This is absolutely disgusting!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wokawidget

So...basically the whole world is being bullied into something...essentially.

---

This is the best thing that I heard today.

Actually it is upto the common people like you and me to stop this bullying thing from happening. If we understand our responsibilities and respect each other then few people who want to disturb the situation will have nothing to talk about.

This is why I posted the link out there. When people know that something is creating tensions then why do it at all. Printing and reprinting is adding to the tension rather than reducing it. Now you would say that those people say that they have freedom of speech and they are defending it. Then I would say if they are defending their Freedom of speech, then those people protesting and burning embassies are also defending their beleifs.

This way it is not gonna go anywhere and again someone will come and bully us again. There is a need to understand each others sentiments and stop playing with things like religion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stmIt's the mini-quiz on the bottom right of the page. How absurd :rolleyes:

Its so childish when they start changeing names of things like that. Its not like the Danes care what you call them.
Do they still say freedom fries in America?

Quote:

---

Then I would say if they are defending their Freedom of speech, then those people protesting and burning embassies are also defending their beleifs.

---

Maybe they are acting in a defense of their religious beliefs or maybe they are just following the mob because burning things western is cool.

In either case once you elevate the protest to violence you have crossed a line. You have moved from righteous to wrong in the eyes of most of the west. If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

---

That may be true today, in fact it probably is.

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?

Of course we know now that a lot of the reaction to the cartoons is not spontaneous, but was incited deliberately by Radical Danish imams.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/775

Quote:

---

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?

---

There is a big difference here.
Non-violent protests are within the laws of most countries, violent protests and uprisings are not. This being the case the protestors (insurgents)will be treated differently based on their methods.

You don't have a right to an armed insurgency even though you may feel morally justified. If you do take up arms against your government then you must be prepared to suffer the consequences (usually death). Don't go whining to the world community when your government does what it can to stop you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

There is a big difference here.
Non-violent protests are within the laws of most countries, violent protests and uprisings are not. This being the case the protestors (insurgents)will be treated differently based on their methods.

You don't have a right to an armed insurgency even though you may feel morally justified. If you do take up arms against your government then you must be prepared to suffer the consequences (usually death). Don't go whining to the world community when your government does what it can to stop you.

---

I was talking about the struggle for American independence . . . .

Quote:

---

I was talking about the struggle for American independence . . . .

---

I know you were and my response was directed at that.

Winners always get to write the history, so we look upon the revolution as a righteous cause. Had the British won we might now look upon it as a case of domestic terrorism.

The point I was trying to make is that once you take up arms against your government you are no longer protected by you rights to protest and speak freely. So, the revolutionaries had to accept that it was an all or nothing struggle. Either they would defeat the British or die trying. And no one should blame the British for trying to put down the rebellion by whatever means they had at their disposal.

This argument does change a little due to the fact that America was a colony and the morality of maintaining colonies is dubious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shuja Ali

Wow this is great. This guy is planning to distribute T-Shirts for what. To show that they have freedom of speech (I seriously doubt that). Take a look at what an Italian Minister has to say here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4714548.stm

---

I guess you do not understand wester culture. We will sell offensive T-Shirts about anything to make a buck. It's about free market not free speach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Originally Posted by moeur
If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

That may be true today, in fact it probably is.

But where would America be if the British hadn't failed against the insurgent rabble all those years ago ?

---

Another point is that the insurgent rabble stopped acting like rabble when they formally declared and formed an army. There must have been exceptions, but they did not aim their displeasure physically toward innocent people -- unlike the current bunch.

And vocally condemning the actions is one thing. I'll start believing that the average Moslem is really against such acts when I hear about a few sticking their own bodies and fortunes in between the freaks and the cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I know you were and my response was directed at that.

Winners always get to write the history, so we look upon the revolution as a righteous cause. Had the British won we might now look upon it as a case of domestic terrorism.

The point I was trying to make is that once you take up arms against your government you are no longer protected by you rights to protest and speak freely. So, the revolutionaries had to accept that it was an all or nothing struggle. Either they would defeat the British or die trying. And no one should blame the British for trying to put down the rebellion by whatever means they had at their disposal.

This argument does change a little due to the fact that America was a colony and the morality of maintaining colonies is dubious

---

Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, too. Tried and convicted by a jury of his peers . . . .

My point, although in the most part I agree with you Moeur, is that the world simply isn't as black and white as your posts imply.

Quote:

---

My point, although in the most part I agree with you Moeur, is that the world simply isn't as black and white as your posts imply.

---

No it is this black and white. If you use violence then harsh methods (i.e. greater force) will be used against you. So before resorting to violence realize that your actions will bring severe consequences upon you and your accomplises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

No it is this black and white. If you use violence then harsh methods (i.e. greater force) will be used against you. So before resorting to violence realize that your actions will bring severe consequences upon you and your accomplises.

---

I agree that that is what is going to happen, but with regard to whether it is right or wrong that this consequence should happen, in my opinion, questionable

He who hesitates is lost.

The more I read these posts, the more I'm convinced this world (and the West in particular) is sliding into degeneration and oblivion at lightning speed.

But at least when things have finally gone to pot I know where the blame lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Maybe they are acting in a defense of their religious beliefs or maybe they are just following the mob because burning things western is cool.

In either case once you elevate the protest to violence you have crossed a line. You have moved from righteous to wrong in the eyes of most of the west. If you want to be respected in the west and looked upon as anything but a bunch of terrorists, then you must vocally condemn violence directed toward innocents.

---

As if offending someones religious sentiments is not wrong. More than half of world's population stays in east and we would not care what west thinks of us. If west can do anything so we can we. We can burn down whatever we want and protest in whatever way we like. If west doesn't like it then let them do whatever they want. (This is a kind of response you get when west doesn't know what responsibility and respect is)

To be frank West needs to understand that people (unlike people in West) living in East have sentiments that are closely related to their culture and religion. And when you play with these sentiments then these people get irritated and can resort to voilence.

I like this post so much :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

The more I read these posts, the more I'm convinced this world (and the West in particular) is sliding into degeneration and oblivion at lightning speed.

But at least when things have finally gone to pot I know where the blame lies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

I guess you do not understand wester culture. We will sell offensive T-Shirts about anything to make a buck. It's about free market not free speach.

---

If you would have given it a thought then you would have understood that this one is not about money.

Quote:

---

As if offending someones religious sentiments is not wrong.

---

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

---

Have to sort of 1/2 agree with you there.

Woka

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

---

A vast over-simplification.

Of course you can control your behaviour to such a degree that it might prevent you offending someone. You could be knowingly racist, for instance.

The extension of this is whether it is right to constrain behaviour in that fashion . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Offending someone is not wrong. I have no control over whether what I do offends someone or not. The only person who has control over that, is the person being offended. Some people go through life looking for reasons to be offended.

---

Knowingly offended someone and accidently offending someone are two different things. For instance up until recently i had no idea that drawing an image of mohammed (sp?) was wrong, so if i had done it, i can't be held accountable or at least the offendie should be a little understanding. But doing something to offend someone in order to anger them or because i just don't care isn't the right thing to do. Both the potential offender and the offendie should try excercise some form of self control.

edit: i should have read a little further down. its kinda scary that i'm agreeing with yrwyddfa :sick: :lol: