Freedom of speech and the press in one of the core tenants of liberal democracy. Trying to limit these defeats the whole purpose of living in a free society.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Oslo Bombing (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter ReBeL
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Then I guess you and I are just so different in our views on the importance of freedom of speech that there aren't really any reason to keep discussing, since we can never agree.
But let me point out that I found the Muhammad-cartoons childish and stupid. But I would never demand that newspapers shouldn't have freedom of speech. It's a key thing in how the modern western societies have evolved.
But let me point out that I found the Muhammad-cartoons childish and stupid. But I would never demand that newspapers shouldn't have freedom of speech. It's a key thing in how the modern western societies have evolved.
I have to disagree with you here Melo. Isnt it the people that did the attacks that are responsible? That they are waaay to sensitive to those cartoons using them as an excuse to kill? Should the world conform to their views of the world or shopuld they change their views?
Its similar to claiming that a girl in a sexy dress is responsible for her rape and that she shouldnt have teased the rapist. I really disagree here, some forms of free speech are essential for democracy and should not be used as an excuse for these kinds of things.
Thats no justification whatsoever dude (bit faschist argument btw). However unnecessary provocative the cartoons were, violent action as reaction to it cannot be justified.
And I knew this topic would go down to second guessing police measures, in tragedies like this, it allways happens. But as Martin and Zlatan said, I would think its way more valid to question the security service instead of the police, this was a known figure and threat to them, not to this scale, but known either way. Need to monitor and follow up on characters like these, for threat assessment. Thats what they get paid for.
And I knew this topic would go down to second guessing police measures, in tragedies like this, it allways happens. But as Martin and Zlatan said, I would think its way more valid to question the security service instead of the police, this was a known figure and threat to them, not to this scale, but known either way. Need to monitor and follow up on characters like these, for threat assessment. Thats what they get paid for.
I am talking about those who support terrorism generally. Norway don't give a shit about Kurds, they have other benefits. If you toy with other lives by supporting armed organizations, nobody would be there to cry for you when war has come to your land. If you organize bloodshed in other countries you will be eventually drown in the pool you have caused.
So if the bomber had claimed he wouldn't bomb Oslo and shoot at the youth camp, were all muslims to thrown out of Norway. You would accept that to save the lives of those who are now dead?
Cause that is the logic you are presenting.
I understand you are very affected by this tragedy Melo, but a society can't go and change it's ways, every single time a lunatic calls in a bomb threat or call out Jihad on the internet.
Cause that is the logic you are presenting.
I understand you are very affected by this tragedy Melo, but a society can't go and change it's ways, every single time a lunatic calls in a bomb threat or call out Jihad on the internet.
There's a difference between supporting an ideology and an act. Terrorism is a tactic not and ideology. By this logic, Turkish aid to Palestine means that turkey should get no sympathy is they get bombed. They are after all supporting a terrorist state 
I see, so the Oslo peace accords were some sort of Norwegian conspiracy? Norway doesn't see the PKK as a terrorist organisation to promote peace, not foment conflict. Norway is impartial as far as possible which is why both the PKK and Turkey can have interests in Norway, just like Hamas and Israel.
Not really. I don't know much about the PKK in the 80's and 90's but from what I hear about, they usually attack the military and government, which is understandable. That's not bloodshed for a group that wants independence. Just like ASALA was targeting Turkish diplomats and government officials in the 70's, or when Michael Collins set up rebel bandits or the word you used, "terrorists" to kill English agents in occupied Ireland in 1916. These examples aren't considered bloodshed. If you consider them to be bloodshed, then you probably have deep nationalistic roots and you are a jingoist.
