Should our freedom be decreased to increase security from terror?
Immortalist
In the past the main debate has been about how much "freedom vs
equality" & "individualism vs community", but now the debate seems to
have shifted to "liberty vs security". What is strange is that some
libertarians and other supporters of the "freedom" side of the
gradient also support limited freedom in order for increased
"security".
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the
condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his
or her own will. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial
land in which regalian rights had been waived.
Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people
within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a
certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal
rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of
speech and assembly, and the extent of property rights. However, it
also includes access to education, health care and other social
securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and
so involves the whole society.
Security is the degree of protection against danger, loss, and
criminals. Security has to be compared and contrasted with other
related concepts: Safety, continuity, reliability. The key difference
between security and reliability is that security must take into
account the actions of people attempting to cause destruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/
Michael Price
Exactly when has limiting liberty been a good thing in terms of
security?
Look at the safest places, are they totalitarian regimes? Can we at
least
eliminate the violations of liberty that threaten our security (e.g.
the war
on drugs, the war in Iraq, the war in ... well all the wars really)
before we
start new violations allegedly to help our security?
tooly
I just watched 'District 9' movie and I thought it brought up some
interesting questions
as to equality and citizen rights. How inclusive should law extend?
I also just read an article
where some scientists are suggesting that dolphins, due to their
higher intelligence, should be
classified as 'non-human persons' that they come under protection of
human law etc.
It poses some interspection as to how we 'identify' ourselves...who
and what 'WE' are.
The wider the spectrum we make 'inclusive', the more problems we run
into [as the movie
depicted; the aliens, though intelligent, had quite repulsive habits
and behaviors etc].
Who and what should benefit from whatever law WE create? What is 'WE'
anyway. I am reminded of
Uncle Henry also, who the family would make welcome whenver he became
unemployed, and then he'd
move in and 'TAKE OVER'...hmmm...sort of like the prevailing winds
toward afro-centrism you see.
Hehe...last joke is on US [who are no longer, hmmm....US].
Rod Speed
> Liberty vs Equality & Liberty vs Security
> In the past the main debate has been about how much
> "freedom vs equality" & "individualism vs community", but
> now the debate seems to have shifted to "liberty vs security".
Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
> What is strange is that some libertarians and other
> supporters of the "freedom" side of the gradient also
> support limited freedom in order for increased "security".
Nothing strange about that either. Even they arent so
stupid that most of them cant grasp that we do have to
do some stuff to increase security, if only to keep track
of the worst loons because of what they can get up to.
> Liberty is a concept of political philosophy
Like hell it is.
> and identifies the condition in which an individual has
> the right to act according to his or her own will.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
> In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial
> land in which regalian rights had been waived.
Its MUCH more complicated than that too.
For much of recorded history, even in what are now
the great democracys, you werent even allowed to
have anything to do with the wrong xtian sect etc.
> Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a
> specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under
> the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech
> and assembly, and the extent of property rights.
And that has always been heavily qualified, particularly in wartime.
> However, it also includes access to education, health care
> and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities
> and obligations, and so involves the whole society.
Like hell it does on that last, most obviously with those in prison etc.
robert bowman
> Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
> why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
Roosevelt and Wilson also interned United States citizens who happen to be
of the wrong ancestry or those who make remarks critical of the war.
Poetic Justice
War is ugly... you are either for your side or you are suspected as
against, it's the nature of war, even the neutral parties are considered
as risky and may be against the goal of you winning. The point of war
is to "win" and anything that does not help to that end deserves zero
tolerance.
That's why you don't enter a war as a cavalier endeavor.
There is no such thing as "LIMITED WAR" War is all out or nothing.
Zerkon
> Security is the degree of protection against danger, loss, and
> criminals. Security has to be compared and contrasted with other related
> concepts: Safety, continuity, reliability. The key difference between
> security and reliability is that security must take into account the
> actions of people attempting to cause destruction.
Let us leave the dictionary for a moment and return first to the real
world of human complexity beginning with "security is..."
Security is huge business, huge money and results in a huge consolidation
of power and has been since the days of the serfs. The insistence to
treat security as abstracted from this is more an attempt to feel secure
from it.
Is someone afraid also secure? It seems to me real human security, not
the definition of some protective overlord, is the absence of fear. Human
security is not some objective condition, first and last it is a state of
mind, a human sense and a feeling.
Security from "terror" follows suit. Does this include home foreclosure,
btw?
> Should our freedom be decreased to increase security from terror?
Translated with O-razor as: "To secure liberties, we need to remove
liberties."
This is the discussion? Or is it: "Because they hate our freedoms, we
need to give up freedoms" or is it simply "we are afraid of them, please
protect us, we will do and pay you what you want, whatever it takes, save
us... please"?
The raw reality we do not face with externalized 'terror' is the deep
corruption, incompetence and insanity which is not all 'over there' with
'those people'.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Liberty vs Equality & Liberty vs Security
>>> In the past the main debate has been about how much
>>> "freedom vs equality" & "individualism vs community", but
>>> now the debate seems to have shifted to "liberty vs security".
>> Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
Yes, but that is STILL the evidence that that has been around for a long
time, getting on for a full century now. And it happened well before that too.
chazwin
America and other western countries will always be targets when they
continue to perpetrate massive international crimes. Security will
diminish the more crimes are committed.
Les Cargill
No.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> I also just read an article
> where some scientists are suggesting that dolphins, due to their
> higher intelligence, should be
> classified as 'non-human persons' that they come under protection of
> human law etc.
These people are clearly too stupid to live.
--
Les Cargill
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Immortalist wrote:
> > Liberty vs Equality & Liberty vs Security
> > In the past the main debate has been about how much
> > "freedom vs equality" & "individualism vs community", but
> > now the debate seems to have shifted to "liberty vs security".
>
> Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
> why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
>
So who are the enemy? We are not 'at war' in the traditional sense,
ie, against a country or countries.
Britain was not 'at war' with the Republic of Ireland. If you remove
the national boundries, there is a war of idealism going on.Are the
warlords of Afganistan any more the enemy than the drug lords of the
US?
If you look at the 'collateral damage', the druggies are well ahead.
In this sense, globalisation takes on a whole new meaning.
BOfL
Rod Speed
>>> Liberty vs Equality & Liberty vs Security
>>> In the past the main debate has been about how much
>>> "freedom vs equality" & "individualism vs community", but
>>> now the debate seems to have shifted to "liberty vs security".
>> Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
>> why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
> So who are the enemy?
Never said anyone was. I JUST commented on his 'but now the debate seems to have shifted to'
> We are not 'at war' in the traditional sense, ie, against a country or countries.
Nevere ever said we were.
> Britain was not 'at war' with the Republic of Ireland. If you remove
> the national boundries, there is a war of idealism going on.
And that particular one has been going on for hundreds of years now.
> Are the warlords of Afganistan any more the enemy than the drug lords of the US?
No, but the training camps for terrorists clearly produced a rather unusual result in the US.
> If you look at the 'collateral damage', the druggies are well ahead.
Sure, but that doesnt mean that the other terrorists can just be ignored completely.
Slick tried that and ended up with 9/11.
> In this sense, globalisation takes on a whole new meaning.
Sure.
James A. Donald
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So who are the enemy? We are not 'at war' in the traditional sense,
> ie, against a country or countries.
Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
Consider for example the movie "Slumdog Millionaire", which preaches
the message Islam good, Hinduism bad - because if the British
producers failed to emit the required politically correct message,
they would get their throats cut.
Getting your cut throat for unkind reference to Islam slides by
imperceptible degrees into full blown Sharia law, which gradual
transformation we observe in process along the bloody borders of
Islam.
That is the way Islam conquers. There does not seem to be any
solution short of announcing we are war with Islam, and proceeding
accordingly, in pretty much the way we were at war with Nazism.
Errol
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:03:41 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates itself into the
host country with the ultimate objective of attaining world domination
(as paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the ME for nearly
ten years and learned to understand the mindset of Muslims.
Muslims in Saudi Arabia complain loudly in the world media when the
permission to build yet another mosque in London is denied because of
complaints about the noise from local citizens, but fail to understand
the quid pro quo reality that in Saudi Arabia it is absolutely
forbidden to even bring a bible into the country, nevermind build a
church there.
They shrug their shoulders and say "That's different. This is Saudi.
Churches are forbidden here." as if the westerner is an absolute fool
for not seeing the obvious.
What is the obvious? Western countries are permissive and accomodating
to other cultures, whereas many other cultures are not.
I don't give a damn whether or not churches are built anywhere but I
do give a damn that Muslims do not return the respect we give to their
culture. Some quid pro quo would help solve the problem.
On the other hand, I think you chose a bad example to illustrate your
point.
"Slumdog Millionaire" recalls the childhood memories of anti muslim
violence in India, and this is and was a reality. This is not a major
theme in the movie, and it is quickly discarded/forgotten in the wake
of the larger themes. Whether or not the anti muslim violence is
justified under the concept of quid pro quo is debateable , but
reality can be harsh and memories of atrocities deserve to be recorded
for prosperity, even if they simply function as a reminder to our
consciences that we are humans first and foremost.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> "Slumdog Millionaire" recalls the childhood memories of anti muslim
> violence in India, and this is and was a reality. This is not a major
> theme in the movie, and it is quickly discarded/forgotten in the wake
> of the larger themes.
Anti Hindu violence was also a reality - a reality that would be apt
to get the movie maker's throat cut.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:03:41 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
>
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So who are the enemy? We are not 'at war' in the traditional sense,
> > ie, against a country or countries.
>
> Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
Which enemy ?
>
> Consider for example the movie "Slumdog Millionaire", which preaches
> the message Islam good, Hinduism bad - because if the British
> producers failed to emit the required politically correct message,
> they would get their throats cut.
>
> Getting your cut throat for unkind reference to Islam slides by
> imperceptible degrees into full blown Sharia law, which gradual
> transformation we observe in process along the bloody borders of
> Islam.
>
> That is the way Islam conquers.
Here we go again. So you can see Sharia law taking over the free world
a large proportion of which, are already Islam oriented.
You should invade Utah on that basis.
> There does not seem to be any
> solution short of announcing we are war with Islam,
Who is 'we' ?
> and proceeding
> accordingly, in pretty much the way we were at war with Nazism.
Germany invaded a country or two in case you forgot.
Another inconvinient truth?
List the last few countries that have participated in invasion (and
the 'supposed' reasons)...not including Africa.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Jan 8, 9:36 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:03:41 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
>
> > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates itself into the
> host country with the ultimate objective of attaining world domination
> (as paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the ME for nearly
> ten years and learned to understand the mindset of Muslims.
In the same way that Christianity intends to (after armageddon of
course).
>
> Muslims in Saudi Arabia complain loudly in the world media when the
> permission to build yet another mosque in London is denied because of
> complaints about the noise from local citizens, but fail to understand
> the quid pro quo reality that in Saudi Arabia it is absolutely
> forbidden to even bring a bible into the country, nevermind build a
> church there.
Would that have anything to do with their oil riches by any chance? Do
they complain that women are allowed to drive in the west, and if they
did, so what.
>
> They shrug their shoulders and say "That's different. This is Saudi.
> Churches are forbidden here." as if the westerner is an absolute fool
> for not seeing the obvious.
The foolishness is inversly proportional to the indifference.
>
> What is the obvious? Western countries are permissive and accomodating
> to other cultures, whereas many other cultures are not.
Again...so what. The religious stirres must hate countries where
multicultarism thrives..Australia being a great example.
>
> I don't give a damn whether or not churches are built anywhere but I
> do give a damn that Muslims do not return the respect we give to their
> culture. Some quid pro quo would help solve the problem.
What respect? Does that stop you buying Saudi oil? Up until the last
couple of generations, nobody cared a hoot what Saudis did to
themselves, as with Afghanis and many other soverign countries.
BOfL
Errol
wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:20 pm, Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:36 am, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:03:41 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates itself into the
> > host country with the ultimate objective of attaining world domination
> > (as paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the ME for nearly
> > ten years and learned to understand the mindset of Muslims.
>
> In the same way that Christianity intends to (after armageddon of
> course).
>
I am not a Christian so whatever the Christians intend to do after
they die is moot.
The fundamentalist muslims are doing it now, while they are alive.
There is a difference.
>
>
> > Muslims in Saudi Arabia complain loudly in the world media when the
> > permission to build yet another mosque in London is denied because of
> > complaints about the noise from local citizens, but fail to understand
> > the quid pro quo reality that in Saudi Arabia it is absolutely
> > forbidden to even bring a bible into the country, nevermind build a
> > church there.
>
> Would that have anything to do with their oil riches by any chance? Do
> they complain that women are allowed to drive in the west, and if they
> did, so what.
>
Yes! Their oil riches certainly plays a part but so what? My point is
that they see the world entirely from a blinkered perspective, and
that perspective includes the perceived right to kick infidel ass with
impunity.
>
>
> > They shrug their shoulders and say "That's different. This is Saudi.
> > Churches are forbidden here." as if the westerner is an absolute fool
> > for not seeing the obvious.
>
> The foolishness is inversly proportional to the indifference.
>
As is opinion to fact
>
>
> > What is the obvious? Western countries are permissive and accomodating
> > to other cultures, whereas many other cultures are not.
>
> Again...so what. The religious stirres must hate countries where
> multicultarism thrives..Australia being a great example.
>
So what? Did any of your relatives die in the senseless bombing of
that nightclub in Bali?
Unfortunately their hate doesn't stop with a few angry sentences in a
NG. They take it to the street; your street.
>
>
> > I don't give a damn whether or not churches are built anywhere but I
> > do give a damn that Muslims do not return the respect we give to their
> > culture. Some quid pro quo would help solve the problem.
>
> What respect? Does that stop you buying Saudi oil? Up until the last
> couple of generations, nobody cared a hoot what Saudis did to
> themselves, as with Afghanis and many other soverign countries.
>
What respect? The freedom we give them to practice a religion in our
own countries that considers us native citizens to be expendable
infidels.
How do I distinguish between Saudi oil at the petrol station? If I had
the choice I certainly wouldn't buy it, but I am not fanatical about
it. Nobody much cared what the Saudis did, until they started playing
target practice with airplanes on American buildings (15 of the 19
were Saudi Arabian). Nobody cared what the Afghans did until they
starting stoning their women for trivial offenses (and dressing them
up like beekeepers in the desert heat), and destroying thousand year
old statues as idolatry.
Anyway my whole issue about quid pro quo is that there was a (possibly
apocryphalic) story about Margaret Thatcher in which she told the then
king of Saudi Arabia that she would allow mosques to be built in
London when he (the King) allowed churches to be built in Saudi
Arabia. Standing firm on principle without unnecessary aggression.
If you wish to be seen as the voice of reason as to tolerance towards
muslims then so be it, but my issue with Islam is not with the
moderates. It is with the guy that emigrates to my country and then
pays us back by bombing railway stations/whatever in the name of his
religious delusion that gives him permission to kill non-believers.
Christianity might have been similar in it's past but today I see it
as a lot of old codgers cramming for their finals. A bit on the
pathetic side. No contest
Rod Speed
> bigfl...@gmail.com <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote
>> So who are the enemy? We are not 'at war' in the
>> traditional sense, ie, against a country or countries.
> Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
It would be even more surprising if something like
9/11 had no effect whatever, we just yawned and
carried on regardless and waited for the next one etc.
> Consider for example the movie "Slumdog Millionaire",
> which preaches the message Islam good, Hinduism bad
Like hell it does.
> - because if the British producers failed to emit the required
> politically correct message, they would get their throats cut.
Just another of your pathetic little rabidly racist fantasys.
You cant list even a single example of any movie producer EVER
getting its throat cut because they dont run the muslim line, and
there have been plenty of movies that put the boot into muslims too.
> Getting your cut throat for unkind reference to Islam slides
> by imperceptible degrees into full blown Sharia law,
Just another of your pathetic little rabidly racist fantasys.
> which gradual transformation we observe in process along the bloody borders of Islam.
Just another of your pathetic little rabidly racist fantasys.
We dont even see much movement to sharia law in muslim countrys.
> That is the way Islam conquers.
Just another of your pathetic little rabidly racist fantasys.
> There does not seem to be any solution short of announcing we are war with Islam,
Just another of your pathetic little rabidly racist fantasys.
> and proceeding accordingly, in pretty much the way we were at war with Nazism.
Nothing like it in fact. And we didnt do a damned thing about
Nazism until they attempted to militarily take over much of
the world and muslims havent done that in close to a millennium
now. And they lost when they tried with europe and india anyway.
Rod Speed
> Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote
>> "Slumdog Millionaire" recalls the childhood memories of anti muslim
>> violence in India, and this is and was a reality. This is not a major
>> theme in the movie, and it is quickly discarded/forgotten in the wake
>> of the larger themes.
>
> Anti Hindu violence was also a reality
Corse there has never ever been any anti muslim violence in india, eh ?
And there is the tiny matter of the anti christian and anti sikh violence in india too.
Thats the way those fools operate, stupid.
> - a reality that would be apt to get the movie maker's throat cut.
Odd that you cant list even a single example of any movie maker having its throat cut.
Rod Speed
>>> So who are the enemy? We are not 'at war' in the
>>> traditional sense, ie, against a country or countries.
>> Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
>> Consider for example the movie "Slumdog Millionaire", which
>> preaches the message Islam good, Hinduism bad - because
>> if the British producers failed to emit the required politically
>> correct message, they would get their throats cut.
>> Getting your cut throat for unkind reference to Islam slides by imperceptible
>> degrees into full blown Sharia law, which gradual transformation we observe
>> in process along the bloody borders of Islam.
>> That is the way Islam conquers. There does not seem to be any
>> solution short of announcing we are war with Islam, and proceeding
>> accordingly, in pretty much the way we were at war with Nazism.
> I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates itself into the
> host country with the ultimate objective of attaining world domination
You should. Islam has never attempted that in plenty of places.
> (as paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the ME for
> nearly ten years and learned to understand the mindset of Muslims.
Thats just ONE group of muslims.
> Muslims in Saudi Arabia complain loudly in the world media when the
> permission to build yet another mosque in London is denied because of
> complaints about the noise from local citizens, but fail to understand
> the quid pro quo reality that in Saudi Arabia it is absolutely forbidden
> to even bring a bible into the country, nevermind build a church there.
Sure, some fanatics are always that rabid.
> They shrug their shoulders and say "That's different.
> This is Saudi. Churches are forbidden here." as if the
> westerner is an absolute fool for not seeing the obvious.
There is a difference between the law of the country and local stuff like we see in London.
> What is the obvious? Western countries are permissive and accomodating to other cultures,
It is now. It wasnt that long ago that roman catholics were illegal and
quite a few headed off to america because of religious persecution.
And lets not forget what western countrys did with jews quite recently.
> whereas many other cultures are not.
And many muslim cultures have been nothing like Saudi is now.
> I don't give a damn whether or not churches are built anywhere but
> I do give a damn that Muslims do not return the respect we give to
> their culture. Some quid pro quo would help solve the problem.
Nope. There have been plenty of muslim countrys that have
allowed even more religious freedom than the west has at times.
> On the other hand, I think you chose a bad example to illustrate your point.
Yeah, he's a rabid racist that never ever has a single good thing to say about muslims
and is stupid enough to believe that they are all rabid fanatics when they are not.
> "Slumdog Millionaire" recalls the childhood memories of
> anti muslim violence in India, and this is and was a reality.
Yep, we aint seen anything else like what we saw during the partition of india in modern times.
Rod Speed
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>> Errol <vs.er...@gmail.com> wrote>>>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>>> I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates itself into
>>> the host country with the ultimate objective of attaining world
>>> domination (as paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the
>>> ME for nearly ten years and learned to understand the mindset of
>>> Muslims.
>> In the same way that Christianity intends to (after armageddon of course).
Nothing like it, actually.
> I am not a Christian so whatever the Christians intend to do after they die is moot.
> The fundamentalist muslims are doing it now, while they are alive.
SOME are, plenty arent.
> There is a difference.
No real difference to the Crusades etc.
>>> Muslims in Saudi Arabia complain loudly in the world media when the
>>> permission to build yet another mosque in London is denied because
>>> of complaints about the noise from local citizens, but fail to
>>> understand the quid pro quo reality that in Saudi Arabia it is
>>> absolutely forbidden to even bring a bible into the country,
>>> nevermind build a church there.
>> Would that have anything to do with their oil riches by any chance?
>> Do they complain that women are allowed to drive in the west, and if
>> they did, so what.
> Yes! Their oil riches certainly plays a part but so what? My point
> is that they see the world entirely from a blinkered perspective,
Corse no christians ever do anything like that, eh ?
> and that perspective includes the perceived right to kick infidel ass with impunity.
Corse no christians ever do anything like that, eh ?
>>> They shrug their shoulders and say "That's different.
>>> This is Saudi. Churches are forbidden here." as if the
>>> westerner is an absolute fool for not seeing the obvious.
>> The foolishness is inversly proportional to the indifference.
> As is opinion to fact
>>> What is the obvious? Western countries are permissive and
>>> accomodating to other cultures, whereas many other cultures are not.
>> Again...so what. The religious stirres must hate countries
>> where multicultarism thrives..Australia being a great example.
> So what? Did any of your relatives die in the senseless bombing of that nightclub in Bali?
> Unfortunately their hate doesn't stop with a few angry
> sentences in a NG. They take it to the street; your street.
Very very few of them ever do, or even support anything like that either.
>>> I don't give a damn whether or not churches are built anywhere but
>>> I do give a damn that Muslims do not return the respect we give to
>>> their culture. Some quid pro quo would help solve the problem.
>> What respect? Does that stop you buying Saudi oil? Up until the
>> last couple of generations, nobody cared a hoot what Saudis did
>> to themselves, as with Afghanis and many other soverign countries.
Thats overstating it. The british did stamp out sati etc in india.
> What respect? The freedom we give them
> to practice a religion in our own countries
We dont even let them have multiple new wives, let alone treat
their kids the way they do back where they come from etc.
> that considers us native citizens to be expendable infidels.
Very few muslims do that.
> How do I distinguish between Saudi oil at the petrol station? If I had
> the choice I certainly wouldn't buy it, but I am not fanatical about
> it. Nobody much cared what the Saudis did, until they started playing
> target practice with airplanes on American buildings (15 of the 19
> were Saudi Arabian). Nobody cared what the Afghans did until they
> starting stoning their women for trivial offenses
They never stoned any women for trivial offenses.
> (and dressing them up like beekeepers in the desert heat),
> and destroying thousand year old statues as idolatry.
Corse no christians have ever done anything like that, eh ?
> Anyway my whole issue about quid pro quo is that there was a (possibly
> apocryphalic) story about Margaret Thatcher in which she told the then
> king of Saudi Arabia that she would allow mosques to be built in London
> when he (the King) allowed churches to be built in Saudi Arabia.
That never happened and there we mosques built in london in her time.
> Standing firm on principle without unnecessary aggression.
Its a bare faced lie, never happened.
> If you wish to be seen as the voice of reason as to tolerance towards
> muslims then so be it, but my issue with Islam is not with the moderates.
> It is with the guy that emigrates to my country and then pays us back by
> bombing railway stations/whatever in the name of his religious delusion
> that gives him permission to kill non-believers.
They believe that they are entitled to kill believers too.
> Christianity might have been similar in it's past
No might about it.
> but today I see it as a lot of old codgers cramming
> for their finals. A bit on the pathetic side. No contest
Yes, the west has moved on way past what most muslims have.
So what ? It would be even more surprising if the entire world moved
at the same pace when one group invented the industrial revolution etc.
James A. Donald
> > insinuates itself into the host country with the
> > ultimate objective of attaining world domination (as
> > paranoid as that might sound) because I lived in the
> > ME for nearly ten years and learned to understand
> > the mindset of Muslims.
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 02:45:24 -0800 (PST),
"bigfl...@gmail.com"
> In the same way that Christianity intends to (after
> armageddon of course).
I am less worried about God killing me for blasphemy
than some random Muslim.
> Again...so what. The religious stirres must hate
> countries where multicultarism thrives..Australia
> being a great example.
Let us consider "multicultural" Britain. A lot of
muslim girls get murdered for marrying or dating outside
of Islam. Somehow, no one is ever prosecuted in Britain
for such a murder. Funny thing that. Very
multicultural.
If blasphemy against Islam is unsafe, while blasphemy
against everyone else is tres chic, then it is not
really multicultural.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
And many people actually believed that. Of course, such mentality
validated the whole action.
>
> > In this sense, globalisation takes on a whole new meaning.
>
> Sure.
And so does the 'solution' from the 'powers that be', and it is in
full swing.
Ever here the Irish joke of terrorists escaping by hellicopter, and
the police setting up road blocks?
BOfL
James A. Donald
> > Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
"bigfl...@gmail.com"
> Which enemy ?
Islam.
> Here we go again. So you can see Sharia law taking
> over the free world a large proportion of which, are
> already Islam oriented.
It is well and truly under way. Honor killings of young
girls for dating outside Islam go as unpunished in
Britain as they do in Saudi Arabia.
In Australia, judges are still mighty unsympathetic to
the cultural defense that it is OK for Muslims to rape
infidel women, and anyone who tries that line is apt to
get twenty years extra, but in Sweden, judges are
alarmingly understanding and disturbingly multicultural,
which attitude foreshadows our future. The fact that
Muslims are inclined to try that line shows that our
enemies perceive us as weak and frightened. That they
think that line might work is our problem, foreshadows
that more and more of the time, in more and more
countries, that line will work. If that line had no
future, would not be used. Since it is used, does
have a future.
> You should invade Utah on that basis.
We don't see gangs of Mormons heading out of Utah to set
fire to cars and rape infidel women. If we did, I would
advocate nuking Utah from orbit.
> > and proceeding accordingly, in pretty much the way
> > we were at war with Nazism.
> Germany invaded a country or two in case you forgot.
We face a non Westphalian enemy. This is a holy war.
Westphalian categories are irrelevant. Muslims are
imposing sharia law in Sweden and Britain just as nazis
and commies were imposing nazi and commie law in Poland.
For example: Muslim prisoners get better treatment in
British prisons than infidel prisoners. Christians
cannot preach in Muslim areas, and so on and so forth.
You cannot coexist with a religion that simply is not
willing to coexist except on the basis of supremacy.
If you try to do so, you get what we have been getting.
Rod Speed
> bigfl...@gmail.com wrote
>>> I don't disagree with your idea that Islam insinuates
>>> itself into the host country with the ultimate objective
>>> of attaining world domination (as paranoid as that
>>> might sound) because I lived in the ME for nearly ten
>>> years and learned to understand the mindset of Muslims.
>> In the same way that Christianity intends to (after armageddon of course).
> I am less worried about God killing me for blasphemy than some random Muslim.
You have a hell of a lot more risk of getting struck by lightning etc.
>> Again...so what. The religious stirres must hate countries
>> where multicultarism thrives..Australia being a great example.
> Let us consider "multicultural" Britain.
OK.
> A lot of muslim girls get murdered for marrying or dating outside of Islam.
Hardly any do in fact.
> Somehow, no one is ever prosecuted in Britain for such a murder.
Another bare faced flagrantly racist lie.
> Funny thing that. Very multicultural.
Just more of your pathological lying.
> If blasphemy against Islam is unsafe,
I've blasphemed endlessly against Islam and have never
ever had even a single consequence as a result of that.
> while blasphemy against everyone else is tres chic, then it is not really multicultural.
He didnt say britain was, fool.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> Liberty vs Equality & Liberty vs Security
>>>>> In the past the main debate has been about how much
>>>>> "freedom vs equality" & "individualism vs community", but
>>>>> now the debate seems to have shifted to "liberty vs security".
>>>> Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
>>>> why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
>>> So who are the enemy?
>> Never said anyone was. I JUST commented on his 'but now the debate seems to have shifted to'
>>> We are not 'at war' in the traditional sense, ie, against a country or countries.
>> Never ever said we were.
>>> Britain was not 'at war' with the Republic of Ireland. If you remove
>>> the national boundries, there is a war of idealism going on.
>> And that particular one has been going on for hundreds of years now.
>>> Are the warlords of Afganistan any more the enemy than the drug lords of the US?
>> No, but the training camps for terrorists clearly produced a rather unusual result in the US.
>>> If you look at the 'collateral damage', the druggies are well ahead.
>> Sure, but that doesnt mean that the other terrorists can just be ignored completely.
>> Slick tried that and ended up with 9/11.
> And many people actually believed that.
Believed what ?
> Of course, such mentality validated the whole action.
Like hell it ever did.
>>> In this sense, globalisation takes on a whole new meaning.
>> Sure.
> And so does the 'solution' from the 'powers that be', and it is in full swing.
Nope, there is no 'solution'. The most that might be feasible to
is make it a hell of a lot harder to do terrorist training camps etc.
Nothing useful will come out of invading afghanistan apart from that.
> Ever here the Irish joke of terrorists escaping by hellicopter, and the police setting up road blocks?
Just more utterly mindless juvenile shit.
Les Cargill
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
>
> "bigfl...@gmail.com"
>> Which enemy ?
>
> Islam.
>
>> Here we go again. So you can see Sharia law taking
>> over the free world a large proportion of which, are
>> already Islam oriented.
>
> It is well and truly under way. Honor killings of young
> girls for dating outside Islam go as unpunished in
> Britain as they do in Saudi Arabia.
>
I am very sorry, but I simply don't believe you. It's
Great Britain, not Alabama in the '50s. eah,
car burnings in France, yadda yadda....
Look. Jim, these people are like retarded
fourth graders in terms of tactical
capacity. They send some poor schlub on an
airplane who can pretty much only castrate
himself with the "weapon". One can only guess
how hard it was for the Jihadis to get that
far.
Do you know what goes on in the Taliban
schools? They simply recite the Koran,
sometimes until they reach a disassociative
state.
The result is at least harder *rhetoric*,
coupled with a pretty good identification
of the failure. It's a perfectly bureaucratic
failure - a spelling error.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
>>> Yet our enemy has succeeded in coercing us.
>> Which enemy ?
> Islam.
>> Here we go again. So you can see Sharia law taking over the free
>> world a large proportion of which, are already Islam oriented.
> It is well and truly under way.
Another lie.
> Honor killings of young girls for dating outside Islam go as unpunished in Britain
Another bare faced pathological lie. And that aint sharia law ANYWAY.
> as they do in Saudi Arabia.
Another bare faced pathological lie. And that aint sharia law ANYWAY.
> In Australia, judges are still mighty unsympathetic to the cultural
> defense that it is OK for Muslims to rape infidel women,
Thats true right thruout the entire west, you silly little pathological liar.
> and anyone who tries that line is apt to get twenty years extra,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> but in Sweden, judges are alarmingly understanding and disturbingly multicultural,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> which attitude foreshadows our future.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
The US does nothing like what Sweden does on a great raft if the law,
most obviously with drug offenses, you silly little pathological liar.
> The fact that Muslims are inclined to try that line shows
> that our enemies perceive us as weak and frightened.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> That they think that line might work is our problem,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> foreshadows that more and more of the time,
> in more and more countries, that line will work.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> If that line had no future, would not be used.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at
all, ever, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.
> Since it is used, does have a future.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at
all, ever, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.
>> You should invade Utah on that basis.
> We don't see gangs of Mormons heading out
> of Utah to set fire to cars and rape infidel women.
You dont see that with muslims in the US either, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.
> If we did, I would advocate nuking Utah from orbit.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
You have always been just another flagrantly racist silly little pathological liar.
>>> and proceeding accordingly, in pretty much the way we were at war with Nazism.
>> Germany invaded a country or two in case you forgot.
> We face a non Westphalian enemy.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at
all, ever, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.
> This is a holy war.
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> Westphalian categories are irrelevant. Muslims
> are imposing sharia law in Sweden and Britain
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> just as nazis and commies were imposing nazi and commie law in Poland.
They didnt bother with any law, they just killed anyone they
felt like killing, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.
> For example: Muslim prisoners get better treatment in British prisons than infidel prisoners.
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> Christians cannot preach in Muslim areas,
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> and so on and so forth.
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> You cannot coexist with a religion that simply is not
> willing to coexist except on the basis of supremacy.
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
> If you try to do so, you get what we have been getting.
Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist drug crazed fantasyland.
Rod Speed
They do a hell of a lot more than just that.
James A. Donald
> > Honor killings of young girls for dating outside
> > Islam go as unpunished in Britain as they do in
> > Saudi Arabia.
Les Cargill
> I am very sorry, but I simply don't believe you. It's
> Great Britain, not Alabama in the '50s. eah,
Women were safe in Alabama in the fifties - unlike
Alabama today, and Britain today.
Listen to the dog that does not bark: I google the
british news for honor killings. The only ones being
prosecuted are the kind that would be prosecuted in
Saudi Arabia - those where a *male* Muslim was killed or
non family killed the girl - which type of honor killing
is rare and unusual compared to the normal case where
extreme coercion by family to control the sexual
activity of young girls gets out of hand. So, we see
prosecutions for the rare case (male killed), and no
prosecutions for the common case (young girl killed by
relatives) The sound of the dog that does not bark.
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Honor killings of young girls for dating outside Islam go
>>> as unpunished in Britain as they do in Saudi Arabia.
>> I am very sorry, but I simply don't believe you.
>> It's Great Britain, not Alabama in the '50s. eah,
> Women were safe in Alabama in the fifties
Another pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> - unlike Alabama today, and Britain today.
Another pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> Listen to the dog that does not bark:
Not even possible, you stupid fuckwit.
> I google the british news for honor killings.
But are too stupid to actually be able to understand what turns up.
> The only ones being prosecuted are the kind that would be prosecuted in Saudi Arabia
Another bare faced rabidly racist lie.
> - those where a *male* Muslim was killed or non family killed the girl
Another bare faced rabidly racist lie.
> - which type of honor killing is rare and unusual compared to the normal case where
> extreme coercion by family to control the sexual activity of young girls gets out of hand.
Another bare faced rabidly racist lie.
> So, we see prosecutions for the rare case (male killed), and no
> prosecutions for the common case (young girl killed by relatives)
Another bare faced rabidly racist lie.
> The sound of the dog that does not bark.
Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
Constantinople
Rod Speed
He was shot first, stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#Death
chazwin
The reduction of liberties is based on fear.
Let's put 9/11 into perspective.
The number of deaths compared to the population is something like
0.001%.
The deaths will have affected maybe 10 times that in terms of long
term serious considerations to other's lives.
In payment for that the lives of over 20 million Iraqis have been
destroyed in a fruitless and irrelevant infantile grudge attack my
Bush and his oil hungry cronies. Add to that a similar number of
Afghanistani lives have been ruined.
As many as 3 million Iraqis have fled to seek refugee status. As for
the actual numbers killed; no one has any reliable figures which range
from 100,000 to 400,000, with the death toll rising daily from poor
health and sectarian violence which was non-existent during Saddam's
reign of "terror" - which we supported for decades, by the way.
Now your can't fart on the phone without some CIA, FBI or MI5 agent
smelling it and writing down what you had for dinner.
This is not getting any better, and will not until someone stops and
figures out what the hell makes Islamists want to become terrorists.
Any one who knows the disgraceful history of western interference and
arrogance across the ME region will be able to tell you a few stories
that will make you raise your eyebrows - its not the sort of history
that you get told at school.
chazwin
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Nope, its been around for a long time now. Thats
> > why we intern enemy aliens during world wars etc.
>
> of the wrong ancestry or those who make remarks critical of the war.
And do you have an opinion about that?
Rod Speed
> The reduction of liberties is based on fear.
Nope, its actually based on sensible precautions.
> Let's put 9/11 into perspective.
If that was the approach, we'd just yawn and do nothing.
We aint that stupid.
> The number of deaths compared to the population is something like 0.001%.
Yes, everyone will die sometime.
That does not mean that it makes no sense to avoid dying prematurely if that is feasible.
> The deaths will have affected maybe 10 times that in
> terms of long term serious considerations to other's lives.
It may well be a hell of a lot more than that.
> In payment for that the lives of over 20 million Iraqis have
> been destroyed in a fruitless and irrelevant infantile grudge
> attack my Bush and his oil hungry cronies.
The invasion of Iraq involved a hell of a lot more than just the shrub and his cronys.
> Add to that a similar number of Afghanistani lives have been ruined.
Nothing even remotely resembling anything like a similar number in fact.
In spades with the initial fucking over of the Talibums that did eliminate terrorist training camps there.
> As many as 3 million Iraqis have fled to seek refugee status.
Primarily as the result of those stupid clowns ripping
each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed.
> As for the actual numbers killed; no one has any
> reliable figures which range from 100,000 to 400,000,
Depends entirely on how you count them. After all, they will all be dead sometime.
> with the death toll rising daily from poor health and sectarian
> violence which was non-existent during Saddam's reign of "terror"
That last is a bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> - which we supported for decades, by the way.
Mainly because it suited the west to support him when he attacked Iran etc.
> Now your can't fart on the phone without some CIA, FBI or
> MI5 agent smelling it and writing down what you had for dinner.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed silly little fantasys.
> This is not getting any better, and will not until someone stops and
> figures out what the hell makes Islamists want to become terrorists.
We figured that out LONG ago. The problem is that that hasnt
done a damned thing about stopping it continuing to happen.
> Any one who knows the disgraceful history of western interference
> and arrogance across the ME region will be able to tell you a few
> stories that will make you raise your eyebrows
Nope.
> - its not the sort of history that you get told at school.
Some of us dont bother with that we were told in school.
Chazwin
Chazwin
Chazwin
x