Octopus Overlords

OMFG. They man said he was targeting Jews during the attack.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: How many G7 summits does he have to choose from?

Forty some so far I think.

I assume you have access to a time machine. That would explain a lot actually.

Defiant wrote:OMFG. They man said he was targeting Jews during the attack.

Which jews? Did he have a list with their names? Were any of the people not jews?

This is fun.

hepcat wrote:I don't think he was being antisemitic, but I do believe he is being targeted by antisemantics.

I missed this the first time around. Well done.

RunningMn9 wrote: You aren't being reasonable because Jews.

I missed this before. I don't have time to deal with this fucking bullshit.

*plonk*

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:OMFG. They man said he was targeting Jews during the attack.

Which jews? Did he have a list with their names? Were any of the people not jews?

This is fun.

No doubt 9/11 was a random attack, since they didn't jot down a list of Americans in the towers before they crashed into them. And some non-Americans were killed. And there was only a random chance that if you were American, you were killed on that day.

For the record, the attack was clearly not random in the normal usage of the word random when applied to attacks of this nature. A kosher deli was targeted because it was kosher. That particular deli was targeted because the attacker probably lived nearby or had personal experience with it (admittedly, I don't know for a fact). He said he was after jewish people, and a kosher deli is not a bad place to start, although a synagogue would probably be better and less likely to encounter non-jews (assuming he cared about collateral damage). According to the wiki the people he killed were all jewish, but also according to the wiki, they were killed during an attempt to overpower the attacker. If they had been of another faith they would have been just as dead. They were not killed because they were jewish although the choice of target by the attacker increases the chances that they would be jewish. To the best of my knowledge he did not separate jewish customers from non-jewish customers and then start executing the jewish ones.

While there are random elements in the attack, there is enough known about it that I personally wouldn't call it random, and I was perplexed when the President called it such.

If I decide that I'm going to kill a member of an easily identified group, say blacks or whites or hasidic jews or children or women or men or bicyclists, and I walk up and down the street killing the first of that group I see, is the attack random or not? Is it important to decide on whether it was or not? Does it matter more that members of group x were my target or that I chose a random member of group x.

I think you guys are taking unfair advantage of Defiant's tendency to come slightly (only a tiny bit ) unhinged when Jews are discussed. I know I was, but only because I'm cruel and wanted to see where he'd go with this for my own entertainment.

GreenGoo wrote:I think you guys are taking unfair advantage of Defiant's tendency to come slightly (only a tiny bit ) unhinged when Jews are discussed.

Well, now you just made the list.

To clarify - I wasn't taking unfair advantage of that tendency, I was just pointing out that the tendency exists and was the cause of his inability to process what "reasonable" people might conclude.

I'll go back and re-read, but you and lawbeef's positions seemed mostly semantic and slightly pedantic.

I'm not saying your wrong, but I question the conclusions a "reasonable" person could reach, if they concluded it was a random attack.

GreenGoo wrote:
I think you guys are taking unfair advantage of Defiant's tendency to come slightly (only a tiny bit ) unhinged when Jews are discussed. I know I was, but only because I'm cruel and wanted to see where he'd go with this for my own entertainment.

That Jews were concerned only drew my attention. I have a tenancy to become a bit unhinged when people go through contortions in an attempt to defend an absurd statement that even the party that made the statement disavowed.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Defiant wrote:Not perfectly random

Right. For some reason, you think that "random" must mean "perfectly random" in order to be "random". If I decide to kill firefighters, and randomly choose a firehouse to attack, that's still a random attack.

Yes, there is an element that is non-random. Maybe more than one element. Maybe I only do my firefighter killin' on Tuesdays, which makes the timing non-random as well.

But if I am open to attacking any firehouse, then there is OBVIOUSLY (to anyone that isn't a firefighter that is committed to becoming outraged over any apparent slight to firefighters) an element of random chance for the victims in terms of them becoming victims.

Because I could have just as easily randomly chosen a different firehouse, and then by random chance they would not have been victims, despite them being firefighters.

For *reasonable* people the attack could be both random and targeted, with no requirement for "random" to be syntactically equal to "perfectly random" to avoid being outraged. You aren't being reasonable because Jews.

Then obviously there was pretty much no point in highlighting that they were random. By your definition the use of random is pointless since 90%+ of all attacks are random.

Defiant wrote: I have a tenancy to become a bit unhinged when people go through contortions in an attempt to defend an absurd statement that even the party that made the statement disavowed.

That seems to be the case fairly often when the topic revolves around jewish people in some way, I've noticed.

Personally I think they are just winding you up because you can be an easy target when you're passionate about a topic. Even if Rmn9 claims otherwise

In any case, I owe you an apology. I was intentionally playing devil's advocate for my own giggles, and that's not right.

Zarathud wrote:The analogy does not hold up. Targeting a particular newspaper Charlie Hedbo for their actions is different. While the people shot there were not all artists or editorial directors, they worked for someone.

Targeting a location catering to a community of Jews may kill more Jews, but it may also kill non-Jews. Your assumption is that the deli was segregated. There was also no particular reason for that deli compared to a synagogue or other place owned by Jews. It's still a hate crime, but it's unpredictable.

By Defiant's thinking, a University shooting must also be targeted.

People who kill Jews have no problem killing those who associate and do business with them. For the purposes of attacking a specific group they are one and the same.

GreenGoo wrote:Personally I think they are just winding you up because you can be an easy target when you're passionate about a topic.

I object strongly to that characterization. I would never wind Defiant up because he's an easy target. Any more than I would wind up Fireball for the same behavior if we substitute Jewish people for gay people.

Winding people up because of their passion would be a completely asshole move, and I would never do it - and I certainly wasn't doing it here. I was simply pointing out that his passion for this particular topic has clouded his reasoning and resulted in outrage over something that is completely unworthy of outrage.

RunningMn9 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Personally I think they are just winding you up because you can be an easy target when you're passionate about a topic.

I object strongly to that characterization. I would never wind Defiant up because he's an easy target. Any more than I would wind up Fireball for the same behavior if we substitute Jewish people for gay people.

Winding people up because of their passion would be a completely asshole move, and I would never do it - and I certainly wasn't doing it here. I was simply pointing out that his passion for this particular topic has clouded his reasoning and resulted in outrage over something that is completely unworthy of outrage.

Exactly, no more than I would argue with you just because I know you can't resist arguing about pretty much anything.

RunningMn9 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Personally I think they are just winding you up because you can be an easy target when you're passionate about a topic.

I object strongly to that characterization.

Only you know what your motives are/were. I'm just telling him what I thought based on what you wrote.

GreenGoo wrote:In any case, I owe you an apology. I was intentionally playing devil's advocate for my own giggles, and that's not right.

I knew you were just being silly - I actually assumed you were mocking them.

Defiant wrote:I knew you were just being silly - I actually assumed you were mocking them.

Sshh, they haven't noticed yet!

I meant no harm to anyone. I'll be leaving now.

In case there is anyone that is still foolish (or asshole) enough to claim that it was random because it was not targeted by name... well, hopefully this brings you to the conclusion most of us reached last month.

Investigators are examining seven minutes 45 seconds of footage apparently filmed by Coulibaly on a GoPro camera worn during the siege, according to reports.

It shows him shouting "Nobody move", before grabbing hold of a customer, asking his name, and then shooting him dead.

He asks another man what origin he is. And when the hostage replies "Jewish", he kills him too.

Link

I'm more surprised that some folks are still obsessed over a matter of semantics. But I guess Bush got raked over the coals when he failed to choose his words with less than perfection, so it's to be expected now, I suppose.

hepcat wrote:I'm more surprised that some folks are still obsessed over a matter of semantics. But I guess Bush got raked over the coals when he failed to choose his words with less than perfection, so it's to be expected now, I suppose.

It was less that his remarks in an interview were stupid than that the Administration consciously chose to defend them on two separate occasions - to the extent that they were willing to say stuff that was even more stupid in the attempt. But the administration backtracked that. It's the attempts to defend the stupid remarks here that I'm raking over the coals, as it were.

It's the attempt by some to try and infer from this that Obama hates Jews, or that he loves terrorists that makes it even stupider. And that's exactly what's going through the heads of some of the morons who are still talking about it.

But hey, at least he didn't utter "mission accomplished!" during the speech.

This shit happens with every president. And it has the same truth every time: haters gonna hate.

hepcat wrote:It's the attempt by some to try and infer from this that Obama hates Jews, or that he loves terrorists that makes it even stupider. And that's exactly what's going through the heads of some of the morons who are still talking about it.

But hey, at least he didn't utter "mission accomplished!" during the speech.

This shit happens with every president. And it has the same truth every time: haters gonna hate.

I don't think that it is that he hates Christians as much as he wants to be Switzerland if you will. Totally neutral as much as humanly possible. Thing is history has shown it isn't safe to stand on the sideline and try to not take sides.

How has he not taken sides??? He's bombing the shit out of extremists, he's gone on national television on more than occasion to denounce it, and he's deploying drones to assassinate their leaders.

Wait...you're just messing with people, aren't you? Because let's be serious, you'd have to be blind and deaf to think he's trying to avoid choosing sides.

hepcat wrote:How has he not taken sides??? He's bombing the shit out of extremists, he's gone on national television on more than occasion to denounce it, and he's deploying drones to assassinate their leaders.

Wait...you're just messing with people, aren't you? Because let's be serious, you'd have to be blind and deaf to think he's trying to avoid choosing sides.

Ahh but that isn't a side. He is culling off a lone victim. ISIS is alone and you can't be a side all by yourself. He denies that a Muslims who hate Christians side exists, but it does and goes far beyond ISIS.

My God, you were serious. That's just...tragic. I don't even know how you came to that convoluted conclusion. Even this very thread points out he's said "extremists" on more than one occasion, not just ISIS.

He's been bombing and drone killing extremists from the day he took office. Amd well before ISIS came into being. You'd have to have lived in a cave for the last 6 years to not know that.

But I think many people are looking for a broader declaration of war in which he simply says, "Let's kill all Muslims."

hepcat wrote:My God, you were serious. That's just...tragic. I don't even know how you came to that convoluted conclusion. Even this very thread points out he's said "extremists" on more than one occasion, not just ISIS.

He's been bombing and drone killing extremists from the day he took office.

But I think many people are looking for a broader declaration of war in which he simply says, "Let's kill all Muslims."

No I am looking for him to come out against all cases of Islamic extremism, not just when they are beheading people. Not speaking out a responding strongly to cases around the world of people being killed or tortured for apostasy sends a message. This is just an example. He has missed numerous such opportunities while never failing to pile on Israel if the chance comes by.

When has he declared war on Jews? Or even said anything bad about Jews? Because if he hasn't, that's just an incredibly ridiculous analogy.

Wait, are you under the impression there's a country called "Islam" somewhere?

I see no harm in simply referring to them as extremists. As a matter of fact, calling them Islamic would most likely result in bad blood with our Islamic allies who truly don't believe the extremists are Islamic.

And if you truly believe he hasn't come out against all acts of terrorism, then you're further down the rabbit hole than I thought.

hepcat wrote:When has he declared war on Jews? Or even said anything bad about Jews? Because if he hasn't, that's just an incredibly ridiculous analogy.

Wait, are you under the impression there's a country called "Islam" somewhere?

I see no harm in simply referring to them as extremists. As a matter of fact, calling them Islamic would most likely result in bad blood with our Islamic allies who truly don't believe the extremists are Islamic.

And if you truly believe he hasn't come out against all acts of terrorism, then you're further down the rabbit hole than I thought.

Why would he need to declare war on them. There are already more than enough people killing them, all he needs do is not get in the way to much.

Who like the Saudis? They are rather extremist in their own right. They are just kinda in a transparent closet about it. Kinda nice to separate the way off the cliff nutbag extremists from the just hanging out on the cliff extremists, but I would rather highlight the problem rather than just a small group who have taken it way out to its rather natural conclusion.

This thread makes me sad. I think people giving Defiant the grief they have here is unjustifiable.

I mean, seriously, setting political bullshit aside, people can't understand why it sticks in the craw of Jews to hear that an attack on a Kosher deli in Paris is a "random" attack? Really?

In the face of an understandable concern that our government referred to a clearly anti-semetic attack as a "random" act, I''m really surprised and disappointed to see semantic arguments about the meaning of "random" from people on this forum whom I generally respect and hold in high esteem. I don't get it.

The evolution of the odd word random.

"It's described as a colloquial term meaning peculiar, strange, nonsensical, unpredictable or inexplicable; unexpected," he (Jesse Sheidlower, the editor at large for the Oxford English Dictionary) explains, before adding that random started as a noun in the 14th century, meaning "impetuosity, great speed, force or violence in riding, running, striking, et cetera, chiefly in the phrase 'with great random.' "

Rip wrote:By your definition the use of random is pointless since 90%+ of all attacks are random.

Actually, most murder victims know their attackers. Of the 334 murders in New York City in 2013, it appears only 29 victims did not know their killer. CBS Report. Over 85% of murders in Kansas between 2005 and 2011 involved suspects who knew the victim. Topeka Capital-Journal.

Someone you know is more likely to kill you than a stranger, even if you're targeted for your race and/or religion. Murder isn't usually random, which is why mass killings of strangers make news headlines. The French Deli attacks are almost the wiki definition of mass murder. That's not semantics.

No one is denying that anti-Semites exist or the evil of shooting a Jewish deli. Yes, some in the Jewish community are offended and see insensitivity from the comments. They're also upset with Obama's tempestuous relationship with the right wing Netanyahu. But President Obama has very strong connections with the Chicago liberal Jewish community who helped put him on the political map.

hepcat wrote:It's the attempt by some to try and infer from this that Obama hates Jews, or that he loves terrorists that makes it even stupider.

No one's claiming that Obama hates Jews or that he loves The Terrorists so you can put down that strawman. They're claiming that the administration down plays terrorism, either because it doesn't comprehend it or for political correctness.

And this accusation, although debatable, isn't coming out of nowhere. For example:

1. Calling Benghazi a spontaneous response to a movie, rather than a preplanned act of terrorism.
2. Calling For Hood an act of workplace violence.
3. In the very interview in which he talks about the kosher deli in which he says that the media overstates terrorism.

hepcat wrote:When has he declared war on Jews? Or even said anything bad about Jews?

Again, put down the strawman before someone gets hurt. I may not agree with Rip on much but he never said Obama declared war on the Jews , and I don't even understand the kind of leap you took that makes you think he did.

Rip mentioned Obama's relationship to Israel which - relative to previous administrations and it's position as a close ally - has been unusually strained.

Even this very thread points out he's said "extremists" on more than one occasion, not just ISIS.

So you're willing to refer to them as extremists. Are you willing to refer to them as Islamic extremists?

As a matter of fact, calling them Islamic would most likely result in bad blood with our Islamic allies who truly don't believe the extremists are Islamic.

There, right there, is where you are trying to be Switerland and being politically correct, deliberately avoiding calling it Islamic extremism to avoid being offensive. That is (part of) the complaint some people have.

(Never mind that those same Islamic allies who have played a significant part in supporting and sponsoring terrorism in the past)

Kurth wrote: In the face of an understandable concern that our government referred to a clearly anti-semetic attack as a "random" act, I''m really surprised and disappointed to see semantic arguments about the meaning of "random" from people on this forum whom I generally respect and hold in high esteem. I don't get it.

This.

Defiant wrote:Again, put down the strawman before someone gets hurt. I may not agree with Rip on much but he never said Obama declared war on the Jews , and I don't even understand the kind of leap you took that makes you think he did.

Islam is a religion, Israel is a state. If you're going to try to compare the two, you MUST make that distinction. I wasn't creating a strawman, I was trying show him why his analogy was ridiculous. If anyone was doing that, it was Rip by trying to tie the war on terror with extremists to policy disagreements with another state.

And I still do no agree that he's downplaying terrorism. But I will say that it may be more than a simply matter of semantics. Now I'm beginning to believe that it's a calculated move. That he's trying to keep our struggle with terrorists from spilling over more than it already has. Here's a great article on how he (and his top aides) are attempting to do just that.

Defiant wrote:

Kurth wrote: In the face of an understandable concern that our government referred to a clearly anti-semetic attack as a "random" act, I''m really surprised and disappointed to see semantic arguments about the meaning of "random" from people on this forum whom I generally respect and hold in high esteem. I don't get it.

This.

Unfortunately, I feel the same surprise and disappointment towards those who try to read that much into it.

But like I said, I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth. So I forgive you all.

hepcat wrote:
Islam is a religion, Israel is a state. If you're going to try to compare the two, you MUST make that distinction. I wasn't creating a strawman, I was trying show him why his analogy was ridiculous. If anyone was doing that, it was Rip by trying to tie the war on terror with extremists to policy disagreements with another state.

What comparison? No one said we're at war with Islam, either. You ABSOLUTELY are building a strawman.

Presumably, the reason Rip brought up our relationship with Israel is because of their own battle with Islamic extremists. Not because you seem to think he was suggesting that Obama was somehow balancing not going to war with Islam with going to war with Jews?

And I still do no agree that he's downplaying terrorism.

That's fine, I said that it's a debatable issue - you think it's a calculated move, other people think it's an inability to recognize it or political correctness. My point is that the complaint isn't coming out of nowhere.

Defiant wrote:

Kurth wrote: In the face of an understandable concern that our government referred to a clearly anti-semetic attack as a "random" act, I''m really surprised and disappointed to see semantic arguments about the meaning of "random" from people on this forum whom I generally respect and hold in high esteem. I don't get it.

This.

Unfortunately, I feel the same surprise and disappointment towards those who try to read that much into it.

But like I said, I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth. So I forgive you all.

Then you're completely missing the point of the quote, which isn't pointed at the president statement, but at people in this thread.

I'm fully aware who the quote was directed at, which is why I directed mine in the same manner. I'm sorry that eluded you.

As for your other arguments, I suggest you go back and reread what Rip wrote...but this time try to do so while paying better attention. He does not say what you believe he says.

Getting back on topic:

There are two discussions taking place here, as far as I can tell.

1) Obama used a word in an interview that ruffled some feathers. Specifically

"entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."

He doesn't downplay extremism in that comment in my mind, nor does he try to say it wasn't without a racial or religious component. He even uses the word "zealot". Now, the white house PR team may have made it more fun for GOP pundits by stumbling over themselves in an attempt to deal with those folks, but at the end of the day, I truly feel people are reading way too much into it. And they're doing so for political purposes.

2) Some folks feel that Obama is downplaying the current problems in the world of religious extremists by refusing to label them as Islamic. I've pointed out why it can be harmful to do so more than once, but I've yet to see a logical reason why it's harmful to not do so.

hepcat wrote:For someone who claims others are missing the point, you've been dropping the ball left and right, my boy. I'm fully aware who the quote was directed at, which is why I directed mine in the same manner.

You stated: "I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

Was this directed at the responses of people (nay trolls) who offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack? If so, has ANY president, including Obama, offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of an anti-Semitic attack? No.

I'm fairly sure here you're still talking about Obama's misstatement and the administration's response to it until they backtracked. Something the thread had largely moved past halfway through the first page.

As for your other arguments, I suggest you go back and reread what Rip wrote...but this time try to do so without narrating it in your own voice.

I tried using Morgan Freeman's voice to narrate it, but it just ended up sounding too awesome.

I tried rereading his comments several times. I'm not seeing what you're seeing in them.

Defiant wrote:

hepcat wrote:For someone who claims others are missing the point, you've been dropping the ball left and right, my boy. I'm fully aware who the quote was directed at, which is why I directed mine in the same manner.

You stated: "I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

Was this directed at the responses of people (nay trolls) who offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack? If so, has ANY president, including Obama, offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of an anti-Semitic attack? No.

Where you see an attempt to minimize the anti-Semitic nature of an anti-Semitic attack, I simply see the word "random". Now, point out where Obama clearly states that this wasn't an anti-Semitic attack and we'll talk. Until then, you're simply playing the semantic game yourself, while telling everyone otherwise. I find that especially funny coming from someone who's favorite word is obviously "strawman".

Was the follow up from the white house PR folks flubbed? Yes. But it was later clarified as

Our view has not changed. Terror attack at Paris Kosher market was motivated by anti-Semitism. POTUS didn't intend to suggest otherwise.

hepcat wrote:

Defiant wrote:

hepcat wrote:For someone who claims others are missing the point, you've been dropping the ball left and right, my boy. I'm fully aware who the quote was directed at, which is why I directed mine in the same manner.

You stated: "I can go back and point out numerous examples of the same thing happening with every president who opened his mouth."

Was this directed at the responses of people (nay trolls) who offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of the attack? If so, has ANY president, including Obama, offered semantic arguments that minimize the anti-Semitic nature of an anti-Semitic attack? No.

Where you see an attempt to minimize the anti-Semitic nature of an anti-Semitic attack, I simply see the word "random". Now, point out where Obama clearly states that this wasn't an anti-Semitic attack and we'll talk. Until then, you're simply playing the semantic game and telling everyone otherwise. I find that especially funny coming from someone who's favorite word is obviously "strawman".

I was going to say that this shows that this proves my point, that you did not know who the quote was directed at, but I think I am a little too flabbergasted by the fact that you read my statement and managed to read the exact opposite of what I wrote. I said Obama HAD NOT made such a semantic argument, that it was the people IN THIS THREAD that did.


[Edited to remove contractions, in the hopes that it makes it easier to read.]