| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Free" to shout "FIRE" in crowded theatres?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


"Free" to shout "FIRE" in crowded theatres?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 05:05
Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

it seems everyone has gotten off the subject. What limits should there be on "freedom" and who should determine them? If freedom is an ideal, it seems to me that the Hippies of the 1960's showed us how to achieve it and it didn't turn out so well!


If the hippies controlled the world we'd be just fine. In fact we'd all be a great deal happier. The problem wasn't with the hippies and their shameless idealism, it was with reality and the established power structures.

Certain freedoms must be suppressed in order for man to function and live in relative peace and harmony with his compatriots. Without the sacrifice of some of your natural liberty, you will have no safety. Citizens in democratic states get to decide how big that trade off will be - be that a strong welfare state versus complete economic liberty, or an authoritarian state versus complete personal liberty. But one thing is clear; with anarchy comes death, and lots of it. So most people would determine the limits of liberty as that which guarantee's the optimal personal safety and the optimal personal liberty, an equilibrium of grey areas.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 05:10
Quote Citizens in democratic states get to decide how big that trade off will be - be that a strong welfare state versus complete economic liberty, or an authoritarian state versus complete personal liberty.


We do?  Almost 50% of us don't actually vote and  for the ones who do, there's no such choice when they go to the electoral booth.  It's just a choice about which bunch of f**kwits, so far removed from reality, waste our money on what useless causes and favour which vested minority interests. 

Edited by Zagros - 05 Oct 2012 at 05:10
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 07:55
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Quote Citizens in democratic states get to decide how big that trade off will be - be that a strong welfare state versus complete economic liberty, or an authoritarian state versus complete personal liberty.


We do?  Almost 50% of us don't actually vote and  for the ones who do, there's no such choice when they go to the electoral booth.  It's just a choice about which bunch of f**kwits, so far removed from reality, waste our money on what useless causes and favour which vested minority interests. 


Well, to be honest I don't really regard people who don't vote or really care about politics as active citizens, more like passive civilians. Furthermore no political party will do anything unless it has a substantial base of support within the country. Thatcher changed Britain because Britons were fed up with trade union militancy, economic sclorosis and general mismanagement. Atlee changed Britain because Britons were fed up with aristocracy, poverty, and economic slavery. So to say that the political system in western countries isn't representative of the wishes of the citizenry is counter-factual to be honest, a rather lazy indulgence in the common saloon bar prattle of 'they're all the same'.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 09:15
How convenient.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 14:49
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

But does Germany today launch drone strikes in America, France or the UK which kill handfuls, tens and scores of innocent people at a time?  Does germany or japan occupy any Western nation to control its resources for geostrategic purposes?

I think that if it did - especially given its history - you would find the tolerance for any German transgression, however minor, very thin indeed.  In fact, when Germany did do those things there were active armed rebellions against it and its interests globally were a target for its enemies, nation states or partisans or insurgents, militatns and terrorists as they are called today.

I think you might need to reread my post to which you responded in full.  especially the latter part of the last paragraph.
 
Yes, there are things to demonstrate against. But the issue here is free speech, and this includes both responsibility along with freedom- there is always a balancing act. When people take to the streets, and advocate, or even act out violence, at the very least they should know exactly what they are demanding.
 
If it is an end to drone strikes, that has some validity. But that is not what is being demanded in the streets currently. Further, such demonstrations against drone strikes would also be productively aimed towards the Pakistani government, a full partner (and brother Muslims) in these actions.
 
If it is the US lust for oil resources in the region that is the irritant, that is also valid, but again, the sweep of history can be cruel and capricious towards human values. The US is now most heavily involved in the Gulf states (after an ignominious exit from Iraq), who have solicited a US presence due to the fear of the nutbar regime in Iran. Where exactly to throw those rocks, and hurl those burning tires?
 
What those in the streets are saying, and what I'd say many actually believe, it that dirt has been kicked onto their belief system. A deeper translation might go like this: They dimly perceive that a desparately needed existential balm; an all important paradigm that adds meaning to an otherwise drab life, has been challenged in some way, one that just may have the tragic consequence of exposing said all important system as being less than one had hoped for, perhaps much less, perhaps not even valid. When something all important is threatened with removal, primal urges can immerge.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 18:37
I don't know what your point is, but mine is simple and it was in response to CXI; People don't like their sh*t being messed with.  It is human nature.


Edited by Zagros - 05 Oct 2012 at 18:37
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 18:54
Going back to the main point - for me this is not about free speech, I am not suggesting legislation against this but I am encouraging condemnation, rebuttal and ridicule of it in the strongest terms in the same way as you would see for anti-semitic or racist cartoons.  People should be free to do it, but likewise they should be made to feel like the assholes they are, not martyrs for the cause of free speech. What a joke, if that's what it's all about I encourage them to go to Iran or Saudi to make their point.  What's that? No? Didn't think so...
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2012 at 20:32
Thank you both Zagros and Omar for your explanations. I can definitely see the logic behind what you are saying. Having had an opportunity to digest it, I now have more questions. And these specifically relate to Zagros' summation of the situation: 'people don't like their sh*t being messed with'.

Recently with the release of that video, there was a demonstration in Sydney. It turned violent, much more so than we are used to in this country. One person who turned up at the protest to protest against the violence was in turn attacked by the Muslim protestors and and had to be escorted away under police guard for fear of their safety. Police officers received a mauling and I was dismayed that the organisers of the protest failed to restrain the more radical elements present.

What made it even more ridiculous, and Omar has astutely pointed this out, is that regarding the video in question the US government has outdone itself in being sensitive and respectful of Muslims. They condemned it immediately and even went to the effort of requesting youtube take down the video. No insignificant thing for the government of a society which prides itself in freedom to speak freely and offend.

Moving beyond that, how do you decide when someone is messing your sh*t up? What classifies the sh*t being messed up as 'your' sh*t? And if something is happening to sh*t that is yours, what exactly designated the action as 'messing up'?

Not too long ago the eastern half of the island of Timor was given independence from Portugal. Indonesia promptly gobbled it up, committing widespread human rights abuses and slaughtering a hefty percentage of the population over the course of a quarter of a century which on a proportional basis would rival some of the worst ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 20th century. Australian sympathies were for the Timorese, who had readily helped Australian soldiers in defending the island during WWII, and consequently suffered retribution from the Japanese when the island was conquered anyway. But it was the mid 70s now, the Vietnam War had just been definitively concluded on losing terms, and neither the Australian nor (more importantly) the American publics were willing to provide for another southeast asian war.

In the early 2000s, after enormous loss of Timorese life, the Indonesian position in East Timor had become increasingly untenable and was compounded by Indonesia's own political instability and regime change. As a referendum was held, the Timorese turned out in overwhelming numbers to vote for independence. This was despite huge risks to personal safety as the Indonesians had been handing out assault rifles to anyone willing to support Indonesian overlordship. The vote was overwhelmingly for independence. And so for no better reason than sheer spite, the Indonesians mobilised the local militia and had them brutalise the local population.

The UN intervened and Australia, to its credit, actually stepped forward to play a leading role in restoring order in the new nation by providing peace keepers. And it was for this 'slight' that a few years later the Sari Club in Kuta in Bali was bombed by Islamist extremists. Many of the bombers were Indonesian, a great many came from other parts of the Muslim world, and they received plenty of assistance from Muslim militants thousands of kilometers away. The end result of this attack on a tourist spot was over 200 killed, including 88 Australians. But the bombers, so far as they were concerned, were exacting retribution on those who had attacked a Muslim nation. Subsequent interviews have revealed how the cohesion between bombing participants was cemented along religious lines, and the disregard for those killed further fuelled by relegating them to the 'other' category reserved for worthless unbelievers.

So for spurious reasons of secular interest, 200 innocent people had to die after a concerned neighbour merely dared to provide peace keepers to a newly independent country which had suffered a quarter century of tremendous victimisation. And it seems plenty of members of the ummah thought this to be a just cause, to the point sophisticated paramilitary support was mobilised to launch a surprise attacks on civilians.

At the gist of this example, what I am really trying to work out is if we are dealing with a group of people who are responding normally to the circumstances they find themselves in, or whether we are actually dealing with a group of people who possess a really warped ideology that causes them to behave in a way which is so unreasonable that attempting to accommodate them is simply impossible and stupid.

In the same way I am sure we can sympathise 1930s Germans lamenting the extensive loss of territory they suffered after Versailles, I think we also need to recognise when we are dealing with Nazis and absolutely refuse to accommodate their much more extreme agenda.


Edited by Constantine XI - 05 Oct 2012 at 22:39
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2012 at 12:26
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Going back to the main point - for me this is not about free speech, I am not suggesting legislation against this but I am encouraging condemnation, rebuttal and ridicule of it in the strongest terms in the same way as you would see for anti-semitic or racist cartoons. People should be free to do it, but likewise they should be made to feel like the assholes they are, not martyrs for the cause of free speech. What a joke, if that's what it's all about I encourage them to go to Iran or Saudi to make their point. What's that? No? Didn't think so...

This is exactly my position too.

Quote Recently with the release of that video, there was a demonstration in Sydney. It turned violent, much more so than we are used to in this country. One person who turned up at the protest to protest against the violence was in turn attacked by the Muslim protestors and and had to be escorted away under police guard for fear of their safety. Police officers received a mauling and I was dismayed that the organisers of the protest failed to restrain the more radical elements present.

The violence of said protest has been massively overstated. It wasn't even the most violent confrontation with police on that day.
However these people are "angry in sympathy". It's cool to hate America see, there just a dumber version of the people you find in the Socialist Alternative groups at universities. They think their being "pious" to the "cause" doing such things. They're like extremely bureaucratic muslim hipsters. Bloody irritating, very thick. Learn their religion off the internet. They are better explained in terms of Australian dickheadery than by middle eastern dickheadery. I'd expect most of these people are born & raised in Western Sydney.
Quote Australian sympathies were for the Timorese, who had readily helped Australian soldiers in defending the island during WWII, and consequently suffered retribution from the Japanese when the island was conquered anyway. But it was the mid 70s now, the Vietnam War had just been definitively concluded on losing terms, and neither the Australian nor (more importantly) the American publics were willing to provide for another southeast asian war.

Australia and America supported and encouraged the Indonesian invasion to ensure communist Fretland didn't take control. DSD actively helped the Indonesian military locate and eliminate Fretland forces, and ASIO tracked down their supporters in Aus. But anyway...
Quote The UN intervened and Australia, to its credit, actually stepped forward to play a leading role in restoring order in the new nation by providing peace keepers. And it was for this 'slight' that a few years later the Sari Club in Kuta in Bali was bombed by Islamist extremists. Many of the bombers were Indonesian, a great many came from other parts of the Muslim world, and they received plenty of assistance from Muslim militants thousands of kilometers away. The end result of this attack on a tourist spot was over 200 killed, including 88 Australians. But the bombers, so far as they were concerned, were exacting retribution on those who had attacked a Muslim nation.

I have never heard this before and I don't believe it either. Even if they have said so themselves.

I'm certain it was a copy-cat attack fueled by disapproval of the alcohol and debauchery at the night club. Besides, I wouldn't read too much into the actions of a handful of radicals. Is there a reason Brevik shot up the young labour camp? These people don't obey normal human emotional responses so there's no point trying to overanalyse it.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 06 Oct 2012 at 12:54
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2012 at 14:14
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Going back to the main point - for me this is not about free speech, I am not suggesting legislation against this but I am encouraging condemnation, rebuttal and ridicule of it in the strongest terms in the same way as you would see for anti-semitic or racist cartoons. People should be free to do it, but likewise they should be made to feel like the assholes they are, not martyrs for the cause of free speech. What a joke, if that's what it's all about I encourage them to go to Iran or Saudi to make their point. What's that? No? Didn't think so...

This is exactly my position too.

 
I still don't buy it. I've seen, for example, cartoons here of Netanyahu sitting on, and squashing, a peace dove. Racist? Anti-Semetic? No, it was a lampooning of a politically extreme individual, who has taken postions that have held him open to controversy and negative commentary. This is not to say that Jews are against peace in any  sense of the term, but merely that there are some extremists that are making public noise in that direction, at least in the mind of the writer, who has the freedom to express his or her opinion in a free society. And indeed many of the cartoonists in this part of the world are quite finely attuned to the public sentiment on these matters. Those that make bold statements, or make bold actions in public must then accept that they will be held up to scrutiny.
 
So too with Muslims. Some have made the most extreme statements, and have taken violent actions. Hence, their beliefs and actions are open to commentary and analysis from the public in a free society. If a few Amish farmers started blowing themselves up with suicide bombs in this part of the world, they would also then become the focus of the media, and rightly so.
 
It is healthy to air these sort of events in public, rather than excluding them from debate or evaluation. There is no point in trying to go to Iran or Saudi Arabia to make these sort of points, because free speech is strongly suppressed in those places. It is exactly because we do not want to have the repression of those countries that we need to allow the sort of opinions floated in political cartoons to exist.
 
I have to say again that I detect a raw nerve here, in the sense that there is a belief system that some do not want to see challenged, and are enraged if it is. If this was about something entirely mundane, like dog training, or alumium siding installation, would there be such emotion? No, it's because this is about the threat of something valuable being taken away. If a cartoonist in some backwater location can take away, or somehow threaten one's beliefs, then that begs the question, are they really that well grounded?
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2012 at 20:18
When you are wise enough to be able to see yourself in another's position, then you'll understand.
Until then, just accept that other people do not think like you and do not accept your reasoning or assumptions.
 
Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

So too with Muslims. Some have made the most extreme statements, and have taken violent actions. Hence, their beliefs and actions are open to commentary and analysis from the public in a free society. If a few Amish farmers started blowing themselves up with suicide bombs in this part of the world, they would also then become the focus of the media, and rightly so.
I'm going to highlight this statement, because this is a very dangerous and extreme opinion. It has no place in a just society or a democratic nation. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 05:06
Muslims are not a monolithic group who all think the same and act the same, you should know better than that.  When you say Muslims, it's like saying Christians in the context of R Catholic paedophelia or Americans in the context of the Ku Klux clan.   But the bigger point is that when you paint a people with the brush used to tarnish Muslims then it becomes all the more desirable and acceptable to drop bombs on their heads.

Quote I still don't buy it. I've seen, for example, cartoons here of Netanyahu sitting on, and squashing, a peace dove. Racist? Anti-Semetic? No, it was a lampooning of a politically extreme individual, who has taken postions that have held him open to controversy and negative commentary.


This is not comparable.  If the subject was Osama bin Laden then it would be, and from what I know there have been plently of cartoons about him.


Edited by Zagros - 09 Oct 2012 at 05:09
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 06:16
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

it seems everyone has gotten off the subject. What limits should there be on "freedom" and who should determine them? If freedom is an ideal, it seems to me that the Hippies of the 1960's showed us how to achieve it and it didn't turn out so well!


If the hippies controlled the world we'd be just fine. In fact we'd all be a great deal happier. The problem wasn't with the hippies and their shameless idealism, it was with reality and the established power structures.
Yes, it was their rediculous ideals clashing with the real world, the one that necessarily has to be, that enabled society to sober up and move on.
 
The problem is that we had to back off in the direction of the old church and begin religious regression instead of moving on to an ideology that makes sense of it all and prepares us for the multiplying world problems we have and which will otherwise grow much worse.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 06:17
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Muslims are not a monolithic group who all think the same and act the same, you should know better than that.  When you say Muslims, it's like saying Christians in the context of R Catholic paedophelia or Americans in the context of the Ku Klux clan.   But the bigger point is that when you paint a people with the brush used to tarnish Muslims then it becomes all the more desirable and acceptable to drop bombs on their heads.

Consequently we don´t know how many are really offended by what some sees as great offenses, nor can we be sure how many see themselves as part of any worldwide "cause". There is no real "spokesmen" for the 1,5 to 2 billion muslims. If this is a wrong statements we can make some valid general statements after all.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 07:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

When you are wise enough to be able to see yourself in another's position, then you'll understand.
Until then, just accept that other people do not think like you and do not accept your reasoning or assumptions.
 
Wisdom flows, in my experience, from honest and open reflection about one's self, and the larger universe. It does not flow so well when certain topics are off the table, or are soon taken off when the going gets hot and heavy, because they are considered sacred, received wisdom, beyond understanding, outside of science, or in the realm of mysticism. This more often leads to dogma and stagnation. But we have been down this road before, and it became rocky, before ending abruptly.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

So too with Muslims. Some have made the most extreme statements, and have taken violent actions. Hence, their beliefs and actions are open to commentary and analysis from the public in a free society. If a few Amish farmers started blowing themselves up with suicide bombs in this part of the world, they would also then become the focus of the media, and rightly so.
I'm going to highlight this statement, because this is a very dangerous and extreme opinion. It has no place in a just society or a democratic nation. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
 
Dangerous and extreme? If a group of Canadians decided to revive the Inquistion, and acted out their "beliefs" in ways that were criminal, then they should, IMO, be open to both legal scrutiny, and also that of the media and the larger community. For such a group to claim immunity because that is just "the way they think", or because they have deep religious feelings, just does not cut it.
 
Most certainly, we all have different ways of thinking about things, and that diversity is good. It provides fuel for this forum, for example. However, we are all also responsible for the conclusions we come to, in the sense of having to logically defend said beliefs if we are to be taken seriously, and also accepting the consequences of our actions that flow from our beliefs. Those that advocate extremism and violence, and then find themselves condemned or ridiculed in public, need look no further than the mirror to find the person to blame.
 
The above hypothetical example does not of course cast a bad light on the other 34 million people in the country. However, all things are grist for the mill in a free society. If they were to continuously insist that they represent Canadian values and religious beliefs in their actions, then sorry folks, but that is then also open to public speculation and media coverage, and, perhaps even some cartooning. Saying OK, let's investigate their violent tendencies, but anything around Catholicism is out of bounds because that is religion, isn't good enough. It is part of their belief system, even if rather warped, and they have brought it out to the fore, and so it is fair game for the media spotlight. Many millions may shout that this is not what Catholicism is really about, and they would be right. But that's not the end of the story. Are there ways that such religious teachings contributed to said group, even if in very subtle ways? Maybe, or maybe not, but either way, investigation and dialogue on these issues should not be prevented in a free society.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 07:43
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Muslims are not a monolithic group who all think the same and act the same, you should know better than that.  When you say Muslims, it's like saying Christians in the context of R Catholic paedophelia or Americans in the context of the Ku Klux clan.   But the bigger point is that when you paint a people with the brush used to tarnish Muslims then it becomes all the more desirable and acceptable to drop bombs on their heads.

Quote I still don't buy it. I've seen, for example, cartoons here of Netanyahu sitting on, and squashing, a peace dove. Racist? Anti-Semetic? No, it was a lampooning of a politically extreme individual, who has taken postions that have held him open to controversy and negative commentary.


This is not comparable.  If the subject was Osama bin Laden then it would be, and from what I know there have been plently of cartoons about him.
 
Muslim extremists claim to be acting, in large part, in the name of religion. If Netanyahu claimed he was acting in the name of Yahweh and the chosen people, how do you think he would have shown up in that cartoon?
 
And again, to be clear, I am not saying all Muslims are the same, but that the tiny minority that advocate and act out violence deserve the media scrutiny they get. And if they insist religious belief is a driving force for them, then that also is fair game for the media.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2012 at 22:15
That's no the same again.  If the cartoon had Moses in it or something then it would be.  But in any case cartoons depicting Moses would also incite the radicals.

re: My point on classifying Muslims: it wasn't necessarily pointed at your comments.

This is relavant to the discussion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

Quote He said he did not think the message, which said "all soldiers should die and go to hell", was offensive.

Ahmed was also fined £300 at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court.

He will have to do 240 hours of community service over a two-year period.

When Ahmed was convicted in September, District Judge Jane Goodwin said his remarks were "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory".

If the precedent for limiting free speech is "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" then you have to be consistent and if you aren't then you are seen as hypocritical.

Edited by Zagros - 09 Oct 2012 at 22:17
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2012 at 15:14
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

That's no the same again.  If the cartoon had Moses in it or something then it would be.  But in any case cartoons depicting Moses would also incite the radicals.
 
Those that publically invoke political nonsense run the risk of public opposition and/or ridicule. Those that invoke philosophical nonsense run the same risks.
 
The rioters in the streets are saying, in effect: Give me a free pass. I have a way of looking at the universe, but I will not withstand debate or negative commentary on it. When I receive such feedback, it is threatening to my belief system, which is all important to me, and so my reaction, if need be, will be violent, in an attempt to reassure my sense of well being. Debate these things if you must, but give me free passage from intellectual debate.
 
As for Moses...........I am thinking of a couple of movies that have made the rounds in recent years in this part of the world. The first (a Canadian production) features Jesus on his second coming (Jesus of Montreal). He is soon usurpted by corporate interests, an becomes an unwitting salesman for said imperatives. The second features nuns (The Devils) who masturbate while fixated on images of Jesus, using crucifixes as handy instruments for the task. How's that for "derogatory, disrespectful, and inflammatory?" Both movies did well at the box office.
 
Let's face it Mr Z, what we are talking about here are raw nerves, rendered so by both geopolitical events, and not least by the mystical cravings of those that feel that they have (and in some cases really do have) little or nothing else in their life.
 
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


re: My point on classifying Muslims: it wasn't necessarily pointed at your comments.

This is relavant to the discussion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

Quote He said he did not think the message, which said "all soldiers should die and go to hell", was offensive.

Ahmed was also fined £300 at Huddersfield Magistrates' Court.

He will have to do 240 hours of community service over a two-year period.

When Ahmed was convicted in September, District Judge Jane Goodwin said his remarks were "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory".

If the precedent for limiting free speech is "derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory" then you have to be consistent and if you aren't then you are seen as hypocritical.
 
If I where Ahmed, I would appeal.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 10 Oct 2012 at 15:15
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 22:30
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:

The violence of said protest has been massively overstated. It wasn't even the most violent confrontation with police on that day.
However these people are "angry in sympathy". It's cool to hate America see, there just a dumber version of the people you find in the Socialist Alternative groups at universities. They think their being "pious" to the "cause" doing such things. They're like extremely bureaucratic muslim hipsters. Bloody irritating, very thick. Learn their religion off the internet. They are better explained in terms of Australian dickheadery than by middle eastern dickheadery. I'd expect most of these people are born & raised in Western Sydney.


I don't think it was massively overstated. I am aware of the drunken brawl in Perth on the same day. But I contend that drunken miscreants are far less likely to betray their compatriots in an act of terrorism than sober fanatics. Being drunk is a temporal senation which passes quickly; the hate which results from it is a 'hot' hate that cools quickly, as opposed to a 'cold' hate which remains whatever the person's circumstances. The Perth yobs will sober up and feel silly after, the fanatics remain a serious risk to the rest of the community.

I'm going to disagree and say that their dickheadery is decidedly non-Australian, even though most of them are Australian citizens. These people identify more closely with a religious group than their national group, and for that reason feel vindicated in lashing out at their national compatriots for the sake of their religious compatriots. This is simply not on.

Quote Australia and America supported and encouraged the Indonesian invasion to ensure communist Fretland didn't take control. DSD actively helped the Indonesian military locate and eliminate Fretland forces, and ASIO tracked down their supporters in Aus. But anyway...


There wasn't a huge alternative. At the end of the day that alternative did not arrive til the Howard era. And when it did, it was grasped.

Quote I have never heard this before and I don't believe it either. Even if they have said so themselves.

I'm certain it was a copy-cat attack fueled by disapproval of the alcohol and debauchery at the night club. Besides, I wouldn't read too much into the actions of a handful of radicals. Is there a reason Brevik shot up the young labour camp? These people don't obey normal human emotional responses so there's no point trying to overanalyse it.


That's strange, because it is the mainstream view of the reasons behind the terrorist attack.

I've heard the explanation that the reason behind the attack was Aussie tourist immorality. And I know it is a load of nonesense. Usually peddled by the ignorant, apologists or sympathisers.

There is a reason why the attacks occured within 12 months of both the Aussie interventions in East Timor and Afganistan. There is a reason why is occurred in Bali rather than far better targets in UAE for example. There is a reason why it occured in 2002 rather than the 30 odd years which preceded it where Aussies had been having libertine holidays.

Geopolitical reasons, facilitated and cemented by entho-religious affiliation which provided the logistical support so crucial to killing over 200 civilians.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2012 at 20:00
Quote I don't think it was massively overstated. I am aware of the drunken brawl in Perth on the same day. But I contend that drunken miscreants are far less likely to betray their compatriots in an act of terrorism than sober fanatics. Being drunk is a temporal senation which passes quickly; the hate which results from it is a 'hot' hate that cools quickly, as opposed to a 'cold' hate which remains whatever the person's circumstances. The Perth yobs will sober up and feel silly after, the fanatics remain a serious risk to the rest of the community.

I'm going to disagree and say that their dickheadery is decidedly non-Australian, even though most of them are Australian citizens. These people identify more closely with a religious group than their national group, and for that reason feel vindicated in lashing out at their national compatriots for the sake of their religious compatriots. This is simply not on.

I have never been drunk and rarely get angry, but a large group of hot headed people protesting over an emotional subject where a few of those people turn roudy is definitely a 'hot' hate. They claim they were provoked and baited by the police as well.
There is absolutely no comparision between this & terrorism. These people are a pain the arse, they're not a threat. Go & meet them if you think otherwise, the worst they'll do is write very long and eloquant essays in old-fashioned English which they'll distribute as flyers.

There is no comparision between religious identity and national identity. Only if the state persecutes religion could such a question be remotely relevant, and if that did happen you'd find millions of Australians choosing religion - I don't wish to live in a country that attacks me.

But frankly, I don't wish to defend them because I have much more reason than you do to dislike them. I'm quite happy for you to dislike them too, but do so for reasons that are actually true: that their hot-headed, bureaucratic pharisees. They're not a threat, there were 7 people charged, not to mention the people who turned themselves in or apologised.

Quote
There wasn't a huge alternative. At the end of the day that alternative did not arrive til the Howard era. And when it did, it was grasped.

...

That's strange, because it is the mainstream view of the reasons behind the terrorist attack.

I've heard the explanation that the reason behind the attack was Aussie tourist immorality. And I know it is a load of nonesense. Usually peddled by the ignorant, apologists or sympathisers.

There is a reason why the attacks occured within 12 months of both the Aussie interventions in East Timor and Afganistan. There is a reason why is occurred in Bali rather than far better targets in UAE for example. There is a reason why it occured in 2002 rather than the 30 odd years which preceded it where Aussies had been having libertine holidays.

Geopolitical reasons, facilitated and cemented by entho-religious affiliation which provided the logistical support so crucial to killing over 200 civilians.

I have spent a couple of hours reading and poking around to see if I can verify your view, and my East Timor history (is it history yet?). Mainly because I've never heard your view before and it has surprised me a bit.

Re East Timor: The fall of Suharto was what prompted the Indonesian government to instigate a referendum for independence. Australia - Howard & Downer - opposed full East Timorese independence even after the new Indonesian government were committed to it. They wanted a "New Caledonian" style solution where Indonesia retained suzerainty over an autonomous but not independent East Timor. Only after the Indonesians said they'd had enough & were leaving, and after they were unwilling to provide transitional security, did Australia commit forces to East Timor. Regardless of the position of the media, the Australian government always lobbied for Indonesian control.

It does not escape my notice that East Timor is now under Australian hegemony either. We are still ensuring our control over ET. The policy hasn't changed. Indonesia left the game and we were forced to find new methods.

Re Bali: I can't find anything suggesting a link between East Timor & Bali. 2002 is obviously not a random date, it is linked to september 11, and the climate of conflict & terrorism at the time. A nightclub is a bloody obvious target for extremists. It's a symbol of westernisation and immorality. I don't see why the reasons for bombing a nightclub in one place is different to any other. Of course they bombed it for what it represents! Why the hell else would you bomb a nightclub? I don't see why you think pointing out the bloody obvious is "ignorant, apologists or sympathisers". They went out to attack the mythical devil called "the West", so they attacked a symbol of "Westernisation". I fail to see the complication.

I also fail to understand how the UAE is an easier target than an Indonesian night club for a handful of Indonesians.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Oct 2012 at 19:44
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:

I have never been drunk and rarely get angry, but a large group of hot headed people protesting over an emotional subject where a few of those people turn roudy is definitely a 'hot' hate. They claim they were provoked and baited by the police as well.


Drunk is scientifically measurable. Emotional is not. We need to define what is sufficiently inappropriate as an object of violance. A random movie by a nobody that both US and Aussie politicians have called to be pulled down is no good reason to engage in violence towards other citizens and law enforcement officers.

As for being baited by police, it's he says she says. I can't see much reason for the officers to encourage violence.

Quote There is absolutely no comparision between this & terrorism. These people are a pain the arse, they're not a threat. Go & meet them if you think otherwise, the worst they'll do is write very long and eloquant essays in old-fashioned English which they'll distribute as flyers.


Hold on. I didn't compare the protestors to terrorists.

And I'm critical of the ones who begin violence. I have all the time in the world for ones who submit protests in old fashioned English.

Quote There is no comparision between religious identity and national identity. Only if the state persecutes religion could such a question be remotely relevant, and if that did happen you'd find millions of Australians choosing religion - I don't wish to live in a country that attacks me.


But what do you classify as persecution? If you're a Catholic, then surely if the government objects to the notion of Papal infallibility you should take up arms against the government. How about a government which allows religious iconography? Surely Muslims and Protestants should unite to overthrow a government so obviously hostile to their most sacred views?

Quote But frankly, I don't wish to defend them because I have much more reason than you do to dislike them.


In all sincerity, I totally believe you. I hate seeing members of my nominal demographics making dicks of themselves. Nasty perversions of German culture like the Nazis, overly effeminate and ridiculous gays who make up probably 5% of our population, poor whites of European descent on reality TV. It's all terribly embarassing.

Quote I'm quite happy for you to dislike them too, but do so for reasons that are actually true: that their hot-headed, bureaucratic pharisees. They're not a threat, there were 7 people charged, not to mention the people who turned themselves in or apologised.


I'm quite ready to dislike them for what they are: people who engage in violence during an otherwise totally legitimate protest which I can sympathise with. What I cannot understand is why members of that protest, who would otherwise have the support of the bulk of the population, failed to restrain these persons.

Quote I have spent a couple of hours reading and poking around to see if I can verify your view, and my East Timor history (is it history yet?). Mainly because I've never heard your view before and it has surprised me a bit.


Re East Timor: The fall of Suharto was what prompted the Indonesian government to instigate a referendum for independence. Australia - Howard & Downer - opposed full East Timorese independence even after the new Indonesian government were committed to it. They wanted a "New Caledonian" style solution where Indonesia retained suzerainty over an autonomous but not independent East Timor. Only after the Indonesians said they'd had enough & were leaving, and after they were unwilling to provide transitional security, did Australia commit forces to East Timor. Regardless of the position of the media, the Australian government always lobbied for Indonesian control.[/quote]

And yet Indonesia sponsored a militia to massacre thr Timorese anyway. They clearly didn't like the idea of an annexed group becoming independent, and decided to send a message to the other fractious Indonesian groups that the same would happen to them should similar circumstances arise.

Howard was prepared to be realistic regarding the internal affairs of Indonesia, but when the Indonesians themselves began a campaign of violence for no pragmatic reason other than to send a message to other Indonesian minorities that this is what would happen to them, it became clear that the helpless Timorese needed some guarantee for their safety. Their former masters had betrayed them.

Quote It does not escape my notice that East Timor is now under Australian hegemony either. We are still ensuring our control over ET. The policy hasn't changed. Indonesia left the game and we were forced to find new methods.


They are a tiny, new and poor country. You can hardly expect them to reach out to the nation which formerly was intent on masscacring them to provide them with a future. Australia will do the job.

Quote Re Bali: I can't find anything suggesting a link between East Timor & Bali. 2002 is obviously not a random date, it is linked to september 11, and the climate of conflict & terrorism at the time. A nightclub is a bloody obvious target for extremists. It's a symbol of westernisation and immorality.


No, that's not the point. If you read up on the bombing, you'll see that the purpose of the first bomb was to drive many patrons into the street. The second bomb was what killed most people, located within the street itself. The purpose of the bomb was to kill as many as possible who were from certain countries (if Indonesians die, that's ok, they are Balinese kaffirs anyway).


Quote I don't see why the reasons for bombing a nightclub in one place is different to any other. Of course they bombed it for what it represents! Why the hell else would you bomb a nightclub?


Because it's an easy target, because the collatoral damage are kaffirs, because a country which has been involed in not one but two extra territorial actions against Dar-al-Islam will be harmed by it.

Quote I don't see why you think pointing out the bloody obvious is "ignorant, apologists or sympathisers". They went out to attack the mythical devil called "the West", so they attacked a symbol of "Westernisation". I fail to see the complication.


Because we need to dsitinguish between those who have genuine greivances and those who do not.

Quote I also fail to understand how the UAE is an easier target than an Indonesian night club for a handful of Indonesians.


Because 90% of the people in UAE are Westerners, and the area is more compact and therefore more likely to deliver superior return on investment for a correct bomb strike.



Edited by Constantine XI - 24 Oct 2012 at 19:48
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.