This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Religious Censoring Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Honorus, two points for you:
1) Making a thread about / singling out a single person is against the terms of use of the Wowhead forums.
2) How do you define terrorism, seeing as you're so insistent on Deepthought defining it? Because so far, no proposed definition of terrorism by anyone on this board (except MyTie's conservative view on terrorism) has been / can be applied consistently. And if you're suggesting that most terrorists are Islamic, then yours is highly unlikely to, unless it involves "causing fear in American citizens".
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Simple answer: If I remember correctly, Muhammad cannot be drawn or painted, etc. (IIRC. I'm not sure about this)
And there isn't anything against posing God as various things (yes I am Christian as well).
Post by
Adamsm
Simple answer: If I remember correctly, Muhammad cannot be drawn or painted, etc. (IIRC. I'm not sure about this)
And there isn't anything against posing God as various things (yes I am Christian as well).
Parker and Stone went for lampooning the fact that he's not an acceptable target, instead (particularly because 5 years before Muhammad started being taboo, he had been mocked with no repercussion!)Only in the last 5 years apparently.....
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
I cannot see how you define actions in a war zone of a combatant of war as terrorism.
There is a declaration of war justifying Allied military causes, there isn't one to justify hi-jacking planes and crashing them into sky scrapes. Neither is there one to justify going after cartoonist when they draw something offensive to terrorists. Ask yourselves this question:
"Should muslims be treated differently just because they're threatening to kill people, and christians and jews aren't?"
Agreeing on censoring of Muhammad images is agreeing on terrorism's presence and its power to fear the western society into doing what the hell they want.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
That's a misuse of the term "justified". It's legitimate to attack enemy combatants, it is not justified nor legitimate to terrorise civilians.
The Allied forces are fighting talibans, at least the directives from the White House aren't "
Nuke the civilian residents
".
Irrelevant question, there are Christians threatening people. Like doctors who provide abortions.
Murdering potential lives isn't the same thing as drawing a prophet.
How exactly does it harm the muslim people when their prophet is being drawed? Abortion doctors are murdering potential people. Can't you see the difference?
The people censoring the images are not agreeing to be terrorised, they're just being terrorised. There are millions of people who do not fear their threats and violence, just look at Draw Mohammed day.
Isn't there something wrong with the entire society if they're being allowed to harass and threat people exercising their right of free speech?
Post by
Squishalot
Honorus, two points for you:
1) Making a thread about / singling out a single person is against the terms of use of the Wowhead forums.
2) How do you define terrorism, seeing as you're so insistent on Deepthought defining it? Because so far, no proposed definition of terrorism by anyone on this board (except MyTie's conservative view on terrorism) has been / can be applied consistently. And if you're suggesting that most terrorists are Islamic, then yours is highly unlikely to, unless it involves "causing fear in American citizens".
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
The people making the threats generally aren't in the same society as you. How do you plan on stopping people from making threats without infringing their freedom of speech? Bonus points if you can think of something that doesn't qualify as thought crime
Heighten security and be more cautious regarding immigration from MENA.
Both are legal. Also a misuse of the term murder from a legal standpoint. Pulling out just before you cum is mudering potential people too. Millions more than abortion because of the number of potential sperm.
Only one sperm out of millions makes it, nature has made it so, which completely dismantles your argument. To me a life is a life when the sperm's hit the egg. You may have another standpoint but mine is that aborting a fetus is the same as killing a life.
Sorry, Squishalot for not answering until now.
Making a thread about / singling out a single person is against the terms of use of the Wowhead forums.
A moderator changed the thread's name, so this has little or no relevance at present. I did not know of this rule when I changed the name of the thread. I apologize.
How do you define terrorism, seeing as you're so insistent on Deepthought defining it? Because so far, no proposed definition of terrorism by anyone on this board (except MyTie's conservative view on terrorism) has been / can be applied consistently. And if you're suggesting that most terrorists are Islamic, then yours is highly unlikely to, unless it involves "causing fear in American citizens".
Terrorism, an act of violence involving attemptive murder of several people, often aimed at a certain sort of people, in a non-war zone and without a legally acceptable declaration of war or an admitted state of war. Use of explosives is common. Terrorism is oftenly used to scare a certain people into doing what the terrorists are hoping to achieve. An example of terrorism is for instance "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland during the 1990's where discrimination of protestants by catholics and vice versa was common in a great extent. Terrorism is often carried out by "terrorist organisations" such as Al-Qaeda, Irish Republican Army or Hamas. Terrorism can also be carried out by a federal army, such as in Myanmar a few years ago or in Eritrea where either the current government or earlier governments have been classified as terror regimes. This is my personal view and definition of
terrorism
. I hope my answer was of satisfaction.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
A moderator changed the thread's name, so this has little or no relevance at present. I did not know of this rule when I changed the name of the thread. I apologize.
At least now you know why it was changed, so it has relevance for the future.
Terrorism, an act of violence involving attemptive murder of several people, often aimed at a certain sort of people, in a non-war zone and without a legally acceptable declaration of war or an admitted state of war. ...... This is my personal view and definition of terrorism. I hope my answer was of satisfaction.
It's a passable answer, but it raises more questions than it solves. Let's break things down, shall we?
Terrorism, an act of violence involving attemptive murder of several people
Why does terrorism have to involve attempted murder? For example, if the intent is to cause property damage as the scare tactic, is this not terrorism? If I blow up all the cars on a particular street, without people inside, is that not terrorism?
in a non-war zone and without a legally acceptable declaration of war or an admitted state of war
It should be worth noting that Al-Qaeda has declared war on the western world. Apologies to quote Wikipedia, but:
In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa, which amounted to a public declaration of war against the United States of America and any of its allies, and began to refocus al-Qaeda's resources towards large-scale, propagandist strikes.
Here, we have an admitted state of war.
The question mark over 'a legally acceptable declaration of war' is simple. By definition, 'legally acceptable' is a subjective judgement. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What might be considered to be legally acceptable by the Russians may not be legally acceptable by the USA. You can choose to use the United Nations to determine legal acceptability, but it does not take away from the fact that such acceptance is subjective, and therefore has no place in an objective definition.
So, by your definition that terrorism has to be a non-war event, Al-Qaeda's actions post 1996 cannot be prescribed to be terrorist events, due to the declaration of war.
Furthermore, providing that a declaration of war exists, a military action undertaken specifically to kill civillians cannot be taken to be a terrorist action. So, by definition, genocide conducted under the banner of war is not terrorism.
Post by
Honorus
Now it happens to be so that there's a significant difference between one in four and one in more than a million.
Here, we have an admitted state of war.
Al-Qaeda is not a governmental force of any kind. If they still could declare a fair n' square war, that means I can declare war on any state I want and use that to justify killing people. Then I capitulate and woah, I'm protected by inernational laws and at most I will have to pay for the damages I've caused and serve two or three years in prison.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
Oh, Yay! Yet ANOTHER abortion debate...
No one's forcing you to read the thread.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
I'm starting to think you're trolling.
I'm starting to consider you ignorant. So if the Vatican says that in their country the rape of children is legal, it's okay then according to you?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.