Just to remind that 8 years ago, part of the world as we knew it back 
then, collapsed, both literally and otherwise.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Just to remind that 8 years ago, part of the world as we knew it back
> then, collapsed, both literally and otherwise.

"Believe me when I say we have a difficult time ahead of us. But if we are to be
prepared for it, we must first shed our fear of it. I stand here, before you
now, truthfully unafraid. Why? Because I believe something you do not? No, I
stand here without fear because I remember. I remember that I am here not
because of the path that lies before me but because of the path that lies
behind me. I remember that for 100 years we have fought these ********. I
remember that for 100 years they have sent their armies to destroy us, and
after a century of war I remember that which matters most... We are still
here!"

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Just to remind that 8 years ago, part of the world as we knew it back 
> then, collapsed, both literally and otherwise.

  You know what's the really sad thing about that event? That the ultimate
purpose of the act succeeded perfectly: In other words, to scare the shit
out of the western world. That's the purpose of terrorism (ie. to cause
fear), and it's the thing which should always be avoided at all costs. If
we allow terrorist acts to cause fear, the terrorists win, we lose.

  Especially Europe has become a spineless coward which shits its pants on
the slightest of threats, who apologizes for every tiny event which might
offend the people who the terrorists claim they are fighting for, who is
completely ready to compromise its own freedom solely because it's so scared
of terrorist retribution. Rather than stand against this threat against
freedom and human rights, Europe chooses to submit to the fear. It's like
the battered wife syndrome on a multinational level.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Especially Europe has become a spineless coward which shits its pants on
> the slightest of threats

Don't be so hard on yourselves.  We were so scared, we elected W. for a 
second term :(

Fortunately, things are starting to get a little better.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Especially Europe has become a spineless coward which shits its pants on
> > the slightest of threats

> Don't be so hard on yourselves.  We were so scared, we elected W. for a 
> second term :(

  If I'm honest, I have to say that I admire the US for at least *trying*
to do something about the problem, rather than just sitting on their asses
hoping that the problem will solve itself. I really hope Europe had even
half the guts needed for that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

4aab81b3@news.povray.org...
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>  Especially Europe has become a spineless coward which shits its pants on
> the slightest of threats, who apologizes for every tiny event which might
> offend the people who the terrorists claim they are fighting for, who is
> completely ready to compromise its own freedom solely because it's so 
> scared
> of terrorist retribution. Rather than stand against this threat against
> freedom and human rights, Europe chooses to submit to the fear. It's like
> the battered wife syndrome on a multinational level.
>
Which (part of) Europe are you talking about?

Marc

Post a reply to this message

m_a_r_c <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> Which (part of) Europe are you talking about?

  Are you thinking of some part of Europe in particular which does not fit
my description?

  I'd say the entire western and northern European countries at least.
Just one prominent example is Denmark, which apologized to muslim countries
because an independent (ie. in no way state-owned) newspaper dared to
exercise its (completely legal) freedom of expression. I'm not exactly
sure what Denmark's goverment's message was when they issued the apology,
but I assume it would be something like "we are sorry that our freedom of
expression laws are too lenient, we are going to make them stricter now
in order to avoid insulting islam in the future". (I don't know if they
actually went ahead and did exactly that.)

  Or how about Finland? Here you can get a jail sentence if you insult
the muslim prophet. Yes, it has actually happened. And no, you don't get
a jail sentence if you insult Jesus in the same way (or even worse).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12 Sep 2009 16:51:54 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>m_a_r_c <jac### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
>> Which (part of) Europe are you talking about?
>
>  Are you thinking of some part of Europe in particular which does not fit
>my description?
>
>  I'd say the entire western and northern European countries at least.

You are talking through a hole in your head, Warp.
Here in the UK, although there is trouble with hot heads on both sides. We
basically have a tolerant attitude but draw the line at Sharia Law, forced
marriages, honour killings etc. There is a bit of a media panic over a MP who
walked out of a Muslim wedding because his wife would have been segregated to
the women's area. But it is a small thing. When some orthodox Jews tried to
erect an Eruv in London they were told in no uncertain terms, no.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Here in the UK, although there is trouble with hot heads on both sides. We
> basically have a tolerant attitude but draw the line at Sharia Law

  Really? I thought there are Sharia courts in the UK right now. Check for
example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Really? I thought there are Sharia courts in the UK right now. Check for

It sounds like it's arbitration, which means everyone has to agree in 
advance to accept the decisions.  I wouldn't be bothered by it if I thought 
everyone involved voluntarily accepted the rulings, but I strongly suspect 
(for example) that many of the women involved are threatened if they don't 
agree to sharia law.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message