Freedom of expression in Europe?
-
IF you were in Europe, like the original post mentions, you'll see that you CAN NOT discuss certain issues the way YOU or anybody else sees it, irrespective of their truth or falsehood.Originally posted by Salman:What? I cannot discuss issues the way I see it?
Can you please draw a clear line of what is allowed and not allowed on this forum? Don't be vague. -
but you not only call Islam violent, you call the Prophet, the Holy Book Quran and Allah in disparaging terms too.Originally posted by Salman:Like I said, I never said all muslims are violent.
The people who make islam violent isn't me but the terrorists who insist on linking islam with violence. We can't deny reality for what it is can we?
On the other hand, you have people like Atobe defending and justifying all this terrorism, such dishonesty made the other forumners angry. Notice that he has toned down his anti semitism and anti west hatred after we confronted him with reality, natural morality and logic.
Its your choice.
I DONT think it is the terrorists who INSIST on linking islam with violence. we NEVER heard such things during soviet invasion of afghanistan, when backed by USA many muslims from many parts of the world, arrived in afghanistan to wage "jihad" against "infidels". that was AOK, not only with american govt, but its "free" media and rest of the world.
I wonder WHY, very soon after the end of the cold war the terrorists started "linking violence with islam" (according to you). some ppl suggest the new found "superpower" needs to wage wars to keep its economy running, its defense expenditure amounting to more than US$400 BILLION, and it having a VIOLENT inclination to kill innocent civilians with weapons that it manufactures. I just wonder how true that is.
considering it has never been in peace meaning always at war covert or overt at some place or another, maybe the superpower IS violent.
400 billion dollars of war expenditure? and you were saying some ppl should spend money on hungry ppl of the world? -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SilverPal:
Does unfair western practices and lack of freedom of expression make it ok to kill priests and christians? Does that make it ok to destroy american embassies? Does it allow the indonesian muslims to kill chinese?
I'm not directing this post at Libertarian but at proton. I'd like him to tell me what makes it ok to kill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is,Originally posted by protonhybrid:precisely! same question aussies asked singapore, what makes it okay to kill nguyen or anybody else? does carrying drugs make it okay to kill him? i ask silverpal, what makes it okay to kill?
why you so clever see the other way when it comes to you or the side you support, but not when it comes to other side?
Nguyen committed a crime.
what crime did the priests and christians, american embassies and indonesian chinese commit? -
^
so possession of drugs entitles one to be killed. so next time terrorists wanna kill some one they have better logic. stuff some drugs in innocent people's mouths, say they possess drugs. they'd better be killed!
that's weird! -
Well, a few drawings can get one killed, we recently found out... Better throw away all your crayons and pencils!Originally posted by protonhybrid:^
so possession of drugs entitles one to be killed. so next time terrorists wanna kill some one they have better logic. stuff some drugs in innocent people's mouths, say they possess drugs. they'd better be killed!
that's weird!
Notice how your reasoning works? You like to take matters out of context and convolute the whole thing.
Muslims question the freedom of expression laws in europe. Salman posted a thread questioning the freedom of religion in saudi arabia.
You take things out of context saying: It is wrong for england to have blasphemy laws to protect the church of england, but it is perfectly alright to have saudi govt lock people up for practising their faith?
Notice that england does NOT lock muslims, athesist or devil worshippers up for practising their faith. Try to corellate the correct points.
Drug trafficers, murderers may be sentenced to death. They have knowingly broken the laws of a certain country and thus have to pay the price.
It is NOT against the law to practise your religion, such as islam in countries like USA, Denmark, Holland, England and Singapore. You need not get sentenced to death.
But being a catholic priest is enough reason for terrorists sentence the priest to death! Being Danish is sufficient reason to die! Being an american is enough for rioters to tear you to pieces!
When was the last time a priest was killed by a muslim? You dare ask that question? It was in major local newspapers (newpapers, straits times, today). Still pretending to feign innocence? Or are you going to blame the "anti muslim propaganda"?
Still pretending? So no muslim tried to kill the former pope? Or are you going to demand a definition of "kill"???
Laws set up by govts are very sensible and much effort and thought have gone into creating and maintaining a sensible and fair legal system in every major country in the world, much unlike your posts which focus more on insults than discussion.
Instead of using the wrong actions of one to justify another, which is very childish (he hit me first so i hit him back), please try to think your logic and reasoning through first.
Also, if I have misspelt the name of the muslim court in sg, then that is my mistake. There is no need to hit below the belt and assume I meant the country syria. My posts are understandable to any reasonable human being. You might as well assume when I mention chinese singaporean, you can tell me that singapore is not a china province! -
Are you insisting that the world trade centre buildings in NYC were NOT destroyed by muslim fanatics that caused tremendous human fatality and hardship?Originally posted by protonhybrid:but you not only call Islam violent, you call the Prophet, the Holy Book Quran and Allah in disparaging terms too.
I DONT think it is the terrorists who INSIST on linking islam with violence. we NEVER heard such things during soviet invasion of afghanistan, when backed by USA many muslims from many parts of the world, arrived in afghanistan to wage "jihad" against "infidels". that was AOK, not only with american govt, but its "free" media and rest of the world.
I wonder WHY, very soon after the end of the cold war the terrorists started "linking violence with islam" (according to you). some ppl suggest the new found "superpower" needs to wage wars to keep its economy running, its defense expenditure amounting to more than US$400 BILLION, and it having a VIOLENT inclination to kill innocent civilians with weapons that it manufactures. I just wonder how true that is.
considering it has never been in peace meaning always at war covert or overt at some place or another, maybe the superpower IS violent.
400 billion dollars of war expenditure? and you were saying some ppl should spend money on hungry ppl of the world?
Are you denying that an attempt was made on the former pope's life? Are you saying that the american embassies in various parts of the world destroyed itself and not by angry muslim mobs?
Are you claiming that clerics did NOT offer 100g of gold for each danish head produced?
Sometimes words are not necessary. Actions are enough to incrminate.
Why should USA spend money on the poor and hungry in other countries? For the same reason why your parents won't feed me or buy clothes for me, nor will my parents give salman lodgings and shelter, it takes your own to look after your own.
The muslims are not all poor. If a cleric can offer USD 1mil fpr the head of the cartoonist, if clerics can afford 100g gold for each murdered dane, I'm sure that they can feed a few more starving poor.
The muslims in saudi arabia and malaysia are not poor. Nor are the muslims in england.
Osama himself is a rich man. -
Originally posted by protonhybrid:
Do you intend to prove that claim or is that your PROOF?
[b]PROVE.
if you fail to do that, this is evidence to indict you. bye bye salman[/b]
If you insist on hitting below the belt, others can too.
-
that's great! so anybody can teach in public how to make bombs, detonate them, etc IN USA, then leave USA and once outside USA can not even be sued. wow, freedom of speech the way you present it must be wonderful in some wacko kinda way.
Once again you are misintepreting my posts, intentionally or not...
btw note that public speaker didn't incite anybody to kill or do violent acts, he just exercised his right to freedom of speech. and by the time he has left USA, he can not be tried under the laws of the USA in any way.
correct?
May I ask which european muslims chose to kill the danish cartoonists or jyllands-posten editor?
exactly correct. how do you justify these killings? these disgraceful caricatures? etc etc? are they acceptable? what did the muslims do to warrant another day of bloodbath in iraq? just wondering. when will this vicious cycle end?
btw when was the LAST terrorist attack on nonmuslims? when was the LAST time a muslim got killed by christians? keep your answers ready since YOU are too eager to indulge in religious bloodbath.
too bad world has people like you.
Freedom of expression has been the butt of many american jokes for many years due to the fact that it cannot be taken as an absolute.
You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded place, you cannot marginalise minorities such as muslims, indians, etc. Nor can you speak discrminatorily against handicapped, aged, women etc.
Also, you are not allowed to do speak of certain topics, like bombmaking diy, overthrowing the govt 101, how to conduct terrorism... etc.
So is there really freedom of speech? I do not know, but these are the laws. Failing to adhere to these laws means almost immediate termination of whatever event you are speaking at, and maybe even jail.
Muslim fanatics (Note for idiots: NOT ALL MUSLIMS) chose to kill people based on nationality (americans, danes), based or race (white caucasians) and at times religion (catholic priests). All these in the name of religion. Who is the one mixing up religion and race again?
When the DANISH drew disgraceful pictures, the AMERICAN embassies got destroyed. The CATHOLIC PRIEST was murdered.
WHY? Try not to answer my question with justification of another crime or mistake. Don't tell me "People around the world keep dying", or "the americans killed millions of iraqis".
None of those examples are justification.
Just because america bombed and killed iraqis, therefore another priest must die? Trying to balance the vengence accounts?
Just because the Danish newspaper angered you, the americans must pay?
Stop trying to escape the issues and "salmanising" the issues. Bite the bullet and answer. -
btw when was the LAST terrorist attack on nonmuslims? when was the LAST time a muslim got killed by christians? keep your answers ready since YOU are too eager to indulge in religious bloodbath.
The last time a non muslim was killed by a muslims, IN THE NAME OF RELIGION:
Jan 2006, catholic priest was murdered by muslims.
When was the last terrorist attack on non muslims (and muslims too) IN THE NAME OF ISLAM:
American embassies were sacked in response to the Danish pictures.
The WTC in NYC were destroyed when planes were hijacked by self professed muslim terrorists and smashed into the twin towers. Another was downed near a military camp. It was said to be en route to the pentagon.
You need me to buy newspaper for you?
So answer your own question, when was the last time a muslim was killed by a christian IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY?
It is ignorant religious practitioners who have less than mediocre knowledge of the faith that assumes that there is a shortcut to god. These same fools insists on justifying their bloodbath.