Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Postings Lead To Arrest for Heresy In the West Bank
forand writes "Using screen shots of a customer's Facebook profile, owners of a West Bank internet cafe helped Palestinian intelligence forces capture a man accused of heresy." According to sources quoted in the story, residents of both Gaza and the West Bank face ongoing scrutiny of their online activities; in Gaza, "Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam."
And encryption won't help.
A mysterious blogger who set off an uproar in the Arab world by claiming he was God and hurling insults at the Prophet Muhammad is now behind bars — caught in a sting that used Facebook to track him down.
I found myself surprised that Palestine is so easy to troll. Then I was even more surprised that I was surprised even for a second.
Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.
I have never respected trolls before, but I guess there's a first time for everything. If he does get executed, someone should really saint him. Pastafarians maybe.
...is what they are! This shows how dangerously crazy these people are. They are the enemies of freedom like all religious fanatics! Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values. The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
I'm glad to know that this is the kind of freedom the brave Palestinian fighters are fighting Israel for. To have a Taliban lifestyle imposed on themselves.
Wait, so you're saying there's no religious freedom here because religious people are free protest other religions?
I agree.. if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods) as hamas, hamas wouldn't exist..
This is not an issue specific to PA territories: in any islamic country you would be screwed if you logged in to Facebook as God and criticized islam. The same would have happened in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey etc. Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Protests are part of our right to free speech - if all Hamas was doing was protesting other religions, we wouldn't be having a problem.
Religious freedom is still strong in America, and, thankfully, tolerance is starting to be a part of our children's upbringing. Openly gay people walk down the street now, where thirty years ago they wouldn't have dared to admit their orientation. Racism today is nothing compared to what it was for the previous generation, and the internet's beginning to help bring us all together in a global climate of mutual understanding.
However, religious freedom doesn't mean you're free to infringe upon other people's rights. This affects the strict practice of Islam - Sharia law is completely at odds with personal freedom and our country's legal system, as is the murder or forced conversion of those they consider to be infidels. If Muslims can live without Sharia law or violence towards others, then of course they can be themselves in our country. Something tells me they're not going to do that.
how so? shouldn't you have the right not to be forced to believe whatever religion is the fad? the freedom to worship also means the freedom not to be forced to do so.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
any ideology that ties its self to government will screw the people. it doesn't matter if it is islam or christianity or batshit political ideologies... the results are generally the same.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Those who want peace with others must first make peace with themselves.
Yeah, playing (relatively) clean against people who are willing to play hardball does not help us.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I am agnostic, so the religious freedoms don't affect me
Oh, but they do. If the white Christian lunatics (the very same ones who protest about mosques) in the US got their way you wouldn't be allowed to be agnostic. Don't think for a minute that an explicitly noted right to religious freedom doesn't affect you; it is the very underpinning of your being allowed to be agnostic (undecided - since, in the context of your post it sounded like you meant atheist).
I drink to make other people interesting!
Well...hamas would exist but be known as hamas
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I'm not sure what you mean.. I just meant that we need more testicular fortitude when dealing with wannabe tyrants like hamas...whether they live inside or outside our borders is immaterial. I'm a fan of individual liberty.
Supporting terrorists as our government might have been a bad idea after all... who could have known?
Bad idea? The locals seem to be quite rejoiced at the thought of this little witch hunt. From TFA:
Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.
"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.
When these folks elected Hamas, they knew full well what they were getting into. Keep that in mind next time Israeli steamrolls over the place after a bunch more missiles launched from there land in Israeli towns.
Oxymoron!
Of course... the locals aren't allowed to say otherwise, now are they?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Meanwhile a family was evacuated from his house in Jerusalem where he lived for 30 years to make way for a settler family last week. A peaceful protest was broken up in Bil’in by tear gas and riot police.
Extremist settlers burned a Jerusalem church
Settlers spray graffiti on mosque in Nablus,
run over a man in Qalqiliya,
attack a teenager in Hebron
and the IDF assasinates two people in Gaza last week
but what do we read about that in the US? No, of course not. That would be too much reality for Americans. Instead we get a story about how those Hamas fiends are cracking down on the internet cafes. We get stories about bad the Iranians are to their women. Its as if they only perspective we get is one that shows us that these 'people' have a archaic, violent culture....ignore the 60 year occupation, ignore the two wars that US just launched over there, lets pick apart and find fault in THEIR culture. They're the violent people! Yeah right...
Theres a great film on You Tube called 'Planet of the Arab', check it out sometime.
http://mondoweiss.net/
It helps us in the long run. Sure, in the short run, supplanting a monster with a bigger, more atrocious one helps. But where does that get us?
If there is anything to the claim that we represent the "free world", we have to play relatively clean, lest it becomes nothing but shallow rhetoric.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It says right there on top of the FA - QALQILIYA, West Bank. They did not elect Hamas, that was in Gaza, in fact the whole point of the FA is how far the supposedly secular PA will go to prosecute the man.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
well if you're a stateless refugee than you have no individual liberty...if objectively looked at who Hamas are and what they are fighting for, you'd see they have everything in common with people who want freedom.
try doing it sometime. Imagine you come from another planet, look at the worlds conflicts from an outsiders perspective...you'll see things arent as clean cut as what the TV tells you.
Westerners did "defend" their values (such as they were) several hundred years ago, like this and it wasn't any prettier than Hamas' attempt.
So let's not claim that Islam has a monopoly on repression.
Western ways of dealing with groups like Hamas have their own tyrannical tendencies. Maybe it's wiser to figure out non-tyrannical ways of dealing with our local wannabe-tyrants before we try to export our tyranny.
Of course... the locals aren't allowed to say otherwise, now are they?
No, the locals are not required to form a torch wielding mob and demand burning the guy alive instead of imprisoning him as is already done.
Well, on Slashdot, only old people RTFA, and I don't qualify. I apologize for misinformation.
But thanks for clarifying. I'm glad that it's not that Islamist group which is imprisoning people for not believing in their superstitions, but rather the other one (Fatah, secular? haha).
On both sides, large swathes of the population have been persuaded to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of their reasoning, and so are able to justify any actions at all. I started this headline with "religious fanaticism" but the communists under Stalin were no better. It's the laziness of people who would rather be willfully stupid and lie to themselves in order to be psychologically comfortable that leads down the path to these atrocities. Fundamentalists of every ilk. Feh.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
From the article:
The media in the Palestinian Authority, as in the Arab world in general, are largely government-controlled, driving dissenting voices to the relative freedom of the Internet. The blogger's arrest showed a willingness on the part of the Palestinian government to clamp down on freedom of speech on the Web as well. He now faces a potential life prison sentence on heresy charges for "insulting the divine essence."
Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.
"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.
Few have come forward to defend him. One was Zainab Rashid, a liberal Palestinian commentator, who wrote in an online opinion piece that Husayin had made the important point that "criticizing religious texts for their (intellectual) weakness can only be combatted by ... oppression, prison and execution." ...
Gaza's Hamas rulers also stalk Facebook pages for suspected dissenters, said Palestinian rights activist Mustafa Ibrahim. He said Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam.
Freedom. I do not think this word means what you think it means.
What the hell does this comment have to do with Palestine, Facebook, or the enforcement of heresy as a state crime? The only thing you can think of is "it's not too different here and that means we are horrible." WTF dude.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
but that was back when Catholics and Protestants were fighting each other for the souls of their subjects... Bishop Hooper was burnt at the stake in my home town back in 1555... It's such a pity that some loonies want to remain in the middle ages...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
"our" country?
Something tells me "they're" not going to do that.?
Again, only Americans could invade two countries, kill over 150K people, yet still have the....ignorance(?) to lecture the people from the same religion they've just killed on "personal freedom and our country's legal system"
I hope for your own sakes. One day you turn off your TV. Stop reading the newspapers...and just think...for yourself. Don't just repeat the Op-Ed, don't take the same position as the pudit on TV...heck maybe you could even go a visit some of these countries, meet some muslims before you take this high and mighty opinions on a culture you have no experience outside of television with.
Just MO
read up on Palestine and You will understand.
Joe Sacco has two very good (comic) books about Palestine. Check em out.
Yes, we should look away when Israel indiscrimnately kills civilians cause heck they elected Hamas...they deserve it.
Did you know that in the last 'war' on the gaza refugee camp 1,417 Palestinian were killed. Over 700 were women and children. 13 Israelis died too. You probably read about every one of the Israelis in full page stories in the NY Times, but those Arabs, they're just meaningless numbers to Americans. Theres no love lost for them.
Why don't you watch this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UxJWdCwOpc
In this case, it means the freedom to be oppressive and violate the freedom of others, in accordance with their religion.
Of course we should mention that Hamas was funded by the Mossad originally as a bulwark against the PLO, something that mainstream sources in Israel and the US acknowledge. Israel (with help from the US) knocked out the secular, left-wing Palestinians like the PFLP, DFLP and company as that is who they have always been afraid of. So what is left but the religious nationalists? Israel prefers them in charge, as does the US. They make an easier target.
The US overthrew the secular Iranian government in the 1950s and installed a dictatorship...now the only complaint is the pro-US dictator, the Shah, who wiped out the secular left during his decades in power, is not in charge any more. Iraq had one of the few secular governments in the Middle East, and was a target of two US wars. With US troops now there, Iraq has declared itself an Islamic republic (read the constitution), something never said in Hussein's day (although he was forced to concede some of this after the First Gulf War). So the result of the invasion has been this. Also, of course, the US armed Osama bin Laden so as to overthrow the secular, communist Afghani government.
War is won by the most violent -- Clausewitz
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"lest it becomes nothing but shallow rhetoric."
Too late.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Probably, yes. Doesn't mean we have to resort to pure defeatism. At least I like to think that we can salvage at least something of that claim.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Freedom. I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Or you. Try living in a country that is actively oppressed, where the supply of practically everything is subject to the whims of some outside force, which invades every now and then with military vehicles and just might shoot your friends, bulldoze your house, or yourself. Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web". That's how the human mind works - you need to have your base desires satisfied before you start thinking about more abstract things.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Ignoring it's current state, throughout it's history the US has probably done more to advance individual freedom and legally protected universial rights than any other country. France comes close.
I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that Hamas is thing restricting freedom from the Palestenians.
Besides a 60 year occupation...2 million people in Gaza have been living in virtual open air prison for the past 4 years. Israel controls every product that enters gaza to the extent that they recieve just enough food not to starve, but too much so they reproduce.
The fact that we're reading an article about Hamas restricting freedom and not this, if you know the area, is absurd.
Here is article about kindly Israeli/Harvard professor calling for the restriction of pre-natel subsidizes (food) to prevent Palestenians from breeding too much.
If this was any other country doing this, we'd all be up in arms, but because its us and they're muslims...its eh...whatever
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/harvard-prof-urges-popula_b_472191.html
This is not an issue specific to PA territories: in any islamic country you would be screwed if you logged in to Facebook as God and criticized islam. The same would have happened in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey etc. Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).
You are fortunate that, by accident of birth, you were born in a different location where it is personally dangerous to not profess believe in faith X. This you understand.
You are also fortunate that, by accident of birth, you were not born a few hundred years ago where uttering enacceptable views the inquisition would have done much the same as has happened to this unfortunate man. This is not just a disease of Islam, but many other faiths mistreat those who do not accept their quirky world view.
This is why freedom of speech is so important and is a right that we need to fight to preserve.
This is also why we need a clear division between functioning of the state and any form of religion. In many countries this has been achieved, but some countries are regressing -- the USA is one of these.
Did you know that in the last 'war' on the gaza refugee camp 1,417 Palestinian were killed. Over 700 were women and children.
Two obvious questions.
First of all, how many of those killed were combatants? Note, "women and children" does not preclude such status - if you carry a gun and point it at me, neither your gender nor your age matters.
Second, and likely to be more important: of the remaining civilian deaths, how many are due to the usual Islamist tactic of using civilians as human shields - setting up missile launch sites and mortars in courtyards and on the roofs of of residential houses, schools, hospitals and mosques?
You probably read about every one of the Israelis in full page stories in the NY Times, but those Arabs, they're just meaningless numbers to Americans. Theres no love lost for them.
I'm not an American.
I pity any Palestinian civilian caught in the crossfire. But every time this conflict happens, the story repeats over and over again: one of the Palestinian militant organizations makes a strike at Israel (missiles, suicide bombing - doesn't matter), and Israel strikes back with all it's got. Since Israel is that much stronger, the end result is disproportional casualties for the Palestinians. This makes them underdogs, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for starting the fight. I don't care about who's stronger and who's weaker. I care about who's wrong and who's right, and if the guy who's right is also stronger - well, that's just awesome.
And, in my book, repeated deliberate attacks specifically on civilian population with intent to cause maximum deaths marks you down as the bad guy right away, regardless of any other reasoning. Terrorism is terrorism.
That "country" is oppressed because that "country" is at war with Israel and these sort of people given more freedoms would be wiping the Israelis out with even greater enthusiasm than wiping out their own heretics.
If you think they're just going change and be so nice to Jews, Christians and pagans you should take a really close look at the history of Islam.
If they don't change their popular core beliefs you will always have problems with them:
http://www.tawfikhamid.com/abcs-test-for-radical-islam/
It's the Palestinian authorities that are acting like lunatics here. The very fact that they have much much bigger troubles like helping their citizens survive under all the pressure means that they shouldn't waste their time prosecuting people for being critical of Islam. It seems like they have their priorities mixed up and that makes it a question of freedom.
Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web".
There is nothing "abstract" about government goons showing up on your doorstep in order to haul you away for your execution because of your religious beliefs. Any government that does this is not legitimate and does not deserve anybody's support.
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.
And you're right that this being an Islamic government is responsible for people in the West not supporting them, because nearly all Muslim governments are highly intolerant of other religions and intrinsically undemocratic. Why should I want to support governments that want to imprison or kill me for my religious beliefs? I will not put my support behind an Islamic government of any form because such governments have never worked. If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state. Frankly, I prefer an occupied Palestine to a Palestine governed by Islamic fundamentalists.
The case of the unlikely apostate, a shy barber from this backwater West Bank town, is highlighting the limits of tolerance in the Western-backed Palestinian Authority
The West Bank which is controlled by the Western-backed PA and not Hamas, how Hamas was thrown into this piece only reflects the current trend of the Zionist western media.
So by that logic, America deserved another terrorist attack because they re-elected Bush? Collective punishment is never justified, even if the majority voted for criminals. Did 100% vote for Hamas?
The Israeli penal code does make blasphemy illegal (output from Google Translate):
170. Destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship, or any object held sacred crowd of people, deliberately degrade their religion, or knowingly that they may see this act an insult to their religion, Dino - three years imprisonment.
173. Makes one of the following countries - one year's imprisonment; (1) Publishes advertising that injure blatantly religious beliefs or their feelings of others; (2) Makes a public place and in the hearing of a certain word or sound that may harm the faith or gross violation of religious feelings. (3) Harm our sons public tombstones
Not as severe as Islamic blasphemy laws, but they still make blasphemy illegal.
Freedom is NOT some kind of absolute that stays the same whereever you are. It is not a constant.
Freedom is whatever I want to do and you might not like that one bit.
One societies freedom is not another societies freedom. Take something as harmless as comics/strips/manga. The US has lots of violence, but no nudity. The Japanese have lots of nudity but no politics. European has nudity and violence and politics because EU rules but the strip is a far smaller medium... go figure.
Who then has more freedom? A "kids" comic like Oliver Blunder (Walter Melon) has occasional nudity in it, including topless women. It isn't about nudity, just that in some scenes a nude makes sense, so it is there. Americans would have a fit. Japanese would wonder why there is so little of it and where the censor bar that hides nothing is.
What society is free? Probably all of them would consider themselves to be free societies.
So, say now that the mood among the people is to be extremely religious? Is it then a freedom to act on this? Is Hamas excersing its freedom by enforcing its views on others? Though one.
The only people confused by all this are kiddies who want to see the world in black & white and want to see the world burn. Once they defended Israel blindly, now they side with Hamas unquestionably. You can already see it on this forum, all the twisting to not have to admit that if you replaced Hamas with Republicans the forum would be on fire. Fact is there are no heroes in the real world. Hippies who ran away with Indian culture never seemed to notice the kast system. EU right wingers never seem to notice the countless problem with the rabid capitalism in the US. Privatize the railroads.... why because it worked so wel in the US?
Hamas if you dare to look honestly at it is a very scare group. They are not nice people. But the locals thought they could get things done, so voted for them and now getting rid of them is near impossible. (US and tea-party, UK and conservatives) This is hardly the first time hamas has shown its extremists face. But the west chooces not to see because it makes the Israel-Palestine conflict one between a flawed democracy and a extremist religion totally at odds with any western value.
Gosh, where did we see this before? What side did US support again in Afghanistan? What side is the US on in the Pakistan-India conflict?
And it is not just the west. SECULAR Syria (how many of you knew Syria is secular) is finding out that its use of religious extremist is NOT without risk as they might use their power to not just overthrow Israel but Syria as well. Iran is happy to support Hamas, as long as they stay outside Iran. Cause Iran doesn't need more terror bombings by religious extremists. Oh, you didn't know that Iran has its own fights as well? It does. Why do you think no Arab nation has ever seriously offered a home to the Palestinians? Don't want the mess. Either side, not the democrats or the reglious extremists. Both would be a danger to the typical dictatorships in the region.
And yet some kiddie who hates the world thinks Hamas is his hero for fighting the powers that be. Yeah, wear that scarf with pride girl, knowing that if a true Hamas ever met you, he would kill you for not going fully covered.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The God of these Vigilantes must be a weak God.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Meh. I'm sure this is Israel's fault, somehow. After all, everybody knows that all the human rights abuses in Gaza are the result of military action by Israel. They must have put hamas up to it, and forced them to monitor this Internet cafe, and then forced them to arrest the guy. :-/
They also forced his family to publicly say all those things about keeping him behind bars.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
... than a Westener who thinks cultural diversity is exists only because the West hasn't given them the right culture yet.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
And if the queen had balls, she'd be king.
If "western cultures" "defended" "freedom" with the same "vigilance" as Hamas, then they wouldn't be cultures worth defending.
It bugs me when people write shit because it sound noble, but don't think about what it means.
How do you "defend freedom" anyway? Is "by making sure a mosque can be built on private property in Lower Manhattan" anywhere on the list of "defending freedom"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Think about what you're saying.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government
That's exactly what we said about another country, a bit over 200 years ago.
-- The British Government
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
...in Britain.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What's there to think about? I'm merely stating what Israel is saying, and Israel has the power to enforce that. Whether it ought to be that way is another question.
Yes, but Britain obviously couldn't enforce it while Israel can. And one reason Britain failed was because Americans were fighting for liberty and not just independence, while the Palestinians apparently are not.
Its a pity you havent heard of this. There is a UN report done, done by a as respected and impartial authority Judge Richard Goldstone from South Africa.
It found evidence of numerous war crimes committed by Israel during the war on Gaza...Politics being what it is, he's been slandered and the report has not lead to anything actionable.
http://goldstonefacts.org/
Its fair to question things, but seriously its not nearly as one sided as you seem think.
When you say
And, in my book, repeated deliberate attacks
specifically on civilian population with intent to cause maximum deaths marks you down as the bad guy right away, regardless of any other reasoning. Terrorism is terrorism.
I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.
Here is a link that describes who attacked who first
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBiycEz12s
If you think they're just going change and be so nice to Jews, Christians and pagans you should take a really close look at the history of Islam.
Well... if we are to follow THAT logic all catholic countries should be sterilized by nuclear weapons - just because of their religion's history of going to unprovoked "Crusades" i.e. raping/pillaging wars. No need to mention inquisition but I will. Inquisition.
Then... USA should be sunk under the ocean.
I know that it would be a hard thing to do, but its history of genocide over the local population, slavery, stealing land from Mexico, destroying the world economy on several occasions and being the only country in the world to ever perform a nuclear attack on anyone...
Well, you can't really argue with all that history.
Then, the former Soviet Union. Kill everyone. History demands it.
Same with China. India too...
Ah fuck it, let's just kill everyone everywhere and then just to be sure hurl the Earth into the Sun.
No, we're not up in arms because this is just some guy talking, not any government's policy.
The Gazans have a strange idea of freedom to me; when Israel gave them a chance to form their own government they decided to destroy their economy and shoot rockets at Israel.
You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.
The Palesteinians are where they are because another people violently established a country in their land and have been continuing to expland it via. 500K Israelis live outside of Israels original border. Why? Because they are not interested. Because those 500K people are outside Israels border, 4 million Palestenians are controlled by rules and checkpoints by Israel...yet they have no vote in Israel, even though they are subject to Israeli law.
If Israel wants the land, then they can keep. Let them declare their borders...something they havent done...and make the Palestenians who fall within them citizens....but they dont do this cause they want Israel to be a 'Jewish" democractic state (haha) so they keep the land and oppress the people...thats not nice or legal
"fighting for liberty"
I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.
"fighting for liberty"
thats the image you're taught...the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.
Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks
Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.
Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty ..."
For a moment I started to feel sympathy for the bigots and despots in Israel who call Palestinians "cockroaches" and who would "push them into the sea". It's extremely cruel and heartbreaking how people are treated under extreme Islam and I'd be pretty damn cagey, too, if I had them for millenial neighbors. I usually side with what I see as the underdog or victim of injustice, but it's hard to help somebody who's self-inflicting. By that same token, I think I'd be crazy-ass martyring myself and self-inflicting, too, if I had to live next to the Biblical jews for thousands of years.
People go on about the human rights aspect of it all the time but it's really just about a prime piece of real estate, the "rock" or "temple mount". It's where the Ark of the Covenant was placed and where Mohamet ascended into heaven. At one time the temple of Solomon was there, and now there's the Dome. Some people argue this, some people argue that. "This belongs there", "that belongs to them", "they were there first", "they beat them fair and square", "this is acclaimed by so and so", "this is argued by blah blah", "mine", "ours", "his", and on and on. And there's plenty of murder to back up all the arguments, and with each murder there's a declaration that victory was by divine will, and then that person gets killed and it's this big game of "king of the hill".
Ultimately, what I guess this story does for me is balance out the entire Jerusalem equation, to the extent that I just really don't care about that part of the world so much and could care less how they handle each other. Obviously the whole spiritual, closeness with God thing doesn't do people much good, at all, unless you want to count lowering the population and restraining humanity's ecological footprint as "good" and can tolerate the proven evil of religious states.
Funny how nearsighted people continue to bicker about who's more right between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, when even a cursory glance from a distance shows that all three comprise the most heinous affront to humanity on the planet. Unabashed, self-righteous murderers all, and mostly over this one single stone outcropping. I swear to God, I'm starting to believe that were were beating our chests and jacking off on that thing all the way back in monkeydom.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I'm surprised no one else pointed this out yet
"Western" values... Completely imagined by "Western Civilizations".
Very similar in their credibility and originality to "World Series" sports competitions and "Miss Universe" beauty pageants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Asia
Asia
Human-centered philosophy that rejected the supernatural can be found as early as 1000 BCE in the Lokayata system of Indian philosophy. Also in the sixth-century BCE, Gautama Buddha expressed, in Pali literature, a skeptical attitude toward the supernatural:[13]
Since neither soul nor aught belonging to soul can really and truly exist, the view which holds that this I who am 'world,' who am 'soul,' shall hereafter live permanent, persisting, unchanging, yea abide eternally: is not this utterly and entirely a foolish doctrine?
In China, Huangdi is regarded as the humanistic primogenitor. Sage kings such as Yao and Shun are humanistic figures as recorded. King Wu of Zhou has the famous saying: "Human is the ling (spirit, soul, god, or leader) in the world (among all)". Among them, Duke of Zhou, respected as an initial founder of Rujia (Confucianism), is especially prominent and pioneering in humanistic thought. His words were recorded in the Book of History as follows (translated into English):
What the people desire, Heaven certainly comply.
Heaven (God) is not believable. Our Tao (doctrine) is moral (from former sage kings and to be continued forward).
In the sixth century BCE, Taoist teacher Laozi held natural humanistic philosophy. Confucius also taught secular ethics. The silver rule of Confucianism from Analects XV.24, is an example of ethical philosophy based on human values rather than the supernatural. Humanistic thought is also contained in other Confucian classics, e.g., as recorded in Zuo Zhuan, Ji Liang says: "People is the zhu (master, lord, dominance, owner or origin) of gods. So, to sage kings, people first, gods second"; Neishi Guo says: "Gods, clever, righteous and wholehearted, comply with human.
Civilizations that have 8000 years or so of culture "under their belt" tend to come up with important philosophical ideas earlier than their "younger neighbors".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Gaza is oppressed because Israel has been trying unsuccessfully for over 40 years to annex as much of it as possible with as few non-Jews as possible. Since the people of Gaza have steadfastly refused and made it impossible for Israel to achieve her goals, Israel is now deliberately starving the population.
Hamas was only created after about 20 years of such oppression.
It does not work that way. For each force there is counter force. The more Israel will push Palestinians the more radical they will become. Look at Germany and Russia after WW1, look at Korea. Keeping 2M people imprisoned like that is on thin line to become a genocide.
Hamas exists because people got fed up with 40 years of Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. That was over 20 years ago.
Try living in a country that is actively oppressed, where the supply of practically everything is subject to the whims of some outside force
Considering what the Hamas government does, I think those outside forces aren't so whimsical at all.
That's how the human mind works - you need to have your base desires satisfied before you start thinking about more abstract things.
The problem here is that what you call "base desires" and "abstract things" aren't as clearcut as that.
From the religious fanatic point of view, the "base desire" is their religion, things like food or medicine are "abstract things" for them.
Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam.
And now they have Firesheep to make it easier.
s/in accordance with their religion//
I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.
Admittedly I don't know a large fraction of the worlds Muslim population (something like 18.5%) but the Muslim folks that I know don't interpret their religion that way.
In any case, it would share many of the qualities of hummus; most notably, texture.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
And this is different from The American Way, exactly how?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that Hamas is thing restricting freedom from the Palestenians.
I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that it's a binary issue. Because the Israelis are doing bad things, Hamas must be pure and good?
but even without Israel Palestinians would never be free. No one wanted them before Israel existed and after it did, Israel got to be the target for their plight. Let alone the fact that most Palestinians have more to fear from their own government and other entities within their lands than from Israel.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"How do you "defend freedom" anyway?"
By weakening religion, all of which oppose "freedom" and consist of frameworks for imposing restrictions.
"Freedoms" CONFLICT with each other, so choice is required.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It must be nice having an ideology that is so clear cut. Blaming Israel for everything certainly seems like an easy way of rationalizing what happens in Gaza/the West Bank. But you are the one, after all, who suggested we pretend that we "come from another planet" earlier in this thread, and yet you blame Israel even for actions that are very obviously the choices of Hamas. Israel has nothing to do with Hamas's oppression of their own people.
You can criticize Israel for its blockade, for its demolition of houses, for its wall, and for a whole host of other abuses it has indeed committed, and should be ashamed of. But when it comes to Hamas oppressing people for trying to speak out freely and practice (or not practice) Islam in the way they wish, Israel has absolutely no say in this, and their occupation is entirely tangential to the issue at hand in this article.
Smiths, you are the one who needs to step back and realize that you have become entrenched by an ideology.
You've fallen into the same classic trap as a lot of conservative thinkers. Tyranny and freedom are opposites. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny. Therefore, they are not free in any meaningful sense of the word.
More importantly, such tyranny is unsustainable. In a few hundred years, when the Catholic, Jewish, or Buddhist minority population explodes (and this is a likely scenario---minorities tend to have lower income, and people with lower income often produce more offspring), at some magic point, the Muslims will be in the minority. You can safely assume that at this point, the oppressed will turn on their oppressors and pass laws that oppress them in turn. Eventually, equilibrium will be achieved, but can the human race really be expected to have the patience to wait that long while people commit heinous acts of murder in the name of God?
See, here's the thing. As far as I'm concerned, if you're killing someone for God, you're not reading your scripture correctly. Those rules were not written by God. They were written by man in a time that rightfully should be left in the past. Ask yourself this: if Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, how can they ignore his teachings so willingly? The good Samaritan, for example, preaches religious tolerance; the man Jesus chose to uphold as an example of how to live was of a people that his apostles would despise, in part due to religious differences, and who would have despised the man he helped because of similar differences.
There are many, many more examples of this---so much so that anyone who requires death over differing religious beliefs has blinders on, focusing on a tiny section of their religious text to the exclusion of the majority of it. In short, those who would kill in God's name, by doing so, blaspheme it, and should, by their same standards, be put to death. There's some irony for you.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Well then, the next time your neighbor decides to send his kid into their country strapped with high explosives, maybe you and the rest of your neighborhood should do something about it.
You keep jabbing the bees nest, then crying when you get stung. People have just stopped caring.
It really is as simple as that.
I named religion specifically because 'freedom of religion' is one of those princibles that western cultures tend to respect. It's even in the US bill of rights.
"As far as I'm concerned, if you're killing someone for God, you're not reading your scripture correctly." So what gives you the right or authority to tell them how to read their scripture? :>
FUCK YOU. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
SERIOUSLY DUDE, FUCK YOU!
Hint 1: WHO THE FUCK IS ISRAEL?
Hint 2: Look up the dictionary for SOVEREIGNITY
Hint 3: FUCK YOU.
This is a tech blog. This was a story about technology and abuse of freedom of speech. This guy is trying to change the discussion to push his agenda when Israel was in no way involved in this story. Observe his obvious ploy and ignore it.
Heresy is just nothing more than a type of slander. Something that will get you arrested in the UK too.
No, it's not! How can you slander an imaginary being? Also, isn't it up to the slandered entity to defend itself? Finally, where do you get live imprisonment or people seriously calling for the death penalty for slander? I conclude that you have no fuckin' clue what the hell you're talking about! Just talking out of your ass again, huh? And I don't see how the illegal and evil behaviour of Israel has anything to do with this! Finally, just because I called them "Western Values" does not mean that Western countries do necessarily adhere to them in everything they do. We all know they don't. It's just that humanistic values, freedom of speech etc. are often called "Western Values" in Western democracies. Maybe I should have chosen a less controversial term.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
Exactly the same right and authority that they have to tell me how to read mine, and more to the point, the exact same right and authority that they have to kill people who do not subscribe to their belief system. None, in other words.
I am merely expressing an opinion. They can have different opinions. It's when those opinions become manifest in real-world actions that they become good or evil, and killing those who merely express differences of opinion falls pretty clearly on the evil side of the line in any civilized society. Indeed, this is by definition what differentiates civilization from barbarianism.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In this case, it means the freedom to be oppressive and violate the freedom of others, in accordance with their religion.
Blasphemy as a crime is common in most religious societies. John William Gott was the last person in Britain to be imprisoned for heresy, in 1921. The last person to be executed for heresy in Britain was Thomas Aikenhead in 1697. Both had been critical of Christianity. The fact that Hamas are only going to imprison this man, rather than execute him, suggests that their law is only 90 years behind that of Britain.
I agree.. if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods) as hamas, hamas wouldn't exist..
And, consequently, freedom wouldn't exist. Hypervigilance, no matter what the methods, destroys freedom.
Freedom of religion is not exactly in the US constitution - all it says is that the US congress cannot pass a law establishing or restricting the "free exercise" of religion which is not the same as granting a right of freedom of religion. In the US case there is nothing in the constitution to prevent any private corporation refusing to hire anyone who is (or is not) of religion X - although I understand that you do have laws for that.
If it were that you were granted the right of "freedom of religion" then extra laws would not be required: all corporations and individuals would be also bound to respect it. The difference might be subtle but in the current climate of increasing corporate power it may turn out to be a very important one.
War is won by the most violent -- Clausewitz
Nah. This is simplistic thinking. For instance, take uber violent warrior A, and clever warrior B. If B tricks A into an uberviolent attack on the wrong target, making A expend his resources, B can win with relatively little violence. So war can easily be lost bu the most violent, especially if they're stupid or out of control.
If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state.
The separation of Church and state in the United States was a wonderful idea of the Founding Fathers, but it is not something that is common throughout the Western world. England has the Church of England, Finland has the Church of Finland, etc, and when it comes to the separation of politics and religion, there are many Christian political parties that wield power in government.
Given that we have not yet achieved a complete separation of Church and state in the West, I think it is somewhat unrealistic to think that Muslim countries are going to be so forward thinking.
No Hamas is not pure and good..but this story IMO is not the most important thing Americans should be aware of RE I/P.
In the US you will read endless stories about how bad hamas is, how crazy those muslims, but Americans will get very little of the reality of what I/P is about, a reality that the rest of world is well aware of.
I was in the WTC for both attacks. Afterwards I investigated why we were attacked. The terrorists said we were attacked because of support for Israel. The govt and media said we were attacked because they hate our freedom. That is a lie.
Our policy towards I/P hasent changed a lick since 9/11. Now after we kill all the "terrorists"...were up to what now? 150K? Eventually we will have to face reality and Americans will have to learn about I/P...this story frankly is, even if true, even if terrible a waste of peoples time considering what is going on over there.
We get upset over someone being arrested for blasphamy but the 60 year occupation, aparthied, that gets ignored by most Americans. Something is wrong here.
mondoweiss.net
There are cultures that do not deserve to be defended, but should be condemned for their frequent abuse of human rights, and thuggish, criminal behavior.
And just because we are not as bad as some countries, doesn't mean we get to be smug and righteous - lots of room for improvement here too.
Anarchists never rule
And this vigilance should start home with the laws our own governments pass, the policies they have in international trade, and starting preemptive wars.
Anarchists never rule
But they don't have freedom of religion. They have one, oppressive version of a religion imposed on everyone.
Anarchists never rule
Maybe the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing, lobbing rockets, kidnapping and general mayhem. Kind of hard to make peace with someone who is sworn to destroy you, and teaches hatred of Jews" to all its children. I don't agree with all the actions the Israelis take to defend themselves, but the Palestinians have avoided peace more than once (Camp David, etc...). The Israelis should stop building "settlements" in disputed lands.
Anarchists never rule
Modern warfare is won by the side with the largest industrial output, logistics, and technology that doesn't completely screw up on the battle field.
Anarchists never rule
I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.
Religion is a political subversion.
The Quran, in isolation, is not a religion. Same goes for the Sunnah, or the Bible, or other "primary sources." Human language is not a programming language, where one word corresponds to one action. No text of sufficient complexity can be understood in a uniform, objective, everyone-sees-the-same-thing way. Same goes double if the text is ancient, translated, or literary.
Instead, there are many interpreters--scholars, imams, clerics--who stand in the way and impose their own views, knowingly or unknowingly, on the original texts. Their own views create a new version of the text in their minds and the minds of those who listen to or read them. Simply by citing a certain passage and omitting a less compelling passage, they are creating a new narrative with its own strengths and foibles. Each narrative is built upon previous narratives (it is difficult to read one of these holy books in isolation without somehow being exposed to other believers, teachers, footnotes/annotations, or the media). Despite the differences (minute or extreme) between narratives, each narrative shares a lot in common with one another.
As opposed to an individual's narrative, the religion can be found in the complex web of relationships between books, theories, and people. Just like no one computer comprises the Internet, the entire network of relationships makes up the religion (and the Internet). And that complex web--the religion--is also a web of political relationships. Those politics are replete with broken promises, exaggerated fears, and insipid bullying--human problems from human politics. It's impossible to exonerate one's own narrative from the sticky web of human politics. You can't stand on the sidelines, because you're in it, no matter how badly you distance yourself from the ugly politics of it all.
Those fanatics you mention can't be so easily dismissed when they live in your web. Humanist Christians and liberal Muslims, take note: you need to own up to and speak out against your most destructive members. Especially when those members rule countries, lead political parties, and fund extreme acts of violence.
Liberties like being able to steal land (Americans were very pissed off at King George for wanting to treat the natives the same as everyone else), not have Roman Catholics in the government (Americans were very pissed off after Quebec joined the British Empire and the oath to the King was changed to allow Catholics in the government) and the liberty to undemocratically force the majority to go along with them.
You guys were just lucky that between independence and the writing of the constitution that a bunch of liberals were in power. There was a large push for your own King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Abuse of moderation to -1 a comment that you don't want others to read in an article on free speech? Interesting...
How about this one:
Image= The downtrodden Palestinians being occupied by the genocidal Israelis. Reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of an internationally recognized state while hiding behind the suffereing of their people who's leadership lives free in Syria.
Hamas is a the child of a war declared by The Arab States to eliminate the State of Israel (The State being created by the UN). They lost the war but still will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Their main goal is still to eliminate Israel. Check the Hamas Covenant articles 12 and 13. By article 13 they will not even negotiate a peace treaty.
I am not in complete agreement with everything Israel has done but what do you expect Israel to do when they are continually subjected to rocket attacks and suicide bombers? The Palestinians started it and the will not quit.
Btw, Fatah is at least trying to be reasonable.
and Muhammed is a big poopy-head.
I'd like my beatification to take place as soon as possible, thanks and ramen.
Would you like a slice of toast?
Old Testament God was pretty interesting. He's a very human (albeit mentally deranged) character who likes to play games with the mortals and isn't afraid to personally come down and kick some arse. The basic message was "I'll do whatever the hell I want, and maybe that includes fucking you up". The sequel became a bit too preachy, and they clearly cast a new actor to play the part of God, but there are still parts in which the old "fuck you all and your donkeys" attitude of God shines through.
By the way. I'd give it 2000 years just to be on the safe side.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Please justify your position as far as guerrilla warfare is concerned. I rest my case.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Well, there's the bitch of it. Based on our own western rules Hamas is a legitimate government because they were elected democratically. Now, that's not to say that I agree with them or their methods, but it certainly reveals a flaw in our own rhetoric. It's a dirty and nasty thing, but sometimes democracy is not compatible with our other stated goals of human rights and security. Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants; it does not give people neccesarily what they need, or what makes them good neighbors (or even human beings).
I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.
I did not see Israelis lining up Palestinian civilians against the wall and shooting them. Or sending shell after shell into most densely populated regions of Gaza with no provocation (i.e. being shot at first).
I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.
Civilians dying in a war is bad, but there is no war without such a thing. The real question is whether civilians are deliberately targeted or not.
Here is a link that describes who attacked who first
Assuming that you mean the recent Gaza conflict, "who attacked who first" depends solely on where you draw the line at its beginning. If you do it at the November 4th incident, then you are deliberately ignoring the entire year of massive rocket strikes by Hamas that preceded it. Even during the claimed six-month ceasefire, there was still at least one such attack from Hamas side every month.
Wait, what? Who was defending anything?
sic transit gloria mundi
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security against the newly formed Palestinian government and it's citizenry.
I'm not GP, but clarified his statement a bit. Palestine can't keep Isreal from getting invaded by, let's say, France.. but show me where Israel is morally obligated to help form a government that can't keep it's people from attacking Israel.
And you, Smiths:
Here is article about kindly Israeli/Harvard professor calling for the restriction of pre-natel subsidizes (food) to prevent Palestenians from breeding too much.
Alright then, citation needed that any policies similar to this are actually being carried out. Your linked article doesn't say this is happening, just that an outrageous professor thinks it's worth trying. Fail troll is.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
So by that logic, America deserved another terrorist attack because they re-elected Bush?
For re-electing Bush, no.
For Bush then starting wars... no, America does not deserve a terrorist attack, defined as an attack deliberately targeted primarily at civilians. But if the people attacked were to retaliate, striking at military targets, and civilians would happen to die in those strikes due to collateral damage - yes, that would have been justified.
Till the 15th century, both Christianity and Islam tended to follow their violent teachings. The difference being the Western world had the Renaissance, and was able to initiate some sort of religious reform. Islam has had no such movement, the majority of Muslim rulers oppressed their non Muslim subjects or converted them on pain of death(in selective accordance with their holy book). Today, majority of Christians choose to ignore teachings such as these, and instead focus on the more humanitarian aspects of the New Testament.
The lunatic fringe in Islam - be it rabid clerics or terror groups - have the loudest voices, and continue to preach hatred towards non Muslims and plot attacks against them. The so called voice of moderate Islam remained silent when Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film criticizing Islam's treatment of women, yet complained loudly about a bunch of cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
Today, if a cult were to spring up that tried to enforce strict adherence to the Old Testament, with all its colorful punishments, it would be shunned as barbaric, but at no point could you deny that they were following the teachings of the Bible. Just that they chose to follow the most warped and perverted teachings among them.
The same is true about those who kill in the name of Islam. They are NOT misguided, but merely obeying their faith selectively (how one can follow contradicting instructions in the Koran/Bible is beyond me). So called 'moderate' Islam cannot be allowed to exist under the tenets of Islam, it's an all or nothing club that you can check out of but never leave (under penalty of death for apostasy).
So, to all self professed liberal and moderate Muslims - you may disagree with the mad mullahs and terrorists who share the religion with you, but they're the ones more faithful to it than you, warped as it may sound. Your own tolerance and respect for other beliefs is part of a value system that you have made for yourself (perhaps by obeying the peaceful chapters of the Koran), it is not to Islam's overall credit. Islam has nothing in it that recognizes the right of any other religious belief to exist.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Isn't it intresting that Hamas was supported by Israel as long Fatah was the stronger party?
Well, there's the bitch of it. Based on our own western rules Hamas is a legitimate government because they were elected democratically.
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants
Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
I didn't ask for a "complete" separation of church and state, I said they should start separating them. Having severe penalties (death, imprisonment) for blasphemy, apostacy, or atheism is not acceptable, and it effectively doesn't exist in Western nations anymore. And for all their ideological and moral faults, Christian parties in the West tend to be opposed to the death penalty, violence, and war.
I just stated an obvious fact: Israel is not going to accept anything less, and Israel has the power to impose this condition.
I think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is morally wrong and politically not justifiable. But frankly, responses like yours, and actions like that reported in the article make me care less and less.
All true, but how is any of that relevant? I don't want my government to support regimes that imprison or kill people for their religious beliefs. And I don't buy that religious intolerance of the Palestinian government is a consequence of Israel's occupation, because the same religious intolerance exists in almost the entire Muslim world. If people want us to give our help and political support (beyond basic humanitarian aid), they need to play by our rules.
Man, I have to re-read this shat before I post it and check for grammatical errors....
oh well....I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure you're partly right. I may be a few degrees too idealistic. That happens when you know whats going on over there and you realize how little of that truth is being spoken about in America. But even if I go to far what I'm saying closer to the truth than the crap was first posted about this story.
Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'
Same as with the reaction to Hamas in this story.
To ignore the political things and lay it all at the feat of their culture and religion is a delusion.
That's why they're called protestants.
I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.
Yeah, so should you, instead of regurgitating European historical excuses.
the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.
The reality is that many of those were crimes committed by Europeans and that the US worked hard to fix them as quickly as politically possible, usually far ahead of other nations.
Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks
The deaths reported by Wikileaks are mostly civilian-on-civilian violence; they are not the responsibility of the US. Even if you attribute those deaths to the US invasion, they represent a big reduction over the mass murder that Saddam Hussein perpetrated on his people over the decade before, so Iraqis are still better off.
Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.
The US supports Israel for economic reasons, domestic political reasons, and strategic reasons. The fact that Israel tends not to chop off people's heads for speaking their mind is a nice bonus, but clearly not a criterion for who the US picks as friends (viz Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). The only question as far as US voters are concerned is whether we're getting our money's worth. I'm sorry you labored under the illusion that there was anything more to it.
Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty ..."
Americans were fighting for their own liberty--nothing more--and they achieved that. That's the only liberty I was speaking about.
The liberty of other nations is not, and has never been, of primary concern to American voters or politicians; it is merely a means to an end, namely that of US liberty, security, and prosperity. Often, democratizing other nations is expedient (e.g., Germany), but sometimes it is not (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Sorry if you were confused about this point, but many American voters are not, which is why they keep voting for politicians that put America's interests first.
You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.
I'm not "calling them" to do anything, and I'm not saying it's right; I was simply stating the way it is.
thats not nice or legal
No, but why is that my business? I'm just saying that if the Palestinian government wants more support from me, telling me that they would chop off my head if they get their hands on me is not a good way to start.
And such violence and intolerance is not an automatic consequence of oppression; Palestinians could be following the path of Gandhi, not the path of resistance and violence.
Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'
Far fewer Iraqis have killed each other in the decade after the US invasion than in the decade before. Furthermore, there objectively is a high level of religiously and ethnically motivated violence in Iraq. So, don't blame America for a problem that really has its origins in the arbitrary borders that the British drew, plus the lack of a democratic tradition in the region. Bad as things seem, Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein.
No need to be sarcastic over giving you a little education. Now, do we need to argue about secular Arab socialism/nationalism movement and secular roots of Fatah? Of course US is bent on destroying secular Arab governments like Iraq and Syria and supporting crazy Saudi dictators. So even traditionally secular Arab populations are getting islamized and their leaders increasingly have to take it into account.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA? by threaten I mean has a realistic chance of doing more damage than car accidents.
More seriously, while the guerrilla's can certainly be annoying, and very difficult to stamp out if you are the invading army and they have the support of the locals, they are NOT going to win a war.
Anarchists never rule
The Israel Defense Forces' chief rabbi told students in a pre-army yeshiva program last week that soldiers who "show mercy" toward the enemy in wartime will be "damned."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-chief-rabbi-troops-who-show-mercy-to-enemy-will-be-damned-1.4175
Well, Israel gets $ 3 billion a year, so it's just to seem impartial :)
If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.
You know, if you switch the words "Israel" and "Palestinians" around, the sentence makes exactly as much sense. And by that measure, the Israeli government should obviously step down, because they have shown that they can't guarantee Palestine's security.
A primary reason why the situation is like it is, is because the US holds a veto in the UN security council, and will always use it to quench any demands on Israel, no questions asked. They have a de-facto carte blanche which Palestine doesn't have. Even out the playing field and then make similar demands of both elected governments.
That's absurd. The Continental Congress never targeted British civilians in England for random killings to advanced their agenda, nor advocated a policy of ethnically cleansing England. Oh, and they didn't share a border. And England had no desire whatsoever to grant statehood to its colony, regardless how good the governance was. In fact, the parallels are extremely few.
No, it exists because Arafat picked the wrong side to support in the first gulf war, and his funding from the Saudis to buy the population's loyalty through schools, hospitals, and social services dried up. Geopolitical rule of thumb #1: Follow the money.
I make no demands at all; I just stated the facts as they are on the ground right now: Palestinians need to play by Israel's rules because Israel has the power.
But given that the Palestinian government apparently wants to kill people like me (atheists and people who disrespect Mohammed), why should I support that government? I disagree with what Israel is doing, but at least their government doesn't want to kill me. So why would I want to "even out the playing field"?
Numbers of Palestinian refugees according to UNRWA:
Jordan: 1,983,733
Lebanon: 425,640
Syria: 472,109
West Bank: 778,993
Gaza Strip: 1,106,195
"UNRWA in figures"
How come some of these are Arab (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)? How come they haven't permitted the Palestinian refugees within their borders to become integrated into their Arab national life? Is it possible that the "Palestinian Problem" is being maintained solely to further the Arab states' enmity with Israel?
"Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein."
groan. Have you read what the Iraqis say about us? Do you they think they're better off? No...honestly only an American could say this....and no the US has been responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Sadamm was ever accused of. Over 100K killed from our recent combat there...and during the previous 10 years due to our embargo its said that between 300K and 900K people died.
Can you fathom that? I can't. We've witnessed the trauma the US went through when 2500 people were killed here...imagine if more than > 500K of your fellow citizens were killed...lord knows what % that is....Imagine your cities bombed, your goverment deposed...decades of progress erased.
The world may keep truning, but for those who lived through this in Iraq...they will never be able to go back to their old lives nor move forward with the rest of the world..their lives are forfeit...an entire generation lost will be lost....
You really imagine the Iraqis saying...'oh yeah, we've lost everything, or homes, livelyhood, family...but thank g-d we have a new president.'
No, no, you have much to learn if you think you this was a war of liberation. They've been using that lie for 4K years and people still havent caught on. Its incredible really.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's as ridiculous as saying that Americans, when they elected Bush, knew full well what they were getting into -- the biggest, most spectacular terrorist attack on their homeland. I see what you did there.
I think this is a terrible outcome as it plays into the hands of a group of people on Facebook that are trying their best to demonize every Muslim, Palestinian and Arab.
...am here to say otherwise. Martin, you are a filthy rotten anti-semite who will regret every word you have uttered for their is G-D!
Let me give you some direct quotes from the Facebook conversations...
<<<
Loving Zion -- "Palestine" represents a hell to Israel. The Devil himself conceived a plan in the heart of the seed of Esau and Ishmael to be contrary to G-D's holy plan for Jacob's seed!
Ramona Antiisrahell Lambardo -- G-d said thou shalt not kill but Chairman Heilbrun of the Committe for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983 said, 'We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves' .
Jsh Zion -- Right now Zionism feels the heat of hell at it's borders and even in it's midst in Gaza, Samaria, Judea, and from all those here that spew rage and filth from the depths of their beings. You see you all live with a delusion that you can say whatever you want and that there is no such thing as hell when you die, but I
Darcy Abernathy -- true the only way to truely be holy and righteous in islam is to blow your own ass up and take innocents with you...fucked up people.
<<<
Be aware of how many Palestinians have been dispossess and forced out of Israel. Particularly intellectuals. Be aware that Israel initially financed HAMAS as a way to destabilize Palestinian politics.
This will most definitely be a story that is used to further disempower Palestinians and claim Israel is an angel. Israel is NO angel, Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing and will use anything they can grab to justify that.
Have you read what the Iraqis say about us? ... You really imagine the Iraqis saying...'
I don't need to imagine, I have talked to a number of them. Have you?
Over 100K killed from our recent combat there
That's completely wrong. The overwhelming deaths in the Iraq Body Count are civilian-on-civilian violence.
Can you fathom that? ... their lives are forfeit...an entire generation lost will be lost....
Yes, I can fathom that, because my parents and relatives lived through much worse in WWII, millions killed in their countries, their lives on hold for a decade, and almost everything destroyed. Their generation wasn't "lost" at all, they got educations, rolled up their sleeves, and had good, productive lives. And they certainly thought getting rid of the fascists was worth it.
No...honestly only an American could say this...
Honestly, you seem totally naive to me.
Is that the kind of bullshit and propaganda they still teach in British schools? You really are just demonstrating your ignorance.
I have no idea what they teach in British schools. Myself, all I remember learning from the teachers about the American revolution was how many people had to leave their homes because they didn't agree.
Now life about that time taught me that Americans were the kind of people that took peoples freedoms away and that they didn't even recognize the most basic human rights if they weren't written in their constitution. I'm talking about the right to life, the right to do what ever you want with your body if you don't hurt anyone and even the right to belong to any political party.
One of the worst things I remember from childhood was the stories of the poor kids forced to have to undergo some schooling in the States revolving about the indoctrination they had to endure. It sounded a lot like the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry but it is really hard to pay attention to someone that was fed so much propaganda that they honestly believe the bullshit they were fed about being the best. You"re just another person.
In any case, what you wrote is totally irrelevant. It is simply a fact that Palestinians need to comply with the conditions that Israel and the West sets for them, while it is a fact that Americans were strong enough not to give a f*ck about what the British thought (or think, for that matter).
Actually it was that the British were preoccupied with some major wars and America just wasn't that important to waste the resources on. And of course Americas true colours were shown when they supported the French monarchy during the French revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Myself, all I remember learning from the teachers about the American revolution was how many people had to leave their homes because they didn't agree.
Nothing wrong with that: they chose not to become citizens and not to swear allegiance to the US. The same happens to you anywhere else.
I'm sorry but it is really hard to pay attention to someone that was fed so much propaganda that they honestly believe the bullshit they were fed about being the best.
I understand where you're coming from very well, since most of my schooling was outside the US as well. At some point, however, I started reading up on my own, whereas you just keep repeating the bullshit you were indoctrinated with.
Americas true colours were shown when they supported the French monarchy during the French revolution.
I have no doubt that the US was grateful to King Louis XVI's for his support, but I can't think of any substantial support. What are you thinking of?
Sorry, You DumbFuck, But there were no original owners...No Human EVER evolved in the americas
The problem with religion is that it allows people to perform atrocities in the name of such religion , because religion cannot be questioned ( it's the word of the , so you must follow it without thinking about it ).
Religions are a means of imposing power . Always have been , always will be.
So the religion is not being 'subverted' . It's just serving it's intended purpose.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca
Slipping shoelaces ?
all religion eventually leads.every. single. time.
People in power shoving their shit down your throat. Every time. And because they believe they are doing the work for someone who can't be found, communicated with, they can say whatever they like in the dame of their craptacular diety.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
yes they can. and THAT'S the problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They have one, oppressive version of a religion imposed on everyone.
No they don't ; they have multiple, mutually-contradictory and self-contradictory versions of religion, which most adherents try to impose on others regardless of those other's opinions on the matter, and back it up with violence up to and including the use of multiply, indiscriminately lethal force.
The "they" you refer to are obviously "people who follow any religion", as distinguished from "people who do not follow any religion". Once seen from that perspective, the murderously schismatic conflicts between (for example) the three forms of Abrahamic monotheism (the Judaisms, the Christianities, and the Islams) pass out of the realm of comedy and into farce. They're all a dangerous bunch of idiots, not worth further distinguishing.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
"Apparently"? Forget your bias and look at the track record.
How many civilians have the Palestinians killed?
How many civilians have the Israelis killed?
Then, just to be extra sure, repeat the question, but subtract civilians of neighboring countries.
Judging by the numbers, I seem to run an infinitely higher risk of being killed my Mossad than Hamas.
Tyranny of the majority is not tyranny , it's democracy.
The reason is in the meaning of the word of 'majority' , which are a lot of people
A lot of people , with lots of different ideas , and who are each in a sense part of some minority.
The opposite of this is tyranny of the minority , which are a lot less people , and as such , much less likely to cover the ideas of the whole society.
Democracy is not perfect , but it's a lot better than tyranny of the minority.
Offcourse , you could also make decisions simply based on what's best solution for everyone . But society is not ready for that.
Slipping shoelaces ?
If you state it, you're agreeing with it.
I just wish the US entered a serious recession, one where they have to actually cut their spending on stupid things, like protecting Israel. Let's see how much Israel lasts doing Krav Maga only.
Anything interesting you might wish to mention?
My points will still stand for Fatah. As far as I know, an English translation of Fatah's constitution is here: http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598&a=97061
Excerpts:
Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism.
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
"Apparently"? Forget your bias and look at the track record.
The "track record" is spelled out in this news report: the Palestinian authority has the death penalty on atheism and blasphemy.
Judging by the numbers, I seem to run an infinitely higher risk of being killed my Mossad than Hamas.
And for me, it's different. I don't know of any reason the Mossad want to kill me. But obviously (read the article), the Palestinian authorities do have a policy of killing people like me. Why should I support any government that wants to kill me?
We should fork KoobFace and change it to seek out Islamic FaceBook users, infect their computers and send out blasphemous content of a supremely offensive nature. We could have it alert the Sharia secret police in each of the Islamofacist states, making it look like random complaints from citizens.
Maybe they will execute each other...
If you state it, you're agreeing with it.
I couldn't care less about what conditions Israel imposes. But I think my own government should impose the condition that any Palestinian government respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion before we support a peace settlement involving them.
I just wish the US entered a serious recession, one where they have to actually cut their spending on stupid things, like protecting Israel. Let's see how much Israel lasts doing Krav Maga only.
I'm all for cutting US aid and arms sales to the ME, including Israel. But if you think that's going to weaken Israel significantly, you haven't looked at the military budgets. (Actually a lot of Israel's military, trade, and support comes from Europe.)
The occupation started when they attacked Israel. Israel has repeatedly asked for a treaty or something else written explicitly stating that they will not invade/attack. The "opposition" (which changes depending on who you ask) refuses to sign anything that wouldn't let them indiscriminately kill Israelis.
They are at war. That is occupied territory in a war zone. That there is a long cease fire in place doesn't change the fact that it is a war and has been for 60 years. The 6-day war should be renamed the 6-decade war.
Once you accept it is an active war zone where the "losers" have been offered terms for a treaty many times and rejected all of them, usually (always?) without a counter offer at all other than absurd things like demanding that the winner of the war give an unconditional surrender, then it doesn't look like Israel is the unreasonable group. "Quit giving them help so that we can wipe the evil Jews off the face of the planet" is not a reasonable demand, nor something we should consider when trying to work towards peace. And your implication that funding people who just want to live without being killed by people sworn to kill them is a bad thing, I object. And it's not like we don't fund Saudi, Egyptian, or Jordanian interests as well.
Learn to love Alaska
Ah, pretty typical: instead of answering my question--"Why should I support any government that wants to kill me?"-- you just make me your foe. No wonder that the case of Palestinians is so hopeless.
"And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA?"
Completely off topic and irrelevant, we were making general statements, not specific statements about the US.
"they are NOT going to win a war. "
Historically, guerrillas have won every war they have fought in (except Burma vs. the British in the 1950's) or at least resulted in a stalemate, like modern day Colombia (FARC controls vast regions of the Colombian interior), Iraq or Afghanistan. Not bad for small bands of dedicated people with no industrial base whatsoever. They win because they are brutal and merciless. The civilian population hides them and aids them because they know and fear the consequences. Eventually no one is left who wants to join the "regular" army. Or in the case of foreign invaders, they simply run out of money or political interest, pack up and go home.
You don't win wars by being nice. You don't win by playing fair. You win by being a bigger murderer than the other guy, by always putting him in a worse position tomorrow than he is today, until he capitulates completely. Unfortunately the "West" have this fantastic notion about "clean" warfare or "a gentleman's war". When you have both sides playing that game, you get World War I at best. However the other side doesn't have to play.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Marc,
You have a lot to learn. In the late 1800s Palestine was a colony for Zionists Europeans. After WWI a rich Zionist (Baron Rothchild) had the British who controlled the area after the Ottoman empire collapsed to promise to make a state for the zionists in Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
For decades afterwards most intellegent people Ghandi, Einstein, Orwell, the US state department realize that unilaterally creating a state against the wishes the of the indigenous people was fool hardy. The early Zionists were persistent and carried out terrorists attacks against the British until they left...as it was after WWII and the Holocaust had created many Jewish Refugees the UN decided to partition the land giving 20% of the population 60% of the land. Truman, the US president recognized the new state against the advice of the state department. Before the neighboring Arab countries even could react the Zionists destroyed arab villages and drove the people out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_War
“We drove them out because of the Zionist ideology. Pure and simple. We came to inherit the land. Who do you inherit it from? If the land is empty, you don’t inherit it from anyone. The land wasn’t empty so we inherited it by driving them out"
After 1948 war came the 1956 war where Israel conspired with England and France to attack Egypt who had nationalized the Suez canal. Real Heoric. Ike and the Russians made them stop that. Soon after the Lavon affair happened...this was when Israel committed a series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and blamed them muslims...its true! haha.
Then came the 1967..guess who started that? Oh yeah it was a 'pre-emptive war' started by Israel. Right after the war they claimed all of Jerusalem as their capital, even though its against IL to keep territory won in war...but whatever...the Arabs did strike back..the one war they started in 1973...they lost..after that they offered full peace if Israel returned to 1967 borders...that offer has been made numerous times since...but its always refused by israel... preferring the lets negotiate for this pizza while I continue to keep eating it tactic. Now there are 500K Israelis living outside the pre 1967 border in settlements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative
Due to Israels unprovoked wars on Lebanon and Gaza and more open move to the right wing, things are changing. Outside the US, reality is talked about...there are active boycotts, musicians refuse to perform there...Turkey once a close ally of the US is refusing some military cooperation due to the US bias for Israel. The world is changing..Israel will not forever be able to count on a US willing to go to war its enemies...eventually there will be one state there again, and all people will have equal rights. How can anyone be against that.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/oct/23/israel-the-alternative/
"How come they haven't permitted the Palestinian refugees within their borders to become integrated into their Arab national life?"
Because international law calls for refugees to have right to return to their homes after a war. Why should the Palestinians give up this right? The Israelis want them to sacrifice that right because they want their 'democratic' country to have a Jewish majority. Good people should support the Palestinians to not give up their rights for something that is in fact not democratic, but racist.
Maintaining a "Right of Return" does not require that the current host nations refuse to allow their Palestinian guests the rights of citizenship. Hell, for the most part they don't even allow them to work and earn a living. The Palestinian refugees are kept subjugated by their Arab hosts solely to fan the flames of anti-Israel sentiment among them and among the Arab populations.
That is the old discussion about who started the violence and who should start with the stopping.
The social sciences have come a bit since the "an eye for an eye" days. Today we know how conflicts escalate, how self-sustaining patterns emerge, and - in part - how to resolve conflicts. One thing we know is that it is completely irrelevant who started and that the whole thing is a mesh of causality, not a singular cause-and-effect event. To every "if only you didn't, then..." the other side can always answer with a likewise "well, we only do that because you..."
Peace begins when both sides are so sick of the fighting that they find that having peace is more important to them than being right.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
Says who?
That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.
You can do that, don't get me wrong. In fact, I personally would strongly support it - democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. But you have to be straight on your philosophy. Either the people rule, then their vote, no matter how much you may dislike it, is "right". Or there is a framework given from outside/above and the votes only allow options within that framework, in which case the people are not souvereign.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Typical mistake of personalisation.
The argument "waste their time" holds for an individual, or a small group. It doesn't hold for a government. It's a mistake often made, but a mistake nonetheless. You assume that the time and effort spent on this would otherwise be available for other tasks. If you look into the actual operative details, you will usually find out that it isn't. In this case, the religious police very likely would not make good tax collectors or even regular policemen.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.
Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.
Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces. You can vote for a law to increase the grain harvest five-fold, but that won't feed you. You can vote to kill all the atheists or Jews, or to take over parts of Poland, but that doesn't mean other nations have to tolerate your choice.
So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.
As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights. In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.
One rather larger "western culture" is "defending" its "freedom" by waging two occupation wars on the opposite side of the planet.
And that's just like... you know... at the moment and not accounting for all those other wars in the last couple of centuries nor setting up all those dictatorships and such.
Two wars of occupation? You don't know much of the history of these "wars" if you think they are anything about occupation.
Afghanistan: the US was invited into the country to try to take down the Al Queda network
Iraq: Disposed a dictator/genocidist, then instituted general elections and worked to teach the country how to be stable with a democracy. We are still there trying to train their military and police to help prevent the insurgents from simply taking over.
Last I checked, there are no occupations here, if you can show signs of occupation, I will be sure to view them
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.
Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset. Right now, for example, we exclude people under a certain age (18 mostly) with pretty much the same sense of that being perfectly ok than our ancestors had for not allowing, say, women to vote.
Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.
A constitution is not an eternal document set in stone. It can and should adapt to changing circumstances. The rules themselves are subject to change, including the rules on how to change the rules. Personally, I think nobody should be allowed into politics who hasn't played some Nomic.
And again, you are putting yourself above the people if you judge what their government is or "automatically becomes". That last part is especially nonsensical. "Democracy" and "Anarchy" are simply words. That's what we call it, but that's not what it is. The beauty is that different people can call the same thing by different things. So what you call Anarchy is someone else's Democracy. Who is to judge who of you two is right?
Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces.
Absolutely. But we weren't discussing the vote to make pi equal 3.0 or any such nonsense. We agree entirely that reality and the laws of physics are not democractic.
So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.
Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic. "Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing. And vice versa. So the question is one of applicability. Since there is no singular, universal definition of "Democracy", you have a grey area where some would say the label still applies, while others say it doesn't. Which means that in real life, it is highly unlikely that a single vote would turn a democracy into something else. Heck, we even have historic examples. The Weimar Republic did not turn into the 3rd Reich over night. It was a quick change, but it still took several years and there is no singular point where everything changed, because all the steps are interconnected.
As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights.
Where can I read a list of those "rights"? That's the point I'm making here. Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:
In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.
That your higher authority is this. Which is ok with me as long as you are clear that it means no people are really autonomous, because they are all subject to this higher authority (or explain why some are, and some aren't).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As long as I'm well compensated for my losses, I wouldn't care if they take over the entire country, so long as they actually do a much better job of running the country than the present government.
For example, if Singapore took over my country (Malaysia), I actually wouldn't mind. It's unlikely that they'd do worse than the current government.
"Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing.
It's you who is changing the label.
Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic.
In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.
Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:
You're applying logic yourself, only that yours is broken. You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition. Furthermore, your usage simply is inconsistent with actual usage of the term.
Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset.
You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.
It's you who is changing the label.
*surprised look*
Aren't you the one who is claiming that if certain things happen, something "automatically" becomes something else?
In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.
That isn't logic, it is semantic. So we agree, except on terms. Logic does not rest on common understanding. The logic behind the excluded third, or mathematical results is not subject to context and interpretation. "1+1 = 2" is not a matter of culture. But our understanding of Democracy is. You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context. For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?
You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition.
Where do you take those "intrinsic limits" from, if not from a higher authority? Please tell.
You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.
I think I aim. You claim that if we restrict who can vote, we are not living in a democracy. I am pointing out that we are restricting who can vote. Now make up your mind, because one of your two assumptions has to go: Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context.
Indeed, and that's exactly what you're trying to do. Many different, incompatible ways of people governing themselves can be democracies. What matters is that decisions are made by the people, but they don't necessarily need to be made by majority vote. All actual democracies, for example, are representative democracies, and they routinely make decisions opposed by the majority of the voters.
For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?
You misread what I was saying. I put "the people" in quotes because it refers to the group of persons that have a constitutionally defined right to vote. Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision. It usually requires considerably more than a majority of the people, and constitutional decisions are not guaranteed to be democratic.
Sometimes the legislature makes laws that deprive voters of their rights. Such decisions are in violation of the Constitution; as long as the legal and executive branches rectify such problems, our democracy endures. If they are allowed to stand in violation of the Constitution, we basically have anarchy.
(It's debatable whether voting rights for blacks and women were a change to our democracy or were already required by the original US Constitution, but the question is academic at this point.)
Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.
We live in a democracy and we have restrictions. Such restrictions derive from the ground rules --constitutions--that nations give themselves when they form. Such ground rules are needed for societies to function. There are many forms that those ground rules can take for a society to be democratic, but if you don't have any, you have an anarchy; not even voting is possible without ground rules for how to vote. Prior to having ground rules, such societies are anarchies, and once they start violating their constitutions on a grand scale, they are anarchies again.
Democracy can be both because your definition of democracy is wrong: you define democracy as "anything the people vote for goes" with no other considerations, but that's not what it is. It can't be because no society could function that way.
Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision.
The difference being what, aside from words? This is the Nomic part - if you have a need for the rules to change, then you have to have rules that define how rules can be changed - including the rules on rulechanges. There is no magic barrier there between democractic and constitutional. Some rules can have a higher protection level, say requiring a 2/3 majority to change (and, of course, your rule to change rules needs to be in that set). But that is still a part of the system, not outside of it.
It is quite a gradual system, with few sudden changes.
Example: We have representative democracies. Imagine we extended the length of office. From 4 to 5 years. Then to 6. 10. 15. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. and then, just to be practical, life. Then we add inheritance. At which precise point are we leaving the democracy, or violating the constitution, or whatever you want to call it?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.
That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.
So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.
That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.
The two statements are not exclusive.
A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it. A later 2/3rd majority may decide to do away with the minority restriction, completely democratic and following the constitution that (in this case) says it needs a 2/3rd majority to change it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:
Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants
Also, your understanding of constitutional change is wrong:
A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it.
If we take the original US Constitution, it wasn't approved by a majority of the people, it was approved by representatives. Furthermore, amendments to the Constitution are also decided on by representatives and not majorities of the people.
Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.
Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:
For the main decisions, that holds true. In fact, we can easily trace cases where a minority gets the majority say, due to the ways the voting systems work.
Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.
In theory. In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution? And yet it could be turned into the 3rd Reich. There was no coup or overthrow of the government.
And again, if the people in those branches are elected, then what is stopping a majority from electing people who will let it happen, constitutional or not? And then passing a law retroactively declaring their actions as legal? Not as if that had ever happened...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
For the main decisions, that holds true.
No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.
In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution?
And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision. The West didn't have to respect the democratic decision of Germans to hand over power to a genocidal maniac, and neither does it have to respect majority decisions in Muslim nations supporting religious intolerance. The contradiction you postulated doesn't exist.
No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.
Who are elected according to majority rules and are themselves voting by majority rules.
And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision.
Which is not contrary to my claim at all. You are continuously evading my question to point out your higher authority. Because, frankly, there is none. You yourself (plural "you") declares itself as a higher authority whenever you think something can't be right. It's like the christians who pick and choose from their bible, quoting one nice and wise sentence as divine inspiration and ignoring another sentence on the same page that talks about murdering homosexuals or whatever.
Here's how it works: Germany 192x votes on laws A, B and C and the american press is all happy. Then it votes on laws D, E and F with the same rules, and the american press calls it evil, unconstitutional, undemocratic, whatever. Not to single out the US, the same works the other way around, too. Most of Europe thinks your war on Iraq is in breach of international law, american law and pretty much everything else, while we applaud Obamas election.
The point is that humans have this tendency to judge. And extreme psychological difficulties accepting someone elses decisions as equally valid. If you need evidence, one word: Gossip. You know, that process where the same people who trust the CEO to lead the company discuss and usually diss his every decision in the pantry?
I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. But we humans have a tendency to feel superior, to think the world revolves around us. We live in an first-person-perspective world, and it shows. But let's call it for what it is, instead of this tiresome appeal to invented higher authorities. Be it gods or moral standards, that's all stuff we make up to justify our judging of others.
I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think at this point you just keep modifying your definition of "democracy" to suit whatever argument you are making at the time. Clearly define what you mean by democracy, then we can continue this discussion.
How about we go back to the original point:
Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.
The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?
and my initial reply
That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.
This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.
Well, you'd think that because evidently you lack a definition of democracy and are unwilling to use the definition that political science and philosophy actually uses.
Fact is that there are accepted requirements for a democracy; decision by majority vote isn't one of them, but protection of basic human rights and free and fair elections are a couple of them (among others).
The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?
I'm not making any rules, I'm saying your logic is flawed: our rules do not require us to do this. Who are you to impose such a requirement?
This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?
Right and wrong, I can't answer. But for something to be a democratic decision, it has to be reached under democratic principles and conditions: free and fair elections, free political speech, and a guarantee of basic human rights, among other things. Majority vote is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Right and wrong, I can't answer. But for something to be a democratic decision, it has to be reached under democratic principles and conditions: free and fair elections, free political speech, and a guarantee of basic human rights, among other things. Majority vote is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere.
I'll accept that point. We can use that definition as well as any other.
My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?
It's not "rules" it's definitions. The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority. The definition I use for democracy happens to be fairly widely used. Islamic scholars and military dictators have different ideas, but, frankly, I don't care any neither does anybody else who matters to me.
Second, what you call it doesn't matter anyway. The US has a strong military, and it's going to use that to protect its citizens, its allies, and people it considers innocent and threatened, in that order of priority. The US does not have any qualms eliminating a foreign government that threatens it even if that government was democratically elected. The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.
FWIW, such US foreign actions are consistent with domestic actions: the US federal government intervenes when local and state decisions are inconsistent with Constitutional principles or threaten the national peace.
The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority.
No problem there. So it's your definition, and you act according to it. Makes sense.
The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.
Actually, I do like it. Now we're finally at the point where we've overcome all this high-moral-ground bullshit and come to the point: Might is right. You act according to your definition, including killing other people for it, simply because you can, with the intent of having them change their ways.
Yes?
How are you different from the terrorists, then?
I think the honest answer is: "We have more guns." or any variation of that. I'm confident that any argument that tries to make this a "good vs. evil" or a "we're better" or some moral affair can be ripped apart.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
How are you different from the terrorists, then?
For a German of all people, your statements are shameful and display a complete lack of historical awareness and understanding. You're a disgrace to your nation.