atamant comments

Indeed, only one religion gets SPECIAL protection. The other religions get occasionally get some protection. But hey, go ahead and continue splitting hairs.

To the question as to whether there was a French law that punished anti-Islamic slurs, you wrote, 'No.' You were incorrect. There are laws protecting those you claimed are not protected and they are enforced as I proved. That is not splitting hairs. That is pointing out an error.

Yes, that baseless accusation continues to be thrown at me, by people who aren't intelligent enough to demonstrate how my comments are antisemitic.

You focus much of your time and energy on the subject of people and things Jewish, in what can easily can be considered a negative fashion.

I don't recall ever saying that Galliano's "anti-semitic" assault was good or that I agreed with it.

I don't recall you saying that the comment was bad either. Putting it anti-Semitic in quotations makes you even less convincing.

Galliano made an anti-Jewish comment ("1000 times"), an anti-Asian comment, and made a death threat. Dior decides to suspend him for "anti-semitism", not for anti-Asianism or for the death threat

So? Do you agree that they were all horrible remarks? Yes? Then what difference does it make which one Dior decided for themselves was offensive to them?

I don't recall ever saying that anti-semitism is the only one protected by law and other forms of racist/anti-religion comments were never prosecuted

You have a short memory:

To someone else's question:

I wonder if they also have a law for making anti-Islamic remarks.

You wrote:

No, only one RELIGION gets this special protection.

My example was to show you you were wrong.

I don't recall ever saying that anti-semitism is the only one protected by law and other forms of racist/anti-religion comments were never prosecuted

Then, what, may I ask, is the purpose of bringing this up?:

It is only when he made a sketch of an Israeli "settler" that all hell broke loose, with legal and other problems.

Diedonne's case has nothing to do with this. Stick to the subject, please.

To the people saying 'Yes, but they must accept the repercussions or consequences' are actually saying 'No'. Freedom of speach means freedom to speak without repercussions or consequences. As such, I vote no because freedom of speech should not include direct endangerment to others such as the examples in the question illustrate. Zenny's accessment is correct in my opinion.

If the reports are true, Galliano is certainly a pig of a human.

Again, I am not sure how far a law against insulting should go. It is clear that France does prosecute against all kinds of racism, not just anti-Semitism as completely incorrect claimed above.

Brigitte Bardot received a 15000-euro fine for inciting hatred against Muslims.

Of course, if you are only obsessed with one RELIGION, it may be difficult to see such things.

If you were really family with his situation you would understand that although in theory all kinds of racisms may be punished in France

So when you wrote this:

No, only one RELIGION gets this special protection.

you were just riffing?

Anyway, you were and are obviously mistaken as you later admit. France punishes all kinds of racism. It is possible the death threat claim does not actually work here because the accused did not say 'I am going to kill you.' I don't think it is illegal in France to say 'You should be dead'.

World of difference between the two.

Sometimes they are the exact same thing.

haruka,

Exactly, the alcohol probably just loosened his tongue. A fashionable Mel Gibson as it were.

The French law is also kind of scary though. Up to six months in prison for being insulting? Seems overboard to me.

Have the ISI been of any help to the CIA anyway? I agree with Triumvere.

Looks like old Reagan was right...

He was right about many things. About this, I can't believe anyone had a doubt.

Wonder what Lois Farrakhan is gonna do now. they still have that million or billion that Gadhafi promised to them but couldn't get it...

He ain't gettin that money now, that is for sure. If that nut had a country, its citizens would be revolting as they are in Libya now.

The Palestinians wiped Palestine off the map all by themselves and Iran uses them as a red flag so as to distract their citizens from the dissatifaction they have in Iran. Israel was not and is not the original aggressor here, Iran is. The Iranian Revolutionary government made Israel an enemy just as the Egyptian brotherhood want to do. Whipping up the masses helps keep them occupied. However, as we are seeing, that might not be working so well anymore. Iran's leaders are quaking and it shows. This latest display is just the leaders trying to get people to forget they are not allowed to speak or protest freely in Iran. Iran should stop threatening Israel and give up trying to get nuclear weapons, which everyone who is rational knows they would love to get their hands on. Iran has been in violation of the NPT and the IAEA has said so. They only allow inspectors when they feel it is convenient.

ha, ha! that should be: We are not blaming the victim, we are blaming Iran and its proxies.

Hey everyone, who, if the people of Libya can't, should be the ones to reel Gadhafi in?

I agree with tkoind2, it has to be the Libyans that take care of this. Any appearance of outside influence will only cause problems later.

And what should happen to him, prison, hanging, what?

My opinion is that he should be tried for any crimes there is evidence for and punished according to Libyan law. ie, again it should be up to the Libyans how to handle it.

Hopefully, the resulting government will neither be nuts or rabidly anti-Western.

Gadhafi having his own man attack civilians will mean his eventual downfall. Had he not gone this far, he actually might have gotten out of this fairly intact. I think he is a dictator and will shed no tears when he is gone. You certainly would never find me defending him, that's for sure.

I hope they capture him (and his sons) before he escapes with all his gold.

Interesting. Just out of curiosity, I put your name and Gadhafi's in JT's search field and got you defending his government in the past. Specifically, you seem to not be able to believe Gadhafi's agents had killed a UK policewoman even though Gadhafi admitted and apologized for it. What made you change your mind, or is it that you haven't made up your mind?

They just go ahead and destroy them

The Palestinians don't seem to need Israel's help to destroy Palestine. They do just fine on their own.

They even threaten to attack Iran for allegedly pursuing (without evidence) what Israel already has. This does not make any sense.

Of course it makes sense. You may not agree with the argument, but it certainly makes sense. Iran encourages Israel's destruction and assists the groups that are actively trying to destroy Israel. Israel, on the other hand, has nothing to do with Iran, except for selling them weapons on occasion, and would pose no danger to the country whatsoever if it were not for the fact that Iran encourages and assists in attempts to destroy Israel. Iran should mind its own business and start dealing with its own problems of free speech and protest.

You are wrong.

I don't think I am. ElBaradei of the IAEA agrees with me. Who agrees with you? Ahmadinejad?

People are also ignoring that America's own intelligence believes Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear weapons.

That's okay, because according to you, they should ignore America's intelligence anyway.

But they have no business complaining about Iran's peaceful civilian nuclear program.

Why not? Israel has not encouraged the destruction of another country. Iran has.

Also, that makes all American financial and military aid to Israel over the past few decades illegal!!!

Who cares? Are you American? If not, why is that any concern of yours?

Hmmmm, seems that what sabiwabi is doing is trying to get people to subconsciously forget the following associations [nuclear program]and potential nuclear weapons program + [missile development] + [encouraging the destruction of the state of Israel] = Iran is a dangerous country

Seems sabiwabi's strategy does not work on that many people.

Which is why while sabiwabi insists they did not, ElBaradei of the IAEA has stated that Iran did not comply with NPT commitments. It was not one time either. It has been more than once.

Bottom line: Although Iran signed the NPT, it does not always follow the NPT rules and does not always allow open inspections

As Israel is not a party to the NPT, it does not have to.

I think we have to let Libiya sort this out on their own. Even it that means civil war.

I think you have a interesting point here. However, there is always the possibility that whatever results will blame the West for not helping to squash Gadhafi. Even having said that, I also think a basic hands off approach is the best option.

I work with a number of Libyans and the general consensus among them is that having Gadhafi as a leader was no real problem for them, until he brought in foreign mercenaries to open file on the Libyan people.

I agree. This will prove to be his downfall. He crossed a line that now cannot be reversed.

There does not, as yet, seem to be a clear political block to replace him.

Basically there are three choices:

1) Gadhafi manages to squash this somehow, which seems less and less likely.

2)The army takes over as they have in Egypt.

3) The army's loyalties are split, which would lead to civil war.

Of these choices, I choose 2.

They violated the NPT

Yup, that is not the only time either.

they have not attacked their neighbours in centuries

The Islamic Republic of Iran has not been around for centuries. The Islamic Republic of Iran has attacked Israel and the US through its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza. Iran's government has threatened Israel on several occasions suggesting the country should not exist. Some peaceful country.

I am not repeating anything, Israeli or otherwise. What I wrote is correct. The mere fact that you seem not to be able to counter my arguments shows the correctness of what I have written.

break down, is just an expression in english. the guy did not literally break the door. i guess in japanese you could use the word 侵入する。

The expression is 'break in', not break down. The man is said to have broken into the apartment.

Why would a ship from a peaceful country like Iran be considered a provocation?

Cause Iran is not a peaceful country.

Yeah, that is what the Israelis say.

I could not care less what the Israelis say about it. It is a fact. It is my sincere hope that Libya does not end up like Iran or Lebanon.

This site does not seem to allow links. But, you can find the stories by googling 'Iran warships cancel request to transit Suez Canal'

Yeah, they had no intention of going there.

Yeah, but you gotta admit you were hoping they would.

Still, this is going to be nothing but a PR boon for Israel.

Iranian naval vessels are provocation

Wow! Really? What would ever give Israel that idea?

die a martyr

I think he probably got the first part correct.

The people in Libiya have to achieve this change on their own and grant Gadaffi his wish to die for his state.

I agree.

They're going through the canal this very minute!

About 36 hours after my post. They did originally withdraw their request according to Egyptian authorities. I guess they did not want to look like they were chickening out. On the other hand, perhaps they want to buy some more arms from Israel. At any rate, they are not going anywhere near Gaza.

sabiwabi,

Why do you think those countries have expressed anti-Western sentiments?

kinniku's post do not seem to be in the thread, so I can't speak to them. In fact, you should probably address concerns with that poster to that poster and split your posts for clarity. However, I think one of the main reasons is that the leaders in those countries have consistently played the West and their citizens off each other and in many cases encouraged the anti-Western sentiments to take their citizens minds off of domestic problems. Egypt is a perfect example of this as a look over the years at the country-run media would tell anyone.

There is a danger of extremism on all sides. We could say that the US and Israeli regimes are extremists...

You could say that the US and Israeli regimes are extremists, but you'd be wrong for the most part. Anyway, neither have anything to do with the extremism potential in Libya.

Leaving them decide their paths? What are you talking about?

Weren't you the one who went on about Hamas being democratically elected? Doesn't that mean the Palestinians chose that path?

The west did not let the Gazans chose their own path; when they elected Hamas, the west imposed sanctions.

Incorrect, the Palestinians were allowed to chose their path (as much as Hamas assassins would allow anyway). It was the path that Hamas chose once in power that caused sanctions to be imposed.

And in Lebanon, Hezbollah arose form the murderous Israeli invasion.

No. Hezbollah arose from PLO stupidity originally. Now, their rise has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with them trying to steal the country away from secular Lebanese.