Posté le Jeudi 28 septembre 2006 par Sittingbull
What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.
Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?
However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.
This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”
A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.
Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.
None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.
The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.
This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.
Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.
Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.
Laisser un commentaire
69 réponses à “Robert Redeker: English translation”
21 avr 08 à 12:05
Il y a 30 ans, je regardais “Exodus”, emerveillé, j’apprenais par coeur Hava Naguilla.. les temps on changés, Einstein et moi regrettons le sionisme qui est le pire des fascismes..
Voilà.
14 nov 06 à 16:41
[…] W przedwczorajszym “The Timesie” (dotarłem po zajawce z “Rzeczpospolitej”) znaleźć można mocny kawałek poświęcony pewnemu francuskiemu filozofowi o niespotykanej wśród galijskich intelektualistów skłonności do pisania prawdy. Myśliciel ów, Robert Redeker ośmielił się napisać artykuł, w którym nazwał Koran księgą pełną przemocy oraz stwierdził, iż islam pochwala przemoc i nienawiść. […]
Merci : pas besoin de plombier en ce moment.
25 oct 06 à 04:02
Hi Cataloun,
You seem to have lost your voice? Don’t worry you will get well soon in fact as soon as you are talking to people who agree with you. It is sad that a seemingly intelligent and educated person is taking refuge in such a childish way.
24 oct 06 à 16:48
A mon avis il perd ses boulons le Sheikh Blanc. Il explique à Ataulfo ce qu’Ataulfo pense maintenant. Et en gras encore. En pleine Palladiotie aigûe.
Ooops sorry, Sittingbull, couldn’t help it. Won’t happen again.
24 oct 06 à 15:05
Hi Ataulfo,
“I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed.”
Let us be clear about what you are saying here.
You believe that although the professor’s views are repugnant you still accept his right to freedom of speech.
You also believe that Danish cartoons are OK. You are not ready to condemn the cartoons and the vilification of Islam and its prophet by the pope as even repugnant.
The above shows that you believe in absolute freedom of speech.
You condemn attack on the professor by individuals but it appears that you have nothing to say about the punishment given to him by the courts of law.
Am I right?
“I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”
Here you are against the legislation of truth and falseness but then you accept the “benefit” from the legislation of truth and falseness!
Here you are for and against freedom of speech!
24 oct 06 à 08:21
“You cannot be against a law and in favour of it also. What you are saying is that if someone’s view are pleasant and according to your or a group of people’s taste or likes to which you belong or whom you favour then they fall within the realm of free speech otherwise everything else is outside the realm of free speech”
Sheikh, if you are unable to understand plain English sentences, please tell us so we don’t waste our time.
I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed.
24 oct 06 à 07:18
“Crystal clear contradiction. What is the difference between falsness and spreading of lies?”
1) these views are false and repugnant
2) lies and repugnant views are not and should not be forbidden.
No contradiction whatsoever. Comprende?
24 oct 06 à 04:39
“This doesn’t mean that we have to continue the dialogue with someone who shares Mr. Faurisson’s mendacious, repugnant views.”
I have read some of Faurisson’s arguments some of which I found ridiculous. I don’t mean to promote what he or any other person says about the Holocaust. My purpose for this discussion’s sake is not to go into what someone says and whether he is telling the truth or not but to put you people to test on your claim and belief in freedom of speech. What I am trying to argue with you people is that you cannot eat your cake and still have it. Either you are for restrictions on freedom of speech or not. Personally I am for restrictions.
The thing to consider is whether it is true or not
“It is not. It’s a deliberate, disgusting lie.”
“Concerning the main point, you are trying to equate Muhammad’s drawings and revisionism. I am for total freedom of speech.”
“Again, I am against these laws. But lying to demean Jews and spread antisemitism is not the same thing as drawing Muhammad.”
“I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”
You cannot be against a law and in favour of it also. What you are saying is that if someone’s view are pleasant and according to your or a group of people’s taste or likes to which you belong or whom you favour then they fall within the realm of free speech otherwise everything else is outside the realm of free speech.
“While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legalised….. we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies,”
Crystal clear contradiction. What is the difference between falsness and spreading of lies?
Cataloun:
23 oct 06 à 15:51
It is sad that you are again resorting to personal and childish attacks.
“Mr. Seikh seems confused, as we have often seen here and elsewhere. Being for free speech does not mean we have to respect all manners of speech, especially the vile, repugnant venom spread by the likes of Faurisson and Irving.”
What is your view about the Pope’s recent venom spreading address at a German university?
1. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
By providing a link to a known Holocaust-denying site, M S Sheikh is wittingly, or unwittingly putting this blog under a possible danger of criminal charge in many states.
I personnally have no time to waste arguing with an however well-meaning indivudual, but still ignorant of the contradiction between giving any credit whatsoever to a site founded by a notorious racist, and associate of several Nazi-apologists, Right-wing nuts, Ku Klux Klan members, on the one hand , and on the other hand pretending to show known humanitarian
issues of the past in a favourable perspective. Unless the said gentleman, through further research possibly, has acknowledged the mistake of confusing free speech with hate speech, free thought with free lunch,
I’ll stop bothering him with my nitpicking.
The purpose of providing the link with a bloody picture was to show you the price someone had to pay when he exercised the freedom of speech we are discussing and nothing else. Although I have the dubious luck of living in a country where the variety of freedom of speech is absolute, I would not use any material for grotesque purposes knowingly.
24 oct 06 à 01:39
Mr. Seikh seems confused, as we have often seen here and elsewhere. Being for free speech does not mean we have to respect all manners of speech, especially the vile, repugnant venom spread by the likes of Faurisson and Irving.
On the other hand, as you rightly say, choosing these persons to make a point does say an awful lot about someone; especially if you call the Nazis free-thinkers (see below).
I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.
It is as repulsive as free speech gets, short of promoting murder.
23 oct 06 à 15:51
Ataulfo
If the issue were Free Speech, M S Sheikh might have chosen one of hundreds of Ad Hoc illustrations.
There are many cases in which Free Speech is ,to use his or her own wording, legally “stifled” in “Europe-America”.
Protection of Privacy
Medical Secrecy
Defense classification
Pornography
Banking and Finance Information
Copyright laws
And what else
All have something to do with Free Speech.
No.
He or she chose to reiterate the fallacious ( in my view ) equivalence
of Holocaust-denial to the recent Redeker debate. In this he (or she ) might have been inspired by President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric.
Maybe M S Sheikh is trying to develop his or her own program of civilian nuclear energy in his or her basement. In which case I hope he or she is following the manual carefully, or we’ll have a spectacular home hazard incident, probably followed by an unusually hilarious class-action suit.
Unfortunately he or she also inserted a link to a site owned by the so-called CODOH, and did it to document one of his or her argument.
That is coherent with the known tactics of CODOH, namely to use the issue of Free Speech as a bait to attract uninformed public to their extremely unpopular Holocaust-denying literature.
It could be that M S Sheikh is him- or herself a victim of that very
scheme and , just like a dismayed buyer of ineffective Internet-Viagra pills would , tries to peddle again his junk through the same channel.
The safer is in my opinion to treat him or her as an unsavory form of spam.
23 oct 06 à 01:25
“Please note I have repeatedly tried to explain that it is the freedom of speech that is the issue not the Holocaust. If you cannot distinguish between the two then I am nay we are wasting our time”
What’s your point, Sheikh?
I told you repeatedly that I am against laws curtailing freedom of speech; of course, the people who attacked Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long long time.
This doesn’t mean that we have to continue the dialogue with someone who shares Mr. Faurisson’s mendacious, repugnant views.
“The thing to consider is whether it is true or not”
It is not. It’s a deliberate, disgusting lie.
Concerning the main point, you are trying to equate Muhammad’s drawings and revisionism. I am for total freedom of speech.
Again, I am against these laws. But lying to demean Jews and spread antisemitism is not the same thing as drawing Muhammad.
22 oct 06 à 17:15
Please note I have repeatedly tried to explain that it is the freedom of speech that is the issue not the Holocaust. If you cannot distinguish between the two then I am nay we are wasting our time.
Whether a known Holocaust denying site says something or some other site does that is immaterial. The thing to consider is whether it is true or not. The professor was attacked because he used his right of free speech or in this case broke the law of the land by saying what he thought. And it is true that he was attacked for what he had said.
As to “Please note the facts reported (if true), took place in 1989. Anyway, the people that beat Mr. Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long time (unlike Faurisson himself)”
The time since does not matter. David Irving was tried and convicted in 2005/06 in Austria for his denial in 1989 although at the trial he said that he “Does not now believe in what he said in 1989″.
22 oct 06 à 16:16
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
By providing a link to a known Holocaust-denying site, M S Sheikh is wittingly, or unwittingly putting this blog under a possible danger of criminal charge in many states.
I personnally have no time to waste arguing with an however well-meaning indivudual, but still ignorant of the contradiction between giving any credit whatsoever to a site founded by a notorious racist, and associate of several Nazi-apologists, Right-wing nuts, Ku Klux Klan members, on the one hand , and on the other hand pretending to show known humanitarian
issues of the past in a favourable perspective. Unless the said gentleman, through further research possibly, has acknowledged the mistake of confusing free speech with hate speech, free thought with free lunch,
I’ll stop bothering him with my nitpicking.
22 oct 06 à 15:35
“I said, “… punished in the streets….”, after I came across the above link. It makes a very unpleasant reading, you would agree. Even if the Holocaust were, nothing but the whole truth, I am not for the use of argument of force with those who disagree.
Please remember this site is about freedom of speech”
Please note the facts reported (if true), took place in 1989. Anyway, the people that beat Mr. Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long time (unlike Faurisson himself)
Let’s just not forget that Faurisson is as close as just get to a Nazi in France today.
22 oct 06 à 14:31
Robert Redeker: English translation
Posté le Jeudi 28 septembre 2006
What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.
I have pasted the above to refresh the memory of the readers of this discussion.
“I haven’t heard anything about these guys being punished “in the streets”; they have sentenced in courts of law, even if the laws applied to their case are misguided.”
http://www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909faur.html
Hi Ataulfo & Cataloun,
I said, “… punished in the streets….”, after I came across the above link. It makes a very unpleasant reading, you would agree. Even if the Holocaust were, nothing but the whole truth, I am not for the use of argument of force with those who disagree.
Please remember this site is about freedom of speech.
“I don’t think 1.6 billion human beings have even heard of Mr Redeker. I don’t see why such a large amount of individuals would feel the same about one fellow individual, meaning the aforementioned. Seems over the top.”
Well, may be not 1.6 billion would you agree with a very large number? Does not that matter?
“I think politics are no excuse to break the law in a mainly democratic state.”
Many changes for the better happened when people broke the laws. End of apartheid in the USA and South Africa, women’s right to vote in western democracies and above all various independence movements owe their successes to breaking the laws.
21 oct 06 à 11:22
“they are punished in the street ”
I haven’t heard anything about these guys being punished “in the streets”; they have sentenced in courts of law, even if the laws applied to their case are misguided.
“in the street by extremists”
David Irving and Robert Faurisson spread Nazi propaganda; on any given street, it is almost certain they will be the most extremist people around.
21 oct 06 à 10:18
> he is made into a hero
No, that is not true. You are twisting the facts. At the contrary, he was much criticized here in France. Most commentators were reluctant to support him, even his own unions where he works. You have here on this blog, in French, proof of that, see Bauberot’s article from Le Monde. See also the reader’s reactions on the right of the article, you will see that Redeker is in no way “made a hero”.
21 oct 06 à 09:52
Hi M S Sheikh
“You may have guessed by now that my mother tongue is not English therefore I am not familiar with many English language expressions that you have used. ”
No I hadn’t. Your English looks excellent, if I may say so.
Mine is largely self-taught. Native speakers have found it strange and funny, for whatever reason. One of which may be that I liked my teacher so much he was prone to leniency.
“May I do that?”
Good one.
“When Robert Redeker uses abusive and improper language about Islam and its prophet, who is held in great esteem by 1.6 billion human beings, he is made into a hero “
I don’t think 1.6 billion human beings have even heard of Mr Redeker. I don’t see why such a large amount of individuals would feel the same about one fellow individual, meaning the aforementioned. Seems over the top.
“when David Irving and professor Faurisson question some aspects of the Holocaust they are punished in the street by extremists and also through courts.
I think politics are no excuse to break the law in a mainly democratic state.
“What is your take on the above?”
In many parts of the world, not only Europe and America, there is separation of Church and State. Hate speech is repressed, too, even if not the same way, for many legitimate reasons.
20 oct 06 à 11:55
Hi Caltaloun,
The whole thing is degenerating into a confusing discussion. Not your fault. You may have guessed by now that my mother tongue is not English therefore I am not familiar with many English language expressions that you have used. I therefore propose that we simplify things by defining the issue first and then discuss it. May I do that?
Well the issue is freedom of speech and its application.
When Robert Redeker uses abusive and improper language about Islam and its prophet, who is held in great esteem by 1.6 billion human beings, he is made into a hero but when David Irving and professor Faurisson question some aspects of the Holocaust they are punished in the street by extremists and also through courts. What is your take on the above?
20 oct 06 à 06:11
M S Sheikh
“You don’t seem to subscribe to absolute freedom of speech in matters political!!1″
I gave it go. I think oftentimes, Absolucy is an excuse for unfairness, or stupidity. I’m absolutely sure. For the next 15 minutes no less.
20 oct 06 à 05:55
M S Sheikh
“Is there a hint of sarcasm …Yes there is”
Again no offense intended, none taken.
“it is not …speech.”
I don’t agree, no fuss though.
“You seem to be of the view …. religious and political”
No, I don’t care. Never thought in those terms before. If it’s any interest to you, I’ll give it a go.
“You don’t seem to subscribe …political!!”
No I don’t. AFAIK no “absolute freedom of speech” nowhere. Never was, never will be. Think of libel. Good, helps prevent general mayhem.
“As I have said before, the double/multiple standards … that we are facing.”
Living in France, one hears that sort of recriminations constantly, from all parts. National Sport, so to say. I try not to confuse Equality of treatment with Equity.
International matters are different from domestic ones.
Mostly on account of Sovereignty. Makes International law akin to a series of treaties. At least that’s my take.
20 oct 06 à 04:05
“I was aware of your two Free Speech martyrs’ legal misfortunes, but thanks anyway. The reason I asked for Mr Irving’s and Pr Faulichon’s creeds was that I was under the impression you were implying their difficulties were within the realm of Religion, or equivalent to religious matters. I say that’s debatable, since I consider Holocaust Denying a political, rather than religious issue.
If you don’t please be so kind as to enlighten me on that particular aspect of your debate.”
Hi Cataloun,
Is there a hint of sarcasm in the above and is it appropriate? Yes there is and it is not appropriate as we are discussing a matter of serious nature: the freedom of speech.
You seem to be of the view that freedom of speech can be divided into two categories namely religious and political. You don’t seem to subscribe to absolute freedom of speech in matters political!!1
As I have said before, the double/multiple standards applied by the leaders of western countries ie Europe/America, in international and domestic issues are responsible for the problems that we are facing.
19 oct 06 à 15:07
Hi Sheikh
I was aware of your two Free Speech martyrs’ legal misfortunes, but thanks anyway. The reason I asked for Mr Irving’s and Pr Faulichon’s creeds was that I was under the impression you were implying their difficulties were within the realm of Religion, or equivalent to religious matters. I say that’s debatable, since I consider Holocaust Denying a political, rather than religious issue.
If you don’t please be so kind as to enlighten me on that particular aspect of your debate. ,
“Mind you this debate is about the freedom of speech and the western double standards.”
I’m thankful your enthusiasm for Free Speech doesn’t hinder you from helping me stay inbounds. But again, if I dare repeat, I am not sure of what you mean by ‘western’.
If by western double standarts, you mean that Freedom of Speech laws are sustantially different in France or Austria than, say, the USA, or, further West, the proud kingdom of Tonga Islands, and even further West, the People’s Republic of China, and still Westward Ho! the Islamic Republic of Iran , I fully agree.
19 oct 06 à 12:18
Hi Cataloun,
“Exactly what is the persuasion of these fellows, Mr Irving and Pr Polisson ?”
David Irving is a UK historian and professor Faurisson is a French retired professor of literature.
More about the professor follows:
French academic again convicted for Holocaust denial
PARIS (EJP)— Retired literature professor Robert Faurisson has been convicted for Holocaust denial by a Paris court on Tuesday over remarks he made on Iranian television.
Faurisson, 77, well known for his revisionist views, was given a three month suspended prison term and also fined 7,500 euros.
Speaking on the Sahar 1 Iranian satellite channel in February 2005, Faurisson said “there was never” a single execution gas chamber under the Germans…. So all those millions of tourists who visit Auschwitz are seeing a lie, a falsification.”
Faurisson was found guilty of “complicity in contesting the existence of a crime against humanity.”
It is the fifth time that Faurisson is condemned for the same offence.
Patrick Gaubert, president of LICRA, the French league against racism and anti-Semitism, welcomed the court decision. “This gives proof that he says lies. But I am not satisfied with the three months suspended prison term as he is a recidivist,” he added.
http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/5.html
Mind you this debate is about the freedom of speech and the western double standards.
16 oct 06 à 15:23
M S Sheikh
Blasphemy law should apply to all religions or it should be abolished. People should not make fun of any religious figure.
No argument here. I don’t pay attention to people’s religion or lack of. When you wrote about my “leader”, I was thrown.
Exactly what is the persuasion of these fellows, Mr Irving and Pr Polisson ?
The narrow meanings of feelings is your feelings only, others’ feelings don’t matter.
Not to worry here. I felt in no way offended by anything you wrote. Hope the same on your side. No offense intended, be sure. I’m a lamb.
The rest of your post is Greek to me and or it does not make any sense.
Please accept my apologies. As a famous philosopher, Mr Marx would say : get yourself a Greek boy ! Silly joke, actually.
Funny thing is to us unwashed Westerners, History still teaches the Oriental aspect of Greek Culture. Eastern Roman Empire, Eastern Tradition of the Orthodox Church, and so on. There has been even an argument or two on this very blog as to what the West really means.
16 oct 06 à 12:36
“Blasphemy law should apply to all religions or it should be abolished”
I would love to see blasphemy laws abolished everywhere…
16 oct 06 à 12:14
Hi Ataulfo
I am glad that we have found some common ground. But I am afraid the difference is much deeper than the agreement. You believe in complete freedom and I believe in freedom but with regard and respect for the feelings of other people.
Experience and observations tell us that at times the most committed supporters and promoters of freedoms and human rights themselves completely ignore them. Clear recent examples of complete disregard for the human rights and Geneva Conventions are the treatment of detainees at various US facilities. Ill treating the guilty is one thing but ill-treating the innocent ones is cruel, sick, un acceptable and barbaric. Detention without charge or trial is a real fear. This fear is so real that my family, friends and acquaintances have warned me many times not to get involved in discussions like this one I am having with you. This very fear perceived or real shows how much damage the west’s contradictory positions and contradictory acts have done to the west’s credibility with regard to its claim that it believes and cherishes freedoms.
What makes even moderate people very angry and anti west are the west’s double standards. On the one hand the west is for the supremacy of the laws and conventions etc but on the other it flouts them with impunity. In one scenario it is ready to protect freedoms at any cost and in another people end up behind bars when they exercise freedoms. When you have this kind of situation then you lose faith in dialogue and reasoning. And that in my view is the reason for extremism and intolerance.
This is for our friend Cataloun.
Blasphemy law should apply to all religions or it should be abolished. People should not make fun of any religious figure.
The narrow meanings of feelings is your feelings only, others’ feelings don’t matter. The rest of your post is Greek to me and or it does not make any sense.
16 oct 06 à 06:57
“I condemn death threats in fact any threats against Rushdies and Redekers and I also condemn the convictions of David Irving and professor Faurisson”
We do agree about something, albeit I do not condemn them at the same level.
I told you before I am against these absurd laws, since I am for full freedom of speech. It would be interesting to know what your position is on laws concerning blasphemy or making fun of Mohammed.
16 oct 06 à 05:53
M S Sheikh
“Feeeeeeeeelings!!!! I thought you people don’t care about feelings. May be I am wrong here”
Way to go. Now that’s more like it.
Give’m Hell.
” I am considering full meanings of the word when you believe in the narrow meanings of the word.”
Sorry, I’m way too dumb. I’ll have to sleep on that one.
“Your leader..”
Is Herr Professor Doktor Von Argument teaching a conclusion-jumping lesson?
What’s a Pope, mate? Never could fathom myself.
“What I have said about the Holocaust I have said in sincerity.”
You think my questions were insincere? Sorry for the wrong impression.
“Palestinains/Muslims are paying for that. Perhaps it is an extension of the Christian concept: We sinned Jesus paid.”
Hang on, hon. Shall we infere Christian Palestinians are a bit on the thrifty side?
“I condemn death threats in fact any threats against Rushdies and Redekers and I also condemn the convictions of David Irving and professor Faurisson.”
Your honor, you’re merciless. Dura lex sed lex, bit latin for me, If I may say so.
16 oct 06 à 05:35
Feeeeeeeeelings!!!! I thought you people don’t care about feelings. May be I am wrong here. I am considering full meanings of the word when you believe in the narrow meanings of the word. It is your own feelings that you are concerned about. Your leader that is the pope has taught you the lesson: Don’t care about others’ feelings and speak your mind. And if there are protests/complains label the protestors/complainants as extremists and intolerant and smile, as you have won the argument.
What I have said about the Holocaust I have said in sincerity. It was a terrible crime committed by Christians/Europeans/Germans against Jews and Palestinains/Muslims are paying for that. Perhaps it is an extension of the Christian concept: We sinned Jesus paid.
I condemn death threats in fact any threats against Rushdies and Redekers and I also condemn the convictions of David Irving and professor Faurisson.
16 oct 06 à 04:02
M S Sheikh
I don’t think Ataulfo and Cataloun’s outburst and tantrums merit any normal response.
‘Tantrums’. I’m utterly devastated. What a sock. Please don’t get carried away, I’ve got my feelings, you know.
Red herrings and insults don’t make for arguments.
As opposed to innuendo. What’s that other party responsible for exaggeration, again ? Don’t bow to intimidation by we Free Thought bullies , call Daddy for help if you like. In a word, argue.
You are also jumping to conclusions.
Worse than jumping at our slightest noise ?
Once again I believe in the Holocaust
No question. You certainly made your point. You believe in Holocausts. Not as a policy, I expect ?
the champions of free speech and thought
Give us a break, mate. You kiddin’, right ?
16 oct 06 à 03:21
Once again I believe in the Holocaust and if you are not ready to accept the mere mention that there has been an exaggeration
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
exaggerated in what ? Define , please your argumentation for “exaggerated”..
And you owe me an answer about the treatment of Rushdie/Redeker vs Faurisson / Irving
16 oct 06 à 03:02
If you are not ready to accept the mere mockery of your staments then you are the one, the champion of free speech and thought, who is stifling free speech and thought.
16 oct 06 à 02:58
I don’t think Ataulfo and Cataloun’s outburst and tantrums merit any normal response. Red herrings and insults don’t make for arguments. Both of you are using the arguments of force rather than force of arguments. You are also jumping to conclusions. Once again I believe in the Holocaust and if you are not ready to accept the mere mention that there has been an exaggeration then you are the ones, the champions of free speech and thought, who are stifling free speech and thought.
16 oct 06 à 02:57
I believe Louis the XIVth existed.
16 oct 06 à 02:07
A bold statement: The bearded nuts are wrong; the Holocaust existed, but it concerned only a family of Polish Jews from Dantzig.
15 oct 06 à 19:50
Couple of corrections
Last post was of course in answer to M S Sheikh
Due to unfortunate circumstances, I bungled the translation of The Bokassa man’s statement. He really said :
“Bokassa ate many fewer children than they said, and they were much older than they said”
Makes more sense, right?
Pray forgive my clumsiness.
15 oct 06 à 18:26
“I personally don’t doubt the Holocaust. I believe it did happen. But I want to say two things about it. One it has been exaggerated.”
That reminds me a cheerful bloke I heard :
Bokassa ate many fewer children than they said, and they were much younger than they said”
He was, as former councellor to His Majesty Emperor Bokassa The Last, answering a request to present his case for his old boss.
Now I don’t assume you’re one of Mr Eichmann’s old boys, but if that were the case, let me congratulate you for your splendid health at such extreme seniority.
“ The natural phenomenon that history is written by the victors is partly responsible for that.”
Partly, eh? How thoughtful. Care to elaborate on who the accessory might be?
” Two why Palestinians/Muslims have been paying for the inhumanity/crimes committed by the Europeans/Germans/Christians?”
I’m aware decrepicts tend to have a poor mind for figures, dear things. Still, a gross evaluation of the amount unduly paid is certainly welcome. In whatever currency you are comfortable with, mind you. Know the score with bloody solicitors, don’t you, old shoe?.
“The issue is not denial of Holocaust but denial of freedom to explore, discuss, disagree and challenge something.”
Man, I’m outraged you’d feel the need to make that point. You needn’t prove your proficiency in historical research. Kristal klear in the foggiest night.
15 oct 06 à 16:27
Sheikh your booby!
15 oct 06 à 16:21
Ataulfo would you care to list all of your objections, requests and questions in one go so that I can deal with you in one go and move on?
15 oct 06 à 15:51
“said that I would try and dissuade a Muslim from leaving Islam or a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim”
Well, how about dissuading fellow Muslims from threatening or killing innocent people.
“I would not make death threats against Rushdies or Redekers but in my view they are up to no good and enemies of humanity”
Well, what about the bearded nuts killing and maiming people the world over?
“The issue is that on the one hand you say that freedoms are absolute. But on the other hand you negate that by making a law that restricts freedom of speech”
YOU don’t stop saying YOU, but I think these laws are absurd, not least because it provides people like YOU with this kind of argument.
“I don’t think you guys just mean that what is done according to the laws is right. You actually mean that what is done according to the western laws is right”
Well actually I don’t think making gratuitous fun of other pople’s beliefs is right; except when those beliefs are the motive behind murdering and maiming people the world over. In that case, I would say that mocking those beliefs is a healthy and reasonable thing to do.
15 oct 06 à 14:55
Personal attack is a typical favourite of people who have no rational argument to support their views in a debate/discussion. BTW I don’t care whom someone marries or what religion people choose. Having said that I would try and dissuade a Muslim from leaving Islam or a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim. I would not make death threats against Rushdies or Redekers but in my view they are up to no good and enemies of humanity.
I don’t think you guys just mean that what is done according to the laws is right. You actually mean that what is done according to the western laws is right. I am sure there are many countries in the world that have laws with which you would not agree.
The issue is that on the one hand you say that freedoms are absolute. But on the other hand you negate that by making a law that restricts freedom of speech. You challenge Islamic beliefs and history in an offensive way and call it invitation to dialogue/discussion using your right of freedom of speech presumably to prove them wrong. But when someone challenges Holocaust to discuss/explore it to prove it wrong you put him or her behind bars. What a dichotomy?
I personally don’t doubt the Holocaust. I believe it did happen. But I want to say two things about it. One it has been exaggerated. The natural phenomenon that history is written by the victors is partly responsible for that. Two why Palestinians/Muslims have been paying