LATEST NEWS FROM LONDON

Today
"we saw Muslims break the 2 minute silence in Central London, with
banners holding "British Soldiers Burn In Hell" & the burning of a
poppy... If you don´t like us English people paying respect for our
brave fighters, then you know where the airport is. Disgusting,
...disrespectful bastards! Copy and paste this ...if you´re British and...
proud. R.I.P our brave fighters."

"LOVE OR LEAVE", eh?....Sounds very familiar; where did I hear this before?

I thought poppy meant paying respect to the soldiers who died liberating Europe from Hitler and his (not so) merry gang of nazists Is this something the Muslim community in England would mind?

BTW, Mohammet is the 5th most popular name given in the UK in 2009. I suppose most Muslims have British citizenship so, logically, the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are THEIR soldiers as well

The poppy recalls the end of World War 1 in 1918, and the Germans signed The Armistice, at the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, that ended the major hostilities of War.

The day was specifically dedicated by King George V, on 1919, to remember the members of the armed forces who were killed during the war.

A poem has also been written:

“In Flanders Fields” is believed to of been written on the 3rd of May, 1915, after Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae(a Canadian doctor and teacher, who served in both the South African War and the First World War.), witnessed the tragic death of his 22 year old friend Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, on the day before. It was published by the London-based magazine, Punch in December 1915. The complete poem is inscribed in a bronze book at the John McCrae Memorial at his birthplace in Guelph, Ontario, Cananda.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place, and in the sky

The Larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To You from falling hands we throw

The torch, be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

The poppy also denotes sleep, rest and repose, something that is well deserved by ANY fallen soldier.

"The poppy also denotes sleep, rest and repose, something that is well deserved by ANY fallen soldier."

Stumpy

Is that so? Why then do you think Western media insists on calling Iraqies who died fighting against invaders of their country "insurgents"?

How would I know?  When I watch the news and see the footage I see men fighting to defend what they think is true on both sides and it pains me to know that fathers/mothers, sons/daughters, brothers/sisters,  are killed every day, not counting the innocent bystander who happens to get caught in the middle of the conflics.

When I wear the poppy it is to remember ALL soldiers fallen during war time.  I lost many friends during wars, one of them was an Isrealy fighter pilot who was shot down in the 1990´s on a mission and if I were to listen to public opinion my friend should have been my enemy!  Go figure and I grieved when I learned of his death, ironic, no?

That hardly answers my question; perhaps you dont have the answer either....

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

I´m sorry, but what is the thought behind this post? Only anger about people being angry about people burning the poppy? Or are we also angry about the people who actually burned the poppy? I think we are losing sight here on what happened. And I think Muslims can be proud British too, or did I get confused again?

So, my question: are we getting angry over this message, but not at what happened to indice this message?

The people who burned the poppy probably do not know the significance of the poppy.

And to answer your question again AlphaF, I do not know, it was rather clear the first time I said "How would I know?"

I think the people who burnt the poppy are desperate attention seekers and trouble makers. If they don´t like Britain so much, why do they immigrate there? Why do they look for British citizenship? After all, how many foreigners who hate Saudi Arabia´s barbaric laws seek asylum there?

I don´t support the invasion of the east, but I find it idiotic to protest against something they have no idea about, like the poppy.

"Insurgent" means "one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one´s own political party or his own country".

The Brits (West in general) called Iraqies who fought to free Iraq from invaders, insurgents .....They were wrong, and should have looked the word up in a dictionary first.

Now they met real insurgents for the first time and wonder if these fiercely bearded guys know what British poppy symbol stands for.

Because, Alpha, just like in any other conflict in the world, one man´s freedom fighter is another man´s insurgent.  We could fight all day about Palestinians, Kurds, IRA, etc....

These people are choosing to show distain for the soldiers who represent a country they asked to be a part of.  As far as I know, the UK has not been on a recruiting campaign for citizens. 

If I choose to live in Turkey or to become a Turkish citizen, I wouldn´t stand in the streets of Istanbul and burn the image of Ataturk and expect everyone to understand my frustration. 

In my opinion, Western countries are quite tolerant of this kind of button pushing behavior.  I wonder how tolerant Eastern countries would be of the same?

The poppy is not just a symbol for the British but for Canadians also and I am a little miffed that the symbol to remember my grandfather and his 2 brothers who fought against the Germans during WW2 and my great Uncle(my grandfather´s uncle) who fought also against the Germans during WW1 and who is one of the many unknown soldiers lost during WW1 should have the poppy burned.  The poppy represents all the Commonwealth soldiers that fought during the great wars. 

If those people wanted to protest against the British soldiers or what ever, why did they not burn the Union Jack?  By the way the Union Jack is the British flag...

FYI Alpha, I know what an insurgent is, you asked "Why then do you think Western media insists on calling Iraqies who died fighting against invaders of their country "insurgents"?

I answered How would I know... why the Western media insists on calling Iraquies who died fighting against invaders of their country "insurgents"?

Remembrance Day is observed on 11 November to recall the official end of World War I on that date in 1918, as the major hostilities of World War I were formally ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" of 1918 with the German signing of the Armistice.

The red poppy has become a familiar emblem of Remembrance Day because these brilliant red flowers grow across some of the worse battlefields across Flanders and the colour of the flowers represent the blood spilt.

It is at this time, that people, not matter what their age,religion,sex or colour can remember anyone who has been killed in any war over the passing of time.

These islamic men who choose to burn this symbol, on this chosen day are a disgrace to good law abiding muslims.

If they do not like what happens in England they are free to catch the first plane to Afganistan , but they would  not do that because they would not get any benifits there and would not have the same freedom that they have here in  England.

 They should be thanking all our brave soldiers that gave their lives to give us all the freedom we have now, i do.

I´m wondering how many of the protesters boycotted social welfare benefits the state gives them. After all, the benefits all of them are getting come from the arms industry that booms during wartimes. It´s strange how they don´t mind the source their money comes from

*before somebody snaps at my throat for claiming all Muslims get social welfare benefits, let me remind you that, to my best knowledge, everyone who is a resident in the UK is entitled to child benefit and a number of tax credits

It is now widely known that both Tony Blair and George Bush lied, to be able to lead their invaders to Iraq. There is little heroism or honor in such wars. I am not surprised that Moslem Brits do not wish to have anyting to do with such wars.

As for pre-war relations between Brits and merry gang of Hitler´s Nazis, have a look at the historical video clip below..It is in plain English.

http://webtv.hurriyet.com.tr/category.aspx?cid=2&vid=10956

Copy&paste the link, if it does not work

Are you saying Alpha that Brits and Americans had no part in freeing Europe from Hitler? It is obvious that before war began all countries had treaties and pacts, this is what foreign policy is about. Brits and Americans joined WWII 2 years after Poland was attacked, even though there were treaties promising instant help. Sure, each country does what´s best for it. It´s hard to imagine foreign politics based on sentiments. But what has been done, has been done. You may dislike what British soldiers do in the east, but I consider their sacrifice in WWI and WWII heroic.

What always makes me laugh how it´s Muslims vs Britain & US. As if it´s the religion that was attacked, not a country

BTW, you didn´t comment on my doubt of sincerity of the protest. It´s easy to burn flags, insult people who gave you shelter and destroy public property. It´s harder to give up the money you´re getting, isn´t it? And these unimportant things like freedom of speech, education and religious freedom. See, you can spit on the memories of people who lost their life resisting nazist murderers while demanding a financial share of the money made on war and nobody kills you for it. Is this cool or what? At the same time evil westerners draw a picture of a guy who claimed to have spoken to god and taa daaam. He deserves to die. Now that´s justice

Lets realign your sentence like below;

"The people whom call a hero of a nation "tyrant", probably do not know the significance of of that hero to his people."

Hypocrisy is such a hard craft to hide, but only not realized by its owner... What would you say?

No, what I am saying is  - pre war alliance with Americans or not - Brits tried to be Nazi´s sidekick, before WWII, but were politely refused. (see the video). If Americans had not come to rescue, Germans would have had their way.

I think Turkish help to West, by keeping out of the war and closing Turkish borders to Germans, hence denying Germans the road to North Caspian oil had more effect on the result of that war, than the complete British heroism and efforts ...

deleted

People writing in favor of Brits here make me laugh.

Considering the volume of lectures and critism Turkia gets regarding human rights, minority rights, freedom of expression, freedom to insult Ataturk etc. in this panel, I can not see how British democracy panics in the face of a few bearded guys, who apparently do not like poppy flowers.

Hey guys!  Cool it...that is freedom of expression.  

, don´t start crying Alpha Of course the "bearded bunch" has every right to protest. That is why their demonstration took place first of all. Even though they abused the idea of Rememberance Day, they were free to make fools of themselves. Nobody stopped the demonstartion, did they? Where´s the violation of freedom of speech?

If you´re referring to the lack of awe on my behalf, it is just an individual opinion. I disagree with their actions, yet, nowhere have I proposed (or anyone in this thread for that matter) that they should have been refused the right to protest.

To make things clear, freedom of speech means having the right to speak your mind, not to be supported by everyone or to be right

As for whose dady is braver, I think all input mattered back then. And there´s no guarantee alliants would have won if it hadn´t been for all the soldiers.

There is sth. wrong in tht equation.

UK attacks Iraq and exploit them, but begin to cry when the kids of their victims immigrate to their country.

Iraqies go to their killers lands, benefits from there and than protests for their unrest.

So two questions to be asked; why do UK attack the innocent people and overwhelm their lifes? why do the man of Iraq choose to live in their killers lands rather than fighting for the freedom of their country?

Most people are hypocrites. One side makes caricaatures, the other burns puppies!

However, if i were the judge, i would find UK guilty as the source of these weird events. 

To make things clear, freedom of speech means having the right to speak your mind, not to be supported by everyone or to be right

daydreamer

Not correct ! 

The absolute right to speak one´s mind can be tolerated in clinically insane only. Within a society of civilised people, "right of speech" is one´s freedom to chose to say - among all the things he/she can possibly say - only those things that can generally be considered pragmatic, at least,  within his/her society.

While the bearded men obviously have the right to dislike poppy flowers and the right to disagree with poppy lovers, they needed not make such jack asses of themselves while expressing their tastes or opinions.

Quote:Armegon

Hypocrisy is such a hard craft to hide, but only not realized by its owner... What would you say?

I would say that if people think I am a hypocrit it is their opinions and maybe I am maybe I am not it may depend on the situation at hand.  To say that others are hypocrits would mean that I would have to place judgment on others and it is not something I wish to do but sometimes it has to be done.  For this I might be considred a hypocrit. 

I have always stood behind my beleifs, opinions, standards and feelings.  True not everyones are of the same way of thinking as me but that is human nature and freedom of thinking.  If those people burned the poppies fine, they are free to express themselves just like I am intitle and free to express my opinions on their actions and conducts. 

Below is an old photo from Afghanistan, Afghanistan became independent in1919, many reforms performed by Afghani leaders till 70´s, after then surprisingly by the support of west, the hypocrite radicals became power, because they could be used as a slave much better than others to achieve their aims against Soviet Russia, and in the end west invaded Afghanistan by the help of these hypocrites again. Blimey!! such a good plan, ehh?? West loves all slave hypocrites.  So if they do not exist, you would not have the same freedom and money, who knows? Perhaps you should be thanking those bearded guys... 

In all fairness I think they started immigrating to the UK and US way before the Iraq invasion...

I can answer the two questions you asked with one answer: MONEY

Even people from countries not invaded by the Allied Forces of Evil tend to have big migration to these countries. Not for the love of 5 o´clock tea or pumpkin pie, I reckon...

Quoting armegon

 

Quoting christine

If they do not like what happens in England they are free to catch the first plane to Afganistan , but they would  not do that because they would not get any benifits there and would not have the same freedom that they have here in  England.

 They should be thanking all our brave soldiers that gave their lives to give us all the freedom we have now, i do.

 

 

 

 

? Perhaps you should be thanking those bearded guys... 

 Thanking them for what?

+1000

You are absolutely right..

Freedom of speech means "your right of speaking your mind is not being suppressed by the governments/states and laws".. On the contrary, "that right must be protected by the law and the state"..

Some people, do not realize how important that is for a decent democracy and mixing it up ´ah freedom of speech means freedom of insulting!!!´. (Our Junta leader, Kenan Evren, used to say these type of things in the past and  then he would conclude: ´do we really need democracy; do we really need intellectuals? do we really need freedom speech?´ etc)

In democracies, people´s right to speak should not be suppressed.. ´What they say´ is judged by the people. if it is moral/decent/likable or not..

I think that action in the news is a great example for this:

-has the people´s the freedom of speech violated in this incident? NO..It is not..They were allowed to do their demonstration. (their freedom of speech is not violated)

-What about their actions? They exposed themselves how disrespectful they are..

I don´t event want to think how this incident can be showed as an example to justify ´the laws and state actions  which crucify the freedom of  speech´ like banning youtube, jailing writers, all those cases opened in the past for writers for insulting Turkishness etc..

Degree of "Freedom" in civil societies is measured by the extent with which its citizens follow the prevailing laws in that country. A democratic society is no exception, except in democracies, people - when they are in sufficient numbers - can change the prevailing laws. Even personal freedoms of one citizen ends where the freedom of the next one starts.

Idiots who believe that freedom is the right to be able to do whatever their own little minds dictate will therefore be stopped when their actions may endanger rights of others or laws of the state, for state has a right to protect itself from "insurgents" as well. The alternative would have been a complete chaos, where every citizen would have to trust his own sword to protect or enforce his own principles onto others.

A civil society can only exist among citizens willing to submit to the laws of that society, limiting possible personal differences between its members to levels where none feels his/her life or way of life is threathened.

In democracies, the laws - made by majority votes, also checked by the juidicial system - determines the rules of the game; law makers however should listen to minority voices too and ensure their ways of life are not threathened only because they are lesser in numbers. This tolerance to minorities however, can not allow them to make their own rules, against the better jugement of the majority. Allowing them a part of the country´s land so they can try their own sovereignity is one of such exceptions.

What happens if minorities are so adamant that they wish to impress their own wishes on the majority? Well, if they are smart enough there are democtratic ways to change the governing rules; if they believe they are too strong to bother with any democratic stuggles,  there are undemocratic avenues to explore too. One thing to remember here however, is the democracies have the right to protect themselves too and the laws can no longer be expected protect the rebelling dissidents.

Another - but less honorable - way open to the dissidents is to become a pain in the but of the society, like certain idiots here, and while reaping the benefits of the society, display their ill feelings and intentions at every oportunity, always pretending to be a part of the state they are cursing.

Good luck to them as well ! 

That´s the thing, Alpha. The protesters did not threaten anybody´s life, did they? Why shouldn´t they be allowed to speak their mind? If they don´t respect the blood evil Brits spilt for the the country they chose to live in, so be it. Respect cannot be enfoced. As long as they abide by the law they´re free to express their dismay for the hand that feeds them. If they don´t consider it hypocrisy to benefit from the money made on war and be against the war, so be it. What they cannot do is to harm people who think otherwise. That´s the extent of freedom. You´re free to agree with them, to disagree or to find them ridiculous.

I wonder if the east is such a wonderful place to live, or, it used to be such a wonderful, modern area before the evil westerners brought havoc there, why is it that refugees prefer moving to the UK and US instead choosing other wonderful places like SA or UAE?

I think I mentioned before..

We Turks have our own ways; our own definitions.

With one side of our face, we insist that we are a democratic country, a democratic society, Ataturk has given us the democracy years ago etc.. But with the other side, we start talking about how freedom of speech can be suppressed (with laws, banning web sites, jailing people etc) because we are trying to protect Ataturk (or something similar like protecting Turkishness etc) or our society is not ready etc..
The excuse is always there "Our society is not ready for freedom so these laws are necessary!!!".

As if to say "Our people are so primitive they don´t deserve a proper democracy"!!!

Other countries are slightly different..People don´t discuss the necessity of ´freedom of speech´ anymore..You can not find anybody in the west, who will try to persuade you "banning the web sites and jailing people because of protection of their national hero is compatible with the democracy or does not violate the right to have freedom of speech"...When you remind them ´NO it is not. Stop embaressing your country´, they will go and try to explain what they think the democracy is!!!

They are the main obsticles in Turkey to become a more modern society which once, Ataturk   dreamed of.. Ataturk would slap those people on the face after each meal three times a day,  if he had been alive..

You do not need to start your every sentence with "We Turks...", we Turks have a way of knowing each other without such bulshit, and we can tell what you are.

There are other countries ahead of us in democracy. Yes!

But some of those countries have not yet been tried by malicious dissidents, like Turkia suffers, yet.

Time will show how they will react when their dissidents also grow out of street demonstrations into terorism or guerilla wars directed from other countries.

Turkia wants her own terorists on her own mountains; by God, she shall handle them as necessary....spoiled minorities never win by force.

The sources of the world are flowing to the Western countries for about 400-450 years due to their colonial and wild policies. Westerners even exploit the human capital of the countries they go! Brain drain is the most visible exaple of that policy.

So, you will first create a chaos to declare a war, than kill the resisters, than exploit the natural sources, than use the people as cheap labor force, and finally you will scoop up the telented ones of that countrry. And after all those you will cry of migration! We f.cked your country up, but the ones who we don´t want can not come to my country! Thats absolutely disgusting! If the exploited countries citizens think that they have theier shares on the wellness of the west, they wont be so unfair.

What remained for these exploited countries? You destroyed every oportunities for these countries socio economical development. What do these people supposed to do after all? Every people tend to live comfortable. They are obliged to migrate to the countries which destroyed their confort. These people experience a conscientously dilemma. Thats why, i don´t expect cohesional actions from those people. The west created their enemies themselves. And actually, i dont think, that situation will be fixed, even it will get worse. West will reap just what they saw.

I dont see sensibility in western people to tese exploited people! They rather blame migrants for their worsening lifes and they totally miss the main points. Thats why nationalism is increasing in the West. That situation will harm the world very badly in the very close future. I hope a miracle happens but really i dont think so!

True, Kosovar thieves got a piece of Serbia by means of democratic vote

Yeah yeah we know, the west is evil and east is peace and love. If I´m not mistaken all great civilisations got big thanks to expansion. The smart ones won, the less fortunate were abused. It could have been the other way around if the east won.

Brain drain is one thing. Many people choose west because their native countries would never be able to provide them with equal opportunities. If you were unfortunate to be born in a backward country and you have a potential, nobody has to pay you to go to a better place, you´ll do everything you can to have a better life. However, the immigration is not only the skilled force, it is also the unskilled labour, people who do not want to assimilate and want to introduce their barbaric laws to the country they go to. That´s why I repeat my question, why immigrating west if there are rich eastern countries like Saudi or UAE? Could it be that west gives them more freedom? Or maybe they´re not so welcome by their Muslim brothers after all?

And I don´t think the problem is not wanting immigration. Were it so, it would have been banned years ago. It is the people who want to live in your house but keep the laws which are unacceptable. Nationalism is not only against poor Muslims, do you think central and eastern Europeans are valued better by nationalists? If you do then you couldn´t be more wrong. And the fun fact is eastern and central Europe have not really been subject to British expansion.

There´s a great Irish comedian, Tommy Tiernan, who characterised the Brits as people who go around the world invading different countries but get angry when these people follow them home

So, I´ll take your answer just like I take Tommy´s: with a pinch of salt

There was some slack about Western soldiers and Iraq, so I want to share a thought of mine on that You know what, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was badly planned, and had bad effects... HOWEVER (I know I will get slack for this, but I don´t care), are we forgetting that a-hole Sadam was in power there? Are we forgetting what he did in that country? I know we like to say it was all about oil, but I have the images of gassed Kurdish villages imprinted in my brain forever. Somebody had to kick Sadam out. The way in which it happened was horrible, and it shouldn´t have happened in this way AT ALL. But I get this idea that people are painting a picture of a perfect Iraq, where everybody was living in the land of milk and honey with great wealth and freedom. They were all soooo happy untilllll...the evil Westerners came! No, it wasn´t like that at all. The problem is that an army with under-trained young people, with no clear long term tactical plans was sent in, under false pretances (the famous Powell point), at the wrong point in time. The problem has nothing to do with them coming from the West, or with Iraq being the best country in the world pre-invasion time.

TODAY IS REMEMBERENCE SUNDAY, FOR ME IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT REMEMBERING THE SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN WARS, BUT  ANYONE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES NO MATTER WHAT THEIR NATIONALITY, COLOUR,RELIGION,AGE,SEX,OR SEXUALITY.

R.I.P

BAD NEWS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-middle-east-11751888

Great, and Canada was supposed to remove their troops from Afganistan in 2011 but because of pessure from NATO they have to stay until 2014.  Canada wasn´t even involved in the invasion of Afganistan but got involved because of NATO request.  Now Britain says Al-Qeda cannot be defeated but only contained...  And they wonder why there are so many apposed to the actions in Afganistan

 It´s also about remembering the mothers, wives, children of those killed in all wars, military and civilians alike. Those who are left bear the real sacrifice.

America was invading Iraq on false pretenses and Kurds tried taking advantage of an Iraq in distress. They collaborated with US against their own country. When Saddam hit them, Turkia was the only country that offered refuge to them.

What looked like Americans backing Kurds, only served to (1) bring two pro-American Kurdish clowns (Talabani and Barzani) temporarily into power but also, (2) put a wedge between the Iraqi Kurds and the rest of Iraq (mainly Arabs) ...

Now, Americans have got what they want and are pulling back (America did not want democracy for Iraq or a military victory of any kind; US was after destablizing Middle East and they have it). Those Kurds who sold Iraq to US will now lose their US backing and will have to face the rest of the Iraqies who feel deeply betrayed by Kurds.

The US game now is to persuade Turkia to act as the resident older brother, protecting North Iraqi Kurds against the wrath of Arabs - before poppies can go home. That is a tough task, because the Iraqi Kurds that Turkia sheltered against Saddam were not very grateful, were they? They have been busy collaborating with PKK and housing PKK camps in North Iraq, making a lot of noise within Turkia. Hence they no longer lead in public popularity polls in Turkia either.

You watch those Kurdish villages when US pulls out and see how the cookie will roll when the mice leave the ship. You and me will then decide whether Americans actually (1) brought peace and democracy to Iraq or (2) totally got what they wanted by destabilising the area (possibly for the oil or interests and security of Israel), but also have set Kurds up for a few dirty dollars.

I also realize that the Kurdish lives need be improved. But any improvement to their lives has to be within an overall improvement of the whole area; an aproach to secure special priviledges for Kurds will not work.

Natural partners for Kurds in improving the area are the rest of the Iraqies and other neighboring countries, who also have a vested interest in the welfare of the same area. Kurds have made a mistake partnering America who had her own (and different) interests.

It wasn´t only the Kurds that suffered. I know enough refugees from Iraq that live in Holland, and none of them are Kurds. I just hate this black and white view, as if Iraq was heaven for almost all the people living there until it was invaded. It was a country ruled by a power hungry mad-man. Too bad that that power hungry mad-man was put into power there by Western forces in the first place (yes, I know my history ). I think at one point somebody had to do something. I think the timing and way was bad in this case, but I agree that Saddam had to be kicked out at one point. The problem here is that Iraq itself wasn´t ready for such a move yet.

Afghanistan is a different case in my opinion. I think for that country, the time WAS ready. However, I think the military efforts there are too much subject to political populism. Dutch troops who were there before wanted to stay there. They felt like they were making progress, and made a fragile peaceful balance in the area where they stayed. However, fragile is the keyword here. They wanted to stay, to make sure all their efforts weren´t for nothing, breaking down the peace the moment they left. However, politics, politics... The Dutch government didn´t do what was best for Afghanistan, but best for public opinion and votes. So, the troops left. They didn´t want to, but hey, in the end it got certain political parties the votes they hoped for.

As for freedom of speech...I don´t think anyone disputes peoples right to protest.  Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.  However, it does work both ways.  If you protest about something you know nothing about or something I am totally against, I reserve the right to MY free speech and speak out against your protest.  (I also reserve the right not to like someone for my own reasons! )

You may also be sued and punished - if what you wish to say is an insult to someone else, according to the laws and regulations of the society you belong.

That freedom of speech is one´s right to utter absolutely anything that comes to one´s mind is not entirely correct. This is a common control mechanism to avid chaos in civilised societies and can not be construed as a violation one´s "right of self expression".

I liked the free speech message, not because I think everybody should be able to say and do anything. We live in a society with other people, not on little islands on our own. We have to live together, and respect is a big part of that. However, I liked the message because it says something about free speech going both ways. I think it is hypocrite to dislike the facebook message, but not mention the bigotry of the actual protest.

Boob Test for Immigrants

(Copenhagen, Denmark) Danish People´s Party spokesman, Peter Skaarup, has proposed that extremists would be less likely to attempt entering Denmark if they had to look at naked women´s breasts.

According to Skaarup, a documentary film about Denmark that will be shown as part of an upcoming immigration test for foreigners needs to have a pair of breasts in it, to intimidate any extremists from attempting to enter the tiny Scandinavian country.

Once intimidated by exposed breasts, the extremists can apparently be identified and screened away from eligibility for immigration. I don´t know exactly how this all is supposed to happen.

These guys must be crazy!!!

http://politifi.com/news/Boob-Test-for-Immigrants-1297287.html

Isn´t Merkel a right wing plitician? If I´m not mistaken she comes from a Christian party so her words are hardly a surprise. Yet, the fact that she emphasises Judeo-Christian roots of Germany have nothing to do with being a religious country. The article you quoted says

"We expect that those who come here respect them and recognize them, while keeping their personal identity,"

Secular doesn´t mean one where religion is banned, but one where laws are made irrespective of religions and the state and religion do not have the same representatives. It is usually the case that right wing parties gain votes by appealing to religious people and conservatives and left wing parties are less, if at all, religion-oriented and more liberal.

I think law in Germany allows certain things despised/considered sin by Christianity so I wouldn´t worry about Germany staying secular

"I think law in Germany allows certain things despised/considered sin by Christianity so I wouldn´t worry about Germany staying secular "

daydreamer

This is as good a definition of secularism as it can get; A lot of religion and some atheism makes a state verticular, perpendicular and secular. 

It is a realety that is lived pretty much in every secular society.  We have laws that had us remove any religious artifact from public and governmental buildings.  From schools, hospitals, public buildings and govermental buildings.  In a judeo-christian country, the hospitals and schools were built by the religious orders.  The nuns were the teachers and the nurses.

But people of other etnic or religious backround who imigrated to a "judeo-christian" country request to have prayer rooms in schools and us judeo-christians cannot have our crissefixes displayed.  Shi´ites can wear their kirpans to school, jews can wear their yamikas and their cross of david but we cannot say our lords prayer without offending non christians.  A veiled woman can request to have a female to give her the drivers exams to have her drivers permit.  They can ask for time off from work to go to prayer but I have to work on sundays when it is my prayer day, if their time for prayer is refused by the employer they cry out discrimination, racism and biggotry.  The same goes if the shi´ite to remove his kirpan to go to school and the same is said.  But us christians have to remove all of our religiouse icons.

Their is a limit to resonable accomodations before it become unreasonable accomodations.  Why do we have to accomodate others when they do not accomodate us in our own country.  I had to remove my gold cross from my neck because it offended some of my coworkers who were not catholics but I have to see the cross of david, the kirpan and other religious jewelry.

Just something to think about.

Well, I´ve done my fair share of protesting especially in the past year.  I have managed to stay out of jail, thus far, and have actually done some good!  The problem isn´t always in the message, Alpha...it´s in the delivery.

Delivery is for mid-wives and pizza boys; not for AlphaF 

The CDU (which is her party) is a Christian party, so this isn´t a very shocking quote, is it? And I don´t see how this comment is a bad thing. The values she is referring to are certain basics like respect for others, helping your neighbors, etc. It´s more a comment like "why complain about other people´s religion if you don´t even know what your own religion stands for." Asking Christians to look at their own values is not the same as using Christianity to rule the country. She is still secular enough to me!

PS: My biggest point, she made this comment at the CDU conference, which is ofcourse a bunch of Christians. She wasn´t speaking to Germany as the chancellor. She was speaking to her Christian party as the head of that party. Being a chancellor doesn´t mean she is not allowed to be Christian! So no, she is NOT a crazy crazy lady, what a strange comment to make!

The matter is, the head of Christian Democrats, miss the main point that i mentioned in my previous posts. This explaination, which somehow compares two religions doesn´t work to solve the problems. Because the problemis not religion based, its based on exploitation and today its about acceptance! EU officials focus on wrong points for the solution of the problem and their claims just deepens the differences in the society level.

The ironic part of my post is because, EU officials were used to criticize Turkey about secularism. I wonder the reaction of EU officials if there were an Islamic Democrat party in Turkey and compared Cristianity and Islam.

I wish acumen for EU officials. Because they need too much nowadays.

There is a difference between giving constructive criticism, and calling somebody a "crazy crazy lady" for addressing people of her own religion about that religion.

Oeince, actually I think you´re missing the point here. Barba Mama explained it: the point was that people should stop picking on other religions and focus on their own. There´s nothing discriminatory about it...

And again, secularism and prohibition of talking about one´s religion are two different things.

All that being said, I agree with what Stumpy staid about immigrants claiming discrimination being given too much. It´s not fair to favour ANY religion or the lack of it.

OK! But just tell me, do the European people accept Muslims to take place in the society? When they were cheap labor force everythibg was OK! But their kids begin to take more important places in the society. Tell me that is acceptable for Europeans.

Europeans called these people first to their countries and now they are uncomfortable with their involvement. I think Germany made the mistake in the beginning. They were supposed to desex the migrants! If these nonsense claim race goes on, I wont be surprised if a nationalist in the Europe offers that!

In my opinion, Merkel intends, "Christians, commit on your religion more than Muslims, to show these are the lands of Christianity"

And I wonder if your comments would be the same if it was not a muslim whom you talk to?

oeincy you have totally missed the point that Merkel was trying to make in her statement.

How do you expect a society to accept another when it is forced to set asside it´s own culture and religion? 

We are not permitted to speak of our religious heritage but other religions at the first chance they get throws it out their for all to see and hear.

Taken from the Merkel text:

"We expect that those who come here respect them and recognize them, while keeping their personal identity,"

Merkel said this identity did not limit religious freedom and the same principle must apply for Christians elsewhere, a clear reference to Christian minorities in Muslim countries.

"Of course, we´re for freedom to practice one´s faith," she said. "But that also means religious freedom cannot stop at our borders. That applies also for Christians in other countries around the world."

What Merkel says makes sense, please respect my religion because I respect yours.  We accept you immigrate to our country, you can keep your religious identety and you can pratice your religion but do not force us to forsake our religion and our practices to accomodate yours.

I am wondering what do you think christian values are?  What are christian values?

Here is what I remember learning in Catholic school about Christian values:

• worship of God: "You shall love the Lord your God  with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" ,
• fidelity in marriage: "Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder"
• renunciation of worldly goods: "Gather not your riches up upon this earth, for there your heart will be also",
• renunciation of violence: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek" ,
• forgivness of sins: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us",
• unconditional love: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".

Correct me if I am wrong but isn´t this similar to islamic values?

I have to say that, most of the times, Europeans are quite tolerant towards foreigners.. There might be a degree of fake political correctness in that tolerance but mainly and generically, they are more accommodating comparing to some other counties.. I think the reason might be the Europeans´ colonial past. They somehow mixed with the rest of the world in the past and they have a degree of acceptance of others  for their economical prosperity.

But their racists and nationalists are not better then our racists.. Same primitiveness, low IQ, below average education etc..

When you go to hospitals, all leaflets are written in many languages including Turkish. They are ready to provide translation services if required.. Even when celebrating Christmas, ´Merry Christmas´ is not appreciated and they say something like ´season greetings´ or ´happy holidays´ etc incase non Christians get offended..

I can not see Muslims in Muslim countries changing any of their long traditions for the idea of ´not offending non Muslims´.
Turkey and Turkish people are much more accomodating towards other religions when comparing to middle east and other countries like Pakistan. Because we deny or not or it is not the case right now but Turks lived with non muslims for centuries..Apart from nationalist elements, Turkish people are, generically speaking, relatively more advanced on this respect when compared with eastern/southern muslims.   

To add to what thehandsom said...I think politicians are very good at turning religion into divisive issue and the media is all to happy to add fuel to the fake hysteria. 

Also, when politicians belong to a specific party, they must tow the party line, which is usually what their devoted followers want to hear.  I honestly am not familiar with German politics so I can´t comment on Ms. Merkel.  I can comment on politicians in general...most of them are full of s*#t!

Oeince - just like Handsom said - most people do not have a problem with people of other religions, probably because there are many religions in Europe. It´s not quite right to say Europe is Christian and mean it is the same. Within Christianity there are different denominations, not all of them very peaceful towards others. And yet it´s heard from Muslims that Europe is Christian and stands united against Muslims. It´s nonsense. Muslims can get special treatment, like women being seen by female doctors, breaks for their prayers etc

I find it ridiculous that it is not politically correct to say Christmas and replace it with Winter Holiday. After all it is a religious holiday (yeah I know it stems from paganism but has been adopted a long time ago). Somehow I don´t imagine Jews in Israel calling Hanukah winter holiday, or Muslims calling end of Ramadan winter/spring/summer/autumn holiday depending on when it finishes.

The nonsense you´re being fed with about west exploiting Muslim immigrants cannot be taken seriously. They have the same (or even more) rights as citizens, access to all public se3rvices and usually make more money than they would in their home countries. Still, every now and again, there are voices that demand Sharia law in Britain or banning pork sale in France just because Muslims want it. There´s an old saying "Live and let live." If you move to a different country, you cannot expect that people will change their ways into yours. After all, it´s you who made the choice. Europe states clearly - you´re free to practice your religion but let us practice ours and respect our laws. If in your country you can verbally abuse women who are not covered, don´t expect that Europe will let you do that. Also, your words sound as if Muslims were forced to come to Europe. They were not brought on banana ships, it was their deliberate decision

Nationalists are a different story, but they´re not against Muslims only, do you think Catholic Poles are treated nicely in Catholic Ireland by nationalists? No way! When the going gets tough, immigrants are an easy target to blame. Normal people understand economic immigration, idiots will always find a bone to pick with someone.

Besides, it is an undisputed fact that tolerance in Europe towards other religions/cultures is incomparingly bigger than it is in Muslim countries. How come everyone criticises Europe but accepts things as they are in Muslim countries?

OK fine. Its nice to know some Europeans dont agree with my interpretation of Merkel´s words.

I think this is exactly what Merkel tried to imply, she was right on what she said, the European people disturbed by the growing number of minorities, mostly muslims of course, because now this has seen as a great threat to European identity and western values, even can be feeled from the posts here. Minorities in Europe has become more religous, radical or racist than their own country, usually live in closed communities and in my opinion europeans should first answer why this has become like that to themselves. Earlier again Merkel declared multiculturalism collapsed in Europe, brainy ex-socialist newer capitalist woman for sure .  By the way while I was reading the post I quoted, was thinking what the kirpan is Shi´ites wearing, just checked it was not related to Shi´ites but Sikhs of India.