View Poll Results: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

Voters
1321. You may not vote on this poll
  • Absolutely

    358 27.10%
  • No

    571 43.22%
  • Seems childish

    1,112 84.18%
  • Waste of time

    856 64.80%
  • Tell me when and I'll do it for sure

    534 40.42%
  • other - please explain

    311 23.54%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 235

Thread: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

  1. #131
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    [
    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    I think a few Muslims have become intolerant simply because they feel disrespected by the West and quite a few of their countries are occupied by Western militaries and people are dying over there.
    PARIS: The attackers who stormed the Paris offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, killing 12 people, shouted "we have avenged the prophet", according to witnesses cited by a police source.

    In a video of the attack filmed by a man taking refuge on a nearby rooftop, the men can be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest) between rounds of heavy arms fire.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/45795006.cms

    Yeah, clearly a case of blowback from foreign policy Your reflexive deflection to the West and foreign policy is again noted.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    The figure head is a white French man. The organisation was founded by Bernard Henri Levy.
    I meant this guy:

    Julien Dray

    Anyway, all I'm saying is that CH was the opposite of racist. I know that we disagree on that and that's fine. They do have a very specific, very French style that does not translate well outside its borders and even within the country they are highly controversial. I think you misinterpret their intentions and assign them some nefarious agenda that they simply are not a part of.
    I assign based on what I see. Their brothers and sisters in the PQ in Canada tried to tear the province apart a few months ago over the French language, religion and race. They were voted out of office recently because they were simply seen as a bunch of racists trying to wash the history of both Quebec and Montreal with chamois leather. So I most definitely understand the type of French racism we're discussing here and I simply don't buy the French brand. Here, I welcome you to read this so you can see why I don't have any sympathy for SOS Racisme and French Republicanism:

    The core of Quebec

    The reaction to the court decision was swift and nearly unanimous. Leading activists and intellectuals – including former head of SOS Racisme and current Socialist Party chairman Harlem Désir – signed a petition calling for a reaffirmation of French secularism. Meanwhile, polls show that more than 80 per cent of French voters support extending the ban on religious symbols, which, since 2010, has included a prohibition on covering one’s face in public.

    You cannot begin to understand the debate surrounding the Parti Québécois’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values without an appreciation of French republicanism and its influence in Quebec. Both France and Quebec are post-Catholic societies that threw off the shackles of the church. The backlash came later in Quebec, but it was even more virulent.
    France's cultural elite wants it both ways, they ban the veil, which women can CHOOSE to wear as part of their free speech, and then they want to act offended when others aren't respectful of their freedom of speech. That's not the concept of free speech I'm willing to stand beside. One which picks and chooses which speech is acceptable and which isn't.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Read it again. I think you might be struggling with some comprehension problems.
    No, more problems with being a wiseacre, I think. Let me take my tongue out of my cheek and say I agree with what you said in your post. The notion that the U.S. caused modern jihadism is anti-American propaganda.This jihadism has its roots in a fundamentalist and extremely violent interpretation of the Koran and hadiths that began to crop up here and there in the Muslim world a long time ago. It was fueled by resentment of Western powers who had come into Muslim lands, as well as shame and anger that the once-great Arab world had become so weak and backwards in comparison to them. And various radical Islamist writers began to preach the virtues of violent action.

    Modern Islamist violence has been going on for at least since the days of the Mahdi in Sudan in the late 1800's, and it has only gotten more bloodthirsty. During WWII, Ruhollah Khomeini and Mohammed Navab-Safavi had formed a "Soldiers of Islam" jihadist cell that was murdering Muslims they considered heretics. By the end of the war, jihadists in Egypt were fomenting riots in Western and especially Jewish areas of Cairo, burning down many businesses and murdering Jews. The U.S. can't possibly have had anything to do with that. And I could give many more examples of the same kind of thing. The official version of the average leftist, anti-American dim bulb whose "knowledge" comes from Michael Moore films is that the U.S. brought all this on itself, including 9/11. Whether that claim is the product of malice or just simple ignorance, it is a vicious lie that helps our enemies.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    they ban the veil, which women can CHOOSE to wear as part of their free speech, and then they want to act offended when others aren't respectful of their freedom of speech. That's not the concept of free speech I'm willing to stand beside. One which picks and chooses which speech is acceptable and which isn't.
    The United States has decided what sorts of speech the First Amendment protects, how far it protects them, and what sorts of speech it does not protect at all. The Framers of the Constitution picked and chose about the kinds of speech to protect--but they strongly limited the authority of government to regulate thecontent of the kinds of speech that are protected. There is almost no right to pick and choose about that here, but I don't pretend to know French law on the subject.

    France, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine what kinds of speech to allow by law and what to prohibit. Contrary to what you claim, wearing the veil, at least in certain places like schools, obviously is NOT a form of speech anyone has a legal right to in France. To say a person is free to engage in speech and also to say that speech is banned makes no sense.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The United States has decided what sorts of speech the First Amendment protects, how far it protects them, and what sorts of speech it does not protect at all. The Framers of the Constitution picked and chose about the kinds of speech to protect--but they strongly limited the authority of government to regulate thecontent of the kinds of speech that are protected. There is almost no right to pick and choose about that here, but I don't pretend to know French law on the subject.
    Oh, but there is in France. For the French left, "freedom of religion" means freedom for the state to tell people how to practice their religion. That's why I don't buy this nonsense that the French have suddenly become a beacon of free speech. They simply aren't.

    France, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine what kinds of speech to allow by law and what to prohibit.
    That's great for them, but the issue here is that France is now pretending that they're supporters of freedom of speech when they REALLY aren't.

    Contrary to what you claim, wearing the veil, at least in certain places like schools, obviously is NOT a form of speech anyone has a legal right to in France. To say a person is free to engage in speech and also to say that speech is banned makes no sense.
    Oh, I agree, France is full of a **** when it comes to "free speech". They simply don't endorse it. However, we must all pretend that they do because of this Charlie Hebdo thing. If you'd like to read the list of censored stuff in France:

    French ban on face covering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There you go.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #136
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,518

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    "You people"?

    There is nothing on earth that is sacred absolutely, there is nothing on earth that should be above the law. If a journalists writes something with the express purpose to incite violence towards a certain person/a group of people then at least a court has to be able to look at whether or not a law has been broken.

    If you slander/defame someone in the US you also can be held accountable (even though in the US the level of evidence needs to be very high to get this kind of conviction). And in several states it is possible to be prosecuted for criminal defamation.

    Free speech should not be absolute, you cannot hide behind the law as a journalist if you rile people up to commit crimes or murder. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute freedom of speech can be absolutely dangerous if it is not done responsibly.
    Yes, "you people". Don't be a drama queen. Please?

    Free speech is sacred. Even I'd you don't like it, or it pisses you off, its sacred.

    Incitement of criminal activity isn't free speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #137
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yes, "you people". Don't be a drama queen. Please?

    Free speech is sacred. Even I'd you don't like it, or it pisses you off, its sacred.

    Incitement of criminal activity isn't free speech.
    Nothing at all drama queen about it, if anything it is your drama queen attitude with the "you people" that was the issue.

    Free speech is not sacred, it is one of the highest valued things on this planet next to freedom but as said, there is no absolute free speech IMHO. All speech is limited to some degree, if only for your own moral internal guide.

    Sorry, but even Adolf Hilter used free speech, does not mean what he said is something that should be held as sacred.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  8. #138
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,518

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter King View Post
    Nothing at all drama queen about it, if anything it is your drama queen attitude with the "you people" that was the issue.

    Free speech is not sacred, it is one of the highest valued things on this planet next to freedom but as said, there is no absolute free speech IMHO. All speech is limited to some degree, if only for your own moral internal guide.

    Sorry, but even Adolf Hilter used free speech, does not mean what he said is something that should be held as sacred.
    Obviously, you don't understand the difference between free speech and the incitement of violence.

    Just because you people don't like it, doesn't mean that you get to suppress a person's right to say it.

    See? Here in America, most of us understand the difference. You people do not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #139
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,738

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by spangledbanner View Post
    We Australians are not American or French and this type of thing is illegal in Australia. Charlie Hedbo could not have published his trash in Australia or he would have been arrested. We have laws that make his type of trash illegal. In Australia you cannot use media to insult or humiliate people.

    Do you French and Americans want to start insulting Aboriginals do you? If you have such freedom to be obnoxious then what is all the fuss over the Redskins logo?

    Is attacking African Americans with media an act of freedom and artistic expression? This is what the world has come to with USA leading and France as "the capital of the world" is it? You French and Americans have the right to be offensive, obnoxious and provocative and this is freedom is it? Well not in Australia. Us Aussies disagree with your uncivilized idea of freedom.
    maybe we should ridicule any government that has such idiotic restrictions on speech



  10. #140
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Obviously, you don't understand the difference between free speech and the incitement of violence.

    Just because you people don't like it, doesn't mean that you get to suppress a person's right to say it.

    See? Here in America, most of us understand the difference. You people do not.
    Obviously you do not understand the difference between free speech and horrendous abuse of free speech.

    Just you because you people, don't want to get it, does not mean that a lot of countries and a lot of people have to bow down to your views of a sacred uninhibited free speech. With great power comes great responsibility IMHO, and with freedom of speech comes the right of others to limit that speech that goes against other equally important rights that people have.

    See? Most people know that there is more to this world than free speech with no limitations. You people who think speech is the one big right that goes about all other rights is sacrosanct, forget that freedom of speech is just one of the basic human rights.

    I know exactly what is the difference between freedom of speech and horrendous abuse of free speech, sadly you think some things are free speech whereas I see them as a horrendous and horrible abuse of free speech.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •