ForumsX
The forums of StarCraftLive.net


top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

vb_bullet.gif ForumsX > General Discussion > General Discussion > The boycott of Danish wares and burning of flags.
Search this Thread:

newthread reply General Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

The boycott of Danish wares and burning of flags.  Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
folder icon   02-11-2006, 07:02 PM
Post #71
Black~Enthusiasm

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,982 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by .uber
to tack on some more to the responses to "we haven't done shit to them"

Granted there are many MANY things we have done in the past, but I think the biggest on-going slap in the face to the muslim world is our unabashed support of Israel (such a touchy subject that I will say no more on it).


Indeed. I dont care one bit about Israel, the Jews, or the Holocaust. But I'm abashed at the cencorship and double-standards and sensibility surrounding those subjects. There should be no sacred cows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machead
Didn't do shit to them?!

See, this is why it's impossible to have an argument with so many right wing Americans, they just blatantly ignore FACTUAL HISTORY. What about the fucking IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR?! What about the FUNDING OF SADDAM? Or of Al-Queida for fucks sake?!

What an IMBOCILE.

That's not to say that you're not right about the fact that the Muslim world has been oppressed by it's leaders a great deal. Like all regions of the world, where there has been economic growth, there has been class oppression. But that's beside the point.

I see what you're getting at here though, in your simple minded little bigotted way. The Western world simply would not react like this. There is no denying that, and many Islamic countries do have horrendous human rights records and do not honor freedom of speech or even basic civil rights.

Why?

Well, isn't it obvious? Religion! Be it Christianity, Islam or whatever, no matter how many coincedental benefits religion may have, it's impierliast nature inevitably leads to this kind of behaviour.

Europe had the reneissance, and a series of left wing revolutions that reshaped the politicals of the continent from religious monarchies to secular republics. America was founded on this deology, even if it is beggining to digress.

The fact is, the Islamic world never had a renaissance. Athiesm and secular philosophy has left most Islamic countries almost untouched.

I mean, I have many Muslim friends and all the respect for the Muslims of the world, but I'll be honest, the relationship between religion and politics in much of the Islamic world is practically stone aged.

But then, they were tasteless cartoons, with no pupose other than to provoke anger, and in no way reflect the true teachings of Islam. But their stupidity PALES in comparison to the downright heinous behaviour of many protesters.

To any of those protesters who might be reading, whom I predict there to be none, what do you make of this Iranian cartoon?

Quote:

As far as religion being the reason the muslim world has reacted violently, that may be a contributing factor (after all, they are reacting about a cartoon depicting their religious figure), but I don't think that's it. After all, it's not like once the Rennisance and Enlightment happened the West no longer had conflicts - the two biggest wars were fought over nationalism, not religion. It's almost like there's this space in human beings that needs to be filled with something whether it's religious fervor, cultural spirit, or nationalism.

====
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaotica
However, nationalism can be made like religion by a strong person. There's not that much difference between believing in your fhrer and believing in a prophet/other religious leader. (Yes, there is a difference between their backgrounds, but both can lead 'their' people right into a lot of bloodshed)

Religion is to blame, as well as nationalism and the stubborn believe of almost all my fellow human beings that the human race is divided in other races and that those 'races' should stick together. Chauvinism makes me sick, patriotism deserves bashing and nationalism shouldn't come near me, risking being justly blamed for (almost) everything.




Why yes, you've put your finger right on it. To all of you, like machead, who would blame the influence of religions for the ills of mankind, do not undereastimate the influence of mankind over religion. For religion, like any other ideas and concepts, is what we decide it is. If christian nations are the peaceful, tolerant places that they are today, do not congratulate Christianity, but insteed, thanks the people who made it happen. As such, the responsability fall overwhelmingly on our shoulders. And understanding this, I'd say, muslims have failed, and they deserve the intelorence and mistrust that they're enduring right now.
Quote:

Anyway, it's also not like the West (and by the West right now I mean the United States) has any legitimacy as a moral authority that can tell peoples, nations, etc. how to act. We sponsored state terrorism throughout the 20th century and continue to do so (we enlisted Pakistan's help in Afghanistan and simply looked to the other way in their terrorist activities against India). We have our own gigantic list of human rights abuses (Jose Padilla case is perhaps the most visible current one), and we don't even have to get into the civil rights history stuff with women, african americans, and now gay men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no America-hater. I think this country has stood and can stand for incredible things, but it's just the hypocracy that kills me.

Hypocracy? There is no morality outside of the State, praticaly no rules. There is insteed a void, which is filled by the States' personal interest. If you want to understand the USA, or any other country, understand their interests, and you'll have no more surpises. A State doesn'T have to justify itself, other than by "I can do it, its for my own good. Step aside".

I know is overly simple, and I know its fucking wrong, but as far as I know, thats how it work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Muslims value free speech, but like i said its not an entitlement to plain bashing. You can criticize someone, you can say link islam with terrorism, as many have done before and lo no gigantic protests. So B~e, how do you answer to that? You can talk about how they *seem* to be hypocritical, yet there has never been a very large reaction to normal "Islam causes terrorism" comments by political figures. The large reaction is caused by the giganto slap in the face insult of their religion.

For an atheist, agnostic or any other westerner, they would not care or understand one bit about how a muslim might be offended. You talk about freedoms, yet you're hurting people. It's just feeding the image of Christian West and Muslim ... Middle? The newspapers that are reprinting the cartoons arent helping, and the crazy guys burning embassies arent helping. I don't see any moral high ground from defending the "freedom of speech". I mean, there's KKK in Canada, but you dont see them publishing shit (the stuff they do print is made to look moderate to pass the censorships), why? Because crazy oppressive Canada restricts the right of expression.

There's no point in so-called freedoms if you're just free to bash each other to the point of violence.

EDIT: Oh i just thought of a good example... lets say i walk up to a woman and said something like
"Hey you know what wife stands for? Washing, ironing, f-"
*WHAM* i get hit in the face

So unexpected! Where's my freedom of expression?


EDIT: Oh hey, and while im at it, B~E, about the hypocracy thing

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_reed/20060206.html

Quote:
There's an ironic and telling footnote to the "freedom of the press" issue that westerners seem to feel is at the heart of this whole matter. It involves the same Danish paper. It seems that, back in 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted cartoons that lampooned Jesus. The paper refused to publish them and here's how the editor explained his decision:

"I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore I will not use them" Maybe Shakespeare applies at least on this point when he wrote, "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark."


In the first page of the topic, I said that this newspaper, being private, has the right to print whatever they wish to. The fact that they printed cartoons of Mohamed, and not cartoons of Jesus or of Jews means that they may have a double-standard, indeed, but it doesn't matter: like I said, they're free to print what they want. We're not here to make a trial of intention now, are we?

For we shouldn't be wondering why they printed it, but we should be wondering if they had the right to.
Quote:
Muslims value free speech, but like i said its not an entitlement to plain bashing. You can criticize someone, you can say link islam with terrorism, as many have done before and lo no gigantic protests. So B~e, how do you answer to that?

It only became plain bashing because the muslims wanted to. I never said they didn't have the right to decid it was plain bashing. Like I said in the first page, everyone as the right to be offended by whatever they want, its their decision, however idiotic, retarded and moronic it may be. Take me for exemple: I'm a Catholic, but I choose to value freedom of expression enough not to care when a newspaper printed a cartoon of the Pope as a Nazi, and when my Church is depicted as a nest of pedophiles in the Medias. I dont care, because I have the choice not to take it personaly, and I certainly dont.

Now, the link between terrorism and Islam, the cartoonists didn't made it up. They're not bright enough for that, else, they wouldn't be cartoonists. This link is being drawn every day by the so called minority of fundamentalists. YEt, there was never any row over them. Why is that? The so called silent majority of peacefull, moderate muslims, what the fuck are they doing? Where is the "Muslims against Terrorism Parade"? Like I said above, religion is what we decid it is. And muslims can't seem to be able to reform their religion. They're miserably failing at it, even in the West.

Knowing that, why would I want my society, my culture, to become even more tolerant, to sacrifice another bit of freedom on the altar of multiculturalism, simply because THEY aren't tolerant enough? If there is a cartoon contreversy, it is because they made it happen, it is because they cannot take a fucking joke. Its fine by me, like I said, they're free to cry about it, but there is no goddam fucking reason why we should accomodate and apease them and change ourselves and how we function as a society, when there never was any sign of accomodation, of tolerance and of sensibility from the other side.

This all seem to me like a one sided relationship, and, ironicaly, strenght is on our side: we have no reason to accomodate anyone, other than we desire it. And right now, I dont see any reason why we should desire it. They're burning ambassies? Torching down our flags? They're making economical sanctions against small, insignificant country like Danemark over what one ndependant newspaper printed, for crying out loud! Great! They're free to do so, and I'm glad they're showing their true color. And maybe there is a larger group of moderates that disaprove this, but until they get up their collective asses, I'll know who's in charge, and who's truly representing who.

Last edited by Black~Enthusiasm on 02-11-2006 at 07:44 PM.
Posts: 4,982 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-11-2006, 10:10 PM
Post #72
Urin_BloodfaceII

Demi-God


Avatar

Joined: Jul 14 2001
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 7,905 pospospos

Just a comment : There isnt a country that isnt a hypocite, it jsut shows bigger when the country is big and supposedly " powerful".

__________________
http://www.ted.com/ - be better.
Posts: 7,905 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-11-2006, 11:12 PM
Post #73
Black~Enthusiasm

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,982 pospos

There are no hypocritical countries. There are only people who do not understand them.

Posts: 4,982 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 10:58 AM
Post #74
Machead
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2001
Posts: 1,071 pos

What B~E says is not wrong, but I'm not talking about state conflict, I'm talking about cultural clashes rooted in religious tension. Monotheistic religion is nothing but social imperialism, very different, but equally as destructive, as state imperialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Why yes, you've put your finger right on it. To all of you, like machead, who would blame the influence of religions for the ills of mankind, do not undereastimate the influence of mankind over religion. For religion, like any other ideas and concepts, is what we decide it is. If christian nations are the peaceful, tolerant places that they are today, do not congratulate Christianity, but insteed, thanks the people who made it happen. As such, the responsability fall overwhelmingly on our shoulders. And understanding this, I'd say, muslims have failed, and they deserve the intelorence and mistrust that they're enduring right now.

I blame the ills of mankind not on the superficial manifestations of religion, but on the philosophy behind it. You're right, it would be naieve to blame orgniased religious insitutions or specific religious beliefs for the worlds problems, but that's not what I'm hitting at.

Ignorance or refusal of scientific or historical fact, exceptionism, the philosophy of assumed superiority and of assuming knowlege of that which is unknown. These are core concepts and key contributing factors to the worlds various ills.

"There can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven."

Posts: 1,071 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 01:53 PM
Post #75
Urin_BloodfaceII

Demi-God


Avatar

Joined: Jul 14 2001
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 7,905 pospospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
There are no hypocritical countries. There are only people who do not understand them.


hmm ...






























gay.

__________________
http://www.ted.com/ - be better.
Posts: 7,905 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 02:12 PM
Post #76
Avathar

Overlord


Avatar

Joined: Jan 08 2005
Location: The Netherlands Status: Tulip.
Posts: 5,720 pos

I waited two minutes for an image to appear. Then I realised there wasn't an image. Damn you Urin.

__________________
Wij zijn hier op deze wereld om te zondigen en zo God te verheerlijken. - Harry Mulisch

Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves. - Robert Anton Wilson

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Gustav Jung

Like a dream where you've lost all your fear. - Mark Olivier Everret (Mr. E)

Dominator of Spong of Monkeyent.

Tulip. - Avathar
Posts: 5,720 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 02:57 PM
Post #77
.uber

Lore Geek


Joined: Jan 27 2001
Posts: 615 pos

B~E: Hypocracy? There is no morality outside of the State, praticaly no rules. There is insteed a void, which is filled by the States' personal interest. If you want to understand the USA, or any other country, understand their interests, and you'll have no more surpises. A State doesn'T have to justify itself, other than by "I can do it, its for my own good. Step aside".

I know is overly simple, and I know its fucking wrong, but as far as I know, thats how it work.


----

Well, that's the current administration's approach, and I'd say the conservative approach in general. I think a liberal approach is to not focus on national self-interest but rather on national and global responsibility - huge overgeneralization there but, well, whatever.

And regarding there being no such thing as hypocrisy, I do not agree. I'm clearly showing my true colors here (as if I haven't already), but I do believe that there are some within the administration that were eager to get into Iraq for reasons that were not given; that the main reason espoused was not actually "to bring democracy into the middle east" but rather to assert global US hegemony. That is hypocrisy from my perspective. Though I can imagine how someone else might not see it that way.

Or what about an even more recent example. If the US is a country that stands up for free speech, why was Cindy Sheehan arrested at the State of the Union address for wearing a T-Shirt with an anti-war message? She wasn't making a scene, just wearing a shirt, and she got ARRESTED. Not removed, nobody asked her to put her jacket back on, she was cuffed and held for hours before the police admitted fault and let her go. Y I K E S.

__________________
.uber
Posts: 615 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Post #78
Anderu
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 20 2005
Posts: 659 pos

Play nice now people. The stakes aren't high, this is an internet discussion forum. No need to start yelling and screaming.

I think my major problem with the riots is that, in my eyes, these people need to rethink their priorities. There's so much bullshit in their countries, but this is what pisses them off. Not something that's done to their people, to their rights, but something that's done to a religious icon.

Posts: 659 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-12-2006, 04:09 PM
Post #79
Darkwolf

Overlord


Joined: Jan 14 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA USA
Posts: 6,506 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by .uber

Or what about an even more recent example. If the US is a country that stands up for free speech, why was Cindy Sheehan arrested at the State of the Union address for wearing a T-Shirt with an anti-war message? She wasn't making a scene, just wearing a shirt, and she got ARRESTED. Not removed, nobody asked her to put her jacket back on, she was cuffed and held for hours before the police admitted fault and let her go. Y I K E S.

I'd like to think that's more of an issue with the current administration than with the US itself, but I can't say that for sure.

Anyway, I never claimed we did nothing to Muslim countries; but I did certainly claim their reaction was much too strong for the circumstances. As B~E said, to put it in perspective, their reaction was quite ridiculous. Would we do the same about any topic? I can't think of one. Certainly not our leaders, they're mocked that way daily (by us). Religion? Certainly no sacred cow. Minorities? Yes to a degree, but it's an utterly different issue.

__________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
Arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still a 'tard.
Posts: 6,506 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 01:47 AM
Post #80
.uber

Lore Geek


Joined: Jan 27 2001
Posts: 615 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkwolf
their reaction was quite ridiculous.

If by 'their reaction' you mean violence, then I'm in agreement that their reaction was reprehensible, but if by 'their reaction' you mean outrage, protest, etc. then I am not in agreement at all, and in fact, my main concern is this business of telling them how they're allowed to react, which I see as just as racist as the original cartoon.

__________________
.uber
Posts: 615 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 04:01 AM
Post #81
Darkwolf

Overlord


Joined: Jan 14 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA USA
Posts: 6,506 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by .uber
If by 'their reaction' you mean violence, then I'm in agreement that their reaction was reprehensible, but if by 'their reaction' you mean outrage, protest, etc. then I am not in agreement at all, and in fact, my main concern is this business of telling them how they're allowed to react, which I see as just as racist as the original cartoon.

(obviously i'm being intentionally inflammatory as to provoke responses)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B~E
They're making economical sanctions against small, insignificant country like Danemark over what one ndependant newspaper printed, for crying out loud!

My point remains. And racist? Certainly not. Racial distinction has absolutely nothing to do with what I think of anyone's response to this, it could easily be about Catholics, Chinese, or Australians, overreaction is overreaction. Violence, economic sanctions are simply over-the-top for such a small slight by an insignificant group.

__________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
Arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still a 'tard.
Posts: 6,506 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 06:23 AM
Post #82
VeeGee

Grrrr!


Avatar

Joined: Jan 17 2001
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 3,287 pospospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Indeed. I dont care one bit about Israel, the Jews, or the Holocaust. But I'm abashed at the cencorship and double-standards and sensibility surrounding those subjects. There should be no sacred cows.


I agree with you, as a Jew. Rhetorically, there should be no double-standards surrounding those subjects. In reality, one cartoon of a fat greedy and thorny Jew brings back the horrors our nation suffered not too long ago and the steps that led to the rise of Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yes, we're an over sensitive people, paranoid and suspicious of antisemitism a little too much and a little too often. I say those shackles should be broken, but hey, as long as the world is filled with xenophobes a sacred cow is a matter of perspective.

I don't think the world understands that we're not ONE people. Yet. If you step on someone's toe, he's going to shout. No matter if he stepped on yours first, because when it hurts, it hurts.

I do believe it was blown out of proportion, but perhaps not to such an extent when the entire world of Islam feels threatend and humiliated constantly by the west. The tension is so big that any small thing, so small as Muhammed's cartoon, could ignite such a large wave of rioting and protesting is not without reason, and is probably only the beginning.

Oh, and only because it's my bag of beans, the claims that this is all a Jewish conspiracy is beginning, as protested by the Palestinian's authority ambassador in the States. He said to an interviewer that the Likkud party are responsible for the cartoons through the Jewish world wide connection. The interviewer in response said, 'You are joking, right?'.

__________________
Why won't someone quote me for a change?
CowUltrapunk: i was making love to a java program
dimitri583: i suck dick for food
Posts: 3,287 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 11:21 AM
Post #83
K0d0

Night Elf Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2001
Location: Sweden!!!
Posts: 1,899 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machead


Well, isn't it obvious? Religion!

Is it really that obvious? Centuries ago, the Christian world was in much the same throes as the Muslim one and i think we would have reacted just the same way just a century and a half ago if we had been put in the same situation as they have.
Granted, the fundamental teachings of the Koran makes Islam harder to debate and change and thus their society has alot harder to morph the same way as ours did over the ages.

__________________
Teehee.
Posts: 1,899 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 11:30 AM
Post #84
Machead
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2001
Posts: 1,071 pos

Yeah... exactly. This is a symptom of all religions.

Posts: 1,071 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 12:55 PM
Post #85
Anderu
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 20 2005
Posts: 659 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by K0d0
Granted, the fundamental teachings of the Koran makes Islam harder to debate and change and thus their society has alot harder to morph the same way as ours did over the ages.

Right, because anyone who 'debated' wasn't thrown on the flames.

My country was basically formed with the blood caused by the conflict between calvinists and catholics. Calvinists are still christians, but they were killed for minor differences. The muslims, to me, seem far more civil than the christians ever were (or will be). The difference is, people won't accept the christians acting like that anymore, which is pretty much the only reason they don't.

Posts: 659 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 02:22 PM
Post #86
Gaggin

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: May 03 2001
Location: Manexico, VA
Posts: 4,665 pospos
Velentris on Shadowsong

Jesus fucking Muhamed Christ, why am I labeled a "RIGHT WING AMERICAN" every time I say something that contrary to the anti-American rhetoric? Maybe Machead, JUST MAYBE the reason why you can't argue with them because you are wrong. I'm not saying the U.S. hasn't done any fuckups, I'm not say we're perfect little angels...

... but I will say that, especially compared with what we've done elsewhere, WE HAVEN'T DONE SHIT TO THEM. Okay, so we funded Saddam to balance out the Communist presence. BIG DEAL. We didn't tell him to go invade and massacre people, we just wanted to make sure Communism didn't spread to Iraq. It's something we've done many times in the Americas and the East, but very rarely in Iraq, and the result was pretty much harmless comparatively.
Let's see, what else did we do? Oh, yeah, we support Israel. Tell, how did this hurt the Syrians, or the Egyptians, or the Saudis, or the Iraqis, or the Iranians? Oh wait, IT DIDN'T. THE ONLY THING THAT HURT THEM WAS THEIR MANY DECLARATIONS OF WAR AGAINST JEWS. Yup, that was it. Don't you remember, it was THEM who started those conflicts? Come on, they don't even acknowledge their right to exist. So yes, we support Israel's right to survive, and even though we also support the Palestinians just as much(as well as the Egyptians and Jordinians and Saudis, at least financially), I guess we do support the right for them to live and exist.

What I'm trying to get at here is that if their biggest complaint is that we wouldn't let them kill the Israelis, then I'm sorry, they're in the wrong here, not us. They just plain react violently to everything, including problems between themselves. It's not our fault they didn't have a "renaissance" and didn't update their philosophical outlooks on life.

Let me just clarify something about terrorism and the U.S. support of "State-sponsored terrorism." The U.S. doesn't support terrorism, and the claims that you point out where we do support terrorism actually isn't terrorism at all. You see, terrorism is the use of threats and violence against a State or people in order to coerce or intimidate them for political and ideological reasons, usually through attacks on civilians. When we supported Bin laden, it was NOT for terrorism, it was to help them fight off the invading Soviet force. That's not supporting terrorism, that's supporting the defense of Afghanistan. Then, when we supported Saddam in the 80s, that was NOT supporting terrorism. That was arming the Iraqi military to counter the Iranians, who were planning to invade Iraq. No terrorism was supported there. Now, our contributions to the Palestinians, NOT terrorism, the money isn't for bombs, it's for aid and infrastructure. I guess most of it went to luxuries, but whatever. So dont say "The U.S. can't talk, they supported terrorists 20 years ago." Yes, we supported them then, but they weren't terrorists then, and we weren't encouraging them to start, obviously.

Ah, and .Uber, funny story about Sheehan and the State of the Union. HILARIOUS STORY.
Check it, House rules prohibit demonstrations during the speech, which is why she was arrestedor wearing an anti-war shirtbut then, shortly after, the wife of a Republican... REPUBLICAN senator was also arrested for the shirt she was wearing. Do you what that shirt said? "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS." Now, if that's not the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine, I don't know what is.

__________________
Posts: 4,665 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 02:32 PM
Post #87
K0d0

Night Elf Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2001
Location: Sweden!!!
Posts: 1,899 pos

Quote:
Let's see, what else did we do? Oh, yeah, we support Israel. Tell, how did this hurt the Syrians, or the Egyptians, or the Saudis, or the Iraqis, or the Iranians? Oh wait, IT DIDN'T. THE ONLY THING THAT HURT THEM WAS THEIR MANY DECLARATIONS OF WAR AGAINST JEWS.
You have to consider the stance of the US government when they supported Israel. Neither Israel nor the US are entities that exist in a vacuum. Even the things small countries like Sweden or Denmark do very often have a rippling effect.
Quote:
When we supported Bin laden, it was NOT for terrorism, it was to help them fight off the invading Soviet force. That's not supporting terrorism, that's supporting the defense of Afghanistan. Then, when we supported Saddam in the 80s, that was NOT supporting terrorism. That was arming the Iraqi military to counter the Iranians, who were planning to invade Iraq. No terrorism was supported there. Now, our contributions to the Palestinians, NOT terrorism, the money isn't for bombs, it's for aid and infrastructure. I guess most of it went to luxuries, but whatever. So dont say "The U.S. can't talk, they supported terrorists 20 years ago." Yes, we supported them then, but they weren't terrorists then, and we weren't encouraging them to start, obviously.
The US government must certainly have known the past history and morals of the men they supported. Supporting dissidents and guerilla groups in an enemy's country is a very old tactic. Bin Laden, Saddam and all those werent exactly angels before 9/11.

__________________
Teehee.
Posts: 1,899 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-13-2006, 03:49 PM
Post #88
Machead
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2001
Posts: 1,071 pos

Um... I'm not wrong, I'm just listing historical events. Period.

Posts: 1,071 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-14-2006, 06:17 PM
Post #89
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
Jesus fucking Muhamed Christ, why am I labeled a "RIGHT WING AMERICAN" every time I say something that contrary to the anti-American rhetoric? Maybe Machead, JUST MAYBE the reason why you can't argue with them because you are wrong. I'm not saying the U.S. hasn't done any fuckups, I'm not say we're perfect little angels...

... but I will say that, especially compared with what we've done elsewhere, WE HAVEN'T DONE SHIT TO THEM. Okay, so we funded Saddam to balance out the Communist presence. BIG DEAL. We didn't tell him to go invade and massacre people, we just wanted to make sure Communism didn't spread to Iraq. It's something we've done many times in the Americas and the East, but very rarely in Iraq, and the result was pretty much harmless comparatively.
Let's see, what else did we do? Oh, yeah, we support Israel. Tell, how did this hurt the Syrians, or the Egyptians, or the Saudis, or the Iraqis, or the Iranians? Oh wait, IT DIDN'T. THE ONLY THING THAT HURT THEM WAS THEIR MANY DECLARATIONS OF WAR AGAINST JEWS. Yup, that was it. Don't you remember, it was THEM who started those conflicts? Come on, they don't even acknowledge their right to exist. So yes, we support Israel's right to survive, and even though we also support the Palestinians just as much(as well as the Egyptians and Jordinians and Saudis, at least financially), I guess we do support the right for them to live and exist.

What I'm trying to get at here is that if their biggest complaint is that we wouldn't let them kill the Israelis, then I'm sorry, they're in the wrong here, not us. They just plain react violently to everything, including problems between themselves. It's not our fault they didn't have a "renaissance" and didn't update their philosophical outlooks on life.

Let me just clarify something about terrorism and the U.S. support of "State-sponsored terrorism." The U.S. doesn't support terrorism, and the claims that you point out where we do support terrorism actually isn't terrorism at all. You see, terrorism is the use of threats and violence against a State or people in order to coerce or intimidate them for political and ideological reasons, usually through attacks on civilians. When we supported Bin laden, it was NOT for terrorism, it was to help them fight off the invading Soviet force. That's not supporting terrorism, that's supporting the defense of Afghanistan. Then, when we supported Saddam in the 80s, that was NOT supporting terrorism. That was arming the Iraqi military to counter the Iranians, who were planning to invade Iraq. No terrorism was supported there. Now, our contributions to the Palestinians, NOT terrorism, the money isn't for bombs, it's for aid and infrastructure. I guess most of it went to luxuries, but whatever. So dont say "The U.S. can't talk, they supported terrorists 20 years ago." Yes, we supported them then, but they weren't terrorists then, and we weren't encouraging them to start, obviously.

Ah, and .Uber, funny story about Sheehan and the State of the Union. HILARIOUS STORY.
Check it, House rules prohibit demonstrations during the speech, which is why she was arrestedor wearing an anti-war shirtbut then, shortly after, the wife of a Republican... REPUBLICAN senator was also arrested for the shirt she was wearing. Do you what that shirt said? "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS." Now, if that's not the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine, I don't know what is.


Well really the money that you were putting out there kinda falls into categories that go something like

a) "Ignorant American administration", when you supported the Afghan fighters when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, it was rather naive to believe that people whose job is to fight back through terrorist tactics wouldnt in turn become terrorists after the war was over. I mean, it was the CIA that taught them to use car bombs and, gave them stinger missiles etc.

b) "Self-interest", like when you gave money to Iraq. What was saddam good and nice then? Not really, he was a proto-dictator, and launching him into a devastating war with Iran was not so good. Arming him up is hardly the answer to an invasion, peacekeeping and mediation would have been a proper answer. I mean face it, it didnt serve the administartion of usa at the time for anything other than a bloody conflict.

As far as the mideast is concerned, its still at war. They were getting invaded in the middle ages, getting colonized in the renaissance-modern era and today, wow wee still gettting invaded. You can tell me about the wars they fight between each other, but when talking about the relations of the West to the Middle East, we havent done much to help it. I think the anger of the cartoons, a seemingly inoccuous event to us, was more or less put on top of the huge boiling pot of "hate the West" sentiment.

If we are on such higher moral ground, why do we openly insult them? I mean, we talk about things such as freedom of speech, and then we point out how we insult ourselves. We don't react to perhaps anti-christian (or catholic, or american bashing etc), but then again, we should realize, this is the West criticizing the West.

Whenever someone makes a joke or something, thats highly offensive, it matters a lot who says it. Why? Well imagine for yourself the situation between friends. I pass offensive, racist in tone perhaps or culturally charged, jokes between my friends but no one is offended. Why is that? There is a level of understanding built between us. We know what we each mean and we know that if i call my brown friend a terrorist and ask him to pass over his ak-47, he knows its a harmless joke.

When its some Danish magazine (and now a whole bunch of other magazines) printing articles, a bunch of white western euro/euro-origin guys insulting religious islamic middle easterns, there is absolutely no understanding built between them. In fact, there's only a level of suspicion between the two groups because they have not been building a proper friendship over the years. This lack of understanding leads to a large outlash of resentment and hate.

The fact that there was physical violence really only shows that the political regimes in the middle east are still in a state of precarious tension. Those countries know they could be next on the US hit list, that kind of tension builds fear and that leads to violence. What has the West to fear? Scary Iran and its giant robo-army of death is going to invade? We can insult the muslims all day and piss off their opinion because really they cant hurt us. They burn Scandanavian embassies built in their countries, they cant march troops into Europe.

I think that the situation is not meant to be seen as an argument between so-called Freedom of Speech (which we should use responsibly), West vs Middle East values, or about the fallacy of religion. It's meant to show us this lack of understanding between the two different societies. The East and the West have learned to cope with one another in a civil manner, the West and the Mideast have yet to do so.

It doesnt really matter how the middle eastern nations react to us. Reactionary policy to middle eastern violence can be understood and explained but not really justified. Since understanding is a two-way task, if we dont extend our hand, it wont really matter if the mideast extends their hand in friendship.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-15-2006, 04:13 PM
Post #90
Gaggin

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: May 03 2001
Location: Manexico, VA
Posts: 4,665 pospos
Velentris on Shadowsong

The CIA taught Afghanis how to use carbombs? Come on Ultra, when you have stinger missiles and U.S. gear, there's no need for car bombs. And yea, actually I do think it's quite a stretch to say that we should know that helping people defend their country will lead to attacks by them on our country 20 years later.
As for Saddam, we didn't launch him into an invasion, he launched himself, and we wanted to make sure a then-not-so-bad dictator friendly to the West wasn't taken over by a much worse regime that's quite hostile to the U.S. So actually, it did serve us quite well, and had Saddam not been to stupid, it would've served Iraq well too.

Don't tell me the countries act violently because they might be next on the U.S. hitlist, much of the protests today are happening in Pakistan, a U.S. ally. Again, I will state that we invaded no one when 9/11 happened. Totally unprovoked, unjustified, inmistakable hatred that has no reasoning. I don't think it it us who aren't listening and understanding, it is they who won't listen and don't understand. We try to hold peace talks and come to an agreement, they vow to kill all the Jews and tell us to die. We are their scapegoat. Got a problem, blame it on the West! Hey, it works, stupid fools will buy it and kill themselves for it.

And Koda, of course Saddam and Bin Laden weren't perfect angels(no one is), but that doesn't mean we should ignore them and not work with them. China's regime is horrible, but we still work with them when it is in our interests. We can't predict who is going to be reasonable and who is going to be a religious whacko and who is going to be good or bad. If we could, we probably would've never let them get to power in the first place.

__________________
Posts: 4,665 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-15-2006, 04:55 PM
Post #91
.uber

Lore Geek


Joined: Jan 27 2001
Posts: 615 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin

Ah, and .Uber, funny story about Sheehan and the State of the Union. HILARIOUS STORY.
Check it, House rules prohibit demonstrations during the speech, which is why she was arrestedor wearing an anti-war shirtbut then, shortly after, the wife of a Republican... REPUBLICAN senator was also arrested for the shirt she was wearing. Do you what that shirt said? "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS." Now, if that's not the Republicans getting a taste of their own medicine, I don't know what is.


Rep. Young's wife was not arrested and held for 4 hours like Sheehan was, she was simply asked to leave:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01...rest/index.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
Let me just clarify something about terrorism and the U.S. support of "State-sponsored terrorism." The U.S. doesn't support terrorism, and the claims that you point out where we do support terrorism actually isn't terrorism at all. You see, terrorism is the use of threats and violence against a State or people in order to coerce or intimidate them for political and ideological reasons, usually through attacks on civilians. When we supported Bin laden, it was NOT for terrorism, it was to help them fight off the invading Soviet force. That's not supporting terrorism, that's supporting the defense of Afghanistan. Then, when we supported Saddam in the 80s, that was NOT supporting terrorism. That was arming the Iraqi military to counter the Iranians, who were planning to invade Iraq. No terrorism was supported there. Now, our contributions to the Palestinians, NOT terrorism, the money isn't for bombs, it's for aid and infrastructure. I guess most of it went to luxuries, but whatever. So dont say "The U.S. can't talk, they supported terrorists 20 years ago." Yes, we supported them then, but they weren't terrorists then, and we weren't encouraging them to start, obviously.

No, you're incorrect. The US does support terrorism. How about Pinochet in Chile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet ? How about the Dirty War in Argentina - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War ? How about Operation Condor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor which enjoyed at least tacit approval from the US if not outright, overt support?


Secondly, your attempt to define terrorism points out one thing: the definition is always slippery and it is usually created by the victims. Last summer I was doing some work for a prof., just reading widely on religion and violence and came across a book by a guy named Mark Juergensmeyer. (and now I'm quoting a review because it's easier than typing it up myself) "He does not refer to his interviewees as "terrorists," in part because he is trying to understand their religio-political action from their perspective, and they do not consider themselves "terrorists." They are more likely to think of themselves as "soldiers," and Juergensmeyer offers some interesting perspective on the continuities between the acts often called terrorism and the dynamics of all military organizations. An act is "terrorism," Juergensmeyer claims, when it terrifies, and thus it is defined subjectively by its victims. There is a certain sense to this -- "terrorism" is in no way a neutral analytic category. Any social construction of the issue that begins with that term already demonizes the perpetrators and has its normative commitments built in."

So in short, it might not be productive to try to point out what is and what is not terrorism.

__________________
.uber
Last edited by .uber on 02-15-2006 at 05:11 PM.
Posts: 615 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 12:29 PM
Post #92
Machead
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2001
Posts: 1,071 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
China's regime is horrible, but we still work with them when it is in our interests. We can't predict who is going to be reasonable and who is going to be a religious whacko and who is going to be good or bad. If we could, we probably would've never let them get to power in the first place.

China's regime is horrible, but it's not like yours is any better. You do realise you are just another bloodthirsty empire, like any other in history, don't you? You have military bases in over 100 countries around the world, you dictate exceptable behaviour and yet exempt yourselves from it.

I take it you have seen the latest images from Abu Ghraib? Cut throats? Hanging people upside down, naked, in cold cells? Torture? And what about Guantanamo, even the UN aren't letting that pass anymore.

China's regime is horrible, and I expect it provided a lot of inspiration for the greedy bastard hawks that run the US government and market.

And pardon me for stating the obvious here, but thousands of lives have been lost in your military invasion of Iraq, and I don't see any WMDs. A mistake? Or does that fact that US/UK corporations can now set up camp, and that Iraqi business is predicted to lose up to $200bn because of it, have anything to do with it?

Heh, the CEOs and politicans of the West must be laughing their arses off, they go about violently opening up new markets for their economic colonialisation, and people like you rabidly proclaim it as a moral cause. Oh how history will spit on this kind of blind thinking.

Posts: 1,071 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 12:37 PM
Post #93
Machead
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2001
Posts: 1,071 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by .uber
No, you're incorrect. The US does support terrorism. How about Pinochet in Chile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet ? How about the Dirty War in Argentina - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War ? How about Operation Condor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor which enjoyed at least tacit approval from the US if not outright, overt support?

You're absolutely right, and what about the Iran contras? Or the Nicaraguan contras?

In fact, we don't even have to point the finger at America sponsoring terrorism, it frequently conducts it!

What about the mining of a Nicaraguan harbor, leading to the sinking of a Spanish aid boat, killing aid workers on board?

And how about suing "shock and ore" to scare the enemy into submission during the beggining of the Iraq war? Practically the definition of terrorism.

Now, I'm not saying America is the only country to sponsor or conduct terrorism, most countries with any sort of political or economic power do. The problem is the imperialist nature of capitalism and the fact that economic growth has become more important than social progression and human rights worldwide.

EDIT: Gagging is right about many people suing the West as a scapegoat, but this doesn't mean that the West isn't guilty of some truly heinous crimes. I mean, free market capitalism is driven by the West, and you don't me need to point out all the shit that causes... do you?

Nah, you don't, either you know it, or you chose to ignore it.

Last edited by Machead on 02-16-2006 at 12:43 PM.
Posts: 1,071 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 01:28 PM
Post #94
VeeGee

Grrrr!


Avatar

Joined: Jan 17 2001
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 3,287 pospospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk


The fact that there was physical violence really only shows that the political regimes in the middle east are still in a state of precarious tension. Those countries know they could be next on the US hit list, that kind of tension builds fear and that leads to violence. What has the West to fear? Scary Iran and its giant robo-army of death is going to invade? We can insult the muslims all day and piss off their opinion because really they cant hurt us. They burn Scandanavian embassies built in their countries, they cant march troops into Europe.



Don't underestimate your enemy. I think it's one of the most basic rules of war. Iran developed a missile that can reach well into the depths of Europe. Armed with unconventional warheads, there's no such a big neccessity to march troops into Rome. So they can't harm the America's, it's no big deal because if the Muslim world ever unite in war, don't think the USA could again come and save the day. They're having a hard time keeping order in Iraq, and I don't think the Western economy would survive a third world war, especially with oil embargos. The situation in the area is so erratic and unpredictable that the countries the West considers today to never arise against them could be the fearcest enemies tomorrow. It happened with Bin-Laden, and happened with Saddam. Don't think for one second that the inner-turmoil in the Muslim world can never be overcome in one urge of religious unity against the big brothers.

__________________
Why won't someone quote me for a change?
CowUltrapunk: i was making love to a java program
dimitri583: i suck dick for food
Posts: 3,287 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 01:44 PM
Post #95
Darkwolf

Overlord


Joined: Jan 14 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA USA
Posts: 6,506 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machead
China's regime is horrible, but it's not like yours is any better. You do realise you are just another bloodthirsty empire, like any other in history, don't you? You have military bases in over 100 countries around the world, you dictate exceptable behaviour and yet exempt yourselves from it.

I take it you have seen the latest images from Abu Ghraib? Cut throats? Hanging people upside down, naked, in cold cells? Torture? And what about Guantanamo, even the UN aren't letting that pass anymore.

China's regime is horrible, and I expect it provided a lot of inspiration for the greedy bastard hawks that run the US government and market.

And pardon me for stating the obvious here, but thousands of lives have been lost in your military invasion of Iraq, and I don't see any WMDs. A mistake? Or does that fact that US/UK corporations can now set up camp, and that Iraqi business is predicted to lose up to $200bn because of it, have anything to do with it?

Heh, the CEOs and politicans of the West must be laughing their arses off, they go about violently opening up new markets for their economic colonialisation, and people like you rabidly proclaim it as a moral cause. Oh how history will spit on this kind of blind thinking.


Man your arguments are still so played out. Oh dear, the US is really an evil imperialist country hell-bent on taking over the world. It's not like we haven't heard this one before. You call us blind etc. etc. but for what? Do you want us to defend our country? For what?


Oh and your sources are so super-credible, liberal anti-war blogs usually just are so high on the credibility scale.

__________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
Arguing on the Internet is like being in the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still a 'tard.
Posts: 6,506 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 02:07 PM
Post #96
K0d0

Night Elf Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2001
Location: Sweden!!!
Posts: 1,899 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machead
China's regime is horrible, but it's not like yours is any better. You do realise you are just another bloodthirsty empire, like any other in history, don't you? You have military bases in over 100 countries around the world, you dictate exceptable behaviour and yet exempt yourselves from it.


To be frank, id rather have a Western imperial dictator of the world that at least openly submits to freedom, liberty and justice, rather than one that blatantly spits those morals in the face.
In short, rather the US than Russia, China etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veegee
Don't underestimate your enemy. I think it's one of the most basic rules of war. Iran developed a missile that can reach well into the depths of Europe. So they can't harm the America's, so what. Should the Muslim world ever unite in war, don't think the USA could again come and save the day. They're having a hard time keeping order in Iraq, and I don't think the Western economy would survive a third world war. The situation in the area is so erratic and unpredictable that the countries the west considers today to never arise against them could be the fearcest enemies tomorrow. It happened with Bin-Laden, and happened with Saddam. Don't think for one second that the inner-turmoil in the Muslim world can never be overcome in one urge of religious unity against the big brothers.

A few arguments that oppose this:
Invasion is not the same thing as defense. Any kind of muslim invasion would stop in its tracks the second it launched out of port/base.

The Middle East has a missile potential and capability that is practically zero compared to the west.

After a certain point, bombings and terrorism will only have a strengthening effect on the population it was supposed to harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
And Koda, of course Saddam and Bin Laden weren't perfect angels(no one is), but that doesn't mean we should ignore them and not work with them. China's regime is horrible, but we still work with them when it is in our interests. We can't predict who is going to be reasonable and who is going to be a religious whacko and who is going to be good or bad. If we could, we probably would've never let them get to power in the first place.

There is pretty strong evidence for the government knowing what they supported. Warnings from within the organization went unheard and two decades later we see the result.

__________________
Teehee.
Posts: 1,899 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 10:05 PM
Post #97
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 29 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

Why are we even still talking about this, everyone involved in the event are morons.

1. The cartoonists - their work was racist. It wasn't just poking fun of muslim religion, or terrorists, it was poking fun at muslims themselves. Sure people should have the right to say and believe and publish crappy racist stuff, but do you really want to be the one to do it?

2. The publishers - again, they're free to publish the dumbest crap possible, so long as it isn't slander, but why would they want to? I have no respect for them.

3. Those dumbasses who happen to be muslim who got so angry over these stupid, crappy little drawings and blamed the Danish government, like they had anything to do with all this. What the hell are they thinking that some government up in Europe should break it's constitution and fundamental freedoms for all its people just to keep from offending them with little, pen & ink cartoons.


They're all morons...

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - Pld
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-16-2006, 11:33 PM
Post #98
Black~Enthusiasm

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,982 pospos

And you forgot the moderates muslims, who are letting an apparently tiny minority of extremists talking in everyone's name. If this huge majority of moderates existes, well then, its all their fault.

Posts: 4,982 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 06:58 AM
Post #99
Aardwark
Banned

Avatar

Joined: Jan 11 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 402 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by so and so

1. The cartoonists - their work was racist. It wasn't just poking fun of muslim religion, or terrorists, it was poking fun at muslims themselves. Sure people should have the right to say and believe and publish crappy racist stuff, but do you really want to be the one to do it?

Have you seen the cartoons?

Posts: 402 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 09:07 AM
Post #100
VeeGee

Grrrr!


Avatar

Joined: Jan 17 2001
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 3,287 pospospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by K0d0


A few arguments that oppose this:
Invasion is not the same thing as defense. Any kind of muslim invasion would stop in its tracks the second it launched out of port/base.

The Middle East has a missile potential and capability that is practically zero compared to the west.

After a certain point, bombings and terrorism will only have a strengthening effect on the population it was supposed to harm.




I wasn't talking about a Muslim offense. I'm talking about Iranian retaliation if they are attacked to prevent them from completing their nuclear plans. They have a far more developed and sophisticated army than Iraq, for example. They pose a threat. They have missiles, and intercepting missiles isn't easy. USA's Patriot Missile array is designed to bomb down planes, not rockets. The best alternative is Israel's Arrow Missile, which sadly is kind of a failure. So it doesn't matter who has MORE missiles, it matters what they're armed with. One unconventional missile that hits any major city in Europe is going to deliver a lot of damage. Even if Iran's army is eventually crippled, the guerilla warfare can last almost indefinetly, i.e. Iraq. Do you honestly believe the west is going to fight back with unconventional weapons? I'm not speaking nukes, because nobody will let Iran achieve that goal.

Then I went on to a more apocalyptic scenario where the Muslim world unites, because it is fed up with the west flexing its muscles. Don't think it's a bunch of extremists that are burning down embassies. It's my belief that the extremists in the Muslim world today are those who oppose the savagery, not those who endurce it. If a billion Muslims unite and the rioting gets out of hand, it's going to be a long and painful war. But they have the upper hand, because if their armies lose, the people keep up the fight, and when it's soldiers versus people, it just makes things a tad more complicated.

__________________
Why won't someone quote me for a change?
CowUltrapunk: i was making love to a java program
dimitri583: i suck dick for food
Posts: 3,287 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 09:27 AM
Post #101
Black~Enthusiasm

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,982 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeGee

Then I went on to a more apocalyptic scenario where the Muslim world unites, because it is fed up with the west flexing its muscles. Don't think it's a bunch of extremists that are burning down embassies. It's my belief that the extremists in the Muslim world today are those who oppose the savagery, not those who endurce it. If a billion Muslims unite and the rioting gets out of hand, it's going to be a long and painful war. But they have the upper hand, because if their armies lose, the people keep up the fight, and when it's soldiers versus people, it just makes things a tad more complicated.


I dont know about that. From what I understand of the american campaign against Japan and North Korea half a century ago, the USA can be pretty savage once they stop bothering to win the hearts and minds of their ennemies. Bombing campaigns became quite nondiscriminatory back then in Asia. Of course thing changed heavily with the birth of an international public opinion, but till I wonder, what could happen today in a billion muslims rise up and threaten our new world order? How far would America, or even Europe, would sink to pacify them?

Posts: 4,982 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 09:35 AM
Post #102
VeeGee

Grrrr!


Avatar

Joined: Jan 17 2001
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 3,287 pospospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
I dont know about that. From what I understand of the american campaign against Japan and North Korea half a century ago, the USA can be pretty savage once they stop bothering to win the hearts and minds of their ennemies. Bombing campaigns became quite nondiscriminatory back then in Asia. Of course thing changed heavily with the birth of an international public opinion, but till I wonder, what could happen today in a billion muslims rise up and threaten our new world order? How far would America, or even Europe, would sink to pacify them?

That's THE question, I suppose. I wouldn't dare answering it, and hopefuly, it would never need an answer either.

__________________
Why won't someone quote me for a change?
CowUltrapunk: i was making love to a java program
dimitri583: i suck dick for food
Posts: 3,287 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Post #103
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

I think we fully know that answer. They killed how many in the philinpines when they didnt bow down to american annexation? How many in vietnam? USA was quite willing to bomb every major city in japan with nukes in WWII.

However, whether or not USA is pushed into that position is overly hypothetical and considering we could talk about purple monkeys invading from space, we have no real backing to claim anything on this issue.

Gaggin, i wasnt making up the car bomb thing, i read it off the CIA guys. They had to be public about what they were giving to the afghan fighters. THey knew the islamist elements were there, they knew they thought our way of life was corrupt. They knew all their views and stuff. Your universities published books that talked about killing soviets and set up afghan schools that taught kids how to use ak-47s at the age of 12. When they carried on this practice after the war ended, how could you really be surprised that they were going to continue the violence? The CIA did voice concern but were shut up by the administration of the time.

9/11 was done by one man, who decided to shift blame from the saudi royal family to the USA. Remember, almost all terrorism is against mideast regimes. Most of the "al queda" that everybody talks about, which really is not a single organization but a bunch of terrorist cells whos only affiliation is that they dont kill each other, were busy trying to establish islamist regimes in the mideast, not america.

What we are talking about here is being allowed to openly insult another culture. I realize that nobody here (frig, 90% of us said we're atheist or agnostic, and i doubt theres many muslims on this board) cares about these cartoons. I dont. You dont. So then you say, whats it matter?

Well what happens tmr when the media starts insulting black people, calling them n-----? Hey freedom of speech! I can talk about black people like they're shit. Talk about black people like they're inferior. Talk about black people that should be slaves. Freedom of expression. Do it in the most insulting non-discussionary manner, a cartoon. There's no feedback. Freedom of the press. Hey, im chinese, i dont care. Whats an insult to a black guy? Therefore, it should be allowed. Whats it matter the black guy is pissed? Then pissed off black guys who are in the ghetto do some drive-bys against the racists and then we talk about, "they shouldnt have reacted like that, those fuckbags, cant take a joke!". Yeah.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   02-17-2006, 07:20 PM
Post #104
Black~Enthusiasm

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,982 pospos

Blacks and muslims dont equate each other. Blacks dont carry the same historical baggage than muslims. They were victimes of western racism and complexe of superiority, while the message of the cartoons, however "insulting" you find it, was made up by the muslims themselves. Nobody in Europe invented the link between Islam and terrorism. On the matter of why they tolerate muslims sanctifying terrorism with Islam, but why they dont tolerate western Media pointing it out, even with something as bening as cartoons, you told me that it is because muslims find it easier to accept the wrongs they do themselves, as opposed to wrongs being pointed out by a foreign and arrogant culture. While what you say may be true, we have no reason to tolerate such double-standards. It is the essence of western culture to be able to criticize and mock with irony everything, and there is no reason for us to accomodate them, and certainly not after they went bat shit crazy.

As for cartoons being the most insulting medium possible, this is now how it is meant to be. While there might be no feedback possible, it is still meant to be humour and irony, nothing else. Its disrespectful, but look at how they reacted: we have nothing to apologize for anymore. By their reactions, they've lost the moral highground to which they could have tried to blame us over the matter. We're certainly not going to diminish our freedom because their threeshold of tolerance is nil, now are we? There is no reason for us to do so, and we wouldn't know where to draw the line anyway. Go down the road of apeasing muslims, and you'll end up banning publicities for alchool and pork product.

I know this is only the rant of an ignorant semi-xenophobic kid living in a small sheltered, isolated town. I wont deny where I'm from, and I know that as such, my opinions are worth what they're worth. But in virtue of the totaly irrational reactions they had over 12 cartoons, any apologies toward them would be nothing but apeasement. We have a lot of reasons to make up with the muslims, but censorship isn't one of the solutions. For religious sensitivities should all be equal before freedom of expression, a freedom of expression that we haven't only fought for a long time to aquire, but a freedom of expression that millions of muslims have come to aspire to.

Posts: 4,982 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
Return to Top  Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

newthread reply General Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

printer.gif Show Printable Version
sendtofriend.gif Email this Page
Rate this Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 10:45 PM.

ForumsX > General Discussion > General Discussion > The boycott of Danish wares and burning of flags.

< Contact Us - http://www.forumsx.net - Archive >
Return to Top

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 Beta 7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.