Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 4469
(2/16/06 8:54 pm) Reply
well AZEM
Quote:This incident is uniting Muslims all around the world.
All the better. Then Europeans can round them up on a ship and ship them faster to their native country for rioting and violence.
Quote:It's not about the freedom of speech; it's about insulting peoples beliefs.
Boo hoo. Other religions, political institutions and nations have been mocked. Boo hoo. If muslims cant take a joke, thats their problem...
Quote:Muslims would be offended even if you showed Jesus Christ in a similar manner, because we believe that Jesus was an important messenger too, just like all other messengers.
Boo hoo.....
Quote:While the stories of Abraham and Moses are exactly the same, there is a little difference as far as Jesus we're concerned. Jesus being crucified as it is the case with Jews and Christians in Koran is swapped by another man. So when Jews came to crucify Jesus his appearance is swapped by the other man, and the other man (can't think for the moment of his name, the guy who betrays Jesus) is crucified instead of Jesus. I personally like this version.
blah blah blah. Unproven bible crap that gets new contradictions everyday. And the guy who betrayed him? Wasnt he Juda? Well I dont now and couldnt give a rats ass personally. You should learn your religion.
Quote:And the only difference between the Bible and Koran is that the latest contains one extra chapter, that of the last messenger from God.
This isnt a theological discussion. Please place the fiction somewhere else, this is a political discussion.
Quote:I am sure you get some ideas why Muslims will never insult our past prophets.
Fine... Dont But I will... .. Learn to realize that nobody has to give your gods the respect you give them. Face it and come to terms with it. I dont care at all about any of your doctrines and myths. Believe in whatever may help you sleep at night, but you weakness as a human to accept life as it as, and your inferiority and need to have some happy eternal existance doesnt effect me whatsoever, in short, YOU Dogmas are YOUR. That being said, I will proudly wear my mohammed being mocked shirt. Maybe I will go to a designer and put something that makes fun of Jesus too. Its just my right, get over it. One right that doesnt exist is the right to dictate, muslims cant understand this because the world is full of it.
Want to make some islamic unity? Do as you please, have you Ummah's, in the western society it will just mean less searching.
Want people to stop mocking islam? Stop telling people Islam is a religion of peace, SHOW them that it is. Comments like "decapitate" or "kill" or the mass rioting and hysteria show me nothing.
Until then, until the death of an American or death of an israeli doesnt bring mass happiness to muslims, until comments like "Israel must be destroyed" stop. There is no reason for me to even discuss.
Whats funny is that after 9/11, muslims had the nerve to start comming out and saying "we are peaceful". Blah blah, you know what? A statement muct be backed by the one who has made it, not by the one who is to believe it.
ISKANDERAZEM Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 801
(2/16/06 9:34 pm) Reply
Re: well
Meltdown
You have a freedom to do whatever you wish.
The next thing you should try is put some of the Holocaust victims in your shirt. I am sure jews being so democratic will never even mention it.
If insulting people makes you happy just go ahaid and do it.
I always keep saying "there are 1000 ways to be happy". Well I would not list this method with others, but you can do that.
And the most important thing for you to ask is.
What makes you different from those Muslim troublemakers? Nothing! You are as bad as them! That is if you're able to look at yourself in the mirror. I strongly suggest you do, it's good for your health, and possibly for your love life.
If you were better then them you wouldn't come here and round them up on a ship and ship them faster
Don't forget to be happy!
ISKANDERAZEM Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 802
(2/16/06 9:57 pm) Reply
Re: well AZEMAbout 9/11
I thought people already learned the true story behind 9/11.
If you didn't have a chance yet, here are few sites that will make a good starter for you.
Honorary Member XMod
Posts: 4471
(2/16/06 11:41 pm) Reply
well
Quote:The next thing you should try is put some of the Holocaust victims in your shirt. I am sure jews being so democratic will never even mention it.
Actually, if I really wanted to. Here in the US, you can take part in the KKK or Nazi rallies.
But Im not that kind of guy. This was an example of freedom...
Quote:I always keep saying "there are 1000 ways to be happy". Well I would not list this method with others, but you can do that.
Cmon dude, read more of my posts. When am I not happy.
Quote:What makes you different from those Muslim troublemakers?
I don't:
-Riot violently
-Yell non-coherently
-Dont burn down embassies
-I dont condone the acts of chopping peoples heads of for not agreeing with me
-I respect the freedom of speech and press.
That enough for ya?
Quote:I strongly suggest you do, it's good for your health, and possibly for your love life.
I wish I had the time to look at myself in the mirror, but unfortunately my schedule is booked. Otherwise I would probably be more chilled.... and proud.
Quote:If you were better then them you wouldn't come here and round them up on a ship and ship them faster
Hey, I didnt say I condone it. But... if that kind of extremism will lead to extremism.
Quote:
Don't forget to be happy!
Wait... I don't think.... Psych, Im happy.
Quote:I thought people already learned the true story behind 9/11.
Conspiracy theories on 9/11. I guess your a Micheal Moore fan arnt ya? Oh please.
Truth behind 9/11? Its that 19 middle-easterners killed 3000 people. And afterwards, all over the east, muslims were dancing and screaming for joy.
Forum Emperor!
Posts: 4438
(2/20/06 9:10 am) Reply
Re: well AZEM
European Chief Defends Speech Freedom in Cartoon Dispute
By GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: February 16, 2006
STRASBOURG, France, Feb. 15 — In the face of attacks against foreigners in the Muslim world by violent critics of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, the European Union's chief executive said Wednesday that Europe had to fight for its core European values, including freedom of speech.
"We have to stick very much to these values," said José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission. "If not, we are accepting fear in this society."
Referring to his youth during a totalitarian regime in Portugal, Mr. Barroso, a former Portuguese prime minister, said in an interview that Europe had to defend its right to have in place a system that allowed the publication of the cartoons.
"I understand that it offended many people in the Muslim world, but is it better to have a system where some excesses are allowed or be in some countries where they don't even have the right to say this?" he said. "This reminds me of my own country up to 1974. I defend the democratic system."
He said European society was based on principles that included equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech and a distinction between politics and religion.
Mr. Barroso has faced criticism that he has not done enough to support Denmark, a member of the European Union, after threats and attacks over the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper.
But in the interview, he expressed solidarity with the Danish people and said, "What is not right is to put the blame on a single people or say the people of Denmark have to be blamed."
In order to avoid a clash of civilizations in Europe and help integration, he said, European leaders have to be careful to make a "clear distinction" between nondemocratic Muslims in Europe and those who believe in European values, which "are the vast majority of Muslims," and to reach out to those.
"Islam is part of Europe," he said. "We have a very important Islamic heritage."
He said Europeans from every walk of society had to be careful to expunge all forms of prejudice against Islam from public life. "We have to speak to the moderate Islamic leaders and make a clear distinction between natural expression of belief, which we respect, and what is a manipulation and fundamentalism," he said.
He also distinguished between the initial publication of the cartoons by the Danish newspaper and the republication by many newspapers and magazines across Europe, which he termed a "provocation."
Since taking office 15 months ago, Mr. Barroso has presided over a populist backlash against economic changes and the defeat of Europe's constitutional treaty, caused partly by voters' fears about the possible expansion of the European Union to new countries, including overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey, and the fear of competition from immigrants.
That backlash has forced him to accept the watering down of major economic programs. But speaking on the eve of a crucial vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on legislation to liberalize Europe's services sector, he defended his reformist credentials and said the slower pace of change was a reflection of the democratic processes of a European Union of 25 nations.
"We can't compare the E.U. with an integrated polity" like the United States, he said. "We are 25, not one. They take a lot of time. We are not China or the U.S. It is the essence of Europe. We want to be 25 free democracies."
_________
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom.
Forum Emperor!
Posts: 4439
(2/20/06 9:32 am) Reply
Re: well
Op-Ed Contributor
The Silent Treatment
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Published: February 17, 2006
THE American left and right don't agree on much, but weeks of demonstrations and embassy burnings have pushed them toward convergence on one point: there is, if not a clash of civilizations, at least a very big gap between the "Western world" and the "Muslim world." When you get beyond this consensus — the cultural chasm consensus — and ask what to do about the problem, there is less agreement. After all, chasms are hard to bridge.
Fortunately, this chasm's size is being exaggerated. The Muslim uproar over those Danish cartoons isn't as alien to American culture as we like to think. Once you see this, a benign and quintessentially American response comes into view.
Even many Americans who condemn the cartoon's publication accept the premise that the now-famous Danish newspaper editor set out to demonstrate: in the West we don't generally let interest groups intimidate us into what he called "self-censorship."
What nonsense. Editors at mainstream American media outlets delete lots of words, sentences and images to avoid offending interest groups, especially ethnic and religious ones. It's hard to cite examples since, by definition, they don't appear. But use your imagination.
Hugh Hewitt, a conservative blogger and evangelical Christian, came up with an apt comparison to the Muhammad cartoon: "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing." As Mr. Hewitt noted, that cartoon would offend many American Christians. That's one reason you haven't seen its like in a mainstream American newspaper.
Or, apparently, in many mainstream Danish newspapers. The paper that published the Muhammad cartoon, it turns out, had earlier rejected cartoons of Christ because, as the Sunday editor explained in an e-mail to the cartoonist who submitted them, they would provoke an outcry.
Defenders of the "chasm" thesis might reply that Western editors practice self-censorship to avoid cancelled subscriptions, picket lines or advertising boycotts, not death. Indeed, what forged the chasm consensus, convincing many Americans that the "Muslim world" might as well be another planet, is the image of hair-trigger violence: a few irreverent drawings appear and embassies go up in flames.
But the more we learn about this episode, the less it looks like spontaneous combustion. The initial Muslim response to the cartoons was not violence, but small demonstrations in Denmark along with a lobbying campaign by Danish Muslims that cranked on for months without making it onto the world's radar screen.
Only after these activists were snubbed by Danish politicians and found synergy with powerful politicians in Muslim states did big demonstrations ensue. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, but much of the violence seems to have been orchestrated by state governments, terrorist groups and other cynical political actors.
Besides, who said there's no American tradition of using violence to make a point? Remember the urban riots of the 1960's, starting with the Watts riot of 1965, in which 34 people were killed? The St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Bob Gibson, in his 1968 book "From Ghetto to Glory," compared the riots to a "brushback pitch" — a pitch thrown near a batter's head to keep him from crowding the plate, a way of conveying that the pitcher needs more space.
In the wake of the rioting, blacks got more space. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had been protesting broadcast of the "Amos 'n' Andy" show, with its cast of shiftless and conniving blacks, since the 1950's, but only in 1966 did CBS withdraw reruns from distribution. There's no way to establish a causal link, but there's little doubt that the riots of the 1960's heightened sensitivity to grievances about the portrayal of blacks in the media. (Translation: heightened self-censorship.)
Amid the cartoon protests, some conservative blogs have warned that addressing grievances expressed violently is a form of "appeasement," and will only bring more violence and weaken Western values. But "appeasement" didn't work that way in the 1960's. The Kerner Commission, set up by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967 to study the riots, recommended increased attention to the problems of poverty, job and housing discrimination, and unequal education — attention that was forthcoming and that didn't exactly spawn decades of race riots.
The commission recognized the difference between what triggers an uproar (how police handle a traffic stop in Watts) and what fuels it (discrimination, poverty, etc.). This recognition has been sparse amid the cartoon uproar, as Americans fixate on the question of how a single drawing could inflame millions.
Answer: depends on which million you're talking about. In Gaza much of the actual fuel came from tensions with Israelis, in Iran some fundamentalists nursed longstanding anti-Americanism, in Pakistan opposition to the pro-Western ruling regime played a role, and so on.
This diversity of rage, and of underlying grievance, complicates the challenge. Apparently refraining from obvious offense to religious sensibilities won't be enough. Still, the offense in question is a crystalline symbol of the overall challenge, because so many of the grievances coalesce in a sense that Muslims aren't respected by the affluent, powerful West (just as rioting American blacks felt they weren't respected by affluent, powerful whites). A cartoon that disrespects Islam by ridiculing Muhammad is both trigger and extremely high-octane fuel.
None of this is to say that there aren't big differences between American culture and culture in many Muslim parts of the world. In a way, that's the point: some differences are so big, and the job of shrinking them so daunting, that we can't afford to be unclear on what the biggest differences are.
What isn't a big difference is the Muslim demand for self-censorship by major media outlets. That kind of self-censorship is not just an American tradition, but a tradition that has helped make America one of the most harmonious multiethnic and multireligious societies in the history of the world.
So why not take the model that has worked in America and apply it globally? Namely: Yes, you are legally free to publish just about anything, but if you publish things that gratuitously offend ethnic or religious groups, you will earn the scorn of enlightened people everywhere. With freedom comes responsibility.
Of course, it's a two-way street. As Westerners try to attune themselves to the sensitivities of Muslims, Muslims need to respect the sensitivities of, for example, Jews. But it's going to be hard for Westerners to sell Muslims on this symmetrical principle while flagrantly violating it themselves. That Danish newspaper editor, along with his American defenders, is complicating the fight against anti-Semitism.
Some Westerners say there's no symmetry here — that cartoons about the Holocaust are more offensive than cartoons about Muhammad. And, indeed, to us secularists it may seem clear that joking about the murder of millions of people is worse than mocking a God whose existence is disputed.
BUT one key to the American formula for peaceful coexistence is to avoid such arguments — to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo isn't too onerous. We ask only that the offended group in turn respect the verdicts of other groups about what they find most offensive. Obviously, anti-Semitic and other hateful cartoons won't be eliminated overnight. (In the age of the Internet, no form of hate speech will be eliminated, period; the argument is about what appears in mainstream outlets that are granted legitimacy by nations and peoples.)
But the American experience suggests that steadfast self-restraint can bring progress. In the 1960's, the Nation of Islam was gaining momentum as its leader, Elijah Muhammad, called whites "blue-eyed devils" who were about to be exterminated in keeping with Allah's will. The Nation of Islam has since dropped in prominence and, anyway, has dropped that doctrine from its talking points. Peace prevails in America, and one thing that keeps it is strict self-censorship.
And not just by media outlets. Most Americans tread lightly in discussing ethnicity and religion, and we do it so habitually that it's nearly unconscious. Some might call this dishonest, and maybe it is, but it also holds moral truth: until you've walked in the shoes of other people, you can't really grasp their frustrations and resentments, and you can't really know what would and wouldn't offend you if you were part of their crowd.
The Danish editor's confusion was to conflate censorship and self-censorship. Not only are they not the same thing — the latter is what allows us to live in a spectacularly diverse society without the former; to keep censorship out of the legal realm, we practice it in the moral realm. Sometimes it feels uncomfortable, but worse things are imaginable.
Robert Wright, the author of "The Moral Animal," is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
_________
Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom.
Re: well AZEM
Let us agree on some facts before tackling the problems stemming from so called "boundries of freedom".
What does boundries of freedom stand for?
* Some piece of land one claims as his/her own whilst standing upon?
* Regulated borders/boundries preventing breaches by "others"?
* A set of rules and regulations that one has to follow when interacting within the lines determining those boundries?
* Freewill to manifest in line with the conclusive rationales one bears in mind?
In fact, all of those concepts interact with each other when human beings work for the future of the mankind. However, let us raise some more questions about the concept of "freedom of boundries":
* What are the determining factors that result in violation these "boundries"?
* Could all of those boundries be interpreted identical by everyone?
* Do some group of people have rights to determine the validity of some specified boundries at the expense of others?
* Could one claim flexible boundries for him/her self whilst implementing rigid boundries for others?
The boundries of freedom does not only cover "freedom of expression", or "freedom of speech", or "freedom for the movements of goods and services". In fact, "boundries of freedom" can not be seperated from an individual in any sense of human activity.
When one wishes to walk from Pekin to London, he/she is very much subject to those "boundries of freedom". Conversely, when one wants to shoot a gun in the crowd, then he/she is subject to the boundries that sum up the boundries of the others walking in the crowd. Similarly, one can not shoot in the crowd and claim that his/her intension was not to shoot people, but only to exercise his/her right exist before the "boundries of freedom". One can not move from Pakistan on his/her freewill and migrate to Toronto for a better job since he/she is subject to migration restrictions applied by the corresponding government.
Nevertheless, let us recall what has been happenning in the world starting from the 20th Century to the 21st Century:
* Struggle amongst imperialist powers for world dominion via WWI.
* Emergence of Soviet Union as an alternative power to the Western Nation States.
* Contiunation of the late colonist and early capitalist era, Jazz Age followed by the Great Depression.
* The end of early capitalist development, and drastic changes in modes of production. Massive layouts, and depreciation of currencies coupled with hyper inflation in various countries.
* Rise in extremist movements followed by the WWII. Semi-destruction of the Soviet Union, Germany, France, Italy, and the Great Britain, as well as some other European North African, and Asian countries.
* Extermination of some 40-50 million people, destruction of property and goods that account for thousands of billion dollars.
* "Long Economic Boom" following the WWII, which was halted by the Oil Crisis.
* Depressive Economic Cycles all around the world until the end of "Cold War" resulting in chronic unemployment, increase in level of credits and debts, chronic inflation trespassing the boundries and borders.
Post-Cold War Era:
* Emergence of the USA, as the prevailing super power to rule the world.
* Small era of recovery stemming from the inclusion of new economies into the existing system, namely China, Russia, and former communist block countries.
*The rise of so called "Extreme Islam" replacing the horror of communists with the Medieval Islamic fears of the West.
* Rise of unemployed anti-communist (Islamic) groups supported and financed during the era of cold war.
* Demographic decline in the west coupled with high levels of unemployment, proliferation of multinational companies, structural changes in the modes of production, emigration of capital from places with higher cost to the places with lower costs.
* Free flow of capital over the national and regional boundries.
* Dilemma to deport the migrant workers back to their home when there is more need for younger and well-educated workforce for the future of the declining west.
* Substantial increase in need for resources and energy, enourmous need to revitalize the need for arms and weapons in order to maintain the western arm industry and know-how.
* General Western assult (not necessarly by arms) on former buffer zones and former Soviet Republics, and the Middle Eastern countries accelerated following the events of September 11th. Respectfully, rise of terrorism that could be attributed to anyone when necessary.
* General vulgarization process of democracy and human rigths coupled with the probability of large scale eonomic crisis and natural disasters that were experienced in Balkans, in Asia, in Africa, and in the Middle East and else where.
* Emergence and convergence of regional trade, economic and political blocks empowered by the ongoing uncertainity of forming the confronting blocks of the future.
As one could envisage, the world is once again is about to enter to a new era of conflicts, and the sparkle for such conflicts could stem from any problem. The rise of leftist block in South America, and the rise of Islamic resistance in sphere of Islam are some indications for such confrontation. In that regard, preventing the proliferation process of weapons of mass destruction appears to be a crucial issue for the Western countries. Since China and India are deemed as the major confronting forces, preventing the risk of a possible Eastern alliance is quite important to assert the political, economic and military superiority of the west whilst assuring the continuation of the existing contrasts amongst countries, regions, continents, and civilizations. Nevertheless, I dont think that bulk of muslim people living on earth really cares about how and why some Danish papers publish cartoons about Islam, and Mohammed. However, there is certain percentage of the muslim population, which are poorly educated, living in bad conditions, and living under the oppressive regimes supported by the west. Thus, it should be noted that the wars and crimes in Bosnia, Kosova, Chechnia, Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine certainly had an impact on the perceptions of these poorly educated people.
While the Western media promotes the idea of democracy and human rights, many could also blame the members of a whole relgion just becasue an individual kills a right wing director named Van Gogh. Conversely, they could all close their ears and eyes when some migrants were shot to dead by the French Police without any questioning, or when some migrant houses were set on fire by the racists and extremists . When the Spanish Forces shoot the refugees in Algerian desert, it is deemed as "protection of borders". However, when the CIA tortures people in the airzone of the EU, or sends people to their NAZI-style concentration camp in Cuba, it is not deemed as the violent tendencies of Christianity, but an indecent act of a super power. When those uneducated people walk on flags of some western countries, or when they plunder some western consulates, it is deemed as violence, untolerance, barbarity, and terror. However, when the US drops bombs on civilian targets and mosques with the help of Italian, Danish, Polish, and British troops, it is deemed as a war for democracy and human rights. In fact, evidencing such irrationale could go on forever since everyday, another act of hypocracy is deployed in the name of such universal notions that has never been exclusively European or the Western.
In conclusion, I believe that assessing and discussing all these conflicts are quite important to maintain the dialogue amongst confronting parties. Thus, rejecting to put the blame of our problems to certain group of people/nation/religion/block is crucial. NAZIs were not elected by the NAZIs, but by people who thought that the NAZIs had the keys to resolve their problems. Finally, let us all bear in mind that "terror of war" is the worst terror of all kind, and "decent boundries of freedom" is a concept that could only exist when it embodies free space to move for all the people living in the world. Respectfully, it is worthless when it is applicable only for some people who could accuse others for infecting their culture, life style and freedom by their very existence.
Edited by: JannissaryofByzantium at: 2/23/06 12:29 pm
TheKhun Registered User
Posts: 12
(2/23/06 4:23 pm) Reply
Re: well
I wonder why isn't there any freedom of speech for critising jewish genocide in eu ?
Re: well
The reason why you can't openly humiliate the Jews is that because laws were made to ensure you don't cross the line. So naturally for the culprits to choose an easier victim.
I'm sick of all the generalisation and I firmly believe the hate towards muslims is more prominent in Europe than that of muslims regarding Europeans. I know because I'm a resident of the middle east and know lots of Europeans. Then again isn't that to be expected from nations which destroyed 50 million lives of its own people a mere 60 years ago?
Re: well AZEM
I could care less what shirt meltdown wears or anyone else. This is about journalists slinging filth and insults at a major chunk of the world's population. Newspapers as all other forms of media are constantly censored for various offensive material yet when it's only offensive to Muslims it's ok to publish. Free speech has it's limits especially when what you're publishing is untruthful as well as insulting and provokative to others.
If the best two examples of free speech that you can come up with is the KKK and other white supremicy groups then I think there's a serious problem with your definition of freedom. Besides the KKK and the neo nazis aren't allowed to publish anything hateful, especially about the jews.
If you hate islam so much why dont you do something .
if everyone got so much beef with Muslims WHY dont you put us on ships and ship us to OUR native country?
and your making it look like muslims are the worst,
No matter how many people muslims kill it will never equal to how many people the CHRISTIAN and Orthodox Nazi's and Russians Killed, Simple.
well AZEM
.. Learn to realize that nobody has to give your gods the respect you give them. Face it and come to terms with it. I dont care at all about any of your doctrines and myths. Believe in whatever may help you sleep at night, but you weakness as a human to accept life as it as, and your inferiority and need to have some happy eternal existance doesnt effect me whatsoever, in short, YOU Dogmas are YOUR. That being said, I will proudly wear my mohammed being mocked shirt. Maybe I will go to a designer and put something that makes fun of Jesus too. Its just my right, get over it. One right that doesnt exist is the right to dictate, muslims cant understand this because the world is full of it. 
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies