here read this blog from an Iraqi girl that started in 2003:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ca/2003_08_01_archive.html

None of this is to condone the attacks - but to not realize that they are actually a response to the West's actions in the middle east (and it makes it easier to gain followers when people's families are getting blown up, thus "embiggening the process") is to stick your head in the sand.

Just a question - have you ever traveled outside of the US? Spent any time in a culture significantly different from yours?

3 million copies of next issue to be printed & distributed worldwide with Mohammed on the cover.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-13/charlie-hebdo-to-print-3-million-copies-with-muhammad-cover.html

  On 1/13/2015 at 6:39 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 5:22 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic.

 

Then why hasn't the entire world of Arab leaders officially and outspokenly joined to respond militarily to the US and British invasions if it was such a cataclysmic murderous genocidal anti-Muslim crusade as it's being made out to seem like by Jihadists and Islamists? Why haven't there already been missiles fired and attacks launched from actual governments/kingdoms rather than from rogue terrorist groups and extremist factions? For several reasons- because for one, it's just more fuel for jihadists to use as a way to mobilize more terror and extremism. Do you think these already murderous groups give an actual shit if a few of their neighboring countries leaders are being taken out in US-led campaigns with casualties in the process? No, that region was already bubbling with chaos with their maniacal leaderships slaughtering their own people, and at the very least, using totalitarian-style oppression since day 1. The myth that these terrorist attacks are "retribution" or "responses" is a joke. They're excuses, nothing more... Excuses added to that long-list of disconnected reasons for hatred of the west/US. It's a religious fundamentalist thing, it's a civilization thing, it's a nationalist thing, and it's power thing, which explains why the most of the times we hear about how the "US is just killing Muslims" is coming from radical imams rather than citizens, more secular Arab leaders, etc. If it were that simple that the west wanted to just go on a killing spree, we'd simply start wiping Arab countries off the map, and the "axis of evil" would have been long gone. The-US-is-commiting-genocide-against-Muslims rant is just conspiracy/propaganda nonsense used by people like Choudary ^ in order to stir things up and recruit young disillusioned followers.

 

 

 

Please. Paragraphs. You're committing terrorism against the English language.

 

Official condemnation of the Iraq War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Official_condemnation

 

Why haven't there been more missiles fired? Because you know - the leaders in those countries getting bombed by the US are already getting bombed, why would they want to invite more?

 

I wish I had time to give you a full introductory course on international relations and global politics.

Here read this blog from an Iraqi girl that started in 2003:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ca/2003_08_01_archive.html

 

None of this is to condone the attacks - but to not realize that they are actually a response to the West's actions in the middle east (and it makes it easier to gain followers when people's families are getting blown up, thus "embiggening the process") is to stick your head in the sand.

 

Just a question - have you ever traveled outside of the US? Spent any time in a culture significantly different from yours?

 

Lol, nice attack on people who don't hold your "everything-is-the-U.S./West's-fault" mentality by painting them out to be uncultured, uneducated, ignorant rednecks. haha classic.. nothing new there.

Yes, your honor, I've in fact been to 6 different countries in 3 continents, and hold a bachelor's degree in Interdisciplinary Studies from Arizona State in which I studied mass communications and political science. I've also taken a number of International Relations classes.

I apologize that I'm not spewing out Wikipedia pages and timelines of events in Libya, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm not trying to argue historical facts... Just giving my opinion on how I believe that religious fanaticism in and of itself is the leading root cause of Islamic terrorism. There are endless debates on the roots of terrorism and the extremist mindset. Don't paint me out to be an ignorant fuck just for disagreeing with your particular Noam Chompsky viewpoint.

P.S. just a head's up, Chen, not sure if you've ever traveled to the U.S. or any nation in the west, hm? Well, if you haven't, you might take some pointers by taking a trip so you can realize that it's not some cartoonish land of antagonists with Dr. Evil running the show pulling the strings of the entire globe. The West may be responsible for some of the evils in the world, but the East/Middle East is not immune either.. Not sure if you've taken a basic psych or sociology course (?), but corruption, greed and ignorance is a human quality, not a geographical-location based aspect of humanity. (:

but America has been the pre-eminent world super-power for quite a while now and if you judged it by its foreign policy since 1945 you could be forgiven for thinking it was run by a bunch of money/oil hungry cunts elites

no other superpower since Rome has worshiped at the alter of its own narcissism quite so intensely and America was my home for a while and i know northern VA/DC inside out. I fuckin love the place, but the love of materialism, the "vote with your dollar" mind-set, the lack of global perspective with foreign policy, the complete disdain for "otherness".........what the fuck happened guys?

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:11 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 6:39 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 5:22 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, cwmbrancity said:

 

As far as intent and civilian death figures are concerned,,,,,,the American & British invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan has absolutely fucked everything. You can not defend American foreign policy in this area or the outcomes. It has been cataclysmic.

 

Then why hasn't the entire world of Arab leaders officially and outspokenly joined to respond militarily to the US and British invasions if it was such a cataclysmic murderous genocidal anti-Muslim crusade as it's being made out to seem like by Jihadists and Islamists? Why haven't there already been missiles fired and attacks launched from actual governments/kingdoms rather than from rogue terrorist groups and extremist factions? For several reasons- because for one, it's just more fuel for jihadists to use as a way to mobilize more terror and extremism. Do you think these already murderous groups give an actual shit if a few of their neighboring countries leaders are being taken out in US-led campaigns with casualties in the process? No, that region was already bubbling with chaos with their maniacal leaderships slaughtering their own people, and at the very least, using totalitarian-style oppression since day 1. The myth that these terrorist attacks are "retribution" or "responses" is a joke. They're excuses, nothing more... Excuses added to that long-list of disconnected reasons for hatred of the west/US. It's a religious fundamentalist thing, it's a civilization thing, it's a nationalist thing, and it's power thing, which explains why the most of the times we hear about how the "US is just killing Muslims" is coming from radical imams rather than citizens, more secular Arab leaders, etc. If it were that simple that the west wanted to just go on a killing spree, we'd simply start wiping Arab countries off the map, and the "axis of evil" would have been long gone. The-US-is-commiting-genocide-against-Muslims rant is just conspiracy/propaganda nonsense used by people like Choudary ^ in order to stir things up and recruit young disillusioned followers.

 

 

 

Please. Paragraphs. You're committing terrorism against the English language.

 

Official condemnation of the Iraq War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Official_condemnation

 

Why haven't there been more missiles fired? Because you know - the leaders in those countries getting bombed by the US are already getting bombed, why would they want to invite more?

 

I wish I had time to give you a full introductory course on international relations and global politics.

Here read this blog from an Iraqi girl that started in 2003:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.ca/2003_08_01_archive.html

 

None of this is to condone the attacks - but to not realize that they are actually a response to the West's actions in the middle east (and it makes it easier to gain followers when people's families are getting blown up, thus "embiggening the process") is to stick your head in the sand.

 

Just a question - have you ever traveled outside of the US? Spent any time in a culture significantly different from yours?

 

 

Lol, nice attack on people who don't hold your "everything-is-the-U.S./West's-fault" mentality by painting them out to be uncultured, uneducated, ignorant rednecks. haha classic.. nothing new there.

 

Yes, your honor, I've in fact been to 6 different countries in 3 continents, and hold a bachelor's degree in Interdisciplinary Studies from Arizona State in which I studied mass communications and political science. I've also taken a number of International Relations classes.

 

I apologize that I'm not spewing out Wikipedia pages and timelines of events in Libya, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm not trying to argue historical facts... Just giving my opinion on how I believe that religious fanaticism in and of itself is the leading root cause of Islamic terrorism. There are endless debates on the roots of terrorism and the extremist mindset. Don't paint me out to be an ignorant fuck just for disagreeing with your particular Noam Chompsky viewpoint.

 

P.S. just a head's up, Chen, not sure if you've ever traveled to the U.S. or any nation in the west, hm? Well, if you haven't, you might take some pointers by taking a trip so you can realize that it's not some cartoonish land of antagonists with Dr. Evil running the show pulling the strings of the entire globe. The West may be responsible for some of the evils in the world, but the East/Middle East is not immune either.. Not sure if you've taken a basic psych or sociology course (?), but corruption is a human quality, not a geographical-location based aspect of humanity. (:

 

You should ask ASU for your money back, cause they did a shit job in teaching you about IR. I don't hold that everything is the West's fault, but trying to absolve the foreign policies of the US in the ME is pretty ridiculous. Obviously the US is not solely to blame, but their foreign policyin the middle east has been a long series of clusterfucks.

Chomsky should stay out of politics as far as I'm concerned, he does some good stuff in analyzing media and propaganda, but not much value in terms of actual geopolitics and IR.

Again please note - I am not saying the attacks are justifiable, but in order to understand more of the causes of the attacks, we have to look at the history. But I won't bother you with any more of those pesky historical facts.

PS just a head's up, I was born and raised in Canada, and am as white as they come. I only asked because the impression I get from you is that everyone who lives outside of the US is living in a cave or something.

do you think that people born on American soil are inherently more narcissistic than other people born in different nations?

cmon

don't forget that the people than run nations are actually human beings, not cyborgs from science fiction novels.

not the people so much as the culture

"the relationship between an individual and a social norm is a cultural process,,,,"

(Hodder, 1982.........a semi-autistic British archaeologist teaching at Stanford)

I guess some people will always prefer barbarism and cultures/societies with many aspects still very much in medieval age norms to "world powers that are greedy".. but it's ridiculous cuz every damn nation is greedy/money hungry/elitist. Some just get more press and hype than others. The countries with the most money and power get the most attention, therefore it's easier to paint out one nation as some kind of extraordinarily elitist/oil/money hungry/ignorant nation. People don't know a lot of celebs in person, but they still like to paint them out as asshole douchebags because they get a lot of attention and have power and money.

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:42 PM, Lane Visitor said:

I guess some people will always prefer barbarism and cultures still in the medieval ages to "world powers that are greedy".. but it's ridiculous cuz every damn nation is greedy/money hungry/elitist. Some just get more press and hype than others. The countries with the most money and power get the most media coverage, therefore it's easier to paint out one nation as some kind of extraordinarily elitist/oil/money hungry/ignorant nation. People don't know a lot of celebs in person, but they still like to paint them out as asshole douchebags because they get a lot of attention and have power and money.

Just to put this in perspective. China has 1.3 billion people and the USA has 316 million. That's 4x the population and 1/3 of the amount of money spent on military.

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:50 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:42 PM, Lane Visitor said:

I guess some people will always prefer barbarism and cultures still in the medieval ages to "world powers that are greedy".. but it's ridiculous cuz every damn nation is greedy/money hungry/elitist. Some just get more press and hype than others. The countries with the most money and power get the most media coverage, therefore it's easier to paint out one nation as some kind of extraordinarily elitist/oil/money hungry/ignorant nation. People don't know a lot of celebs in person, but they still like to paint them out as asshole douchebags because they get a lot of attention and have power and money.

 

 

Just to put this in perspective. China has 1.3 billion people and the USA has 316 million. That's 4x the population and 1/3 of the amount of money spent on military.

 

There are so many variables that play into military spending and even war itself (geopolitical motives, power structure, influence, ability, expectations)- this figure has nothing to do with the "greedy/money hungry/elitist" aspect of nations in general. With enough power, money and resources, any nation could and probably would easily start warring more if they were in the place of the U.S. in terms of having the reputation/platform of power/responsibility of being a dominant world power.

- it's all just power structure and ability in itself- it doesn't mean anything in regards to the "character of the U.S."

This infographic is actually a perfect example of the point that the more a nation becomes a world power, the more something like military spending increases. China has been talked about as becoming the next world power once America's empire falls... which is probably why it's the 2nd in military spending, and even more than twice that of Russia's... and consider that just because China is now only say 30% of America's military spending, once and if China does surpass the U.S. in terms of world powers, its jump in spending could be drastic- possibly even higher than the U.S.'s figures. There are just so many variables here, I find it hard to draw any real conclusions from that graph except for the positioning of the placeholders of power/money/resources.

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:58 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:50 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:42 PM, Lane Visitor said:

I guess some people will always prefer barbarism and cultures still in the medieval ages to "world powers that are greedy".. but it's ridiculous cuz every damn nation is greedy/money hungry/elitist. Some just get more press and hype than others. The countries with the most money and power get the most media coverage, therefore it's easier to paint out one nation as some kind of extraordinarily elitist/oil/money hungry/ignorant nation. People don't know a lot of celebs in person, but they still like to paint them out as asshole douchebags because they get a lot of attention and have power and money.

 

 

Just to put this in perspective. China has 1.3 billion people and the USA has 316 million. That's 4x the population and 1/3 of the amount of money spent on military.

 

 

There are so many variables that play into military spending and even war itself (geopolitical motives, power structure, influence, ability, expectations)- this figure has nothing to do with the "greedy/money hungry/elitist" aspect of nations in general. With enough money and resources, any nation could and probably would easily start warring more if they were in the place of the U.S. in terms of having the responsibility of being a dominant world power.

 

- it's all just power structure and ability in itself- it doesn't mean anything in regards to the "character of the U.S."

 

That's a pretty willful omission of the implications of such behavior.

  On 1/13/2015 at 8:15 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:58 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:50 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 1/13/2015 at 7:42 PM, Lane Visitor said:

I guess some people will always prefer barbarism and cultures still in the medieval ages to "world powers that are greedy".. but it's ridiculous cuz every damn nation is greedy/money hungry/elitist. Some just get more press and hype than others. The countries with the most money and power get the most media coverage, therefore it's easier to paint out one nation as some kind of extraordinarily elitist/oil/money hungry/ignorant nation. People don't know a lot of celebs in person, but they still like to paint them out as asshole douchebags because they get a lot of attention and have power and money.

 

 

Just to put this in perspective. China has 1.3 billion people and the USA has 316 million. That's 4x the population and 1/3 of the amount of money spent on military.

 

 

There are so many variables that play into military spending and even war itself (geopolitical motives, power structure, influence, ability, expectations)- this figure has nothing to do with the "greedy/money hungry/elitist" aspect of nations in general. With enough money and resources, any nation could and probably would easily start warring more if they were in the place of the U.S. in terms of having the responsibility of being a dominant world power.

 

- it's all just power structure and ability in itself- it doesn't mean anything in regards to the "character of the U.S."

 

 

That's a pretty willful omission of the implications of such behavior.

 

Maybe I simplified a bit with that sentence.. but really all I'm trying to point out is that the one with the most authority and power in and of itself is not always the "bad guy" just for the sole reason that they're the one in the throne. There are so many factors, and I think it's more easy to judge the holders of power than it is to judge ones with less power, which is a phenomenon that typically muddles up discussion of geopolitics. When everything is discussed in terms of only conflict theory, it's like a dog chasing it's own tail, we don't get anywhere. Money and power corrupts.. okay, but aren't there other reasons for problems with humanity other than who has the most money? Or should we simply look at power structure, period? Maybe this gets into economics and models of government/-isms, but maybe that's where this discussion all ends up in the long run?

  On 1/13/2015 at 6:56 AM, chenGOD said:

I'm surprised no one has posted Zizek's thoughts on this yet:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I don't think it's the best thing he's ever written, but hey, it's Zizek

 

It's difficult to read that and not have it be in Zizek's voice, nose wiping and shirt clinging "and so on".