There is almost a guarantee that hardline anti-immigrant parties are going to take power in France and other European countries and if this is not brought under control Muslims, most of whom will be innocent, are going to be slaughtered.
I never come on to Whipping Post but clicked on the wrong button today!
There is so much that is wrong with the above. I assume you are a US citizen and are used to the US two-party electoral system. Most European countries are not like this: take France, since that is the country in question. Ironically, this IS similar to the US model with a lower and upper chamber and a president with the possibility that different parties may hold sway in each. Power has traditionally been passed between the Republican Party (Right, conservative) and the Socialist Party (Left, radical).
However, parties such as the Communist Party and the National Front at the extremes of the spectrum have had sizeable and influential representation. There is a rising Green (Ecology) movement in Europe generally and other small parties are represented.
In other words, there is pluralism and diversity of parties which has a restraining effect on any ruling party. Many countries - including the UK - are governed by coalitions of parties.
It seems likely that the anti-immigration National Front will increase its share of support at future elections. But enough to "take power"? Unlikely and certainly not, as explained above, enough to hold unbridled power. So the mechanisms are there to ensure that it will be "brought under control".
There is also the European Parliament, of which France is a leading member, which also has the power to impose legislation upon the (28?) member countries, on a democratic basis, of course.
Even if the National Front were to have absolute control, how the hell do you make the leap to "Muslims are going to be slaughtered"?!
France and Europe are civilised places. The idea that anyone is going to be slaughtered on a random and sectarian basis is, to me, unthinkable.
You may say that there is a fairly recent precedent in the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. France may not be a model of ethnic integration and racism is a problem, but I cannot envisage a scenario where the population is slaughtering one another on any scale.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by Shavian]
France and Europe are civilized places? As a member of a people of whom 6 million were slaughtered by the civilized Europeans not even 70 years ago, pardon me if I don't buy it. Europe is always civilized....until it's not. That's my only point. If it reaches the point where it's submit or die, Europeans will not be the ones dying and as always happens in European wars, many innocents will be victims.
Shavian, agreed. But the terrorist groups don't represent Islam, no more than the KKK and the Nazis represent Christianity. Like you said, the terrorists are just bad people using religion as an excuse to do bad things. But it is true that the majority of Muslims are offended by images of Moahamed. Despite being offended, they will not be violent in return, but I bet it would cause animosity towards those that printed the picture, just as any of us would be offended and angry at a burning cross in our neighborhood. We don't kill KKK members, just as the majority of Muslims are not violent, but wouldn't we prefer that they respect our wishes and not burn crosses in our neighborhood?
I never understood this point. The Jihadists (which is what they are) claim they represent Islam. I know not all members of the faith agree with them but who are you or President Obama to tell them "no you are wrong. You don't represent Islam." Further more this use of the KKK and Nazis? The Nazi analogy is a good one in the sense that the Jihadists are much like the Nazis were in the early days. But when did the Nazis or KKK ever claim to represent Christianity as the Jihadists claim to represent Islam? The Nazis most ASSUREDLY did not. As fo the KKK they may have burned crosses but I think we know they represented White supremacy not the Christian faith. There is no comparison and as much as liberals would like it to be true, there is no threat comparable to the Jihadist threat right now by a magnitude.
[Edited on 1/15/2015 by dougrhon]
So we either eliminate all Muslims, or ignore them and stop poking the tiger. Which one is more plausible? I sure hope the next person to taunt Islam thinks first about the innocent people who might be killed. And I hope they are being honest...are they truly fighting for free speech or are they antagonizing a group of people out of disdain?
I am surprised you would take this position. If it comes to this we have to eliminate all Muslims, not from the earth, but from Western society. We simply cannot let a foreign culture antithetical to our liberal values intimidate us into changing those values. They can kill blasphemers in their own society. Just not here. Hopefully it won't come to that. And it's much less true in the United States than in Europe.
So we either eliminate all Muslims, or ignore them and stop poking the tiger. Which one is more plausible? I sure hope the next person to taunt Islam thinks first about the innocent people who might be killed. And I hope they are being honest...are they truly fighting for free speech or are they antagonizing a group of people out of disdain?
I am surprised you would take this position. If it comes to this we have to eliminate all Muslims, not from the earth, but from Western society. We simply cannot let a foreign culture antithetical to our liberal values intimidate us into changing those values. They can kill blasphemers in their own society. Just not here. Hopefully it won't come to that. And it's much less true in the United States than in Europe.
And I am surprised you would make such a dopey response to a dopey point. There will NEVER come a time we will have to get rid of all Muslims. Its this kind of post that gets a certain poster saying those outrageous things about you because you should know better than to even offer such a preposterous scenario.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/opinion/obeidallah-al-qaeda-hypocrisy/index.html
Who's killing Muslims?
By Dean Obeidallah
Updated 11:33 AM ET, Thu January 15, 2015
(CNN)—We have all seen a great deal of hypocrisy from politicians, pundits and the like. But there's a new king of hypocrisy: al Qaeda.
On Wednesday, al Qaeda released a video featuring Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi, one of its top commanders in Yemen, claiming responsibility for the horrific attack last week on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. He gave two reasons for the attack.
First, he claimed it was in revenge for Charlie Hebdo's printing of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed. Al-Ansi then went on to state in much greater detail that the attack was in response to France and the West killing Muslims: "We will tell you once again ... stop spilling our blood." And then he urged Muslims across the world to "take vengeance for Muslim blood spilled."
Well, if spilling Muslim blood is the deciding factor for us Muslims to decide who we should take vengeance against, then al-Ansi and others in al Qaeda should immediately go into hiding. Simply put, al Qaeda has been slaughtering Muslims for years. Islamic clerics, doctors, nurses, women, children, etc. -- you name any type of Muslim, and al Qaeda has butchered them.
In fact, a report released in 2009 by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point documented the people killed by al Qaeda between 2004 and 2008. It found that only 12% of the victims of al Qaeda were Westerners. That suggests that al Qaeda has killed seven times as many Muslims as non-Muslims. And these attacks were just the ones for which al Qaeda had publicly claimed responsibility.
And since that report, al Qaeda in Yemen has engaged in even more vicious attacks on Muslims. Keep in mind that 99% of the population of Yemen is Muslim (65% Sunni and 35% Shia) so with a few exceptions, virtually every person the group kills there is a Muslim.
In December 2014, for example, an al Qaeda bomb killed 15 children and 10 adults when the bus they were on was blown up by an al Qaeda car bomb intended for a competing militia leader in the area.
This attack followed another in which al Qaeda sent a suicide bomber into a crowd of protesters in the nation's capital, killing 47 people and injuring 140.
And back in December 2013, al Qaeda launched an attack on a hospital, killing 52 people and wounding 167 with two car bombs before gruesomely shooting patients and doctors in the hospital.
The list goes on, but al Qaeda is not alone in killing Muslims who stand in its way. ISIS has done the same in Iraq and Syria.
A U.N. report released late last year found that ISIS had killed thousands of Muslims -- both Sunni and Shia -- between July and September of that year. This includes the slayings of three nurses in Mosul, Iraq, because they refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters. ISIS also killed numerous Sunni imams for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS, and beheaded another Sunni leader for refusing to support the group.
And the reality is that that's truly what al Qaeda and ISIS are about. They are not about the concept of "submit to Islam or die," as some have claimed. It's submit to ISIS/al Qaeda or die. Both organizations clearly don't care how many Muslims they kill. Yet at the same time they will both claim they are carrying out their actions in the name of Islam. In fact, al-Ansi stated in Wednesday's video that the terrorist brothers who carried out the attack on the Charlie Hebdo officers were "two heroes of Islam."
He couldn't be more wrong.
But that isn't to say there weren't heroes of Islam in Paris that day -- it's just that they are two quite different people.
Ahmed Merabet was the French police officer shot in cold blood while lying on the sidewalk by the so-called "heroes of Islam." As his brother stated at a press conference, Merabet was a proud Muslim who gave his life defending French values of "liberty, equality and fraternity."
And there was Lassana Bathily, the Muslim employee at the kosher deli in Paris who reportedly saved the lives of seven Jewish patrons by helping them hide when Amedy Coulibaly entered the store with guns blazing. Bathily's actions exemplified the famous Quranic verse, "Whoever saves one -- it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."
Obviously, calling out the hypocrisy of al Qaeda and ISIS won't change these organizations' goals -- they will continue to invoke Islam as cover for their political ambitions because it helps them entice new recruits and raise funds which are vital for their continued existence.
But maybe if their hypocrisy is consistently laid bare then it might help all understand the true motivation of these terrorist groups and hopefully even give pause to any Muslims thinking of joining their un-Islamic cause. After all, al Qaeda and ISIS aren't interested in upholding the principles of Islam. They are focused only on power, however many Muslim lives they take.?
Calm down tbomike. Neither point is dopey since we're only discussing hypothetical philosophies, not realistic policy.
Doughron, the KKK and skinheads may not be perfect examples but the point is obvious. Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church is a better example. They have every right in the world to do what they do, just as we have a right to print cartoons of Mohamed. But each is a hostile act, and not a sincere exercise of free speech. I realize the difference between us and jihadists is that we don't kill WBC members in return, but wouldn't the world be a better place if the WBC just stopped doing it and kept their drivel in a private church so it's not broadcast for everyone to see? Let's say the WBC boycots a marine's funeral, and a fellow soldier is pushed to the limit and severely beats a WBC member. Who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
The religion of Islam gives them the right to fight when someone attacks the religion or them because of their religion
No, it does not.
How the Prophet Muhammad Dealt with Insults
Muslims who respond to the likes of “Charlie Hebdo” with violence need to consult the Qu’ran.
by Harris Zafar
Wednesday’s brazen attack in the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo has left many people the world over shocked, saddened, and even infuriated. As the smoke cleared and we learned that 12 people were killed at the hands of three individuals wearing commando uniforms who brandished automatic weapons that were fired indiscriminately at the office, we were left with the horrific reality that these individuals were killed for the single fact that they used their free speech to publish provocative content.
As a Muslim, I was left having to grapple with — and answer — questions about the Islamic stance towards free speech and whether this attack is a natural consequence of mocking or abusing Muslim sentiments.
Many of us are no strangers to Charlie Hebdo, which has worked its way into controversy for some years, especially after choosing on multiple occasions to publish insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad with the expressed intention of offending Muslims. And, of course, if Charlie Hebdo has the right to insult, then Muslims have a right to feel offended. But the question becomes how Muslims should react and respond to this offense?
As hurt as I was to learn that 12 people lost their lives (and 12 families lost loved ones) due to this unjustifiable and unconscionable terrorist attack, I also experienced anger when I learned of the response of a known radical cleric in the United Kingdom named Anjem Choudary. This obscure leader of a tiny group of radical Muslims has spouted off some of the most despicable words one could imagine and appears hell-bent on intentionally maligning the Islamic faith and its prophet.
Why should I care about his article? Well, in less than 12 hours of being published, it had already been shared on social networks nearly 8,000 times, with 300 comments posted by readers. This obscure, insignificant lunatic has a platform and his voice is being heard. In his rant, he claims, “Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression,” alleging that anyone found guilty of abusing the Prophet Muhammad will receive “capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.”
Purporting to be an Imam, he did not make even the slightest hint that there was anything wrong with commandos brutally killing these people. Instead of expanding on how Islamic scripture explicitly instructs Muslims to respond to insulting speech, Choudary concluded, “It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.”
In truth, it is time for radical hate-mongers like Choudary, who clearly have no true attachment to God or the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to be confronted by the true teachings of Islam. Islam offers the balanced approach, instructing believers to self-govern their own speech but also how to respond to unseemly speech.
The Qur’an strongly discourages indecent behavior and speech, or the hurting of others’ sensitivities, regardless of whether it is done with or without a “valid” reason. Prophet Muhammad called his followers to human decency, integrity, and sensitivity through self-restraint — a virtue that encompasses forgiveness, patience, abstention from injury, truth, sweetness of speech, benevolence, and freedom from malice.
But Islam does not support people who violently censor free speech. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Qur’an both through direct instruction as well as recalling how Muhammad was insulted to his face and never retaliated. The Qur’an records that he was called crazy, a victim of deception, a liar, and a fraud. Through this all, the Prophet Muhammad never retaliated or called for these people to be attacked, seized, or executed. This is because the Qur’an says to “overlook their annoying talk” and to “bear patiently what they say.” It instructs us to avoid the company of those who continue their derogatory attacks against Islam. There simply is no room in Islam for responding to mockery or blasphemy with violence.
But perhaps most pointedly, the Qur’an tells believers not to be provoked by those who seem to attack Islam, stating very clearly “let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice.”
This is supported by the actions of the Prophet Muhammad himself. When he was once returning from an expedition, an antagonist used insulting words against him. Although a companion suggested that the culprit be killed, the Prophet Muhammad did not permit anyone to do so and, instead, instructed they leave him alone.
How tragic that some so-called Muslims have forsaken the words of the Qur’an and the prophet they claim to somehow defend. Muslims are not allowed to respond with violence. Rather, they must have the same courage as the Prophet of Islam to face such insults in the eye and respond with forbearance and calm, righteous speech.
So when you hear lunatics such as Anjem Choudary claim that people who mock Islam must be killed, tell him to go read the Qur’an and educate himself on the faith to which he claims allegiance but of which he remains ignorant.
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/01/08/how-the-prophet-muhammad-dealt-with-insults/35723
If they left Muhammad and the religion of Islam out of it, no one would feel that their religion was being attacked. Why do they need to use Islam as a topic? The current magazine that came out today is offensive because it is saying that the Je Suis Charlie organization forgives the people who became upset and bombed the office. It is suggesting the French can forgive being bombed and even Muhammad is upset and crying because Charlie's offices were bombed.
Muhammad especially fought infidelity and corruption of religion more than any other prophet. His relaitves were from the Quraish, that is how he was raised, yet they became an idolatrous people, and when the truths were revealed to him, he had to separate from them taking only those willing to fight for their religion, the correct religion.
I saw another cartoon which I mentioned with 3 martyrs arriving in heaven asking for their reward and then God holds up a sign that says Je Suis Charlie, meaning that they would not get the reward they thought they would because God turned out to have joined the other side. As though God would change himself for any secular law or culture of a country - no he would not.
Charlie Hebdo needs to leave religion out of their cartoons and then the 'terror' responses to them would stop. Free speech is fine, leave Islam out of it, because Islam is a religion of manners, and free speech has no rules, anything goes.
It is quite easy to label those defending their religion and their prophets, and God himself as being terrorists, these terrorists are willing to die for what they believe in. Everyone came from God, which is why they feel empty when they have enough money, women, and worldly possessions, they still feel empty and do not know why. The reason is all these things are temporary, they pass away, they are not eternal. Only God is eternal and those who will be with him. Mankind will always have the longing for eternity, because God wants you to reach out to him and get to know him and his ways, not having that is where the emptiness comes from.
Here's one: if nobody ever drew a picture of Muhammad back in the day ... how would anybody know what he looks like to draw a picture of him now? How would you know that the person in the drawing is (or is supposed to be) Muhammad?
Muhammad has been described in hadiths (which are sayings and ways of the prophet and peoples back in the days he was alive), Bukhari, Muslim etc. Much like Jesus was described so that people would know what he looks like, and he looked Palestinian, I came across a wild video recently where someone says that they channeled him and asked him questions, if it is true he mentioned that he actually has brown eyes, that is one thing history got wrong about him.
I just want to say that making fun of God or any of the prophets and messengers is offensive to many religions, and the Muslims do believe in the other prophets like Moses, Noah etc. They are the one faith that maintains reverence for ALL the prophets and messengers.
[Edited on 1/16/2015 by gina]
He told me he had blue eyes.................. 😛
I've been up all night listening to Mohamed's radio.
Mohammed - Muhammad ... is this the same guy? Koran - Quaran? No wonder they're so effin' confused!
[Edited on 1/16/2015 by Rusty]
I would love to hear responses to my earlier question: if a soldier assaults a WBC member for protesting his friends funeral who died in combat, who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
I would love to hear responses to my earlier question: if a soldier assaults a WBC member for protesting his friends funeral who died in combat, who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
_________________________________________________________________
Keyword: "assaults".
What crosses the line in freedom of expression and who decides what that line is?
Enter common sense.
I would love to hear responses to my earlier question: if a soldier assaults a WBC member for protesting his friends funeral who died in combat, who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
The Pope, himself touched on all of this in a clip shown on the NBC news last night. He pretty much acknowledged, "fighting words" - in the translation, he said, "if someone says something bad about my mother, they're liable to get punched ...".
The (over)reaction of the radicals against Charlie Hebdon was simply a violation against laws. You can't go around punching people or assaulting their workplaces with automatic firearms just because something that they've done has offended your sensibilities - including religious sensibilities.
The Westboro folks are a bunch or radicals themselves. Yes, as per the Pope - if they protest the funeral of an American military hero (or really anybody else), they're subject to any type of reaction. If someone punches them - or shoots them, then they're in violation of a law.
Over the years, I have questioned "right to free speech issues" on this side - often taking side with a person who has somehow offended the masses with nothing but words - who then lost their job. It has been explained to me then that we do indeed have free speech, but it often comes with consequence.
It has been said that our government itself doesn't punish those who offend with words or statements. But I've read of folks who get audited by the IRS -seemingly out of the blue after making offensive or wild and off the cuff remarks.
Did I ever tell you that I am a HUGE fan of the IRS? 😉
So we either eliminate all Muslims, or ignore them and stop poking the tiger. Which one is more plausible? I sure hope the next person to taunt Islam thinks first about the innocent people who might be killed. And I hope they are being honest...are they truly fighting for free speech or are they antagonizing a group of people out of disdain?
I am surprised you would take this position. If it comes to this we have to eliminate all Muslims, not from the earth, but from Western society. We simply cannot let a foreign culture antithetical to our liberal values intimidate us into changing those values. They can kill blasphemers in their own society. Just not here. Hopefully it won't come to that. And it's much less true in the United States than in Europe.
And I am surprised you would make such a dopey response to a dopey point. There will NEVER come a time we will have to get rid of all Muslims. Its this kind of post that gets a certain poster saying those outrageous things about you because you should know better than to even offer such a preposterous scenario.
Why don't you criticize the post instead of the poster? That seems to be a difficult thing to do.
[Edited on 1/16/2015 by dougrhon]
Calm down tbomike. Neither point is dopey since we're only discussing hypothetical philosophies, not realistic policy.
Doughron, the KKK and skinheads may not be perfect examples but the point is obvious. Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church is a better example. They have every right in the world to do what they do, just as we have a right to print cartoons of Mohamed. But each is a hostile act, and not a sincere exercise of free speech. I realize the difference between us and jihadists is that we don't kill WBC members in return, but wouldn't the world be a better place if the WBC just stopped doing it and kept their drivel in a private church so it's not broadcast for everyone to see? Let's say the WBC boycots a marine's funeral, and a fellow soldier is pushed to the limit and severely beats a WBC member. Who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
I mean let's be real. The root of the problem is Muslim intolerance. You are discussing two different things. One is civility. The other is legality. I am a civil person. I would never deliberately offend someone else just for the sake of doing so. All parents have a responsibility to teach their children civility if they want to raise decent humans. But that's not what we are talking about here. The Muslims (not all, the ones we are speaking of) are the least civil people on earth. They rail against anyone not like them in the harshest most vicious terms even when they are not killing. Have you read some of the things they say about Jews? They are the ones provoking reaction. Moreover, in a free society like ours it is VITAL that all expression even the most noxious speech be FULLY protected. There is NO PLACE in our society for any criticism of speech in the face of a violent attack. It is the role of government to prevent the attack not the speech.
And the last point which is an important one is that you must stop comparing Muslim grievance to our reaction to Westboro or the KKK. Those things are highly noxious. Charlie is pretty noxious and not particularly satirical (though its still nto comparable to Westboro or the KKK). But the Jihadists regard ANY negative commentary or expression about their faith as beyond the pale. They don't see a difference between a novel by Salman Rushdie, low end cartoons, legitimate commentary highlighting negatives about Islam or even real history that makes Mohammed or the faith look bad. They tolerate NONE of it. In their own lands these are crimes punishable by death or severe penalty. Here we must NEVER tolerate even a creeping thought that this is acceptable. Of course we already do, not just with Islam but with all sorts of other politically correct notions. The very idea of speech being a "hate crime." is a terrible slippery slope that will inevitably lead to the erosion of the right of free expression as it is already doing in Europe and on American campuses. It must not be allowed to continue.
I would love to hear responses to my earlier question: if a soldier assaults a WBC member for protesting his friends funeral who died in combat, who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
The soldier is the proximate cause of the soldier's attacking somebody. We are human beings who have control over our actions. So are Muslims. They are not enraged bezerkers incapable of self-control.
So we either eliminate all Muslims, or ignore them and stop poking the tiger. Which one is more plausible? I sure hope the next person to taunt Islam thinks first about the innocent people who might be killed. And I hope they are being honest...are they truly fighting for free speech or are they antagonizing a group of people out of disdain?
I am surprised you would take this position. If it comes to this we have to eliminate all Muslims, not from the earth, but from Western society. We simply cannot let a foreign culture antithetical to our liberal values intimidate us into changing those values. They can kill blasphemers in their own society. Just not here. Hopefully it won't come to that. And it's much less true in the United States than in Europe.
And I am surprised you would make such a dopey response to a dopey point. There will NEVER come a time we will have to get rid of all Muslims. Its this kind of post that gets a certain poster saying those outrageous things about you because you should know better than to even offer such a preposterous scenario.
Why don't you criticize the post instead of the poster? That seems to be a difficult thing to do.
[Edited on 1/16/2015 by dougrhon]
Umm, calling it a dopey post IS criticizing the post and not the poster.
doughron, I agree with everything you said. We absolutely should be able to say offensive things, and not have any type of violent consequence - key word there is "should". "Should" is similar to "in a perfect world", so I don't think it's reasonable to behave as if we live in a perfect world. Instead, we should behave as if we live in the actual messed-up world we live in. The reality of our world is that there are psychopaths in every country. Therefore, like Rusty pointed out, as did the Pope, provoking people is wrong, and sometimes the root of the problem. I think there are ways to criticize Islam without taunting and provoking. Since you mention civility, the way I see it, taunting and provoking isn't civil. When discussing important controversial topics like Islam, we should raise our own expectations and refrain from uncivilized taunting, and instead criticize it in a mature manner. I don't believe that is censorship. And of course anyone who responds to offensive material with violence, especially murder, must be held accountable.
On a side note, I'm under the impression that some states might hold the taunter accountable in an assault case. Even if the other person punches first, I believe an overt taunt to fight denies the taunter the right to be a victim, or claim self-defense. I'm not positive, but I could swear I read that somewhere.
doughron, I agree with everything you said. We absolutely should be able to say offensive things, and not have any type of violent consequence - key word there is "should". "Should" is similar to "in a perfect world", so I don't think it's reasonable to behave as if we live in a perfect world. Instead, we should behave as if we live in the actual messed-up world we live in. The reality of our world is that there are psychopaths in every country. Therefore, like Rusty pointed out, as did the Pope, provoking people is wrong, and sometimes the root of the problem. I think there are ways to criticize Islam without taunting and provoking. Since you mention civility, the way I see it, taunting and provoking isn't civil. When discussing important controversial topics like Islam, we should raise our own expectations and refrain from uncivilized taunting, and instead criticize it in a mature manner. I don't believe that is censorship. And of course anyone who responds to offensive material with violence, especially murder, must be held accountable.
On a side note, I'm under the impression that some states might hold the taunter accountable in an assault case. Even if the other person punches first, I believe an overt taunt to fight denies the taunter the right to be a victim, or claim self-defense. I'm not positive, but I could swear I read that somewhere.
I understand the 'should' be able to part, but why do people want to?
Just to prove they follow no rules, or laws. They do whatever they want?
When they know it is hurful to other people. Are they just Godless, evil or ignorant? In the case of the cartoons, they were asked to stop and told it was offensive. Yet they believed that insulting and hurting people was acceptable, where is their moral compass?
By the way, as I mentioned in the centcom thread and it should have been put here, Ayman Al Zawahiri calls for attacks against the west because of insulting the Prophet. Al Qaida funded it.
http://www.arabnews.com/middle-east/news/689346
By the way the movie about Chris Kyle comes out today. He killed more than 150 people in Iraq, just because he was given a hit list and told to do so. That's our foreign policy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/03/sniper-chris-kyle-shot-dead
One other thing, if you think that the punishment for saying things against the Prophet has been too severe, you may want to help out this guy and save him from more lashings in Saudi Arabia.
Breaking news: Flogging of Raif Badawi has been postponed on medical grounds. More details soon. #FreeRaif
(twitter)
There is almost a guarantee that hardline anti-immigrant parties are going to take power in France and other European countries and if this is not brought under control Muslims, most of whom will be innocent, are going to be slaughtered.
I never come on to Whipping Post but clicked on the wrong button today!
There is so much that is wrong with the above. I assume you are a US citizen and are used to the US two-party electoral system. Most European countries are not like this: take France, since that is the country in question. Ironically, this IS similar to the US model with a lower and upper chamber and a president with the possibility that different parties may hold sway in each. Power has traditionally been passed between the Republican Party (Right, conservative) and the Socialist Party (Left, radical).
However, parties such as the Communist Party and the National Front at the extremes of the spectrum have had sizeable and influential representation. There is a rising Green (Ecology) movement in Europe generally and other small parties are represented.
In other words, there is pluralism and diversity of parties which has a restraining effect on any ruling party. Many countries - including the UK - are governed by coalitions of parties.
It seems likely that the anti-immigration National Front will increase its share of support at future elections. But enough to "take power"? Unlikely and certainly not, as explained above, enough to hold unbridled power. So the mechanisms are there to ensure that it will be "brought under control".
There is also the European Parliament, of which France is a leading member, which also has the power to impose legislation upon the (28?) member countries, on a democratic basis, of course.
Even if the National Front were to have absolute control, how the hell do you make the leap to "Muslims are going to be slaughtered"?!
France and Europe are civilised places. The idea that anyone is going to be slaughtered on a random and sectarian basis is, to me, unthinkable.
You may say that there is a fairly recent precedent in the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. France may not be a model of ethnic integration and racism is a problem, but I cannot envisage a scenario where the population is slaughtering one another on any scale.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by Shavian]
France and Europe are civilized places? As a member of a people of whom 6 million were slaughtered by the civilized Europeans not even 70 years ago, pardon me if I don't buy it. Europe is always civilized....until it's not. That's my only point. If it reaches the point where it's submit or die, Europeans will not be the ones dying and as always happens in European wars, many innocents will be victims.
Many of us would doubt any claims to civilisation from a country that allows it's citizens to carry a gun to the supermarket.
There is almost a guarantee that hardline anti-immigrant parties are going to take power in France and other European countries and if this is not brought under control Muslims, most of whom will be innocent, are going to be slaughtered.
I never come on to Whipping Post but clicked on the wrong button today!
There is so much that is wrong with the above. I assume you are a US citizen and are used to the US two-party electoral system. Most European countries are not like this: take France, since that is the country in question. Ironically, this IS similar to the US model with a lower and upper chamber and a president with the possibility that different parties may hold sway in each. Power has traditionally been passed between the Republican Party (Right, conservative) and the Socialist Party (Left, radical).
However, parties such as the Communist Party and the National Front at the extremes of the spectrum have had sizeable and influential representation. There is a rising Green (Ecology) movement in Europe generally and other small parties are represented.
In other words, there is pluralism and diversity of parties which has a restraining effect on any ruling party. Many countries - including the UK - are governed by coalitions of parties.
It seems likely that the anti-immigration National Front will increase its share of support at future elections. But enough to "take power"? Unlikely and certainly not, as explained above, enough to hold unbridled power. So the mechanisms are there to ensure that it will be "brought under control".
There is also the European Parliament, of which France is a leading member, which also has the power to impose legislation upon the (28?) member countries, on a democratic basis, of course.
Even if the National Front were to have absolute control, how the hell do you make the leap to "Muslims are going to be slaughtered"?!
France and Europe are civilised places. The idea that anyone is going to be slaughtered on a random and sectarian basis is, to me, unthinkable.
You may say that there is a fairly recent precedent in the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. France may not be a model of ethnic integration and racism is a problem, but I cannot envisage a scenario where the population is slaughtering one another on any scale.
[Edited on 1/14/2015 by Shavian]
France and Europe are civilized places? As a member of a people of whom 6 million were slaughtered by the civilized Europeans not even 70 years ago, pardon me if I don't buy it. Europe is always civilized....until it's not. That's my only point. If it reaches the point where it's submit or die, Europeans will not be the ones dying and as always happens in European wars, many innocents will be victims.
Many of us would doubt any claims to civilisation from a country that allows it's citizens to carry a gun to the supermarket.
Or a country that stole vast amounts of land from the native population out of pure greed. And enslaved millions of people because of the color of their skin.
US soothes France and its victims with the sweet sounds of JT while the terrorists plot their next move.
[Edited on 1/18/2015 by OriginalGoober]
What an absurd dog and pony show; makes up nothing for diplomatic blundering
I want to point something out. Most people have only looked at the 'terrorists' response to the cartoons (the attack in Paris). People say they are radical. But the mainstream Muslims in Saudi Arabia have carried out flogging and imprisonment in Raif Badawi for insulting the Prophet.
The terrorists shoot.
The mainstream Muslims flog and imprison.
Raif Badawi was imprisoned for his website that advocated separating religion and state. Something the US did long ago when it became a secular society.
The world doesn't know what to do about these terrorists who will shoot, bomb etc if you insult the Prophet or religion of Islam. Countries can declare themselves SECULAR states/societies, and continue doing what they do with ONE CONCESSION, no worldly distribution or magazines, movies, news articles that insult any of the Prophets, religions. SIMPLY PUT, LEAVE RELIGION OUT of it. Let people go to their houses of worship and live their lives in accordance with their religious doctrines.
France already forbid the wearing of Muslim veils in public, they announced they did not want Muslims in their country because the Muslims beliefs were in opposition to French culture. This happened under Sarkozy's administration.
NO STATE, not FRANCE, not the US has the right to tell Muslims or Jews or anyone else HOW to practice their religion. JUST LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF IT and then the only opposition will come from the holy war activities of inspired fighters trying to take down secular states to establish a caliphate. That war is happening and will continue until Judgement Day, you can't avert that. All the rest of these problems CAN BE AVERTED.
Cartoonists - No religious jokes.
Comedians/Comediennes - No religious jokes.
News Media/TV - No religious attacks, jokes in print, videos, movies.
SECULARISTS have no more right to impose their will on relgion guided people, than the religion guided people have to try to strong arm, and force conversion on secularists. They can offer, invite, but that is all. Forced conversion is a lie and is not conversion at all. It is just deception to avoid beheading or punishment.
France already forbid the wearing of Muslim veils in public, they announced they did not want Muslims in their country because the Muslims beliefs were in opposition to French culture. This happened under Sarkozy's administration.
This is nonsense! When did France announce that they did not want Muslims in "their country"?
Assuming that they had, what have they done to enforce such a law?
The government banned the wearing of the burka in public on the grounds that - in their opinion - it was in breach of their laws on gender equality; it was seen as a sign of woman's subservience.
As a woman, I assume you would approve.
Similar bans exist in other European countries and regions so France is not isolated.
...Cartoonists - No religious jokes.
Comedians/Comediennes - No religious jokes.
News Media/TV - No religious attacks, jokes in print, videos, movies.SECULARISTS have no more right to impose their will on relgion guided people, than the religion guided people have to try to strong arm, and force conversion on secularists. They can offer, invite, but that is all. Forced conversion is a lie and is not conversion at all. It is just deception to avoid beheading or punishment.
ACHTUNG, baby!
I would love to hear responses to my earlier question: if a soldier assaults a WBC member for protesting his friends funeral who died in combat, who is the root of the problem in that altercation?
The soldier is the proximate cause of the soldier's attacking somebody. We are human beings who have control over our actions. So are Muslims. They are not enraged bezerkers incapable of self-control.
Amen. The idea that "they made me do it" from anyone over the age of six, especially when we are talking about murder, is ludicrous.
doughron, I agree with everything you said. We absolutely should be able to say offensive things, and not have any type of violent consequence - key word there is "should". "Should" is similar to "in a perfect world", so I don't think it's reasonable to behave as if we live in a perfect world. Instead, we should behave as if we live in the actual messed-up world we live in. The reality of our world is that there are psychopaths in every country. Therefore, like Rusty pointed out, as did the Pope, provoking people is wrong, and sometimes the root of the problem. I think there are ways to criticize Islam without taunting and provoking. Since you mention civility, the way I see it, taunting and provoking isn't civil. When discussing important controversial topics like Islam, we should raise our own expectations and refrain from uncivilized taunting, and instead criticize it in a mature manner. I don't believe that is censorship. And of course anyone who responds to offensive material with violence, especially murder, must be held accountable.
On a side note, I'm under the impression that some states might hold the taunter accountable in an assault case. Even if the other person punches first, I believe an overt taunt to fight denies the taunter the right to be a victim, or claim self-defense. I'm not positive, but I could swear I read that somewhere.
You are incorrect in the last paragraph. The only exception would be if the "taunter" threatened physical violence to the extent that the attacker reasonably believed he needed to defend himself. There is no doctrine that would hold a "taunter" responsible for violence somebody else visited on him.
