Video: Student asks J. Kerry questions. He gets tased.

[thelostdragon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNzEL5hcr0

WTF? And the news guy on the left is laughing about it.

@Brad: So much for democracy and its freedom of speech.

[tom2681]

@LD:
No offense, but doesn't Bullets have a Youtube thread already ?


https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=2075

No need to create a new thread everytime you find an interesting video IMO.

[thelostdragon]

@Tom:
It does. But no offense, who checks that thread? And apart from that reason, how does it bother you as long as it is in "Anything Goes"? Don't you have more serious problems like having to pop a zit on your ass cheek or so?

[Markgway]

That's kind scary... a similar but less electrical eviction happened in the UK when an old boy asked a question at a Labour Party Conference which the speaker (can't remember who it was) didn't like. So burly security guards chucked him out. Ahhh freedom of speech. To be fair to John Kerry I think he was trying to answer the dude's question when the heavy mob moved in unrequested.

[the68monkey]

This happened ages ago. Put it in the "no longer news" thread.

[EvaUnit02]

Is this the "Don't tase me bro!" video? Old news TBH.

[thelostdragon]

Old how? Like Yuen Wah movies?

Seriously, though, I didn't hear about it over here and I doubt most other members of BnB did.

[the68monkey]

Look it up on Wikipedia, as I'm sure there's got to be an entry there about it.

"Don't taze me, bro" got tons more mileage than it deserved on talk shows and comedy shows for weeks after that incident. I don't remember when it happened now, but must have been half a year ago or so.

[thelostdragon]

Hmmm... poor guy. Were the comedy shows using the quote "Don't tase me, bro" to make fun of the student's reaction or rather in a criticising way towards the general situation?

[the68monkey]

Both.

General view of the student was that he was acting like an idiot to begin with, but most definitely, the overraction of the campus security was a source of jokes.

[bradavon]

@Brad: So much for democracy and its freedom of speech.

I'm still waiting for your example of a better system that works again and again?

You see you bash democracy but aren't then able to come up with a better system. Go and live in a communist country if you really think it will be so much better.

If you really think China has better freedom of speech to most Western countries then you're deluded. Go live there and find out. No one said democracy was perfect or Western countries had perfect freedom of speech, that was something you added.

It just gets dull that whenever a discussion arises with an element of democracy about it you harp up saying how shit democracy is (funny then you live in a democratic country) but can never come up with anything better.

how does it bother you as long as it is in "Anything Goes"?

We may as well only have one thread and dump anything in it then , if members are going to take the title literally.

[thelostdragon]

I'm still waiting for your example of a better system that works again and again?

I didn't reply, because I know it is going to lead to another endless Brad/LD discussion. I'm not saying communism is better or works in reality. My personal opinion about a system that works better and has proven to do so? Well, Islamic system has proven to work very well for far longer than democracy. To be precise for 1296 years. Islam first became a form of government in 630 and it lasted until 1924. At its peak it was the form of government from Morocco to Indonesia. It started getting weaker due to carelessness and traitors from inside and finally died in 1924 when the last caliph was taken out of power in Turkey. Since then Islam was never the form of government again.

I don't blame you if you don't know a lot or anything about it. They don't even teach this in schools of Muslim countries anymore. And if you ever preach or talk about it, it leads to imprisonment or even execution.

So would I prefer any currently running system over democracy? No. Would I switch it to an Islamic form of government, the caliphate? I sure would. 1296 years it stood the test of time. Islam is NOT in power anymore, though, but people are still Muslims and they aren't forgetting Islam. In fact the number of people converting to Islam has never been so high and this is just the number of those people who are registered.

Communism? When it was gone in Russia, nobody regretted its loss. Nobody calls himself a communist in Russia anymore. But Muslims still call themselves Muslims, even though our precondition, the existence of an Islamic state, is... well, non-existent. Why precondition? Because Islam calls for a state, comes with fixed political laws by God. Taking them out of power and putting on our own laws is the same as saying that God has no idea about politics. However, all the laws are there in Islam, spanning over agriculture, taxes, laws in everydaylife and so on. I don't need to explain it to you, because this system worked for almost 1300 years until it was systematically destroyed by traitors (Mustafa Kemal) and Western powers.

How about democracy/capitalism? Its mildew is ALREADY shining through the fassade, that I admit is nice and tempting to look at. And surely in Europe or in the USA not as strongly as in the countries that our greed has the most effect on.

I don't want to elaborate any further on this, because it feels like wasted energy on a forum of Asian film fans. However, if you are interested in this topic, I advise reading "A Peace to End All Peace" by David Fromkin.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peace-End-All-O ... 867&sr=8-1



Oh, and I never said that China has "better freedom" as you put it. Better? It's either freedom or it is not. As simple as that. Stop fooling yourself with words such as freedom and liberty. Freedom means complete freedom which there is not. I think it is about time that they come up with a new word describing the supposed basic human rights.

[Yi-Long]

@Tom:
It does. But no offense, who checks that thread?

I DO, YOU INGRATEFULL BASTARDS!!!


Anyway, this happened 4-5 months orso ago, or even longer. Was a huge deal at the time, and we probably already had a thread about it somewhere...

[EvaUnit02]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULrAGJjZdp8

[bradavon]

I didn't reply, because I know it is going to lead to another endless Brad/LD discussion.

Fair point. It's just you bring up that democracy doesn't work and is pointless quite often that's all but no lets not get into endless discussion over it.

My personal opinion about a system that works better and has proven to do so? Well, Islamic system has proven to work very well for far longer than democracy. To be precise for 1296 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm being sincere) but the Islamic system is based on you being a Muslim. It's entirely connected to religion whereas democracy in theory at least is not (The Church and State not being connected, and all that).

Islam first became a form of government in 630 and it lasted until 1924. At its peak it was the form of government from Morocco to Indonesia.

Again without wanting to get really deep into discussion isn't Islam as a government also Sharia Law? And don't you actually mean Sharia Law, instead of Islam which is the religion.

If so I do not believe Sharia law would work in countries that are not Islamic. Isn't that in fact a flaw with your example, that it only suits Islamic countries. I do not also believe Sharia law has a better rate of freedom or speech, freedom to vote (I'm actually not sure on this one) or human right compared to democracy.

If Islamic law is so much better why aren't more countries using it, over democracy? Democracy is the system that countries again and again who want to achieve a certain level of rights for their people. Not just Western countries too but countries right across the world choose democracy again and again.

Would I switch it to an Islamic form of government, the caliphate? I sure would. 1296 years it stood the test of time.

For centuries the Monarch had complete control over the UK but did that mean better human rights, freedom of speech than we have today?

I do see one fatal flaw with your example (even if I am completely mistaken over it being connected to Sharia law) and that is your example is based on a system practised hundreds of years ago when the world was very different and you weren't even born, so can have possibly no real idea if it actually worked at all (i.e - more so than democracy does today).

The other fatal flaw being like I said it would only work in an Islamic country, democracy however can (again in theory) mould itself to any religion. The fundamentals of human rights, freedom to vote, freedom of speech are basic human rights no matter which religion you are from.

Islam is NOT in power anymore, though, but people are still Muslims and they aren't forgetting Islam. In fact the number of people converting to Islam has never been so high and this is just the number of those people who are registered.

Isn't that a very small minded view, based on you being a Muslim but if you're not then you're quite frankly screwed?

Communism? When it was gone in Russia, nobody regretted its loss. Nobody calls himself a communist in Russia any more.

I actually think many Russians miss communism but that's a different discussion.

But Muslims still call themselves Muslims, even though our precondition, the existence of an Islamic state, is... well, non-existent.

The religion is still in existence, isn't that what people are holding on to?

How about democracy/capitalism?

Democracy and Capitalism are two entirely different things I wouldn't get the two mixed up or confused. They're not one in the same.

Its mildew is ALREADY shining through the fassade, that I admit is nice and tempting to look at.

If that is really so why are so many countries choosing to opt for it again and again? Why are so many people wanting to live in democratic countries, that in your opinion don't work and are all a fassade.

Why are the majority of the most prosperous countries based on democracies? And not Islamic law.

Stop fooling yourself with words such as freedom and liberty.

They're the founding words that my country (and many others) are built on. It's not easy to brush them off that easily.

But thank you for giving an example. It was interesting to read. I asked for an example and you gave one.

[thelostdragon]

Some interesting points, Brad, but honestly, I could easily reply to all you said here. This isn't supposed to sound arrogant or so, but some of the statements you said showed me that you have a wrong image of what the Islamic State, the caliphate actually is. I wish I lived in the UK where the both of us could meet and have a talk about it. Writing everything down over and over again is so energy and time consuming. Maybe next time I'm in London we could arrange that.

[Markgway]

Even if it turned out that the Islamic form of government (the pre-1924 example you speak of) made sense in some regards, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be numerous problems for non-Muslims in key areas (would it be agreeable for education, marriage, crime, censorship?) And as a secularist any form of religious-based government would be unacceptable for me.

[grim_tales]

What does everyone think of Rowan William's comments about Sharia law being "inevitable" in the UK (I think he said some aspects of it would be "inevitable")? They've gone down pretty badly.

[thelostdragon]

If you ask me, Shariah law in the UK is laughable, because it isn't even an Islamic State to begin with. That's why Shariah law is in my opinion unacceptable anywhere in the current world as long as there is no Islamic State.

[Markgway]

Rowan Williams is a bearded goat.

The Church of England has too much to say.

[Yi-Long]

I've only heard the soundbite about Sharialaw being inevitable. Havent really heard him explain himself, so I cant comment on if he's right or not.

Personally, I'm an atheist, so I'd prefer to keep church and state as seperated as possible. However, I'm sure that in some cases there are religious laws around that make more sense than our own western laws. If I see how childmolesters get off with hardly any punishment, it makes you scratch your head...

[grim_tales]

I think I heard him "explain" himself, not sure exactly WHAT he said first time TBH, and its been said he hasn't apologised (?) though.
I'm agnostic/atheist, if religion is used for good then fine But I hate people who use their religion to justify evil

[Yi-Long]

I think I heard him "explain" himself, not sure exactly WHAT he said first time TBH, and its been said he hasn't apologised (?) though.
I'm agnostic/atheist, if religion is used for good then fine But I hate people who use their religion to justify evil

Same here. I'm an atheist, and religion of any kind has brought humanity lots of bad stuff, because people tend to abuse it for their own personal agenda... but religion can also be a good thing for people, who use it as a guide to live a good, decent live. Apparently, they need a religion to keep them on the right path, but so be it...
Yeah, there's a lot more to it all, but dont really care enough to get into it all again.

And if it's his own honest opinion than he shouldnt apoligize. Whenever news like this hits, people get upset about the soundbite, while ignoring to hear why the person said what he said.

"Osama Bin Laden is a better human being than George W. Bush"
That soundbite would probably give me lots of negative reactions, yet if I would lay down numbers and facts etc, people wouldnt be able to say my soundbite would be wrong.

[bradavon]

This isn't supposed to sound arrogant or so, but some of the statements you said showed me that you have a wrong image of what the Islamic State, the caliphate actually is.

To be fair I did acknowledge as much in my post a few times. Just answer me this? -

* Is the Islamic State caliphate not derived from Sharia Law? I'm guess not
* Are the two Islamic systems connected in any way?

The crux of my point was more that it's designed to only work in Islamic countries where most of the citizens are Muslim, is that correct?

I wish I lived in the UK where the both of us could meet and have a talk about it. Writing everything down over and over again is so energy and time consuming.

I know what you mean. I wasn't after war and peace though

Even if it turned out that the Islamic form of government (the pre-1924 example you speak of) made sense in some regards, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be numerous problems for non-Muslims in key areas (would it be agreeable for education, marriage, crime, censorship?)

I'd agree.

To be fair to LD I asked for an example and he gave one. I don't think the Islamic system LD speaks can so easily be integrated as LD eludes to however.

And as a secularist any form of religious-based government would be unacceptable for me.

Me too and I'd imagine a big portion of the British/European/North American population.

Rowan Williams is a bearded goat. The Church of England has too much to say.

To be fair to Rowan Williams he was speaking about Sharia Law in context of a much larger discussion he was giving and was also speaking to intellectuals not the Sun newspaper crowd.

It was very unfair what happened to him. They took a sound bite and turned it into something he never meant.

Personally I see more open integration (through various laws) for Muslim people than we have today but no not any form of Sharia Law. The percentage of Muslims who live in the UK is vastly to minor for it to ever happen/be allowed to happen.

I think I heard him "explain" himself, not sure exactly WHAT he said first time TBH, and its been said he hasn't apologised (?) though.

Considering how he went about and said it nor should he apologise. He has beliefs and should stand by them.

I'm agnostic/atheist

You cannot be both

I myself am agnostic.

However, I'm sure that in some cases there are religious laws around that make more sense than our own western laws. If I see how childmolesters get off with hardly any punishment, it makes you scratch your head...

The trouble with Sharia Law (from what I understand of it) is there is no room for leaway. You cut a child molesters hand off then find out the kid had a grduge against him and they were entirley making it up.

Personally I think our democratic system is by far the better of two evils. It's not perfect but to expect it to be is asking way to much, it's run by human beings.

[thelostdragon]

* Is the Islamic State caliphate not derived from Sharia Law? I'm guess not

The Caliphate is a basis of an Islamic State. The Shariah law is to be enacted in it.

* Are the two Islamic systems connected in any way?

Two Islamic systems? The Sharia is the legal form of the Caliphate.

The crux of my point was more that it's designed to only work in Islamic countries where most of the citizens are Muslim, is that correct?

The Islamic system of government worked in places where many people remained non-Muslims. Not all aspects of Sharia law was enforced on them. For example the Islamic rituals, like praying, fasting, charity or pilgramage were no duties for these people since it wasn't forced upon them by the government. They also didn't have to follow the Islamic family laws etc. What they had to do however was paying a monthly (or yearly?) kind of tax. This gave them the same rights as the Muslims and furthermore were they excused from the military and at the same time under the protection of it. To this day there are lots of Christians living in the Arab world in peace. The oldest church of the world, the Nativity Church, is in Palestine. If non-Muslims had a hard time living under a Muslim government, do you really believe that there were any Christians living in peace for 1400 years, or even any churches left? Neither Muslim individuals, nor the Islamic government are allowed to harm people for their differing beliefs or to force Islam onto them, like the crusaders did with Muslims in Spain for example.