Author
|
Topic: Afghans protest over Prophet cartoons
|
|
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787
|
posted 08 March 2008 08:37 PM
These "death to ..." chants remind me of some funny stories from my teenage years in Iran. Back in the early years of the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution in Iran, clapping as a form of applause during a speech was considered a decadent western habit. They replaced it with the chant "God is the greatest". So during a speech whenever the speaker got to a high point, someone would yell "God is the greatest" and crowd would repeat after him.Then some officials got more creative and thought of adding more revolutionary slogans to the chant, starting with "Death to America", but soon it was expanded to include every other potential enemy of the Islamic Republic. By the late years of Iran-Iraq war (around mid 80s), a simple applause during an official ceremony or speech, include the following: "God is the Greatest (3 times) Khomeini is the leader Death to counter-revolutionaries Death to Saddam Death to America Death to Soviet Union Death to England Death to Israel Fight until victory! " By the time the crowd finish the above "applause", the speaker would often forget what he was talking about!
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803
|
posted 08 March 2008 09:43 PM
quote: They are protesting against, the alleged (here in another thread) bastion of civility and law and order.
The Netherland as well as other ex-colonial powers, "bastions of civility and law and order" got there by pilloring and stealing the wealth of other nations and directing such wealth for the benefits of their own citizenry in terms of providing decent income, education etc.. I wonder what a Netherland, or a UK or a Canada with an average education level and an avrage economic level similar to Afghanistan would be? I also do remember being in a country where people have to shove and push in order to board a bus (whether an in-town bus or a long distance travlling one). Guess why? because there was only one bus and those who miss, too bad. A matter of survival. Thirty years later, I went back to that very country. People got educated and the economy prospered. Things changed. In the bus station, there was a line up, no shoving no pushing, other buses scheduled for the day... justlike in the "civilized wold". Travelling, enquiring, reading, might futher our understanding of phenomena beyond our instinctive "we are civilized, they are not." Sanizadeh: What do you expect from a dictatorship. Guess what? A dictatorship is a dictatorship whether it has a link to the Prophet or not. I lived in non theocratic dictatorship and the slogans and everything were similar to what you mentioned. Has little to do with Islam, if this is what you are alluding by talking about Iran, as your parallel to Afghanistan.
From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ibelongtonoone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14539
|
posted 09 March 2008 07:57 AM
Unionist Are you saying it was better before?Even most people who might consider themselves christian have a hard time working up much anger over cases of so called Blasphemy. It's amazing that the power these simple cartoons have around the world for so long now to anger muslims. My guess is that in the Islamic world they aren't used to much public critism since of religion since it can draw a death sentence, hence the long lasting impact of this openly satrical critism of Islam. Not since Rushdie or I suppose the Teddy Bear woman. Anybody agree?
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 09 March 2008 08:37 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone: The cartoons were definetly intending as political commentary but I see no problem with that, they were not especially witty or inlightening [sic] but they are just the free thoughts of a few cartoonist working at their jobs for a paper.
This kind of thinking completely misses the point, and illustrates the impossible situation in which foreign states insert themselves when they attempt to civilize the orient. Why, we ask, do these people hysterically criticize "just the free thoughts of a few cartoonist[s] working at their jobs for a paper"? Well, we conclude (I won't bother to add "smugly"), they are savages, victims of groupthink, narcotized by their backwards religion. Western liberal fantasies of "free speech" and "freedom of the press" and "enlightened" criticism of religion are not, shock, objective moral values. In fact, the "enlightenment," a constellation of philosophical mores invented by white, northwestern Europe masquerading as objectivity deliberately sets up a binary between the "enlightened" West and the "endarkened," savage orient. It should not be a shock when countries made to suffer by Western imperialism do not accept at face value the ethical code that excuse the daily humiliation they face. Historian Robert Darnton wrote a book called The Great Cat Massacre in which a group of oppressed print workers staged a parodic trial and execution of their master's cats, reserving a particularly savage punishment for the puss most favoured by their master's wife. Darnton argues that the typesetter's escapade represented a dress rehearsal of the French Revolution: the wronged labourers revolting against the bourgeois elite. The difference, of course, is that at the time, about fifty years before the revolution proper, they lacked the manpower, the resources and the determination to target the actual source of their suffering, the master. So is it with these upheavals and revolts against things as seemingly benign as teddy bears, cartoons and films. They act as stand-ins for the West--Western values, Western military might and Western charity. Being from the West, we benefit second-hand, unawares, from the vast military might at our command, so we don't have to worry ourselves with the attendant impotence insuperable from the weekly defeat we exact upon Arab nations. Cartoons, teddy bears and the like provide opportunities to reverse, albeit temporarily, this one-sided power dynamic. And they will take this opportunity. Of course they will. It might be comforting to stare at each other in disbelief, bewildered as to why these brown people just seem to get so mad all the time. At nothing! But asking ourselves "Well, what can you name Mohammed?" and "What kind of anti-religious cartoon can I print?" perhaps are the wrong kinds of questions we, as Western imperialists, should be asking.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanizadeh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14787
|
posted 09 March 2008 08:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Ibelongtonoone:
It's amazing that the power these simple cartoons have around the world for so long now to anger muslims. My guess is that in the Islamic world they aren't used to much public critism since of religion since it can draw a death sentence, hence the long lasting impact of this openly satrical critism of Islam. Not since Rushdie or I suppose the Teddy Bear woman.Anybody agree?
Actually, I disagree. I don't see the reactions to Cartoons being result of natural anger. To me it looks like orchestrated by certain groups and states, including (but not limited to) the Iranian government and the groups related to it. And to be honest, I have seen too many "staged" popular reactions in my life to accept them at face value. I think for Iran it is based on cool-headed political calculations, with the dual purpose of 1) deflecting attention from the nuclear reactors issues and 2) gaining leadership and sympathy around the Muslim world. For most other Muslim countries, it is a matter of out-doing the most radical voice for the case of the popular image and ultimately, political survival. Having lived through a popular revolution and its aftermath, I can tell you that in a volatile political environment only those with the loudest and most radical voices survive. I doubt many of the Muslim leaders today actually believe in the rage they express. But they have to do it to out-do their opponents.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 09 March 2008 10:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by sanizadeh:
Actually, I disagree. I don't see the reactions to Cartoons being result of natural anger. To me it looks like orchestrated by certain groups and states, including (but not limited to) the Iranian government and the groups related to it. And to be honest, I have seen too many "staged" popular reactions in my life to accept them at face value. I think for Iran it is based on cool-headed political calculations, with the dual purpose of 1) deflecting attention from the nuclear reactors issues and 2) gaining leadership and sympathy around the Muslim world. ...
Your suggestion that Iran should be substantially blamed for the protests rather than Afghan domestic politics (including some 200 protesting Afghan legislators) is difficult to see.Given that this Afghan government (which the West is proping up) maintains a law carrying the death penalty for criticism of Muhammad and the Koran, it should hardly be surprising that their would be calls for the removal of Danish and Dutch NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. Additionally, how would it distract from Iran's nuclear program; an issue which has an independent life determined by the Western press and the US-Israel middle-east agenda? Stories such as this that promote the irrational and dangerous nature of "islamofascism" feed the push for aggression against Iran.
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 19 March 2008 03:05 PM
In Osama's last missive released today:In the audiotape, the voice believed to be bin Laden's describes attacks by Europeans, saying "it grieves us that you targeted our villages with your bombardments, these villages built of mud, collapsed on our women and children." But he said these "paled (in comparison) when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings, this is the greatest misfortune and the most dangerous." Yes, publishing a cartoon is far...far...worse than killing people. Ergo: It is entirely appropriate to kill the offenders who have published the cartoons in the first place. [ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 19 March 2008 03:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Sven: In Osama's last missive released today:In the audiotape, the voice believed to be bin Laden's describes attacks by Europeans, saying "it grieves us that you targeted our villages with your bombardments, these villages built of mud, collapsed on our women and children." But he said these "paled (in comparison) when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings, this is the greatest misfortune and the most dangerous." Yes, publishing a cartoon is far...far...worse than killing people. Ergo: It is entirely appropriate to kill the offenders who have published the cartoons in the first place. [ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]
Well, why don't you track down OBL, and have your argument with him then, since nothing you are saying had anything to do with what people here are arguing. The fundamental fact is the Jylland-Posten cartoons were a deliberate and concious effort to ridicule the belief of one specific ethnic minority, carried out in an increasingly racist environment in Europe against that minority. One can not seperate the racist carricatures made of Jewish people their icons and their beliefs from the overall context of National Socialist Germany in the 1930's, and we can not seperate the Danish cartoons from common place racism against the increasingly marginalized Muslim minority in Europe. This all is compounded by the fact that these cartoons were then widley disseminated and re-published all over Europe, in similar circumstance, in the name of demonstrating "freedom of the press". As if even one publisher stepped forward to demonstrate this freedom, by dredging up Nazi caricatures ridiculing Jews and their beliefs. Now that would have taken courage. And had the authorities not stepped in to prevent such, you can bet there would have been outraged demonstrations, death threats, and even possible street violence, in the wake of such insults. But make no mistake. Encouraging bigotry in the press has been proven to result in death, it is not as if "freedom of expression" entirely frees one from the responsibility of the impact of those expressions. [ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
pk34th45
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14999
|
posted 20 March 2008 02:17 AM
And yet in Canada, your government is planning to censor offensive artwork, Torries plan to withold funding for 'offensive' productons a plan opposed if I may add by most of the posters on the thread above. So the government of Canada should not censor "offensive" artworks at all. But European governments should censor artwork that may "offend" Islam. I detect more Canadian hypocracy.
From: The Netherlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 20 March 2008 02:47 AM
Actually, I am opposed to all of this kind of legislation. However, I am particularly opposed to it if it is used to apply a racist double standard. In otherwords, if applied in some cases and not others.Quote me where I said that any kind of action should be taken against the Jylland-Posten? You won't find one, because there are not any. My point is that it is very easy to see how a double standard is being applied. Above all, it is essential that laws be equally applied, and this stands above wether or not one likes the law in question. A fact that can be verified by reading here, Defame Islam, get sued? , where I say: quote: I personally would clear the decks of any laws specifically targetting hate propoganda, since this is simplest and best, but it is possible to see why some people would see the occurence of a double standard in play, given that this kind of legislation is on the books and also applied.
Any other generalized ad hominem attacks and misinformation you would like to spread around? And lets be clear abou these drawings, it it not that they are offensive because the depict Mohhmed, they are offensive because they were published to ridicule the belief that depicting Mohhamed is forbidden. Mr. Rosen stated, in his editorial comments that they were intended to be "insulting" and "offensive", and as "ridicule". Those were his words. [ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|