South Park incurs the wrath of Mohammed

[silver]

@CaptainHaplo:
Basically you are right though a little bit extreme IMHO.
It's not entirely their fault.

Some blame should be apportioned to the politicians: (who else make laws?)
They haven't made it clear to these people that the country or place they wish
to live from now on is totally different than theirs and even worse,
it hasn't been founded and built having them in mind.
Occasionally they may find one or more (or all) things offensive, insulting etc.
they are 100% right but there is nothing that can be done about it.
Also what works and is OK in Greece, Greenland and England may not work elsewhere,
(countries and places are completely random, there is nothing wrong or negative
or special with them, just an example) and should they find the situation intolerable
then they should consider Sweeden and Sudan instead. (again, random)

A reply like: 'this is pretty obvious' is only marginally true, if at all.

That would be a fair deal (IMHO) to these people and prevent some of the problems that
emerge too frequently these days. South Park is one of these problems for now, next
month it will be something else.

Perhaps their actions make sense: they have the critical mass and they can influence politicians
and as a result they can get some (or a lot of) concessions, amendments etc. to their benefit.
Who wouldn't want to be re-elected?

[CaptainHaplo]

I think we are in agreement Silver. I admit I tend to come across a little on the forceful side. Its their choice to be offended - and they have the right. Its a matter of what they do with that feeling that matters. After all, blowing people up is kinda offensive to the rest of us, and I am sure the people that experience it don't care much for it.

As for politicians being responsible, I think its society as a whole really. After all, society is the one that has made political correctness into a science, as well as society is the one to blame for continuing to elect the morons.

By the way - welcome aboard!

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

So torture is ok for non-Americans, well then by that logic non-Americans can torture Americans. Ok then.

One, the GC is intentionally vague about what constitutes torture. US law is far more specific, and is still vague—giving someone a single BEER then questioning them is torture in US law (mind altering substance).

Regardless, if you want to come torture me, you're welcome to invade the US. I won't hold my breath.

Actually your freedom of speech and freedom of press are very limited indeed especially by western standards.

Freedom of the press in the US is pretty absolute. Rights are not granted by the State—if your rights are more explicit, it is because as a SUBJECT, you only have the rights given you by your masters. Or press freedom is NEGATIVE with respect to the government:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress can make no law even curtailing press freedom a little.

Foreigners? You're the foreigners.

Btw, you claimed in another post to be a priest? Or to have been a priest? Usually religious folks kind of hold together against the common enemy of non-religiousness. I guess you're the exception to that, a muslim-hating priest.

What? I'm an atheist. When religion comes up I say that here in virtually every thread. Actually, much of the time Hitchen's term anti-theist is more apropos. I never said any such thing. I have no dog in the religion fight. I disagree with all of them, and "hate" them only in proportion to their repressive reality. Islam is without question the worst major religion on earth in terms of repression. Women are property, and they've developed not one society on earth worth living in—whereas western, pluralistic democracy came about from within a Christian setting—even if in spite of it, nothing like that has managed to happen in spite of Islam.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Oh that's ok then to attack the federal government but not because of a religious motive which McVeigh 100% didn't have. What he did he did for the right reasons. I get it now.

Also his collaborators weren't tortured in order to obtain information that they refused to tell and have never told.

All I have to say to this is .... what the hell?

I grow so tired of folks bringing up McVeigh as if somehow its relevant.

[msxyz]

Originally Posted by tater

Islam means "peace."

It literally means "submission"

Everybody is entitled to believe in what he wants as long as he does not force me to embrace his belief. Too bad Islam explicity says otherwise, starting from the name itself down to the content of its sacred book.

Sometimes I look back at our histhory and wonder how men could turn even a peacful religion like Christianity into the blind, fanatical cult it was till the end of the 18th century. And then I realize it was all lust for power.

Same case here, different religion. Excpet that most of those who practice Islam still live in a intellectual "middle age", so no wonder their mindset is so different from ours and can be exploited by clever individuals.

Unfortunately, there's little that can be done. Big social changes must happens from within. Everything we will do, good or bad, will only radicalize their beliefs. Until theb, it's better not to let Islam spread to those countries which already broke free of religion because it will only damage our tenue social tissue based on human rights and respect for everyone. We're facing a culture that is not playing by our own rules.

[tater]

Originally Posted by msxyz

It literally means "submission"

Yeah, I said that later (and also put the laughing smiley the first time ).

Originally Posted by SteamWake

All I have to say to this is .... what the hell?

I grow so tired of folks bringing up McVeigh as if somehow its relevant.

Terry Nichols had the info about everyone who was involved in the bombing but never gave up that info. Soo...why not a little torture to make him squel?

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Terry Nichols had the info about everyone who was involved in the bombing but never gave up that info. Soo...why not a little torture to make him squel?

We don't torture. I'd argue that waterboarding is—while very close to the edge—within the gray zone of the GC. At the time the GC was signed it required reciprocity, AND virtually every signer at the time beat up suspects routinely (the police). The very first POW captured by the US in ww2 was interrogated with a loaded .45 pointed at his head, and with the naval base still burning, the likelihood of him getting shot was actually pretty good.

WRT McVeigh and Nichols, again, they are/were US CITIZENS. As a result, anything past simple questioning would be illegal. Heck, they were Mirandized.

So again, a US citizen has constitutional rights, regardless of what crap he did. Some Afghani, Egyptian, whatever? No rights past what the GC grants them—and IMHO it should be entirely reciprocal, meaning that if their country did not sign the GC, and they did not observe the GC, they deserve no protection from it at all. The US certainly behaved this way in WW2. The Japs neither signed, nor observed the GC. As a result, we summarily executed them, we gunned them down in life boats, we burned their cities to the ground.