INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Leto729 on March 22, 2007, 10:48:21 AM
-
http://www.midco.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&id=14860163&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
I tired about drawing of Muhammad that is a problem to criticize a drawing of a person. They do it with Jesus why not Muhammad?
-
It is against their religion to have images of their Prophet Mohammed at all, because they think it would encourage idolatry. I can see why they find some of these pictures offensive, especially the one of Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb or the one of him holding the scimitar with the women, which I attached. Here are some of the caricatures that caused the uproar:
http://www.aina.org/releases/20060201143237.htm
To get an idea of how they feel seeing caricatures of their Prophet, try to imagine that someone depicted Jesus as Satan, like this:
(http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/Lord%20Satan.GIF)
Does this upset you at all?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
People depict Jesus all sorts of ways, and nobody gives a crap except a few conservative Christians, and all they do is sign some petitions and start a website about how much it hurts their feelings. It's nothing to do with a prohibition against making images of the prophet either; there are plenty of historical depictions of him by Islamic artists that the Muslims don't get upset about; it's just a case of being pissy and intolerant, and having a fucked-up honour culture that demands blood for pretty much any affront, from showing the prophet being raped by a pig to their daughter getting knocked up out of wedlock. The 'prohibition against pictures of the prophet' is really just some guidelines some imams wrote about the safest way to avoid breaking any of the actual rules, just like the Jewish Talmud is a book of guidelines written by Rabbis about how best to follow the Torah.
If the life of Brian had been the life of Omar, people would very likely have died, but as it was, there were just a few groups that got their panties in a twist and it soon settled down.
-
i hate when people depict david koresh in a negative light.
-
i hate when people depict david koresh in a negative light.
I thought I was the only one !! ::)
-
http://www.midco.net/news/read.php?ps=1012&id=14860163&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS
I tired about drawing of Muhammad that is a problem to criticize a drawing of a person. They do it with Jesus why not Muhammad?
A large minority of Muslims make Jim Jones' followers look like cub scouts. :grrr:
-
The screaming fundies don't appear to realise how much their oversensitive dummy throwing makes them look like complete fucktards, mediaeval fanatics howling for blood. What kind of society bends to the wishes of such people?
-
It's a cultural thing, I think, and while a rational mind in a society that encourages that kind of rationality would simply dismiss the relevance of a caricature of a religious figure, we are not talking about that kind of society. That doesn't make the people in that society stupid, any more the presence of large numbers of reality soaps would actually drop the collective IQ in ours. It simply makes them subject to their own kind of brainwash.
The real point here is not the caricatures; it's the way they are used to insult Muslim societies. That scheme is succeeding. Remember that it took quite some time for anyone to react over those caricatures.
-
Remember that it took quite some time for anyone to react over those caricatures.
That's one of the few things you could say in their favor.
-
The real point here is not the caricatures; it's the way they are used to insult Muslim societies. That scheme is succeeding.
The 'scheme' wasn't to insult Muslim societies; it was to test if they really were as violent and over-sensitive as some people thought, or if Islam truly was a religion of peace as the Muslims kept proclaiming, and it did wonderfully at it's goal of getting Muslim societies to show their true colours.
Remember that it took quite some time for anyone to react over those caricatures.
Only because few Muslim fanatics read obscure Danish newspapers, I suspect.
-
The real point here is not the caricatures; it's the way they are used to insult Muslim societies. That scheme is succeeding.
The 'scheme' wasn't to insult Muslim societies; it was to test if they really were as violent and over-sensitive as some people thought, or if Islam truly was a religion of peace as the Muslims kept proclaiming, and it did wonderfully at it's goal of getting Muslim societies to show their true colours.
The majority of the Muslims still don't know those caricatures even exist so what they succeeded with was drawing out the fanatics. Takes one to know one, see.
Remember that it took quite some time for anyone to react over those caricatures.
Only because few Muslim fanatics read obscure Danish newspapers, I suspect.
Yes, partly. But mostly because some helpful souls pointed the caricatures out in less-than-ideal settings.
-
The real point here is not the caricatures; it's the way they are used to insult Muslim societies. That scheme is succeeding.
The 'scheme' wasn't to insult Muslim societies; it was to test if they really were as violent and over-sensitive as some people thought, or if Islam truly was a religion of peace as the Muslims kept proclaiming, and it did wonderfully at it's goal of getting Muslim societies to show their true colours.
The majority of the Muslims still don't know those caricatures even exist so what they succeeded with was drawing out the fanatics. Takes one to know one, see.
With the result that the rest of us now know that the fanatics are perfectly happy to burn down embassies and murder people over something as silly as cartoons, and that the so-called 'moderates' are perfectly happy to sit back and stay quiet while they do it, all the while blithering on about how Islam is a religion of peace, and that we're just being prejudiced and xenophobic for fearing them. A lot of people who thought the 'Muslims are dangerous' thing was all hype and fearmongering changed their minds when they saw pictures like these:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/PeterMackenzie/linked_to/-export-home-yaleglobal-repository-.jpg) (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/PeterMackenzie/linked_to/2006-2-5-natcartoon.jpg)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/PeterMackenzie/linked_to/DemascusEmbassy.jpg) (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/PeterMackenzie/linked_to/emabssy10a.jpg)
What other groups would react that way to having themselves or their symbols made fun of? Are there Hindu fanatics who'd bomb us if we made fun of Ganesh? I think we can safely answer 'no' to that. Are there Atheist fanatics who'd kill in the name of Darwin? The very thought is laughable. Are there Christian fanatics who'll murder us if we we make fun of Jesus? Nope, but there are plenty of Muslim fanatics who'll happily behead you for mocking Muhammed.
Remember that it took quite some time for anyone to react over those caricatures.
Only because few Muslim fanatics read obscure Danish newspapers, I suspect.
Yes, partly. But mostly because some helpful souls pointed the caricatures out in less-than-ideal settings.
Yes, a group of imams toured the Islamic world to whip up a frenzy about it. What's your point? The next time something similar happens, another group is going to use it to fan the flames of fanaticism again, and the Muslims seem constantly primed and ready to cry for blood over whatever excuse for violence comes along. It sounds like you're saying the powder keg only exploded last time because someone tossed a match onto it.
-
Peter,
It isn't merely a question of some innocent cartoons. There is a strong tradition among Muslims to not allow depictions of the Prophet, at all, and even those fractions that do allow it stress the importance of the depictions to be respectful. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad) is your friend.
As for the more moderate among Muslims sitting back quietly while letting the fanatics, rule, that particular accusation often pops up when the rational among us try to introduce nuances into any discussion about Islam, be it terrorism, 9/11, or the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
The accusation just isn't true.
I'll admit that it's a nice device to use those pictures to give your argument some emotional weight, but it won't make the accusation true.
Have you bothered to look? Have you bothered to read any of the Muslim blogs or websites covering this issue? Have you made a single Google search on the subject, or attempted to locate a Muslim's side of the whole controversy? I have, and have more than once linked to some of them. You can either search my old posts or do a Google search, if you are interested in a more balanced view of the situation.
I, however, cannot be arsed. I know cheap rhetorics when I see it, and that's about all you have.
I suppose you're a bit too young to remember the controversy with Monty Python's Life of Brian (a film that was banned in Norway, of all places, because of the way it made fun of the life of Christ) but do you remember the book The Last Temptation of Christ or Martin Scorsese's film adaptation? Both the book and the film caused demonstrations all over the Christian world, some of them very violent, and both book and film were banned more than once.
The reason why I mention these is because they show that there are equally touchy subjects among Christians, but also because while fanatic Christians made most of the noise, nobody accused the moderate Christians of agreeing with the nutcases by not opening their mouths.
-
Peter,
It isn't merely a question of some innocent cartoons. There is a strong tradition among Muslims to not allow depictions of the Prophet, at all, and even those fractions that do allow it stress the importance of the depictions to be respectful. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad) is your friend.
I know all about the Muslim prohibitions against depictions of Muhammed, and all this demonstrates is that there are large numbers of Muslim fanatics who'll use violence and intimidation to impose their own religious values on us.
As for the more moderate among Muslims sitting back quietly while letting the fanatics, rule, that particular accusation often pops up when the rational among us try to introduce nuances into any discussion about Islam, be it terrorism, 9/11, or the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
The accusation just isn't true.
I'll admit that it's a nice device to use those pictures to give your argument some emotional weight, but it won't make the accusation true.
Have you bothered to look? Have you bothered to read any of the Muslim blogs or websites covering this issue? Have you made a single Google search on the subject, or attempted to locate a Muslim's side of the whole controversy? I have, and have more than once linked to some of them. You can either search my old posts or do a Google search, if you are interested in a more balanced view of the situation.
I, however, cannot be arsed. I know cheap rhetorics when I see it, and that's about all you have.
Yes, I have bothered to look, and I know cheap apologetics when I see it:
Yakoub: "There is an intellectual blindness and willful ignorance at the heart of the decision by many European newspaper editors to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad (aws) in the name of freedom of speech. This kind of ‘freedom’ is in no way different from the freedom exercised by tabloid journalists who camp out on ordinary people's doorsteps, or whip up public frenzy over paedophiles until - inevitably - some poor old perv is murdered and a couple of dupes end up doing 25 for being guilty of allowing their violent mendacity to be manipulated by those who should know better [...] Freedom of speech is, fundamentally, the right to speak truth to power. Thankfully, the UK is not such a bad place to be if you are a European Muslim, but elsewhere on this supposedly enlightened continent, being Muslim is too often an excuse to be shat upon from a great height. Muslims are not in a position of power here, or anywhere. I wonder what would happen if some brave hack decided to publish a cartoon of the Queen giving Prince Charles a blow job?"
Which basically translates as "It's not our fault if you provoke us and we kill you.".
And here's the publisher of the Yemen Observer describing the religious fervour that swept the country and lead to the Yemen Observer being shut down after it republished the cartoons:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/tolerance-on-trial-why-we-reprinted.php
To give credit though, there are plenty of Muslim blogs that are along the lines of "No, this just makes us look bad.", but it doesn't exactly seem like a massive public outcry.
I suppose you're a bit too young to remember the controversy with Monty Python's Life of Brian (a film that was banned in Norway, of all places, because of the way it made fun of the life of Christ) but do you remember the book The Last Temptation of Christ or Martin Scorsese's film adaptation? Both the book and the film caused demonstrations all over the Christian world, some of them very violent, and both book and film were banned more than once.
Yes, I am too young to remember those things, but I can certainly research them. What violent protests did "The Last Temptation of Christ" result in? And how is the banning of the films and the book comparable to the current Muslim reaction to the cartoons? The bannings happened in an era when a great many books and films were banned for all sorts of reasons, and if you go far enough back, to the witch burnings for instance, then there really isn't much difference between historic Western culture and contemporary Muslim culture.
Danish cartoons: Jyllands-Posten publishes article with illustrations of Mohammed, most innocuous, a few defamatory. Violent protests break out in many parts of the world. Vandalism and killings ensue. Many protesters call for the deaths of the cartoonists. A few governments call for the Danish government to take actions against Jyllands-Posten. Many stage boycotts against products sold by Danish firms that have nothing to do with the cartoons. An American magazine chooses to put one of the defamatory pictures on the cover of its current issue. Two book chains normally sell the magazine in question, but decline to stock the current issue, citing not any threatened boycott but fear of the sometimes-deadly violence of the cartoonoclasts.
Last Temptation of Christ: Martin Scorsese directs a film that defames Jesus Christ. Two notable criticisms are the film Jesus' denial of His omniscience ("God only talks to me a little at a time and tells me as much as I need to know") and sinlessness ("I'm a liar. A hypocrite. I'm afraid of everything. I never tell the truth") - quotes from IMDb. Many Christians engage in the time-honored American tradition of spirited but peaceful protest. Wikipedia has to go all the way across the Atlantic to find an example of protest violence, involving the time-honored French tradition of a molotov cocktail. Some call for boycotts against participating theaters and MCA, which distributed the film; no calls for boycotts against innocent bystanders uninvolved with the film.
Yep, the two are just aliike.
The reason why I mention these is because they show that there are equally touchy subjects among Christians, but also because while fanatic Christians made most of the noise, nobody accused the moderate Christians of agreeing with the nutcases by not opening their mouths.
The moderate Christians didn't need to open their mouths because all the fanatic Christians were doing was holding peaceful protests and letting us know how they felt about it. If the fanatic Christians had set fire to buildings and issued death threats, then you might have a point, but as it is, you have nothing.
-
Go back to research, Peter. There were plenty of death threats when the Scorsese movie was released.
I suppose there's very little I can say or do to change your current modus operandi, however. People like you need to believe in a clearly defined evil, and Islam fits that bill. You're not alone, though, so don't worry; a lot of the Western world's following that same path. The world needs a scapegoat so what's more perfect than a bunch of dark-skinned weirdos turning to Mecca five times a day and refusing to accept that their God is routinely insulted in most ways imaginable by the same folks that bomb them, sanction their supplies, and steal their oil.
But I'm sure you aren't part of that silent majority that passively watches when OTHER injustices are committed, right?
-
It isn't merely a question of some innocent cartoons. There is a strong tradition among Muslims to not allow depictions of the Prophet, at all, and even those fractions that do allow it stress the importance of the depictions to be respectful.
Yes, and the term for this is called "Intolerance".
-
I suppose there's very little I can say or do to change your current modus operandi, however. People like you need to believe in a clearly defined evil,
And you don't have a clearly defined "evil" scapegoat ??
The world needs a scapegoat so what's more perfect than a bunch of dark-skinned weirdos turning to Mecca five times a day and refusing to accept that their God is routinely insulted in most ways imaginable
Most western Jounalists go out of their way to not be insulting, despite the dark-ages mentality that the majority of Islam holds on to. Fundamentalist monotheism begs to be mocked.
by the same folks that bomb them,
Turn on your T.V. , they're the ones doing the bombing.
sanction their supplies,
Who has been sanctioned who did'nt first violate U.N. mandates ??
and steal their oil.
Yes, I forgot how poor oil countries are. ::) They have to beg on the streets to make their Mercedes payments. ::)
-
I'll admit that it's a nice device to use those pictures to give your argument some emotional weight, but it won't make the accusation true.
Photographic evidence is now just "emotional weight" ??
That video of me shooting that cop ......... man that was just used for "Inciting the jury" ::)
Uuuuuh those pics are doccumentation of behavior and would stand up in any court of law. Have to call you on this one odeon. :bssign:
-
I suppose you're a bit too young to remember the controversy with Monty Python's Life of Brian (a film that was banned in Norway, of all places, because of the way it made fun of the life of Christ) but do you remember the book The Last Temptation of Christ or Martin Scorsese's film adaptation? Both the book and the film caused demonstrations all over the Christian world, some of them very violent, and both book and film were banned more than once.
The reason why I mention these is because they show that there are equally touchy subjects among Christians, but also because while fanatic Christians made most of the noise, nobody accused the moderate Christians of agreeing with the nutcases by not opening their mouths.
Fundamentalist monotheists are cool-aide drinkers ............................................................... what's new ??
-
Current Muslim Belief , and the spread of that belief system is being financed largely by Saudi Arabia, and the school of Muslim philosophy practiced there. It's called Salafism, which is a yet more restrictive offshoot of an older fundamentalist belief set called Wahhabism, which also originated in what is now Saudi Arabia.
Historically, Saudi Arabia has pretty much always been an intellectual and cultural backwater in regards to Classical Islamic Culture, whose intellectual and cultural centers was first in Syria, then later in what is now Iraq, and later in Istanbul. While Saudi Arabia laid claim to the two of the major holy sites of Islam, It was still pretty much of a cultural backwater not unlike the Islamic world's very own Mississippi, or West Virginia until the discovery of oil in the early 20th Century.
Since Saudi Arabia was united under the house of Saud, it has used it's oil wealth to help spread it's strict interpretation of Islam, and to help spread a culture that has basically remained unchanged from the 7th Century. The reason why it was able to do this was because of the fact that when the Ottoman Empire Collapsed, so did the Ottoman Caliphate, who had been the main political force in the dissemination of Islam.
The fundamentalists basically took over in the Power vacuum that followed the Ottoman Caliphate's Collapse, and no we have fundamentalist Crazies who in turn indoctrinate and intimidate other's into Islamic fundamentalism.
-
It isn't merely a question of some innocent cartoons. There is a strong tradition among Muslims to not allow depictions of the Prophet, at all, and even those fractions that do allow it stress the importance of the depictions to be respectful.
Yes, and the term for this is called "Intolerance".
This is my issue with all the dummy spitting - the cartoons which offended the fundies were published in a Danish newspaper. A Western country with a tradition of free speech and challenging taboos. The Muslims living in Denmark moved there by choice. If you move to a country and have issues with their dominant cultural values, you don't get to cry foul when someone barbecues your particular sacred cow. You accept that they do things differently in your adopted homeland, and either adapt or go somewhere which offends your delicate sensibilities less. On a global level, Muslims have no right to insist that others universally respect their religion's prohibitions in their own lands, any more than any other faith has.
I'm no Islamophobe. I have Muslim acquaintances and neighbours, I grew up with Pakistani kids, I admire some aspects of the way they live. What I do not accept is that if a different cultural group moves into another land they have the right to make the host country change its ways - if I move to Saudi Arabia do I have the right to scream about how they treat their women and cut the hands off thieves? No. I might not like it but tough shit.
Finally, quoted for absolute truth - I'm an equal opportunity fundie-baiter:
Fundamentalist monotheism begs to be mocked.
Spot on. +
-
I suppose there's very little I can say or do to change your current modus operandi, however. People like you need to believe in a clearly defined evil,
And you don't have a clearly defined "evil" scapegoat ??
No, not to my knowledge, no. My philosophy is live and let live. What's yours?
The world needs a scapegoat so what's more perfect than a bunch of dark-skinned weirdos turning to Mecca five times a day and refusing to accept that their God is routinely insulted in most ways imaginable
Most western Jounalists go out of their way to not be insulting, despite the dark-ages mentality that the majority of Islam holds on to. Fundamentalist monotheism begs to be mocked.
On this I agree, absolutely. But the cartoons were not about that, they were about ridiculing so many more people than just a few fundies. The cartoonists (and above all, the people pulling their strings) are hiding--and mocking--behind the pretense of freedom of speech, and I'm not saying that they aren't allowed to because they are. I'm saying that it's unwise, unnecessary, and downright stupid. Just because it's within your rights to call someone an arse, it doesn't mean that you have to. Freedom of speech is not just a right, it's a responsibility because most of the time, the world isn't black and white.
by the same folks that bomb them,
Turn on your T.V. , they're the ones doing the bombing.
I have, and long before they were, the US was, in the case of Iraq, or a number of other Muslim countries out there. Do you have any idea of how many civilians that died, both as the results of direct bombings and the results of the long-term sanctions?
And can you honestly say that it wasn't then, or is now, a question of their oil rather than the freedom of the Iraqi people and other propagandist nonsense?
sanction their supplies,
Who has been sanctioned who did'nt first violate U.N. mandates ??
and steal their oil.
Yes, I forgot how poor oil countries are. ::) They have to beg on the streets to make their Mercedes payments. ::)
Iraq is a classic example of a poor country with vast oil resources, the Mercedes payments notwithstanding. Without the oil, Saddam would still be in power. (And if you disagree, why is that guy in Zimbabwe still ruining his country?)
Why do you think the US is interested in sanctions against Iran, right now? Can you spell "Halliburton"?
-
I suppose there's very little I can say or do to change your current modus operandi, however. People like you need to believe in a clearly defined evil,
And you don't have a clearly defined "evil" scapegoat ??
No, not to my knowledge, no. My philosophy is live and let live. What's yours?
My philosophy is to live and let live, but also to take whatever means are necessary to make sure that other people 'let live' with respect to me. I'm fine with Muslims living in whatever hell-holes they create, but I have a very big problem with them telling me who I'm not allowed to draw pictures of, and I won't stand for people moving into my country and then demanding that I change my behaviours to suit them.
On this I agree, absolutely. But the cartoons were not about that, they were about ridiculing so many more people than just a few fundies. The cartoonists (and above all, the people pulling their strings) are hiding--and mocking--behind the pretense of freedom of speech, and I'm not saying that they aren't allowed to because they are. I'm saying that it's unwise, unnecessary, and downright stupid. Just because it's within your rights to call someone an arse, it doesn't mean that you have to. Freedom of speech is not just a right, it's a responsibility because most of the time, the world isn't black and white.
The right to free speech is worthless when it can't be exercised without a significant fear of violent retaliation, and by threatening us with violence for expressing ourselves as we see fit, the extremists are undermining the very core of our value system; a value system they clearly hold a great deal of undisguised contempt for. We cannot lay the blame for violence at the feet of those who express themselves and remain a free society. Only by defending those who wish to express themselves from those who'd use violence to silence them can we truly be free.
Iraq is a classic example of a poor country with vast oil resources, the Mercedes payments notwithstanding. Without the oil, Saddam would still be in power. (And if you disagree, why is that guy in Zimbabwe still ruining his country?)
Why do you think the US is interested in sanctions against Iran, right now? Can you spell "Halliburton"?
I don't dispute that the West has bombed and exploited the Middle East to serve it's own purposes, and I find it deplorable, as do many other Westerners who're in no way shy about showing their disdain for our leader and their policies, who hold protests against the actions they find so despicable, and who vote against those who take those actions. Are there anti-suicide-bombing protests in the streets of Baghdad to mirror the anti-war protests in the streets of London?
-
The right to free speech is worthless when it can't be exercised without a significant fear of violent retaliation, and by threatening us with violence for expressing ourselves as we see fit, the extremists are undermining the very core of our value system; a value system they clearly hold a great deal of undisguised contempt for. We cannot lay the blame for violence at the feet of those who express themselves and remain a free society. Only by defending those who wish to express themselves from those who'd use violence to silence them can we truly be free.
QFT !!! :agreed:
-
I'll admit that it's a nice device to use those pictures to give your argument some emotional weight, but it won't make the accusation true.
Photographic evidence is now just "emotional weight" ??
That video of me shooting that cop ......... man that was just used for "Inciting the jury" ::)
Uuuuuh those pics are doccumentation of behavior and would stand up in any court of law. Have to call you on this one odeon. :bssign:
Agreed, and one of the protesters was put in prison based on photos of the protest, since it was a violation of his parole (he was dressed as a suicide bomber).
-
The right to free speech is worthless when it can't be exercised without a significant fear of violent retaliation, and by threatening us with violence for expressing ourselves as we see fit, the extremists are undermining the very core of our value system; a value system they clearly hold a great deal of undisguised contempt for. We cannot lay the blame for violence at the feet of those who express themselves and remain a free society. Only by defending those who wish to express themselves from those who'd use violence to silence them can we truly be free.
QFT !!! :agreed:
Why is it that only your value system counts? A society that divides between "us" and "them", and says that if "they" don't follow "our" rules "they" aren't welcome, is not free.
Why is it that your definition of respect should be the only one to count?
Here's a dramatic picture for you:
(http://www.kvinnonet.org/jpgif/LynndieEngland.jpg)
Do you think I'm being fair if I claim that all American soldiers in Iraq are like Ms England?
-
Do you think I'm being fair if I claim that all American soldiers in Iraq are like Ms England?
Not at all. She's cuter than most, and has kinky tastes. Most soldiers seem a lot more vanilla to me.
-
i thought it was ironic.
the way that they subjugate their women, just to have a woman treat them like a dog.
fuck them!
i am still a bit of a sexist pig myself. but not to the same degree that many middle eastern countries treat their women.
-
They immigrate to our country, calling Swedish girls "Swedish whores", because they dress as they please. They can at most get prosecuted for insult or defamation for that. If the Swedish girls yell "Fucking Arabs" or "Fucking Muslims" to them, they risk prosecution for hate crime. I love this country. ::)
-
It's so great when you use stereotypes to avoid argumentation, instead of actually considering the point I was making. McJ, how do you know that Ms England's pet in the picture a) treats his wife badly and b) is a Muslim? Do you think that since he's already in prison, he should somehow be punished because there are people whose morals and way of life you don't agree with?
-1
-
He probably is in prison because he is guilty of something. He might be innocent, but even non-Muslims are innocently convicted, even in Sweden and all other western countries. It's kind of a bitter irony on behalf of most Iraqi males, though, that those guys in abu-Ghraib were treated like pets by a woman. It's hardly a prejudice that most Arab males treat their wifes worse than most Swedish or American males do.
-
He probably is in prison because he is guilty of something. He might be innocent, but even non-Muslims are innocently convicted, even in Sweden and all other western countries. It's kind of a bitter irony on behalf of most Iraqi males, though, that those guys in abu-Ghraib were treated like pets by a woman. It's hardly a prejudice that most Arab males treat their wifes worse than most Swedish or American males do.
The foundation of a just society: you're only in prison if you're guilty of something. ::)
-
He probably is in prison because he is guilty of something. He might be innocent, but even non-Muslims are innocently convicted, even in Sweden and all other western countries. It's kind of a bitter irony on behalf of most Iraqi males, though, that those guys in abu-Ghraib were treated like pets by a woman. It's hardly a prejudice that most Arab males treat their wifes worse than most Swedish or American males do.
The foundation of a just society: you're only in prison if you're guilty of something. ::)
Absolutely not. But probably.
-
Oh pleeeeze. In Iraq, after the invasion? You only had to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
I actually don't think that American troops randomly take POWs. We can ask Scrapheap, he's actually been with the US Marine Corps in Bosnia. He should know.
-
He probably is in prison because he is guilty of something. He might be innocent, but even non-Muslims are innocently convicted, even in Sweden and all other western countries. It's kind of a bitter irony on behalf of most Iraqi males, though, that those guys in abu-Ghraib were treated like pets by a woman. It's hardly a prejudice that most Arab males treat their wifes worse than most Swedish or American males do.
The foundation of a just society: you're only in prison if you're guilty of something. ::)
Absolutely not. But probably.
No. DEFINITELY. Every person is guilty of something. Torture for ALL!!
-
I'm guilty of keeping this thread alive. ;D
-
I actually don't think that American troops randomly take POWs. We can ask Scrapheap, he's actually been with the US Marine Corps in Bosnia. He should know.
Our operating orders wer'nt much different from a policeman's. You had to have Probable Cause or Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. :police:
-
It's so great when you use stereotypes to avoid argumentation, instead of actually considering the point I was making. McJ, how do you know that Ms England's pet in the picture a) treats his wife badly and b) is a Muslim? Do you think that since he's already in prison, he should somehow be punished because there are people whose morals and way of life you don't agree with?
-1
i don't know.
but i do know that he was fighting for a country that held these beliefs.
now i would give you a negative karma, but i am nort so petty. i still believe that you may make a point yet.
so i will reserve judgement.
-
Oh pleeeeze. In Iraq, after the invasion? You only had to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
i believe that scrap answered your statement.
btw-your statement reeks of generalizations without fact to support it.
exactly what you have been accusing others of.
personally, i believe that you have succumed to the propaganda machine more than the other POV.
-
It's so great when you use stereotypes to avoid argumentation, instead of actually considering the point I was making. McJ, how do you know that Ms England's pet in the picture a) treats his wife badly and b) is a Muslim? Do you think that since he's already in prison, he should somehow be punished because there are people whose morals and way of life you don't agree with?
-1
i don't know.
but i do know that he was fighting for a country that held these beliefs.
How do you know that? A large number of prisoners had done nothing, according to several human rights organizations.
And you didn't answer my question. What justifies him being treated like this? The Geneva convention is quite specific here.
now i would give you a negative karma, but i am nort so petty. i still believe that you may make a point yet.
so i will reserve judgement.
Why, thank you. Do you think I'm petty since I gheyed you?
-
her pet was a soldier.
no, not petty, just pretty ghry.