SEVEN SHODDY EXCUSES LEFTIES USE TO JUSTIFY THE MASSACRES IN PARIS

[rugrats]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices 

Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly). 
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."

"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.

Not showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo is the definition of submission. If you agree with this submission the terrorists have won. If you don't then good for you.

The concept of believing everything you read or trust is not biased toward your (normal?) values is not strange.
A cow has a bias toward eating grass, a lion has a bias toward eating fresh meat still barely alive.

My bias is as natural as yours. Why waste my time looking for links you could find yourself proving me wrong?

You have already made up your mind regarding my bias. I always put my bias front and center by posting links I find interesting. What else there is to add regarding my bias?

Wilikon is biased toward a conservative view and definitely not a fan of liberals and the gauche caviar, never ready to change their lives by following their own agenda. Wilikon loves to make fun of them, but he does not mind being called a fool too and be put in his place; as in 'a place' defined by the progressive mind
 
For that I need to keep my mind open and read and listen to what the liberals are saying. That is why I find it funny people rejecting foxnews while most conservative minds love learning about liberals and their alice in wonderland (always turning into a nightmare) views.


Four Ways the Associated Press Is Avoiding Showing the Muhammad Cartoon on New Charlie Hebdo Issue

<snipped ~ 8 big images and other irrelevant stuff>

Sorry to trim your post Wilikon, but they're irrelevant to your original contention and my request for corroboration. Do you actually have any links to support the accusation?
I think we've already established that Delingpole was not being honest and is just blowing hot air (and no, I'm not making a sexual pun involving Allahpundit or Ed Morrissey  ).
As for you being biased, you and I both agree that you are, so there's really nothing to discuss, yes?

[Room101]

And yet it always seems to be conservatives trying to make burning the flag illegal. Most people pick a side, and don't get too bothered by actual principles.

[jaysabi]

If Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist in the USA, it's because of organizations like Faux News who would raise a holy uproar (pun intended) at any slight to Christianity to further progress the fiction that white, privileged Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.  They already do that now with far less ammunition than the cover posted above would have provided them.

And yet the NYT is afraid to show the cover of Charlie Hebdo but foxnews does. How do you explain that? Fiction too?  

Faux News loves to play to their racist anti-Muslim demographic. That's hard to grasp?

By showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo they do? I thought we were all Charlie now. Not you? On which side are you then?

Yeah, nothing sticks it to those Muslims harder than reprinting the covers they find so outrageous. I'm on the anti neo-conservative side.

[Wilikon]

Could you please provide links showing 'lefties' 'justifying' the massacre?
Not trying to be rude, but please ensure you understand what I am requesting. If you are uncertain, kindly let me know.

Of course I can. Send an email to the author of that article I posted and I am sure he will provide you with what you are requesting, without me wasting your time with my bias choices 

Oh, don't worry. He's just as biased as you are (though not as much (!) as other more prominent Breitbart writers, incredibly). 
Unfortunately, none of the links in his piece support his headline. I'm doubt he would've kept any more convincing links up his sleeve, just in case someone emails him for one.
In fact, Delingpole blatantly lied about the Telegraph op-ed. He started by misrepresenting the 'offensive' comment before proclaiming that the article "seems subtly to concede the case that the French cartoonists had it coming." I'll quote you the first and last paragraph in case you did not read it.

"There could have been no more powerful reproof to the despicable actions – and warped values – of the Islamist thugs whose actions traumatised France last week than yesterday’s march through the centre of Paris."

"But the march in Paris reminds us, at the very least, that the men of violence are not just a minority, but a fragment of a fragment. And it may be that it also acts as a turning point."

So, I am asking you again if you can provide any links to support the accusation. Justifying the murders is abhorrent, so I am very curious whether there is any basis to Delingpole and your claim.

Not showing the cover of Charlie Hebdo is the definition of submission. If you agree with this submission the terrorists have won. If you don't then good for you.

The concept of believing everything you read or trust is not biased toward your (normal?) values is not strange.
A cow has a bias toward eating grass, a lion has a bias toward eating fresh meat still barely alive.

My bias is as natural as yours. Why waste my time looking for links you could find yourself proving me wrong?

You have already made up your mind regarding my bias. I always put my bias front and center by posting links I find interesting. What else there is to add regarding my bias?

Wilikon is biased toward a conservative view and definitely not a fan of liberals and the gauche caviar, never ready to change their lives by following their own agenda. Wilikon loves to make fun of them, but he does not mind being called a fool too and be put in his place; as in 'a place' defined by the progressive mind
 
For that I need to keep my mind open and read and listen to what the liberals are saying. That is why I find it funny people rejecting foxnews while most conservative minds love learning about liberals and their alice in wonderland (always turning into a nightmare) views.


Four Ways the Associated Press Is Avoiding Showing the Muhammad Cartoon on New Charlie Hebdo Issue

<snipped ~ 8 big images and other irrelevant stuff>

Sorry to trim your post Wilikon, but they're irrelevant to your original contention and my request for corroboration. Do you actually have any links to support the accusation?
I think we've already established that Delingpole was not being honest and is just blowing hot air (and no, I'm not making a sexual pun involving Allahpundit or Ed Morrissey  ).
As for you being biased, you and I both agree that you are, so there's really nothing to discuss, yes?

I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........

 

[rugrats]

I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........

 

Man, let's not run in circles.
You're supposed to provide me with the links supporting the article.
The article contained nothing to support its rhetoric. I've also demonstrated two lies by the author.

For the record though, I am biased in favor of the truth, and I hate political labels.
So please don't worry about my stance. I am an equal opportunity dick to the right, left and center.

[jaysabi]

I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........

 

Man, let's not run in circles.
You're supposed to provide me with the links supporting the article.
The article contained nothing to support its rhetoric. I've also demonstrated two lies by the author.

For the record though, I am biased in favor of the truth, and I hate political labels.
So please don't worry about my stance. I am an equal opportunity dick to the right, left and center.

He's already stated he's not interested in proving the author right. The author's rhetoric fit his worldview, so there was no need to question the authenticity of the claims made. Lack of critical thinking is why the left-right paradigm is dooming the country. It's also why Wilikon posts conservative blog spam instead of actual news sources. He's not interested in the news event unless it's presented with an anti-Obama or anti-liberal opinion piece packaged around it.

I've pointed out an obvious counter-point to the author as well, and it was completely ignored.

I like your stance of being biased in favor of truth and disregarding political labels. I self-identify as libertarian, but I hold traditional liberal and conservative values based on what idea is the best for the situation. It's not always the idea that would be identified with pure libertarianism.

[Wilikon]

I am as biased as you are. I always will be. You always will be (although, I don't pay attention to names on any forum, so I don't know what you stand for on anything exactly.)

There always will be something new to discuss, yes.

Unless changing my wordings, no need to say you are sorry. Too many pictures in this case.

Although, thanks to my deeply held belief in my supreme faith of my bias, those images were ULTRA relevant to all. I understand you do not agree. If you are my polar opposite in Bizarro World, then it was imperative you'd found these images irrelevant to your own bias...

If you believe what the author of the article said is wrong, then provide the links and prove the author wrong. To me the article was clear, concise and fabulous.

One could almost read it as effortlessly as playing Chopin on a Bösendorfer.........

 

Man, let's not run in circles.
You're supposed to provide me with the links supporting the article.
The article contained nothing to support its rhetoric. I've also demonstrated two lies by the author.

For the record though, I am biased in favor of the truth, and I hate political labels.
So please don't worry about my stance. I am an equal opportunity dick to the right, left and center.

He's already stated he's not interested in proving the author right. The author's rhetoric fit his worldview, so there was no need to question the authenticity of the claims made. Lack of critical thinking is why the left-right paradigm is dooming the country. It's also why Wilikon posts conservative blog spam instead of actual news sources. He's not interested in the news event unless it's presented with an anti-Obama or anti-liberal opinion piece packaged around it.

I've pointed out an obvious counter-point to the author as well, and it was completely ignored.

I like your stance of being biased in favor of truth and disregarding political labels. I self-identify as libertarian, but I hold traditional liberal and conservative values based on what idea is the best for the situation. It's not always the idea that would be identified with pure libertarianism.

[Lethn]

I'm pretty sure there are communists and socialists who would agree with me that anybody who makes excuses for murder are a bunch of cowards, the fact is, if this were anything other than Islam nobody would make nearly as much noise about it but because a fucking drawing offended some religious morons we're all suddenly supposed to be more careful around them, no, that's not how the real world works.

Besides, if Islam and all religions want me to respect them, they need to acknowledge scientific and mathematical facts in life, stop opressing people and stop trying to deliberately subvert the law and take over our governments, until then I will consider it my duty to mock them when they do something stupid.

[GreekBitcoin]

[RodeoX]

Why would leftists justify this sort of terror? They are the targets. Groups like the base and dasch are extreme right wing conservatives. They fear the secular left not the right.

[jaysabi]

Translation of the speech bubble: It's hard to be liked by idiots.

[Wilikon]

Why would leftists justify this sort of terror? They are the targets. Groups like the base and dasch are extreme right wing conservatives. They fear the secular left not the right.

I thought believing and living under a theocratic regime like isis meant the Left or the Right, and everything in between, were a target. Everyone who believes strongly in a special social order follows a manual, a method, a guide, a mantra.

Isis does not believe in fascism, no matter how hard you want to believe it. The inscription on their black flag does stand for a very specific way of life and belief. Hint: it is not communism. It is not fascism. It is not socialism. It is not anarchism. it is not libertarian based. It is not materialism. They even started minting its own currency, in silver, gold and copper.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/world/meast/isis-currency/index.html


They don't even believe in bitcoin 





 

[grendel25]

Lefties justify massacre in Paris?  That's too broad to just pin something on a progressive and liberal movement.  It's the same type of thinking terrorists use to justify violence.

I don't think any sane person would ever justify what happened in Paris or Nigeria for that matter.

[Wilikon]

Lefties justify massacre in Paris?  That's too broad to just pin something on a progressive and liberal movement.  It's the same type of thinking terrorists use to justify violence.

I don't think any sane person would ever justify what happened in Paris or Nigeria for that matter.

When progressives say this it is always cute. Now saying it out loud for freedom of speech, pointing out specifics other than boooosh, in 2015, is another matter.

It is almost like pulling someone's teeth, pushing human beings down to their deaths from tall buildings, or beheading women for being... women

Then. Silence.

[Rishblitz]

I'm pretty sure there are communists and socialists who would agree with me that anybody who makes excuses for murder are a bunch of cowards, the fact is, if this were anything other than Islam nobody would make nearly as much noise about it but because a fucking drawing offended some religious morons we're all suddenly supposed to be more careful around them, no, that's not how the real world works.

Besides, if Islam and all religions want me to respect them, they need to acknowledge scientific and mathematical facts in life, stop opressing people and stop trying to deliberately subvert the law and take over our governments, until then I will consider it my duty to mock them when they do something stupid.

so if someone doesn't believe in the same theories or ideas as you you don't respect them no one needs your respect then.