Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

France: Hizbullah TV allowed to stay on air


Erikl
 Share

Recommended Posts

put away yer handbags , ya kno the problem is u 2 are so similar. lol.

Yer like a married couple lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • wunarmdscissor

    15

  • Babs

    18

  • Erikl

    26

  • Olivier

    10

When the war is finished I will jump back to the liberal view and liberal issues. Interesting.

Very interesting Babs; only problem is that we might have to wait for a very long time to witness that, the way things are going rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zephyr...Yeah, I was thinking that as I wrote it. sad.gif It will be a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wun....I have been thinking about this and this country has been thinking about this, too, of course. We have had discussions here in the US about the patriot act and what the consequences would be if we let this law gets out of hand.

Scary. ph34r.gif

Many say that we can't let the government take our guns (gun control coming on strong, here, too) because if the government did get out of hand we wouldn't be able to take back our control, we'd be helpless. sad.gif This scares me as it scares a lot of people, but what can you do when you need to take some liberties for the sake of security and protection? I'm hoping we can see (when it will be) when we have to stop the government_ or see this 'invisible line', so to speak, in time, so that the government won't take control of our lives. What do you think? Is that possible?

We feel guns help us to remain independent and free... well many of us do. How does the UK work without guns, and still retain control by the people?

Edited by Babs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We feel guns help us to remain independent and free... well many of us do. How does the UK work without guns, and still retain control by the people?

380770[/snapback]

They use this little thing called Democracy and Liberty Values..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then where does this thing with the "guns for the people" come in? What does "arms for the people" have to do with democracy?

...or freedom from governmental tyranny?

If you have freedom and democracy in other countries (without the gun), what is the U.S. doing? Anybody know or have an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We feel guns help us to remain independent and free... well many of us do. How does the UK work without guns, and still retain control by the people?

The Uk works teh same as the US does becuase wether teh people have gins or not it makes no difference to the government , just makes your criminals a lot more dangerous thast all.

The fact that the people own guys aint gonna make ne diffrence.

The point is that in the Uk along with america our military is under the control of the government and that is the whole point , there will never be a coup.

The people wouldnt make any diefference with a few guns against a well trained powerful army would they?

The people owning guns in america doesnt make any difference to the decisions our govt make.

Its a myth that it helps your rights , theres no truth in it whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to me, it seems a few people with guns are giving a "well-trained, powerful military" a hell of a time in Iraq right now. A few Jews with guns took on a "well-trained, powerful military" in the Warsaw Ghetto, and they took a lot Nazis down with them. A few Frenchman with guns(including single shot, discardable pistols that were worthless beyond a few yards) in occupied France killed a hell of a lot of Nazi soldiers there, too. And in Afghanistan, a "few people with guns" took on the Soviet Union in the early years of the Soviet invasion, before international support poured in, and they did a job on that "well-trained, powerful military" with little more than World War One era Enfield rifles. And even after aid was sent to them, the primary weapon was still small arms and improvised explosives. Once they got their hands on modern arms they bloodied that "well-trained, powerful military" until the Soviets were sent reeling back to the USSR bloodied and bruised. Now on the other hand, take a place like the Balkans where the international community imposed an arms embargo on the region. And what happened? The Serbs rolled over the ethnic minorities there, who were unable to arm themselves. They eventually secured weapons by buying them from terrorist groups and criminals, which is terrible, but it's exactly what I would have done, too.

Democracy and libertarian values are all well and good. What happens when they fail? And don't tell me they won't, or can't. Democracy is too new and untested a form of government in the grand scheme of history to know how long it can last. If other countries want to have a democracy without the right to bear arms, fine. whatever works for them. But I'm not giving mine up. That's just my opinion.

Edited by Redneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wun, although here in Israel the laws about gun ownership are pretty much the same as in Europe (it derives from British law, like many other Israeli laws), Babs and Redneck do have a point.

Just as you and Talon point out that if you ban some parties in a democracy, you are heading toward dictatorship, one can say that banning people from carrying weapons does makes youre government much more authoritatian, because it already controls the police and the military, so what will keep them from taking the bunch of you and do to you whatever they want?

Courts? Democracy? All that wouldn't help you if a dictator comes along.

Let's assume that the BNP will get elected.

The fact that you are a Scot, or part of a minority group, renders you a target by this new radical regime. How would you defend yourself? complain in court? won't help you, as Racial Laws just became part of British law. Go to the police? Sorry, the police is commanded by government orders.

No one will help you, because it's an inner British issue. You and youre people will be months from being gassed, together with other non-Anglo-Saxon, non-blonde, non-blue-eyed "Aryan" citizens.

Basically the government could do to you whatever it wants.

But if you all were allowed to have weapons, than that would restrict the government in the most basic principle of human rights - the right to deffense.

I know that was pretty heavy scenario, but the same can be fitted with the bad guys being Communists (which will render anyone with a political thought different than theirs to be deffenseless) or a simple military coup.

But, the fact is that we are all safe and sound even though gun ownership isn't part of our constitution.

The same can be said regarding freedom of speech.

Nothing will happen if groups that advocate violence, racism and hatred will be banned from spreading their violence.

Saying it will is just playing with ideal instead of dealing with what's real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's assume that the BNP will get elected.

The fact that you are a Scot, or part of a minority group, renders you a target by this new radical regime. How would you defend yourself? complain in court? won't help you, as Racial Laws just became part of British law. Go to the police? Sorry, the police is commanded by government orders.

No one will help you, because it's an inner British issue. You and youre people will be months from being gassed, together with other non-Anglo-Saxon, non-blonde, non-blue-eyed "Aryan" citizens.

Basically the government could do to you whatever it wants.

But if you all were allowed to have weapons, than that would restrict the government in the most basic principle of human rights - the right to deffense.

I know that was pretty heavy scenario, but the same can be fitted with the bad guys being Communists (which will render anyone with a political thought different than theirs to be deffenseless) or a simple military coup.

thats a daft analagy erikl.

Education is the biggest factor.

Simple fact is that ina democracy education is more powerfl than a weapon.

People wont vote for the likes of the BNP , teh nazis or even the republicans ;-) j/k if they are educated.

Redneck all these examples , with the exeption of the serbian one that you quoted were involving an outside agrressor , of course if theres a war then the public should be armed that goes without saying.

The serbian example was FAR more complicated than you have so simply put it.

But how does you owning a gun at the moment protect your rights in america just now, what difference does it make.

Democracy and libertarian values are all well and good. What happens when they fail? And don't tell me they won't, or can't. Democracy is too new and untested a form of government in the grand scheme of history to know how long it can last. If other countries want to have a democracy without the right to bear arms, fine. whatever works for them. But I'm not giving mine up. That's just my opinion.

erm how long are we gonna wait for it 2 fail , im mean its been around for 2 centuries in Britain and it hasnt failed so.....when do decide to lay down your arms??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People wont vote for the likes of the BNP , teh nazis or even the republicans ;-) j/k if they are educated.

This is a very daft argument not to say very naive.... the fact that the Nazis rose to power in Germany, one of Europe's most civilized and educated society at the time, and had support from the elite and the academics, proves that even intelligent people, if they are fed with propaganda long enough, will support extremist.

This is also the cruelty of all those regimes - scientists, doctors, lawyers etc. supported them.

I used to think like you - that extremism is only possible among ignorant people. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very daft argument not to say very naive.... the fact that the Nazis rose to power in Germany, one of Europe's most civilized and educated society at the time, and had support from the elite and the academics, proves that even intelligent people, if they are fed with propaganda long enough, will support extremist.

"At the time"

the average person in the year 2004 is FAR more educated than the average person in 1945 . Far more tolerant.

The academics and elite no longer hold the same power they held over the masses now either.

Democracy has moved on , there are many emchanisms in place to stop people like the nazis getton into power.

The last elections in France showed that you do not need a gun to stop a fascist from getting into power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wun, you are missing the point here.

You attack the analogy itself, instead of the point I tried to make.

I know it is a farfetched scenario, but you can change "Britain" to any other democratic country.

You can take France under La Pen.

Austria under Heider.

Spain under another fascist regime, and so on.

My prove was that even though under European democratic system people's rights to carry personal arm is not a constitutional right, the government does not makes you do whatever you want.

Just as you said to redneck earlier: "Its a myth that it helps your rights , theres no truth in it whatsoever." regarding his constitutional right to have a gun in his house, most Germans will tell you the same about youre opinion of restricting extremists' freedom of speech.

The fact is that Germany today is one of the most liberal democracies in Europe, even though they do have harsh restrictions when it comes to neo-fascist groups, proves that no harm will happen to French freedom of speech if they will ban Islamic extremists (or any other racist and violent group) from spreading their poison against other french citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attack the analogy becaus ethe analogy IS the point of your argument

The simple fact is that western European democracies will possibly allow further right or further left governments into power but the people control the government not the other way around.

Just look at the Ukraine , there not fighting in the streets and they look like theyre gonna have their way.

The general public dont NEED to bear arms in a proper evolved democracy such as britain's or france's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cat.gif in el-salvador , years ago, a sargent in the national guard took me to the capitol building . when we got there --the place was a wreck, bullet holes in the walls, all the windows shot out, doors blown off, ect--

i asked the sargent --"what happened here "--his reply --"the peasants decided to vote with bullets!"

cat.gifalien.gifdevil.gifcool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cat.gif there are lots of firearms in the ukraine ! to their credit there reforming their country through peaceful protest--

i wish them the best !! cat.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

wun...I have always wondered about the UK and their government_ 'not allowing arms'. The people want it that way and it is a safer place to live, you say. dontgetit.gif

How in the world could you stop your government from taking over? ph34r.gif

I think I want to keep my guns, now that I understand what is going on. This is the melting pot over here...and we have wild times and crazy, wild and dangerous people. When you touch down on American soil (U.S.A.) you sense you have to be on your toes.

I would hate to be without a gun when the robber stops at my house. sad.gif You know, that even if the guns were taken from us, our criminals here would have them. crying.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so Talon, because:

A. This is a fact if you take into account the demographics and lack of integration of the muslim immigrants.

B. I did say that Germany and UK, even though both have a big muslim population, are in a better position because their muslims aren't as radical as French muslims, thus rendering my critcism to radical muslims, not muslim in general.

C. If the muslim immigratns would have integrated into French population, there would have been no problem. But the fact is that they don't integrate and thus they do comprise a different "nation" inside the french one, thus making a bi-national France a feasible and unescapable futue.

366991[/snapback]

Please, stop generalizing.

Do not think that French muslims are not integrated in our society and are all radical.

It is a caricature which is totally wrong. There are problems of racism in France as anywhere else. That's all.

And for the TV channel, it will probably be forbidden. Answer, tomorrow. Do not criticize France too quickly... The reason why it is so hard to forbid a channel is a problem of freedom of speech . In France, we try to let anyone speak their mind. It is a difficult decision to forbid a TV channel.

Bye

Olivier

Edited by Olivier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olivier...So you don't see this small radical extreme group of muslims causing a problem down the road? Maybe you could tell us a little more since you live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In France, we try to let anyone speak their mind. It is a difficult decision to forbid a TV channel.

Even terrorists it seems... disgust.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In France, we try to let anyone speak their mind. It is a difficult decision to forbid a TV channel.

Even terrorists it seems... disgust.gif

400408[/snapback]

Even those YOU CONSIDER as terrorists. Justice will decide on the status to give them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olivier...So you don't see this small radical extreme group of muslims causing a problem down the road? Maybe you could tell us a little more since you live there.

400389[/snapback]

I will answer quoting a song of a rap singer you may know - Doc Gynéco - while speaking about a sad "tradition" : to burn car's on new year's night in major cities's suburbs :

(Unfortunetaly, the poetical aspect of the song disappears with my translation)

All those youngsters who set fire,

Very rare are those who believe in themselves,

Too rare are those who believe in God.

That indicates that problems in streets are not a matter of religion. On the contrary, once you have a religion, you know what borders you are not allowed to cross.

I know that the Twin Towers's destruction has been a real schock for Americans (even in France, we were schocked). Anyway, it is not a reson to associate muslims with terrorism. Terrorists you talk about are not real muslims. They belong to the muslim community and are manipulated by powerful people intersted in money ... All the muslims I know do not consider these terrorists as muslims (of course). Religion was just a powerful way of manipulating uneducated people.

Bye

Olivier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. What about the extremists in your population? ...The extreme Islamists. The extreme Islamists that are muslim blink.gif .... will they be a problem down the road? I hear they are becoming a problem for France. Is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism is usually a good producer of extremism! Young people who live on the margines of a society and who are constantly subject to blind racism become perfect fanatic extremists! A visit to certain banlieue (suburbs) of any big French city is a good field trip to verify the validity of the above statements! wink2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. What about the extremists in your population? ...The extreme Islamists. The extreme Islamists that are muslim blink.gif .... will they be a problem down the road? I hear they are becoming a problem for France. Is this true?

400662[/snapback]

We have - in France - radical muslims. But not more than in Germany, for instance; contrary to what someone said. I know that, because our two countries are close and work together.

Extreme muslims become a problem because of the evolution of our laws. France tries to reach a perfect separation of religion and state. So, nowadays, in schools, pupils are not allowed to wear obvious religious symbols. The typical veil, the "tchador" worn by girls is no longer accepted, because considered as propaganda. As well as a big cross on a necklace.

Personnally, I disagree with that opposite extremism. This law made us receive threats from "muslim" terrorists who threatened France of bombings.

I think exteme islamists are not a problem specifically in France. Usually, France is positively perceived by muslims living abroad, because it has "always" been place which welcomes inhabitants of our former colonies.

However, as we have a large number of muslims, we provide a certain quantity of so-called "muslim" terrorists. This is a danger for the whole world. Not that much for France.

Indeed, the whole occident worked together struggling against muslim extremists either in France or anywhere else;

To ZEPHYR :

There is a problem of racism in our banlieues (suburbs). I think this is not a specifically French problem. This racism is sometimes, indeed, used to recrute "Allah-warriors".

However, I've seen a TV report dealing with a Franco-French guy who was going to train in Afghanistan, to be at Ben Laden's service. I'm not sure he had been victim of racism. But his case is probably particular.

Bye

Olivier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.