 |
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
2) Promote democracy in Muslim countries.
3) End hate speech and hate education in muslim schools and mosques.
|
You're saying the equivalent of this:
Promote freedom by reducing the size and interference of the government on the invididual.
Promote security by raising the size and making the government have more presence in society so the police can be more effective.
You can't promote democracy if one is going to suppress the hate speech. There's Aesop's fable: its probably better to friendly warm the coat, then to try to blow it away with hostile force.
There is no "war on terror" - it will never be won. Lets also have a "war on military tactics" too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
You are saying, I believe, that Muslims are incapable of modern civilization.
Look at Turkey.
|
Ned, I can't believe you think that I think Muslims are incapable of modern civilisation...after all that arguing against ML... 
I never did say that. In fact if you look at my past stance, I have always thought that Muslims were well capable of a lot of things.
I was poking holes in your argument: you cannot clamp down on hate speech without contradicting the stand on democratic reform! You cannot have both! If you want to encourage democracy, you must encourage criticism, even if its hateful. Suppressing hate speech by force will inevitably undermine the Iraqi's perception of whether the US really wanted to encourage democracy in Iraq. Or any other Muslim country.
Btw, Malaysia is a Muslim country - has lots of hate speech, but is rather democratic. Or at least more democratic than us. 
quote:
You have freedom unless your use of it is intended to hurt others. |
How does hate speech hurt others? Not physically.
Don't we hate viruses, menaces and dictators?
Don't then, do all people have a right to speak out forcefully and hatefully against something they PERCEIVE to be a menace? You don't reduce such perceptions via force - that will encourage even greater reaction. Rather cut the thing at its source, effectively - by public rebuttal, for example. Not arresting or prosecuting or shooting hate inciters.
Plus, its a slippery slope: if you can prosecute people for hate speech, this action can be abused, for prosecuting any other person, not hateful, for not so hateful speech or constructive criticism.
For example, when Iraqis had demonstrations, the wise thing to do was not to have soldiers fire at them, but rather reply to each of their arguments.
It is a democratic right to speak out against anything: and if its strong, so may it be. Do not Iraqis have a right to call the Americans "the enemy, infidels, etc.?" because they have a right to their views...don't we call our politicians, among other things, retards, nutcases, bastards, fatheads and several other things?
I mean, how would you feel if suddenly a politician prosecuted you for hate speech for calling him or her a nutcase? Speech, hateful or not, or expression of views make the politicians in power keep on their toes, and at constructive, functional work...well at least some of the time.
Else, well, it could slip into tyranny. Its one of the major checks of it.
Last edited by Natalinasmpf on 01-10-2004 at 19:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
More angry people with nothing left to lose = more terrorists
- Stop making people angry
- Stop killing innocents
- Stop creating widows, widowmen and orphans, full of hate and revenge
Terrorism is a police matter. It can't be solved by tanks and airstrikes. Possibly by special forces and SWAT teams. Use the same carefulness to minimise colateral damage in counter-terrorist operations abroad, as you would do when hunting domestic terrorists.
Change the SOP for Iraq troops to fit the strategic goal "Iraqi Freedom" rather than "optimizing survival rate for your own soldiers". Be prepared to take higher risks in order to save the people you are there to protect, the Iraqis. In the short run, you might lose more soldiers, but in the long run you will save American lifes, as less Iraqis will go over the bitterness treshold where they decide to join the resistance. Learn from the Brits.
One example: Your soldiers quite often kill people who stopped by the road to let military convoys pass, just because it could be an ambush. If they would take the risk to hold your fire until there actually is an ambush, less innocents would die, and less bitter orphans would become terrorist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
There's a difference between a constructive criticism and a hate speech. |
The right to expression in a democracy does not necessarily have to be constructive. What about the uneducated who do not know how to articulate? Furthermore, the line can become blurred between "constructive" and "hate"...
FURTHERMORE, don't forget, there's a slippery slope involved when prosecution becomes involved in political expression, hateful, inciteful, or otherwise.
AND, not to mention, the sheer NEW anger involved when prosecuting or arresting or suppressing someone angry rather than dealing with it via rebuttal, reduction of unrest, ie. more diplomacy with the peoples.....
Encouragement, development and conduciveness, NOT force, hostility and suppression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Yes, but thats not the point. Its not one of the greatest civs ever built - Greece contributed more to culture than Rome did.
Yes, Rome did give us great battle stories and the Shakespearan Drama of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony, but thats not quite the same.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2004 18:16
|