Sweden raises its terror threat to four out of five after Quran burnings
Sweden raises its terror threat to four out of five after Quran burnings
The decision follows a recent string of public desecrations of the Quran by a handful of anti-Islam activists, sparking angry demonstrations across Muslim countries.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Why the fuck do they keep allowing this. It is one of the most extreme forms of provocation there is and it has obviously only one goal, to fuel hate and violence between Muslims and the west! Publicly desecrating the most holy symbol of any world religion will always spark hate and probably violence and that is why these malicious people do it. It has nothing to do with free speech or rational expression of oneself, all they want to achieve is that people from different communities hate and hurt each other instead of cooperating. Why can´t people just show at least a little respect for each other?!
-
It has nothing to do with free speech or rational expression of oneself
Being rational is not a requirement for free speech. There are clear rules about what is considered free speech. Burning books might be tasteless, but it should not be illegal, regardless of which book it is.
Why can´t people just show at least a little respect for other cultures?!
Respect needs to be mutual. These people who are offended by some burned books will happily disrespect other cultures or beliefs.
-
Being rational is not a requirement for free speech
I never said it was ...
There are clear rules about what is considered free speech. Burning books might be tasteless, but it should not be illegal, regardless of which book it is.
Burning things is not free speech though. In this case it is clearly incitement to hate and violence and nothing else
Respect needs to be mutual.
Exactly
These people who are offended by some burned books will happily disrespect other cultures or beliefs
Do I understand correctly that your proposal is that we should adopt that intolerant behavior instead of giving a better example?
-
Keine Toleranz den Intoleranten. Man erreicht damit nen Scheißdreck. Sieht man ja in Deutschland mit der AfD. Dieser dumme Naziverein wurde die ganze Zeit toleriert und jetzt haben wir NSDAP2.0 vor der Tür.
Sorry for German. What I said is, no tolerance for the intolerant. This is a statement us Germans usually use in conjunction with nazis but I also have no tolerance for backward ass religions.
-
Also schützt uns nur das regelmäßige öffentliche verbrennen des Koran vor dem Kalifat Deutschland oder was willst du mit deinem Kommentar sagen?
-
Nein, aber ein besseres Beispiel darstellen hilft bei den Dullies nicht. Damit erreicht man genau gar nichts. Jeder soll sein Recht ausüben dürfen. Dazu gehört nunmal auch das verbrennen eines Buches über ein fucking Fabelwesen. Wir können uns doch nicht durch son Haufen Idioten einschränken lassen. Und ich meine damit diese Vollidioten, die wegen sowas auf die Straße gehen und aggressiv werden. Nicht die normalen Moslems, die klar kommen.
-
Provokative öffentliche Kornverbrennungen machen aktiv "normale Moslems die klarkommen" zu "Vollidioten die aggressiv werden" und was soll daran bitte gut sein?
-
Es gibt genug Leute (hoffentlich die Mehrheit), die das zwar nicht gut finden, aber nicht aggressiv werden. Man soll die aggressiven halt nicht tolerieren.
Ich finde übrigens auch, dass man Bücher (egal welche) nicht verbrennen sollte. Und ich finde das Provozieren auch völlig unnütz. Aber es ist nunmal erlaubt. Es kann nicht sein, dass man Terror ankündigt, nur weil ein Haufen Papier, auf dem eine schlechte Fantasy Geschichte geschrieben wurde, verbrannt wird. Das kann einfach nicht angehen.
-
Dann sind wir uns ja einig mein Kerly!
-
-
-
Aber was ich nicht ganz verstehe, ist warum man das jetzt verbrennt. Es ist doch offensichtlich, um zu provozieren. Man weiß ja schon genau welche Reaktion es hervorruft. Warum macht man das dann? Will man Gewalt auf den Straßen? Klar ist das scheiße, dass einige so auf eine Bücherverbrennung reagieren, aber es ist nunmal so, warum muss man es dann mit Absicht heraufbeschwören? Was soll das bringen? Es ist ja so als wolle man die Gesellschaft weiter spalten und Gewalt. Das ist ein bisschen so wie im Kindergarten, wenn man ein anderes Kind die ganze Zeit gezielt ärgert und dann irgendwann auf die Fresse bekommt und sich dann wundert. Kenne das zu gut ("Das ist ein freies Land, ich darf direkt durch deine Sandburg bauen auch wenn der Sandkasten noch frei ist" und dabei dumm Grinsen).
-
Kein Plan was die Motivation ist. Mir würde sowas im Leben nicht einfallen. Ich kann mir aber vorstellen, dass es Menschen gibt, die nicht wollen dass die Ideologie dieser Religion sich in den Alltag manifestiert. Die Koranverbrennung soll dann wohl Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen und das hässliche Gesicht dieser Religion aufdecken. Scheint gewissermaßen auch zu funktionieren.
Ich halte übrigens auch von anderen Religionen nichts. Der Islam ist allerdings leider sehr auffällig.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Do you really want the state to recognize some things as sacred? Where do we start and where do we stop?
-
Do you really want the state to recognize some things as sacred?
Fair question. Actually I don't want things to be considered sacred by the state at all. Separation of state and religion is one of the biggest cultural achievements and the basis of a tolerant society imo. However that does in no way make it ok to publicly disrespect peoples personal believes in obviously malicious ways.
Where do we start and where do we stop?
How about we stop at obviously malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence?
-
Here in Russia we relatively recently had got a law for "protection of the rights of believers". And boy, did it go wrong.
-
I am not promoting a law to protect religious believes but a law against incitement to hate and violence. Those are not the same.
-
Such a law would be from the same barrel. A tool to easy to abuse. Let speech be free. It's violence what should be punished.
-
Of course violence should be repressed, come on this is so trivial it doesn't even need to be pointed out, except when talking to a bunch of troglodytes. However Incitement is a different topic and in my opinion incitement of masses of people should definitely be repressed too because it most of the time leads to violence.
-
-
-
-
The book burning was not malicious. It was a test to see if the other party is malicious.
-
What a feeble and easy to see through excuse. When did aggressive provocation by public desecration of holy symbols of a world religion stop being malicious?
-
Easy to see through? What are you talking about?
It's not aggressive.
It's only desecration if you believe Islamic law.
-
Dude ... here is this book ... we know that millions of people consider the most holy thing in the world. What do we do with it? Obviously coming up with the idea to publicly burn such book is as malicious as it gets.
-
Not even close to malicious as it gets. That brain dead take is the point of burning it.
If you think burning paper is as malicious as it gets, where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
-
So publicly burning a certain paper that is the most holy item to millions of people in the world with the sole intent of provoking them by desecration is not malicious? ROFL you can´t be serious, you must be a shill for sure.
where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
Cheap attempt to derail from the actual topic of malicious public Quran burning. Those things are on a whole different level and not part of the discussion here.
-
You said "malicious as it gets". So can you please answer the question?
-
You mean that hypocritical question?
where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?
Obviously calling mass killings malicious is a diminution and I would strongly refuse doing so because of that. Mass killings are obviously far beyond malicious, more like really fucking evil. Terrorism is another topic because it depends very much on perspective since one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. However the actual question here seems to be why it is so important to you to derail from the actual topic of the discussion, which is the malicious public burning of holy symbols of a world religion to intentionally create more hate and violence in a world that already has way too much of it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How about we stop at obviously malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence?
Is such an incitement not an offense in Sweden already? I know it is in France for example.
-
Burning the Quran is such an incitement and it seems to be a popular weekend activity in Sweden ...
-
It should be a popular weekend activity in every civilised country.
-
Inciter ...
-
-
-
-
It's kind of strange that some countries have laws and punishments dealing with libel, slander, and defamation of character (disrespect of individuals) but "malicious attempts of incitement to intercultural hate and violence" (well said) makes some people throw their hands up and say "welp what can you do, it's freedom". The "Where do we start and where do we stop?" camp doesn't seem to have enough mental tarmac to even take off in search of a solution.
-
Because libel and slander are targeted at individuals. Groups and worldviews do not enjoy the same protections as individuals by most law systems. That's mostly a good thing.
I have no love for the right-wing nutjobs trying to incite intercultural violence but at the same time I don't think what they're doing can be made illegal in a liberal society.
-
In Germany, when a Neo-Nazi publicly praises national socialism or denies the holocaust you can simply call the cops on his ass because there is a law against incitement. When I learned that in the USA that kind of shit is covered by "free speech" at first I just could not believe it. So, does that mean there is no right to express your opinion in Germany - of course it does not - it simply means that there are legal limits to purposefully spreading hate, violence and ideologies that lead to it. I personally think the US American idea of free speech - that makes it for example legal to publicly deny the holocaust - is not particularly smart ...
-
That's interesting, I didn't know that. Sounds reasonable to me.
The US first ammendment ("free speech") protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government. That's it. It doesn't mean you can say whatever tf you want, as some people interpret it. In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
-
The US first ammendment (“free speech”) protects citizens from reprecussions from the government if a citizen criticizes the government
Obviously there can´t be a democracy (or what we call a democracy) without that! Criticizing the government has to be legal - always - no exceptions!
In fact, in the US, some people who misinterperet the first ammendment will be summarily executed by someone who misunderstands the second ammendment!
ROFL - US culture seriously scares the shit out of me and I will probably never travel there
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, burning some paper is far from the most extreme form of provocation.
If someone, or some group, wants to commit violence as a result of burning a single book, then they have demonstrated that they have no place in the modern world; which was likely the point of said burning.
-
If someone, or some group, wants to constantly provoke a certain religion as a result of cultural racism, then they have demonstrated that they have no place in the modern world
Fixed it for you, you´re welcome :)
-
No. If you get provoked too easily, and respond violently, you are the asshole.
Terrorism as a response to burning some paper is a good example.
-
They do not get provoked particularly easily - on the contrary! You omit that the particular book that the hateful inciters are burning publicly on a weekly basis now is not "some paper" but the most holy item in the world for a lot of people. So burning it obviously equals incitement. I can´t believe you really don´t understand these trivial things?!
-
But it's just paper to me. They don't get to enforce onto me what is and isn't sacred. That's the point of burning it. I can't believe you don't understand this trivial thing.
-
They don´t. You are free to burn any books you want privately, you can heat your home with Qur'ans if you choose to and nothing will happen. Just don´t do it publicly to intentionally incite hate and violence - pretty simple isn't it?
Oh and by the way, Islamist terrorism is in the first place a response to decades of fossil-colonialism and exploitation of the Muslim world by the imperialist west. You are aware where the energy and plastic for our comfortable life comes from right? Right?
-
In my religion, tobacco is sacred. Anyone who is smoking cigarettes are provoking violence.
Idiotic.
-
Interesting, what particular religion would that be?
-
MadeTheFuckUpism. It's exactly as true as Islam.
-
Why does the name of the religion matter here?
-
-
-
What if I want to prove to them that the laws they try to enforce on others don't effect me? Burning some paper seems like the most harmless way to make that point.
-
Honestly? Who tried to enforce their laws on you and how? Please share the story with us and also let us know how burning a Quran saved you from that. Also, burning holy books incites violence so obviously it is anything else but harmless and you and the Quran burners know it, it´s the real reason why they do it and probably why you defend it. the sole reason they do it is to fuel hate and violence between cultures. Stop pretending it´s about your freedom.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Make up your mind. Live in the past with your old ideas, hate , make believe stories and book. Or join the free modern world
-
I am an atheist, like my parents and grandparents were. Project much?
Or join the free modern world
If you are talking about the proto-fascist, failed state, shithole country USA - no fucking way man, may the flying spaghetti monster protect me from ever moving there lol
-
-
-
-
Religion has no place in a civilised society.
-
On the contrary, intolerance for diverse believes has no place in a civilized society.
-
THE IRONY
-
-
-
Publicly desecrating the most holy symbol of any world religion will always spark hate and probably violence and that is why these malicious people do it.
Let's say I'm a freeist. We strongly believe people should be free of religious symbols. It is most sacred to us that especially public spaces are not tainted with religious symbols. The possession, distribution, usage and display of religious symbols is an outragous desecration of everything we hold dear and holy, and cannot be seen as anything but a direct, personal and utmost provocation to each and every freeist. This intolerance is unacceptable.
Now what, which religion gets precedence, and why? Whose fairy tale deserves to determine what people not following that religion are forbidden (by law, or by decency) to do in public spaces?
Do we really want a justice system of "whoever plays the imaginary victim first wins"?
I can come up with arbitrary religious rules all day, and demand everyone else (including non-followers) to follow my rules. Is that a sensible demand to follow?
-
Irrelevant example since there is no freeist religion. Most religions we have in the world today are thousands of years old and are deeply intertwined with the culture of the countries they are practiced in. Don´t be ignorant towards history, it is a very shallow approach.
-
Irrelevant objection. What does it matter how many people believed in something for how long? Who's to say which imaginary belief system is to be taken seriously, and which is to be discarded?
You're free to believe in whatever you want, but so am I. You're free to submit to religious rules, in exactly the same way that I am free to not submit to them. Or have my own, different belief. Further, I'm not obliged to follow practices from other cultures in different countries.
Don't be ignorant towards the power play you're inviting if you accept such encroaching behaviour.
-
I don´t see how that does oppose behaving respectfully towards people with different believes.
-
-
-
-
Do you know why they're burning a quoran and not statues of Buddha? Because only one of those two groups starts throwing tantrums like children.
Did Swedes take to the streets because they burnt churches in Pakistan? No... we didn't even care. We moved on with our lives.
-
So you have a large group of people who are peaceful except when someone desecrates their holy symbols because in their culture that is the worst possible sacrilege. Is it really a smart idea in this scenario to publicly burn those signals? Think about it ...
-
It's a bad idea to tell a stranger that they smell like a turd burger but that doesn't mean it justifies violence or threat of terrorism.
They're burning quorans to try and prove a point. And they succeeded.
Doesn't matter if you or I think it's a good idea or not.The law does not ban the burning of a book as a form of protest.
The government can not tell you what you can and can't protest. That would go against our freedom of speech.
The argument of, "I don't like what they're protesting" is not enough.
People were protesting the covid vaccine. I don't agree with, I think they're idiots. But I will still defend their right to do it. It has to go both ways.
-
-
-
coming in here to bang the free speech drum is pretty tiresome. Free speech does not mean people have to put up with your bullshit
-
What does free speech means to you?
-
Pardon me, are you mistaking me for someone else? I am the one who criticizes using "free speech" as an excuse for incitement of hate and violence. How that equals "banging the free speech drum" evades me completely. If you actually meant me, please elaborate.
-
Wokes now running interference for Islam. The horrors of postmodernism.
If these immigrants do not like western free speech and democracy, nothing is stopping them from leaving.
-
Found the (not so crypto)-racist ...
-
A simple and logical demand that people follow the laws of the land they came to such as “don’t behead people who insult your religion.” racism
If anyone here is a crypto racist it’s you. You’re implying that these people are so backward they can’t be expected to follow Westen rules so we should accommodate their backwardness.
-
No, I certainly never said that.
-
-
-
-
-