It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Salman Rushdie should be long dead

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


"But what exactly is your argument? Are you saying that nobody should be protected if they anger a large group"

No, they shouldn't be protected if they are not acting for the state, and in the states interests.
Rushdie was doing neither - I believe what he did comes under the definition of 'defamation'.

Ok, you concede my point regarding insulting any group, so explain to me how any establishment could offer protection to every individual who took such action?

You assert we all have the right to speak our minds, and to be protected from the consequences of our actions, so please explain how you would go about offering that protection?

Furthermore people are not free to say what they like, there are limitations on the rights afforded by freedom of speech. Ask some of the 'holocaust deniers' who have spent time in prison for expressing their opinions.

Whether you are free to express your opinions publicly or not, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, and if those actions put your life or liberty in jeopardy, then you must choose whether or not you are prepared to die for your beliefs before you express them.

Let me qualify here - I am an atheist, and in that respect my stance is similar to Rushdies (who has forsaken his religion). I would happily close all Mosques, Churches, Synagogues and Temples, and effectively disband all organised religions. We are too advanced to need superstition and mumbo jumbo, we need to grow up and forsake the holyman and his instructions on how to live, and stop using religion as an excuse for inhuman acts.
But I also accept that, for a great many people, their religion is like a drug, it gives their life some kind of meaning.
For me to sally forth on a crusade to rob them of their belief would be akin to telling every child there's no Santa Clause - its freedom of speech, it may even be true, but its unnecessary and pointless.

"Any, because the cost of losing it (freedom of speech) will always be far worse."

Problem is we have already lost much of it, you can't go onto the streets of Britain making inflammatory statements, you can't even wave the flag of saint george, in case it gives offense, and your emails and phone calls are monitored by big brother.
Your trying to protect something we no longer have.

"Because that is how you expose them for what they are, that is how you change their views and that is how you get rid of them."

What good does exposure do?
You won't change their views - they believe as deeply in their creed as you do yours, and why not, is it less valid?
You won't get rid of them, because violence breeds violence, that's what they percieve the west as bringing, that's why they have support within their community. They KNOW the west wants rid of them, that's what the whole Islamic world fears, because we don't seem to care about the distinction between extremists and innocent civilians. Only about oil.

"More than that why shouldn’t people be allowed to do that? (Stirring up a wasps nest)"

They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector

"If it’s fine for a violent group to insult others why should a peaceful group be barred from doing the same only because they don’t threaten violence?"

Islam doesn't insult me any more than Israel does, or any evangelist preacher does, I view all their 'chosen people' assertions with the same level of amusement. Name calling is playground stuff - so if Im an infidel, a sinner or a goyim do I care?

Which peaceful group are we talking about - Israel?
America?
The UK?
Don't see a great deal of peaceful intent in anything they do either, lots of insulting though, like invading peoples countries and killing them because they can.

"How can you not see that the effect of what you seem to want would be to afford protection to only those views that have the threat of violence to back them up."

You obviously haven't understood my position - I don't think the state has a role to play protecting ANYONES point of view.

How can YOU not see that the uk's acting as a personal security firm for this man has cost more than most people will earn in ten lifetimes? Who will fund this protection if we ALL took up our right to free speech? You only have to draw a cartoon to put yourself at risk - anyone can do it - so once again, HOW do you fund such extravagance?

Secondly, how can YOU not see that by protecting this man, at an official, state level, and even HONORING him with a knighthood, it sends a message to the Islamic world that we approve of his insults, and support him in them? That it makes them ever more our enemies, and makes peace and trust harder to achieve.
At a time when the Iranian revolution was a recent event, and diplomatic relations between middle east and west were in a decline, the last thing required was an author with a book to sell poking at the Islamic world with a pointy stick.

The book was deliberately written to give offense, specifically to boost its sales. It was actually banned in India.

"Here is what Mr S. Shahabuddin, President of the All-India Muslim Majlis
Mushvarat, told me about the book (I am told he has made these remarks often)"

The book is blasphemous, injurious and makes indecent remarks about the
Prophet's wife that violate the Indian penal code, which prohibits any
writing which may hurt the religious sentiments of the people, and that are
in bad taste. If the importers of the book want to contest the ban, they
have the democratic right to do so. [interview, New Delhi, 18 January, 1989]

Its not freedom of speech, its cynical manipulation. Please take the time to read this review.....

www.indiastar.com...

Sorry, But I'm afraid all I see here is British taxpayers being taken for mugs, as usual.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



What right did we have to install the Shah of Iran?
What right did Bush have to invade Iraq?
What right did Blair have to lie and take Britian in with him?

The Fatwa wasn't an illegal act under Islamic law, and Heretical branch of Islam? By who's assertion? There are more factions within Islam than there are in the Chrisitian church!

Would you have been prepared to hand over a qarter of your wages to protect Rushdie?

Maybe they should have had a whip round - wonder how much they would have raised?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


For a self avowed atheist, you sure spew a Shi'ite line! No-one deserves to die because they wrote a book. And no, none of your Iranian talking points was either right or even a good idea. But that still doesn't justify a government ordering the murder of a foreign national. This sort of religious brutality is one of the many reasons why the Muslim world is falling so far behind the rest of the world. At least the Emirates have embraced modernity and may have a future when the oil runs out.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Are you saying I'm talking SHI-Ite?


I don't think he deserves to die, I am happy for anyone to be allowed to choose their own method of committing suicide, I just don't like that he wants to take us with him.
I don't want any part in protecting a troublemaker.

Saying the muslim world falling behind is a value judgment, its too subjective to allow here, given the debt, poverty and homelessness in the west (check the stats for the USA) and I don't think they are any more brutal than the west.

I don't know how many people have been killed under sharia law in the last ten years, do you think it can measure up to the 1 million civilians dead in Iraq?
Who's the most brutal?

Since the beginning of colonialism the middle eastern and asian countries were always treated brutally, and were viewed as property, and frankly it seems nothing has changed, except now its the USA rather than the Raj.
As for the emerates, have you been there? Its tiny - its really not representative.

When you look at history, there's plenty of justification. What we need is acceptance and tolerance, and I think the onus is on 'us' to make the first move.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


We completely tolerated and accepted Salman Rushdie, so we did make the first move. When will Iran accept and tolerate him? You have a strange double standard.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Double standard?
??

'we' didn't embrace and tolerate him, the establishment did, for its own reasons.
'we' weren't asked for an opinion, as I recall.
But then the majority of 'we' didn't attend Cambridge, and don't wear the correct school tie.

I accept that you have your opinion on this matter, but I feel it is misguided and muddled, as to who the real villains are in this piece



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 


Now I understand. YOU don't accept or tolerate Salman Rushdie. Not because the Ayatolla placed a hit on him, but because he's Oxbridge. On the one hand, you seem to think it's a waste of taxpayer money protecting an innocent citizen. You're entitled to that opinion. On the other hand, you don't have a problem with a government ordering the murder of an innocent man. I'm not the one who's confused here.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Why don[t you all put your money where your mouths are then? Write a book denigrating the "special" religion/tribe/nationality/cult. See how much your government protects YOU from THEM. In most countries in Europe you would be jailed, after the tribe first ruins your livelihood, defames you in all the media they control, and possibly kills you or your family. Go ahead, I dare ya, you hypocrites.

But write a book putting down the current "boogeymen" and you will get KNIGHTED. Great system, there.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


Hark,
Another voice of sanity in the wilderness.

Thank you!



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Still not getting it?

I don't care a fig for Rusdie, I just don't want to pay to protect him or his kind! Very simple!

As to Cambridge, well, I happy to bet if he had been on the council estate and attended the secondary school I did, he wouldn't have received the same treatment. The relevance is because he is OBVIOUSLY connected to somebody with influence.

As for governments ordering murder, well, they do that all the time, even here in the 'civilised west'.

As for innocence, well, thats your opinion, Terhan felt otherwise.

Personally I don't see him as an 'innocent' , he didn't upset them accidentally - but you know this from what I have already stated.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Teheran's opinion nearly killed ME! Because the Ayatollah's legal opinion encouraged some religious fanatic to plant a pipe bomb in a bookstore I was in. I know perfectly well from my own experience who the real villains are.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 



No, they shouldn't be protected if they are not acting for the state, and in the states interests.


So then how do you avoid a state of affairs whereby only those willing to become violent have a voice?


Ok, you concede my point regarding insulting any group, so explain to me how any establishment could offer protection to every individual who took such action?


Well that is how it is now and we're doing pretty well. Most cases involve only small numbers of people which can be resolved by a few arrests or by moving the person under threat.


You assert we all have the right to speak our minds, and to be protected from the consequences of our actions, so please explain how you would go about offering that protection?


As above, it's already there.


Furthermore people are not free to say what they like, there are limitations on the rights afforded by freedom of speech. Ask some of the 'holocaust deniers' who have spent time in prison for expressing their opinions.


But that's not the UK, we have no such holocaust denial laws.

The limits on freedom of speech in the UK revolve around defamation and slander and cases that can cause others actual harm (such as the often used shouting fire in a packed cinema).

There are absolutely no laws that I know of that restrict people from criticising or making fun of beliefs and ideas.


Whether you are free to express your opinions publicly or not, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions


That's like saying you are free to go climbing but if you gets stuck up a mountain then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Why should the state pay to to rescue some silly sod who thought it would be a good idea to climb up Ben Nevis and get struck by a rock slide, the moron?

Some consequences can not be dealt with by the individual or even large groups if they wish to remain peaceful. You are effectively saying that they should not be allowed to have their say.


For me to sally forth on a crusade to rob them of their belief would be akin to telling every child there's no Santa Clause - its freedom of speech, it may even be true, but its unnecessary and pointless.


But who are you to decide that it is unnecessary or pointless? How does this attitude apply to religious proselytizing? Many people find that offensive and even dangerous, why is this different to preaching atheism and why should one group have to shut up just because the other might get violent?


"Any, because the cost of losing it (freedom of speech) will always be far worse."

Problem is we have already lost much of it, you can't go onto the streets of Britain making inflammatory statements, you can't even wave the flag of saint george, in case it gives offense, and your emails and phone calls are monitored by big brother.
Your trying to protect something we no longer have.


As much as the Daily Mail might protest this isn't true. You can freely fly a George Cross out your car window and your phone calls are not being monitored.


What good does exposure do?
You won't change their views - they believe as deeply in their creed as you do yours, and why not, is it less valid?
You won't get rid of them, because violence breeds violence, that's what they percieve the west as bringing, that's why they have support within their community. They KNOW the west wants rid of them, that's what the whole Islamic world fears, because we don't seem to care about the distinction between extremists and innocent civilians. Only about oil.


Who is talking about Islam? We were discussing freedom of speech not Islam or Islamic extremism specifically.

Are you talking about freedom of speech and the right to be protection by the sate or are you making a political point about the UK's foreign policy?


They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector


So if the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?


Islam doesn't insult me any more than Israel does, or any evangelist preacher does, I view all their 'chosen people' assertions with the same level of amusement. Name calling is playground stuff - so if Im an infidel, a sinner or a goyim do I care?


I'm not talking about Islam I'm talking about a non specific violent group.


Which peaceful group are we talking about - Israel?
America?
The UK?


You sound like you've got a problem with British foreign policy not Rushdie or the protection he was given.

In the case of Salman Rushdie he was the peaceful group and those who threatened to kill him were the violent group. You could replace either party and the point is valid, for example you could replace Rushdie with those who support animal testing and the violent Muslim protesters with animal rights extremists who nail bomb houses.

It is an unavoidable consequence of what you are saying that people who are unwilling to use or threaten violence will have their voices silenced and those that do use or threaten violence are the only ones who can be heard.


You obviously haven't understood my position - I don't think the state has a role to play protecting ANYONES point of view.


I do understand your position but I can't understand how you think this would be a good thing.

If the state protected no one then no one is free to discuss their beliefs. If the rest of ATS decided to take exception to what you say on this forum and made attempts on your life then you would be forced to keep quiet wouldn't you?

What if you are saying something important? What if you were pointing out some injustice that was happening in some political or religious group?


Secondly, how can YOU not see that by protecting this man, at an official, state level, and even HONORING him with a knighthood, it sends a message to the Islamic world that we approve of his insults, and support him in them?


Maybe most people do approve of his insults. We collectively support insults against every other group, the Life of Brian insulted Christianity, Spitting Image did it to political beliefs, comedians do it to everybody. Why is Islam any different? It's not in my, and in my experience, most peoples' opinion.

I do not support the use or threat of violence because someone has had their beliefs mocked.


As to Cambridge, well, I happy to bet if he had been on the council estate and attended the secondary school I did, he wouldn't have received the same treatment. The relevance is because he is OBVIOUSLY connected to somebody with influence.


So then what about Maxine Carr and the others I've mentioned. You said they were different but not how.

In both cases (Rushdie and Carr) there was a great deal of anger directed towards them and they were both considered to be under threat. Both can be said to have brought it on themselves and both were protected by the state at great cost to the taxpayer. Yet Carr can't be said to have any connections or influence, why was she protected then?


Do you not agree that if we left people to the wolves then it effectively allows only the violent the opportunity to have a voice considering that few in their right mind would risk their lives?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't understand your anger - I didn't plant the bomb, and if the book had not been written, the bomb would not have been planted?
None of which is of interest or concern to me within the context of this discussion

Mike, please be patient, I am a little busy but will answer your points to the best of my ability asap.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
What part don't you get? Why should I be angry at a system that would literally kill me because of something someone else did? You can't see why I might be a little annoyed by someone who clearly supports them while pretending to be indifferent? Do you really think that if we staged a big public execution for Rushdie the Iranians will start chanting "long Live Britain! Long Live America?" I don't know why I'm wasting my time.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 



I don't understand your anger - I didn't plant the bomb, and if the book had not been written, the bomb would not have been planted?


Isn't that a little like saying that if your posts made me frustrated and I vented that frustration on some poor bloke down the pub you would be to blame and this thread should be deleted?



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


"So then how do you avoid a state of affairs whereby only those willing to become violent have a voice?"

We already have that situation - consider the latest moves against the BNP, effectively 'banning' them from existence using financial sanctions - what do they resort to next?
Ordinary people don't have a voice.


"Most cases involve only small numbers of people which can be resolved by a few arrests or by moving the person under threat."

And what if they didn't? What if a thousand people published online and offended, became subject to daeth threats from a large group- do you spend ten billion to protect them?
Again, how would you go about paying for this?
Your actually relying on people not doing this to allow funding the one that does.

"But that's not the UK, we have no such holocaust denial laws.

The limits on freedom of speech in the UK revolve around defamation and slander and cases that can cause others actual harm (such as the often used shouting fire in a packed cinema).

"There are absolutely no laws that I know of that restrict people from criticising or making fun of beliefs and ideas. "

Then please explain this

www.telegraph.co.uk...

"That's like saying you are free to go climbing but if you gets stuck up a mountain then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Why should the state pay to to rescue some silly sod who thought it would be a good idea to climb up Ben Nevis and get struck by a rock slide, the moron?"

Why should the state pay? why should peoples lives be risked because of some moron?
Worse yet, I think you'll find that the mountain rescue teams are volunteers, the same as the RLNI - the state isnt prepared to foot the bill for your folly in those circumstances, and I think you have just strengthened my position.


'For me to sally forth on a crusade to rob them of their belief would be akin to telling every child there's no Santa Clause - its freedom of speech, it may even be true, but its unnecessary and pointless.'


"But who are you to decide that it is unnecessary or pointless? How does this attitude apply to religious proselytizing? Many people find that offensive and even dangerous, why is this different to preaching atheism and why should one group have to shut up just because the other might get violent?"


I have every right to decide that it is unnecessary and pointless for ME to do this. We aren't discussing a group, we are discussing an individual. I don't understand your point here.

"As much as the Daily Mail might protest this isn't true. You can freely fly a George Cross out your car window and your phone calls are not being monitored."

Im not a reader of the mail, but I have seen enough to know that there is a desire to monitor all communications channels, including the internet. Monitoring international communications is part of the remit of menwith hill, GHQ and the ECHELON system.


"Who is talking about Islam? We were discussing freedom of speech not Islam or Islamic extremism specifically.

Are you talking about freedom of speech and the right to be protection by the sate or are you making a political point about the UK's foreign policy?"

I AM talking about Islam, and its relationship to this eventuality - nobody else wanted to kill him!
This has never been about freedom of speech, nor is it about foreign policy, it is about an abuse of the British police resources and taxpayers money. People have died because of this book - were their lives worth his freedom of speech?

'They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector'


"So if the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?"

How is this relevant? You drift further and further from the topic! I cant even see any logic in this statement - please explain how it pertains to what I said.

"I'm not talking about Islam I'm talking about a non specific violent group."

No, your not but I am - again your drifting off topic. Wheres the relevency?

'Which peaceful group are we talking about - Israel?
America?
The UK?'

"You sound like you've got a problem with British foreign policy not Rushdie or the protection he was given.

In the case of Salman Rushdie he was the peaceful group and those who threatened to kill him were the violent group. You could replace either party and the point is valid, for example you could replace Rushdie with those who support animal testing and the violent Muslim protesters with animal rights extremists who nail bomb houses"


A great many have a problem with UK foreign policy - once again not relevent and off topic.

Rushdie was not a 'peaceful group' he was an individual with freewill who insulted the nation of Islam.

Animal testing? nailbombs? not relevant!

"It is an unavoidable consequence of what you are saying that people who are unwilling to use or threaten violence will have their voices silenced and those that do use or threaten violence are the only ones who can be heard."

We obviously dont live in the same world - Tiananmen square? Tibet? Hungary? The IRA? the miners?
Thats how the world works in my experience

"I do understand your position but I can't understand how you think this would be a good thing."

I don't think it would be a good thing, I think its the way it is for the majority of us

"If the state protected no one then no one is free to discuss their beliefs. If the rest of ATS decided to take exception to what you say on this forum and made attempts on your life then you would be forced to keep quiet wouldn't you?"

If they could find me, and I was stupid enough to upset them, that would be my lookout. Fortunately I'm not given to offering up deadly insults to any group on a whim - call it self preservation.

What if you are saying something important? What if you were pointing out some injustice that was happening in some political or religious group?

There are plenty who do - they get ignored, unless they do something radical - again all this is off topic.


"Maybe most people do approve of his insults."



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You can prove this, or just your opinion?

"We collectively support insults against every other group, the Life of Brian insulted Christianity"

No, it ridiculed blind faith - please, your a fan, you should know this!

"Spitting Image did it to political beliefs"

Satire, and within a more open society - I remember them doing Rushdie, and being very careful about how they handled the subject of Islam

"comedians do it to everybody".

Not anymore, not since Bernard Manning

Why is Islam any different? It's not in my, and in my experience, most peoples' opinion.

Again you are speaking for 'most people' - proof required.
And they are no different, but why do we not see people doing the overbite, squint eyed, 'me velly solly' anymore - because its offensive, or the big lipped 'well ello der' - because its offensive. Why don't you see it aint half hot mum anymore - because its offensive.
You are exercising a double standard.

"So then what about Maxine Carr and the others I've mentioned. You said they were different but not how".


She was a criminal, and as such the state took responsibility for her safety as it did Huntley. (a fail). the estimated cost of her protection was based on

"tabloid newspapers "whipping up the kind of public hysteria guaranteed to incite misguided people to take the law into their own hands."


In both cases (Rushdie and Carr) there was a great deal of anger directed towards them and they were both considered to be under threat. Both can be said to have brought it on themselves and both were protected by the state at great cost to the taxpayer. Yet Carr can't be said to have any connections or influence, why was she protected then?

She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain
Big difference.

If we speak to give offense we should accept the consequences. Whats more the law agrees - look up defamation.
I was brought up to accept the consequences of my actions, not to expect to be protected from them at anothers expense



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Now I get it. Let me put it in general terms: Let A=a powerful group prone to violence. Let B=a smaller group or individual with free will. If B does something to anger or offend A, they deserve to die, and no one should help them without your permission. Therefore if A=Islam and B=Salman Rushdie, then Salman Rushdie should die. Now let A=Israel and B=Palestinians. By your logic, Palestinians deserve to die, and no-one should help them without your permission. Right?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Icerider
 



"So then how do you avoid a state of affairs whereby only those willing to become violent have a voice?"

We already have that situation - consider the latest moves against the BNP, effectively 'banning' them from existence using financial sanctions - what do they resort to next?
Ordinary people don't have a voice.


What financial sanctions?

The BNP have been required to allow non white people to join due to anti discrimination laws, I don’t see how that bans them from existing. Violence doesn’t come into it, this situation has come about because people have been allowed freedom of speech and have made a specific case; violence would bypass that.


"Most cases involve only small numbers of people which can be resolved by a few arrests or by moving the person under threat."

And what if they didn't? What if a thousand people published online and offended, became subject to daeth threats from a large group- do you spend ten billion to protect them?
Again, how would you go about paying for this?


But that hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to happen. You might as well say what if half the population decided to run into traffic, since the NHS couldn’t cope with that we should disband it.

But even if it did happen every attempt should be made to protect the peaceful over the violent.


Then please explain this (Telegraph article)


Simple, he wasn’t arrested or charged; because there are no laws against what he was doing. I’ve seen overzealous police say it was illegal to ride a back on a patch of grass but that doesn’t actually make it illegal.


"That's like saying you are free to go climbing but if you gets stuck up a mountain then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Why should the state pay to to rescue some silly sod who thought it would be a good idea to climb up Ben Nevis and get struck by a rock slide, the moron?"

Why should the state pay?


Why should the state pay for anything then? If you get hit by a bus, why should anyone else have to pay for that? Or if you get sick or assaulted, or if you fall on hard times and can’t find work etc etc.

Btw I think you’ll find the RAF do quite a bit of mountain rescue work.


"But who are you to decide that it is unnecessary or pointless? How does this attitude apply to religious proselytizing? Many people find that offensive and even dangerous, why is this different to preaching atheism and why should one group have to shut up just because the other might get violent?"


I have every right to decide that it is unnecessary and pointless for ME to do this. We aren't discussing a group, we are discussing an individual. I don't understand your point here.


I don’t see your point then. If this only applies to you then what does it have to do with anything being discussed, unless you think this is the position other people should take.


"As much as the Daily Mail might protest this isn't true. You can freely fly a George Cross out your car window and your phone calls are not being monitored."

Im not a reader of the mail, but I have seen enough to know that there is a desire to monitor all communications channels, including the internet. Monitoring international communications is part of the remit of menwith hill, GHQ and the ECHELON system.


But you can still fly the GC and your emails, phone calls etc are not being monitored. GCHQ couldn’t monitor every communication even if they wanted to.


I AM talking about Islam, and its relationship to this eventuality - nobody else wanted to kill him!
This has never been about freedom of speech, nor is it about foreign policy, it is about an abuse of the British police resources and taxpayers money. People have died because of this book - were their lives worth his freedom of speech?


Your OP was about how he shouldn’t have been protected, that makes it about freedom of speech. Islam is incidental to the case; are you saying that if it was Mormons planting bombs and burning effigies in the street then he should be protected? If not then this has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with freedom of speech.


'They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector'


"So if the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?"

How is this relevant? You drift further and further from the topic! I cant even see any logic in this statement - please explain how it pertains to what I said.


It’s your argument applied to a different situation.

If Rushdie is to blame and should be left to the wolves because he offended a violent group, regardless of his true intention, then if Muslims at a local Mosque offend a group of violent skin heads then by your logic it is the Muslims who are at fault. How can they not be?


A great many have a problem with UK foreign policy - once again not relevent and off topic.


So why did you say “'Which peaceful group are we talking about - Israel? America? The UK” and “we don't seem to care about the distinction between extremists and innocent civilians. Only about oil.”?

Sounds like you’re talking about foreign policy to me.


Rushdie was not a 'peaceful group' he was an individual with freewill who insulted the nation of Islam.

Animal testing? nailbombs? not relevant!


I don’t recall Rushdie threatening people, he wrote a book, that is a peaceful act. You seem to have offended someone in this thread, you know it’s causing offense and yet you persist, does that mean you are no longer peaceful?

And the animal rights example is very relevant; it is again the logic that you apply to Rushdie being applied to someone else.


I don't think it would be a good thing, I think its the way it is for the majority of us


I’ve given ample examples that show that it isn’t.


If they could find me, and I was stupid enough to upset them, that would be my lookout. Fortunately I'm not given to offering up deadly insults to any group on a whim - call it self preservation.


How do you know what offends people? I could be sharpening a knife as we speak.


"Maybe most people do approve of his insults."

You can prove this, or just your opinion?


The lack of outrage similar to your own is strong evidence.

As for the Life of Brian there were plenty of Christians who found it insulting, the same goes for the Jerry Springer Opera etc. It might seem to ridicule blind faith to you but then you don’t speak for everyone do you. It is up to each individual to decide what they find offensive and many found TLoB to be deeply offensive.

Salman Rushdie would claim that the Satanic Verses was not meant to insult Islam, how is this different from you defending TLoB even though many people were offended by it?

With regards to comedians, again you are assuming your idea of offensive is universal. There are people who do jokes about cancer and those that find it deeply offensive, jokes about rape, jokes about race, about disability; all of it is found to be offensive by one party or another.


Again you are speaking for 'most people' - proof required.


No I said “in my experience”.


Why don't you see it aint half hot mum anymore


We do, I watched it just the other day on some digital channel, and I saw Jimmy Carr do the silly Asian voice too.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

She was a criminal


Eh? So if you do something wrong then you have a right to be protected but if you have done nothing wrong then you should be left to die?


She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain


In your opinion.

Other people might say that Carr was a vile manipulator while Rushdie merely wanted to write a compelling story.


If we speak to give offense we should accept the consequences. Whats more the law agrees - look up defamation.


Defamation applies to persons not beliefs.


In your world Socrates actually deserved to die.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join