| Poll |
| Should your always use your freedom of speech |
| Yes freedom of sppech is so importent that one should alwayes speek ones mind. |
|
61% |
[ 132 ] |
| No you should not use your freedom of speech to insult people. |
|
38% |
[ 82 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 214 |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 23:02 |
 
|
| inquisitorpustus wrote: |
Sorry, sorry
Sorry for giving you shelter and help
Sorry for giving you an education
Sorry for helping you financially
Sorry for giving you the freedom to follow your faith in our christian country
Sorry for sending aid to your home countries
Sorry for not demanding blood for the murder of our countrymen
Sorry for not running around with c4 strapped to our bodies everytime we feel offended
Sorry for not doing whatever your faith dictates
But you'll never recieve an apology for voicing our opinion in our own country, according to our own laws - you'll never have that. |
This is the letter in full text, as you cited it. It's an answer to the people demanding an apology. Nowhere does it limit it's scope to the people attacking embassies - instead, it specifies that it's message is directed to muslims who've lived in Denmark.
Please explain to me - in what way does the talk about "running around with c4 strapped to our bodies everytime we feel offended" deepen your understanding of this situation? Has Denmark been the victim of suicide bombings? Or, if I have to spell it out for you, is this simply an old-fashioned, racist way of stereotyping a whole group of people as terrorists? |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 23:22 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | inquisitorpustus wrote: |
Sorry, sorry
Sorry for giving you shelter and help
Sorry for giving you an education
Sorry for helping you financially
Sorry for giving you the freedom to follow your faith in our christian country
Sorry for sending aid to your home countries
Sorry for not demanding blood for the murder of our countrymen
Sorry for not running around with c4 strapped to our bodies everytime we feel offended
Sorry for not doing whatever your faith dictates
But you'll never recieve an apology for voicing our opinion in our own country, according to our own laws - you'll never have that. |
This is the letter in full text, as you cited it. It's an answer to the people demanding an apology. Nowhere does it limit it's scope to the people attacking embassies - instead, it specifies that it's message is directed to muslims who've lived in Denmark.
Please explain to me - in what way does the talk about "running around with c4 strapped to our bodies everytime we feel offended" deepen your understanding of this situation? Has Denmark been the victim of suicide bombings? Or, if I have to spell it out for you, is this simply an old-fashioned, racist way of stereotyping a whole group of people as terrorists? |
Since you're yet another person here who just dosen't 'get it', is trying to remain willfully ignorant or is just trolling for a reaction I'll spell this out one last time before ignoring you.
It dosen't state anywhere 'it specifies that it's message is directed to muslims who've lived in Denmark' and since you've just quoted it I would have thought it'd be easy enough for you to read. Its directed at extremist muslims living in Denmark and anywhere else who happen to be threatening Denmark. Perhaps its an appeal to the extreme factions to realise that the Danes don't hate them or their beliefs and have demonstrated that by helping and accepting muslims who don't attack them.
If you're going to infer that it refers to anyone else it's most obvious target is the iman living in Denmark who'd taken these pictures and some of his own to the middle east in an attempt to stir up hatred.
I know you'd really like to throw a racist tag at someone and have it stick because that'd be the easiest way of validating your own beliefs, but it dosen't really stick. Your argument has no merit whatsoever and every time you quote selective aspects of what I and others have said, miss the thrust of the argument and post poorly rationalised nonsense whilst ignoring the majority of our justifications here the sillier you look. I'm finished with your nonsense enjoy the last word.
P.s you're still misusing the term 'racism' you're supposed to be calling me an islamophobe (not that it'd be any more valid). |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 23:44 |
|
You couldn't answer my single & simple question about the c4. Did the imam run around with c4? Does this group of people - refugees in Denmark running around with c4 - exist?
The text explicitly excludes the possibility of giving an excuse to anyone. It also explicitly states that the drawings are "our opinion" - including the opinion that Muhammed is a large-nosed bomb-preacher. Is that not a racist drawing? What separates it from 1930:ies jew caricatures?
AFAIK, the imam has only used his right of free speech to tell people what JP has published. Why is he being called a traitor that should be killed? If an iranian refugee would come to Europe and show antisemite pictures published there, causing angry reactions against Iran, what would we think of him? If his countrymen called him a traitor and threathened to kill him, whose right to free speech would we focus on? The iranian paper, or that refugee? |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:18 |
|
Ok then I'm not a racist or an islamophobe, but I am a liar apparently since I'm going to humour you (and this is for the last time).
| MickeX wrote: | | You couldn't answer my single & simple question about the c4. Did the imam run around with c4? Does this group of people - refugees in Denmark running around with c4 - exist? |
Hyperbole:A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in 'I could sleep for a year or 'This book weighs a ton'.
Replace C4 with pipebomb/flaming torch/big stick/angry mob at your leisure. It doesn't mention anywhere that it is the authors opinion that all muslims engage in these activities. C4 is an illustrative example.
| MickeX wrote: | | The text explicitly excludes the possibility of giving an excuse to anyone. It also explicitly states that the drawings are "our opinion" - including the opinion that Muhammed is a large-nosed bomb-preacher. Is that not a racist drawing? What separates it from 1930:ies jew caricatures? |
Aside from the fact that Jews were and are identified as belonging to both a faith and a race nothing. Its quite possible to have jewish blood and belong to the jewish race without believing in the jewish faith in any way. The same cannot be said to apply to Muslims since Islam is just a faith and not a race.
Other than that important distinction there isn't much seperation between anti-jewish hate cartoons and these, but as has already been discussed it dosen't really matter. Nobodys attempting to defend the validity of the cartoon, just their right to exist and be re-printed in order to educate people.
| MickeX wrote: | | AFAIK, the imam has only used his right of free speech to tell people what JP has published. Why is he being called a traitor that should be killed? If an iranian refugee would come to Europe and show antisemite pictures published there, causing angry reactions against Iran, what would we think of him? If his countrymen called him a traitor and threathened to kill him, whose right to free speech would we focus on? The iranian paper, or that refugee? |
In all honesty I have no idea what you're talking about here. Who exactly is calling this iman 'a traitor who should be killed'? I certainly havn't and I can't attribute that quote to any of the news stories I've read recently.
In regards to your analogy: We probably wouldn't think much of him since he's a dirty little hatemonger, but hopefully we wouldn't try to censor him. We also aren't 'focusing' on any one parties freedoms, they both have equal right to speak. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Mnemon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:29 |
|
| inquisitorpustus wrote: | | I don't think anyones yet tried to claim that this solves anything, but it may be the first step along the road to a solution. The hidden dialoge going on between extreme theists media and governments is testing the limits and may well help create a basis for a talking point and maybe create better eventual boundaries for a debate to take place. At least now each side it better aware of the others limits. |
I disagree, but I don't think we'll reach an agreement on that. We didn't need this conflict to know what is happening. We didn't need it to know the limits either.
| inquisitorpustus wrote: | | Mnemon wrote: | | So debate for the sake of debating is good, no matter what "collateral damage" it'll cause? I am not enough of a cynic yet to simply accept that. |
Yes. Our civilisation has been shaped by people on opposing sides of a bitter divide coming to a better understanding via debate that caused bloodshed and hatred. Refusing to move to the back of a bus isn't a clever critique of segregation. |
And again I disagree, and I don't think we'll agree on that either. It might not have been a very "sophisticated" manner of protest, but I think it worked. Maybe better then the American Civil War that was - at least partially - about the abolishment of Slavery and with that the hope of improving the position of some of those at disadvantage as well. Just as the Woman's Movement did not come by through violence. And yes, I do believe in the way Ghandi went about things as well. I also do - and I mean that seriously believe and cherish the Human Rights. All of them, in their entity. One of them is this one:
| Quote: | Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. |
This is quite likely a fundamental difference in perspective the two of us won't overcome. Peaceful Protest IS one of the human rights, and in my opinion a Democracy ceases to be a Democracy if it is inhibited.
Seriously. You blame them for using violence, but at the same time say it is okay to use violence if the means are "justified"?
| Inquisitorpustus wrote: | These cartoons aren't easily accessable at all for large numbers of people. There are people who simply don't have access to the internet for a variety of reasons and more who do, but don't posess the required amount if internet saavy to track these things down.
The press isn't just a tool for the receptive or the elite, its foundation is based on education and it isn't fair to exclude people from that or make finding information more difficult than it necessarily has to be. |
| Quote: |
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. |
Again I disagree - because here I see the capitalist system at fault. Yes I disagree with it, and again I don't think we'll reach consensus on that. If newspapers and education aren't meant for an elite only, then give people access, or work toward that, rather then sprewing hatered that results in wasting money on rebuilding embassies. Either through libraries (that have to be well-funded and stocked) and/or internet access. It works (yet) in Sweden for example. It also works in Germany, but I can't say much beyond those two countries. And before you come around with the dead-pan argument that we can't afford it - sure we can. But only if we finally understand that "the economy" is just a social system, and that just as Patriarchy was/is it is limiting Human potential the way it works right now. If anything "the economy" should just be a tool of Human interaction, not a rule. We do have control over it, and it is not a natural force that "always existed." Humans created it, Humans can change it. Given the immense amount of unemployed people - we'd also have the possibility to educate all of them/give people more freetime/time to live/learn study instead of being afraid of losing their jobs. That's one of the big promises that industrialisation offered, after all. Machines to replace human workers and make it less necessary for people to work as much as they did, as production was increased. Everyone should be able to afford a house and a car, at least according to Mr. Ford.
| inquistorpustus wrote: | No ok I used a sweeping statement and I shouldn't have. I'm fully aware that there are a large people who don't support these being printed.
There are also a large number of people who fully support our press and feel the need for all the worlds press to inform people in an attempt to blunt these extremists and who are firmly of the opinion that doing so will save lives, advance relations between cultures and make the world a safer place to be.. |
I'll leave it at that. We disagree fundamentally on some core issues, but I was aware of that. But how you can think this will save lifes in any way, or how it makes the world a safer place is utterly beyond me. Just as I can't really see how you didn't just make another sweeping statement.
Take care,
-Mnemon |
Last edited by Mnemon on %b %11, %2006 - %00:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:34 |
|
I do respect your opinion on this Mnemon, but I still see self censorship as dangerous.
| Quote: | I don't think they're bluffing either, but here's the thing: suppose they do escalate things and start taking hostages over the cartoons? What happens then?
Then we'll have to choose between removing the cartoons and hoping that they'll actually free whatever hostages they take (and who knows if they would), or letting them kill the hostage. And what happens if you remove the cartoons and they free the hostage? What's to stop them from taking hostages again the next time something comes up in the western media that they don't like?
You ask "where does it end?" when it comes to standing up to their rioting, but the same question applies when it comes to making journalistic decisions in response to their violence. What if someone publishes a criticism of a Hamas policy, and Hamas instigates rioting and takes hostages in response? What if someone publishes a criticism of the oppression of women in Islam in general and fundamentalists imams incite riots and take hostages in response? What do we do then?
It's one thing to say that these cartoons aren't worth the violence they caused, in principle I agree - the cartoons themselves are not. The problem is, where does this lead? |
|
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:39 |
|
Taffsadar earlier called the imam a traitor who should be killed.
| Quote: | | Nobodys attempting to defend the validity of the cartoon, just their right to exist. |
The person who wrote the text you cited explicitly defends the cartoons as his opinion. His opinion is that Muhammed himself was a bomb preacher. He writes a text that exaggerates the protests of some or all muslims into suicide bombing. Because of his outspoken support of the cartoon message, it's not exactly far fetched to assume that he's making this exaggeration about all of Muhammeds followers. This is a very common racist idea in western countries.
Nowhere in the text is there a hint that it's not meant for all muslims. You simply state that over and over, without reference. The key is in the end - "you'll never recieve an apology" - where the text very clearly adresses all those demanding an apology, thereby stereotying them as terrorists. |
|
|
Glomp
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:48 |
|
Well Taffsadar can speak for himself and if the original author of that letter has since written a seperate piece condemming all muslims then thats where our opinions part and where our interpretation of his initial take on the subject part company also.
'You'll never recieve an apology' could still just be applied to the extreme element and be intended to reflect that nobody is going to apologise due to threats, if he was talking to them directly it'd be a reasonable interpretation. 'I won't apologise if you threaten me, but I will apologise for offending you'. |
_________________
Forum terrorist. |
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 00:51 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | You gotta love liberalism. Profit seeking is the source of all human action, except the one's that todays liberals can't defend anymore. Capital maximizes profit, but never steps outside of the law, never influences politics for other than the best, never incites war. |
Oh, really?
| MickeX wrote: | | If you have a look at colonial racist classics like John Stuart Mill, you'll find that he didn't find blacks genetically inferior |
So? Did I mention genetics? Who did?
And who said Mill was the epitome of the 19th century man? Are you trying to play the old guilt-by-association game?
Even if similar arguments are used today to cover the issues western nations have with others that still doesn't mean that the reasons must be all the same.
| MickeX wrote: | | To get rid of your ideas about racism being long gone in Europe, just read through this thread. What BigMac, inquisitorpustus an others are posting are classic racist arguments, no more and no less. You'll find very few muslims in Europe that sees racism as a thing of the past, yet you do. |
Honestly, I'm getting a little bored now with your misreading of my posts. I never said racism is long gone. Nor do I claim a lot of other stuff that you seem to hope I'd do. Maybe I'm just another liberal to you and all liberals have the same view of the world, right?
Anyway, I think you'll find a hard time convincing anyone of racism having an equally strong hold over Europeans today as it had 70 or 150 years ago. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 15:53 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: |
Honestly, I'm getting a little bored now with your misreading of my posts. |
Well, maybe I did misread it, looking back at it. Sorry about that. I just get a bit frustrated at the all too common idea that there's some kind of "magic line" in history where the western powers suddenly go from colonial rulers to heroes in shining armour. We were always heroes in shining armour, in our own view. Many of the attittudes and arguments used to defend military aggression today are exactly the same we used to enslave people at the end of the 19th century. I can't see the danish cartoons and the debate about them as anything but a prime example of this. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 16:24 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | Skrofler wrote: |
Honestly, I'm getting a little bored now with your misreading of my posts. |
Well, maybe I did misread it, looking back at it. Sorry about that. I just get a bit frustrated at the all too common idea that there's some kind of "magic line" in history where the western powers suddenly go from colonial rulers to heroes in shining armour. We were always heroes in shining armour, in our own view. Many of the attittudes and arguments used to defend military aggression today are exactly the same we used to enslave people at the end of the 19th century. I can't see the danish cartoons and the debate about them as anything but a prime example of this. |
Apology accepted.
Thank you for also answering my follow up question without me having to pose it. What's this got to do with the topic at hand?
I don't agree (surprise) with the analysis that this discussion is nothing but a skirmish in an imperialistic attack on the middle-east. (Did I get that right?)
This is basically because, even though malicious people could use (and is using) the images and the debate to support imperialistic actions, free speech is above that. It would be hard to prove that an imperialistic agenda had more to gain than to lose from the level of free speech that we enjoy in Scandinavia today. Also, it must be allowed to criticise the violent ways of islamic fundamentalists without being considered a follower of the American war on terror scheme. There are more than a few sides to this. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
f_alk
Joined: Sep 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 11, 2006 - 17:25 |
|
| someone wrote: | | Aside from the fact that Jews were and are identified as belonging to both a faith and a race nothing. |
For those interested:
There is no such thing as a "jewish race". You can differ between three major groups at least (Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim). I will not point out which was the last ideology that claimed being jewish was a qualifier for a race. |
|
|
Adar
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2006 - 11:48 |
|
| inquisitorpustus wrote: |
In all honesty I have no idea what you're talking about here. Who exactly is calling this iman 'a traitor who should be killed'? I certainly havn't and I can't attribute that quote to any of the news stories I've read recently.
|
That was quite probably me somewhere around page 19... Basicly I said something along the lines of "we should take care to avoid issues like this in the future... by killing people like Abu Laban". I still stand by this, he is a traitor who have caused the deaths of atleast five person by lying (atleast five protestors have died so far). That's the important part, he have lying to hurt the country who has sheltered him. Freedom of speech is one of the few things I am willing to grab an AK5 and fight for. If Abu Laban had said "all infidels should be slaughtered" would I support his right to say so (I would then wish him to be sent out of Denmark since he doesn't belong there) but that's not what he did. He lied and made a great tour through muslem countries while showing not only the 12 original harmless pictures. He also added another 8 pictures which were way more offensive and these ones are the ones which have caused the deaths of 5 people. The man is obviously lacking the moral values needed to work in a civilized human society and is dangerous enough to get people killed, therefor we should neutralize him to protect people from future attacks like this*.
*Instead of sitting here while MickeX tries to somehow turn my argument "racist" am I going to point out one very important thing. The five people killed where all muslems of non european background and any further provocations by people like Abu Laban would probably cause more muslem deaths than western deaths. I still do care becuase I don't want any people getting killed just becuase their religious leaders thinks it supports their cause. |
_________________
For all his rage, he's still just a rat in it's cage. |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 13, 2006 - 22:35 |
|
Wait till you run out of oil. Nobody cares after that.
(Ignorant and stupid post) (Forgive me, I'm just a European) |
_________________
My post count
Jesus loves me this I know, 'cos my Bible tells me so. |
|
MrMojo
Joined: Apr 17, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 19, 2006 - 10:00 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Gnomes are trash
Search
