Palestianian atheist arrested

[Starsoul]

Well, if anything I would think the claim you made that ...
Feel like withdrawing that now?

I said that in the context of a norwegian group of people who i encountered and they gave me some of the worst examples of freedom of speech by indulging in dishonoring others. I took a pretty bad impression from that, their hate was scathingly venomous. But I'm sure most are not like that, experiences teach you all.

And who is to decide that?

You?The people who execute homosexuals and imprison dissenting voices?

Well why would you leave that choice with me since you yourself think it lies with you? Nobody is going to come to your country and force your people into submission, but other countries that are being invaded are seen as the slime of the feet, obviously because the invaders feel that they have a better example to project of themselves upon others.

Anyhow, i guess its enough on the matter now, its going nowhere, thanks for your thoughts and i apolojize for all the space clutter and for any harsh feelings

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not that it has any relevance to this thread, but they are in Afghanistan.

True, but as far as I know they still haven't bombed anyone.
They -have- killed Taliban though, so I guess that counts for something in this context.

Well in all fairness, not that is has anything to do with this thread, they still did it, and thousands of innocent Iraqis are still dead, so I doubt this is much comfort to the people of Iraq. It's not like they were invaded by Brazil.

Also true. Just wanted to make the point that not everyone agrees with what their country does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said that in the context of a norwegian group of people who i encountered and they gave me some of the worst examples of freedom of speech by indulging in dishonoring others. I took a pretty bad impression from that, their hate was scathingly venomous. But I'm sure most are not like that, experiences teach you all.

How could the actions of Norwegians, whatever they did, have any bearing whatsoever on the rights of a Palestinian atheist to speak in his own country?

Does curtailing his free speech somehow help you "get back" at Norway for some perceived slight you think Norwegians have collectively committed? If that's not what you're suggesting, then how is Norway relevant at all?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I said that in the context of a norwegian group of people who i encountered and they gave me some of the worst examples of freedom of speech by indulging in dishonoring others. I took a pretty bad impression from that, their hate was scathingly venomous. But I'm sure most are not like that, experiences teach you all.

So, either you judged a whole country based on a random group of Norwegians that you happened to meet, or you blatantly failed to mention that your rather insulting characteristic only applied to said group.

Well why would you leave that choice with me since you yourself think it lies with you?

Oh, I assure you, I had no intention of leaving it with you.
But I might be convinced by logical argumentation, although I have seen little of that so far.

Nobody is going to come to your country and force your people into submission, but other countries that are being invaded are seen as the slime of the feet, obviously because the invaders feel that they have a better example to project of themselves upon others.

I have invited you to compare countries to see who stacks up the best but you have consistently dodged that option.

Anyhow, i guess its enough on the matter now, its going nowhere, thanks for your thoughts and i apolojize for all the space clutter and for any harsh feelings

No harsh feelings mate. I don't get personally insulted when someone dislikes or attacks my opinions and ideas.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't get personally insulted when someone dislikes or attacks my opinions and ideas.

That is the part that I don't quite understand. How could anyone possibly be offended by critical thoughts? How insecure are such people and why should we have laws to protect their inherent insecurity?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am going to forget anything you said before and I am starting from this post of yours.
Who is we?

"We" as in, everyone on this thread. Some people on this thread think free speech can be restricted even before you talk about violence, but we all agree that there can be restrictions on violent speech (perhaps we differ on details). Am I mistaken?

I am asking you now; Is supporting hamas operations against Israelis outside the bound of freedom of speech or not? Can any person express this freely in public without any legal problems?
Is supporting the Israeli operations against Palestinians outside the bound of freedom of speech or not? Can any person express this freely in public without any legal problems?

If you are a citizen the answer to both questions is yes. If you are a non-citizen visiting on a visa, then I'm not sure. They will revoke a person's visa if they say/do things that imply they may be a security threat. If a foreigner is openly saying suicide bombings against civilians are a good thing then this raises suspicions they might plan something like this in the U.S., and that's a very sensitive issue since Sept. 11.

But calling for terrorist attacks while being an American citizen isn't a security risk?

It could be, it depends on what you say. As Penguin pointed out granting people permission to enter the U.S. (or Canada) is considered a privilege, not a right.

For example, one famous American actress Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam while the U.S. and Vietnam were at war. Her North Vietnamese hosts even showed her American prisoners of war. They photographed her smiling looking through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. This was at a time when American pilots were being killed every day. She basically supported the enemies of the U.S. in every way except direct material support, while we were at war. I'm not arguing whether this was right or wrong, but what is interesting is that she never faced any criminal penalty for this because legally she didn't do anything wrong. She has continued to be a successful actress in the U.S.

On the other hand, if a guy from North Vietnam was photographed looking through an A.A. gun like Jane Fonda, and he applied for a U.S. visa at that time, he would probably be denied. You could call that a double-standard. But I think Jane Fonda was less likely to come back to the U.S. to kill her American friends and family than the Vietnamese guy.

I told you why. The US wanted to enlist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi among terrorists but thanks to the effort of Emir Qatar that intervened with this. His views on Hamas and its operations were also the reason for banning him from entering UK.

Do you have a source? The BBC article you cited did not say why he was banned in the U.S. I haven't found any info. on it.

Maybe because you never asked before?
Not according to my knowledge. I never heard that he has been accused of this but his views and fataws are the issue.

I must have thought this question to myself without asking it aloud ... :areyoucra

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example, one famous American actress Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam while the U.S. and Vietnam were at war. Her North Vietnamese hosts even showed her American prisoners of war. They photographed her smiling looking through the sights of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. This was at a time when American pilots were being killed every day. She basically supported the enemies of the U.S. in every way except direct material support, while we were at war. I'm not arguing whether this was right or wrong, but what is interesting is that she never faced any criminal penalty for this because legally she didn't do anything wrong. She has continued to be a successful actress in the U.S.

On the other hand, if a guy from North Vietnam was photographed looking through an A.A. gun like Jane Fonda, and he applied for a U.S. visa at that time, he would probably be denied. You could call that a double-standard. But I think Jane Fonda was less likely to come back to the U.S. to kill her American friends and family than the Vietnamese guy.

IMO, part of the distinction is that, generally, people are recognized as having a right to a nationality, and the right to re-enter the country of their nationality. This gives Jane Fonda the right to enter the US no matter what she does, but it doesn't give a North Vietnamese person the same right... though the North Vietnamese person would have the right to re-enter Vietnam.

The most heinous criminal in the world has the right to re-enter his own country. He might be immediately thrown in prison as soon as he arrives, but the country's government doesn't have the right to turn him away or to kick him out once he's in.

 

[Sahar]

If you are a citizen the answer to both questions is yes. If you are a non-citizen visiting on a visa, then I'm not sure. They will revoke a person's visa if they say/do things that imply they may be a security threat. If a foreigner is openly saying suicide bombings against civilians are a good thing then this raises suspicions they might plan something like this in the U.S., and that's a very sensitive issue since Sept. 11.

I am curious to know, won't this raise suspicions if you are a citizen as well?
But I'd like to add I never said to support suicide bombings against civilians but that was a part of specific case and conflict.

It could be, it depends on what you say. As Penguin pointed out granting people permission to enter the U.S. (or Canada) is considered a privilege, not a right.

Of course. I am just confused that certain speech is to be considered an offence depending on whether you're a citizen or not.

Do you have a source? The BBC article you cited did not say why he was banned in the U.S. I haven't found any info. on it.

The man himself, does it work for you?

This uninformed agency, however, did not know that the Jews themselves stated that religious scholars pose the most dangerous threat to the Palestinian cause, and that the most dangerous among them is Al-Qaradawi! As a consequence, they have often incited my assassination, and the Zionist lobby stands against me everywhere and provokes the governments of various countries against me so that they ban my entry into their lands. No wonder then that I have been banned from entering the United States, Britain and some European countries, because I am an enemy of Israel and the Mufti of martyrdom operations.
​

Al-Qaradawi

(A side note: I didn't cite any BBC article on this issue :run
​

I must have thought this question to myself without asking it aloud ... :areyoucra

Listen the issue of hamas and Israel is a talk about a specific conflict and case. Yusuf Al Qaradawi is an Egyptian scholar. I wasn't talking about someone who actually fight the Americans or who support any suicide operation against American civilians. But the case here is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. True that the US is the greatest supporter for Israel and based on this, there will always be bias and double standards. Nothing is surprising about this. I can ask as well, would a foreigner who support the Israeli attacks against Palestinians ever be banned from entering the US? Not in a million years as you say there.

 

[YmirGF]

I can ask as well, would a foreigner who support the Israeli attacks against Palestinians ever be banned from entering the US? Not in a million years as you say there.

As we say "here", I wouldn't bet the farm on that one. The rise in anti-Israeli sentiments is almost at unprecedented level in America.

 

[kai]

As we say "here", I wouldn't bet the farm on that one. The rise in anti-Israeli sentiments is almost at unprecedented level in America.

Here to, there is a rise in anti Israeli sentiment on the ground.

It is perceived that they have done a back flip and become Goliath to the Palestinians David and the British have a soft spot for the Davids.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am curious to know, won't this raise suspicions if you are a citizen as well?

Oh it might raise suspicions. In various circumstances the FBI can spy on people if there is suspicion of criminal activity or intent. Of course, this power can be abused. There are white supremacist groups, who have guns, and who spout the most hateful rhetoric, who are extremely suspicious. The FBI has investigated such groups, but as long as they do not plan or perpetrate any criminal activity, they cannot be convicted of a crime.

Of course. I am just confused that certain speech is to be considered an offence depending on whether you're a citizen or not.

That is understandable, it is a little confusing to me too, frankly. The so-called USA Patriot Act was a law passed in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, which gave the government wider powers to prevent people from entering the U.S. Many people have criticized this law. It includes the ability of the State Department to deny visas to any foreigner who has used their:

"[FONT=Courier,Courier New]position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities".
(Source: Visa Provisions in USA PATRIOT Act Series: No. 2)[/FONT]
​

The man himself, does it work for you?

It's certainly good evidence, yes. Thanks.

(A side note: I didn't cite any BBC article on this issue :run

Oh that's right I cited it, it was the only information I could find (in English) from Wiki and Google ...​

Listen the issue of hamas and Israel is a talk about a specific conflict and case. Yusuf Al Qaradawi is an Egyptian scholar. I wasn't talking about someone who actually fight the Americans or who support any suicide operation against American civilians. But the case here is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. True that the US is the greatest supporter for Israel and based on this, there will always be bias and double standards. Nothing is surprising about this. I can ask as well, would a foreigner who support the Israeli attacks against Palestinians ever be banned from entering the US? Not in a million years as you say there.

Yes and these are all excellent points. Do you know when he was banned from the U.S.? If he was banned after Sept. 11 then perhaps the Patriot Act is the reason, since he endorses terrorist attacks which target Israeli civilians. The U.S. government and most Americans maintain that Israel does not deliberately target civilians the way Hamas deliberately targets civilians, and therefore endorsing Israeli operations is not endorsing terrorism. (Of course we could have a huge debate about that; as you know, I personally object to a number of Israeli actions.)

There's no question there is a double-standard and the Israeli/Jewish lobby has probably pressed very hard to prevent Qaradawi from entering the U.S. as it did in Britain. But, you can't totally dismiss the U.S. perspective. We have a good number of Israeli citizens living here and a sizable Jewish population. Qaradawi says suicide bombings against Israeli citizens--including women--is okay. Forgive me for not wanting a foreigner to bring the endless Israeli/Palestinian conflict to my country. Also, I don't want anything to happen to Qaradawi on U.S. soil, if some crazy person assassinated him here, or even if the Mossad attacked him, this would instantly be blamed on the U.S. and bring more hatred against us. Furthermore, if a Zionist terrorist group bombed a mosque in the U.S. and then no restrictions were placed on radical Zionists trying to enter the country, there would *definitely* be a double-standard. But there have not been terrorist attacks by radical Zionists in the U.S. or even significant threats of attacks.

I'm not saying Qaradawi should have been banned, there is no question you are right a double-standard is at play, but the unfair pro-Israel double-standard is also mixed in with legitimate reasons.

 

[Starsoul]

So, either you judged a whole country based on a random group of Norwegians that you happened to meet, or you blatantly failed to mention that your rather insulting characteristic only applied to said group.

Excuse me, but Why are you judging the palestinian authorities for jailing the guy, according to your perception of fairness? It is understood it was his country and he well understood the law of Blasphemy before deliberately chafing the law of that land.

What is the basis of your criticism here? If I'm in a country i choose to abide by their law whether or not it suits to my personal likeness. You can't dictate people to break the laws of their countries.

Oh, I assure you, I had no intention of leaving it with you.
But I might be convinced by logical argumentation, although I have seen little of that so far.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself, don't you? I'm glad the world doesn't run on your intentions

I have invited you to compare countries to see who stacks up the best but you have consistently dodged that option.

What dodge, i declined the vain offer in view of the fact i already see your stance being defeated. You cannot boast a booming economy to stand parallel with a dead economy, killed by the invaders and the supporters of those invaders, to give a sermon about how good your country is in supporting the dead economies. I find that quite arrogant actually, I don't like meddling with arrogance.

No harsh feelings mate. I don't get personally insulted when someone dislikes or attacks my opinions and ideas.

Yeah sure and that is why you are discussing the whole thing and inviting me for a duel because your opinions are not insulted, you only want to insult mine.

Here's the difference, to you, science and religion both are ideas, so you will deal with them according to what they deliver to your personal likes and dislikes. You can trash both for lacking to address to your needs, and you also refuse to see how your attitude applies to the rest of the world.

Here's what Religious people believe, Religion is not a self made idea for them, Its a dogma of Supreme power and Authority according to which they define their lifestyles. The base of their belief is not a buffet dinner where they pick one suited item over the other, they choose to believe and follow the principles of that religion which is defined by an Authority bigger than their govts. Now for you, govt or your egoistic tenet of beliefs is superior( i say egoistic because it comes from the self, so ego plays a definite part) , for us, God and His dogma is supreme.

You can say whatever you want but your ' argumentation' on the basis of your perception is of no credibility to the believers so you will have to accept that they are never going to go by Your definition of right or wrong if you were to impose your thoughts on them, simple as that.

So, I'm not like stepping on your rights of freedom of speech, I'm only telling you that when you spend time and energy refuting, ridiculing a religious belief, the loss is your own, talk as you may, gather protests, condemn them however, But you can't dictate them what to do in the light of whats right in your opinion. Religions have laws for blasphemy, without any apology to you or to anyone else for that matter.

For atheists, i understand that respect for religions and religious figures is a constant speck in the eye, but you have no right to dictate that disrespect to anyone else.It is just a forceful imposition without any merits or moral grounds.

As a matter of fact, this rift will always exist between athiests and believers, because it stems from the basic opposition between the two, while athiests just defending their stance with the clever use of the 'freedom of speech' term. Freedom of speech always existed, so did blasphemy, but they were two distinct terms, now they have merged into one. But sorry, not so w.r.t religions.

The palestinian athiest being arrested was not making logical derivations out of a discussion as to why he did not believe in God, he was slandering, maligning and insulting the religion in a very profuse way, in a muslim country. I'd wager he knew very well what he was doing and what were the consequences, probably it was just a pathetic attempt by him to bag sympathy from the western countries for gaining asylum there, nothing else.

Its not surprising that athiests spoke up for him, but as it is, it is shocking that you can support a guy just because he distantly supports just the abusive athiest streak. He actually claimed to be God ( do athiests do that?), giving divine orders to his fans on the page, while telling them that they should smoke marijuana because its in the holy book? Are You serious? The guy seems sufficiently in need of mental health care, and I'm sure thats why he got arrested in the first place, his statements were getting out of hand.

If you're hoping to rule the world with that kind of thinking, I'm afraid you don't stand a chance, not atleast in the muslim population. Good luck anyway.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is perceived that they have done a back flip and become Goliath to the Palestinians David and the British have a soft spot for the Davids.

I think people have a soft spot for human beings, kai.

 

[kai]

I think people have a soft spot for human beings, kai.

If only my friend if only ,its a fact people take sides Spinks for one reason or another and tiny Israel against the Arabs was one thing but the Israeli Army in operations like Gaza is quite another to the British public.

Israeli sympathy is wearing thin here ,the public can be fickle, they like people fighting against the odds , dont get me wrong its not Hamas or PLO but the Palestinians they now perceive as David

 

[Sahar]

That is understandable, it is a little confusing to me too, frankly. The so-called USA Patriot Act was a law passed in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, which gave the government wider powers to prevent people from entering the U.S. Many people have criticized this law. It includes the ability of the State Department to deny visas to any foreigner who has used their:

"[FONT=Courier,Courier New]position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities".
(Source: Visa Provisions in USA PATRIOT Act Series: No. 2)[/FONT]​

:biglaugh:
Sorry!!

Do you know when he was banned from the U.S.? If he was banned after Sept. 11 then

No, it was since 1999.

The U.S. government and most Americans maintain that Israel does not deliberately target civilians the way Hamas deliberately targets civilians, and therefore endorsing Israeli operations is not endorsing terrorism. (Of course we could have a huge debate about that; as you know, I personally object to a number of Israeli actions.)

Yes, I understand. What I am saying from the beginning that trying to have a debate expressing your thoughts about what Hamas (and other Islamic groups in Palestine) used to carry out in occupied Palestine is not terrorism, is not a safe thing to argue about there. I asked you if people can freely express this counter view. If they can express in public their understanding of what terrorism is in that case. Just like the Americans can freely express their point of view on Israeli actions and its attacks against Palestinians which they think it is not terrorism, is legitimate self defense. From another PoV, this can be looked as a support for terrorism.

I'd like to add that the concerned fatwa here of Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi was about these operations that were carried out in Palestine.

Terrorizing the American civilians on their lands has no place at all in this fatwa. I just wanted to make this clear.

 

[Sahar]

It's interesting that the one has to address everyone by his country; Britain, Canada, Norway and USA...it's tiring also.

 

[kai]

It's interesting that the one has to address everyone by his country; Britain, Canada, Norway and USA...it's tiring also.

That's because we all have different laws etc its confusing as well as tiring i don't envy you trying to get an idea of what each person means in respect of their own country.

With respect to endorsing suicide bombings it really doesn't matter if its use is endorsed in Palestine and not the US or UK its not acceptable anywhere an will cause problems entering the UK thats for sure.

 

[Sahar]

That's because we all have different laws etc its confusing as well as tiring i don't envy you trying to get an idea of what each person means in respect of their own country.

When I started the talk, I talked about Western countries in general except in a specific case. I cited numerous cases where people were convicted for expressing their opinions; in Canada, Britain, Germany and others, to make a general point.

With respect to endorsing suicide bombings it really doesn't matter if its use is endorsed in Palestine and not the US or UK its not acceptable anywhere an will cause problems entering the UK thats for sure.

Yet, you can support attacking and terrorizing the Palestinians and occupying other people's nation.

 

[kai]

When I started the talk, I talked about Western countries in general except in a specific case. I cited numerous cases where people were convicted for expressing their opinions; in Canada, Britain, Germany and others, to make a general point.


Yet, you can support attacking and terrorizing the Palestinians and occupying other people's nation.

the UK supports a Two state solution, here can support the Palestinians also and lots of people do without any risk of action from the authorities as long as you dont endorse such violence as suicide bombings of civilians and the there is huge critcism of Israeli actions here in this country .

Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Campaigning to build a mass anti-Apartheid movement for Palestine

Twinning with Palestine

Medical Aid for Palestinians - Home

 

[Sahar]

the UK supports a Two state solution, here can support the Palestinians also and lots of people do without any risk of action from the authorities as long as you dont endorse such violence as suicide bombings of civilians and the there is huge critcism of Israeli actions here in this country .

But attacking the Palestinians and terrorizing them?
Invading other nations and terrorizing them?