That article's reasoning is just all over the place. Conflating a satirical magazine with Pvt Manning, who knowingly and flagrantly broke the UCMJ? Come on.

That article's reasoning is just all over the place. Conflating a satirical magazine with Pvt Manning, who knowingly and flagrantly broke the UCMJ? Come on. That guy knew he could have been put before a firing squad as a spy--he wasn't drawing pictures of fairy tale characters sodomizing each other. And this howler: and these ideas extended into American history as well and took on American modes, from the breaking of slaves to the censuring of critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom ...wait a minute. What's wrong with censuring whoever the hell I want? Oh, you assumed your readers would read that as "censoring", which never actually happened. Well, even if it had, I'm not sure if the "breaking of slaves" is comparable. And then it talks about Gaza and Nigeria and Yemen and Mexico as if the world is ignoring them. Actually, New Yorker, the world isn't ignoring them. The difference is, see, the recent French attacks were "terrorism" which is specifically designed to attract attention--it's violent propaganda. The trick there is to ignore it, not to attempt to spread our attention evenly on every act of violence in the world. ......................[to avoid double posts] xnull2guest commented: Breivik[2] slaughtered over 70 innocent Muslim people They were Muslims? Where did you get that information from?