EU to ban Islamic terrorism

[Pekka]

Uh, but the point isn't will it be binding or not? THe whole point is that this thing is a joke to begin with.

I don't care who implements this. EU is going down. Exhibit 10443.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't know about the stigma (or lack thereof) toward the Irish in Britain during the peak of IRA terrorism, so I can't say.

If you believe Islamic terrorism puts a stigma on Islam then the same must be true for the terms Irish terrorism & eco-terrorism.

Eco-terrorism has rarely been on the frontpage. OTOH, you have prominent news of Islamic terrorism everyday.

So that makes it ok for someone to say "Irish terrorist" simply because it's not in the news everyday?

[fed1943]

The vast majority of Muslin people, at least in the center and west, don't see or acept terrorists or extremists as their leaders.
And the major and first goal of the terrorists is to be accepted and become the leaders of the Muslin'world.
Do you want to help them?
Best regards,

[Velociryx]

Funny thing. We have had tons of laws restricting our freedoms (our freedom of murdering, raping, stealing etc.) for centuries, and yet we manage to live in free countries now. How come the Leviathan didn't naturally become toalitarianism everywhere?

Freedom of the type you describe has been deemed unacceptable by judaeo-christian society. As a product of that society, I agree. Those things = Bad. Ben Franklin said it best, your freedom to flail your arms about stops at the tip of my nose. Obviously murder is a bit more than flailing the tip of my nose, yes?

Beyond those things which punish for harming others (murder, rape, and other physical acts), each law passed governing human interactions restricts freedom further.

Watch it repeat often enough, and yes, you will wind up in a totalitarian state.

Thing is tho....when you're talking about words, you're talking about perception in most cases ("Fire!" in a crowded building being an obvious class of exceptions, given that it can lead directly to physical harm...just wanted to mention that now, before some lunkhead brought it up).

A phrase like "islamic terrorist" seems accurate to me, if said terrorist made known that his attack was directed by, and done to honor his his god, or his religious leaders. He's Islamic. He's a terrorist. Check and check. The term accurately describes him. And I don't see the harm in that.

On the other hand, IF we make a law like this, it's stupid not to go farther. I mean, why on earth stop there. Let's just ban it all, right? If it's important enough to do in this case, then it's prejudicial to not do it elsewhere. Everywhere else, for that matter.

So let's either leave it alone, or ban communication altogether. It's really the only choice, yes?

(and a voluntary ban is really useless...to make it stick, we gotta give it teeth).

-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

I guess we should also make more guidelines that directs us not talking about facts but use other terms that are more subtle, so that the idiots in cages won't get angry.

Right

HOw about we just don't state facts anymore, it would make it look better for isla... I mean AQ.

[Spiffor]

Pekka:
You and I are in agreement over what the problem is (there is a trend of to increased and unjustified bigotry against all Muslims, which comes in part from terrorism). We are in agreement with the fact that a phrase such as "Islamic terrorism", when used as broadly as it is, doesn't help one bit.

You believe that the EU wishes to outlaw that phrase, and it outrages you. However, the EU doesn't intend to outlaw the phrase (the decision being non-binding), but to suggest another phrase to news outlets. So, your outrage soesn't rest on anything concrete.

What exactly is outrageous about the EU suggesting a better phrase to news outlets, in a non-binding way?

[Pekka]

"You and I are in agreement over what the problem is"

No we aren't.

"We are in agreement with the fact that a phrase such as "Islamic terrorism", when used as broadly as it is, doesn't help one bit."

Yes I agree.

"You believe that the EU wishes to outlaw that phrase, and it outrages you. However, the EU doesn't intend to outlaw the phrase (the decision being non-binding), but to suggest another phrase to news outlets."

Yes and I only slapped the little kid to educate them, I didn't crush their faces.

Listen, this is censorship and pressuring to it. This is a guideline, yes it would be good if you used this new word instead of this old word, I know it still means the same but listen, use this new word so we aren't so afraid anymore and the new word shall be 'donkydonk'. Donkydonk terrorists.

You can talk all about you want about guidelines, it doesn't change the fact that this is pressuring to self censorship and YOU AGREE WITH IT!!!!

"What exactly is outrageous about the EU suggesting a better phrase to news outlets, in a non-binding way?"

It is pressure to censorship. For nothing.

[Velociryx]

What exactly is outrageous about the EU suggesting a better phrase to news outlets, in a non-binding way?





That these guys are getting paid to come up with something that almost no one will listen to, would be my guess.

And further, putting it in their "little black book" opens the door for strengthening it later on. Giving it teeth. Making it binding.

-=Vel=-

[germanos]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Historically, we have a rather large body of evidence that would suggest that if you allow the government to take an inch, they'll take more.

If you start with a voluntary restriction, it'll become a fining offence (gotta raise money to support (fill in the blank) social program. Or pay for the new weapons program. Or something.

This has never happened in history? There is no expectation that it could?

Random thoughts....

-=Vel=-

Don't sell yourself short...these are not random thoughts at all

I agree fully that citizens should always be on the guard as far as their governments are conceirned. That doesn't mean that all governments have been restrictive in every act they do.
Didn't governements implement universal suffrage? Didn't governements ban (dare I say the word) slavery?

From what I gathered in the news here (on the subject at hand) this is not about appeasing islamic terrorists, it is about guarding against prejudice. It is about setting the record straight and looking at the merit of labeling things.

This isn't about substituting 'islamic terrorism' to 'spiritual challenged', it is about calling terrorism to what it is, and not dragging all sort of remotely relevant adjectives into it.

[Pekka]

"Didn't governements ban (dare I say the word) slavery?"

Yes and how did this limit freedom? Freedom of everyone, not just the slave master.


remotely relevant? Agenda has always been relevant, even if you don't believe it in Germany.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
Donkydonk terrorists.

[Pekka]

or how about 'terrorists anonymous' ? How's that? That doesn't offend anyone?

How about we just don't show news anymore, so that people won't get the wrong perception of things in general? God forbid, I mean, someone forbid, that could lead into troubles in society.

We should aim for a society that has no friction, even if it means banning things or perhaps we shoud order mandatory medicine so that when your pulse rises, it will give you the feeling of nausea?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Pekka
even if you don't believe it in Germany.

You're even dumber then I had ever imagined.

Deaf, dumb and blind: the definition of superwhimp.

[Velociryx]

Didn't governements implement universal suffrage? Didn't governements ban (dare I say the word) slavery?


Excellent points. And every once in a while, the government does us right. It actually EMPOWERS someone (giving voice to women to have an equal say in what happens in the world around them, giving those who had been slaves, the right to be equals. Outstanding stuff).

But when the government turns to restrictive laws, rather than empowering ones, I think history shows that their record is....not as good.

I would say too, that the term "Islamic Terrorist" has value.

It has use.

For example, if I heard that an Islamic Terrorist was on the loose in my city, I now have at least a guideline to go by.

If I am looking out for this person (most probably not to catch him, but in an effort to not be blown to bits), now I have some information.

I will not be particularly on the look out for white haired, seventy year old ladies, as this is not the image that "Islamic Terrorist" invokes.

I will not be looking for Mormon youths on bicycles.

Nor will I be looking for black skinned kids in boy scout uniforms.

Why not? Because none of the folks above have a particular history of being associated with the religion Islam.

Now, when I'm looking over my shoulder, I have a narrower field to watch out for.

I'd say that's a good thing.

It simplifies my life and increases my odds for surviving.

I view my continued survival as a good thing.

Survival.

-=Vel=-

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But when the government turns to restrictive laws,

We're talking here about an institute who's job it is to hand out guidelines to avoid confusion in translations. Kind of relevant since the EU has 20 official languages.

Talking about restrictive laws, banning or freedom of speech is ridiculous in this context.