Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 02:43:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82509 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Print
Author Topic: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)  (Read 82450 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2007, 09:25:05 PM »

Not exactly within the subject of this thread, but worth noting. 

Dhimmitude wins again:
Little Green Footballs blog
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
France Bans Citizen Journalists from Reporting Violence

The French government, in inimitable French fashion, have decided that they can prevent more riots like the intifada that tore apart French suburbs in 2005 by cracking down on free speech: France bans citizen journalists from reporting violence. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday.

The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.

If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US $98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
============



Riot coverage ‘excessive’, says French TV boss. (Hat tip: Ralph.)

One of France’s leading TV news executives has admitted censoring his coverage of the riots in the country for fear of encouraging support for far-right politicians.
Jean-Claude Dassier, the director general of the rolling news service TCI, said the prominence given to the rioters on international news networks had been “excessive” and could even be fanning the flames of the violence.

Mr Dassier said his own channel, which is owned by the private broadcaster TF1, recently decided not to show footage of burning cars.

“Politics in France is heading to the right and I don’t want rightwing politicians back in second, or even first place because we showed burning cars on television,” Mr Dassier told an audience of broadcasters at the News Xchange conference in Amsterdam today.

“Having satellites trained on towns across France 24 hours a day showing the violence would have been wrong and totally disproportionate ... Journalism is not simply a matter of switching on the cameras and letting them roll. You have to think about what you’re broadcasting,” he said.





« Last Edit: May 07, 2007, 09:27:30 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2007, 08:58:41 AM »

Factual Statements=Unprotected Harassment!? A Terrifying Precedent at Tufts

by Greg Lukianoff

May 11, 2007
Today, FIRE announced the decision by a disciplinary panel at Tufts to find the conservative student newspaper, The Primary Source, guilty of “harassment” for, among other things, publishing a satirical ad that listed less-than-flattering facts about Islam during Tufts’ Islamic Awareness Week. You can see the ad here, and Eugene Volokh has also published it with excellent commentary over at his blog, but, just to make sure people see the ad for themselves, I have reprinted the full text:



Islam
Arabic Translation: Submission
In the Spirit of Islamic Awareness Week, the SOURCE presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.

MONDAY: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – The Koran, Sura 8:12

Author Salman Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared “blasphemous against Islam.”

TUESDAY: Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002)

The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.

WEDNESDAY: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001)

Most historians agree that Muhammed’s second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.

THURSDAY: “Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward.” – The Koran, Sura 4:95

The Islamist guerrillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties.

FRIDAY: Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, “The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”

Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari’s eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)


If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we’d really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.


So does this paint Islam in a nice light? No. Is it one-sided? Yes, but that was kind of the point. The students were responding to what they thought was a one-sided and overly rosy depiction of Islam during Islamic Awareness week. But is it unprotected harassment!? One certainly hopes not, or else “harassment” just became a truly lethal threat to free speech—an “exception” that completely swallows the rule.

This is perhaps the most troubling and far-reaching aspect of this case. The Primary Source published a satirical ad filled with factual assertions and because this angered people it was ruled to be unprotected harassment. If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the TPS facts were wrong, then—while this still would not be harassment—that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel. A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.

I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.

Since those students and faculty obviously did not think about the ramifications of this decision, we put it to you, President Bacow: do you think the publication of factual assertions should be a punishable offense if they hurt the wrong people’s feelings, regardless of whether or not they are true? I hope he will think hard on what the U.S. would look like if that was the law of the land. It’s not a country that most of us would recognize or even want to live in. We ask again for President Bacow to live up to the best principles of a liberal university in a free society and overturn this dangerous decision.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #52 on: June 13, 2007, 08:03:02 PM »

Factual Statements=Unprotected Harassment!? A Terrifying Precedent at Tufts

by Greg Lukianoff

May 11, 2007
Today, FIRE announced the decision by a disciplinary panel at Tufts to find the conservative student newspaper, The Primary Source, guilty of “harassment” for, among other things, publishing a satirical ad that listed less-than-flattering facts about Islam during Tufts’ Islamic Awareness Week. You can see the ad here, and Eugene Volokh has also published it with excellent commentary over at his blog, but, just to make sure people see the ad for themselves, I have reprinted the full text:



Islam
Arabic Translation: Submission
In the Spirit of Islamic Awareness Week, the SOURCE presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.

MONDAY: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” – The Koran, Sura 8:12

Author Salman Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared “blasphemous against Islam.”

TUESDAY: Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002)

The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments.

WEDNESDAY: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001)

Most historians agree that Muhammed’s second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated.

THURSDAY: “Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward.” – The Koran, Sura 4:95

The Islamist guerrillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties.

FRIDAY: Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, “The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”

Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari’s eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun)


If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we’d really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.


So does this paint Islam in a nice light? No. Is it one-sided? Yes, but that was kind of the point. The students were responding to what they thought was a one-sided and overly rosy depiction of Islam during Islamic Awareness week. But is it unprotected harassment!? One certainly hopes not, or else “harassment” just became a truly lethal threat to free speech—an “exception” that completely swallows the rule.

This is perhaps the most troubling and far-reaching aspect of this case. The Primary Source published a satirical ad filled with factual assertions and because this angered people it was ruled to be unprotected harassment. If what the complaining students wanted to say was that the TPS facts were wrong, then—while this still would not be harassment—that could have been an interesting debate. But instead, in sadly predictable fashion, the students plowed ahead with a harassment claim that, based on the hearing panel’s decision, appeared not even to raise the issue of whether or not the statements in the ad were true, but turned only on how they made people feel. A panel consisting of both faculty and students found the publication guilty in flagrant abuse of what harassment case law and regulations actually say, and demonstrating total ignorance of the principles of a free society. Even in libel law (one of the oldest exceptions to the rule of free speech is that you can be punished for defaming people) truth is rightfully an absolute defense. Here, the fact that TPS printed verifiable information—with citations—was apparently no defense, nor was the fact that the ad concerned contentious issues of dire global importance. Such an anemic conception of free speech should chill anyone who cares about basic rights and democracy itself.

I doubt that the Tufts disciplinary board thought through the full ramifications of their actions. If a Muslim student had published these same statements in an article calling for reform in Islam, would that be harassment? If Tufts wished to be at all consistent (a dubious bet here), it would be.

Since those students and faculty obviously did not think about the ramifications of this decision, we put it to you, President Bacow: do you think the publication of factual assertions should be a punishable offense if they hurt the wrong people’s feelings, regardless of whether or not they are true? I hope he will think hard on what the U.S. would look like if that was the law of the land. It’s not a country that most of us would recognize or even want to live in. We ask again for President Bacow to live up to the best principles of a liberal university in a free society and overturn this dangerous decision.
« main | e-mail comments
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #53 on: June 14, 2007, 01:00:37 PM »

I doubt the ad qualifies as "unprotected harassment".  If I were that Islamic student group at Tufts, I would instead make the point that while the content of the ad may be "factual" the newspaper is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory by publishing it, especially at the time they chose to.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 01:02:11 PM by rogt » Logged
Maxx
Power User
***
Posts: 482


« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2007, 01:24:03 PM »

I am a tad bit new and late on the comment that was made by the person about Muslims upset about that Danish cartoon but what I can't believe is  the fact that they would get upset over a cartoon but their Holy prophet married his favorite wife "Aisha" when she was 6 years old and he was at that time 54. Then he "Consummated his marriage with her when she was 9 now making him 57...So they are gonna get upset over a cartoon..But not at the fact that their Prophet Muhammad Kidnapped a child in Allah's name and then whisked her away on a magic carpet ride???    Nope..Getting mad over a Cartoon is much more important then getting mad at a pedophile  undecided     

Then again..What do I know..  wink
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #55 on: June 14, 2007, 04:27:55 PM »

Rog:

Apparently the disciplinary committee DID find it unprotected-- that is precisely the point of the piece.  Why does the suppression of free speech not concern you?

"I would instead make the point that while the content of the ad may be "factual" the newspaper is being deliberately and needlessly inflammatory by publishing it, especially at the time they chose to."

How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?  And why would it not be appropriate to raise these questions precisely at the moment of "Islamic Awareness Week"?  Should not awareness include inconvenient truths as well?

Marc
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #56 on: June 14, 2007, 08:08:33 PM »

Rog:

Apparently the disciplinary committee DID find it unprotected-- that is precisely the point of the piece. 

Wow.  How did they decide that?

Quote
Why does the suppression of free speech not concern you?

Who says it doesn't concern me?  I realize I said "I doubt the ad qualifies as unprotected harassment", but I should have added that I personally think it doesn't.

Quote
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?  And why would it not be appropriate to raise these questions precisely at the moment of "Islamic Awareness Week"?  Should not awareness include inconvenient truths as well?

The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New  York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq.  Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2007, 09:50:22 PM »

Were it an ad attacking christianity, I doubt Rogt would defend offended christians.....
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2007, 11:36:03 AM »

Were it an ad attacking christianity, I doubt Rogt would defend offended christians.....

It would depend on the details of the ad.   But let's be honest: it's not like Christians in the US have to worry about being attacked or mistaken for a terrorist and thrown in Guantanamo.  That this is a real concern for Muslims is a crucial difference.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2007, 12:02:11 PM »



"The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New  York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq.  Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack."

Umm, lets be a bit more precise here. 

1) Abu Ghraib and the investigation thereof which was generated by regular Army procedures without any public knowledge of the events in question at the time was revealed to the press by the Pentagon.
2) The secret detention centers in Europe in my opinion should not have been revealed.  What also earned my ire at the NY Slimes and the Left Angeles Times was their revelation of a secret military program to get favorable articles in Iraqi media and of a secret government program that was monitoring secret islamo-fascist movements of money.  In my opinion, in time of war these actions ARE irresponsible at best and do veer towards treason.  Actions such as these cost real lives of real Americans who are putting their butts on the line for all of us.

The nature of Islam is a vital question of our time.  Yes I am sure that pieces like this irk many Muslims, but in that they are based upon truth and operate within the context of Reason, that really is irrelevant in America.  Free Speech irritates many people on a regular basis.  Too bad, so sad.  The answer is for Muslims to answer the points and questions raised, not get p*ssy PC, multi-cultural academic cowards to silence them.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2007, 01:10:10 PM »

"The Abu Ghraib photos and our secret torture camps in Eastern Europe also qualify as inconvenient truths necessary for awareness, yet IIRC you considered the "New  York Slimes", "Left Angeles Times", etc. totally irresponsible (if not guilty of treason) for publishing these revelations during wartime as they risked increased hostility towards the troops in Iraq.  Again, I don't support banning the ads in question, but I also don't blame the Muslims for being pissed about them and perceiving them as an unnecessary attack."

Umm, lets be a bit more precise here. 

1) Abu Ghraib and the investigation thereof which was generated by regular Army procedures without any public knowledge of the events in question at the time was revealed to the press by the Pentagon.
2) The secret detention centers in Europe in my opinion should not have been revealed.  What also earned my ire at the NY Slimes and the Left Angeles Times was their revelation of a secret military program to get favorable articles in Iraqi media and of a secret government program that was monitoring secret islamo-fascist movements of money.  In my opinion, in time of war these actions ARE irresponsible at best and do veer towards treason.  Actions such as these cost real lives of real Americans who are putting their butts on the line for all of us.

So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger, but not in a case where it might put Muslims in extra danger?

I'm not arguing in favor of *any* suppression of free speech that's actually true.  I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2007, 03:36:11 PM »

"So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"

The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war.  Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?

"but not in a case where it might put Muslims in extra danger?"

I see absolutely nothing in the information which we have indicating that this is the case.  It appears that you are pulling this out of thin air.  Anyway, it makes perfect sense to me that people can freely search for Truth about the nature of Islam without being punished by their University.

" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."

What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?

Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2007, 05:47:02 PM »

"So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"

The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war.  Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?

If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!

Quote
" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."

What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?

You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.

Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned.  So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2007, 06:55:18 PM »

"Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned.  So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive."

You mean those instances when the Times publishes classified information which harms the national interest? When the mainstream media attempts to shape public opinion to suit their political agenda? Let me remind you of Dan Rather's "fake but true" memos regarding President Bush's nat'l guard records right before the last election.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2007, 07:00:42 PM »

Woof Crafty,

Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?

Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews

Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them.  I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.

Rog
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #65 on: June 15, 2007, 07:12:53 PM »

Rog:

At the moment I'll just answer this post of yours:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on Today at 04:36:11 PM
ROG "So are you saying that "suppression of free speech" would have been justified in the above cases because the troops' lives may have been put in extra danger"

MARC: The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war.  Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?

ROG: If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!

MARC:  Again, Abu Ghraib does not belong in this conversation.  AG was revealed by the US Army of its own accord, yet you keep bringing it up in this context.  IMHO it would be appropriate if you did not keep bringing it up in this context.

Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational.  Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.

Quote
ROG" I'm just trying to make the point that it's perfectly valid to accuse somebody of presenting "the truth" in a deliberately inflammatory or irresponsible manner."

MARC What does this have to do with a post that is about true free speech being punished by an University ?!?

ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.

MARC  Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.

Rog:  Look, we both agree that the ads shouldn't be banned.  So stop with this fantasy like the newspaper was just innocently presenting "information" instead of knowingly publishing something intentionally hostile and offensive.

Marc:  Hostile?  Sure, but what does it say when people find the Truth offensive and seek to shut down its expression? I'm assuming here that some Muslims complained to the University.  If this is not the case, I submit that voluntary dhimmitude is finding its way to our shores.  Anyway, Maybe this has something to do with the hostility?  And leads to the creation of threads like this one?
 
Marc
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2007, 10:54:59 PM »

Woof Crafty,

Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?

Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews

Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them.  I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.

Rog

If jews had done 9/11 (I'm assuming not even DogBrian thinks so), if jews were killing people in the name of G-d on most every continent on the planet, if the majority of armed conflicts on the planet had jews making war on gentiles as a core element of their theology wouldn't you agree that those would be important topics of discussion?
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #67 on: June 17, 2007, 12:59:45 PM »

MARC: The issue is one of aiding and abetting the enemy-- in time of war.  Are you asserting a free speech right to publish military secrets?!?

ROG: If the secrets in question are war crimes (which Abu Ghraib and the secret torture prisons 100% qualify as), absolutely!

MARC:  Again, Abu Ghraib does not belong in this conversation.  AG was revealed by the US Army of its own accord, yet you keep bringing it up in this context.  IMHO it would be appropriate if you did not keep bringing it up in this context.

Even though it was revealed by the military, IIRC you still considered it irresponsible for the media to publish the photos.

Quote
Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational.  Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.

Thank you for acknowledging my point about the detention centers.  Monitoring finances (if that's all it was) doesn't seem criminal to me, but I'm less sure about the disinformation campaign in the Iraqi press.

Quote
Quote
ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.

MARC  Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.

Umm...  Yes you did.

How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?

I'll give you a better answer.  The truth can be inflammatory when there's a deliberate effort to present a set of cherry-picked facts to make one point of view appear indisputable.  This is the exact same criticism a lot of right-wingers have about Michael Moore's movies (which I myself have never claimed to be anything other than "the truth" as MM sees it).  I too could easily come up with a set of facts that, by themselves, would make Jews look completely violent, racist, and backwards (isn't the Arab media accused of this all the time?)  So while I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the ads, they don't exactly qualify as "truth" as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #68 on: June 17, 2007, 07:52:47 PM »

Rogt,

I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #69 on: June 17, 2007, 10:16:26 PM »


ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.

MARC  Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.

ROG Umm...  Yes you did.
------------

MARC:  Care to provide a quote?

=================================

MARC: Concerning the secret detention centers, your point is rational.  Concerning divulging our secret program getting our side into Iraqi press it is not and concerning our monitoring the enemy's financial flows, it is not.

ROG: Thank you for acknowledging my point about the detention centers.  Monitoring finances (if that's all it was) doesn't seem criminal to me, but I'm less sure about the disinformation campaign in the Iraqi press.

MARC: Actually I haven't agreed with your point, I merely said it is rational-- something which I have said to you before on the DBMAA forum.  Concerning monitoring financial flows, since you agree it wasn't criminal of our government to do so, does this mean you agree it was wrong of the NY Times and the LA Times to print about them?  Does not an action like this aid and give comfort to our enemies in time of war???

Concerning getting favorable articles in the Iraqi press, your choice of words "disinformation campaign" is very revealing about your orientation.  One might even get the idea that you were not for our victory, so please correct me if I am wrong. 

Regardless, this was an action that our troops took in a theater of war.  Please tell us what "law" do you think might apply to this case?!?  Why do you not care that the LA Times broke this story thereby destroying the value of a secret military operation in a theater of war???  angry angry angry  For me the word treason applies here.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #70 on: June 18, 2007, 12:21:07 PM »


ROG You asked if it were possible for the truth to be inflammatory or offensive, and I provided you with examples.

MARC  Ummm, , , no I did not ask that at all.

ROG Umm...  Yes you did.
------------

MARC:  Care to provide a quote?

I provided the quote (and another answer to question, to which you have not responded) right below the words of mine you cite above.  Maybe you should re-read my previous post.

Quote
MARC: Actually I haven't agreed with your point, I merely said it is rational--

And I didn't say you agreed with it, but thanked you for acknowledging it.  Again, please re-read my last post.

Quote
Concerning monitoring financial flows, since you agree it wasn't criminal of our government to do so, does this mean you agree it was wrong of the NY Times and the LA Times to print about them? 

As far as I know, it was no secret that our government was doing this.  If you can show me that some law was broken, then yes, I'll agree that it was wrong.

Quote
Does not an action like this aid and give comfort to our enemies in time of war???

No.

Quote
Concerning getting favorable articles in the Iraqi press, your choice of words "disinformation campaign" is very revealing about your orientation. 

I call it one thing, you call it another.  Clearly we're not going to agree on this.

Quote
One might even get the idea that you were not for our victory, so please correct me if I am wrong. 

Oh, I'll spell it right out for you: I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq.  If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #71 on: June 18, 2007, 03:12:57 PM »

Rogt,

I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.

I certainly take issue with Islam's treatment of women and gays, which isn't all that different from Christianity's.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #72 on: June 18, 2007, 04:08:13 PM »

Rogt,

I'd like to hear what you think is fair criticism of islam would be, if any.

I certainly take issue with Islam's treatment of women and gays, which isn't all that different from Christianity's.



That's a good point. I was kind of thinking the same thing the other day while beating a woman for being immodestly dressed in public. I was on my way to the public execution of homosexuals when I saw her.....
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #73 on: June 18, 2007, 04:56:52 PM »

That's a good point. I was kind of thinking the same thing the other day while beating a woman for being immodestly dressed in public. I was on my way to the public execution of homosexuals when I saw her.....

You don't see Muslims in the US stoning anybody to death either.  I see the two religions themselves as being more or less equally intolerant, if you compare their ideas.  The difference between the US and most of the Muslim world is that we have a democracy and a constitution that impose tolerance.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #74 on: June 18, 2007, 05:02:34 PM »

The majority of the founders of the US were of what religion? The Majority of Americans today are of what religion? Please tell me of any majority muslim nation where religious minorities enjoy the same level of freedoms religious minorities enjoy here.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #75 on: June 18, 2007, 06:15:47 PM »

The majority of the founders of the US were of what religion? The Majority of Americans today are of what religion? Please tell me of any majority muslim nation where religious minorities enjoy the same level of freedoms religious minorities enjoy here.

Yes, the same Founding Fathers who added freedom of religion AND separation of church and state.

Sorry, I just don't see Christianity the religion as being anything special in terms of compassion or enlightenment.  Maybe I'd change my mind if they'd cut out the "moral values" (coded speech for anti-gay bigotry and anti-abortion activism) stuff, but unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Anyway, you asked for my fair criticism of Islam and I gave it to you.
Logged
Howling Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 392


« Reply #76 on: June 18, 2007, 06:31:09 PM »

I really do not plan in getting into this conversation. Been there done that, however, I would like to add that.....I don't know of any Country U.S. or otherwise that permits the stoning of adulterers or the murder of homosexuals.
How many Islamic countrys permit this?
Also I don't see JESUS partaking in any of these activitys either in fact he condemed such things.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208&version=50

I think the problem that Rog has is not really so much to do with Christianity, but morals themselves.
You see there is a seperation of church and state as Rog states, but the thing I think hes missing is, that you don't have to be "religous" to have morals.
Lots of non religous people are against abortion as well as homosexuality.......as Rog also well knows......real Christians love the sinner....but hate the sin.
Then thats just my observation and I happen to know quite a lot of Christians. cheesy
                                                                                     TG
Its my hope that someday Rog will accept Christians the same way he embraces homos and pro-abortionists. We are all still people even though we may have different beliefs.
Logged

Howling Dog
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #77 on: June 18, 2007, 06:45:26 PM »



"I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq.  If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years."

I understand that many people opposed going into Iraq and I understand that many people think we should get out now, but that is quite a long way from opposing US victory!   

I find myself pretty steamed at the moment.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #78 on: June 18, 2007, 08:04:03 PM »

"I am 100% opposed to a US victory in Iraq and that I consider it the worst possible outcome for both us and Iraq.  If you don't get this from me by now then you must have been reading a different discussion forum for the past four years."

I understand that many people opposed going into Iraq and I understand that many people think we should get out now, but that is quite a long way from opposing US victory!

What exactly does opposing a war mean to you then?  I honestly do not feel that a US victory would be a good thing.

I mean, after all the stuff we were told about why we had to get into this war that's turned out to be complete BS, all the people killed, and of course all the torture and other illegal stuff we've done, how can you honestly say us keeping it up until we "win" would be better than just stopping now and pulling out?

Does the truth of what's happening there or why we're there really matter to you?  Or is it just all about our side winning no matter what?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #79 on: June 18, 2007, 10:55:48 PM »

Rogt,

What do you think America's loss would look like? Do you think the Vietnamese people were well served by our pulling out of Vietnam and abandoning the South to the tender mercies of the NVA? I think you should rent "The Killing Fields" and watch it until it sinks in....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #80 on: June 18, 2007, 11:05:34 PM »

If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote.  That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #81 on: June 18, 2007, 11:18:06 PM »

I give Rogt credit for his truthfulness, instead of the usual "I support the troops, but....." line most of the left hides behind.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #82 on: June 19, 2007, 11:45:34 AM »

If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote.  That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".

Again, I feel like I've made my view on this pretty clear since the start of this war, so I'm not sure what you're acting so shocked about.  I'm not some pacifist - I absolutely would support a war I felt was justified, and this one just plain isn't.  IMHO, anybody who says they're against the war but hopes our side wins is just trying to have it both ways.  And please, don't get started on some "Rog wants more troops killed" thing.  You know me well enough to know I'm not talking about fighting for the other side or justifying genuine acts of treason.

Now that (hopefully) we've cleared the air on this, I would appreciate a response to this part of my post from a couple of days ago (back on the topic of this thread):

Quote
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on June 14, 2007, 05:27:55 PM
How can the truth be deliberately and needlessly inflammatory?

I'll give you a better answer.  The truth can be inflammatory when there's a deliberate effort to present a set of cherry-picked facts to make one point of view appear indisputable.  This is the exact same criticism a lot of right-wingers have about Michael Moore's movies (which I myself have never claimed to be anything other than "the truth" as MM sees it).  I too could easily come up with a set of facts that, by themselves, would make Jews look completely violent, racist, and backwards (isn't the Arab media accused of this all the time?)  So while I don't dispute the factual accuracy of the ads, they don't exactly qualify as "truth" as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #83 on: June 19, 2007, 12:40:17 PM »

I think I'm doing a pretty good job keeping up here with a huge Gathering just days away.
Logged
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #84 on: June 20, 2007, 02:37:24 PM »

If someone said "I don't think we can win this" or "I think there is a better way" well, this is America and as Americans we talk it over and then we vote.  That is a long way on my spectrum from saying "I oppose American victory".

So in your mind, is every American supposed to want an American victory regardless of their feelings about the war?  You seem to be OK with war "opposition" only so long as it remains within appropriately safe (i.e. toothless and non-offensive) bounds.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2007, 02:40:50 PM by rogt » Logged
Howling Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 392


« Reply #85 on: June 20, 2007, 03:42:25 PM »

I can't say as Iv'e actually heard any American say that they were 100% opposed to us winning the war or that A U.S. victory would be the worst possible outcome for us andIraq. I think its a first for me.
Who would you like to see win this war?
Its kinda hard to comprehend your mindset Rog.  I understand all your gripes but I don't get your bottom line and how it would be good for the U.S. and Iraq.
Seems contrary........care to enlighten me with your thought.
                                                                         TG

Logged

Howling Dog
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #86 on: June 20, 2007, 04:41:01 PM »

Woof Tom,

The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this.  We attacked a sovereign nation that had never attacked us and that we have not been able to prove (even after the fact) was an actual threat to us, which is a war crime under international law.  We have tortured people and illegally "rendered" others to secret prisons so they could be tortured.  Also war crimes.

As I see it, any victory of ours under these circumstances would be seen by our leaders as having justified these crimes, and would thus increase the temptation to use the same methods again in the future.  We would see ourselves as having a blank check to wage war against anybody we decide is a threat to our "national security" for any reason.  No country should have that right.

Rog
Logged
Howling Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 392


« Reply #87 on: June 20, 2007, 05:07:52 PM »

Rog, I agree with your post.
My question is: who would you like to see win this war, specificly Iraq.
Also how would it be good for America and Iraq to lose this war?
I'am guessing that you think it would be good for America to lose this war as a lesson for all the wrong doing that has transpired since its inseption.
I doubt that, our leaders would take it as such since it is such a broad out look.....even so.....how would our losing be good for Iraq?
I still think inspite of all the wrong/bad things, that a U.S./Iraq  victory would be good for  the U.S. Iraq and the rest of the world.
Simply because the people who we are fighting are FAR worse than Bush and the present admin.
In a year or so we will be rid of Bush, not so for our enemys in Iraq.
                                                                                  TG

Logged

Howling Dog
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #88 on: June 20, 2007, 05:13:45 PM »

Posted on: Today at 02:41:01 PM
Posted by: rogt
Insert Quote
Woof Tom,

The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this.  

**Saddam was a well documented state sponsor of terrorism and had everyone convinced he had WMD. After 9/11, it was clear he needed to go.**

We attacked a sovereign nation that had never attacked us and that we have not been able to prove (even after the fact) was an actual threat to us, which is a war crime under international law.  

 rolleyes **I love it when people who know nothing about the law try to cite it to support their bogus assertions. Please cite the applicable statute you allege was violated, Mr. "War Crimes" expert. Saddam signed a cease fire at the end of the Gulf War, which he violated for years afterwards. If you got your information from  sources other than Bay Area bumper stickers, you might be able to comment with a little more credibility.**

We have tortured people and illegally "rendered" others to secret prisons so they could be tortured.  Also war crimes.

**Again, your assertion without evidence.**

As I see it, any victory of ours under these circumstances would be seen by our leaders as having justified these crimes, and would thus increase the temptation to use the same methods again in the future.  We would see ourselves as having a blank check to wage war against anybody we decide is a threat to our "national security" for any reason.  No country should have that right.

**We are fighting a war for our very survival. Maybe it will take the deaths of people you care about to wake you up to this. I can't appeal to your patriotism, being a good leftist, you have none, so I guess it'll come down to when you find some sort of personal stake in the war.**
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #89 on: June 20, 2007, 06:20:02 PM »

We are fighting a war for our very survival.  Maybe it will take the deaths of people you care about to wake you up to this. I can't appeal to your patriotism, being a good leftist, you have none, so I guess it'll come down to when you find some sort of personal stake in the war.

You just crossed the line.

-milt
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12039


« Reply #90 on: June 20, 2007, 07:13:04 PM »

I have two family members in harm's way in the GWOT. One on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the other a member of a Marine rifle company engaged in combat operations as we speak. What's your investment in our losing? Who's over the line?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #91 on: June 20, 2007, 08:43:53 PM »

It is well within bounds to say that "I think this war was/is a mistake.  I don't think we can win.  I think we should come home".    To say that "I hope we fail" -- which is how it is heard when you say "I oppose our victory"-- is something else altogether.
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #92 on: June 20, 2007, 09:20:33 PM »

I have two family members in harm's way in the GWOT. One on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, the other a member of a Marine rifle company engaged in combat operations as we speak.

And if it were up to me they'd be home right now.

Quote
What's your investment in our losing?

What's yours?

Your relatives can get injured or killed whether or not we "win" this war.  It's not like "losing" the war means all our soldiers are dead.  But this is obvious, and you're not stupid, so why am I even having to explain it?

In any case, I want them out of harm's way.  You're the one who seems to want to keep them there.

Quote
Who's over the line?

This is just supposed to be a political discussion, "friends at the end of the day," and all that.  But you guys insist on making it personal.  Every post is full of snide comments and cheap shots against "the left" and the conversation inevitably turns into an attempt to smear your opponents as Communists and/or traitors.  Anything but sticking to the subject.

I'll give this forum one more shot if you want to just forget all this and start fresh, but I've grown weary of all the bickering.

-milt
Logged
milt
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #93 on: June 20, 2007, 09:33:29 PM »

It is well within bounds to say that "I think this war was/is a mistake.  I don't think we can win.  I think we should come home".    To say that "I hope we fail" --

Which means what to you, exactly?  What would our "failure" look like?

Quote
which is how it is heard when you say "I oppose our victory"-- is something else altogether.

Again, what is a US "victory" in this context?

The terms are so abstract that it's possible you and Rog are thinking of different scenarios when you use those terms.

But the real question is why do you guys want to make such a big deal out of some comment he made and have this huge f-ing debate about it?  Why is that so much more interesting to "the right" than sticking to the original subject?

-milt
Logged
Howling Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 392


« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2007, 09:38:18 PM »

Woof Milt, I agree about the cheap shot thing. Its part of the reason I intend to not post often here. I do hope that Rog will answer my 2 questions that I asked earlier.
I'am just intrested in what he has to say about them........and thats it I'am out.
A funny thing is that people are people and just because their opinions might be on opposite ends of the spectrum makes them no less people at the end of the day. grin Weather Christian or pagan  undecided
In the words of the infamous Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" wink
                                                                         TG
Logged

Howling Dog
rogt
Power User
***
Posts: 229


« Reply #95 on: June 20, 2007, 11:55:47 PM »

Woof Milt, I agree about the cheap shot thing. Its part of the reason I intend to not post often here.

No kidding.  If what you guys want is a truth-seeking discussion with some people with views different from your own, then let's have it, but if all you really want are some liberal punching bags, say so now and I'll stop wasting my time here.

Quote
I do hope that Rog will answer my 2 questions that I asked earlier.

Sure.  First question:

Quote
My question is: who would you like to see win this war, specificly Iraq.

The way I see it, both we and the Iraqis win if we stop the war now and concentrate our energy on making Iraq a better place for Iraqis to live than it was under Saddam, which we have the power to do anytime we want. 

But if we insist on continuing to fight, then I see two possible outcomes: (1) we kill and terrorize as many Iraqis as it takes to subjugate the entire country or (2) the Iraqis keep up the fight until we decide it's no longer worth it and force our political leadership to give it up.  Of those two outcomes, I consider (2) to be the better one.

Quote
Also how would it be good for America and Iraq to lose this war?

I really can't answer this without knowing what victory and loss mean to you.

Quote
A funny thing is that people are people and just because their opinions might be on opposite ends of the spectrum makes them no less people at the end of the day. grin Weather Christian or pagan  undecided
In the words of the infamous Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" wink

Couldn't have said it better myself!  Tom and I may disagree on a LOT, but our discussions have always been in the spirit of "friends at the end of the day".   Smiley
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #96 on: June 21, 2007, 04:34:43 AM »

Victory means achieving something like we set out to do.  Some sort of representative government like millions of Iraqis have voted for at considerable personal risk to themselves three times and something which is opposed by Al Qaeda and its ilk-- who have succeeded in stirring up sectarian religious strife while engaging in considerable true torture and mass deliberate targetting of civilians as part of their standard operating procedure.  This vision is also opposed by Saddamite Baathist elements who also have engaged in terrible deeds. 

Coming on the heels of finding nothing wrong with revealing military secrets in time of war, to say that one "opposes" our victory is to deliberately choose to express oneself in a way that sounds quite like something unpatriotic and I find it a bit disingenuous to be surprised when GM took the bait.

"The way I see it, both we and the Iraqis win if we stop the war now and concentrate our energy on making Iraq a better place for Iraqis to live than it was under Saddam, which we have the power to do anytime we want." 

This is either vacuous or , , , silly.  It has been our mission from the beginning and continues being our mission under the most challenging of circumstances to "make Iraq a better place for Iraqis".  Preventing this are AQ and its ilk (who have openly declared democracy to be against Islam) Saddamite Baathist elements, etc.   The blame for the fighting belongs on those who violently and murderously oppose the three times democratically expressed will of the Iraqi people, not on the US.  Sure the Bush people have made plenty of mistakes but to put the blame on the US equally with AQ, Baathist elements, etc is easily understood to go hand in hand with opposing our victory.

"The reasons we were given for getting into this war were complete BS, and there is simply no denying this."

This is tedious.  Quite the contrary.  There is plenty of denying this as I have with you for several years now, both on the Assn forum and here.  I find the denial of what has been explained to you many times by others and by me to be yours.

Also tedious was this:
BEGIN
"Woof Crafty,
Hypothetical question: what would be your feelings about the subject titles below, on your political discussion forum or somebody else's?

Israeli Society
Israel vs. Palestine
Zionism and Fascism
Judaism the religion
Jews in the US
Jews in the Media
Jews in Hollywood
Jews in Europe
AIPAC/JADL
Over-representation of Jews in the Bush Administration?
Joseph Lieberman
Invitation to dialog with Jews

Keep in mind that I haven't said anything about what would be posted in them.  I'm just talking about opening the subjects for a truth-seeking discussion.

Rog"
END

There is not a world-wide movment (India, Canada, Thailand, France, Afghanistan, England, Iran, Spain, Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Horn of Africa, Algeria and the rest of North Africa, Palestine, United States, Lebanon, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc)  of jewish fascism of at least 100 million and maybe hundreds of million more jews looking to bring down western civilization by the sword, terror and treachery.  You do not see world-wide demonstrations of jews killing and burning down embassies as we did in the events that started this thread with the world-side response to the Danish cartoons- although there are far nastier cartoons aplenty about Jews in the Arab and Iranian press quite regularly. 

  If there were such a movement doing such things, such questions would be quite appropriate.  However there is not such a movement, which is why such questions are tediously in search of a non-existant moral parity.

Again, one may fairly think that our goals are not achievable and that therefore we should come home.  To oppose the achievement of these goals is something else.  Do you two oppose the achievement of these goals?

Marc



« Last Edit: June 21, 2007, 05:10:20 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #97 on: July 06, 2007, 07:56:19 PM »

EUROPE TELLS BRITAIN: DON'T SAY 'MUSLIMS'


wn up warning governments not to link Islam and terrorism.

The politically correct directives are believed to be behind ministers not using words such as “Muslim’’ about Britain’s terrorism crisis.

Yesterday the Daily Express reported how Gordon Brown’s ministers had been told to avoid inflammatory language when speaking about the attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

Neither the Prime Minister in a major interview nor Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the Commons referred to Muslims or Islam.

Last night critics pointed to a classified EU document sent out to all European governments offering “non-offensive’’ phrases to use when discussing terrorism.

Banned terms were said to include “jihad’’, “Islamic’’ or “fundamentalist”.


 
It is completely unacceptable for people in Brussels to tell us what words we can and can’t use.
 
Conservative MP Philip Davies


EU officials said the “common lexicon’’ aimed to stop the distortion of the Muslim faith and alienation of its followers in Europe. European governments had previously agreed on the need to develop a “non-emotive lexicon’’ for use in discussion to avoid “exacerbating division’’.

Gerard Batten, a UK Independence Party MEP, claimed Ms Smith’s statement was “evidence that the Government is now cutting its suit to suit the European Commission’s cloth’’. He is demanding that the full lexicon be published.

But the Home Office insisted: “The Home Secretary uses her own words. She did not draw on any other source.’’

Even Labour former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane said yesterday that “Islamist’’ was an “accurate description’’ of the ideology behind the terror attacks.

And Conservative MP Philip Davies said: “Whatever your view on particular words, surely everyone should agree it is completely unacceptable for people in Brussels who have already interfered too much in our lives to start to tell us what words we can and can’t use.

“If we believe in anything in this country we should believe in free speech. If we are allowing the EU to dictate to us on this, most people would find that horrifying.’’

Hugo Robinson, of Open Europe thinktank, said: “Brussels has no place telling national governments how they should deal with the real and immediate threat of terrorism: The EU’s so-called non-emotive lexicon won’t do anything to stop dangerous extremists targeting Britain.’’

A Foreign Office source insisted the “common lexicon’’ was not an exercise in “political correctness’’ but an attempt to find a “common vocabulary and definitions’’ for statements about terrorism.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12236
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #98 on: July 27, 2007, 09:37:38 AM »

A legal follow up to the Danish cartoons affair from the WSJ:
=========

Shouting Murder on a Crowded Street
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
July 27, 2007

A British court last week sentenced four men to up to six years in prison for inciting murder and racial hatred. The men were among the hundreds of Muslims who in February of last year met after Friday prayers at London's Regent's Park mosque and marched to Denmark's embassy to protest the Muhammad cartoons that had been published in Danish newspapers. Like other such rallies, this protest descended into calls for terror and the beheadings of those who "insult Islam."

 
The convicted men did nothing more destructive than shout, and in the view of some Britons, the judge went too far and dangerously curtailed the freedom of speech. But consider another view: By locking away the protestors for the words they chanted that day, the judge actually struck a victory for the freedom of speech.

Even in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, where freedom of expression has always known fewer limitations than in Continental Europe, it is not an absolute right. Laws regulating obscenity and hate speech have long set boundaries for what can be considered legitimate speech.

In this case, the slogans the men were chanting and had written on their placards were more than offensive; they were calls to mass murder. They were not vague threats that a society could afford to tolerate. Instead, by referring to actual acts of terror, the men's words took on a concrete, menacing character. Among the threats they shouted were: "U.K. you will pay, 7/7 on its way," "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11," "Bomb, bomb Denmark, bomb, bomb U.S.A." and "Bomb, bomb the U.K."

The court's judgment contrasts with the attitude of the police on hand that day. The protest took place just seven months after the July 7 London bombings, in which 52 people died. Yet the officers turned a blind eye -- literally -- to the protestors' calls for more terror. They stood with their backs to the demonstrators, apparently ready to defend them against angry passers-by. British TV would later show an English bobby reprimanding a man who called for the protestors' arrest. "You say one more thing like that, mate, and you'll get yourself nicked (arrested)," the officer could be heard telling the onlooker. Public outrage about the police's failure to stop this pro-terror rally prompted the later arrests of some of the protestors.

In his verdict, Judge Brian Barker said that "Freedom of speech and assembly have long been jealously guarded by our laws…With freedom comes respect and responsibility, none of which was demonstrated by you." He continued: "What you were part of was the complete opposite of peaceful protest. Your words were meant to foment hatred and encourage killing."

Recall, this case started with a Danish newspaper's decision to publish cartoons that satirized the Prophet Muhammad. The protestors' goals were to impose their own standards of acceptable speech and silence dissenting voices. By striking down the demonstrators' "freedom" to intimidate and threaten, the court protected free speech for everybody else.

This is also what the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald, suggested when he argued during the trial that glorifying the London subway bombings and calling for more terror "undermines everyone else's freedom by stirring up bigotry, racial hatred and violence. Terror attacks our way of life and incitement can make a very real contribution to it."

In fighting the war on terror, the challenge for Western societies is usually defined as finding the right balance between security and preserving the freedoms that make our democratic societies worth defending. But that's not the whole story. Terrorists and their supporters threaten not just our lives; they also threaten our freedom -- including our freedom of speech.

Some critics of radical Islam already live under constant police protection in fear of their lives. How many journalists or writers may mince their words out of fear of repercussions? The state has a duty not only to guarantee security, arguably its foremost task, but also to protect the open society against its Islamist enemies.

Civil libertarians' almost reflexive objection to any type of tougher security measures stems from a noble tradition. History teaches members of democratic societies to see the state not so much as the guardian but as the natural enemy of civil liberties. That's because liberty had to be gradually wrested from the hands of absolutist rulers. In Western political philosophy, freedom is defined as freedom from the state.

But there's another danger too, one that we forget at our peril: If the the state is not allowed to stop Islamists' incitement to murder and terror, their speech may eventually be the only one that remains "free."

Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31227


« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2007, 10:59:47 PM »



http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/28/sharia-watch-man-arrested-for-koran-abuse/
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!