Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bin Laden issues out warning to Europe
Options
Comments
-
Pat Condell is slime ball and a demagogue - of course he will say something about the Bush administration when he HAS to. He does what he can to get the kids on his side. No doubt he saw the rising atheist movement amongst the youtube youth. He has a xenophobic, conservative agenda and he's managing to fool some of the people, some of the time.0
-
Sesshoumaru wrote: »You are with Playboy? in what way? besides moaning about the papers causing an extremist reaction neither of you have said how you would handle it? Should the government have stepped in and censored the paper? because if you don't think they should be censored what the hell point are you trying to make?
From a hearts and mind point of view (one of the few things Bush and Blair got right) insulting the very people who your trying to win over is a bad idea. Remember extremists are asshole's who are going to kill people and use any excuse they want. The people you need to win over, are people in the community who can help report these people. Insulting them won't help matters.
Certainly anyone can insult whom ever they please, doesn't make it a good idea. You make a community feel like there under attack (rightly or wrongly), they will close ranks out of fear and this will make it so much harder to find the really dangerous terrorist and the like. Basically you need to make sure these people know, your not after them, but after criminals who hide among them. Convincing people of this is very important.
Of course we should never give up our free speech for anyone ever. People should be able to insult Muslim religious beliefs. Just don't be surprised, when they think everyone hates them and they close ranks out of fear, that everyone is out to get them.
Now having said all that, people can say whatever they want. Insult who ever they want. No one should stop them from doing so. However, people have every right to say if they think its a bad idea. Take the dutch cartoons, from a business POV, it was very costly, if your business is directly effected by it, you would be of the opinion that such cartoons are a bad idea. Stating that you think there a bad idea, is not bowing to extremists, its a simple business consideration. You want to sell stuff to some people and if they feel like you insulted they may take there business elsewhere.
We should never bow to extremist violence, but lets not pretend there only people we should ever consider in a debate. There are many other considerations as well.
The government should not censor such things at all.
If people however point out that it is counter productive to winning hearts and minds, and to business etc. They should be able to do so. Open debate about people right to insult people is the best way to go about things imo. Censorship should never be considered at all.
Personally, I support people right to say whatever they damn well please. However, I reserve the right to say what your saying is a bad idea.0 -
The BBC, AFP, Wall Street Journal, the Telegraph ... yeah, it's all tabloid filth.OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »I've seen Pat Condell's videos. He's a right wing reactionary who regurgitates tabloid filth.
You have evidence that the things he has said are not true?Pat Condell is slime ball and a demagogue
Ok, put it this way. When was the last time you heard of a death-threat made against the writers of the Jerry Springer Opera. How long has Jerry Springer himself been under police guard? Has the opera caused any riots or forced nations showing it into hightened terrorism alert? It seems to me that only when Islam is disrespected that people die, threats are made and nations have to go into heightened terrorism alert.If so, please post here so that we can definitively say once-and-for all that while there are valid points in this thread they are NOT specifically Muslim-related.
Precisely. If I see an injustice, I'm going to call it an injustice. If looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll give you good odds that it's not a cat.Those with extreme views who want to impose their views on others - be they extreme Muslims or extreme Catholics, middle-eastern terrorists or dictators, IRA terrorists, warmongering American presidents, or even the drunken anti-social twits hanging around on street corners, should not be tolerated, regardless of who they are.
I just think we need to be clear about how much of a threat each of the categories you mention pose.0 -
Ok, put it this way. When was the last time you heard of a death-threat made against the writers of the Jerry Springer Opera. How long has Jerry Springer himself been under police guard?
Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching EvolutionIlan Pappe: I'm not a traitor
Controversial historian Ilan Pappe left Israel last year after his endorsement of an academic boycott of Israel exposed him and his family to death threats. Now a professor in England, Pappe maintains that a cultural boycott on his homeland is the only way to end the occupation
2 example off the top of my head. Plenty of more death threat issued for all sorts of insane reasons.
**EDIT**
Just found this:Security guards step in after Springer opera death threats
By Adam Sherwin, Media Reporter
BBC EXECUTIVES will be protected by security guards while the police investigate death threats made over the broadcast on Saturday of Jerry Springer — The Opera.
Yesterday security guards continued to monitor the North London home of Roly Keating, the Controller of BBC Two, who received threats from protesters.
The homes of six other BBC executives were also targeted after an evangelical Christian group posted the addresses and telephone numbers on its website.
There you go death threats and protection for people involved with the Jerry Springer opera.0 -
seanw... rofl
that was a very silly thing to say. Christians don't make death threats? even animal rights nutjobs make death threats, this isn't a muslim problem.0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly honour killings are totally against Islam. It is a serious sin to murder anyone. Secondly honour killings are a cultural issue, usually with families from Indian background, be them Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. It had nothing to do with Islam and is totally wrong. To suggest that Muslims frequently murder family members is totally misleading. If you search google hard enough you will also find links to Christian Honour killings also.TheUnicorn wrote: »Divorce is allowed, that's fine - though I don't think it happens too often, but killing family members happens quite frequently inspite of the fact it's forbidden. Proofs based on press articles:
Denmark - 9 muslim family members put to prison - 8 years to life sentence for killing 19 years old girl named Ghazala. Reason: her father Ghulum Abbas decided it's time to hunt for her because she dated with another muslim but he didn't ask her father for permission.
Sweden - muslim killed his 26 years old daugther for dating with non-muslim boyfriend.
Turkey - 22 years old Guldunya Toren was murdered by her 3 brothers because her family discovered she gave a birth to a child being single.
UK - police have files of over 100 cases qualified as "honourable family executions" they have been investigating since 1993.
Germany - Hatun Surucu, 23 years old girl was shot by her three brothers on the street. They said she failed and insulted her family because she got divorced with a man who she married while she was 15 and she found that she doesn't want to continue that relation anymore. She was 6th victim of "honourable family execution" since may 2007. 40 murders of that nature have been investigated since 1996 by German Police.
Please link to these statistics.TheUnicorn wrote: »Statistics say clearly - muslim families murder members who bring shame to the family.
Well, that I think people can make their own mind up about you after that comment...TheUnicorn wrote: »Please don't misunderstand me, no offence - but ... do they really need to have their own divorce law written? What's the point if it's so much easier to just pull the trigger.0 -
Lol, I stand corrected. :pac:Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution
2 example off the top of my head. Plenty of more death threat issued for all sorts of insane reasons.
**EDIT**
Just found this:
There you go death threats and protection for people involved with the Jerry Springer opera.0 -
Why are you cherry picking isolated cases of idiots who happen to be Muslim? Have you ever attended an Irish hospital? Many of the doctors are Muslim and have no problem treating alcoholics, STD cases or AIDS cases. They are preforming all the duties a non-Muslim doctor would be expected to do.If you're in the UK, and you fall ill due to alcahol abuse or an STD, you'd better hope the doctor treating you isn't a muslim. Likewise if you needed "morning after" contraception, better hope the pharmacist has some non-muslim staff or you might be in a real bind.
So you are blaming Muslims now for the decision made by a non-Muslim? There is NOTHING in this article to suggest that any Muslims complained about the health workers eating. This was a decision made by the NHS..."Health chiefs believe the sight of food will upset Muslim workers when they are celebrating the religious festival Ramadan.". It is kind of like the idiots in St James hospital who took down the crib at Christmas in case it would offend Muslims. Not one Muslim complained about that crib, nor would Muslims be "offended" by it. This was a decision made my an idiot (who happened to be a non-Muslim) working for the hospital.In Scotland, the NHS has banned its doctors and some staff from eating lunch at their desks during Ramadan, in case it caused difficulties for any fasting Muslims. Hard to believe the NHS Lothian actually pissed away Scottish taxpayers money on a consultancy report to come up with this nonsense.
BTW, this line, totally irrlevant to the story appeared in the article "The new guidance comes in the wake of the failed terror attacks on Glasgow and the death of suspect Kafeel Ahmed, 27." What has this got to do with the article? This article is trying to stir **** up in my opinion.
And now you are linking to a site that appears to be anti-Islamic in order to "prove" your point???And BTW Sharia Law is already recognised in Italy. And I'm sure some people are happy. This stuff would make a great comedy if only it weren't real.0 -
No, I'm blaming Muslim extremists and the far-left Political Correctness brigade for all of the above. Moderate muslims (who don't do this sort of thing) I have no quarrel with. I readily admit however that the tone of this post didn't make that clear, and should have done a better job separting Muslims and Muslim extremists in my use of terminology there.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Sorry to get back on topic, but does Bin Laden really have any power to organise attacks these days?
Al-Qaeda isn't an organisation like the IRA or ETA, with Bin Ladan & al Zawihiri sitting at the top. It's an ideology. Hence any attack caused by any Muslim or Islamic extremist group can be directly attributed to al-qaeda.
Unfortunately bin Laden is an inspiration to groups around the world.
The pope reference has me suspicious, the pope's had no role in these cartoons & has been actively trying to forge links with Islamic clerics. Perhaps this tape was pre-recorded when Bin Laden was in better health/alive.
An interesting point made earlier though, the reaction to Jerry Springer the Opera really was nothing compared to that by Muslims after the cartoons, and despite what Muslims here might say, it was far more offensive than the cartoons. As an Atheist I think I'm in a better position to judge without bias
I personally think though, it can only be put down to the cultures of where the violent protests happened, Nigeria/Pakistan/Middle East aren't exactly non-violent places. think of the riots after Bhutto was assainated. The scale & nature of protests in the UK was much similar for the cartoons & the Opera.
One other thing, I'm shocked by Muslim students refusing to treat STDS/Alchohol abuse. I mean how would they be able to tell the difference between a urinary tract infection caused by kidney stones & one caused by Chlamydia. Or a rash that's potentially Herpes. On a practical level it beggars belief, I thought you have to be smart to get into med school.0 -
Yes, back on topic..although, I would say that al queda is (or was)a terrorist organisation, along similar lines, to the the ra and eta, bankrolled and armed by the cia in the eighties..Their main issue with the west is that they dont approve of infidel fighters occupying muslim holy lands, saudi arabia(which, yes, is in the dark ages, because the us has kept the saudi royals in power since the seventies, and they only hold power through oppression)..There is also the whole israel/palestine thing, which many see as another legitimate reason to be ticked off with certain world superpower..Despite what Mr Bush and the likes may tell you, it isnt our freedom to buy big macs that they hate..0
-
Well then we have no disagreementNo, I'm blaming Muslim extremists and the far-left Political Correctness brigade for all of the above. Moderate muslims (who don't do this sort of thing) I have no quarrel with.
The problem is moderate Muslims are the vast majority and certain sections of the media have an agenda to tar all Muslims with the extremist brush
No problem.I readily admit however that the tone of this post didn't make that clear, and should have done a better job separting Muslims and Muslim extremists in my use of terminology there.0 -
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »The pope reference has me suspicious, the pope's had no role in these cartoons & has been actively trying to forge links with Islamic clerics. Perhaps this tape was pre-recorded when Bin Laden was in better health/alive.
He is probably annoyed with the Pope, as he is talking to Islamic clerics. Bin Laden doesn't like the idea of others usurping his power. Prominent Islamic clerics and the Pope getting along, could hurt his legitimacy.0 -
From a hearts and mind point of view (one of the few things Bush and Blair got right) insulting the very people who your trying to win over is a bad idea. Remember extremists are asshole's who are going to kill people and use any excuse they want. The people you need to win over, are people in the community who can help report these people. Insulting them won't help matters.
Certainly anyone can insult whom ever they please, doesn't make it a good idea. You make a community feel like there under attack (rightly or wrongly), they will close ranks out of fear and this will make it so much harder to find the really dangerous terrorist and the like. Basically you need to make sure these people know, your not after them, but after criminals who hide among them. Convincing people of this is very important.
Of course we should never give up our free speech for anyone ever. People should be able to insult Muslim religious beliefs. Just don't be surprised, when they think everyone hates them and they close ranks out of fear, that everyone is out to get them.
Now having said all that, people can say whatever they want. Insult who ever they want. No one should stop them from doing so. However, people have every right to say if they think its a bad idea. Take the dutch cartoons, from a business POV, it was very costly, if your business is directly effected by it, you would be of the opinion that such cartoons are a bad idea. Stating that you think there a bad idea, is not bowing to extremists, its a simple business consideration. You want to sell stuff to some people and if they feel like you insulted they may take there business elsewhere.
We should never bow to extremist violence, but lets not pretend there only people we should ever consider in a debate. There are many other considerations as well.
The government should not censor such things at all.
If people however point out that it is counter productive to winning hearts and minds, and to business etc. They should be able to do so. Open debate about people right to insult people is the best way to go about things imo. Censorship should never be considered at all.
Personally, I support people right to say whatever they damn well please. However, I reserve the right to say what your saying is a bad idea.
I think I would agree with most of what you say there. I did say there were consequences to free speech like social ostracisation. But feeling under siege is not an emotion exclusive to the Muslim community. While I'd never say I don't want society to change, change can be good of course. I would say that I feel overall the change a Muslim dominated society would bring to our culture would be bad. Right now there are ordinary Joe Bloggs like myself that are concerned about this. Besides one link that I think you posted about a reformation of sorts taking place in Turkey I don't see much hope of Islam becoming a respectable 21st century religion.
Over time my opinion can change of course, but that would require that Islam changes first. Until that happens I would be in favour of restricting movement of people and goods between the EU and countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and all those other barbaric countries. On the other hand with some reservations I'd be in favour of closer ties with countries like Turkey where I see some hope of change and a better future. Encourage more moderate (relatively speaking) countries like Turkey and punish countries like Saudi Arabia. I'd prefer we dealt with countries like this even if it meant that I personally took a hit in my material wealth and living standards. Its about time we stopped funding extremist regimes that use their oil money to spread their ideology of hate. Not to mention that it would be good for the enviroment to wean ourselves off Islamic oil.0 -
Sesshoumaru wrote: ». I would say that I feel overall the change a Muslim dominated society would bring to our culture would be bad.
I do agree with most of what you have said, but the entire Muslims are gonna take over the West thing is ridiculous. The extreme Muslims have trouble taking over countries where Muslims are a majority. How can they actually take over the West?
Muslims are a small minority in Europe. I don't see how exactly Muslims are dominating Europe (or any where else, where they are a minority) at all. Several European countries, have invaded Muslim countries in the last 7 years. If anyone is in danger of being dominated by any body its Muslim countries and not the West/Europe.0 -
Sesshoumaru wrote: ». But feeling under siege is not an emotion exclusive to the Muslim community.
Who said it was?Sesshoumaru wrote: »I would say that I feel overall the change a Muslim dominated society would bring to our culture would be bad.
And when is our society going to become dominated by muslims? This is an irrational fear. Ireland is never going to become dominated by muslims or Islam unless there is a sudden mass conversion.
The Uk plays host to such a large Muslim population because of its colonial past in Africa and Asia .. Germany because is uses Turkey as a source for cheap labor .. France because of its colonial past in North Africa.
Even with their large Muslim populations I don't think anybody has to worry that all of a sudden extremist Muslims are going to take over and implement Sharia Law. The only time Sharia will become an issue in any of these countries is in disputes within the Muslim communities.
Sharia is a very misunderstood system of law. It is very complex and it based largely on precedent ... The Koran is a source of some of the law .. but many of the cases based in the modern world are not covered in Koran. This can lead to a variety of different applications of Sharia .. some good .. some bad. Sharia does not always = bad.
You might find it amusing that some Muslims in Muslim countries see great similarities in the values of western law and Sharia .. that western law is more or less Sharia applied properly. Of course this is because peoples interpretation of Sharia can vary greatly .. but the point is that the majority of Muslims living in the West (that I have spoken to anyway) are happy living under the laws and values here .. thats why they live here. They are not trying to change our society somehow. What's happening is that too much airtime is being given to extremists (who are a tiny minority) and people are assuming that these extremists views represent the majority .. which leads to hate, division and fear.
Now when you have a situation as with these cartoons .. the only purpose they are serving is to reinforce a negative stereotype that is not based in reality. They create division and they give more airtime to extremists. By reprinting these cartoons the newspapers are doing exactly what the extremists want .. they are effectively playing into their hands.
Im not advocating censorship of any sort .. but Im trying to draw attention to the stupidity of this cartoon issue. Is the Western media so stupid and gullible that it is manipulated so easily by some fanatics and extremists? Or ... is there something else going on here? Is there some racist or bigoted agenda at work here? Are the cartoons meant to divide? .. are they meant to be racist? .. are they just using this 'free speech' argument as an excuse to incite hatred and fear .. because thats what it is doing on both sides.
What I cant understand is how people cannot see this ... and instead of condemning the cartoons (like any decent person would condemn something of a such a tasteless and offensive nature e.g. 911 or racist jokes) .. people are actually coming out in support of them.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement