Denmark warns of new cartoon crisis with Muslims

[Elok]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Bingo. They've found someone who apparently is willing to let themself get bullied. Hopefully, you'll decide to stop putting up with it.

As long as they don't have to use their own minutes...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Elok
Godwin sighting. And to be fair, does Mein Kampf include stuff about taking care of widows and orphans?

Usualy happens when you discuss totalitarian systems

My point is the koran was written by a megalomanic Arab warlord who took pleasure in raping 10yo, MK by a megalomanic German warlord. They both preach hate and inequality.
In the koran jews are refered to as pigs and apes in some passages, woman are priced at 50% value and can be legaly beaten if not obedient enough, gay people should be thrown off high buildings......

Personaly I dont think any book should be banned though.

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid One of the books contains the words of a dork, while the other one contains the words of an imaginary dork. I'm just speculating, but perhaps that's the reason.

Mohammed imaginary? Seems unlikely.

[Elok]

Mohammed always struck me as a remarkably decent and sensible sort for a warlord. The fact that he humped 10yo girls isn't that shocking when one considers that pederasty was an accepted cultural institution in ancient Greece, that sibling incest was standard procedure for Pharaohs, or that twelfth-century Frenchmen idealized screwing each others' wives. People will do some pretty messed-up stuff with the consent of their society.

Anyway, the treatments he prescribed for Christians and Jews, regardless of what he thought of them, were pretty progressive for his time and quite effective. Unlike the nutjobs now doing things in his name, he was fairly pragmatic. Which is why his empire lasted centuries and Hitler's lasted for about ten years.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by atawa
Mohammed imaginary? Seems unlikely.

I was refering to his imaginary friend

[SlowwHand]

Harvey?

[atawa]

Originally posted by Elok
Mohammed always struck me as a remarkably decent and sensible sort for a warlord. The fact that he humped 10yo girls isn't that shocking when one considers that pederasty was an accepted cultural institution in ancient Greece, that sibling incest was standard procedure for Pharaohs, or that twelfth-century Frenchmen idealized screwing each others' wives. People will do some pretty messed-up stuff with the consent of their society.

The problem is that there are too many muslims living today who cant see it was written in a backward day and age and follow the book to the letter. Some of them controll whole countries and most of the others cant seem to get these idiots under controll without resorting to dictatorships.....

Anyway, the treatments he prescribed for Christians and Jews, regardless of what he thought of them, were pretty progressive for his time and quite effective. Unlike the nutjobs now doing things in his name, he was fairly pragmatic. Which is why his empire lasted centuries and Hitler's lasted for about ten years.

Of course, you can convert to islam but not become aryan, its the better system of the two no doubt. But both are totalitarian systems witch leave next to no room for any sort of change or criticism.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by VJ

This kindergarten behavior of Muslims protesting utterly trivial occurences in a totally different culture has got to stop.

As long as Europe keeps compromising and refusing to confront aggression, it keeps on increasing. Why do you think there aren't any protests against the US over the drawings of American invididuals? The followers of Islam, recognizing cowardice and decay, are trying to end freedom of speech in Europe.

They're succeeding.

Wow. Gotta agree with VJ here.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Well, I think Spiffor has a point.

I believe that the rise of pan-Islamic interventionism mirrors the rise of interventionist policies in the West. Whether that intervention is 'hard' (bombing & invading countries, crashing planes into buildings) or soft (promoting opposition movements, shrill protests about cartoons), it is still interventionism.

The rise of Western interventionism? No, it is in decline. Sixty years ago Europe controlled most of the NME and Africa. Islamic interventionism is a response to the power vacuum as colonial powers granted independence to all these states.

[Elok]

Originally posted by atawa
Of course, you can convert to islam but not become aryan, its the better system of the two no doubt. But both are totalitarian systems witch leave next to no room for any sort of change or criticism.

I don't think the T-word should be used so lightly. Totalitarianism, to me at least, describes features unique to the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and perhaps a few others such as Pol Pot. Early Islam, while expansionist and violent, lacked almost all of the other characteristics which make totalitarianism so dangerous.

There were no "objective enemies," no gratuitous purges or official meaningless cruelty, and no deliberate atomization of society. Mohammed's Islam and the Caliphates for several centuries after were relentlessly practical and acted with concern for real-world problems in government, whereas common sense was anathema to Nazi policy and totalitarianism in general.

Even the nastiest of today's Islamic theocracies is authoritarian at worst. Throwing around the label "totalitarian" carelessly, in addition to being an unfair characterization of those concerned, tends to belittle by comparison the absolute evil of genuine totalitaian regimes.

[Dinner]

Look up what totalitarianism means in a dictionary then comment on its meaning. As it stands you have it all wrong.

[Elok]

Hahaha! Really...and what *is* the dictionary definition, according to you? Which dictionary?

[Kuciwalker]

NKor is totalitarian. Islamic states are nowhere close.

[Elok]

"Totalitarian" does tend to be used to describe anything that's unpleasantly strict by nimrods (I go by Hannah Arendt's model, which is actually precise enough to be meaningful), but the DPRK sounds like a fair candidate from what I've heard. It doesn't expand the way it should if it fit the model perfectly, but it's certainly inefficient as a result of its basic hostility to reality, psychotically obsessed with its leader, and apparently inclined to inflict pain on its population for no reason, those being the important points IIRC.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Straybow

The rise of Western interventionism? No, it is in decline. Sixty years ago Europe controlled most of the NME and Africa. Islamic interventionism is a response to the power vacuum as colonial powers granted independence to all these states.

I was referring to the post-colonial period, and post-cold war. Once upon a time, 'might was right' as far as military adventures went, leading to the level of European influence you refer to. Then, post-WW2 the concept of sovereignty for third-world countries to protect them against those European countries and their empires became the basis for international order. Then, in the nineties, the concept of humanitarian intervention as something to trump sovereignty gained favour, and that is the rise of western interventionism I'm referring to.

I would say that power vacuums have certainly presented opportunities for Islamists in recent times, but I see the driving force of Islamic interventionism to be essentially a feature of western identity-politics, rather than a post-colonial reaction. The contemporary terrorists operating in the west tend to be more educated westerners on a rebellious student rage trip than from the dusty back streets of the third world.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
Hahaha! Really...and what *is* the dictionary definition, according to you? Which dictionary?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-tl-târ-n) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "totalitarianism" [P]
adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Please note that the definition is not exclusive to Hitler and Stalin as certain other people in this thread have contended. Now let's see... "A form of government in which the political authority is exercised absolutely and centralized control over all aspects of life is subordinated to the state". Hmm, would the vile cultist Mohammad have absolute control over his state/Kingdom? Yes, indeed. Did he excersize centralized control over all aspects of life? Yes again, he did indeed describe how a muslim should live virtually every aspect of life. Did he supress opposition? **** yeah! He had all nonmuslims killed or expelled and even the ones who were expelled had EVERYTHING stolen from them including their wives.

It's hard to see how a vile cultist extremists who controls every aspect of life absolutely doesn't constitute a totalitarian form of government. Next time learn the definitions of words before you try to use them or define them.