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...
daUbiq wrote: » They had soldiers in Iraq during the second gulf war and in Afghanistan...
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.
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.
Dan_Solo wrote: » 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.
conorhal wrote: » Which is why the gunman targeted a Danish Politician before storming a military base...
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.
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.
Dan_Solo wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bob24 wrote: » 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?
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.
Egginacup wrote: » 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.
Egginacup wrote: » 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.
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.
Egginacup wrote: » 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
Although 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."
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.
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.
Egginacup wrote: » 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."
