Michael Hardner Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 There isn't. We don't murder diplomats and storm embassies when people express unpopular opinions. Someone on this thread gave an example of Christian terrorism. Is that part of the "we" you're talking about ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Someone on this thread gave an example of Christian terrorism. Is that part of the "we" you're talking about ? Are you suggesting that there are "holy grails" in our society regarding freedom of speech and expression that, when crossed, regularly lead to murder and violence? I'm not going to go back and loo through the thread for that example, but I'll assume it's in reference to murders of doctors practising abortions and/or attacks on medical clinics that offer the service. If I'm right, those are not responses to speech or expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Are you suggesting that there are "holy grails" in our society regarding freedom of speech and expression that, when crossed, regularly lead to murder and violence? No, it was a terrorist group that bombed a Paris cinema in response to the Martin Scorcese film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) No, it was a terrorist group that bombed a Paris cinema in response to the Martin Scorcese film. So you've got an example of a terrorist attack in 1988 from Paris in response to freedom of expression. You want to have a contest to see who can come up with more examples of violent responses to freedom of speech and expression when comparing the "Muslim world" with the West? What you're doing is obviously a desperate attempt to portray a non-existent parallel between our societies and those of Muslim majority countries. Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 So you've got an example of a terrorist attack in 1988 from Paris in response to freedom of expression. "I" don't have it. It's not my example - I was just pointing out that somebody had posted that. You want to have a contest to see who can come up with more examples of violent responses to freedom of speech and expression when comparing the "Muslim world" with the West? I suppose we *could* do that for round two. Round one was the answer to this: "Are you suggesting that there are "holy grails" in our society regarding freedom of speech and expression that, when crossed, regularly lead to murder and violence?" I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish though. Are we making progress ? Do you see that there are indeed religious extremists, or were, in the west ? If it's just a contest to cite examples of violence, I don't see where that gets us. This discussion has been had on MLW many times, and I like to know why we're talking about it. Are we trying to condemn a religion ? Are we condemning cultures ? Countries ? If so, why ? What you're doing is obviously a desperate attempt to portray a non-existent parallel between our societies and those of Muslim majority countries. I'm not desperate - I just disproved one of your points and I'm not even in this discussion really. Believe me, I have had this discussion dozens of times on here there's no desperation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 "I" don't have it. It's not my example - I was just pointing out that somebody had posted that. I suppose we *could* do that for round two. Round one was the answer to this: "Are you suggesting that there are "holy grails" in our society regarding freedom of speech and expression that, when crossed, regularly lead to murder and violence?" I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish though. Are we making progress ? Do you see that there are indeed religious extremists, or were, in the west ? If it's just a contest to cite examples of violence, I don't see where that gets us. This discussion has been had on MLW many times, and I like to know why we're talking about it. Are we trying to condemn a religion ? Are we condemning cultures ? Countries ? If so, why ? I'm not desperate - I just disproved one of your points and I'm not even in this discussion really. Believe me, I have had this discussion dozens of times on here there's no desperation... You certainly didn't disprove anything. My point stands: there are no "holy grails" in Canada or America where certain unpopular speech is used as a pretext for murder and violence, whereas in Muslim majority countries, it seems quite easy to organise violent riots when the religious/political establishments choose to do so. We don't do those sorts of things when Christianity or Judaism are ridiculed or insulted. You seem to be asserting otherwise, by referencing an exceptional story from 1988, and it's ridiculous. Isolated incidents don't constitute a pattern of behaviour, which is what's been established in many Muslim majority countries when there is a perception of Islam having been defamed. The closest you came to honesty in this post was asserting that such religious extremism is largely a thing of the past in the West, which implies that you do recognise how Muslim societies do not share our values of freedom of expression and speech. Predictably, however, you seem to imply that "progress" is some sort of inevitability, where Muslim societies will in time be where we are today with respect to freedom of speech and expression. That's typical of the leftist worldview, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 You certainly didn't disprove anything. My point stands: there are no "holy grails" in Canada or America where certain unpopular speech is used as a pretext for murder and violence, whereas in Muslim majority countries, it seems quite easy to organise violent riots when the religious/political establishments choose to do so. "Canada or America" = moved bar. You didn't answer the most important questions: why should we have a discussion around religion ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Somewhere some Taliban types are laughing at us! The cartoon rage and the associated riots are obviously fabrications for terrorists' purposes. Even the average Muslim on a middle east street corner can understand that there is a difference between a movie produced by an individual who happens to reside in America and an action of the government of America. Should Americans condemn the entire country of Libya for the murder of their ambassador? A murder that was never committed by their new government but rather by some extremist animals who happened to be in Libya at the time? No, cartoon rage is just an excuse to commit violent protest against western targets. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 24, 2012 Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 Somewhere some Taliban types are laughing at us! The cartoon rage and the associated riots are obviously fabrications for terrorists' purposes. Even the average Muslim on a middle east street corner can understand that there is a difference between a movie produced by an individual who happens to reside in America and an action of the government of America. Actually, you'd be surprised. Many of these Muslim majority countries have horrible educational opportunities and don't realise that there are societies out there where media outlets AREN'T under complete government control. Should Americans condemn the entire country of Libya for the murder of their ambassador? A murder that was never committed by their new government but rather by some extremist animals who happened to be in Libya at the time? Libya should be held accountable for not providing sufficient security to the consulate. If the Libyan government wanted to shut down the terrorist attack and violent riots at the consulate, they could've done so. More importantly, however, the blame lies at the feet of Hillary Clinton, and to a slightly lesser extent Barack Obama. There was virtually non-existent security at the Benghazi consulate despite reports that it was needed. The Obama administration was more committed to maintaining a "low profile" than to actually fulfil its obligation of ensuring the security of its diplomatic missions. Also, it's frustrating that the enemies of freedom hide behind their status as "non-state actors". States aren't held to account as they should, because they blame third-party terrorist organisations that they keep at arm's length. No, cartoon rage is just an excuse to commit violent protest against western targets. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply naive. The truth is that YouTube film trailer that most of the media is dishonestly presenting as the spark that started the film does have relevance to these stories. Islamic terrorist organisations coordinate with mosques and friendly governments to incite Muslims to storm diplomatic missions in order to provide a human cover and large degree of commotion to increase the likelihood of a successful operation. What this means is that a large number of "participants" in these attacks/riots at the American consulate in Benghazi didn't necessarily have an intention to murder any of the diplomatic staff, but they were unaware that they were actually providing an operational asset to the terrorists. The same thing was done in Afghanistan awhile back (a little over a year ago?) when the Terry Jones Quran burning was used to incite Muslims to attack a UN assistance mission. This huge group of people provided cover for a terrorist to murder an American soldier, feeling confident that the other soldiers and security personnel would not return fire into such a busy area. This is a tactic used by terrorists, and it's used effectively. They exploit the overly-restrictive RoE placed on our military and security personnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 You clearly asserted that there is some parallel between the responses in our societies towards certain "holy grails" and those in Muslim societies. There isn't. We don't murder diplomats and storm embassies when people express unpopular opinions. Your comment, whether or not you realise it, amounts to apologism for murderous responses to freedom of expression and speech. CIA, Blackwater, other special ops. Some leaders expressed unpopular opinions against the USA. People have been killed, assassinated, by the United States and other countries secret services. Come on don't be naive man, what are you saying. We don't murder diplomats and storm embassies when people express unpopular opinions? Oh yes we surely do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 People have been killed, assassinated, by the United States and other countries secret services. Simply for expressing a disagreeable but non-threatening opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Simply for expressing a disagreeable but non-threatening opinion? I gave up on him after having read that last post of his. He's either unwilling or incapable of having a serious discussion. It's just contentiousness for the sake of contentiousness. Edited September 25, 2012 by kraychik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Simply for expressing a disagreeable but non-threatening opinion? Sure. Ask the people of Iraq how they liked getting shelled. Or the women farming on a hill in Afghanistan. They never even expressed anything mcuh, before the hellfire rockets came down from the remote predator drone, piloted by someone thousands of miles away. Oh wait, dead men tell no tales, how convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Sure. Ask the people of Iraq how they liked getting shelled. Or the women farming on a hill in Afghanistan. They never even expressed anything mcuh, before the hellfire rockets came down from the remote predator drone, piloted by someone thousands of miles away. Oh wait, dead men tell no tales, how convenient. g_bambino - See what I mean? I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Yeah you and him are good buddies. He wants to be your friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 They never even expressed anything mcuh... So, the answer you're giving to my question is: No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) So, the answer you're giving to my question is: No. The answer I'm giving is YES. SHould I quote entire books for you? I mentioned the black ops, go read Ghost wars, or something. Dont play dumb with me, I'm not here to post reams of information. This is the new paradigm, go get the info yourself young man. And you know it Edited September 25, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Actually, you'd be surprised. Many of these Muslim majority countries have horrible educational opportunities and don't realise that there are societies out there where media outlets AREN'T under complete government control. it's so wonderful and refreshing to have a 'muslim majority countries' expert such as krachik to tell us more about our world and those people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 The answer I'm giving is YES. Then it's not to my question. I asked if the US government, via its various agencies and contractors, kills people simply because they express disagreeable but non-threatening opinions. You said they kill people who didn't express much. If they didn't express disagreeable but non-threatening opinions, they couldn't have been killed for doing so. Hence, your answer to the question I actually asked was "no". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Then it's not to my question. I asked if the US government, via its various agencies and contractors, kills people simply because they express disagreeable but non-threatening opinions. You said they kill people who didn't express much. If they didn't express disagreeable but non-threatening opinions, they couldn't have been killed for doing so. Hence, your answer to the question I actually asked was "no". If you say so. What does that actually prove for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 If you say so. What does that actually prove for you That you utter unsubstantiated hyperbole that can't be taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 That you utter unsubstantiated hyperbole that can't be taken seriously. His comments weren't hyperbole, they were gibberish and nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 More acquiescence from the left to demands from Islamists to destroy freedom of speech and expression. In France, the socialist government tried to pressure a private newspaper not to publish cartoons depicting Muhamad. The French government subsequently shut down embassies and consulates in many Muslim majority countries out of fear of terrorism. FRENCH MAGAZINE EDITOR UNDER ARMED GUARD AFTER PUBLISHING MOHAMMED CARTOON Here are more calls for destruction of the first amendment from the usual suspects in Dearborn, Michigan, demanding a criminalisation of "defamation of religion", and we all know what that really means. ISLAMIC LEADERS IN DEARBORN MICH. PLAN RALLY TO SUPPORT SPEECH PROHIBITION The Obama administration is sympathetic to the same efforts being pushed via the UN, coming from the OiC. Religious Tolerance Resolution Backed by Obama Administration Aligns With Islamic Bloc’s Interests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 More acquiescence from the left... Kraychik - please don't cross-post. See the Rules and Guidelines link above if you have questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 That you utter unsubstantiated hyperbole that can't be taken seriously. I don't understand, what do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.