France

[Azrael]

Re Azari's admiration for Bonaparte, I remember having a discussion with a Chinese friend (outside China, so he could speak freely) about the analogies between Napoleon and Mao.

First decade: good (1794-1804: consolidates the revolution, ends the Terror, spreads it to the rest of Europe destroying feudalism and liberating the peasants; 1949-58: brings peace and global respect to China, honest government that cares about the masses)

After that (1804-1815, 1958-76): turn into megalomaniac fuckwits who pointlessly lead to the death of millions.

I've been thinking the same thing for years. It's almost as if there is a ten year rule. After ten years in power, rulers can get much worse.

Examples include Ceaușescu (already mentioned by YMix) and Mugabe, who wasn't all that bad for the first decade but got much worse.

The best bit about the US constitution is Presidential term limits.

Perhaps you are right about that. The case of FDR is interesting and led to the amendment limiting presidential terms.

If you want leaders to admire in France it is those hardly remembered politicians who founded the messy but surprisingly stable third republic in 1871, ending nearly a century of revolution and counter-revolution: people like Thiers on the right, and Gambetta and Jaures on the left. Similarly in Germany, forget Bismarck and remember Eduard Bernstein, who took the toxic creed of Marxism and converted to the peaceful wave of the future, Social Democracy.

But then "Great Men" have glamour, shining brightly off their blood covered hands.

Very good point.

[Ibrahim]

Ah, European skinheads. I'll bed these guys could easily beat up an Algerian 12-year-old. Might only take half of them at once.

[Alexis]

Ah, European skinheads. I'll bed these guys could easily beat up an Algerian 12-year-old. Might only take half of them at once.

Indeed, willingness to wear black clothes and shave one's head should not be mixed with combat proficiency... sometimes it's even negatively correlated

The Nazis didn't use the SA as troops for war. Unfortunately: the war would have been much shorter.

[Endovelico]

Ah, European skinheads. I'll bed these guys could easily beat up an Algerian 12-year-old. Might only take half of them at once.

If those guys had been European skinheads, it would have taken at least twice as many to behead that fierce tied up heretic...

[Ibrahim]

Finally somebody willing to stand up to my incessant bullying of neo-Nazi skinheads!

Some terrorists killed a guy ten years ago? Well that totally justifies these clowns stomping around Paris in their ridiculous outfits terrorizing immigrants. White power, every hour.

[Endovelico]

Finally somebody willing to stand up to my incessant bullying of neo-Nazi skinheads!

Some terrorists killed a guy ten years ago? Well that totally justifies these clowns stomping around Paris in their ridiculous outfits terrorizing immigrants. White power, every hour.

Don't take me wrong. I despise all cowards, whether European skinheads or Middle Eastern jihadi terrorists. They are all equally revolting.

[Ibrahim]

Finally somebody willing to stand up to my incessant bullying of neo-Nazi skinheads!

Some terrorists killed a guy ten years ago? Well that totally justifies these clowns stomping around Paris in their ridiculous outfits terrorizing immigrants. White power, every hour.

Don't take me wrong. I despise all cowards, whether European skinheads or Middle Eastern jihadi terrorists. They are all equally revolting.

Not true. You support violence against civilians if its in support of your personal ideology, as you stated elsewhere. You are what you claim to find revolting.

[Endovelico]

Finally somebody willing to stand up to my incessant bullying of neo-Nazi skinheads!

Some terrorists killed a guy ten years ago? Well that totally justifies these clowns stomping around Paris in their ridiculous outfits terrorizing immigrants. White power, every hour.

Don't take me wrong. I despise all cowards, whether European skinheads or Middle Eastern jihadi terrorists. They are all equally revolting.

Not true. You support violence against civilians if its in support of your personal ideology, as you stated elsewhere. You are what you claim to find revolting.

"Give me Liberty or give me Death!..." may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, specially when it means freedom from religious tyranny.

[Ibrahim]

Finally somebody willing to stand up to my incessant bullying of neo-Nazi skinheads!

Some terrorists killed a guy ten years ago? Well that totally justifies these clowns stomping around Paris in their ridiculous outfits terrorizing immigrants. White power, every hour.

Don't take me wrong. I despise all cowards, whether European skinheads or Middle Eastern jihadi terrorists. They are all equally revolting.

Not true. You support violence against civilians if its in support of your personal ideology, as you stated elsewhere. You are what you claim to find revolting.

"Give me Liberty or give me Death!..." may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, specially when it means freedom from religious tyranny.

How is this statement relevant, given your stated belief that your ideology should be imposed of people by force, regardless of democratic institutions. Who does that remind me of.....

[Parodite]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

[Endovelico]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her. And I am the fascist...

[Parodite]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her. And I am the fascist...

I should have added a tongue in cheek, because all Ibs did is nose diving into the abstract toying with definitions in order to make things look "equal" or at least similar. Or by continuously reminding his audience that when Islamist extremists do something bad, non-Muslims do too! His assumption is that most of his audience is not already totally aware of that fact, which is presumptuously uninformed if not just childish.

But in this case he made a useful point by implication; it might be that we have to fight for our values and ideologies, the ones you express above that I also embrace totally. We can no longer assume that people "naturally and in time" choose our moral values and ideologies, once we have them taste our "good stuff" so to speak. Better believe them when they express their disdain or even hatred for our values and way of life. Religious fanatics and extremists are our enemies. Among other fanatics. We have to fight their ideas with ideas, and if necessary with the sword if they aim at our throats, ready to steal away our freedom and life. It is legitimate self-defence.

[Ibrahim]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her.

Why would you make a false statement like this, Endo? Are any of these things at issue in the Turkish example where this originally came up? Can you quote me defending even half of the positions you falsely attribute to me above? Furthermore, if a country legislates against, say, consuming alcohol how is that any different than legislating against crack cocaine? And what other means are there to make distinctions between what to legalize and what to prohibit besides legislative democratic institutions? You suggested using force to implement the laws you subjectively believe are superior. So...

And I am the fascist...

You came out of nowhere and declared that you support the use of force in imposing your personal ideology, regardless of laws or democratic institutions. If those are your views, you are a fascist. If those aren't your views then correct or amend your earlier statement.

As these neo-Nazi skinheads target religious groups (among others) and believe in the use of force, I thought it humorous to allude to this discussion from the other thread.
Rhapsody's previous statement that he believes in harassing Muslim-looking Dutch people on Fridays in order to teach them some kind of lesson also places him among such groups.

But such views are hardly novel. The fact that the two of you see yourselves as some kind of progressives is the only problem I have.

[Endovelico]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her.

Why would you make a false statement like this, Endo? Are any of these things at issue in the Turkish example where this originally came up? Can you quote me defending even half of the positions you falsely attribute to me above? Furthermore, if a country legislates against, say, consuming alcohol how is that any different than legislating against crack cocaine? And what other means are there to make distinctions between what to legalize and what to prohibit besides legislative democratic institutions? You suggested using force to implement the laws you subjectively believe are superior. So...

The issue is not what is happening in Turkey. Is your stating that a religious majority has a right to impose their views on non-believers, under the guise of "democracy". Subjecting people to living styles they do not recognize as valid and which are not needed to protect other people's rights, nor are protective of human rights in general, is not democracy, is oppression. A religious person's rights are not furthered by forbidding non-believers drinking or fornicating or wearing miniskirts. Therefore people whose rights are being curtailed and are victims of oppression have a right to rebel and use force to preserve their liberty and their rights. Majority rule does not apply when minority rights are being ignored. What would you think of European countries forbidding any Muslim sort of dress, including the public use of veils, or forbidding the use of Arabic in mosques, under the excuse that the majority would approve of such laws?

[monster_gardener]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her. And I am the fascist...

Thank you VERY Much for your post, Endo.

If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony,

If you intend to do ANY of those and quite a few other things like criticize Islam or Mohammed, I strongly suggest NOT spending any time in any Muslim state where Sharia or similar prevails..........

I will additionally suggest that you support measures to make sure Muslims NEVER gain dominance in nations where you do reside or visit lest similar be enacted...**

The kicker in this discussion is that Ibrahim is/claims to be a "PROGRESSiVE" and still supports these Sharia toxic waste rules so long as a majority votes for/condones it.......

And that Ibrahim opposes restrictions on Muslims coming to non-Muslim nations where they can spread the toxic "joy" of Islam and Sharia


*Another kicker is that Muslims have been known to try to enforce Muslim rules even in non-Muslim nations as they did in the Mohammed Cartoon & Salmon Rushdie/Satanic controversies


**Probably won't happen in your lifetime* but might happen to your children or grandchildren.........

[monster_gardener]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her.

Why would you make a false statement like this, Endo? Are any of these things at issue in the Turkish example where this originally came up? Can you quote me defending even half of the positions you falsely attribute to me above? Furthermore, if a country legislates against, say, consuming alcohol how is that any different than legislating against crack cocaine? And what other means are there to make distinctions between what to legalize and what to prohibit besides legislative democratic institutions? You suggested using force to implement the laws you subjectively believe are superior. So...

The issue is not what is happening in Turkey. Is your stating that a religious majority has a right to impose their views on non-believers, under the guise of "democracy". Subjecting people to living styles they do not recognize as valid and which are not needed to protect other people's rights, nor are protective of human rights in general, is not democracy, is oppression. A religious person's rights are not furthered by forbidding non-believers drinking or fornicating or wearing miniskirts. Therefore people whose rights are being curtailed and are victims of oppression have a right to rebel and use force to preserve their liberty and their rights. Majority rule does not apply when minority rights are being ignored. What would you think of European countries forbidding any Muslim sort of dress, including the public use of veils, or forbidding the use of Arabic in mosques, under the excuse that the majority would approve of such laws?

Thank You Very Much for your post, Endo.

A religious person's rights are not furthered by forbidding non-believers drinking or fornicating or wearing miniskirts.

Perhaps true but they believe they are......

Jihadi Muslims believe that the reason that they have been defeated by the infidels so often is that they have not been sufficiently strict about enforcing the rules of Sharia..........

Ibrahim has already said that a trivial issue like banning minarets is "legitimate though vaguely racist"..........

OTOH on the important issue of restriction of Muslim immigration* to non-Muslim lands, Ibrahim has expressed his opposition that this would be wrong: quite definitely "racist"........

Wondering if in his own peculiar allegedly progressive way, Ibrahim is also out to spread Sharia as the explicitly Jihadi Muslims are.....

[Azrael]

Let's not get carried away here . . . there's a big difference between moderate restrictions on the sale of alcohol, which are common in many U.S. states and counties, and "sharia law". There are counties in the U.S. where you can't buy alcohol at all. 18 states in the United States that have state monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages.

[monster_gardener]

Let's not get carried away here . . . there's a big difference between moderate restrictions on the sale of alcohol, which are common in many U.S. states and counties, and "sharia law". There are counties in the U.S. where you can't buy alcohol at all. 18 states in the United States that have state monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages.

Too Bad Control Freaks, Muslim & Otherwise, Aren't Losing Their Religion ....

Thank You Very Much for your post, Azrael.

True that Christians sometimes get sinfully control freak about alcohol (which is quite un-Biblical given that as seen at the Wedding at Cana, Jesus was probably the best vintner ever even without visible benefit of grapes )* and other things but unfortunately with Muslim control freaks it also is not just about booze and unlike the Christians, the control freakery is increasing rather than decreasing.....

For example, AFAIK amoung uz, there is NO state or county in America in which it is illegal to change your religion let alone a death penalty for it.


Christians and seculars need to be wary of those among us/uz who are control freaks and would take our liberty from us be it for a mis-interpretation of scripture or especially with the seculars/progressives "for the children" or other alleged reason, but IMVHO the Muslims control freaks are currently orders of magnitudes worse......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_at_Cana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if-UzXIQ5vw

* Also recalling St. Paul telling Timothy to drink some wine for stomach trouble and what was that that verse about wine cheering G_d and man... Got it: Judges 9:13........

http://biblehub.com/judges/9-13.htm

if-UzXIQ5vw

[Ibrahim]

It is true what Ibs says. Even in the "freeest" of modern, moral, democratic, tolerant of societies.. violence is used against those that act against its ideology as condensed into law, operational in courtrooms and with its enemies imprisoned or even killed in battle at home or abroad.

Is that an excuse to defend the imposition of a religious delusion on those who prefer to live free from it? Mind you, I have all along said that I respect other people's delusions and right to live according to them, but I absolutely refuse any imaginary right of a nutty majority to impose on me their practices. If I want to drink alcohol, eat pork, fornicate with my willing neighbour, work on sunday, drive my car on the sabbath, wear miniskirt, show my beautiful hair in public, pay for a prostitute's services, convert to any religion I see fit, set up a closed naturist colony, that's my f_cking business, as long as I do not violate anybody's human rights. Ibrahim insists that it is "democratic" for a majority Muslim country to put me in jail if I sleep with the non-Muslim next door neighbour without being married to her.

Why would you make a false statement like this, Endo? Are any of these things at issue in the Turkish example where this originally came up? Can you quote me defending even half of the positions you falsely attribute to me above? Furthermore, if a country legislates against, say, consuming alcohol how is that any different than legislating against crack cocaine? And what other means are there to make distinctions between what to legalize and what to prohibit besides legislative democratic institutions? You suggested using force to implement the laws you subjectively believe are superior. So...

The issue is not what is happening in Turkey. Is your stating that a religious majority has a right to impose their views on non-believers, under the guise of "democracy".

They have a mandate to do whatever it is they campaigned on and the public voted on, and which is within their legislative power to do. In this case, that means more religion in public life than previously. It doesn't mean "imposing" things on people, unless you consider seeing/hearing things you personally dislike to be an imposition.

A religious person's rights are not furthered by forbidding non-believers drinking

This is a legislative question. Where I live drinking is illegal and crack cocaine is not. Is the crack cocaine enthusiast oppressed? Are his human rights violated? Previously in Turkey headscarves were banned, now they are not. Are people freer as a result? More oppressed?

Therefore people whose rights are being curtailed and are victims of oppression have a right to rebel and use force to preserve their liberty and their rights.

You spoked in favor of armed force overthrowing the Erdogan government. That is far from justified except by a blanket approval of military rule so long as it reflects your subjective preferences.

What would you think of European countries forbidding any Muslim sort of dress, including the public use of veils, or forbidding the use of Arabic in mosques, under the excuse that the majority would approve of such laws?

France and Switzerland have laws targeting Muslim immigrants. I consider those laws racist, and as reflecting the racism widespread in those countries. Notice I did not call for the overthrow of those governments by violence, because I am not a fascist. I also expect that if some Portuguese administration were trying to make Catholic prayer compulsory in state schools you would complain and you would protest, but you would stop short of advocating the overthrow of the government by violence. So there is a clearly a double-standard here. We've already spoken of your different levels of citizenship for immigrants and non-immigrants, in which you reserve the right to deport naturalized citizens if the violate what you declare to be the cultural norms, so clearly you have one set of ideals for yourself and those like you, and another for those you consider foreign or alien, and you're not adverse to using violence on the latter if it suits you. Thus the skinheads reminding me of the whole affair.

[Ibrahim]

Let's not get carried away here . . . there's a big difference between moderate restrictions on the sale of alcohol, which are common in many U.S. states and counties, and "sharia law". There are counties in the U.S. where you can't buy alcohol at all. 18 states in the United States that have state monopoly over the wholesaling and/or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages.

Bear in mind that none of this is at issue in the original discussion re: Turkey. Erdogan simply introduced more religion into the public dialogue, there aren't actually new religious laws. He's a bit like a Turkish George W. Bush, minus the failed foreign wars and with a smaller rather than larger budget deficit than the day he took office.


But re: "sharia law," aside from it being a scare-word that skinheads and racists use to justify their violence and hatred, what if some country decided democratically that they would have religious-based laws? Several do today and some of them are quite cozy with the West (e.g. Saudi Arabia). Other countries are officially secular but conduct all manner of police-state abuses and are anti-democratic like China, and we still do business with them as well. Clearly there is no objective principle that anyone is following here. Its just chucking sh!t at things they subjectively dislike, and advocating things they do like. Nothing wrong with that, just stop short of harming people like our bald neo-Nazi friends in the picture.

[Ibrahim]

Serious question: do European skinheads still eat kebab?

[Endovelico]

... what if some country decided democratically that they would have religious-based laws?...

One of our conquests, in the post-French Revolution period, is that the law must be universal. A law which is religious-based cannot by definition be universal if there are people who do not share that religion. It thus may not be imposed on non-believers in any legitimate way. At most it is a code of conduct freely and voluntarily accepted by those who share those religious beliefs or values. A law which tried to forbid Christians in a Muslim country eating pork would not be a valid law. Unless pigs were a protected species, in danger of extinction. But never based on a religious belief which is not universally shared. Hopefully you will come to understand the true meaning of the word democracy. Democracy is based on the will of the majority, but must respect the rights of the minority. Not every majority whim is democratic.

[Ibrahim]

... what if some country decided democratically that they would have religious-based laws?...

One of our conquests, in the post-French Revolution period, is that the law must be universal. A law which is religious-based cannot by definition be universal if there are people who do not share that religion.

Two false statements here. 1. Laws are never universal, they are rigidly applied to jurisdictions, and this has been the case for all of human history both from the beginnings of civilization to the present day. 2. All laws are based on moral precepts, most of which are religious. Don't murder, don't steal, these are both religious concepts as well as laws. You can't separate the two and the idea that you can is of of the many failed legacies of 20th century totalitarianism.

It thus may not be imposed on non-believers in any legitimate way.

All laws are imposed on a minority who don't follow them. Moreover, in this example you simply want to impose your preferences on others (via force) while you feign outrage at people deciding, of their own volition, to behave in a way or enact laws that you personally disagree with. Regardless of how much you try and dress your subjective preferences up in progressive language the fact still remains that all you want to do is force people to behave the way you think they should behave. With violence if necessary.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Universal laws are based around justice, which is a subset of most religions but is not inherently religious except in that it is not a feature of natural organization.

[Endovelico]

1. Laws are never universal, they are rigidly applied to jurisdictions, and this has been the case for all of human history both from the beginnings of civilization to the present day. 2. All laws are based on moral precepts, most of which are religious. Don't murder, don't steal, these are both religious concepts as well as laws. You can't separate the two and the idea that you can is of of the many failed legacies of 20th century totalitarianism.

Your religious upbringing shows clearly in these statements. Laws may coincide with moral precepts, but natural law and human rights - which are the basic foundations of any acceptable legal system - existed before any religious or moral precepts. Thou shall not kill is a common principle in some religions, but more importantly it is based in the need to protect life for the survival of the species. That has nothing to do with religion. Laws which are solely meant to further particular bias from any cultural group are only acceptable if all members of that group subscribe to that view, and there is no danger that dissenters will be prosecuted. I don't care if a nation believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as long as they don't threaten to kill me if I state otherwise. Poor Galileo Galilei knew what I'm referring to...