Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State of the world, state sponsored terror, terror and war in general

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
    The mayor of Rotterdam, Netherlands (who was born in Morocco) tells his fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off':


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...f-live-TV.html
    Kind of an ironic move considering this goes against centuries of concepts of egality, liberty devised in Netherlands (particularly Amsterdam) and that initiated our present concepts of freedom of speech which apparently isn't so free.

    ironic too that Netherlands had been targeted by centuries of religious strife (including the worst being through the Catholic faith and Spanish inquisitions) which really is the history of the region.

    But this latest from one of the most multicultural nations on Earth.

    Its deplorable really that all Muslims are being attacked in this manner when these are these atrocities are the acts of violent terrorist rebels.

    Toss it in the "should know better" bin.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

    Comment


    • I suppose newspapers should now "responsibly" refrain from publishing photos of snowmen. After all, it might provoke an attack or selective targeting.

      Saudi cleric condemns snowmen as anti-Islamic

      DUBAI (Reuters) - A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.

      Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."

      Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

      "God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he wrote in his ruling.
      http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-cleric-c...125212264.html


      We should probably stop making snowmen. Nor should we publish any pictures of snowmen, because it wouldn't help anything. You never know who might get killed!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Replacement View Post
        Its deplorable really that all Muslims are being attacked in this manner when these are these atrocities are the acts of violent terrorist rebels.
        No, not "all Muslims are being attacked". First, the mayor making these comments is Muslim himself. Second, he is only telling the Muslim people who do not support personal freedoms to get lost.

        I think it's a great stance to take.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
          I suppose newspapers should now "responsibly" refrain from publishing photos of snowmen. After all, it might provoke an attack or selective targeting.

          Saudi cleric condemns snowmen as anti-Islamic

          DUBAI (Reuters) - A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.

          Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."

          Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

          "God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he wrote in his ruling.
          http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-cleric-c...125212264.html


          We should probably stop making snowmen. Nor should we publish any pictures of snowmen, because it wouldn't help anything. You never know who might get killed!
          tbh I find this approach more effective. Challenge the belief system first through this kind of illustration of the issue at hand. This to me is satire, and possibly even effective use of satire and as far as I can see it doesn't blaspheme. This cleric is challenging the very concepts involved. Good on him.
          "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Replacement View Post
            People seem to be thinking that publishing the cartoons is helping at all. In what way.
            Isn't it obvious? Because censoring them is more dangerous than publishing them. We don't have a desire to go back to the dark ages, where the laws of the world are dictated by one group's silly religious superstitions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
              Originally posted by Replacement View Post
              Its deplorable really that all Muslims are being attacked in this manner when these are these atrocities are the acts of violent terrorist rebels.
              No, not "all Muslims are being attacked". First, the mayor making these comments is Muslim himself. Second, he is only telling the Muslim people who do not support personal freedoms to get lost.

              I think it's a great stance to take.
              Well, we disagree. I just finished reading a few books on concepts of liberty that were started in ironically the Netherlands. Which is arguably the Nation, not France, that first informed every notion of liberty that we have.

              So you applaud this kind of verdict. It makes me kind of sad. This mayor is engaging in reactionary vitriol.

              GTFO isn't exactly the enlightened statement I want to be seeing from any mayor in a free society. This is very problematic and reaction making complex issues worse.
              "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

              Comment


              • And what about Christians, Jews and Atheists who "don't support personal freedom"? Do they get a pass? And what exactly is the definition of personal freedom?

                Can an Ultra-Orthodox Jew demand that a woman not sit next to him on a bus or should he "go back to Israel"? Can a Christian doctor refuse to heal a gay person or should they be deported to Vatican City?

                What if I object to having to pay overtime on Christmas Day, essentially having to pay extra for a Christian holiday, even if I or my employees aren't Christian? Am I the one who doesn't support "personal freedom" or is it the government?
                Last edited by kkozoriz; 13-01-2015, 03:10 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                  Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                  People seem to be thinking that publishing the cartoons is helping at all. In what way.
                  Isn't it obvious? Because censoring them is more dangerous than publishing them. We don't have a desire to go back to the dark ages, where the laws of the world are dictated by one group's silly religious superstitions.
                  It doesn't logically follow. It is not an either or premise. It is not a matter of censure and die. It is not any of that.

                  The Western World has spent decades, arguably centuries, being in almost complete control of the world. Which only continues.

                  The only reason the Western World isn't being able to bomb the latest insurgents into kingdom come is that these are the enemies arguably created from within. Which gets more created through reactionary zeal that we are hearing more of today. This is the very definition of helping to foment unrest, anger, hatred WITHIN borders.

                  What is needed today, this week, next week, is calm. Not mindless escalation.
                  Last edited by Replacement; 13-01-2015, 03:11 PM.
                  "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by kkozoriz View Post
                    And what about Christians, Jews and Atheists who "don't support personal freedom"? Do they get a pass?
                    Yes, and even his fellow Muslims get a pass.


                    And his comments would certainly go over a lot worse if he attacked Jews and Christians (he being Muslim and all)...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                      I suppose newspapers should now "responsibly" refrain from publishing photos of snowmen. After all, it might provoke an attack or selective targeting.

                      Saudi cleric condemns snowmen as anti-Islamic

                      DUBAI (Reuters) - A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has whipped up controversy by issuing a religious ruling forbidding the building of snowmen, described them as anti-Islamic.

                      Asked on a religious website if it was permissible for fathers to build snowmen for their children after a snowstorm in the country's north, Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid replied: "It is not permitted to make a statue out of snow, even by way of play and fun."

                      Quoting from Muslim scholars, Sheikh Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam.

                      "God has given people space to make whatever they want which does not have a soul, including trees, ships, fruits, buildings and so on," he wrote in his ruling.
                      http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-cleric-c...125212264.html


                      We should probably stop making snowmen. Nor should we publish any pictures of snowmen, because it wouldn't help anything. You never know who might get killed!
                      You know this is just the point some of us are trying to make. If there were no Charlie Hebdo cartoons these terrorist would find something else to wage their war. What next, no dolls, no action figures, no statues. The list is endless that these guys could use as excuses for mayhem.
                      Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

                      Comment


                      • At a Houston event tonight, Mr. Bush revealed the depth of his personal feelings on Iraq when he described Mr. Hussein as ''a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.''

                        New York Times, September 27, 2002

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/wo...orce-iraq.html
                        Thus we end up with over 100,000 dead Iraqis and 1.7 million refugees.

                        Comment


                        • ^Even that is real deep thinking for Dubya.
                          Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

                          Comment


                          • Quite interesting...

                            Scathing U.S. view of French unrest and Muslim integration in WikiLeaks

                            http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/...-in-wikileaks/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                              Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                              Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                              If the Journalists make the responsible decision not to publish depictions of the prophet (which btw has been the editorial decision of almost every other media source in the world) the journalists do not get targeted.
                              Please stop calling it a responsible decision.

                              "Responsibility" has nothing to do with it.
                              What would you call it then?

                              Tell that to the editorial boards of the 99.9% media sources on this planet that have acted prudently in refraining.
                              so 99.9% of the media sources on this planet have acted prudently in refraining from committing blasphemy???

                              even if that 99.9% were correct, it completely misses the point about how their choice to print or not print was not and is not simply a question of being responsible and prudent or being irresponsible or imprudent.

                              blasphemy within islam isn't nearly as restricted or as narrowly defined as it is being presented in framing this discussion.

                              according to our friends at wiki (i know, i know, find another source but this was a good summary):

                              "A variety of actions, speeches or behavior can constitute blasphemy in Islam. Some examples include insulting or cursing Allah, or Muhammad; mockery or disagreeable behavior towards beliefs and customs common in Islam; criticism of Islam's holy personages. Apostasy that is act of abandoning Islam, or finding faults or expressing doubts about Allah (ta'til) and Qur'an, rejection of Muhammed or any of his teachings, or leaving the Muslim community to become an atheist is a form of blasphemy. Questioning religious opinions (fatwa) and normative Islamic views can also be construed as blasphemous. Improper dress, drawing offensive cartoons, tearing or burning holy literature of Islam, creating or using music or painting or video or novels to mock or criticize Muhammad are some examples of blasphemous acts. In the context of those who are non-Muslims, the concept of blasphemy includes all aspects of infidelity (kufr)."

                              the matter is further complicated in that islam does not have anything approaching the hierarchal structure governing most western structures (religion as well as government and education etc.). without that, it is up to individual clerics to declare an individual a blasphemer or any specific act - such as publishing a cartoon - as blasphemy.

                              and if anyone is looking for a blasphemous individual or an act of blasphemy, it can be found virtually on demand virtually anywhere. it doesn't have to be a hebdo cartoon or a novel by salman rushdie, or even adultery between consenting adults. it can be as simple as naming a teddy bear mohammed (you probably can't make this stuff up if you wanted to http://content.time.com/time/world/a...687755,00.html ).

                              so to be "prudent", at a minimum, no-one in the western world would not only not publish the types of cartoons favoured by hebdo if they concerned islam, no-one would insult or curse allah or mohammed, mock or engage in behaviour which might be disagreeable towards beliefs and customs common in islam; criticize islamic clerics, abandon islam, or find fault or express doubts about allah or the quran, reject mohammed or any of his teachings, or leave the muslim community to become an atheist or question religious opinions or normative islamic views or appear in improper dress, draw offensive cartoons, tear or burn islamic holy literature, create or use music or painting or video or novels to mock or criticize mohammad nor name a teddy bear mohammad...

                              this isn't being "responsible", this would be being silly.

                              should 99.9% of the media sources on the planet publish the same cartoons hebdo did or publish similar cartoons? absolutely not. freedom of speech includes the right not to publish as well as the right to publish. and having the right to publish does not extend to having an obligation to publish, particularly when it may be offensive to more than muslims. that's called respect, not responsibility.

                              and over and above simply conducting themselves with respect, for those media who elect not to publish for whatever reasons, that act is not being "responsible" any more than those who elect to exercise their right to publish are being "irresponsible" and therefor culpable for the kinds of responses carried out last week. as previously noted, if it wasn't for the cartoons, it would have been for something else.

                              those responsible for the acts that took place last week were those who carried out those acts - along with those that assisted and encouraged them with their planning and their training and their targeting etc. - not those who they victimized and killed.

                              and for those who think i am directing blame and responsibility for these acts at islam, they would be mistaken. the quran may well state that those who blaspheme "shall be seized and slain without mercy" but christianity states "anyone who blasphemes the name of the lord must be put to death," typically by stoning and judaism similarly says blasphemers "shall surely be put to death".

                              so it is not the holy scriptures - whosoever's holy scripture it may be - or their centuries old definitions of blasphemy that is the issue but how those scriptures are interpreted and how they are used - or misused - today to further ends which have very little to do with real religion. that doesn't mean that for those that abuse their selected scripture that the scripture or the religion is to blame. but it also doesn't mean that those abusers haven't created a modern religious sect which even though it is not main stream religion, that is in no small part to blame.

                              this isn't exclusive to islam either today or historically but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. and even if just exists as religion solely in the minds of those abusing it, that doesn't make it less real whether it's islam today in isolated parts of paris or less isolated parts of nigeria or iraq or syria or if it's christianity in idaho today and ireland yesterday. we can't say it's not islamic - however isolated - while at the same time calling for acts that might be considered blasphemous to islam to be avoided for fear it will provoke them and while those who choose to be provoked undertake those acts and consider themselves to be doing so under the guise of religion.

                              if there is a "responsibility", it is to be honest about what we call things and not dishonest about why we do or don't do things.
                              Last edited by kcantor; 13-01-2015, 06:45 PM.
                              "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                                Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                                The mayor of Rotterdam, Netherlands (who was born in Morocco) tells his fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off':


                                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...f-live-TV.html
                                Kind of an ironic move considering this goes against centuries of concepts of egality, liberty devised in Netherlands (particularly Amsterdam) and that initiated our present concepts of freedom of speech which apparently isn't so free.

                                ironic too that Netherlands had been targeted by centuries of religious strife (including the worst being through the Catholic faith and Spanish inquisitions) which really is the history of the region.

                                But this latest from one of the most multicultural nations on Earth.

                                Its deplorable really that all Muslims are being attacked in this manner when these are these atrocities are the acts of violent terrorist rebels.

                                Toss it in the "should know better" bin.
                                Nope, not at all.
                                He's exercising free speech to point out the irrational behaviour of immigrants who move to a place like Europe and want to use it's freedoms to make it more like the old country by restricting some of those freedoms. Makes sense to me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X