Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37841906]Good point gudman, society is in the Bronze age and it's all those dirty muzzies fault.[/QUOTE] Except that's your point, I haven't said anything about "muzzies fault". Article is about governments, and outdated state of muslim societies is their fault, religion itself has nothing to do with it. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;37842015]West should instead focus on denouncing media that serves no purpose other than to piss people off, before going over to their countries and telling [I]them[/I] how to live when we have our own problems to fix.[/QUOTE] Except so far that's them who tell West how to live. And why denounce media that just pisses people off? Is it somehow prohibited or what?

no the problem is economics. we in the west enjoy our privileges only because of our economic supremacy. look at the middle eastern states that have democracy and a high GDP and you'll find them far more stable and socially liberal than their relatives. i think we tend to forget that a lot of middle eastern nations are not stable and constantly switch governments. it becomes impossible to sustain an economy; that's also why so many Islamist groups become popular, they provide welfare and a political voice to people who have neither.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842517]no the problem is economics. we in the west enjoy our privileges only because of our economic supremacy. look at the middle eastern states that have democracy and a high GDP and you'll find them far more stable and socially liberal than their relatives. i think we tend to forget that a lot of middle eastern nations are not stable and constantly switch governments. it becomes impossible to sustain an economy; that's also why so many Islamist groups become popular, they provide welfare and a political voice to people who have neither.[/QUOTE] And isn't it government's fault, failing to establish a viable state with political and social rights?

The west refuses to bow to islamic values. The islamic world refuses to bow to their "liberal" values. Clash of civilizations, sure thing. Now the interesting part here is that previously, during the burn a quran day thing, the president, defence secretary (and a certain us commander in Afghanistan) recommended/urged such an event to be cancelled, because it risked the lives of us service men and women abroad. [quote]But such a phone call could create a “slippery slope” in which copycats across the country might demand similar concessions, Mr. Morrell said. However, he added in a briefing Thursday with reporters, “[B]We may now find ourselves in the situation where we believe the risk to our forces outweighs the potential bad precedent or slippery slope that’s set by a phone call such as this[/B].” The matter was particularly sensitive for Gates, Morrell said. “[B]We feel particularly exposed here in light of how closely we operate with people of the Muslim faith, and so I think we want to make sure that every measure is taken to try to avoid this potentially inflammatory situation[/B].”[/quote] [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0910/Why-Robert-Gates-made-that-call-to-Terry-Jones-over-Quran-burning[/url] Back then, it was important for them to avoid inflammatory situations but now it isnt? Why so? Possibly because of the US elections. Maybe votes are more important to Obama than the lives of the us forces atm eh? [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37842517]no the problem is economics. we in the west enjoy our privileges only because of our economic supremacy. [B]look at the middle eastern states that have democracy and a high GDP and you'll find them far more stable and socially liberal than their relatives.[/B] i think we tend to forget that a lot of middle eastern nations are not stable and constantly switch governments. it becomes impossible to sustain an economy; that's also why so many Islamist groups become popular, they provide welfare and a political voice to people who have neither.[/QUOTE] could you give me examples of such states?

[QUOTE=gudman;37842553]And isn't it government's fault, failing to establish a viable state with political and social rights?[/QUOTE] we live in the modern era with globalism being a sober reality. a government cannot sustain an economy by itself unless it runs a leninist or state-socialist state. the simple fact is that the middle east has very little economic power. people can't get jobs and they end up being dirt poor. in countries where oil is plentiful and controlled by the state you basically end up with a despotic society. in countries where there is no oil there are very little manufacturing or office jobs. think about life in the west. you're 18 years old and you've decided to get a job so you can buy a car and perhaps go to university. the reality is that in the middle east you can't get a job because war and civil unrest has destroyed your economy. you can't get educated because there's no education system besides the one ran by people with nefarious purposes. so what do you do? either you leave and emigrate to a country with better prospects, or if you're young or don't have the money to leave you stay poor. out of poverty comes disenfranchisement and disempowerment, out of disenfranchisement and disempowerment comes rage. this rage manifests in anger, and religion, especially one with such poetic and powerful language like Islam, focuses and aims this anger.

[QUOTE=C47;37842584]The west refuses to bow to islamic values. The islamic world refuses to bow to their "liberal" values. Clash of civilizations, sure thing. Now the interesting part here is that previously, during the burn a quran day thing, the president, defence secretary (and a certain us commander in Afghanistan) recommended/urged such an event to be cancelled, because it risked the lives of us service men and women abroad. [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0910/Why-Robert-Gates-made-that-call-to-Terry-Jones-over-Quran-burning[/url] Back then, it was important for them to avoid inflammatory situations but now it isnt? Why so? Possibly because of the US elections. Maybe votes are more important to Obama than the lives of the us forces atm eh? [/QUOTE] Nothing's changed. US government deals with consequences, that's all. No one tried to condemn Quran burning - just criticized it. Same thing this time, just there was no annauncement for this film so no one was able to recommend anything.

Fuck all religions.

[QUOTE=C47;37842584] could you give me examples of such states?[/QUOTE] Jordan is a good example. it's developing and due to its economic stability there's the opportunity for change in a progressive direction.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842618]we live in the modern era with globalism being a sober reality. a government cannot sustain an economy by itself unless it runs a leninist or state-socialist state. the simple fact is that the middle east has very little economic power. people can't get jobs and they end up being dirt poor. in countries where oil is plentiful and controlled by the state you basically end up with a despotic society. in countries where there is no oil there are very little manufacturing or office jobs. think about life in the west. you're 18 years old and you've decided to get a job so you can buy a car and perhaps go to university. the reality is that in the middle east you can't get a job because war and civil unrest has destroyed your economy. you can't get educated because there's no education system besides the one ran by people with nefarious purposes. so what do you do? either you leave and emigrate to a country with better prospects, or if you're young or don't have the money to leave you stay poor. out of poverty comes disenfranchisement and disempowerment, out of disenfranchisement and disempowerment comes rage. this rage manifests in anger, and religion, especially one with such poetic and powerful language like Islam, focuses and aims this anger.[/QUOTE] That I understand, but the cause of civil unrests and civil wars? Is it on loop: governments fails to sustain an economy, causes civil unrest that makes things even harder for the next government? If that's what you're saying, I agree. But there still must be some way out.

[QUOTE=gudman;37842637]Nothing's changed. US government deals with consequences, that's all. No one tried to condemn Quran burning - just criticized it. Same thing this time, just there was no annauncement for this film so no one was able to recommend anything.[/QUOTE] But they did ask google to consider removing it. Once again, the pressure was much less than before. Now, just have to see what happens next and for how long the US will keep up the freedom of speech disguise, as the 200hrs of that movies goes ahead in the future. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37842655]Jordan is a good example. it's developing and due to its economic stability there's the opportunity for change in a progressive direction.[/QUOTE] Jordan is a democratic state? :v: Government type: constitutional monarchy Source : [URL]http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html[/URL] Please try again.

[QUOTE=C47;37842658]But they did ask google to consider removing it. Once again, the pressure was much less than before. Now, just have to see what happens next and for how long the US will keep up the freedom of speech disguise, as the 200hrs of that movies goes ahead in the future.[/QUOTE] Cases are identical for the most part. What makes you think that it's somehow connected to the elections and that freedom of speech is a "desguise"? [QUOTE=C47;37842658] Jordan is a democratic state? :v: Government type: constitutional monarchy Source : [URL]http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html[/URL] Please try again.[/QUOTE] It has Parliament. Read the whole thing at least.

[QUOTE=gudman;37842657]That I understand, but the cause of civil unrests and civil wars? Is it on loop: governments fails to sustain an economy, causes civil unrest that makes things even harder for the next government? If that's what you're saying, I agree. But there still must be some way out.[/QUOTE] governments cannot sustain an economy. economies rely on the principle key supply & demand. there's no supply because there's no infrastructure to make anything. there's no demand because no-one can buy anything. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=C47;37842658] Government type: constitutional monarchy [/QUOTE] excuse me??? the UK is also a constitutional monarchy.

if you breathe it, someone will catch a whiff of it and get offended by it (and thus be perfectly elligible to murder the offending party) world needs to learn to man the fuck up

[QUOTE=C47;37842658]But they did ask google to consider removing it. Once again, the pressure was much less than before. Now, just have to see what happens next and for how long the US will keep up the freedom of speech disguise, as the 200hrs of that movies goes ahead in the future. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] Jordan is a democratic state? :v: Government type: constitutional monarchy Source : [URL]http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html[/URL] Please try again.[/QUOTE] The UK has a Monarchy, we're pretty fucking democratic.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842686]governments cannot sustain an economy. economies rely on the principle key supply & demand. there's no supply because there's no infrastructure to make anything. there's no demand because no-one can buy anything. [/QUOTE] All right, so it is a loop.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37842712]The UK has a Monarchy, we're pretty fucking democratic.[/QUOTE] that's kind of meaningless anyway when it comes to democracy the soviet union was a federal republic but i don't think anyone would call it democratic. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;37842729]All right, so it is a loop.[/QUOTE] any system that feeds itself has to be a loop.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842686]excuse me??? the UK is also a constitutional monarchy.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111107003558/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif[/IMG] Are we really going down that road? [B]Jordan[/B] elections: the monarchy is hereditary; prime minister [B]appointed by the monarch[/B] [B]United Kingdom[/B] elections: the monarchy is hereditary; [B]following legislative elections[/B], the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition usually becomes the prime minister Source: CIA factbook (linking not allowed but easy to find the sources) Try another country, surely there must be other examples.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842741]that's kind of meaningless anyway when it comes to democracy the soviet union was a federal republic but i don't think anyone would call it democratic. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] any system that feeds itself has to be a loop.[/QUOTE] Yeah but what I'm saying is that just because a country has a monarch doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a democracy.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842741]that's kind of meaningless anyway when it comes to democracy the soviet union was a federal republic but i don't think anyone would call it democratic. [/QUOTE] By constitution it was [b]the most[/b] democratic state of all, the only little thing prevented it from working: it wasn't intended to work, haha.

[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;37842704]if you breathe it, someone will catch a whiff of it and get offended by it (and thus be perfectly elligible to murder the offending party) world needs to learn to man the fuck up[/QUOTE] only that its not that simple a matter for muslims. refusal to acknowledge that is in part ignorance in itself and shows how much care/fucks are given.

[QUOTE=C47;37842764][IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111107003558/runescape/images/1/1f/Emoticon-Facepalm.gif[/IMG] Are we really going down that road? [B]Jordan[/B] elections: the monarchy is hereditary; prime minister [B]appointed by the monarch[/B] [B]United Kingdom[/B] elections: the monarchy is hereditary; [B]following legislative elections[/B], the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition usually becomes the prime minister Source: CIA factbook (linking not allowed but easy to find the sources) Try another country, surely there must be other examples.[/QUOTE] don't you dare facepalm me. democracy isn't a binary value. [url]http://www.meforum.org/970/quantifying-arab-democracy[/url] Jordan has a freely elected legislature, suffrage, and economic freedom. this makes it democratic to a certain extend, certainly compared to a country like Saudi Arabia.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37842800]don't you dare facepalm me. democracy isn't a binary value. [URL]http://www.meforum.org/970/quantifying-arab-democracy[/URL] Jordan has a freely elected legislature, suffrage, and economic freedom. this makes it democratic to a certain extend, certainly compared to a country like Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] That link is so funny. If we just look at the first two columns, Syria is better than Jordan in 1999 under Assad, Egypt with the dictator Hosni is better than Jordan in 2005, or more democratic. But sure, but those arent the only criteria [IMG]http://board.battleknight.it/wcf/images/smilies/emoticon_rolleyes.gif[/IMG], yet you hear the west bitching about one and only thing when talking about democracy - free and fair elections. And seriously, the arab states so bad/retarded at democracy that they can only be compared within them selves to say "yeah there is a little democracy here" and be happy with it. Compare it on a global level, and they are on the level of china if not worse. [B]2011 Democracy Index of the World[/B]: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iCFRh.png[/IMG] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2011_green_and_red.svg[/URL] Piss poor attempt to show a US friendly/ally/backed government in good light. Not you, that link you posted.

[QUOTE=Jocke;37842645]Fuck all religions.[/QUOTE] Religions isn't the only thing. Cultural, geographical and historical differences also comes into play. Though religion seems like the biggest deal-breaker today, closely followed by cultural differences.

[QUOTE=C47;37842798]only that its not that simple a matter for muslims. refusal to acknowledge that is in part ignorance in itself and shows how much care/fucks are given.[/QUOTE] when your religion is designated that it must be defended at all costs against all critiques of any manner with a retarded excess of force (yes radicals count as islamists too), the problem lies in the religion itself and not the criticisms

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;37840455]Here's an idea, as oppossed to expecting the world to bend to your sensitivities, why not educate the peoples of typically muslim middle eastern nations so they don't storm fucking embassies and bomb shit because someone made your prophet look like an asshat in a terribly made fucking B-movie? But yeah sure just ban fucking blasphemy instead cause fighting thought crimes and vaguely insensitive religious discussion cause as a collective the entire middle eastern region has sand wedged firmly in its arsehole.[/QUOTE] Have you even considered that the perpetrators of these actions and the protestors are releasing anger at more than just a stupid fucking movie, maybe that their suffering has been caused by dictatorships propped up by the US or Russia or really any other large power. That just might be why they're so fucking angry at the US and bombing US embassies.

[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;37842934]when your religion is designated that it must be defended at all costs against all critiques of any manner with a retarded excess of force (yes radicals count as islamists too), the problem lies in the religion itself and not the criticisms[/QUOTE] whoever said criticism isnt allowed? I keep repeating this over and over, valid criticism and calling someone a fuckface are two different things. Islamic scholars are happy as fuck to counter the criticism. They love doin large open air shows and challenges assuming they are moderated without any bias towards any faith. But then again, most of these scholars are banned over lame/sad excuses from entering freedom loving states like the US/UK.

[QUOTE=C47;37842943]whoever said criticism isnt allowed? I keep repeating this over and over, valid criticism and calling someone a fuckface are two different things.[/QUOTE] except when the former is interpreted as the latter by the receiving party and that happens a lot

[QUOTE=gudman;37840492]Huh, Muslims speak of anti-Semitism, right. Fuck them. They're the ones keeping their societies in Bronze age, and they're the ones to answer for every incident that happens even if it really is caused by us "abusing" our freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Don't attribute this to all Muslims. [editline]29th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;37842015]The reason why the Muslim world is reacting so negatively towards this resurgence of anti-Islamic media is because it is purposefully made to provoke and anger people, not to attempt to debate the merits or dogma of Islam on any nuanced level. If such media had attempted the latter, we probably wouldn't see nearly the reaction we're seeing today among Muslims. At this point I don't even think the anger has much to do with religion anymore, it's just the way that most people would normally react if someone pretty much outright insulted their identity, which - for a lot of people - Islam evidently serves as. I think whether or not certain segments of the Muslim world are overreacting is irrelevant, and that we in the West should instead focus on denouncing media that serves no purpose other than to piss people off, before going over to their countries and telling [I]them[/I] how to live when we have our own problems to fix.[/QUOTE] People need to stop saying the 'Muslim world' because its an idiotic generalisation.

[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;37842948]except when the former is interpreted as the latter by the receiving party and that happens a lot[/QUOTE] Muslims arent that naive, but at the same time, they wont entertain discussions if the critiques have potty mouths. And really, there is no doubt that this movie was just an attempt to inflame them through abuse. [quote]This film is purely and simply an incitement to religious hatred. It stokes hatred in both of its intended audiences – Christians and Jews in the US, and Muslims in the wider world. If jihadi videos are banned in this country, and their distributors prosecuted, the same should be true of this film and for the same reasons.[/quote] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/sep/12/libya-anti-muhammad-youtube-clips[/url]

what a dumb fukken thread title and surprise; you all fell for it and believe it?