|
Just me
Oct 11, 2007 8:49:16 GMT -5
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 11, 2007 8:49:16 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]10011011001101[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 20, 2008 2:06:27 GMT -5
Nazi Germany did host them. The Olympic Games are more about politics and money than anything else. It has nothing to do with the Olympic spirit and ideals.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 11:49:27 GMT -5
Nuclear power plants are not environmentally friendly. Thermo-nuclear energy is though, but the technology to build it is still experimental.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 11:55:09 GMT -5
Global warming is a reality. Variations of earth's average temperature isn't something rare. Approximately 10-12 thousands years ago there was no Black Sea so to speak of.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 11:59:28 GMT -5
They are members of a secret community which aims to take over the world haahha.
Yahac, you should stop being so suspicious. : )
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 12:01:18 GMT -5
Is it true that Besiktas is the team with the most left-leaning supporting base?
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 1:04:03 GMT -5
Cool
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:58:36 GMT -5
Lloyd-George may have been a Welsh prat who pushed Venizelos into his mad Anatolian adventure, but he did not mean that he wanted to see the Turks physically exterminated. I think he was a racist.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:56:25 GMT -5
Correct, but the freedom of speech is not considered as the ultimate virtue in this case but as a legitimate right in an ongoing controversary. Not for the mainstream academia apparently. In case you failed to note, the genocide is a legal term and the legal basis for it is UN Convention, which clearly states that only an competent tribubanl/authorized court can decide what constitutes Genocide or not. And the parliaments can hardly qualify this description. The United Nations isn't something that exists in some distant realm. It is an organization and its body is funded and supported by nation-states. Subsequently, their decisions are being shaped by politics and the balance of power. If we go by your train of thought then then Suharto has never committed a genocide, because the U.N. has never had trials on it. Or the extermination of the native americans wasn't a genocide either. Politics don't necessarily coincide with historical integrity. For example if Germany was not annihilated completely in the WWII, meaning that it just lost the war but remained as an entity, much like the Ottoman Empire and Turkey at the end of WWI, I don't think there would ever be Nuremberg trials or Germany would ever had recognized that it committed a genocide. Neither would the allies pressure them to do so. But that wouldn't mean that the Holocaust would be real. Anyway, I think we can exclude historians from such laws so that we secure academic freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 18, 2007 0:34:42 GMT -5
Aha Red Brigade, so you think people should be protected by censures for the good of the whole society. I guess you would like to maintain the order and prevent hatred in a certain society. Guess what, Turkish legislators thought the same and put that law 301. Because if anybody starts cursing against Turkey inside Turkey, he/she might face a danger for his life not because of the state but because people here love their country so much so that sometimes their reaction may be extreme. By censoring those provokative actions the state takes the responsibility to maintain the order, instead of people. So the ordinary people don't need to react us much... You know, it is like a establishing a lightning rod. Then your position is for support of Turkish law -301. Interesting... But I don't agree with you... I think you got it wrong from the beginning I am not arguing that the State should defend ''order''. I hate order and uniformity. I mean that when someone's liberty to spew nonsense can harm people physically then he must be censored. Because for me the equation goes like this: human life > freedom of speech. Besides I don't think that Article 301 is there to protect those who think that it's a genocide from the nationalists. That is like telling me that USA didn't let the blacks and whites to go to the same schools because it wanted to ''protect'' the blacks from the white people's racism. Besides, if there are so many nationalists, it's their mentality that must change. They are the problem not those in danger who must not ''provoke'' their feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Oct 16, 2007 9:10:35 GMT -5
telling people lies about how dangerously evil Nazism was is a bit like telling them it's safe to cross the road when a truck is coming down it. I think I lost you here. Would you mind to further elaborate this part? What ''lies'' are being told as regards the actions of Nazism? Surely not the Holocaust and the 50.000.000 dead people. But the French and Swiss laws about the Armenian genocide devalue the concept of historical certainty. I don't think so. It bans freedom of speech towards people who have been victims of state propaganda or at the worst case ultra nationalists who propagate hate-speech by insulting historical memory. Maybe I can agree that such laws are against the concept of democracy and freedom of speech. But what are the boundaries of freedom of speech? What if one's ''freedom'' to spread lies can lead to the death of millions of people? What if the Greek State fined and censored the Greek TV channels, who until not so long ago, were stamping the word ''albanian'' next to every single crime that there was committed even if there was not a single evidence for it? Would xenophobia reach its pinnacle in Greece? What if the Weimar Republic had laws banning anti-semitism and hate speech? Let me put it otherwise. What if a teen murders a black guy because he read in some random Internet site that the black are untermensch who ''pollute'' the purity of the white race? Certainly that poor guy would still have been alive if such sites were censored. For example the murderer of Hrant Dink later confessed that he did what he did because he read in some random Internet site that he was a bad guy who wanted to destabilize Turkey etc etc. Perhaps Holocaust denial in 21st century Germany doesn't make much sense. But what if Germany gave freedom of speech to the Nazis just after the WWII? Had they done that, the Nazi party would still play a leading role in German politics today. And you do know what that means. Elevating ''freedom of speech'' as the ultimate virtue in this world by not taking into account the social impact that hate-speech can have into entire groups of people can be very dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 12:56:11 GMT -5
I was in the tram, quite tired, going back to home. So as I was sitting, there were 2 women infront of me, talking in some eastern european language. Anyway. Suddenly, an old (curious) man who was sitting next to me asks them in english: - ''what language are you speaking right now''and they answer - ''Moldovan''- ''what kind of language is that''? he asks again - ' 'its like Russian, but Moldova is not part of Russia'' they answer Upon hearing that, I intervene and tell her - ''I don't think a Romanian would agree with you''
She was like ''uh''. She didn't except that coming haha. Anyway, the point is that this Forum has made me a professional in matters of Balkan quarrels and nationalism. I know almost every animosity in the Balkans. Darn, I should become a diplomat or something!
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 12:43:44 GMT -5
What is the matter Diurpaneus? Don't you like Mussolini? Fascism is bad when it kicks-back against you eh?
haha
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Nov 16, 2007 13:00:25 GMT -5
This puzzles me too. Fact is that in thier own languge they don`t have a word for "property"/"private property". Being a nomadic people, everything was shared, thus they don`t understand the concept of private property. Really? I am beginning to like them.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 20, 2008 1:55:29 GMT -5
I know it is going to sound odd, but I am not against the entire government's legislation. I am not very fond of this nomenklatura of public servants either (they are the one's who mostly strike) since they are also part of the problem.
And I am also stuck in my home because nothing is working. And I mean nothing. No tv, transit systems. I don't know what's happening outside. grrrr
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 20, 2008 1:50:15 GMT -5
The Archbishop is not against the bill. The extremist section within within the Church made this statement. On purpose probably to weaken the position of the Archbishop.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 17, 2008 10:23:05 GMT -5
Likewise, the Macedonians are very much related to the ancient Macedonians (locals), Slavs, and Turks though the language they now speak is not related to the Macedonian anymore. Related in what hence? We don't even know what how the Macedonian language was in the first place. How can they claim continuity? That's a nationalist myth. As for the parallel between modern and ancient Greece, I agree. The modern concept of ethnic consciousness is something new.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 16, 2008 13:59:59 GMT -5
Although the right of self determination must be respected, its quite ridiculous that these macedonians have the impression that they are descendants of Alexander the Great. Don't they see that they are speaking a slavic language? I mean how do you reconcile these two things. Talking about collective solipsism.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 20, 2008 2:02:47 GMT -5
We should not confuse refugees and illegal-immigrants. The refugees are people who are being persecuted back in their homeland for ethnic, political, or religious reasons by their governments. Many of them have been tortured in dungeons. Sending them back is like sending them back to death. So this people should be granted political asylum.
|
|
|
Post by Red Brigade on Mar 17, 2008 10:24:09 GMT -5
Red,welcome back don't be a stranger. Hiya.
|
|