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
Nevertheless, it's a subjective statement, and again, has no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Neither do 'laws' or 'legal acceptability'. Do you agree or disagree?
International Laws would I say play a part in an objective definition.
"You would say", more subjectivity. You're not helping your argument. You can't have subjectivity of any sort in an objective definition, internationally recognised or otherwise.
Morning all. Seeing as the discussion hasn't really moved, I'm going to reiterate this point.
Honorus, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the problems with your definition of terrorism.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes... because a cartoon Disney duck is a real figure.....
When you take what I wrote completely out of context, yes it sound silly. But maybe that's just because you earlier proved to have reading problems so I guess the ol' brain overheats when reading more than one sentence a minute, thus taking each sentence out of context.
Your the one who brought up Scourge McDuck there, not us. Also, try to make a good argument without insulting another poster. Beyond that, you've pretty much proven you don't really have any clue what your talking about with this topic, so we should just end it on this simply:
Comedy Central wasn't in the right or the wrong with censoring Muhammad, seeing as for the last 5 years there has apparently been a ban on it. Some idiots took it to another level by sending in Death Threats to CC, which made them react like any company would; in a way to save their own ass and damn the original information. As for the creators themselves; this was all a joke to them, and they don't think someone is really going to send a pipe bomb to blow them up.
tl/dr it: It's nothing but pure over reaction, same with, again, all the media outlets that decided to pull every single image of the Twin Towers out of main stream media due to 9/11... even if nothing bad was happening to them.
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
He asked for my definition. I gave my definition. Read the $%^&ing thread.
I did read the thread.
"Your" definition has nothing to back it up. The definition
I
provided does.
Hell, your definition can't even be used to condemn the people
you
claim fit it without someone noting that they don't fit it.
My point was that the definition you're using for "terrorism" is whatever you think it is, whereas the
actual
definition is something that covers a much wider ground.
And, if
you
read the thread, you'd see that I've posted in here already. Multiple times. Once pointing out that every group has extremists (even the ones who advocate neutrality), and once explaining what "Shock and Awe" actually means.
Now, if you're going to assume that I don't read the thread, that's fine with me. Just don't get irritated when I notice that you rely on something incorrect and subjective for much of your argument and provide the correct, objective form.
Such as, a definition which will fit the same people if you're looking at them from the perspective of a Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Iranian, Israeli, American, French, etc., rather than varying from one side of the world to the other.
You could at least try to
defend
your definition, rather than explaining why you gave it. Your reason for giving it is entirely irrelevant unless someone claims the information is irrelevant.
The topic isn't terrorism. That got brought in when some people earlier in the thread said that terrorists would blow them up if they didn't censor.
If there now happens to be a ban on Muhammad pictures, we have another case. The US government discriminating against non-muslim religions by allowing jokes that offend christians, buddhists, jews or satanists, but censoring the same when it hits muslis. The reason to why they do that might get interesting to discuss.
Morning all. Seeing as the discussion hasn't really moved, I'm going to reiterate this point.
Honorus, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the problems with your definition of terrorism.
Well, the reason to why I call Al-Qaeda terrorists and not the United States Army lies within that the US Army targets enemies with guns, as you may know there are lots of militant muslims living normal lives in cities of Pakistan who would maybe pick up that gun and fire it once or twice if they had a good chance on a marine. The US Army does not target civilians without good reasons, Al-Qaeda does when threatening and killing non-combatant units.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, let's break it down.
the US Army targets enemies with guns
There are many, many documented incidences where US military forces have fired at unarmed targets, both intentional direct fire and collateral damage.
as you may know there are lots of militant muslims living normal lives in cities of Pakistan who would maybe pick up that gun and fire it once or twice if they had a good chance on a marine
Subjective opinion. Furthermore, you can turn it around as follows:
"as you may know there are lots of evangelical christians living normal lives in the USA who would pick up that gun and fire it once or twice if they had a good chance on an Al-Qaeda member"
It's not sufficient rationale for shooting down unarmed civilians just because they have the potential to attack you. That argument also justifies the bombing of the WTC, as all the people who were attacked would pick up a gun and fire it on Al-Qaeda forces if they had the opportunity.
The US Army does not target civilians without good reasons
There are no good reasons to target civilians.
Al-Qaeda does when threatening and killing non-combatant units
Why is your reason good but their reason not? They're fighting for freedom and liberty too, you know.
But either way, 'good reasons' are subjective, and again, have no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Try again.
Post by
Honorus
Why is your reason good but their reason not? They're fighting for freedom and liberty too, you know.
But either way, 'good reasons' are subjective, and again, have no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Try again.
That was one of the sickest things I've ever read on the Internet! Freedom? Liberty? Maybe that sort of freedom where Bin Ladin's the sole dictator forcing women to be his 65th wife and where elder men are legally raping young girls and marrying 7yos. There is no freedom within Al-Qaeda's vision. There is no freedom within the islamic culture's utopia.
Sure there are great reasons to target civilians, if it's the only way to reach the regime like in Berlin '45 or the only way to make the enemy surrender. Otherwise any nation or organisation would put nuclear weapon launchers in the heart of a civilian residency area.
Post by
Squishalot
That was one of the sickest things I've ever read on the Internet!
That would be because you're uneducated.
Al-Qaeda ideologues instructed the network's recruiters to look for Jihadi international, Muslims who believed that jihad must be fought on a global level. The concept of a "global Salafi jihad" had been around since at least the early 1980s. Several groups had formed for the explicit purpose of driving non-Muslims out of every Muslim land, at the same time and with maximum carnage. This was, however, a fundamentally defensive strategy.
Al-Qaeda sought to open the "offensive phase" of the global Salafi jihad.
Al-Qaeda's fighting to keep non-Muslims out of Muslim territories. This is, fundamentally, what jihad is about - freedom from oppression of non-Muslims (i.e. Westerners). The concept of striking in the US to protect their homes is, fundamentally, identical to the US policy of striking out in Iraq or Afghanistan to protect their homes.
Freedom? Liberty? Maybe that sort of freedom where Bin Ladin's the sole dictator forcing women to be his 65th wife and where elder men are legally raping young girls and marrying 7yos. There is no freedom within Al-Qaeda's vision. There is no freedom within the islamic culture's utopia.
This is opinion (and mostly hyperbole too). Is the US sort of freedom one that oppresses women and children to work in crowded sweatshops in undeveloped and developing countries, then bombs the hell out of them anyway? There is no freedom within the US's international and commercial policy. (Yes, that's hyperbole too.)
It's like the debate about the burqa and the niqab. Is that oppression and lack of freedom? A lot of people in the US think it is. But there are many Muslim women who prefer to wear it. ("Oh no, they're just brainwashed by the oppressive society, so let's bomb the hell out of them. Oh look, more hyperbole.")
No, really. All you've got is your own opinion on the way they run their society. Western society isn't perfect either, people are still getting screwed over. You know, the Western world could probably take a leaf out of the Middle Eastern view on matters like adultery and so forth. They probably think that men and women in the US are getting screwed over by society when a guy can go sleep around and still walk away with half the cash.
Sure there are great reasons to target civilians, if it's the only way to reach the regime like in Berlin '45 or the only way to make the enemy surrender.
There are always alternatives. Israel's blockade is a good example (not necessarily the rocket strikes). There is never a need to take action against non-combatants.
Otherwise any nation or organisation would put nuclear weapon launchers in the heart of a civilian residency area.
Why? It wouldn't make a difference. Based on your reasoning, my nukes will be aimed at your population centres anyway, whether or not your launchers are there. The reason they're not put in residential areas is for security reasons.
And you're still not responding to the key point. Subjective arguments have no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Almost all your arguments / definitions are subjective, therefore your definition is worthless. Plus, your definition supports Al-Qaeda's actions as 100% not terrorism.
Post by
Adamsm
If there now happens to be a ban on Muhammad pictures, we have another case. The US government discriminating against non-muslim religions by allowing jokes that offend christians, buddhists, jews or satanists, but censoring the same when it hits muslis. The reason to why they do that might get interesting to discuss.If by now, you mean the last 5 years.....and fyi, the ban started in Europe, not the States.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
I just hate how I forgot to tape episode 201 (or the one that was after the one where they set up everything for the next episode) and now southparkstudios.com won't air it until fornever.
200 is off the southparkstudios too.
Post by
Kibbles
the censorship is a joke on how extreme they are.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I love how people advocate free speech one second, then condemn Comedy Central's censorship the next. As a private organization, free speech dictates that they can indeed choose to censor what they provide.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I love how people advocate free speech one second, then condemn Comedy Central's censorship the next. As a private organization, free speech dictates that they can indeed choose to censor what they provide.
Organisations are not covered under the first amendment, people are. Comedy Central as an organisation should not be able to trump the free speech of Stone and Parker.
There are several issues here.
First, yes it is a person. It's called incorporation.
Secondly, the episode is owned by Comedy Central. The episode was broadcast by Comedy Central. The station is owned by Comedy Central. It's theirs, and they have the right to do whatever they wanted with it. Just like the writers had every right to not sign the contract.
Post by
Adamsm
I love how people advocate free speech one second, then condemn Comedy Central's censorship the next. As a private organization, free speech dictates that they can indeed choose to censor what they provide.
Organisations are not covered under the first amendment, people are. Comedy Central as an organisation should not be able to trump the free speech of Stone and Parker.
Except they don't care.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.