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
Shooting in Demark
Options
Comments
-
@egginacup
I'm not going to bother to respond to all your posts individually, as at this stage you've turned a bit manic.
Some points to make here.
You are saying Turkey is a Muslim country - what on earth does this mean? It's like saying Britain is a Christain country. What I am referring to is the separation of church and state. In this sense Britain is a secular democracy as is France, Germany etc. Laws are mostly secular with a very occassional nod to christian tradictions but not much. Turkey likewise was founded as secular democracy. So when you say its a muslim country, its not really. There are a lot of Muslims in Turkey, in fact the majority is muslim. Its form of government however is secular democracy. I know you won't get the distinction as you seem to struggle with small things like that and try to shout people down with manic rants.
Gadaffi had no real power in Libya? Yep, and Hitler had no real power in Germay, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia or Mao in Red China. Yep, all run by committees and focus groups and so on. And if you believe that you will believe anything.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being responsible for their own deaths, did they pull the trigger? After cutting through your long winded posts, it seems to me you do want to restrain free speech. People like you say things like "I am in favour of free speech but..."
There can be no buts, ifs or maybes with free speech. It's either free or it isn't. It's either black or white. There's no inbetween.0 -
It would appear that while there may be no direct support from secular Turkey, there's certainly an element of "enemy of an enemy" when it comes to Turkey and ISIS. As ever, the religion is smokescreen for politics and land wars.Wurzelbert wrote: »yes, a nation like saudi arabia would have the means to finance a massive campaign against isis if only they wanted to...but the saudis have their own agenda and would rather keep it quiet and passive as long as the oil keeps flowing, while at the same time funding muslim propaganda abroad...
there can be no doubt that political and strategic concerns are at play here as well, and that there is indeed a lot of tacit support and tolerance of isis in the muslim world...no such organisation could ever exist and thrive without substantial popular support...unfortunately this world is not as black and white as some like to see it...0 -
-
Shurimgreat wrote: »"I am in favour of free speech but..."
There can be no buts, ifs or maybes with free speech. It's either free or it isn't. It's either black or white. There's no inbetween.
I don't think 100% free speech is tolerated in any country in the world. I prefer the concept of responsible free speech than total free speech. Total free speech means we can use racist remarks, can bully, can harass, and can say things to deliberately hurt others.
Of course, all regimes in the world use the 'right of free speech' to suit their own agendas. In the Middle East, free speech is allowed in terms of saying what ones likes about the holocaust. You are indeed encouraged to question its extent or even its existence. On the other hand, say something bad about their king or dictator, and you will be in prison or even killed very quickly.
People should always be responsible with what they say and the natural equilibrium will (even in situations like in a house or pub where there is total free speech) prevail: nobody will put up with the rants and raves of a drunk, racist, sectarian bigot with a chip on his shoulders for example.
If we were to live in a society of total free speech, the onus then would be on this natural equilibrium. If we give racists, bullies and the like carte blanche to say what they like then it is up to others to isolate them and defend decent values.0 -
Shocking that Germany are calling off events now out of fear of something like this happening again.
A sorry capitulation of western values to madmen.0 -
Advertisement
-
They had soldiers in Iraq during the second gulf war and in Afghanistan...
Which is why the gunman targeted a Danish Politician before storming a military base... oh wait, he tried to kill a cartoonist and then attacked a Jewish school, the logical targets of those opposed to militaristic misadventure. Perhaps your justifications are simply out of line with the nutters actual motivations?0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »I don't think 100% free speech is tolerated in any country in the world. I prefer the concept of responsible free speech than total free speech. Total free speech means we can use racist remarks, can bully, can harass, and can say things to deliberately hurt others.
Of course, all regimes in the world use the 'right of free speech' to suit their own agendas. In the Middle East, free speech is allowed in terms of saying what ones likes about the holocaust. You are indeed encouraged to question its extent or even its existence. On the other hand, say something bad about their king or dictator, and you will be in prison or even killed very quickly.
People should always be responsible with what they say and the natural equilibrium will (even in situations like in a house or pub where there is total free speech) prevail: nobody will put up with the rants and raves of a drunk, racist, sectarian bigot with a chip on his shoulders for example.
If we were to live in a society of total free speech, the onus then would be on this natural equilibrium. If we give racists, bullies and the like carte blanche to say what they like then it is up to others to isolate them and defend decent values.
Apart from not having the right to slandar people or tell lies about people to damage them, apart from that, yes speech should be free, up to and including criticising ideologies you do not agree with.
Some people view Islam as a religion. I view it as an ideology with strong political and militaristic tones. There is an awful lot wrong with Islam, an awful lot, the way it tries to subjugate people and control almost every aspect of their lives. We can ignore those aspects or we can criticise them.
Islam has no more right not to be criticised or lampooned than any other ideology.
It is not special.0 -
It would appear that while there may be no direct support from secular Turkey, there's certainly an element of "enemy of an enemy" when it comes to Turkey and ISIS. As ever, the religion is smokescreen for politics and land wars.
I think as long as ISIS don't go for a spectacular terrorist attack on European or North American soil, then that organisation will be used for the devious purposes of all major global and regional powers.
Who does not benefit from the existence of ISIS? Iran, Assad's Syria, Shia Islam in general, the Kurds, Russia, mainstream al Qaeda. Who benefits? Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the West (for now), and Sunni Islam.
So, for Turkey, ISIS are a bulwark against the Kurds and can eliminate Turkey's most serious terrorist groups in the process. For the West, ISIS can be seen as something that will stop the progression of potential rival superpowers of the future like Iran. Also, the West perhaps would encourage a war between ISIS and al Qaeda with the view of both destroying each other. As ever, militants in Russia's backyard make life more difficult for Putin and co: it was for this purpose relations were formed by the West with 'militant Islamists' in the first place.0 -
-
As I'll no doubt be moaned at again for pointing out the obvious, this sort of cowardice in the face of what are relatively tiny losses is exactly what ISIS want. Minimum risk, maximum disruption and PR. Sure, beef up security, deport/monitor anybody who's been in MENA in the last 50 years, but FFS business as usual please or they've won.take everything wrote: »Shocking that Germany are calling off events now out of fear of something like this happening again.
A sorry capitulation of western values to madmen.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well that's where you run into problems immediately. For theists, God is a fact. Unless the state is to declare definitively that God doesn't exist (I've a special bottle put aside for that glorious day) then you do have to have some mechanism for when different people's "facts" are incompatible and they start slagging each other off.Shurimgreat wrote: »Apart from not having the right to slandar people or tell lies about people to damage them, apart from that, yes speech should be free, up to and including criticising ideologies you do not agree with.0 -
As I'll no doubt be moaned at again for pointing out the obvious, this sort of cowardice in the face of what are relatively tiny losses is exactly what ISIS want. Minimum risk, maximum disruption and PR. Sure, beef up security, deport/monitor anybody who's been in MENA in the last 50 years, but FFS business as usual please or they've won.
They have already won. Take the shootings in Denmark. Other people who wanted to have similar free speech events will cancel them. People will now shy away from anything controversial involving Islam for fear of being murdered. Where does it stop? Any form of criticism of Islam will be met with death threats or worse? These extremists keep chipping away at free speech until eventually you aren't able to criticise anything.
And at the same time, westerners are labeled infidels and unwashed and this and that. Its ok for them to lampoon and denigrate us but if we say anything in response they are outraged.
We can bow down in the face of this ideology or we can confront the considerable evil inherent in it which tries to subjugate everyone it comes into contact with, either subtly or brutally.
Any ideology or religion that can't deal with being lampooned is one to be wary of.0 -
As I'll no doubt be moaned at again for pointing out the obvious, this sort of cowardice in the face of what are relatively tiny losses is exactly what ISIS want. Minimum risk, maximum disruption and PR. Sure, beef up security, deport/monitor anybody who's been in MENA in the last 50 years, but FFS business as usual please or they've won.
I don't think German authorities made the decision lightly. If they cancelled they were probably aware of an actual threat but didn't have enough information to be sure they could handle it.
I am absolutely with you when you are saying we need to keep things going, but now we are entering the stage where we are paying for turning a blind eye in the past few decades - and security services will probably have to cancel further similar events in the next few months or years. In the short term I thunk it is the right thing to do, but it would be completely irresponsible to just accept this as normal in the medium and long term - and from today on governments should do whatever it takes today so that we don't have to resort to this anymore in a few years's timeframe.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: ».
And at the same time, westerners are labeled infidels and unwashed and this and that. Its ok for them to lampoon and denigrate us but if we say anything in response they are outraged.
This is hugely important and is something I don't see any reasonable defence of.
The irony is stark.
As I say i can't see it as anything but a capitulation to madness. By a weak-willed Western world.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »Apart from not having the right to slandar people or tell lies about people to damage them, apart from that, yes speech should be free, up to and including criticising ideologies you do not agree with.
Some people view Islam as a religion. I view it as an ideology with strong political and militaristic tones. There is an awful lot wrong with Islam, an awful lot, the way it tries to subjugate people and control almost every aspect of their lives. We can ignore those aspects or we can criticise them.
Islam has no more right not to be criticised or lampooned than any other ideology.
It is not special.
Exactly. The whole problem with Islam is that it has gone from being a religion to being an ideology and it is used by fascists to control a large, largely peasant populance. It is handy to use because it happens to be what unites otherwise racially and globally different countries like Arabia, Niger, Indonesia and Pakistan.
There is clearly an awful lot wrong with Islam and how it is lead at the moment. A lot of tribal barbarity masquerading as Islam is what I see too. Here are some examples:
Saudi Arabia: ruled by a corrupt, self serving absolute monarchy hiding behind a very hardline sect. Legitimised because 2 of Islams holiest sites are on its soil.
Afghanistan: ruled by peasant tribes for the most part with laws that predate Islam and are barely out of the stone age.
Iran: may well have a better future because at least there are 2 sides here. The horrid hardliners exist like in its neighbours but a strong reformist movement exists that hopefully can overcome.
North Africa/NWest Africa/NEast Africa: has become a total tribal mess of late.
Iraq and Syria: ruled by weak central government, ISIS pose a major threat.
Islamic leaders are handpicked by the regimes and because there is no democratic functioning Muslim country in the Arab world, as all we get is the intolerant, fascist types. Other Islamic leaders condemn terror but are drowned out by their more powerful, more connected rivals. Saudi Arabia and its nurturing of fellow Wahabbists has totally ruined the region.
Islam thus needs to self evaluate and a real revolution does need to happen in the Middle East. Meaning that there is a change in the status quo of how such countries are governed. Saudi Arabia for example has never even attempted reform and largely remains an intolerant, racist, sectarian, medieval, greedy monarchy where there is a huge gap between the privileged few and the general populance who are kept down by warped religious teachings. Saudi Arabia is hardly the PR model one would want to associate their religion with. And until Islam in general distances itself from the fascists who currently rule most Middle East and North African nations, things will not improve. Christianity was in the same place in the middle ages and was the preferred tool of equally intolerant, decadent kings.0 -
take everything wrote: »Shocking that Germany are calling off events now out of fear of something like this happening again.
A sorry capitulation of western values to madmen.
The balance between erring on the side of caution and giving into fascist fanatics of course is the issue at hand here. I know that event organisers do need to be responsible and save lives. But that should be the short term issue. Fascist fanaticism originating out of the Middle East has to be dealt with in a comprehensive way. The savagery of regimes in the region and predominance of tribal culture in countries like Pakistan and Somalia is the root cause of such actions. The behaviour of regimes has to change and the savagery we see coming out of these places is not surprising with what goes on in these countries.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »Exactly. The whole problem with Islam is that it has gone from being a religion to being an ideology and it is used by fascists to control a large, largely peasant populance.
It's always been like that. That was the intent of the religion in the first place, for power and control. They begin as cults and become religions as the number of followers grows larger.
Early Christians were considered cult members by the Roman Empire, until Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion.
There is no difference between a religion and a cult.0 -
Although historically the Arabs from the Saudi peninsula who conquered much of the middle east did so before they converted to Islam.Zack Morris wrote: »It's always been like that. That was the intent of the religion in the first place, for power and control. They begin as cults and become religions as the number of followers grows larger.
Early Christians were considered cult members by the Roman Empire, until Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion.
There is no difference between a religion and a cult.0 -
I will just quote the post I was referring to rather than arguing about what it did or did not mean.
I am still not sure what majority consensus you were talking about ...
Now on the rest of our answer:
This is simply not true. You might want to double check the political alignment of the cartoonists who got killed. Took 20 seconds on Google to find a cartoon from Charb mocking Hollande for saying he will stand firm against US spying and doing nothing in practise: http://p2.storage.canalblog.com/21/71/177230/88117600_o.jpg.
I also remind you of my other points: Father Ted didn't cause any killings by offended catholics, I have never been shown a racist drawing from Charlie Hedbo, would you say newspapers should stop reporting about the mafia since it could trigger violent backlash?
OK, first off I never said anyone deserved to die. If you go to the thread discussing where the guy punched and killed the guy photographing his daughter the majority of people posting favoured the assault. I'm not sure if the majority thought he deserved to die but it seemed that way.
Next on to your Father Ted issue. I still haven't a clue what you are talking about there. I said I never thought the show was that funny and if anything I thought it more derogatory to the Irish than to the Church. Of course in Ireland that's fine but when the English watch it in the UK it paints the Irish as their stereotype, i.e. dimwitted simpletons, drunks, you know....thick paddies.
As for your question about reporting about the mafia. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but I am pretty opposed to all censorship. The point I've been making all along if you'd care to take the time to try and see it and absorb it is that everyone should be free to print what they want, that is free from CENSORSHIP. I am free to walk up to a guy in a bar and tell him that I think he looks like a monkey but not as bad as his girlfriend. But there is a good chance I'm going to get punched up for it.
As I've said ALL along, Muslims aren't trying to stifle free speech. This is nonsense that has been peddled by someone(s) with an agenda who want us all to fear that Muslims want us all living under the extreme yoke of Sharia Law. It's bullshit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who are printing these cartoons are perfectly entitled to do so and I endorse their right to so do but like the scenario of insulting the guy in the pub.. if I do that every week and then call the cops after I get thumped, eventually they're going to say to me "look, asshole, we know it's your right under free speech to insult people and their wives/girlfriends, but quite frankly you are straining police resources each week with your carry on and we strongly urge you to cease and desist."
And it's not just Muslims who get upset when you insult their religion (although the more devout ones certainly seem to be the touchiest). Do you remember the uproar and death threats from Christian groups when Jerry Springer, the Opera was in the theatres in the UK?
It was freedom of expression / artistic freedom, whatever, but it still infuriated a lot of Christians who were calling for it to be banned. It wasn't thankfully but the people who railed against it took the depiction of Jesus in a nappy very seriously and personally. Nevermind that there is no stipulation in Christianity that Jesus must not be portrayed or depicted in any way like there is in Islam vis-a-vis the prophet Mohammed.
Muslims aren't calling for American Sniper to be banned, are they? This is a film that glorifies the activities of a psychopath who celebrates his killing of nearly 200 Iraqis (many of whom were most certainly innocent civilians). The film/character portrays Iraqi (and by extension, Muslims) as "savages" not worthy of living. That Muslims have not called for this sick film to be banned would lead me to believe that they are a lot more tolerant than they are given credit for.
Do they call for the banning of Playboy, Penthouse, hardcore pornographic magazine? No. Do they call for the censorship of TV programs that show scantily clad women or advertise bacon fries or lager? No. Do they want movies, publications that feature the term "motherfucker" (a term very offensive to muslims) banned? No.
They just have a problem with insults to their religion. But that's still not good enough for some people. Some people still want to strip them of that last little bit of dignity. It's childish, it's craven and it's mean-spirited.0 -
I do agree its a 7th century cult that is very much of its time. It has nothing to offer in the 21st century except an obsolete 7th century ideology.
We have a choice, send society back to the 7th century or stick with all the freedoms won in the meantime. I know which I would prefer.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to lampoon who we like, another hard won freedom which Islamists would like to take away with all the other things they would like to take away if given the opportunity. Thankfully they have next to no influence in the political sphere in the west, unlike in the middle east.0 -
Advertisement
-
Shurimgreat wrote: »@egginacup
I'm not going to bother to respond to all your posts individually, as at this stage you've turned a bit manic.
Some points to make here.
You are saying Turkey is a Muslim country - what on earth does this mean? It's like saying Britain is a Christain country. What I am referring to is the separation of church and state. In this sense Britain is a secular democracy as is France, Germany etc. Laws are mostly secular with a very occassional nod to christian tradictions but not much. Turkey likewise was founded as secular democracy. So when you say its a muslim country, its not really. There are a lot of Muslims in Turkey, in fact the majority is muslim. Its form of government however is secular democracy. I know you won't get the distinction as you seem to struggle with small things like that and try to shout people down with manic rants.
Gadaffi had no real power in Libya? Yep, and Hitler had no real power in Germay, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia or Mao in Red China. Yep, all run by committees and focus groups and so on. And if you believe that you will believe anything.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being responsible for their own deaths, did they pull the trigger? After cutting through your long winded posts, it seems to me you do want to restrain free speech. People like you say things like "I am in favour of free speech but..."
There can be no buts, ifs or maybes with free speech. It's either free or it isn't. It's either black or white. There's no inbetween.
Look, pal. I'm well aware that Turkey is a secular democracy. It is still a muslim country in that the majority population are adherents to Islam. You're the one who blithely stated that "Turkey turned its back on Islam". Maybe if you could word your assertion correctly the first time you would spend so much time explaining yourself.
And if you took the time to research how Libya under Ghadaffi was governed you might learn something. Nice reference to Hitler there. The go-to guy when you want to portray someone as a monster or whatever bogeyman label you want.0 -
OK, first off I never said anyone deserved to die. If you go to the thread discussing where the guy punched and killed the guy photographing his daughter the majority of people posting favoured the assault. I'm not sure if the majority thought he deserved to die but it seemed that way.
Next on to your Father Ted issue. I still haven't a clue what you are talking about there. I said I never thought the show was that funny and if anything I thought it more derogatory to the Irish than to the Church. Of course in Ireland that's fine but when the English watch it in the UK it paints the Irish as their stereotype, i.e. dimwitted simpletons, drunks, you know....thick paddies.
As for your question about reporting about the mafia. Again I have no idea what point you are trying to make here but I am pretty opposed to all censorship. The point I've been making all along if you'd care to take the time to try and see it and absorb it is that everyone should be free to print what they want, that is free from CENSORSHIP. I am free to walk up to a guy in a bar and tell him that I think he looks like a monkey but not as bad as his girlfriend. But there is a good chance I'm going to get punched up for it.
As I've said ALL along, Muslims aren't trying to stifle free speech. This is nonsense that has been peddled by someone(s) with an agenda who want us all to fear that Muslims want us all living under the extreme yoke of Sharia Law. It's bullshit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who are printing these cartoons are perfectly entitled to do so and I endorse their right to so do but like the scenario of insulting the guy in the pub.. if I do that every week and then call the cops after I get thumped, eventually they're going to say to me "look, asshole, we know it's your right under free speech to insult people and their wives/girlfriends, but quite frankly you are straining police resources each week with your carry on and we strongly urge you to cease and desist."
And it's not just Muslims who get upset when you insult their religion (although the more devout ones certainly seem to be the touchiest). Do you remember the uproar and death threats from Christian groups when Jerry Springer, the Opera was in the theatres in the UK?
It was freedom of expression / artistic freedom, whatever, but it still infuriated a lot of Christians who were calling for it to be banned. It wasn't thankfully but the people who railed against it took the depiction of Jesus in a nappy very seriously and personally. Nevermind that there is no stipulation in Christianity that Jesus must not be portrayed or depicted in any way like there is in Islam vis-a-vis the prophet Mohammed.
Muslims aren't calling for American Sniper to be banned, are they? This is a film that glorifies the activities of a psychopath who celebrates his killing of nearly 200 Iraqis (many of whom were most certainly innocent civilians). The film/character portrays Iraqi (and by extension, Muslims) as "savages" not worthy of living. That Muslims have not called for this sick film to be banned would lead me to believe that they are a lot more tolerant than they are given credit for.
Do they call for the banning of Playboy, Penthouse, hardcore pornographic magazine? No. Do they call for the censorship of TV programs that show scantily clad women or advertise bacon fries or lager? No. Do they want movies, publications that feature the term "motherfucker" (a term very offensive to muslims) banned? No.
They just have a problem with insults to their religion. But that's still not good enough for some people. Some people still want to strip them of that last little bit of dignity. It's childish, it's craven and it's mean-spirited.
I do not understand either why some things cause anger and others don't. American Sniper is very much like those 1980s Vietnam films portraying the macho man American hero doing in the 'evil savages' and 'protecting democracy'. While they are at it, they should resurrect Rambo and send him to Iraq and Syria to sort out ISIS!
Why did Salman Rushdie's book cause mass riots in Pakistan and was used as a vehicle by a depressed Iranian priest to divert attention away from the poor state of his country? Why did cartoons in a French and Danish paper cause such anger and .. why, why, why??
What about far right politicians making anti-Islam statements every week? What about as said films like American Sniper? What about other films that mention certain nations as sponsors of terror? I could name 100s of more hurtful things than Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, etc. What would ISIS' take on 50 Shades of Grey be I wonder ...0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »@egginacup
I'm not going to bother to respond to all your posts individually, as at this stage you've turned a bit manic.
Some points to make here.
You are saying Turkey is a Muslim country - what on earth does this mean? It's like saying Britain is a Christain country. What I am referring to is the separation of church and state. In this sense Britain is a secular democracy as is France, Germany etc. Laws are mostly secular with a very occassional nod to christian tradictions but not much. Turkey likewise was founded as secular democracy. So when you say its a muslim country, its not really. There are a lot of Muslims in Turkey, in fact the majority is muslim. Its form of government however is secular democracy. I know you won't get the distinction as you seem to struggle with small things like that and try to shout people down with manic rants.
Gadaffi had no real power in Libya? Yep, and Hitler had no real power in Germay, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia or Mao in Red China. Yep, all run by committees and focus groups and so on. And if you believe that you will believe anything.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists being responsible for their own deaths, did they pull the trigger? After cutting through your long winded posts, it seems to me you do want to restrain free speech. People like you say things like "I am in favour of free speech but..."
There can be no buts, ifs or maybes with free speech. It's either free or it isn't. It's either black or white. There's no inbetween.
I'll do you a favour:
Read a little bit about Libya, then and now, and get back to me.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/54087400 -
Look, pal. I'm well aware that Turkey is a secular democracy. It is still a muslim country in that the majority population are adherents to Islam. You're the one who blithely stated that "Turkey turned its back on Islam". Maybe if you could word your assertion correctly the first time you would spend so much time explaining yourself.
And if you took the time to research how Libya under Ghadaffi was governed you might learn something. Nice reference to Hitler there. The go-to guy when you want to portray someone as a monster or whatever bogeyman label you want.
The people and government starting with Attaturk turned their back on Islam as having any major role in their governance. Its pretty clear what I meant. Yes people worshop privately, the majority of the population are Muslim but as a form of government Islam plays no major part. You knew well what I meant.
I have researched Gadaffi infinitely. The so-called people's committees didn't have any significant power, certainly where it mattered. The wealth of Libya was concentrated in the bank accounts of the Gadaffi family and in their home town of Sirth. The regions such as in the East got very little despite producing most of the oil. The security forces were brutal and imprisoned and killed anyone who stepped out of line. Gadaffi was a madman, his greenbook obligatory on the school curriculam, the majority of Libyans utterly detested him and couldn't wait to get rid of him. When it came to the final reckoning he had to rent mercenaries from Chad and elsewhere or force people to fight for him. Your attempts to portray Libya as a democratic paradise are frankly pathetic. I expect some back tracking as usual along the lines of "show me where did I say that". Which in truth is enough for me as you admit Libya was not a democracy and had appalling human rights under Gadaffi.
As for the rest, there is a strong tradition of lampooning people, ideas, cults and religions in Europe and Islam and its followers is not going to change that.0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »I do agree its a 7th century cult that is very much of its time. It has nothing to offer in the 21st century except an obsolete 7th century ideology.
We have a choice, send society back to the 7th century or stick with all the freedoms won in the meantime. I know which I would prefer.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to lampoon who we like, another hard won freedom which Islamists would like to take away with all the other things they would like to take away if given the opportunity. Thankfully they have next to no influence in the political sphere in the west, unlike in the middle east.
All religions start off in a century and a region. Their beginnings are determined by the region, century and culture.
If any religion is to remain relevant, it has to adapt both to new times and new regions/cultures. The biggest jokes about these so-called 'Islamic fundamentalists' is that they want a 7th century style Islamic state but yet:
-have guns and modern weaponry. Not there in the 7th century.
-hate America as a religious duty. A country not even existing at the time in this form.
To me, such warped fascists seem to want to combine the worst of the 7th century with the worst of the modern era.0 -
I'll do you a favour:
Read a little bit about Libya, then and now, and get back to me.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
I think I'd prefer to read this instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/libya-gaddafi-direct-democracyAlthough Gaddafi was supposed to hold no political positions of authority beyond the honorific "Leader of the Revolution", his position as head of the General People's Congress meant that he remained effectively in charge and the people's committees were little more than a fig leaf designed to cover the naked brutality of his autocracy. Meanwhile, the revolutionary committees' role to "supervise people power" was actually code for monitoring and suppression.
"It is ironic, then," the American study concluded, "that the changes intended to enfranchise the citizenry have instead served primarily to bolster Gaddafi's personal power by diminishing governmental checks and balances on his executive power and eliminating all other power bases."0 -
Shurimgreat wrote: »The people and government starting with Attaturk turned their back on Islam as having any major role in their governance. Its pretty clear what I meant. Yes people worshop privately, the majority of the population are Muslim but as a form of government Islam plays no major part. You knew well what I meant.
I have researched Gadaffi infinitely. The so-called people's committees didn't have any significant power, certainly where it mattered. The wealth of Libya was concentrated in the bank accounts of the Gadaffi family and in their home town of Sirth. The regions such as in the East got very little despite producing most of the oil. The security forces were brutal and imprisoned and killed anyone who stepped out of line. Gadaffi was a madman, his greenbook obligatory on the school curriculam, the majority of Libyans utterly detested him and couldn't wait to get rid of him. When it came to the final reckoning he had to rent mercenaries from Chad and elsewhere or force people to fight for him. Your attempts to portray Libya as a democratic paradise are frankly pathetic. I expect some back tracking as usual along the lines of "show me where did I say that". Which in truth is enough for me as you admit Libya was not a democracy and had appalling human rights under Gadaffi.
As for the rest, there is a strong tradition of lampooning people, ideas, cults and religions in Europe and Islam and its followers is not going to change that.
There should always be a separation of church and state. This is a problem with most Middle Eastern countries at present: nearly all identify themselves through religion be it Sunni, Shia, Hinduism or Judaism. The following Middle Eastern countries are founded on religions and emphasise a certain religion:
Afghanistan = Sunni Islamic republic.
Pakistan = Sunni Islamic republic.
India = Hindu republic.
Iran = Shia Islamic republic.
Saudi Arabia = Wahabbist Sunni absolute monarchy.
Other Gulf Kingdoms (Qatar, Kuwait et al): ditto as for Saudi.
Israel = Jewish republic.
Iraq = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS.
Syria = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS.
ISIS = aspiring, fascist, absolute monarchy styling itself as an 'Islamic' Caliphate.
Libya = failed state on the verge of takeover by ISIS-style fascists.
Turkey is perhaps the only one that is not based on or does not have a strong militant 'Islam' rebel group.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »All religions start off in a century and a region. Their beginnings are determined by the region, century and culture.
If any religion is to remain relevant, it has to adapt both to new times and new regions/cultures. The biggest jokes about these so-called 'Islamic fundamentalists' is that they want a 7th century style Islamic state but yet:
-have guns and modern weaponry. Not there in the 7th century.
-hate America as a religious duty. A country not even existing at the time in this form.
To me, such warped fascists seem to want to combine the worst of the 7th century with the worst of the modern era.
A lot of the Islamic State jihadists are westerners. They are fed up with life in the west. Mostly fed up with the fact they can't force women to marry them or force women to live indoors 24/7 or can't get a job or various other things. They are frustrated in the west they can't get their way.
They go over there looking for an idyl. A lot of them have very low IQs, the perfect recruit as they obey orders unquestioning, and can be easily brainwashed by Islamic dogma. They kill on command in other words because of some article or another in the Koran justifies it.
Some have not found life out there to their liking either, miss western comforts and want to come home.
Think of it as the Islamic version of a "Gap Year". Seeing how the other half lives, but get tired of it after a while. A lot of the people of the middle east aspire to a modern life. But then you have the Islamic nutters who try to drag them back to the stone age. Lets not let them drag the west back there either with their madness.0 -
As I've said ALL along, Muslims aren't trying to stifle free speech. This is nonsense that has been peddled by someone(s) with an agenda who want us all to fear that Muslims want us all living under the extreme yoke of Sharia Law. It's bullshit. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who are printing these cartoons are perfectly entitled to do so and I endorse their right to so do but like the scenario of insulting the guy in the pub.. if I do that every week and then call the cops after I get thumped, eventually they're going to say to me "look, asshole, we know it's your right under free speech to insult people and their wives/girlfriends, but quite frankly you are straining police resources each week with your carry on and we strongly urge you to cease and desist."
Here is the deal.
You have been writing pages based on the assumption that people like the dead cartoonists have hidden agendas to make everybody think all muslims are bad and/or are shocking muslims for no reason and in an non-constructive way.
I would be interested in knowing from which source you are getting what you think the ideology of these people was. Have you really tried to document yourself about them or to look at the cartoons and understand them?
I did grow up with their work and was regularly watching one of them drawing cartoons about the news on a TV program before he was killed (Charb, the main guy in the magazine). I didn't find all his drawings funny, but I can assure you he was very open to immigration and respectful of other cultures. One thing he despised is how (all) religions are used control people or justify barbary (but it was far from being the only subject of his drawings).
I'll give you one link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Bougrab
When you look at this lady's background, do she come across as someone who would tolerate racism or constant and unjustified abuse against Islam?
Now you might have noticed she was Charb' partner in life. Would she really have decided to share his life if he really was the kind of person you keep talking about in your posts.
The problem I see here is that you are assuming that if the guy holding the gun killed someone, OK he is a criminal but he must have had a good reason and the guy who is dead - even though it is unfortunate - must have been looking for trouble. Sadly when people are doing this terrorists are wining their ideological war.0 -
Advertisement
-
Someone should draw a cartoon where Muhammad is a ham. That would be funny0
Advertisement