Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Russell wrote:Iran's case is particularly clear: if there would not have been a US/UK-orchestrated coup in 1953, there would have been a democratic government rather than the Shah, and it would have been very unlikely that Khomeini would have come to power. Khomeini's rise was basically the forerunner of a more militant inflexible Islam. The rest is history.
wagyl wrote:Just a quick look back at the paradise that has been lost to the Islamic takeover.
kurogane wrote:Yeah, just saw that on The Google. Very cleverly done, very tasteful. I suppose part of the problem is that it is being done at all, but that's Their problem.
A+
kagemusha wrote:kurogane wrote:Yeah, just saw that on The Google. Very cleverly done, very tasteful. I suppose part of the problem is that it is being done at all, but that's Their problem.
A+
A grate response, I hope it won't be the swan song of free speech Europe.
legion wrote:How do they know it's the prophet?
Nobody is allowed to depict him so how does anyone know what he's supposed to look like.
Maybe he was another nordic hero, like JC.
legion wrote:How do they know it's the prophet?
yanpa wrote:legion wrote:How do they know it's the prophet?
He's not the prophet, he's just a very naughty boy.
kagemusha wrote:Russell wrote:Iran's case is particularly clear: if there would not have been a US/UK-orchestrated coup in 1953, there would have been a democratic government rather than the Shah, and it would have been very unlikely that Khomeini would have come to power. Khomeini's rise was basically the forerunner of a more militant inflexible Islam. The rest is history.
As I said and agreed, in those years both west and east (USSR) played their puppets games all over the world, Central and South America, Africa and the Far East. Recommend you to read Hitchens' book about (Ass)Kissinger.
But still, there is not ONE excuse in the world to descend to such actions. Deliberately taking the life of a defenseless civilian is an inexcusable and stands against any value of a modern free liberal civilization. This is the basic stone required to build bridges of peace around the world, without it, it's all empty words and politics.
Wage Slave wrote:Agreed, it's pretty piss poor but was it the Brits? Or was it that nice Mr Murdoch seeking to protect his commercial interests?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Arabia
Samurai_Jerk wrote:Wage Slave wrote:Agreed, it's pretty piss poor but was it the Brits? Or was it that nice Mr Murdoch seeking to protect his commercial interests?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Arabia
I really hate to give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt but it's pretty reasonable to be worried about the physical security of your employees. It's very easy for us to say they should be brave and not let the terrorists win when we're not the ones sticking our necks out. Besides he's not necessarily the one exercising editorial control.
Wage Slave wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:Wage Slave wrote:Agreed, it's pretty piss poor but was it the Brits? Or was it that nice Mr Murdoch seeking to protect his commercial interests?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_News_Arabia
I really hate to give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt but it's pretty reasonable to be worried about the physical security of your employees. It's very easy for us to say they should be brave and not let the terrorists win when we're not the ones sticking our necks out. Besides he's not necessarily the one exercising editorial control.
Yep - arguably there is that. Actually, I don't see why anyone is surprised that a profit maximising company seeks to piss off the minimum number of people. It is not about principles and never was - It's about making money and the wider commercial interests of the proprietor. Alienating a large number of consumers (1.5 billion in this case) is just not what a smart company does.
Hence, I always see a need for public broadcasters like the BBC - in theory at least. Did they decide to publish it or not?
Russell wrote:There is no disagreement about your statement that there is no excuse for taking defenseless civilian lives, and that our values of freedom and democracy (whatever is left of it) need to be vigorously defended.
Russell wrote:Where I disagree is with your statement that the west's actions against a countable number of countries in the Middle-East is a thing of the past. Ever heard of Iraq? (the ironic part is that France was vehemently opposed to the US-led invasion there). And how about those drone attacks, which take a lot of civilian lives?
Russell wrote:Regarding Hitchens, I am no fan of that alcoholic, and I don't need him to make up my mind. Anyway, the guy is not with us anymore, so nothing good about the dead...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest