The video is not the atrocity. The killing of the civilians is, in both the Blackwater and Al Qaeda cases. It's really quite simple. Nice try at avoiding the issue though.lowing wrote:
Really? Blackwater posted a video of themselves executing people and enjoying it?? Link please.
Already addressed your EXCUSE for Islam
Oh, so I take it there are not several videos out there of blackwater torturing and murdering civilians, only an isolated incident? Also, I am in no postion to second guess what happened in the blackwater case. I wasn't there. As far as the beheadings? yeah, you pretty much were taken there.CameronPoe wrote:
The video is not the atrocity. The killing of the civilians is, in both the Blackwater and Al Qaeda cases. It's really quite simple. Nice try at avoiding the issue though.lowing wrote:
Really? Blackwater posted a video of themselves executing people and enjoying it?? Link please.
Already addressed your EXCUSE for Islam
Last edited by lowing (2008-07-10 14:03:52)
Incorrect. I used to worry ('give a shit') about the implications of PIRA actions but at the end of the day they had nothing to do with me so I felt no compulsion to march/protest. Ordinary Irish people were discriminated against by the British as a result and tarred with the same brush as the PIRA even though 99% of them had nothing to do with it. 1% being vocally and actually violent apparently outweighs 'reality'. At the end of the day plain neanderthal bigotry wins the day, be it anti-Irish, anti-Muslim, anti-American, anti-semitic, anti-whatever, because idiots don't apply logic, rationality and reasoning. They feel comfortable generalising, as it were.lowing wrote:
Cam the bottom line is,
Islam does not give a shit as to what is done in the name of it...............They only care as to how they are percieved.........Sorry they both go hand in hand.
So if the incidents weren't videoed you'd essentially be OK with it? What a pathetic post.lowing wrote:
Oh, so I take it there are not several videos out there of blackwater torturing and murdering civilians, only an isolated incident? Also, I am in no postion to second guess what happened in the blackwater case. I wasn't there. As far as the beheadings? yeah, you pretty much were taken there.CameronPoe wrote:
The video is not the atrocity. The killing of the civilians is, in both the Blackwater and Al Qaeda cases. It's really quite simple. Nice try at avoiding the issue though.lowing wrote:
Really? Blackwater posted a video of themselves executing people and enjoying it?? Link please.
Already addressed your EXCUSE for Islam
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-10 15:38:49)
This is not about the dress code. It is about the authorites getting involved. The difference is a dress code can not superceed a law, therfore the public school can't press charges without facing consequences. A private school can simply make her leave because it is not owned and governed by the state, it is not public it is private. They would also faces consequences, however, those consequences would be of a civil matter not a criminal one. And it would be criminal if a jury found that the girl's first amendment was violated.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Yes it is. You cannot claim hurtfullness as a reason to infringe free speech. By that logic, how can we have these arguments? Someone might get hurt, after all.oug wrote:
actually it does kind of infringe on other peoples' happiness etc (especially if they're black or Jewish 'n so on )... so in that sense it's not really a freedom of speech thing...lowing wrote:
however, it is an expression of free speech and does not infringe on anothers right to life liberty and happiness.Wrong. Private and public schools have exactly the same right to enforce dress codes, and exactly the same right to deal with infringements. The only difference is that in public schools the upper management also makes laws: which is a separate issue.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Um, no. Very relevant. Public school would mean public property which would mean in order for the authorities to get involved she would have had to have broken a law regardless of what the dress code states. A schools dress code does not superceed a written state staute therefore it would mean the school would remove her and the family would in turn file suit with the state on the grounds of discrimination and violation of her right to the first amendment. Thus meaning the police had absolutely no right to remove her.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Irrelevant. Both had the right to enforce a dress code and force the student to remove it, but in neither case should the child have been removed.
A private school is public domain, however, still remains private property and could remove or expell at their discretion. That would be a civil matter versus a criminal matter. Every action has a reaction. For the police to mandate her removal, either she is breaking the law or they are for requiring her to unconstitutionaly void her rights. That would be criminal. The school asking her to leave is their legal right if it is a private one, they would just have to face civil charges.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-07-10 17:06:56)
Again lowing you seem to be ignoring the reality that only a tiny percentage of the Muslim world actually came out to protest at those cartoons...I know it doesn't sit well with with your argument but I'm afraid it's the truth (since when has a reaction by less than 5% of a population been considered "OUTRAGE"). You can go ahead and continue to say it's X amount more than came out to protest the beheading videos but Cam has dealt with that aspect of your argument...would you go out and protest in the streets if the KKK did something criminal in the name of white America? Or would you just go about your daily business because it has nothing to do with you?lowing wrote:
good for you Cam, the problem is, I have no idea what blackwater did, they didn't post a video on TV. Secondly those responsible were dealt with...Not much more one ca ndo is there.CameronPoe wrote:
Hypocrisyorama. That is the no.1 most hypocritical own-argument-defeating sentence I've ever heard uttered on this forum in my entire time here.lowing wrote:
No need to protest blackwater........
/thread
I have no problem with Muslims NOT protesting beheadings and violence caused in their religions name and what not. My problem is the ONLY time they came out ofthe woodwork was to protest a cartoon. You really wouldn't hear too much from me if this were not the case....It simply amazes me as to what it takes to OUTRAGE Islam and what is acceptable.
I had very similar thoughts when I read the story, ATG. The "weird" people's kids are rounded up and very few people care. Then the "haters" kids are snatched. Whose kids are next? We even had people in this forums suggesting we round up other groups that we disagree with, even if there was no criminal activity.ATG wrote:
I told you guys when the rounded up the polgamist kids it was a test. If you tollerated state control of those people you would find it that much easier to see a child wearing a Nazi symbol rounded up by the authorities.
I am curious as to how a political cartoon, DIRECTLY affects anyone to the point of violence and murder and the calling for decapitations...CameronPoe wrote:
Bottom Line:
Me:
IRA bombing - directly affect me? No. Protest about it? No.
Muslims:
Islamic beheading - directly affect me? No. Protest about it? No.
Me:
Orange march through my neighbourhod - directly affect me? Yes. Protest about it? If I can be bothered.
Muslims:
Prophet Mohammed cartoons - directly affect me? Yes. Protest about it? If I can be bothered.
Logic in action. Gotta love it.
YOUR argument was 200 people protested, I clearly blew that out of the water. There was violence and murder attached to these protests and their voices were heard loud enough to sway worldwide public opinion about a cartoon. Now, if that can be done by influential Muslims, there is no excuse why "a few" radicals, can not be curtailed as well. The fact is, ISLAM was more outraged over a cartoon ( Islams image) than they were over the violence that takes place in its name.Braddock wrote:
Again lowing you seem to be ignoring the reality that only a tiny percentage of the Muslim world actually came out to protest at those cartoons...I know it doesn't sit well with with your argument but I'm afraid it's the truth (since when has a reaction by less than 5% of a population been considered "OUTRAGE"). You can go ahead and continue to say it's X amount more than came out to protest the beheading videos but Cam has dealt with that aspect of your argument...would you go out and protest in the streets if the KKK did something criminal in the name of white America? Or would you just go about your daily business because it has nothing to do with you?lowing wrote:
good for you Cam, the problem is, I have no idea what blackwater did, they didn't post a video on TV. Secondly those responsible were dealt with...Not much more one ca ndo is there.CameronPoe wrote:
Hypocrisyorama. That is the no.1 most hypocritical own-argument-defeating sentence I've ever heard uttered on this forum in my entire time here.
/thread
I have no problem with Muslims NOT protesting beheadings and violence caused in their religions name and what not. My problem is the ONLY time they came out of the woodwork was to protest a cartoon. You really wouldn't hear too much from me if this were not the case....It simply amazes me as to what it takes to OUTRAGE Islam and what is acceptable.
And if I recall correctly there were several Blackwater videos up on the web for a while (or at least videos of similar contractor groups)...filmed from a car as they shot randomly at anyone that came near them.
"Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" hundreds of protesters shouted, denouncing the terrorist network's leader -- a Jordan native -- after an Internet posting stated his group was responsible for the attacks.lowing wrote:
I am curious as to how a political cartoon, DIRECTLY affects anyone to the point of violence and murder and the calling for decapitations...
Yet the ACTUAL event of decapitations, stonings, mutalations, human bombings etc......ALL in the name of ALL that is held so dear, is not worth being "bothered".
The inconsistency is obvious and so is the priorty. Islam cares about their image, not their actions.
I guess the same way millions of millions of people can visit the US, a nation deemed as a cowboy, lawless, gun fanatical, shoot first and ask questions later, kinda nation by people such as yourself, without getting hurt.CameronPoe wrote:
"Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" hundreds of protesters shouted, denouncing the terrorist network's leader -- a Jordan native -- after an Internet posting stated his group was responsible for the attacks.lowing wrote:
I am curious as to how a political cartoon, DIRECTLY affects anyone to the point of violence and murder and the calling for decapitations...
Yet the ACTUAL event of decapitations, stonings, mutalations, human bombings etc......ALL in the name of ALL that is held so dear, is not worth being "bothered".
The inconsistency is obvious and so is the priorty. Islam cares about their image, not their actions.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160199,00.html
Keep ignoring reality and the fact that people only protest things that actually bother them. As discussed, the numbers of people who protested the cartoons are extremely small as a percentage of the total. You also still haven't explained how millions upon millions of westerners can visit the middle east every year on holiday without coming to harm. I'm sorry it doesn't fit your argument but hey - shit happens.
I do not find it troubling, really I couldn't care less. I merely am making an observation that the outrage over violence done to Muslims and Non-Muslims is almost none existent compared to the outrage over the image their religion is shown to be....A FACT Cam is having a hard time digesting.Drakef wrote:
The thread has shifted from the effects of a Canadian parent drawing a swastika on her child to Islam. How surprising it is.
The issue is that here there are legal issues against such behaviour. The law was right for what it did, and in the end, it is likely morally better that the ideas of the parent were removed from the child, but while I support limited hate speech laws, there is an extent such as this to which I disagree strongly.
As for the current topic, I would have to side somewhat with lowing, despite my obvious liberal tendencies that usually side with CamPoe and Braddock. If the outrage against cartoons about Muhammed produces violence and difficulties related, even in a minority of Muslims, it is still unacceptable that too many are extreme in their reaction. The religion has produced far too much violence in relation to other religions, and as much as it pains me to say as an atheist of my ideology, Christianity is a breath of fresh air in comparison to Islam. I do not find the reaction among moderate Muslims as troubling as lowing does, but overall the attitude and the population of the Islamic religion and the potential for violence from its members and support from others that are easily the complaint against the religion.
I've digested it lowing. You think I condone death threats or something? What I find troubling is the amount of importance you place on the words and actions of a few hundred protestors in each country in a world of over a billion Muslims. You're as hysterical as them!lowing wrote:
I do not find it troubling, really I couldn't care less. I merely am making an observation that the outrage over violence done to Muslims and Non-Muslims is almost none existent compared to the outrage over the image their religion is shown to be....A FACT Cam is having a hard time digesting.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-11 01:56:46)
Already shown it was more than a "few" hundred. IF you digested it, then you would admit that what I have said is true, the outrage over image definately outways the outrage over violence regarding Islam.CameronPoe wrote:
I've digested it lowing. You think I condone death threats or something? What I find troubling is the amount of importance you place on the words and actions of a few hundred protestors in each country in a world of over a billion Muslims. You're as hysterical as them!lowing wrote:
I do not find it troubling, really I couldn't care less. I merely am making an observation that the outrage over violence done to Muslims and Non-Muslims is almost none existent compared to the outrage over the image their religion is shown to be....A FACT Cam is having a hard time digesting.
I was originally arguing specifically about Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country in the world) and your source actually said there were less than 200 people protesting there - an infinitesimal percentage of the Muslim population. When I looked at the numbers of protesters across the other Muslim nations that your article mentioned it turned out that not one country had even as much as 5% of their Muslim populations out protesting so quite frankly the violent outrage that you describe was once again the actions of a small unrepresentative minority. Reality sucks when it doesn't back up your stereotype I guess.lowing wrote:
YOUR argument was 200 people protested, I clearly blew that out of the water.
Your a smart guy lowing and I'd like to think you have a realistic view of the modern media...I'm afraid peace loving Muslims don't sell papers or guarantee ratings. Cam has posted several links in this thread and others that have shown leaders speaking out against violence, condemning beheadings, advocating integration and disagreeing with extremist interpretations of Islam and yet the major news stations never carry the stories. Funnily enough two plebs talking about a Shariah revolution in Scotland gets headlines in America and yet 10'000 Muslims marching to protest against extremism doesn't warrant a blip on the radar of the major networks (That's 10'000 lowing, more than your precious cartoon protest).lowing wrote:
There was violence and murder attached to these protests and their voices were heard loud enough to sway worldwide public opinion about a cartoon. Now, if that can be done by influential Muslims, there is no excuse why "a few" radicals, can not be curtailed as well. The fact is, ISLAM was more outraged over a cartoon ( Islams image) than they were over the violence that takes place in its name.
"If I were a protester"...lol. Totally hypocritical, so you can't be bothered to protest at anything done in your name (like that wedding bomb in the news today) and yet you expect that all Muslims should drop everything else in their everyday lives and march in the street to protest something done by somebody they don't identify with in the slightest but has been done in the name of a warped interpretation of their faith. Once again lowing you are holding people to standards you can't apply to yourself. Hypocritical.lowing wrote:
I protest nothing, I really can't be bothered with any of it, but I will say, if I were a protester, I would protest the bombing and killing of a bus load of school children in the name of my beliefs before I would protest the cartoon depicting it.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-11 05:13:01)
Why wouldn't it? I already explained why that would be. Fourth repost required? PIRA/Orange March example Mark IV?lowing wrote:
Already shown it was more than a "few" hundred. IF you digested it, then you would admit that what I have said is true, the outrage over image definately outways the outrage over violence regarding Islam.
Mr. Generaliser doesn't like the fact that it's only a few. To be expected I suppose. Generalisations don't work as well when it's a few - pity. Would you like to prove that these few consititute a meaningful quorum? Again, why do millions travel to the middle east for holidays without problem each year? Doesn't fit your generalisation. Sorry about that.lowing wrote:
I am starting to wonder if know just how few a "few" is......You always talk about the "few" insignificant Muslims in GB or even Europe, yet use these same people to as a significant number to prove your points that there isn't a problem worldwide........Try a little more consistency in your "few" solections Cam.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-11 06:14:18)
1...yer right, protests like these would certainly be a warm change to what has been shown............nothingBraddock wrote:
I was originally arguing specifically about Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country in the world) and your source actually said there were less than 200 people protesting there - an infinitesimal percentage of the Muslim population. When I looked at the numbers of protesters across the other Muslim nations that your article mentioned it turned out that not one country had even as much as 5% of their Muslim populations out protesting so quite frankly the violent outrage that you describe was once again the actions of a small unrepresentative minority. Reality sucks when it doesn't back up your stereotype I guess.lowing wrote:
YOUR argument was 200 people protested, I clearly blew that out of the water.
Your a smart guy lowing and I'd like to think you have a realistic view of the modern media...I'm afraid peace loving Muslims don't sell papers or guarantee ratings. Cam has posted several links in this thread and others that have shown leaders speaking out against violence, condemning beheadings, advocating integration and disagreeing with extremist interpretations of Islam and yet the major news stations never carry the stories. Funnily enough two plebs talking about a Shariah revolution in Scotland gets headlines in America and yet 10'000 Muslims marching to protest against extremism doesn't warrant a blip on the radar of the major networks (That's 10'000 lowing, more than your precious cartoon protest).lowing wrote:
There was violence and murder attached to these protests and their voices were heard loud enough to sway worldwide public opinion about a cartoon. Now, if that can be done by influential Muslims, there is no excuse why "a few" radicals, can not be curtailed as well. The fact is, ISLAM was more outraged over a cartoon ( Islams image) than they were over the violence that takes place in its name."If I were a protester"...lol. Totally hypocritical, so you can't be bothered to protest at anything done in your name (like that wedding bomb in the news today) and yet you expect that all Muslims should drop everything else in their everyday lives and march in the street to protest something done by somebody they don't identify with in the slightest but has been done in the name of a warped interpretation of their faith. Once again lowing you are holding people to standards you can't apply to yourself. Hypocritical.lowing wrote:
I protest nothing, I really can't be bothered with any of it, but I will say, if I were a protester, I would protest the bombing and killing of a bus load of school children in the name of my beliefs before I would protest the cartoon depicting it.
1. As long as you admit it, I don't give a shit about your analogies.CameronPoe wrote:
Why wouldn't it? I already explained why that would be. Fourth repost required? PIRA/Orange March example Mark IV?lowing wrote:
Already shown it was more than a "few" hundred. IF you digested it, then you would admit that what I have said is true, the outrage over image definately outways the outrage over violence regarding Islam.Mr. Generaliser doesn't like the fact that it's only a few. To be expected I suppose. Generalisations don't work as well when it's a few - pity. Would you like to prove that these few consititute a meaningful quorum? Again, why do millions travel to the middle east for holidays without problem each year? Doesn't fit your generalisation. Sorry about that.lowing wrote:
I am starting to wonder if know just how few a "few" is......You always talk about the "few" insignificant Muslims in GB or even Europe, yet use these same people to as a significant number to prove your points that there isn't a problem worldwide........Try a little more consistency in your "few" solections Cam.
Perhaps you should get working on your protest placard for this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
PS Read the last paragraph of the following link. A comment from the Ayatollah in Iran.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001268.html
Because they damage your argument. Bottom line as you well know is that people will only be bothered to get up off their arse and protest something is it's about something affects them deeply, whether that be a swastika armband or a Mohammed cartoon.lowing wrote:
1. As long as you admit it, I don't give a shit about your analogies.
I think you'll find I don't use 'the few' to justify my arguments. But you however always do. I generally apply logic to justify my arguments and demand significant, compelling and reasonable evidence to prove something. One can't prove the sentiments of the majority on the basis of the rantings of a small rabble of, presumably unemployed, nobodies.lowing wrote:
2. Like I said, it is only a few and insignificant when used against your argument but the same few is significant when it supports your argument...Pretty rediculous Cam.
Ah we have something in common.lowing wrote:
3. Never saw a need to protest in my life. How many have you been on?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-11 06:59:05)
1, not really, you just proved my point, a cartoon affected them deeply, yet violence in their name,,,,,,,nehhhhhhhh why bother....Image over action..My point.CameronPoe wrote:
Because they damage your argument. Bottom line as you well know is that people will only be bothered to get up off their arse and protest something is it's about something affects them deeply, whether that be a swastika armband or a Mohammed cartoon.lowing wrote:
1. As long as you admit it, I don't give a shit about your analogies.I think you'll find I don't use 'the few' to justify my arguments. But you however always do. I generally apply logic to justify my arguments and demand significant, compelling and reasonable evidence to prove something. One can't prove the sentiments of the majority on the basis of the rantings of a small rabble of, presumably unemployed, nobodies.lowing wrote:
2. Like I said, it is only a few and insignificant when used against your argument but the same few is significant when it supports your argument...Pretty rediculous Cam.Ah we have something in common.lowing wrote:
3. Never saw a need to protest in my life. How many have you been on?
Do I really have to reprint my PIRA/Al Qaeda analogy again? It is really necessary? Has it come to this? Are you really incapable of comprehending the logic of the analogy? I never protested PIRA atrocities yet I wuold have been and would be prepared to protest an Orange march through my neighbourhood. Is it really so difficult to understand?lowing wrote:
1, not really, you just proved my point, a cartoon affected them deeply, yet violence in their name,,,,,,,nehhhhhhhh why bother....Image over action..My point.
Small numbers in terms of ACTUAL QUANTIFIABLE THINGS LIKE POPULATION. You cannot correlate that with presuming general opinion - you would have to put the entire mass to a poll on the matter. Again, you continue to avoid the 'violent muslim horde' refraining from 'slaying' the millions of western holidaymakers in the middle east. That is a verifiable and quantifiable truth.lowing wrote:
2. Noooooooo Cam, when I have posted about Islam immigration into Europe, you are one of the FIRST to point out the small numbers and the insignificance of it, yet you turn to these same people as PROOF and significance in one of your arguments.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-11 07:29:47)