Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  13  14 ... 16  Next

Look at what happened though.....It started out as a peaceful protest (boycott) and turned into violence.....

The europeans knew what would happen, they knew it would turn into violence....I almost think thats what they wanted......

I'm suprised to hear this coming from you too....since now our soldiers in Afganistan are in increased danger because some europeans wanted to play games....

   

Nope, I think it is. You posed this comment:
Like I said, it's not up to us, it's up to them. They educate their own young to go into these training camps to be martyrs for Allah.

You said what we can do to not piss them off. Well, what can WE do? Many things we do in life piss them off because it doesn't accede to their religious doctrines. Not our fault. Basically, the only people I see now pissing them off are the Americans but now I suppose the Danish, French are pissing them off now too because of some art work. When does it end? When will it end?

P.S - Your situation of Muslims dipicting Jews being slaughterd in a mocking way is hardly the same as dipicting Muhammad which is the reason why Muslims hate it. They hate Idolatry because it goes against their faith.

   

Theres a difference between acts carried out by states or outlets controlled by states or representing states, and acts carried out by privately controlled firms or individuals. A state and it's controlled media (ie Iran) should be held to stricter standards than an individual(ie The Danish Newspaper). For example:

Lets say an american citizen stole a watch in moscow, no biggie in relationships between the two countries.
Lets say the american government payed him to steal the watch, lets see what happens between russia and the us.

the two cases are very different

In Iran state controlled media and state officials call the holocast(which btw is an historical fact) a sham, and call for genocide(a war crime).

In Denmark a private paper NOT representing the state or people publish cartoons supporting an article not critical of islam but critical of it's attempts to control free speech and violent acts by islam.

Both of the above are offensive.

Heres the difference:

The Iranian case was counducted by the state and it's intent was to be offensive and anti-semetic.

The Danish case was conducted by a private company and it's intent was not to be offensive but to demonstrate that sometimes muslims can take their censorship too far espicially in europe.

   

What I meant was, that my hypothetical point was not connected to my terrorist recruiting point...they were separate posts/ideas......

In regards to everything we do pissing them off......I agree that there are things that we do to piss them off that we should defend....Like I said, pick your battles......

defend women's rights, human rights, the right of jews to exist peacefully....

don't defend the right to attack their culture........

When we defend the right of people to attack their culture, we lose the moral authority to defend important rights, like women's rights etc.....

To me this is as stupid as defending a pedophile's right to draw naked children because of his freedom of expression.....

   

Some people (not me) think that a lot black people "play the race card" too much, and are over-sensitive to racism. Do you think newspapers should "teach them a lesson" by making cartoons of black people being hanged from tree branches? Or maybe black people shining the shoes of rich white bankers?

Of course, not to be offensive, just to show they can be overly sensitive...

   

the difference is pedafiles would first have to commit a crime. where do we draw the line for freedoms? we can not give in. I think it is good the governments said they didn't agree with the cartoons but i don't think we should pinish people who had no ill intent. Where do we draw the line? I for one would rather err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little. If we did protect against this I would like to see protections against attacks on everybody not just the people that can hurt us when we offend them.

   

When you talk about The State vs Private Companies, I agree with you....

I think the governments responses have been proper. They should say they highly disapprove of the actions of the newspapers, but that they can't do anything about it.....

I think that a boycott is an excellent way to deal with a situation like this.....because boycotts are ways to target private companies....

The governments should not defend their newspapers publicly, and they haven't been......

   

the overly sensative part of the muslims had to do with the drawing of mohammed in the first place. If someone was to make an editorial cartoon showing a particular black leader "playing the race card"(this leader would be one who does this in real life) in a loud obnoxious but funny manner then sure I'd support it. It's hard to draw a line. Cartooning Mohammed is relevant to the point they were making while black people hanging from branches is not(unlike the way I mentioned above)

there is a fine line that the cartoons came close to crossing but didn't

   

It is a crime to posses child pornography....and the question becomes if someone draws a picture or writes a story involving child porn, do we defend their right of expression?

As it is right now, our child porn laws are messed up because of freedom of expression defenses......

I think Stephen Harper has said he would address this, not this election, but last election anyway......

   

That's exactly the point. The cartoons didn't offend you, and they didn't offend me. But they obviously have offended millions of muslims across the world....

The cartoons did not cross "our line", but they did cross "their line". I think if we want to be forming positive relations with these countries we should start to respect "their lines", and expect them to respect "our lines"....

If we say "we expect you to respect women", and they say "we expect you to respect our prophet", then we should......

But if we say "You must respect women's rights and at the same time we are going to retain the right to mock your prophet....where is that going to lead us?

   

Everything you say here may be correct, but reality kills your theory quicker than a suicide vest. Even just a cursory look at the Koran will show anyone that muslims are instructed to kill and eradicate anything or anyone who is not a believer as set out in the Koran. That is the root of all of this hoopla. It is the reason behind the cartoons, and it is the reason behind the response from the muslim world. Do what I say or I will kill you. Here you are saying we shouldn't piss them off, yet they have no problem sending of their kids to learn how to be a suicide bomber or cheering when thousands of people are killed in terrorist attacks. Or killing thousands of their own people. That cartoon doesn't represent the whole European community, but the European community values the right to free speech. That cartoon might be offensive to muslims but lets face it, they didn't put that bomb in muhamed's turban cuz he is a funny guy. Its because that is the vision that so many westerners have of islam, a bunch of crazy bastards who want to kill and slaughter innocents and themselves in the name of religion. And all those kooks protesting are becoming caricatures of the cartoon itself. It's just perpetuating a stereotype. Or is it a stereotype? I don't know, but I do know this, cartoons don't kill people, people kill people.

   

does the picture identify the child in sexual acts or is it artistic and done to show beauty? is the story written so that sick pervs can jack off or to make a point? And I don't think ever that the pictures or stories even the artistic ones should be of real children. personally i think there are rare execptions that should be allowed to child pornography for the above, as I think probably most nude drawings and pictures of children are done fore perverts. If someone can legitimately make a strong case that somehow is is "art" then I think we could let them off for drawings of not real children. guilty until proven innocent would be a good guideline for such a sensative issue.

I was just saying though where you quoted me that it is irrelevant because the pedophile already commited a crime.

   

I think you're right. I think we should have found a way to encourage them to protest this with a boycott. Their initial reaction was a peaceful protest. Instead we found a way to push them over the line from peaceful protest to violent protest.....

And you will also find the same violence towards non-believers in the bible as in the koran.....It's not the religion, it's the intepretation of the religion...

The muslims who believe in extremist interpretations of Islam are pretty much the same as Christians in the not too distant past. We should be encouraging them to take the leap forward into the 21st century, not collectively kicking them in the nuts after some Danish bozos slapped them in the face.

   

the line is where it is artfully and creatively done and where the expression fits he view trying to be expressed.

Muslims are free to attack the west but not for us to attack them? we should not sacrifice rights unless they sacrifice the same. If we give up the right to free press which can criticise them then they should give up their rights to criticise us.

   

It is a contraversial issue, and one that is not resolved in Canada's legal system......

The point is though that Freedom of Expression is not an unrestricted right......We do have laws against expressing hate (racism, etc....)

And other countries have laws against what they consider over the line.....

I just think we should be taking every opportunity we can to form positive ties to middle-eastern countries, not every chance we can to piss them off....

   

Previous  1 ... 8  9  10  11  12  13  14 ... 16  Next