Sir Bandelot

Considering your attitude here which seems to be one of distrusting or fearing any muslim, even all muslims, I find it hard to believe they like you at all. I'm sure what comes around goes around.

I'm not sure now if you're being sarcastic about hate speech being "silly", because earlier it seemed that you were offended by the death threats made to Parker and Stone.

I guess freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.

Seems to me the Archie comics are not so much leading the way, as reflecting a growing acceptance of controversial topics, from a somewhat safe stance. Now, if Kevan were to get married to Moose in Riverdale...

I suspect there's a lot of that going on, in languages most of us do not understand. Don't get me wrong, I think they should be busted. However not much of it is broadcast on National TV. And "heaven help us" should any of these guys ever become Prime Minister, or President of the United States..

Obama blows a lot of nice smoke bt I don't see him capitulating at all. I don't know if his extension of an olive branch to Muslims is sincere, but in any case it was worth a try. I don't like Obama much because he seems too slick. Seems to me he doesn't mean what he says. At least George Bush meant what he said, (when you could understand him). Considering his choice in the escalation of war in Afghanistan, on the very eve of his receiving the nobel peace prize I believe Obama is just as capable of waging war as his predecessor. Neither was truly an experienced military man and the President is often only one part of a large and complex military apparatus, under advisement from top Generals in the Pentagon. Gates himself certainly has enough knowledge and experience over the years to provide reliable decision making. Gates role in the US pentagon goes back something like 30 years, including work for Nixon and Reagan.

Free speech generally does not extend to uttering death threats. I doubt they are even in a western country. But calling for the death of "infidels" is usually tolerated, laws or no. Even in America.

Just kidding...

More degenerate western literature, design to poison the minds of our youth and turn us into weak minded liberal slaves.

Except for Parker and Stone. In retrospect a well calculated publicity stunt. They can only benefit from the attention in the long run. Unless of course, they eat a bullet

In a sense the conversation has become a kind of self-referencing thing. My point of view is superior to yours, you people are trying to suppress me, I will tell you whenever you are wrong, I will silence you from expressing your views... You people are funny!

The conversation went beyond that particular aspect a while ago, to encompass this, that and the other thing... And no one wants to admit that the other persons POV has any validity, as usual!

They are saying that the people who died, especially as in Katrina and Haiti deserved it for their sins. Specifically, that they deserved to die because they sinned against god for a number of whatever religious sacrileges. Nor is the website calling for death for Parker and Stone coming from a commander in chief of any nation. They are just some nutjobs, nowhere near as influential as leaders of millions like Robertson or Falwell. These christian leaders called for and approved the death of certain people, for committing what are perceived to be sins. And they are American Christian leaders. That is the point I have proved.

I already told you. But George is not a bad second guess. Not sure but I think the POTUS often leads in christian prayers at the white house, and perhaps at the opening of some political procedures as well. Well maybe you can enlighten me on that. The week of September 11th, 2001, Robertson discussed the terror attacks with Jerry Falwell, who said that "the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Robertson replied, "I totally concur." Less than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina killed 1,836 people, Pat Robertson implied on the September 12th broadcast of The 700 Club that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment in response to America's abortion policy. He suggested that September 11 and the disaster in New Orleans "could... be connected in some way".[47] That could be an ayatollah talking right there. And I believe these boys have millions of followers, US followers. Is that so? Of course we know that he called for the assassination of some people over the years. He did this on his show, "700 club", which is a christian TV show. Does that make him a religious leader in this context? Shall I go on because I'm sure I can dig up crap like this on others too. Christian fundamentalism is a rising power in US society. So your premise that Christianity has moved on from these forms of violence, ie. death threats IS INDEED patently false.

No I'm talking about a religious leader here. Don't try to obfuscate

As does Islam

It think Sharkman says that the right is gaining power, and I tend to agree. This is happening in other countries too, not just Canada or the US. If by "the right" you mean conservatism, then yes, the world is moving toward a more conservative ideology, less liberal, less accepting of people with differences, more intolerant. Which is interesting, considering you might expect things like the internet and globalization would bring people closer together in understanding each other, and learning to calm down. But globalization represents a threat to unique cultures, in that it tends to promote more of a mono-culture. A global multi-cultural melting pot. And the internet can also be used to fight against this, by promoting intolerance, distrust and hatred for other alien cultures. No one wants to lose their culture, people want to continue the traditions of their elders. When some outside foreign influence comes along and attempts to dismantle our long held beliefs, we lash out. It threatens everything we believe in, it threatens our families and our homes. So there is this backlash against cultural erosion due to foreign mixing. I think that's what leads to radicalization. It's a culture war. We've seen how the war in the middle east actually increased radicalization, as the backlash against attacks by foreigners. If it is our intention to try and democratize or "liberate" (as in liberal) Islamic countries, if that is what we really want to do we need to think carefully about how best to do it. Kind of like when dealing with a temperamental teenager... there's a time to confront them, and a time to be more persuasive. It takes maturity to know when to use each approach... let cool heads prevail.

Some Christians do advocate killing. The fringe nut jobs. Like Pat Robertson... there's a few guys like that, christian leaders with large followings. Some of them are based in the US too. Then there's christian cult groups, some whom disagree with the mainstream western lifestyle and choose to live in isolation. These cults have been known to abuse their followers, even kill them. So the notion that Christianity has moved beyond that is "patently false", as some of yous guys always like to say. That doesn't mean we should justify what the radical Islamists are saying, with their death threats against westerners. It just means, the notion that we as a whole group are better than Muslims is full of crap. There are radical elements in our own society as well. And that's who the enemy of freedom is, extremists. They can be Muslim, or they can be Christian.

He certainly does if they set up the shot in a studio, to purposely take images of a killing. The comparison of an image taken as news and one taken in a purposely staged environ does not hold up.

But someone still has to take pictures of the kids, right? What's happening there? If it were legal it would create a market for the pictures. So now you explain how that process isn't harmful.

If you read the article in the link you'd know what happened there. Rudy Guliani shut the show down. Then they punished the museum for showing it. MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI: If I ignored it, then the argument would be on the other side: How can you ignore something as disgusting, horrible and awful as this? And my view is you do what you think is right. I believe opposing this is the right thing. Lets see you gloat over that one, old boy!

More nonsense. I'm afraid... I think it's ok to offend everyone else, etc. How about some more logical arguments. It should be no surprise that people around the world are willing to kill for their beliefs, even subtle differences in religious belief. Like the Orangemen in Ireland. Here in Canada we have a general attitude, as long as you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. In other words, everyone should just mind their own damn business, and there won't be any problems. That means, you do your thing in private, don't bother me. Whoever is bothering someone, is being an antagonist. Chances are we're gonna tangle. Then fuck your right to free speech.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. "Any Time" Ridiculous. Everyone should just accept death threats- ridiculous. All I'm saying is, is it necessary to respond to Muslims ultra-sensitivity of wanting their prophet to be respected, by having a national draw Muhammad day? No, I object to that. Such jeering idiocy is the right of people in a free speech nation, and it's my right to say I think their just being stupid, and I don't think we should do that. For saying that I'm told I must hate free speech, I must like being bullied, and all the other nonsense you've thrown at me.

I think I do state it clearly. All I have to do is go back to my messages and highlight a word or phrase that some people want to ignore, or extrapolate on what I said to mean more things. Those are cheap debating tactics, quite immature. Ahh, "seems to be..." constantly curbing our speech. Again you are making absurd claims about what I say. Go back and read my last post, or any of the others because I'm bored with repeating myself, over the same baseless accusations. I seem to be saying, why is it so important to some people that they feel they have to insult Islam. Sure, in the US people people can say anything they want. But there are still a lot of situations where this is not so. Or rather, they can say it but they might face the consequences. You cannot speak plainly in a court of law. You cannot disrespect a police officer, or insult a judge. You can't insult your employer. You can;t disseminate confidential or proprietary information. You can't write whatever you want on a forum web site. There are rules of conduct. Break the rules and you'll be removed from the group. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution defines a citizen's right to freedom of speech, except in cases inciting a riot, issuing violent threats, or endangering the public. The act of disrespecting the police is generally protected by the First Amendment, but is sometimes called "contempt of cop" as a analogy to "contempt of court" (which is instead, a long-established, punishable offence). In many cases, citizens have been arrested for "disorderly conduct" based on remarks or hand gestures they made to various officers. Historically, numerous cases[1] of arrests stemming from "flipping the bird" have resulted in the arrested person being exonerated by the courts. More recently, there has been a trend whereby bird-flippers receive cash settlements from the local government involved. The state does not sanction killings for improper speech, but it still happens, just as Zundel was attacked in his home by bombs. Malcolm X Martin Luther King Vernon E. Jordan The State does not allow certain speech when it goes against the nationalist agenda. Protesters Arrested During Bush Speech Dixie Chicks vilified by President and media Gay Rights Activist Arrested Activist Arrested for threatening Elton John In the United States, resistance to female toplessness is much greater than in mainland Europe or Australia, even extending to controversy over breastfeeding in public. Topless men were not arrested. Twelve Arrested in California for heckling Israeli Ambassador Feb 10, 2010 At the University of California at Irvine (UCI) campus on Monday night, 12 people were arrested after disrupting a speech by Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. On Tuesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon’s speech at Oxford University in London was disrupted when protesters yelled at Ayalon during his speech. Elisha Strom Secret Service Ordered Local Police to Restrict Anti-Bush Protesters at Rallies, ACLU Charges in Unprecedented Nationwide Lawsuit More than 190 arrested at anti-Iraq war D.C. protest It is not a whole different topic when someone write a thread that attacks muslims for the actions of a radical group. Moderate Muslims are trying and do speak out against the radicals. As is often the case, it's the loud crazy ones who get the attention. The ones who want to mind their own business merely get threatened by paranoid bullies in the street. Yes he did just as some of those Americans I posted links to broke the law. They said things the state didn't like. Chief Justice Rehnquist also stated in regard to bias motivated crimes that "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." I suppose he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's ok. When you are the one who strikes the first blow, expect that others will fight back too. To be clear, I'm not defending the radicals, only saying don't walk into a Hells Angels clubhouse and tell everyone to F-off, expecting them to be civil in their response. If you think your speech will have some constructive outcome, good for you. Just don't whine about it if other people don't like it, and want to do something.

Thats fine by me. If people want a fight, they shouldn't complain when there's going to be one.