babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Something is rotten in Denmark

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Something is rotten in Denmark
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 05 February 2006 03:00 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As the cartoon backlash builds up, somethings that really bother me are:

Why has the media not reported on what is actually happening in Denmark?

Who are the people behind this deliberate provocation?

For those of us far removed from the issue. it is easy to think of all Scandinavian countries as being beacons of progress.

This is not the case at all, since the Liberal / Conservatives have taken over. (see they are from the same mould!)

To give some examples:

It's controlled by christian conservatives

EU criticism of Denmark's religious education in public schools draws fire from the education minister

quote:
Haarder, also the minister for ecclesiastic affairs, intends to set up a committee to look into strengthening Christianity as an elementary school subject.

The subject would continue to place a special emphasis on Danish Evangelical Lutheran Traditions.


With a heplful helping from the "fuck the poor crowd":

Row over welfare gag order

quote:
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen opened this fall's parliamentary session, announcing extensive reforms to the welfare system

Of course foreigners have to be targeted:

Parliament offers no mercy to torture victims

quote:
If a refugee is too traumatised by the hardships of war or torture to master the subtleties of Danish language, history, and culture, he or she can kiss goodbye all hope of becoming a Danish citizen.

The Liberal-Conservative government agreed with the Danish People’s Party last Thursday that immigrants would need to pass a citizenship test, demonstrate a certain level of Danish skills, and prove they had supported themselves for four out of five years, in order to obtain Danish citizenship.


And who can forget the ultimate target and reason for ALL of our problems:

School excludes homosexual educators

The Liberal/ Conservatives have a natural ally and are propped up by something called the Danish People's Party with candidates like this:

Boycott for muslim insult row candidate

quote:
In the articles, Muslims were compared with a cancer tumour that needed to be removed from Danish society, and Muslim men said to consider it their right to rape Danish women.

As for the opposition Social Democrats they have bigger issues to deal with to cure all of their nation's woes:

Opposition demands castration for paedophiles

quote:

Children do not get the protection they need against paedophiles, the Social Democrats say. The opposition party wants all sex offenders who prey on children to be medicinally castrated.

Wait the "Socialist" People's Party has a platform too:

Opposition call for terror ministry

quote:
The fight against terrorism needs to be stepped up, the Socialist People's Party says. The party suggests that the nation?s two intelligence agencies are merged and a new crisis ministry established

And in case any of them decide to become moderate again a "new" party is sitting in the wings:

Nazi power aspirations

I could go on and on about Iraq, the racism I saw in this apparently mainstram paper, the Social Democrats pledging they will NEVER raise taxes if they ever get in power, unions donating to Liberals and other right wing parties, etc.

Fortunately not everyone is going crazy over there as I understand there is a new left wing party that remembers being on the left doesn't mean becoming simply friendlier whack jobs. They are doing well especially amoung the young.

Apparently one cartoon that isn't getting mentioned is this:

Imam demands apology for 'humiliating' Mohammed cartoons

quote:
Lars Refn, one of the cartoonists who participated in the newspaper’s call to arms, ... did not feature the prophet Mohammed, but a normal Danish schoolboy named Mohammed, who had written a Persian text on his schoolroom’s blackboard.

‘On the blackboard it says in Persian with Arabic letters that ‘Jyllands-Posten’s journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs’,’ Refn said. ‘Of course we shouldn’t let ourselves be censored by a few extremist Muslims, but Jyllands-Posten’s only goal is to vent the fires as soon as they get the opportunity. There’s nothing constructive in that.’


And finally my real hope that maybe I only saw the worse a country has to offer in their version of the Copenhagen Post (the only english language paper I could find)is the picture on today's cover:

Demonstrators took to the streets Saturday.

The cover sows a picture of a young boy holding up a sign saying:

quote:
'Muslims aren't the enemy. PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen is,' says this young boy.

Maybe there's hope after all ... In the meantime I no longer consider Denmark as an an example to use as a way our country should go. In fact, we have to be very careful that similar forces here don't take even more power than they already have.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 03:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lars Refn, one of the cartoonists who participated in the newspaper’s call to arms, ... did not feature the prophet Mohammed, but a normal Danish schoolboy named Mohammed, who had written a Persian text on his schoolroom’s blackboard.
‘On the blackboard it says in Persian with Arabic letters that ‘Jyllands-Posten’s journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs’,’ Refn said. ‘Of course we shouldn’t let ourselves be censored by a few extremist Muslims, but Jyllands-Posten’s only goal is to vent the fires as soon as they get the opportunity. There’s nothing constructive in that.’

This was brilliant of course.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 February 2006 03:16 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder how many people have taken the time to familiarize themselves with the actual cartoons. They are not all crass and, I am ambivalent about the paper's editorial board for publishing them, the cartoonist should be spared some of this cynicism.

On edit: I have removed the images of what we are actually talking about. Gone, poof, it never happened.

Dream on.

Let's continue the discussion as though no artistic merit, no thought, no history, no intention was ever at work here.

I will also endeavor to erase the role of the Danish imams in all of this. poof. I am become the creator.

Carry on. It's always best to discuss things in the absence of their material manifestation.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: siren ]


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 05 February 2006 03:25 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Siren they were intentially published to provoke a response. They come from an openly racist newspaper that supports openly racist politicians. No-one can be ambivalent about this. In my book, intentially attacking a group to hurt and offend is hate speech.

At the same time, the next "media outlet" that posted these was a right wing evangelical "christian" magazine in Norway, with equally racist and hateful messages.

I'm sorry but there is nothing free in the price we all pay for closed minded fascism and racism.

I'm asking that you please remove those cartoons as I find them offensive from an offensive source.

This thread is about how fucked up elements of Danish society is getting. It isn't about the cartoons.

edited to add: if you look at the posting I did on the Imams you will see their main boy is pretty screwed up as well. My point in this thread is how come NO one is talking about the screwed up right wingers and "christians" who have taking over what once was a very peaceful and tolerant society.

I can see every day, someone on the news accusing the Imams of spreading their hate. What about our own brand of right wing religious hate???

That's the question.

Edited again to add: Thanks Siren.

I still think the "what's happening in Denmark" question is definitely worth asking.

From what I read the Danish Imams are also certifiable whack jobs too. The only difference between these "muslim" preachers from their "christian" counterparts is they're already being condemned by moderate muslims. When will Christian moderates start condemning our OWN whack jobs?

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 04:17 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
I will also endeavor to erase the role of the Danish imams in all of this. poof. I am become the creator.

Carry on. It's always best to discuss things in the absence of their material manifestation.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: siren ]


Neat huh!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 February 2006 04:22 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Editorial cartoon are usually topical, and hence reflect some current news item.

The Danish cartoon did not do this. An easy conclusion is that it was intended to be nothing other than Muslim-baiting.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 05 February 2006 06:36 AM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting interview in the Independent with the author of the children's book that started this whole thing.

The pen & the sword

quote:
Yet, as smaller-scale protests continued, in London among other cities, it is a sobering thought to realise that the whole saga began as the liberal idea of just one well-meaning man.

And yesterday, he sat with The Independent on Sunday in his modest flat in Copenhagen and spoke of his feelings at the conflagration he has unwittingly started. He is Danish author Kaare Bluitgen who, last summer, conceived a children's book on the Prophet Mohamed. The intention, since Bluitgen's children attend schools with a majority of Muslim children, was to contribute to integration.

"These children must learn about Danish heroes and Danish children should learn about Muslim heroes," he said.

He asked three artists to illustrate it, but they declined, and word of this reached Politiken newspaper, which, on 12 September, ran a story asking if, out of fear of reprisals, self-censorship was at work. The paper's rival Jyllands-Posten then had the idea of asking cartoonists to depict the prophet.



From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 05 February 2006 06:49 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
I am particularly ASHAMED of my kinsmen/women in Norway for not speaking up against the Norwegian Christian magazine that published those cartoons.

In the land of the Nobel Committee that hands out the Nobel Peace Prize, I am appalled that such blatant racism exists today.

Norway is one of the most "socially progressive" countries in the world when it comes to things like women's equality, etc.

quote:
Norway's cultural diversity has blossomed in recent years, and public policies are aimed at integrating various ethnic groups and promoting tolerance.

Norway still the world's best place to live

The "social safety net" if far better developed than Canada's is (maternity leave is better, up to FIVE paid weeks of vacation a year, etc).

All this and a re-emerging racism! How sad!

I am ashamed of my people today!

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: cdnviking ]


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2006 07:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know enough about either Denmark or Norway to be alarmed, although thank you, lonely worker and also NW Ontarian, for all this excellent background.

Note also that Fourteen Rivers has been telling us for some weeks about the free city of Christiania - in central Copenhagen - and the increasingly reactionary pressure that community is facing from local authorities. That in itself was news to me, disappointing news about Copenhageners, whom I'd always thought of as liberal and tolerant.

But I can't think that any of this is specific to the Danes or the Norwegians. Yesterday the Globe and Mail published an editorial that simply sickened me, blind to the deeper politics of this story, focused solely on Islam as a backward religion/culture and on Muslims as solely responsible - SOLELY responsible - for the social and political problems of their (many) nations. The Grope editors openly took that idiot position from Bernard Lewis, the superannuated Brit imperialist whom too many North Americans have been misled into thinking of as a "scholar" and expert on Islam.

So. The cause of enlightenment isn't doing too well over here either, is it.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 08:48 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. But the more important topic relates to embassies being torched and mass demonstrations (obviously with the complicity of the governments concerned), and cartoonists' heads and hands being threatened to be chopped off. Over a cartoon.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 10:25 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is certainly a topic worthy of discussion. But the more important topic relates to embassies being torched and mass demonstrations (obviously with the complicity of the governments concerned), and cartoonists' heads and hands being threatened to be chopped off. Over a cartoon.

Josh,

The event of embassies being torched did not happen in a vacuum. Please read what fellow babblers kindly provided above as background info. It is a deliberate provocation. Compounded with a whitewash "freedom of speech". Freedom to express what ? An idea? There is no idea to express, only hatred, prejudice, stereotyping and racism. Worth expressing?

It has also been pointed out that cartoons in newspapers usually draw from current events that are making the news. Not the case here. Only a calculated plan when the newspaper well knew the reaction would be outrage.

Reactions have run from the rational to the angry (as in mobs).

I am not defending threats of violence and burning, these are very unfortunate and but to aggress (as in provoke) AND dictate what reaction the aggressed should display is a bit too much.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 10:58 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's the background. You decide who is more responsible for expoliting the situation:
quote:

How did it begin? Oddly, with a decision by a Danish newspaper to commission, and then print, cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in whatever light cartoonists chose to put him.

The newspaper's culture editor, Fleming Rose, says he intended simply to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals. He cited a Danish comedian, who said in an interview that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Koran.

"Some Muslims try to impose their religious taboos in the public domain," said Mr. Rose. "In my book, that's not asking for my respect, it's asking for my submission."

Mr. Rose wrote to the Danish Cartoonist Society, inviting cartoonists to depict their interpretation of the Prophet — whose likeness many devout Muslims believe should never be depicted. Some refused on the grounds that the exercise was a provocation, but a dozen complied.

Mr. Rose said not all 12 drawings would offend Muslims: one depicted a Danish anti-immigration politician in a police lineup, and another lampooned Mr. Rose as an agent provocateur.

. . . .

But this did not take place in a political vacuum. Hostile feelings have been growing between Denmark's immigrants and a government supported by the right-wing Danish People's Party, which has pushed anti-immigrant policies. . . .

. . . .

The reaction, in any event, was clearly deliberate. A group of Denmark's fundamentalist Muslim clerics lobbied the embassies of 11 mostly Muslim countries to demand a meeting with Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. When he refused, the clerics took their show on the road, shopping the offending images around the Middle East.

The clerics inflamed the response by including in their presentation far more offensive cartoons that never appeared in any newspaper, some depicting Muhammad as a pedophile, a pig or engaged in bestiality.

The result: Boycotts of Danish goods spread in the Middle East, while newspapers across Europe reprinted the offending cartoons as an act of solidarity with Mr. Rose's newspaper.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/weekinreview/05smith.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 05 February 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
Imagine, if you will, the following and picture the verbal descriptions are caricatures/cartoons:

Christ "having his way" with an alterboy, and the caption reads "If my priests/ministers can, so can I"

Christ at the head of a Crusader Army saying "slaughter the b*stards and let my father sort them out"

Christ, torch in hand, leading Polish/Russian peasants in a 19th century Pogrom against Jews, caption reads "KILL ME WILL YOU?"

Can you IMAGINE what would happen to the cartoonist if he/she DARED draw such caricatures?

The ONLY reason I provide the above mentioned examples of a caricature of Jesus is to put the whole issue into context.

No one can be offended by a "cartoon", or so defenders of the whole "freedom of speech" issue proclaim, so no one could be offended by the above mentioned caricatures, could they?

Several of the cartoons in question, that have offended muslims, are down right DISGUSTING AND RACIST in tone. The caricatures I use, SOLELY as examples, would be (if drawn and published) VERY likely to cause a SIGNIFICANT backlash in the Christian world.

I can just imagine portraying jesus as the leader of mass murdering empires like Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain and the fallout that would occur for besmurching jesus's name!


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 05 February 2006 11:29 AM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cdnviking:
Imagine, if you will, the following and picture the verbal descriptions are caricatures/cartoons:

Christ "having his way" with an alterboy, and the caption reads "If my priests/ministers can, so can I"

Christ at the head of a Crusader Army saying "slaughter the b*stards and let my father sort them out"

Christ, torch in hand, leading Polish/Russian peasants in a 19th century Pogrom against Jews, caption reads "KILL ME WILL YOU?"

Can you IMAGINE what would happen to the cartoonist if he/she DARED draw such caricatures?

The ONLY reason I provide the above mentioned examples of a caricature of Jesus is to put the whole issue into context.

No one can be offended by a "cartoon", or so defenders of the whole "freedom of speech" issue proclaim, so no one could be offended by the above mentioned caricatures, could they?

Several of the cartoons in question, that have offended muslims, are down right DISGUSTING AND RACIST in tone. The caricatures I use, SOLELY as examples, would be (if drawn and published) VERY likely to cause a SIGNIFICANT backlash in the Christian world.

I can just imagine portraying jesus as the leader of mass murdering empires like Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain and the fallout that would occur for besmurching jesus's name!



As a Christian, if I were to view the depictions described above, I'd shrug my shoulders and lament the poor taste of those who created such images/ jokes. I'd certainly never engage in a visceral reaction of a lynch mob. What you are in fact arguing here in case you don't realize it, only reinforces the stereotypes of rioters as raving
fundamentalist hotheads who can't control their impulses and who would trample basic freedoms underfoot.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 05 February 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
White Rabbit, I agree that most moderate christians would shrug their shoulders at those cartoons and even the most extreme wouldn't go on a jihad today (they'd just demand their government launch another "crusade" against another muslim country).

What troubles me is the shrug of the shoulder's by our moderate christian voices to OUR theo-cons who are intentially picking a fight with another cultures theo-cons.

I find very little difference between these disgusting words:

The "christian":

quote:
In the articles, Muslims were compared with a cancer tumour that needed to be removed from Danish society, and Muslim men said to consider it their right to rape Danish women.

The "muslim" Imam from the article on the first post:

quote:
It is not the first time Hlayhel has created headlines in Denmark. One year ago, he became the target of criticism from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women’s behaviour and dress invited rape.

The similarity in language and obsession with women and rape are amazing.

What really set me off was when I watched the news last night I saw a segment where mics were put in front of visibilty minorities who were walking on the street. They were asked their views on the actions of fellow "muslims". They looked like deer caught in headlights and obviously stated they don't share their views and apologising for how some are destroying what should be a peaceful faith. One of those people cornered is a friend of mine who would fit right at home on babble and it was painful to watch.

How come they don't put the mic in front of average white Canadians and ask if they think that these cartoons belong in a christian magazine or that people claiming to be representatives of the christian faith with equally vile views speak for them?

Racism and intolerance are diseases that need to be clearly confronted. It's time we dealt our own "kinder / gentler" brand of the same slime.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 05 February 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
White Rabbit, I agree that most moderate christians would shrug their shoulders at those cartoons and even the most extreme wouldn't go on a jihad today (they'd just demand their government launch another "crusade" against another muslim country).


I viewed the cartoons, which weren't particularly funny or offensive, from my perspective. Even if the Danish cartoonists DID have mischief in mind when drawing those cartoons, the fundamentalist
extremists have magnified those pre-existing stereotypes a thousand times over with their hysterical responses to a couple of cartoons. It makes you wonder what they might do if someone wrote a book or play that didn't suit them.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 05 February 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I viewed the cartoons, which weren't particularly funny or offensive, from my perspective.
Really? I found some of the caricatures towards the end of the series reminded me of nazi caricatures of jews from the thirties.

From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 05 February 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
Really? I found some of the caricatures towards the end of the series reminded me of nazi caricatures of jews from the thirties.

Come to think of it, you're right.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
kimmy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11914

posted 05 February 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for kimmy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the issue of the cartoons themselves:

* Two of them mocked the idea behind the assignment (goofy white-guy in turban getting thunked on the head with an orange labeled "PR Stunt", a non-prophet named Mohammed writing on a blackboard that Jyllands Posten are provocateurs)
* Two are directed more at the expected reaction (the worried cartoonist looking over his shoulder as he draws, and the prophet telling angry faithful to chill out.)
*One shows Mohammed leading a donkey through the desert... not sure how to classify that one.
*One has a bunch of crude line-drawings that I didn't understand.
*Three (bomb in turban, "stop, we ran out of virgins!", the one with the two burqa-clad women) appear intended to express views about Islam.
*Two (the crescent moon behind Mohammed's head so as to look like devil horns, Mohammed being gouged in the eye by the star of the crescent-star symbol) appear designed to offend without offering any sort of political statement.

Regardless of the motivation behind the cartoons, some of them fall under the heading of what we in the west consider to be legitimate social discussion.

The Scandinavian countries, as well as other places in western Europe, have a much higher proportion of Muslim newcomers than we do in Canada. The meeting of the cultures does not always go smoothly, and there has been friction at times (and a backlash, as a result.)

In response to this:

quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
The "christian":

quote:In the articles, Muslims were compared with a cancer tumour that needed to be removed from Danish society, and Muslim men said to consider it their right to rape Danish women.

The "muslim" Imam from the article on the first post:

quote:It is not the first time Hlayhel has created headlines in Denmark. One year ago, he became the target of criticism from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women’s behaviour and dress invited rape.

The similarity in language and obsession with women and rape are amazing.


Perhaps there is a legitimage issue to be discussed? I know in advance how this will be received, so I tread cautiously in suggesting that perhaps Imam Hlayhel's attitude toward Danish women is not as isolated as one would hope. I have seen reports from Sweden that indicate that a disproportinately (massively so) large number of sexual assaults are committed by Muslims. Perhaps there are cultural factors merit discussion.

-k


From: Awesometon, Alberta! | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 05 February 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For what its worth during the second world war occupied Denmark successfully evacuated almost all of its Jewish population to Sweden on learning that the Nazis planned to exterminate them.
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 February 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He cited a Danish comedian, who said in an interview that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Koran.

Why even consider urinating on either?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Char
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11907

posted 05 February 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Char     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This post was supposed to be about Denmark's current government, but everyone else digressed, so I will too.

Regardless of whether the provocation was intentional or not, and no matter how offensive these cartoons are - that doesn't give thousands of rioters the right to call for beheadings or burn buildings.
This whole fiasco has outlined the difference between our cultural beliefs (multiculturalism, free speech, tolerance of difference) and the beliefs of those who want nothing more than Islamofascist theocracies with Sharia Law.

I'm not being a racist by stating this. Many, if not most, Muslims are peaceful, tolerant and want free speech (delve into the Iranian blogosphere for proof) and many immigrate to Western countries because they want these things.

Drawing, Jesus, God, Muhammed, Buddha...etc. is my right and I will not relinquish it. If I offend, you can write to the editor, peacefully protest or publicly discredit me. I'm not trying to "dictate" someone reaction after provoking them, I'm simply stating that there are boundaries that they must abide by (such as don't advocate death to my entire country for some ignorant remark I may publish).

What is not being discussed here is that many Muslims in oppressive countries who disagree witht he building-burners are terrified - and rightly so- to publicly state their opinions.


From: PEI | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Here's the background. You decide who is more responsible for expoliting the situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/weekinreview/05smith.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


This Background is complete crapola. For one thing Mr. Rose freely admits that he did not know that the cartoon lampooning him as an agent provocateur lampooned him. This was written in Farsi in the Cartoon.

Your "background" makes it look as if Mr. Rose deliberately lampooned himself out of sense of fair play or something.

This is just more prevericative distortion designed to clean up a bad story.

Did it ever occur to you that the New York Times is itself a biased source?

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 05 February 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidescroll!

Another thing that seems questionable -- the cartoonists were, it is claimed, asked to provide images of Mohammad to illustrate a children's book. There is only one image, the one of Mohammad leading a donkey through the desert that might fit the bill (as I recall).

BTW is a verbal depiction of the cartoons more acceptable here than the actual cartoons?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Char:

Regardless of whether the provocation was intentional or not, and no matter how offensive these cartoons are - that doesn't give thousands of rioters the right to call for beheadings or burn buildings.


Look, American journalist went out and called for the nuking of Mecca after 9/11. What is important is wether they do it or not. People can "call" for whatever they like, and it is incitement that is for sure, just as the cartoons themselves are incitement. That is entirely different than people acting upon that incitement.

The reality, which is quite opposed to the mainstream media hype that is in exactly the same vein as the original incitement, is that Muslim reaction has been very tame, with only one really violent incident (the temporary kidnapping of a German national -- quickly resolved by people from Hamas.) Sure a few hotheads are out there with some nasty signs, and there has been some street violence, but mostly there have been peaceful demonstrations, and calls for completely civil forms of protest such as boycotts.

Of course the media is all to happy to pick up on latent xenophobic ideas about crazed Muslims and get good sound bites from the few really wierd Islamic radicals, who seem to more than obliging in clowning for the cameras any time something happens, but Muslims, in the main have been largely civil in their approach.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 February 2006 05:05 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Regardless of whether the provocation was intentional or not, and no matter how offensive these cartoons are - that doesn't give thousands of rioters the right to call for beheadings or burn buildings.

Psst. It's called free speech.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
kimmy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11914

posted 05 February 2006 05:44 PM      Profile for kimmy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Psst. It's called free speech.


As people are fond of pointing out, free speech is not without limits.

I believe that incitement of violence against identifiable groups is considered a justifiable limitation of free speech in many places.

I believe that the people claiming the cartoons are hate-speech have a tougher position to defend. I believe only one of the cartoons (the one with the crescent moon behind the prophet's head in such a way as to look like devil horns) really leans toward what I'd consider hate speech. Other than this one, I believe that the remaining cartoons are defensible as either not hate speech at all, or as fair expression of views on current issues. I don't believe that being critical of attitudes or beliefs is the same as inciting hatred.

I could be wrong, of course. If anybody wishes to take one of the cartoons and be specific as to why it's hate-speech as opposed to a fair expression of opinion, please do so. I think the "devil horns" cartoon is probably the only one where a good argument can be made to that effect.

-k


From: Awesometon, Alberta! | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his hat, and also warning off "sucicide bombers from heaven" because they have run out of Virgins, directly intimates that all Muslims are violent. This is especially true given that almost every major Islamic organization or school of religous interpretation had issued Fatwa's against suicide bombing.

These cartoons play directly into common misconceptions of Muslims, just in the same way that Nazi imagery of rich Jews exploiting poor Aryans played into common stereotyping of Jews, in Germany in the 30's.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 06:00 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or many cartoons in the present day middle east press.

quote:

Did it ever occur to you that the New York Times is itself a biased source?

You dispute one fact of not particularly overriding importance, but don't dispute the most important fact: fundamentalists went around the Moslem world pushing the cartoons, and the three worst that never appeared in print, before any republication took place.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 06:05 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

I believe that the people claiming the cartoons are hate-speech have a tougher position to defend. I believe only one of the cartoons (the one with the crescent moon behind the prophet's head in such a way as to look like devil horns) really leans toward what I'd consider hate speech. Other than this one, I believe that the remaining cartoons are defensible as either not hate speech at all, or as fair expression of views on current issues. I don't believe that being critical of attitudes or beliefs is the same as inciting hatred. Kimmy


Kimmy,

If you considered the cartoon depicting the Prophet (and thus all Muslims) as a terrorist(s)not offensive, I surely hope it is not because it has already been imprinted in your psyche that it is a fact that all Muslims are terrorists and therefore it is a factual and fair comment.

Addition: I don't think that such cartoon is likely to inspire anything but hate.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 06:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you disagree that the Editor of the Jylland-Posten admitted quite openly that he did not know that the comic in question japed himself, and that as such the article in question does not serve as "objective background" on the topic at hand but actually biases by making the Mr. Rosen appear more "fair minded" than he actually is?

Does it, for isntance, even mention that the creator of that cartoon has himself come forward and publically condemned the project which he worked on because he felt that it was a direct provocation, not an act of fair editorial comment?

The fact that these elemants are missing indicates to me that this background is either biased or badly researched.

I see no reason to give it any credibility on any score given the missing, very pertinent details. Seriously, how can I trust the colouring of the rest of the information given that the article is so obviously flawed.

quote:
The reaction, in any event, was clearly deliberate.

Nice. Rosen might not have delibeartely fabricated a media campaign targetting Muslims, but the Mullahs know exactly what they are doing.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You refuse to see what you don't want to see. This is not the only source for the fact that fundamentalists sought to stir up a shitstorm by pimping the cartoons, which came out in September, all over the mideast before the republication took place.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But your "background" misses sailent parts of the Rosen story, and makes it look only as if the Immams were deliberatly stirring up trouble.

I mean really Josh, can you seriously believe that Mr Rosen, and the original Blutiken author (whom isn't even mentioned in your background) had trouble finding artists to draw pictures of Mohammed, when in fact Rosen seems to have had no problem in doing so.

And then what of the subsequent "apology" put out by Jyyland-Posten, which says that they had no idea that there would be a possibly violent backlash, when in fact the earlier stated that the reason they could not get artists to draw pictures for Blutkens book was because of fear of "Islamic Radicals."

Everything that Rosen says is a pile of shit, and yet here it is being taken at face value by the New York Times.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And let's not forget where the real blame should lie: the government of Saudi Arabia, which sought a distraction from their inability to prevent deaths at the Hajj.
quote:

And while the deaths of these pilgrims was a mere blip on the traditional western media's radar, it was a huge story in the Muslim world. Most of the pilgrims who were killed came from poorer countries such as Pakistan, where the Hajj is a very big story. Even the most objective news stories were suddenly casting Saudi Arabia in a very bad light and they decided to do something about it.

Their plan was to go on a major offensive against the Danish cartoons. The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after, Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state) began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons. The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark. When that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests. After two weeks of this, the Libyans decided to close their embassy in Denmark. Then there was an attack on the Danish embassy in Indonesia. And that was followed by attacks on the embassies in Syria and then Lebanon.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm was making a comment earlier on another thread about the ferry which sank in the Red Sea, musiong about how long it would take the Arabs to come up with a conspiracy theory about it being a Zinoist plot kill pilgrims on the Hajj. Apparently, not longer than it has taken for the cartoon caper to surface about the evil plotting big oil Arabs.

Of course the fact that the Danish Immams were talking this up in September is irrelevant when it comes to the international conspiracy of big oil, Saudi bankers and Islamic fundamentalists.

There is no doubt in my mind that the haouse of Saud has very reason to play up international tensions, as a means of distracting public attention. None of that obviates the fact that the Jylland-Posten deliberately acted to provoke Muslim anger, and that anger that Muslims feel is real.

But of course the New York Times and you, apparently, are more interested in distracating public attention from the very real anti-Muslim racism that exists all over the western world, by pawning it off as a Saudi plot.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 February 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I said above, you see only what you want to see. Rather than addressing the facts I have brought up, you equate me with Stockholm and blame everything on the, real problem, of racism. As if that is an excuse for the actions and facts I have cited. There's no point in continuing the interchange.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
kimmy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11914

posted 05 February 2006 06:41 PM      Profile for kimmy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his hat, and also warning off "sucicide bombers from heaven" because they have run out of Virgins, directly intimates that all Muslims are violent. This is especially true given that almost every major Islamic organization or school of religous interpretation had issued Fatwa's against suicide bombing.

Nonetheless, Muslim martyrs continue to blow themselves up. The martyr's reward (the proverbial "72 virgins") remains a symbol of the issue, and is therefore fair game for satirists.

I disagree with the claim that it intimates that all Muslims are violent. The cartoon is pretty clearly aimed at suicide bombers, not at all Muslims.

quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Kimmy,

If you considered the cartoon depicting the Prophet (and thus all Muslims) as a terrorist(s)not offensive, I surely hope it is not because it has already been imprinted in your psyche that it is a fact that all Muslims are terrorists and therefore it is a factual and fair comment.



Again, I disagree with the claim that any of these cartoons can be said to represent "all" Muslims.


quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Addition: I don't think that such cartoon is likely to inspire anything but hate.

Do you feel comfortable making that decision for everyone?

-k


From: Awesometon, Alberta! | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
As I said above, you see only what you want to see. Rather than addressing the facts I have brought up, you equate me with Stockholm and blame everything on the, real problem, of racism. As if that is an excuse for the actions and facts I have cited. There's no point in continuing the interchange.

No. You only want to see what you want to see. Even when I agree that the Saudi government is playing politics. You can't even see that I said this.

None of that conflicts with the obvious bias of the NYT article, as I carefully outlined, quite resonably and without a response from you on any of the issues of fact which I disclosed as missing from the article.

Were the article to have fairly "backgrounded" what is the obvious and deliberate provocation of the Jyyland-Posten, it would have been much easier to give credibility to the rest, but as it begins by whitewashing Mr. Rosen's role in this affair, it stretches my credulity when it you ask me to tie together this international plotting of the Imams of Denmark, and the Saudi government as part of some carefully contrived machivelian scheme.

My question: You say these "facts." Are they facts? The article has shown a fairly casual relationship to the facts right from the start.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kimmy:

Nonetheless, Muslim martyrs continue to blow themselves up. The martyr's reward (the proverbial "72 virgins") remains a symbol of the issue, and is therefore fair game for satirists.

-k


And there are rich Jews, and not all of them were nice, and there were Jewish communists, and there were Jewish bankers.

None of that makes it fair to characterize the Jewish people by taking revered Jewish symbols, such as the star of David, and using them as the center-piece of art which depicts all Jews as having thew qualities of a few, which is what you do when you take a universal symbol, such as Mohammed, or the Star of David and malign it.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
kimmy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11914

posted 05 February 2006 06:52 PM      Profile for kimmy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But your "background" misses sailent parts of the Rosen story, and makes it look only as if the Immams were deliberatly stirring up trouble.

Some of the Imams certainly were deliberately stirring up trouble. They've gone to the Middle East and appeared on the BBC with a drawing depicting Mohammed as a pig, representing it as what was published in Denmark, even though the paper published no such thing. Some Muslims have been doing their best to inflame this situation.

-k


From: Awesometon, Alberta! | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 05 February 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Denmark has become very right-wing, as I explore in this thread regarding the government's treatment of its own citizens.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 February 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the whole thing is ridicuous. Neither the offending cartoons nor the over-the-top overreaction are justifiable. As a rational agnostic I am nomore responsible for the excesses of one group or the other. It's clearly a failure of Danish society alone.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 05 February 2006 09:05 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a better way to show the righteousness of your religion - by rioting and becoming violent over a not-so creative carton. Offensive, sure...but the reaction is only making the cartoonist look like he was on to something.

I forget the cartoonist, but there was one who portrayed a Taliban official as a monkey who was reading the Q'uaran upside-down. Is that too far?


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes! Absolutely. What better way to show your commitement to democracy and freedom of speech than for Muslims to devise some kind of mind control system, so that all Muslims acts in precise accord with the way that we would think it best for them to behave!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 09:11 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What better way to show your commitement to democracy and freedom of speech than for Muslims to devise some kind of mind control system, so that all Muslims acts in precise accord with the way that we would think it best for them to behave!

So, we have no right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 05 February 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes! Absolutely. What better way to show your commitement to democracy and freedom of speech than for Muslims to devise some kind of mind control system, so that all Muslims acts in precise accord with the way that we would think it best for them to behave!

Let me be more specific so that there is no confusion - those who are reacting violently are making themselves, and their religion (since the media is only focussing on the violence) look barbaric. Intelligent people know they are a minority, but it still looks like the mob mentality is a ludicrous response to a silly cartoon.


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

So, we have no right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?


You have a right to post whatever you like. I have a right to point out that you are doing your part to demonize all Muslims by conflating the actions of a few with the actions (or lack of actions) of the many, by repeatedly only talking about Muslim people in the negative, and in general terms, as opposed to making an effort to identify differences within the Muslim community, and actual trends as opposed to the wilder fanatics, which unfortunately try and make themselves appear as the true believers of every faith, race and political movement.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 09:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

You have a right to post whatever you like. I have a right to point out that you are doing your part to demonize all Muslims by conflating the actions of a few with the actions (or lack of actions) of the many, by repeatedly only talking about Muslim people in the negative, and in general terms, as opposed to making an effort to identify differences within the Muslim community, and actual trends as opposed to the wilder fanatics, which unfortunately try and make themselves appear as the true believers of every faith, race and political movement.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I'll take that as a non-answer to my question ("So, we have no right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?").


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by AWd:

Let me be more specific so that there is no confusion - those who are reacting violently are making themselves, and their religion (since the media is only focussing on the violence) look barbaric. Intelligent people know they are a minority, but it still looks like the mob mentality is a ludicrous response to a silly cartoon.



I agree, except that I would point out that the media is contributing to the misinformation by reducing the issue to one a "silly cartoon," as opposed to a lightning rod for issues of much wider political concern.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 05 February 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

You have a right to post whatever you like. I have a right to point out that you are doing your part to demonize all Muslims by conflating the actions of a few with the actions (or lack of actions) of the many, by repeatedly only talking about Muslim people in the negative, and in general terms, as opposed to making an effort to identify differences within the Muslim community, and actual trends as opposed to the wilder fanatics, which unfortunately try and make themselves appear as the true believers of every faith, race and political movement.[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


If you will point out the demonizing by non-Muslims, it would only be balanced to also point out the demonizing of Muslims by other Muslims. And besides, one should not be afraid to tell it like it is - reacting with violence over a drawing is not civilzed, whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc, etc...


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
AWd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11919

posted 05 February 2006 09:21 PM      Profile for AWd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


I agree, except that I would point out that the media is contributing to the misinformation by reducing the issue to one a "silly cartoon," as opposed to a lightning rod for issues of much wider political concern.


You're right. I wonder, and I swear I am not being cynical, if there have been any peaceful protests regarding this issue. There must be someone who would report it if there were.


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I'll take that as a non-answer to my question ("So, we have no right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?").


What is not clear about me saying: "You have a right to post whatever you like."

Wasn't it the answer you were looking for? What is your problem with me saying you have a "right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?"

How could I possibly be more clear in answering, that you have this right to criticize whomever you like?

What was I supposed to say? Something like, "No Sven you can only post things I agree with?"


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by AWd:

You're right. I wonder, and I swear I am not being cynical, if there have been any peaceful protests regarding this issue. There must be someone who would report it if there were.


There are tons of peacful protests all over. Its just that the news media knows that Scen wont be happy without his vile crazy Muslims to revile.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

What is not clear about me saying: "You have a right to post whatever you like."

Wasn't it the answer you were looking for? What is your problem with me saying you have a "right to criticize violent behavior because they are Muslims?"

How could I possibly be more clear in answering, that you have this right to criticize whomever you like?

What was I supposed to say? Something like, "No Sven you can only post things I agree with?"


I’m not asking for permission to say anything. If that’s what you thought my question was, then let me clarify it: Do you criticize and condemn the violent reaction of the Muslims to the offensive cartoon?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am glad you aren't asking for permission to say anything because if I were to advise you on that, then I would no doubt advise you to shut up, but I can't do that, so I am left balancing the distortions you are purveying with counter narrative.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
There are tons of peacful protests all over. Its just that the news media knows that Scen wont be happy without his vile crazy Muslims to revile.

That's ridiculous. You're ascribing a motivation to me that I don't have.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Its just that the news media knows that Scen wont be happy without his vile crazy Muslims to revile.

If the protesters currently getting the newstime didn't want to get the newstime, why did they write their signs in English?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 February 2006 09:53 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
BTW is a verbal depiction of the cartoons more acceptable here than the actual cartoons?
Excellent question.

The answwer is obviously Yes, though there's no logical reason for it to be so.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 09:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I’m not asking for permission to say anything. If that’s what you thought my question was, then let me clarify it: Do you criticize and condemn the violent reaction of the Muslims to the offensive cartoon?



No.

I condemn 100 years of direct European intervention and intrefearance in Muslim and Arab affairs. I also condemn long standing support for Islamist by the west, including British support for the house of Saud, in 1931 and 1933, when great britain helped the Salafists take Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites. I also reject US and British support in 1948 for the creation of Saudi Arabia under the Salafist. I also condemn the sell out of the Syrian Arabs by the British after WW1 and their idea of dealing with the European "Jewish Problem" by supporting the Zionists in evicting 700,000 Palestinians from what they decided to call Israel. I also condemn the imposition of the Hashemite Kings upon Jordan and Iraq (necessary after the British supported the House of Saud in gaining the thrown of the Hidjaz (Mecca and Madina) against Faisal and Hussein. I also condemn the 1956 invasion of Israel by Britain and France and Israel. I also condemn the French attempt to maintain their protectorate colonies in Algeria, Morroco, and Beiriut, long after it became clear that the people of those lands wished independece from colonial rule. I also condemn France and Britain for giving up the tip of Northern Syria to Turkey as part of thier peace agreement with Kemal Attaturk. I also strongly condemn Kermit Rooselvelt's engineering of the coupe against Mosadeq the democratically elected president of Iran, and the subsquent imposition of the Shah as supreme dictator, and this destroying hopes for democracy among the Persian people, whom later in reaction to constant western and Soviet meddling decided to support traditional and very repressive religious zealots as the only means to defend their state society against constant interfearance. I also condemn the overt support the US has shown Israel in its various imperial ventures, including the occupation of the rump of Palestine after the 1967 war of agression against the Arab states. I also condmen US support for Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish minority in Northern Iraq and his brutal attack against Iran because it forced the Iranian people to side once againg with the repressive religious zealots of Iran, in order to defend themselves against Western intefearance, which can be best summed up by reminding onself that Irai pilots flew Russian Mig 21's using spare parts funneled to them by the US from equipment captured by Israel during its wars with the Arabs. I also condemn UN sanctions against Iraq, which took the lives of many Iraqis needlessly, and also the recent invasion and war against those people, and the US support for the religious zealots there, and also condemn the direct support Israel gave Hamas in its early years, as well as US suport for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that gave rise to the Taliban, and I also condemn the Soviet invasion of that country as one of the worst examples of Yuri Andropov's ham-fisted diplomatic shenanigans.

I think, that after all of this fucking around it is time we left those people alone, and while we are at it I think we should directly condemn our media outlets when they intentionally try and bait those people, and create conditions which make them angry. I feel, as decendant of Europeans, and as western person that it is my place to responsibly condemn the actions of the people whom are in my community, and not those of a community to which I do not belong. I will leave those condemnations to repsonsible and reasonable people whom speak their language and are versed in the ways and culture, of those people and so are best able to affect a positive outcome.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As opposed to acting like yet one more completely ignorant, arrogant and rude westerner whom feels free to point fingers wherever they choose, wihtou looking at that finger long enough to realize that any Arab or Muslim person can smell the shit on that finger as it has been stuck up our collective western ass for quite sometime.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 05 February 2006 10:12 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
If the protesters currently getting the newstime didn't want to get the newstime, why did they write their signs in English?

I saw the ones which said 'death to all infidels' but youre all missing the point. Someone should just tell them it's all the Danes fault. Maybe the secular humanists too. The bad ones. I never even Saw the cartoons yet I'm already being targetted alongside all those other crusader types. It's not fair.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
As opposed to acting like yet one more completely ignorant, arrogant and rude westerner whom feels free to point fingers wherever they choose, wihtou looking at that finger long enough to realize that any Arab or Muslim person can smell the shit on that finger as it has been stuck up our collective western ass for quite sometime.

Cool. At least I got my answer (if indirectly): No, you do not condemn the violence.

Thank you.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 10:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. In fact, I think, maybe I support it.

This because I see no reason to condemn violence by those whom are routinely subject to violence. Theoretically I condemn all violence, but all of this wailing and bemoaning of violence only seems reserved for them, not for us, as we reserve the right to be violence against them routinely.

I hate double standards, more than I hate violence, as double standards are more often than not the root cause of violence.

But I know you like things in black and white dualistic packages withour subtlety or nuance, so there is your answer.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 10:31 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
No. In fact, I think, maybe I support it. This because I see no reason to condemn violence by those whom are routinely subject to violence.

Excellent.

So, you would, presumably, support abortion clinic doctors killing anti-abortion protestors?

Or, people in poor neighborhoods who are subject to the violence perpetrated on them by gang bangers to start killing the gang-bangers?

Or, blacks killing KKK people?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes of course. I support all of that.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 10:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Btw, has someone actually been killed, or is this just more hot air? As far as I can tell the Islamists are focussing on infrastructure, I suppose any fatalities would be collateral anyway, so... who cares about that?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 10:47 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes of course. I support all of that.

Well, at least you're consistent. I'll give you that. If you weren't in support of those groups, who are the subject of violence, to perpetrate violence themselves, I'd really have to question your sincerity.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 05 February 2006 11:05 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star wrote an excellent piece today about this issue:

Why has a cartoon turned into a crisis?

quote:
But more than religion, it is geo-politics, past and present, that hangs over the controversy ...

Go to any bookstore in a European city and you will see anti-Muslim tracts selling well.

Europe's 20 million Muslims have borne the brunt of this Islamophobia, from rightwing anti-immigrant parties and conservative media. Here's a sample from the Danish People's Party: "Muslims who come here reject our culture. Muslim immigration is a way for Muslims to conquer us, just as they have done for the past 1,400 years." ...

... there's no doubt that they have left Arabs/Muslims feeling under siege.

They see double standards in the Danish affair as well.

A cartoon Thursday in the al-Quds newspaper showed an artist at work at Jyllands-Posten. In the first panel, he rejects a grotesque drawing of a black person: "This is racism." He rejects the second, which equated the Cross of David with the swastika: "This is anti-Semitism." He keeps the longer third panel, of the Prophet's cartoons: "This is freedom of speech."


He is the first western news source that actually mentions (albeit briefly) some of Denmark's racist elements. Too bad he didn't talk about the fundamentalist christians being directly behind much of this as well.

As a person who views many issues through the prism of class struggle, I am incredibly upset that there hasn't been more discussion of why one group of religious right wingers from one culture appear to almost be working with another group of religious right wingers from another. Both have used their position of influence and it appears that they have succeed in creating the clash that suits both of their purposes. In the end it is the average person who wants to peacefully co-exist with others who suffers.

I wish more people would look at this disaster through the left / right prism instead of the simplistic east versus west b.s.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Well, at least you're consistent. I'll give you that. If you weren't in support of those groups, who are the subject of violence, to perpetrate violence themselves, I'd really have to question your sincerity.


Ok now, will you answer my question. Did you do any classes in reading and comprehension when you were in high school?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 11:10 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Ok now, will you answer my question. Did you do any classes in reading and comprehension when you were in high school?


My reading comprehension skills are quite good, thank you.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then how is it that you have completely distorted everything I have said, and pidgeon holed it into very small concepts, wich have absolutely nothing to do with what I think and believe.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 11:17 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Excellent.

So, you would, presumably, support abortion clinic doctors killing anti-abortion protestors?

Or, people in poor neighborhoods who are subject to the violence perpetrated on them by gang bangers to start killing the gang-bangers?

Or, blacks killing KKK people?


Support, No. Understand, Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its wisdom, understood and accepted the concept of battered woman syndrome defense. Enough is enough.

You may well say should a woman kill her abusive spouse "just because he slapped her in the face?" and the answer would be "should no, but it is understandable if it happens. Look at the history... Enough is enough.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 11:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Then how is it that you have completely distorted everything I have said, and pidgeon holed it into very small concepts, wich have absolutely nothing to do with what I think and believe.

Well, according to your own words, you support violence as a response to violence.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 11:21 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Support, No. Understand, Yes.

So, you understand but do not support the violent response to the cartoons. So, why can you not condemn it?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 05 February 2006 11:28 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy crap.

Someday the history books will record that in the year A.D. 2006, after a century of bloody, violent imperial raping and brutalizing of the Muslim world by the West, those same Westerners got their undies in a twist over a few threats -- threats only, thus far -- of violence coming in the other direction. Meanwhile, we continue to regularly splatter Muslim brains and blood all over the landscape in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., without it for a moment disturbing our self-flattering image of being upright, civilized, and generally the creme-de-la-creme of humanity towards which all others must aspire.

I too read the stomach-churning Globe editorial skdadl mentioned above. Here's a sample:

quote:
The uproar underlines an alarming tendency in Islamic societies to lash out at the West at the slightest provocation. When a few simple drawings, however controversial, can trigger outrage from Cairo to Kuala Lumpur, it is clear that something is askew in the psyche of a civilization. To put it plainly, the Islamic world has a chip on its shoulder.

Yeah. Right. "Chip on its shoulder". Couldn't have anything to do with appallingly routine incidents like the one a couple weeks ago, where a US robotic plane casually murdered a couple dozen innocent Pakistani civilians in a botched assassination attempt. A spilling of innocent blood which was greeted with the usual yawns and tut-tuts by us enlightened human-life-loving honkies -- a few statements of half-hearted regrets, but no suggestion that we won't continue to kill as many untermenchen as we feel is necessary in pursuit of our divine and noble goals. And Muslims are just supposed to suck it up and accept it?

I would note that that quickly-forgotten bombing killed almost half as many innocents as the London bombings last summer which evoked such an (appropriate) paroxysm out outrage and fury amonst those same human-life-loving honkies. But that was different, right? Our lives are precious; theirs are just expendable "collateral damage" to be regrettably snuffed whenever our great Moron Emperor decides it's appropriate. And you can multiply the Pakistan incident by the thousands over the last century, starting with our hero Winston Churchill and his use of aerial bombardment against "uncivilized tribes" in the very same Iraq we are still torturing today.

How odd that those Muslims fail to keep a civil head as our bullets pierce their flesh, as our shrapnel explodes their skulls, as our electrodes are attached to their genitals, as our white phosphorous smoulders underneath their skin. Time to bring in the professional long-distance mass-psychoanalysts on the Globe editorial board to diagnose what is "askew" in the Muslim "psyche".

Pee-yuke.

More from the Globe:

quote:
In truth, most of the Islamic world's problems -- from economic stagnation to political paralysis, from the oppression of women to the poor level of education -- are homegrown. By and large, those societies have failed to come to grips with the modern world and as a result have fallen far behind much of the rest of the planet. Out of this failure to keep up springs a keen sense of grievance that does nothing to help them progress.

Y'know, reading this, I have to wonder... back in the Cold War, when the Soviets were propping up their pet Commie dictatorships across Eastern Europe, were there Pravda editors and Soviet university professors who put their fingers thoughtfully to their chins, furrowed their brows, and pondered what deeply-rooted cultural flaw it was in the Eastern European "psyche" that caused them to live under such grim dictatorships? Were there earnest debates amongst the Soviet intellegentsia, academic papers written, conferences and debates held over this puzzling flaw in the fundamental makeup of Russia's next-door neighbours? Did Soviet elites ever sink as low as our friends at the Globe?

Somehow I doubt it.

I suppose one of the benefits of empire is that one is able to completely absolve oneself of responsibility for the deformations of the societies upon which one's boots are firmly planted, simply by choosing not to notice the overwhelming impact of one's own power. To look at a region which has been groaning for decades under tyrannies which would not have endured one week without external support (from us), which has had its spectacular resources robbed and exported for others' benefit (ours), and whose very boundaries were created and imposed from outside (by us) -- that requires a stupifying capacity for self-flattering delusion bordering on outright lunacy. I must doff my cap in grudging respect to the Globe -- they've achieved an intellectual and moral nadir which will be supremely difficult to surpass.

In closing, let me exercise the sacred freedom of speech so dear to our noble Western hearts by telling the Globe editorial board to go fuck themselves with a rusty screwdriver. Thank you and good night.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Well, according to your own words, you support violence as a response to violence.


I most certainly do, on the principle that there is no other apparent recourse, and if other means, such as appeals to civil authority, or negotiation have failed. I think many Muslims feel that there is no civil authority to appeal to, and that negotiation has failed.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 11:30 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Someday the history books will record that in the year A.D. 2006, after a century of bloody, violent imperial raping and brutalizing of the Muslim world by the West, those same Westerners got their undies in a twist over a few threats -- threats only, thus far -- of violence coming in the other direction.

Well, as least we understand that your definition of "violence" does not include anything short of physically harming a human.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 05 February 2006 11:34 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent post, Beluga.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 February 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But more than religion, it is geo-politics, past and present, that hangs over the controversy ...
Go to any bookstore in a European city and you will see anti-Muslim tracts selling well.

I can go across the street to my local public library and see Bernard Lewis' anti-Muslim books too.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 05 February 2006 11:49 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Beluga, I too am beginning to get frustrated by people who can't see the forest through the trees.

In an earlier post I stated that I see this as a right wing attempt to help whichever god they worship hasten armageddon or whatever they want to call their doomsday scenario.

I am disgusted that no one is going after the right wing Danish government's incredible insensitivity on this issue.

Norway has also been a target as these cartoon were posted in a "christian" conservative rag as well.

The reaction from the Norwiegen government couldn't be more different from the Dane's. I found this in a right wing blog because they seem to be the ONLY ones who see this for what it is; a right wing attempt to create another crisis (they really like those!):

Norway Apologizes over Muhammad Cartoons

quote:
The left-wing government in Norway apologizes to Muslims worldwide for the publication of twelve Muhammad cartoons in the Norwegian newspaper Magazinet ...

I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offence by Muslims worldwide. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world. Your faith has the right to be respected by us.

The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the
bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict.

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.


Here's another from a Turkish source:

Norway Apologizes for Cartoons Insulting Prophet Mohammed

quote:
Norwegians apologized from the Muslim world for the action of the newspaper Magazinet, the publisher of the cartoons in an attempt to "support the freedom of expression." ...

The letter emphasized freedom of _expression is one of the pillars of the Norwegian society, but the freedom also includes tolerance towards various beliefs and thoughts.

The Danish government, to the contrary, had taken no action against the newspaper following the publication of the cartoon on the ground of freedom of expression; moreover, the administration backed the incident in a report it presented to the United Nations.


That is the difference between the left and right; our goal in life is to not destroy our planet as a means to achieve salvation. Of course the right wing is screaming murder over this recent apology. But this is exactly what they doen't want; tolerance and understanding.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 06 February 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One last thing. (I'm through investigating this).

I just found this article from an Indian source:

Norway mag stokes Muslim ire with prophet cartoons

The picture shows a Danish "preacher" leading a demonstration in Copenhagen with a banner reading "JESUS IS ALIVE, MOHAMMED IS DEAD".

How are his actions any different from the nutbar Imams that everyone loves to quote?????

Fortunately in Norway, both moderate Christian and Muslim leaders have condemned BOTH side's extremists for provoking this. Why can't we do the same?


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 06 February 2006 12:13 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Support, No. Understand, Yes.

quote:
Originally by Sven:
So, you understand but do not support the violent response to the cartoons. So, why can you not condemn it?

My post contained more than the 4 words you selected.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 February 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reaction from the Norwiegen government couldn't be more different from the Dane's. I found this in a right wing blog because they seem to be the ONLY ones who see this for what it is; a right wing attempt to create another crisis (they really like those!):


Of course whether these crazed fanatical pyromaniacs in Syria know the difference between Denmark and Norway is an open question. I'm sure that to them anyone they run into who is blond and talks with a lilting accent is a target worth beheading.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 February 2006 01:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Need I remind people that if fanatical Muslim terrorists had NOT flown high jacked planes into buildings on 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan and Bush probably would not even be president anymore. We could go back to the 8th century looking for tit-for-tat incidents between the so-called Muslim and Christian worlds trying to figure out "who started it". There will never be an answer.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 February 2006 01:09 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Well, as least we understand that your definition of "violence" does not include anything short of physically harming a human.

Huh?


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 February 2006 01:21 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Need I remind people that if fanatical Muslim terrorists had NOT flown high jacked planes into buildings on 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan

That may be true of Afghanistan, though there were indications that an Afghan invasion was contemplated pre-9/11. I remember reading about it at the time.

It's demonstrably untrue about Iraq, though. We have mountains of evidence by now from insiders that the Shrubniks were planning to invade Iraq right from the moment they took office. All 9/11 did was alter the marketing campaign used to rally Joe and Jane Sixpack behind the war.

quote:
We could go back to the 8th century looking for tit-for-tat incidents between the so-called Muslim and Christian worlds trying to figure out "who started it".

Again, nonsense. There's a pretty easily pinpointed beginning to the conflict between the "so-called Muslim and Christian worlds", if you must insist on referring to it that way. It was at the end of World War I, when we (the West) decided to screw over the Muslims and deny them independence. Before that, the MidEast was under Ottoman rule; ie. they were being oppressed by fellow Muslims, not by us.

Nor is there much doubt about "who started it". We did, by promising them freedom and then yanking the football out from in front of them, like Lucy did to Charlie Brown, as soon as the Ottomans were taken care of. Lord only knows what the world would look like today if we'd taken a different tack back then and not broken our solemn promises. All because we didn't want to take the risk of buying that damned oil from sovereign nations instead of from safely subservient dictatorships.

After the last century of carnage, I think maybe it's time we finally lived up to our word and left them the hell alone.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 01:29 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
My post contained more than the 4 words you selected.

As a matter of fact it did:

quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Support, No. Understand, Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its wisdom, understood and accepted the concept of battered woman syndrome defense. Enough is enough.

You may well say should a woman kill her abusive spouse "just because he slapped her in the face?" and the answer would be "should no, but it is understandable if it happens. Look at the history... Enough is enough.


Now that we have that cleared up, let me ask you my question again (and this time, perhaps, you can answer it directly):

So, you “understand” but do not “support” the violent response to the cartoons. So, why can you not condemn it?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 06 February 2006 02:18 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball wrote:

quote:
I condemn 100 years of direct European intervention and intrefearance in Muslim and Arab affairs. I also condemn long standing support for Islamist by the west, including British support for the house of Saud, in 1931 and 1933, when great britain helped the Salafists take Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites. I also reject US and British support in 1948 for the creation of Saudi Arabia under the Salafist. I also condemn the sell out of the Syrian Arabs by the British after WW1 and their idea of dealing with the European "Jewish Problem" by supporting the Zionists in evicting 700,000 Palestinians from what they decided to call Israel. I also condemn the imposition of the Hashemite Kings upon Jordan and Iraq (necessary after the British supported the House of Saud in gaining the thrown of the Hidjaz (Mecca and Madina) against Faisal and Hussein. I also condemn the 1956 invasion of Israel by Britain and France and Israel. I also condemn the French attempt to maintain their protectorate colonies in Algeria, Morroco, and Beiriut, long after it became clear that the people of those lands wished independece from colonial rule. I also condemn France and Britain for giving up the tip of Northern Syria to Turkey as part of thier peace agreement with Kemal Attaturk. I also strongly condemn Kermit Rooselvelt's engineering of the coupe against Mosadeq the democratically elected president of Iran, and the subsquent imposition of the Shah as supreme dictator, and this destroying hopes for democracy among the Persian people, whom later in reaction to constant western and Soviet meddling decided to support traditional and very repressive religious zealots as the only means to defend their state society against constant interfearance. I also condemn the overt support the US has shown Israel in its various imperial ventures, including the occupation of the rump of Palestine after the 1967 war of agression against the Arab states. I also condmen US support for Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish minority in Northern Iraq and his brutal attack against Iran because it forced the Iranian people to side once againg with the repressive religious zealots of Iran, in order to defend themselves against Western intefearance, which can be best summed up by reminding onself that Irai pilots flew Russian Mig 21's using spare parts funneled to them by the US from equipment captured by Israel during its wars with the Arabs. I also condemn UN sanctions against Iraq, which took the lives of many Iraqis needlessly, and also the recent invasion and war against those people, and the US support for the religious zealots there, and also condemn the direct support Israel gave Hamas in its early years, as well as US suport for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan that gave rise to the Taliban, and I also condemn the Soviet invasion of that country as one of the worst examples of Yuri Andropov's ham-fisted diplomatic shenanigans.


Cueball, I'm a little bit undecided on this whole "cartoon" issue myself, but I gotta say: the passage I quoted above is some seriously excellent writing. One of the best attempts at "putting things in context" that I've seen in a while.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 02:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Now that we have that cleared up, let me ask you my question again (and this time, perhaps, you can answer it directly):

So, you “understand” but do not “support” the violent response to the cartoons. So, why can you not condemn it?


Did you know this is not your own private inquisition?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 03:02 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oops! wrong context

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 03:07 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
****
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 03:07 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Did you know this is not your own private inquisition?

Yes. But the question is fair, no?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 03:08 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Definitely seems like a fair question.
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 February 2006 03:19 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Need I remind people that if fanatical Muslim terrorists had NOT flown high jacked planes into buildings on 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan and Bush probably would not even be president anymore.

The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's. Osama bin Laden and Saddan Hussein were miles apart on religion and politics. bin Laden asked his CIA pals if they wanted al Quada to attack Iraq for them and depose Saddam.

But the U.S. military didn't beckon Saudi women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night. By all indications, team Bush was asking people around them to find excuses to invade Iraq. It's called Keynesian militarism. The capitalists don't actually believe in capitalism anymore. Capitalism is what they preach to poor American's and third world countries in order that they remain poverty-stricken.

Let's face it, the American taxpayers were going to be hustled by those crooks and liars whether it was Saudi's who flew planes into the trade towers and Pentagon or if it were MK-Ultra assassins who did.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 03:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
Definitely seems like a fair question.

The question is repetative and dull. It is meaningless, given that anytime anyone tries to answer it beyond making a sterile yes or no answer it is repeated. Sven is not the Rabble morality cop, and I think it is really rude actually.

This is a political discussion board, not a McCarthyite inquisition. It is not a court. It is meant to be a board where persons elaborate and learn from each other, not a forum for loyalty tests.

Is that the kind of board you want? One were some persons might not be able to voice their opinions, for fear of being made to pass some kind of public test about their views. through repeated socratic bullying?

For instance, my answer to his question:

quote:
I think, that after all of this fucking around it is time we left those people alone, and while we are at it I think we should directly condemn our media outlets when they intentionally try and bait those people, and create conditions which make them angry. I feel, as decendant of Europeans, and as western person that it is my place to responsibly condemn the actions of the people whom are in my community, and not those of a community to which I do not belong. I will leave those condemnations to repsonsible and reasonable people whom speak their language and are versed in the ways and culture, of those people and so are best able to affect a positive outcome.

Was compltely ignored. My point: why should I condemn when there are so many Muslim voices doing so from within their community, as opposed to preachy westerners whining from the outside.

In other words these are the people whom I think have the right to vocally and repeatedly condemn the acts of their fellow Muslims:

Muslim scholar slams mission attacks, urges boycott

Syria voices regret over embassy attacks

Syria religious leader condemns embassy attacks

In my view Denamrk could take a page from this and issue a statement not unlike that of Norway, and for its part to a lot to ease tensions, instead of acting agrieved.

But Sven isn't interested it seems in what I have to say, or how I justify it, no, he wants something that can fit into the logical framwork he desires, which amounts to you are either with us or against us, and nothing inbetween.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 06 February 2006 03:44 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't heard mentioned that Rasmussen was one of the most staunch members of the coalition of the willing, sent troops to Iraq to aid and abet the illegal invastion, and therefore definitely has Iraqi blood on in his hands.

The same for all the governments in Europe that supported Bush -- all right wing, all anti-immigrant, and all waging their own personal wars to reclaim their countries for European Christian values.

So this whole cartoon thing is much belated payback for that. The whole situation was a tinderbox waiting to be lit. Now the Danish right will draw umbrage from this and further push for an ethnic cleansing of their country.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 04:00 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
West = Bad.

Non-West = Good!!

Christians can (and should) be criticized (and, if at all possible, ridiculed). Do not do that to Muslims, even when the act badly (which, of course, they never do unless they are made to do so by evil Westerners).

Westerners can only condemn poor conduct committed by Westerners (they may NOT, under any circumstances, criticize non-Westerners). Non-Westerners, however, are free to condemn Westerners (because Westerners are, of course, the oppressors).

Cartoons that are "offensive" should not be published. To publish them is naughty...and may be punishable by death. For example, if would be "bad" (if not actually evil) to depict Mohammend sodomizing Christ. Christ may be sodomized by any cartoon character other than one that may offend the group to which the character doing the sodomizing belongs (unless, of course, it's an Alabama, right-wing Christian hillbilly).

If you are offended by the oppressors, then you may burn down their buildings and threaten them with death.

Free speech should be sacrificed if speech is offensive. The lowest common denominator of sensitivity should set the standard of what is or is not "offensive".


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 04:07 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is my favourite quote yet on this:

“Religions are keen to assure us that God will punish wickedness in ways even more ingenious and extensive than human beings can devise; if blasphemy is obnoxious to the Almighty, the best response of his human followers is surely to rub their hands with glee at the thought of what will come to the blasphemers in due course, and not seek to pre-empt God’s judgment with human laws.”

PHILIP PULLMAN, author

( from The Times )


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 February 2006 04:08 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Crowds stormed the buildings housing two embassies on Saturday, setting fire to both and pillaging the contents of the first-floor office of the Chilean embassy in one of the buildings.

I guess that would make the Chileans what we like to wave away as "regrettable collateral damage" when it's us inflicting the righteous violence. Except in this case, thankfully, no one died.

Here's some more Muslim condemnations of this lunacy:

Lebanese leaders condemn violent protests

"A black day for Muslims"

Embassy burning shocks Beirut residents

Cueball's right: those voices mean infinitely more than any meaningless statements extracted by finger-waggers on Western bulletin boards.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 04:12 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Cueball's right: those voices mean infinitely more than any meaningless statements extracted by finger-waggers on Western bulletin boards.

That I totally agree with.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 February 2006 04:19 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
West = Bad.

Non-West = Good!!

... etc. etc.


Y'know, you better be careful. I think it's against the laws of physics to cram that many straw men into a single post. They might cause the space-time continuum to rupture and suck babble down into a singularity of infinitely-dense idiocy.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 04:22 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's definitely a relief to hear that kind of condemnation of the violence coming from the Middle East. Now if only the people justifying the violence here would come around to seeing how deplorable it really is instead of coming up with excuses for it, then we'd probably all be on the same page.
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 04:28 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:

Y'know, you better be careful. I think it's against the laws of physics to cram that many straw men into a single post. They might cause the space-time continuum to rupture and suck babble down into a singularity of infinitely-dense idiocy.


Although a little over the top, Sven's sarcastic post is a pretty good summary of some of the excuses and arguments for the violence that have been flying around here the past couple of days.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 04:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
It's definitely a relief to hear that kind of condemnation of the violence coming from the Middle East. Now if only the people justifying the violence here would come around to seeing how deplorable it really is instead of coming up with excuses for it, then we'd probably all be on the same page.

I think you are an asshole. Having said that I will explain the difference between "justification" and "explanation," and constructive commentary. The reason I think you are an asshole, is because I think you know the difference between "justification" and "explanation" but insist on low-balling your arguement (because you dont really have one) by making out that people whom do not agree with your view are supportive of Muslim fundamentalists by conciously misrepresenting thier views.

Misrepresentation is a form of lying. It basic juvenile hazing, of the "if you are not with us, you are against us" trope.

"Justifying." An interesting word that. If I were to say that the Communist party came to power in Russia partly as a reaction to the war with Germany, would I be justifying Stalin? If I were to point out that much of Hitler's support came as a result of German reaction to the Treaty of Versaille (a generally accepted fact among schollars of the period) would that mean I was "justifying" Hitlers attack upon the Jews. Were I to suggest that the forces that opposed reaction would be much better served by the French not insisting on war reperations that crippled the German economy would I be supporting Hitler, even if it is true that he opposed Versaille, as well?

In fact I think I would be opposing him, by undermining his basis of support, as opposed to strengthening it through the process of polarization.

You seem to be confused about the the difference betweeen discussing the political and social motif that drives events, the proposal of ways of undermining the forces of reaction, and justification. As opposed to feeding them as best exmplified by such your hysterical reactions and ethnocentric moralizing, which takes the form of dismissing the Muslim and Arab view as irrational (from your point of view) and morally without merit (from your point of view) and condemnable without reservation or consideration of their point of view (from your point of view.)

You see, I don't know if you have much experience in conflict resolution in personal relations, (it seems extremely unlikely) but it is the case that in politics as in personal relationships what is "right" and what is "wrong," objectively, is not necessarily as important as recognizing the narrative of those whom you are in conflict with as relvant to resolving the conflict, imposing grade school aphorism like "two wrongs don't make a right," will have no impact upon those whom don't happen to believe that they are wrong, and there is no way that you will ever be able to convince them that they are wrong, if you don't at least attempt to understand the narrative which embodies their feeling that they are in fact right, and that it is you who is wrong.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 04:50 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I think you are an asshole. Having said that I will explain the difference between "justification" and "explanation," and constructive commentary. The reason I think you are an asshole, is because I think you know the difference between "justification" and "explanation" but insist on low-balling your arguement (because you dont really have one) by making out that people whom do not agree with your view are supportive of Muslim fundamentalists by conciously misrepresenting thier views.


At least we agree on one statement then. I've finally come around to your approach to personal insults and "I think you're an asshole" too. The reason I think you are an asshole, is because I think you know that providing an "explanation" for reprehensible behaviour without condemning the behaviour is the definition of "justification". I think that anyone who constantly "explains" the behaviour of Muslim fundamentalists but refuses to actually codemn them is essentially supporting them.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 04:51 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A total side comment since Cueball makes my intervention in this matter almost totally redundant:

quote:
“Religions are keen to assure us that God will punish wickedness in ways even more ingenious and extensive than human beings can devise; if blasphemy is obnoxious to the Almighty, the best response of his human followers is surely to rub their hands with glee at the thought of what will come to the blasphemers in due course, and not seek to pre-empt God’s judgment with human laws.”

PHILIP PULLMAN, author


This strikes me as a rather odd and mean-spirited answer. The entire point of blasphemy laws is the belief that, to some, blasphemy is analogous to deliberately spreading leprosy. People who support such laws explicitly do not want people to suffer the judgement of the Almighty: that's why they have them. Why does Pullman think they do? People who pass such laws explicitly also believe that the punishment is beneficial to the blasphemer---algetic salvation and all that.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 04:53 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The reason I think you are an asshole, is because I think you know that providing an "explanation" for reprehensible behaviour without condemning the behaviour is the definition of "justification". I think that anyone who constantly "explains" the behaviour of Muslim fundamentalists but refuses to actually codemn them is essentially supporting them.

This utterly inane litmus-testing disqualifies you as an worthwhile interlocutor right there. We are not here to be tested by you. It's so utterly patronizing and insulting. It's childish on your part to demand at every turn that we reassure you that we are on your "team."

The fact is, that you demand it suggests that we are not on your "team", and your team can go jump in a lake.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 05:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

At least we agree on one statement then. I've finally come around to your approach to personal insults and "I think you're an asshole" too. The reason I think you are an asshole, is because I think you know that providing an "explanation" for reprehensible behaviour without condemning the behaviour is the definition of "justification". I think that anyone who constantly "explains" the behaviour of Muslim fundamentalists but refuses to actually codemn them is essentially supporting them.


So then every single book which talks about the second world war, in order to pass your test of political correctness, must at the end of every sentence state: "Hitler was a very bad man?"

Are the authors of historical texts permitted at any time to not "judge" on the basis of your sanctimonious politcal moral standards and simply get on the with the job of telling people what they did, and why they said they did it, without the author being compelled to pronounce judgement upon it?

Must I state when talking of the Monghul Invasion of the west that "in 1219 the armies of Ghegnis Khan invaded Transoxania and that was very bad thing to do." Are you such a child that require a moral clarity statement as part of any possible discussion of events. You can't come to your own conclusion about what is right and what is wrong based on the telling of events, you need someone to tell you it was wrong or not.

Of course I think burning the Danish Embassy in Beriut was a bad thing. I am sorry I had the nerve to try and tell you that no one burns down embassies because they were offeneded by what they read in the funny papers.

I am sorry that you are so stupid as to believe that people actually do burn down buildings because they are offended by some cartoons. How stupid can someone be as to believe that?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:12 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:

This utterly inane litmus-testing disqualifies you as an worthwhile interlocutor right there. We are not here to be tested by you. It's so utterly patronizing and insulting. It's childish on your part to demand at every turn that we reassure you that we are on your "team."

The fact is, that you demand it suggests that we are not on your "team", and your team can go jump in a lake.



This whole "team" business is Cueball's invention. Once he got frustrated with me he started with personal insults as to my intelligence which led to calling me an asshole while playing semantic games about my not understanding the difference between explanation and justification.

I don't have a "team" here. I also most certainly don't, nor have I ever demanded any reassurance that anyone is my team. I'm just not willing to let myself be badgered into silence by semantic sophistry. As for being "so utterly patronizing and insulting", I've definitely been taking more than I've dished out.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 05:13 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh so you now freely admit that you know the differnce between explantion and justification, and that you were simply being an asshole by insisting that peoples attempts to contextualize the recent violence in a wider motif might be something more than "justification." Asshole.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:19 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh so you now freely admit that you know the differnce between explantion and justification, and that you were simply being an asshole by insisting that peoples attempts to contextualize the recent violence in a wider motif might be something more than "justification." Asshole.

^^^ Speaking of being patronized and insulted...


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 05:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why shouldn't I insult you. You have been demanding that I should engage in ablutions for you like some kind of performing clown.

I actually posted here three condemnations, of the events in Lebanon which I explained that I felt were sources far better able to do so, after carefully explaning that I thought it was far more within their right, and appropriate that they do so. And that I expressly explained that I did not want to come off as yet another paternalistic westerner wagging my finger at the Muslim world, as if they are too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

But no, that isn't good enough for you.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 February 2006 05:32 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
Although a little over the top, Sven's sarcastic post is a pretty good summary of some of the excuses and arguments for the violence that have been flying around here the past couple of days.

I think we should print up Cueball's "explanation vs. justification" on a special page which pops up whenever somebody logs onto babble the first time. Then they will be forced to stare at it for half an hour so that it sinks in. Then we'll let them into babble proper and they can join in the discussion without being infantile twerps.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 05:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Someone here has yet to prove that they are capable of existing.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:43 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Why shouldn't I insult you. You have been demanding that I should engage in ablutions for you like some kind of performing clown.

I actually posted here three condemnations, of the events in Lebanon which I explained that I felt were sources far better able to do so, after carefully explaning that I thought it was far more within their right, and appropriate that they do so. And that I expressly explained that I did not want to come off as yet another paternalistic westerner wagging my finger at the Muslim world, as if they are too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

But no, that isn't good enough for you.



Ablutions? And I "demanded" them? Oh my, let's see if I can come up with any more ten dollar words myself... Oh, I got one too. See, the condemnations you posted came well after you started your litany (my ten dollar word) of personal insults in one of the other threads. So excuse me if I came across as being less than completely receptive by that point.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:46 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Someone here has yet to prove that they are capable of existing.

*groan*

Actually, the personal insults are starting to seem kind of funny by now. At least this one is witty for a change.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: cogito ergo sum ]


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 07:02 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently according to this chronology of events both the Danish PM and the Jyllands-Posten issued limited apologies on Jan. 1 and Jan. 30 respectively. The more I learn about how things unfolded, the more I'm leaning towards laying more of the blame at the feet of the Danish clerics that toured the the Middle East for a couple of months trying to whip up outrage over the cartoons. The way I see it, this should have either ended with the Danish Muslim groups filing criminal charges against the Jyllands-Posten or it should have continued with civil legal action or political action in Denmark. Touring the Middle East to incite a bigger reaction over the cartoons is unforgiveable.
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 06 February 2006 07:26 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
Now if only the people justifying the violence here would come around to seeing how deplorable it really is instead of coming up with excuses for it, then we'd probably all be on the same page.
I don't want to be on that page, thank you. Cueball is pointing out something that is constantly overlooked in the mainstream press. I don't believe that all this anger is merely about a lame cartoon which uses typical racialized stereotyping (turban bomb indeed - what kind of buttons are being pushed here?) but has a longer history of social and historical conflict. While we continue to ignore the larger conflict while holding our hands over our hearts and weeping for 'freedom of thought' bullets are still flying. The cartoon is merely a flashpoint for the reactionaries of all sides to spout off on. Sure, defend the cartoon, eat a Danish pastry, but once you wipe the sugar off your face it's time to move on and try to see what the anger is really about.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 February 2006 07:33 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 February 2006 07:33 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Must I state when talking of the Monghul Invasion of the west that "in 1219 the armies of Ghegnis Khan invaded Transoxania and that was very bad thing to do"


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca