I wanna be a Danish cartoonist!
JT
freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board, perverting a
religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian fantasies.
Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...but when they get a taste they come
unglued. Good for the Danes.
*champagne cork goes pop*
JT
*Anarcissie*
What about the Danes doing some anti-Semitic cartoons?
JT
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139505122.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nah...Iran has had that covered for years. Why be derivative?
JT
*Anarcissie*
It's the Danes that claim to revel in free expression, not the
Iranians. If the poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need
to wake up and smell the freedom, they have to have some
freedom to smell. The Danes can't say, "Hey, we slag
everybody" unless they run down the whole list -- Jews,
Gypsies, Africans, Chinese, women, homosexuals, anyone
with an identifiable religion, the handicapped, and so on. I
think they've got their work cut out for them.
Paul Ilechko
> It's the Danes that claim to revel in free expression, not the
> Iranians. If the poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need
> to wake up and smell the freedom, they have to have some
> freedom to smell. The Danes can't say, "Hey, we slag
> everybody" unless they run down the whole list -- Jews,
> Gypsies, Africans, Chinese, women, homosexuals, anyone
> with an identifiable religion, the handicapped, and so on. I
> think they've got their work cut out for them.
>
I haven't noticed any of the other groups that you list issuing fatwahs
recently ... freedom of expression is not about the right to insult
anyone, it's about the right to not be afraid to insult someone.
JT
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139515806.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Who is to say they haven't lampooned all those groups? Not like we read the
Danish rags. If so, those groups were not incited to pitch a fit. In
America we have "South Park" which has literally skewered EVERY group you
mentioned and nothing is on fire. Don't hear about it. Why? A certain
cultural intelligence that allows opinions to co-exist. This is the best
thing that could of happened to the Arab world. Their states are actually
conducting the "2 minute hate" from Orwell's "1984". (If you never read
it....do. It's awesome) Super spooky, inhuman stuff. Diverting misery and
hate is a REALLY old tactic of self-preservation for the totalitarian
state.
JT
*Anarcissie*
>
> > It's the Danes that claim to revel in free expression, not the
> > Iranians. If the poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need
> > to wake up and smell the freedom, they have to have some
> > freedom to smell. The Danes can't say, "Hey, we slag
> > everybody" unless they run down the whole list -- Jews,
> > Gypsies, Africans, Chinese, women, homosexuals, anyone
> > with an identifiable religion, the handicapped, and so on. I
> > think they've got their work cut out for them.
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> I haven't noticed any of the other groups that you list issuing fatwahs
> recently ... freedom of expression is not about the right to insult
> anyone, it's about the right to not be afraid to insult someone.
You are not likely to see many _fatwas_ issued by Jews,
homosexuals, and so on because a _fatwa_ is a legal opinion
or decree issued by a Muslim cleric of a certain rank having
to do with religious law. However, many groups who find
themselves being made targets of abuse have effective
ways of striking back at their abusers which may or may
not involve issuing religious decrees.
I am somewhat mystified by your second, or first-and-a-half
sentence. Freedom of expression is a political right which
applies to what people do, not what they feel. If you are a
timorous kind, or apply certain moral or religious standards
to your behavior, no power on earth can free you from being
afraid to insult other people. However, a liberal state will
generally not punish you for insulting others as long as you
do not violate copyright, patents, privacy, public order,
national security, etc. etc. etc. It has been said that Danes
have the right to insult anyone, hence I suggest they do so,
since the best defense of a right lies in its frequent and
resolute exercise. This is especially the case if the Danes
are going to pat themselves on the back about it as they
seem to be doing.
Dirk Helder
That would be interesting. Maybe a Julius Streicher retrospective: Der
Stuermer Remembered
Now that would be real Freedom Of The Press.
Paul Ilechko
> You are not likely to see many _fatwas_ issued by Jews,
> homosexuals, and so on because a _fatwa_ is a legal opinion
> or decree issued by a Muslim cleric of a certain rank having
> to do with religious law.
I would think that most people would realize I was clearly using the
term in a generic sense.
Paul Ilechko
> I am somewhat mystified by your second, or first-and-a-half
> sentence. Freedom of expression is a political right which
> applies to what people do, not what they feel. If you are a
> timorous kind, or apply certain moral or religious standards
> to your behavior, no power on earth can free you from being
> afraid to insult other people. However, a liberal state will
> generally not punish you for insulting others as long as you
> do not violate copyright, patents, privacy, public order,
> national security, etc. etc. etc. It has been said that Danes
> have the right to insult anyone, hence I suggest they do so,
> since the best defense of a right lies in its frequent and
> resolute exercise. This is especially the case if the Danes
> are going to pat themselves on the back about it as they
> seem to be doing.
>
They are patting themselves on the back for not being intimidated, not
for insulting people.
*Anarcissie*
In _1984_, Two Minutes' Hate_ was universal and mandatory. In
the Muslim world, however, there have been many condemnations
of the recent rioting by prominent Muslims, including religious
leaders. Why do you overlook that?
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
do not let such things go unremarked. Agreed, anti-Semitism is
perceived with glasses of a certain color. When Chavez in
Venezuela made a comment which could be interpreted as
anti-Semitic it was vigorously inflated and very widely
distributed and criticized, whereas when Yushchenko in
Ukraine gave a medal to a prominent anti-Semite nothing was
said about it. We have to know whether the Danes are staunch
allies of America or sniveling European appeasers before we
can tell what color the glasses are. This I don't know, but I
suspect being "socialists" they are usually held to be on the
sniveling side, so any trace of anti-Semitism in a mainstream
publication or government statement would be widely flogged.
Therefore I think the Danish media have some catching-up to
do in their quest to abuse all possible minorities.
*Anarcissie*
For not being intimidated about what?
Paul Ilechko
Paul Ilechko
> I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
> do not let such things go unremarked.
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
JT
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139521035.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The Arab world publishes enough anti-Semitic cartoons and articles to make a
handsome coffee table book. They can dish it out plenty. Maybe the Danes
were artistically inspired by Mohammad with a bomb in his turban rather than
another derivative sketch of a Jew with a hooked-nose. I've never heard of
it or seen it done before. Seemed a little obvious really.
They (Arabs) will not dictate art, thought or the parameters of freedom .
I'm against our own country doing it autonomously and I sure as hell am not
going to let any other state intimidate the free world back to the Stone
Age. I'm surprised they took enough time away from burning our flag to even
read the paper in question. They don't have a leg to stand on when it comes
to being offensive
JT
JT
--"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:451v27F...@individual.net...
EXACTLY Paul. They should direct anger to those who profanely put the bomb
in Mohammad's turban and not to those who point it out with a pencil.
Alan Hope
>*Anarcissie* wrote:
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not
anti-Muslim?
--
AH
JT
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:g5knu1pvkiqf062bb...@4ax.com...
Cuz not all Muslims kill people in the name of God? Is hating the KKK
anti-Christian?
JT
Paul Ilechko
It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you
must therefore hate ?
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's
turban, not the cartoonists. Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:g5knu1pvkiqf062bb...@4ax.com...
>> Paul Ilechko goes:
>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>> I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
>>>> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
>>>> do not let such things go unremarked.
>>>This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
>> One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not
>> anti-Muslim?
>Cuz not all Muslims kill people in the name of God?
You what? That's precisely why it is anti-Muslim.
>Is hating the KKK
>anti-Christian?
What are you on about? Is the KKK the symbol par excellence of
Christianity? Oh no wait, that would be Jesus.
--
AH
*Anarcissie*
Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves
on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,
specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are
intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't
know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse
more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we
hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's
just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the
commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko goes:
>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
>>>>anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
>>>>do not let such things go unremarked.
>>>This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
>> One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not
>> anti-Muslim?
>It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you
>must therefore hate ?
It wasn't a cartoon, and there's an agenda in the use of that word in
English-speaking media. It was a caricature. The cartoonists were
asked to portray Mohammad "as they saw him" and one of them portrayed
him as a bomber.
That's a pretty obvious smear, conflating Islam and terrorism, so that
the caricature is offensive even if you leave blasphemy out of the
equation.
>As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's
>turban, not the cartoonists.
Now you're doing it.
>Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
You're not making sense.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>They don't have a leg to stand on when it comes
>to being offensive
Two wrongs don't make a right.
--
AH
Paul Ilechko
You don't have a clue, do you?
*Anarcissie*
Right -- so if someone in Israel doesn't something
the Danish newspapers don't think is very nice, they'll
draw a picture of a guy with an enormous hooked nose,
blubbery lips, a top hat, a scraggly beard, a shabby
suit with a pot belly under it, Stars of David all over it,
and dollar bills falling out of the pockets, feeling up
little blonde girls and carrying an atomic bomb in his
back pocket. Have I hit all the bases? Anyway, if
anyone complains, they'll say, Oh, that's not _Jews_,
that's So and so, it's merely a symbol!
I'm certainly not arguing that the Danish newspapers
shouldn't be free to do this. What I don't understand
is why people find the publication of racist garbage
_admirable_.
Paul Ilechko
>>As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's
>>turban, not the cartoonists.
>
>
> Now you're doing it.
What?
>
>>Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
>
>
> You're not making sense.
Mohammed is a symbol of Islam. Putting the bomb on his turban is a
symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent
minority. Much in the way that Christianity in the USA has been usurped
by a particularly obnoxious and vocal minority. Fortunately, they don't
do all that much bombing so far.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>>>As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's
>>>turban, not the cartoonists.
>> Now you're doing it.
>What?
Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3
billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be
terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists
put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
>>>Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
>> You're not making sense.
>Mohammed is a symbol of Islam.
Not to Muslims.
>Putting the bomb on his turban is a
>symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent
>minority.
Well, it hasn't been. That's a ludicrous claim.
>Much in the way that Christianity in the USA has been usurped
>by a particularly obnoxious and vocal minority.
Ask a Christian of your acquaintance about that claim.
>Fortunately, they don't
>do all that much bombing so far.
Tell that to the Muslims in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan
(oops!)
--
AH
Paul Ilechko
>
> Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3
> billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be
> terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists
> put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
I very specifically said "jihadist", not "terrorist".
>>Mohammed is a symbol of Islam.
>
>
> Not to Muslims.
Moslems were not the audience for the Danish newspaper.
>>Putting the bomb on his turban is a
>>symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent
>>minority.
>
>
> Well, it hasn't been. That's a ludicrous claim.
From a public relations perspective, it has.
*Anarcissie*
You forgot Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Iran, and a few
other places. Not counting the assassination by rocket
in Yemen, and the fully supported acts of allies such
as Israel and Britain.
*Anarcissie*
You will probably be happiest thinking so.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3
>> billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be
>> terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists
>> put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
>I very specifically said "jihadist", not "terrorist".
Is there some fine distinction you want me to be aware of?
>>>Mohammed is a symbol of Islam.
>> Not to Muslims.
>Moslems were not the audience for the Danish newspaper.
What makes you think that? There are Muslims in Denmark.
>>>Putting the bomb on his turban is a
>>>symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent
>>>minority.
>> Well, it hasn't been. That's a ludicrous claim.
> From a public relations perspective, it has.
Only as far as you're concerned. I've noticed no such usurpation.
--
AH
JT
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139531644.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Who says it's admirable? It should spark a dialogue not a tantrum. Islam is
embroiled in a PR nightmare (as was pointed out) so they should solve their
problems on a grass-roots level and stop their fringe from perverting their
religion. Why is it everyone else's fault?
Priests in America were molesting boys. European papers pointed that out .
Did Catholics burn down their embassies? No...they hunted down and disrobed
the priests and overhauled the inner workings of the church. Muslims are
outraged at the wrong people. Maybe they don't want to clean house because
they want the terrorists to exist.
JT
JT
>opportunity).
JT
JT
straight. Look at that post....why don't you make fun of the Jews? What
about the Jews? sheesh. It must suck to be so consumed with irrational hate.
Ever thought about leaving the Jews out of this? Or better yet...in peace?
Of course not.
JT
michael
>>>Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves
>>>on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,
>>>specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are
>>>intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't
>>>know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse
>>>more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we
>>>hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's
>>>just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the
>>>commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
granted... and what does the burning and shooting amount to?... a
version of "hot air and sanctimony" of a sort, i suppose... but somehow
different, no?
>>
>>You don't have a clue, do you?
>
>
> You will probably be happiest thinking so.
>
let's say the danes did decide to go after "jews" in their quest for
freedom of speech... what kind of cartoons might they come up with that
are as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of their jewishness
as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the name of the
prophet? jewish mom pressures son to succeed in a profession? jahweh
parts the red sea and settlers rush in, subsequently refusing to go?
(already we're leaving jewishness per se and talking israeli or zionist
"politics")...
a better target in the european context would be bush and co. and
xtianity... bush landing on the deck of a carrier in a plane marked with
the cross? god whispering in dubya's ear something to the effect of "get
that saddam!" wearing a business suit and sporting a ________________
corporate logo on the pocket? i'm sure the archbishop of canterbury
would start a crusade over that one...
you are obviously happiest not thinking at all...
michael
michael
> I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
> do not let such things go unremarked. Agreed, anti-Semitism is
> perceived with glasses of a certain color.
the prophet saying "stop! stop! no more dancing girls left" is only
anti-muslim if the koran or interpreters thereof don't actually promise
les danceuses to those who die in holy war... the one with the bomb in
the turban is only anti-muslim if muslims don't really let off bombs in
the name of the prophet... these obscenities are fair game for satire,
veiled in reek of the holy or not...
When Chavez in
> Venezuela made a comment which could be interpreted as
> anti-Semitic it was vigorously inflated and very widely
> distributed and criticized, whereas when Yushchenko in
> Ukraine gave a medal to a prominent anti-Semite nothing was
> said about it. We have to know whether the Danes are staunch
> allies of America or sniveling European appeasers before we
> can tell what color the glasses are.
ahhh... as always, it's america's fault! there ought to be an award for
the fewest number of steps in any "political" debate before this kind of
"thinker" implicates america, from whatever apparent distance...
This I don't know, but I
> suspect being "socialists" they are usually held to be on the
> sniveling side, so any trace of anti-Semitism in a mainstream
> publication or government statement would be widely flogged.
> Therefore I think the Danish media have some catching-up to
> do in their quest to abuse all possible minorities.
uh-huh... how does this little chunk of logic establish that danes
haven't in fact bashed the other groups you propose? i feel a certain
lack of clear progression here...
michael
michael
> You forgot Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Iran, and a few
> other places. Not counting the assassination by rocket
> in Yemen, and the fully supported acts of allies such
> as Israel and Britain.
and you feel quite confident that danish political cartoonists have
never satirized this american behaviour? why? cuz no american whackjobs
have hit the streets burning copies of hamlet and pointedly refusing to
eat danishes?
michael
michael
right... generally constitutions and such do... what do you suggest,
putting "except for those who might execrate muslim jihadists" as a
rider to a constitutional guarantee of free speech?
michael
P Settli
> Paul Ilechko goes:
>
>>Alan Hope wrote:
>>> Paul Ilechko goes:
>>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>
>>>>>I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing
>>>>>anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,
>>>>>do not let such things go unremarked.
>
>>>>This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
>
>>> One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not
>>> anti-Muslim?
>
>>It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you
>>must therefore hate ?
>
> It wasn't a cartoon, and there's an agenda in the use of that word in
> English-speaking media. It was a caricature. The cartoonists were
> asked to portray Mohammad "as they saw him" and one of them portrayed
> him as a bomber.
>
> That's a pretty obvious smear, conflating Islam and terrorism, so that
> the caricature is offensive even if you leave blasphemy out of the
> equation.
For those who haven't quite gotten what this is all about, here's a link to
the cartoons printed in Jyllands Posten.
http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/
Or, if you can parse Danish and want to know waht Jylland Posyten is e
printing, here's their web page:
http://www.jp.dk/
Allan, I would suggest that you as a resident of the UK, and I, a resident
of Norway, could see that this shit bomb has been a long time a brewing. The
best thing I've read from a Danish point of view is an e-mail to Juan Cole
written from what I grok is an ex-pait, working for the money::
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/politics-of-race-and-religion-in.html
Juan gives his analysis in a Salon piece and it makes sense to me.
Oh and one last fact: There is evidence that some of the cartoons that were
exhibited in Egypt were NOT from Jyllans Posten. But you knew that.
I refer you to Juan Cole's analysis. It's in Salon.
--PS
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> >>>Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves
> >>>on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,
> >>>specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are
> >>>intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't
> >>>know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse
> >>>more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we
> >>>hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's
> >>>just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the
> >>>commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
>
> granted... and what does the burning and shooting amount to?... a
> version of "hot air and sanctimony" of a sort, i suppose... but somehow
> different, no?
> >>
> >>You don't have a clue, do you?
> >
> > You will probably be happiest thinking so.
> >
> let's say the danes did decide to go after "jews" in their quest for
> freedom of speech... what kind of cartoons might they come up with that
> are as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of their jewishness
> as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the name of the
> prophet? jewish mom pressures son to succeed in a profession? jahweh
> parts the red sea and settlers rush in, subsequently refusing to go?
> (already we're leaving jewishness per se and talking israeli or zionist
> "politics")...
So what do "the Muslims" do? There are about one billion of
them. I really doubt that they all do or think one thing. What
is wrong with a racist characterization of Muslims is exactly
what is wrong with a racist characterization of Jews. I am
surprised I have to explain this.
*Anarcissie*
I was simply completing a partial list. Now I remember
Sudan as well. Maybe there are more -- did "we" ever
blast Tunisia? Why not? One of the curious things that
recurs in discussions of anti-Western Muslim terrorism is
the refrain, "Gee, what did we ever do to them?" It is my
tedious duty to help recover the lost memory. As for
Danish cartoonists, I have no idea what they do when they
are not congratulating themselves for being brave enough
to publish racist stereotypes -- _some_ racist stereotypes.
Perhaps they do satirize Americans. Everyone needs a
soft target now and then.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...>
>
> So what do "the Muslims" do? There are about one billion of
> them. I really doubt that they all do or think one thing. What
> is wrong with a racist characterization of Muslims is exactly
> what is wrong with a racist characterization of Jews. I am
> surprised I have to explain this.
One also shouldn't have to explain the nature of a caricature, which is,
by definition, unjust. I can't remember anyone here saying that it was a
great idea to commission a bunch of anti-Islam drawings. It just seems
rather bizarre to defend yourself against the accusation that you're a
bomb-thrower by throwing bombs.
G*rd*n
> >>>>For not being intimidated about what?
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> >>>Are you really this thick or is it a game you are playing?
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> >> Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves
> >> on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,
> >> specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are
> >> intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't
> >> know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse
> >> more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we
> >> hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's
> >> just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the
> >> commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net>:
> > You don't have a clue, do you?
"JT" <nore...@pleez.net>:
> It's all about hating Jews. They hate Jews so much they can't think
> straight. Look at that post....why don't you make fun of the Jews? What
> about the Jews? sheesh. It must suck to be so consumed with irrational hate.
> Ever thought about leaving the Jews out of this? Or better yet...in peace?
> Of course not.
It seems like a relevant question to me. I suspect that
the Danish newspaper would _not_ published racist caricatures
of Jews, although I could be wrong. So what's the difference?
Phyllis Chamberlain
I used to think being raised an Episcopalian made me a Christian, but then I
was confronted by someone who wanted to know if I had accepted Jesus as my
personal savior, and other "Christians" started bombing abortion clinics.
Does anyone remember the movies "My Dinner with Andre" or "Dr. Strangelove"
or "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming"? Or "Moscow on the
Hudson"? They satirized fears and demonizing and true believers of all
kinds. We need this sort of thing dealing with Arabs and other Muslims.
They take themselves far too seriously. Everyone needs to learn to laugh at
himself and his pretensions. Relentless ridiculing of folks who loudly
espouse "The One True Faith," whatever it is, permits us to live together,
live and let live (and keep your "faith" to yourself).
Phyllis Chamberlain
smw
G*rd*n wrote:
I wasn't aware that Islam is a race. Mocking Xtianity, OT and NT
varieties, is an everyday occurrence (Piss-Christ, anyone?), as are
Jewish jokes.
And perhaps you can explain the relevance you have in mind -- it might
have been relevant if the cartoons in question had been published by an
Israeli newspaper. Is the point here that some Danes would be more
reluctant to mock Judaism than to mock Islam? And if so, what follows?
*Anarcissie*
"Jew" is not a race either. In fact, races don't exist (in the form
they are supposed by racists to exist). Nevertheless, Jews were
construed to be a race in the not too distant past, to their and our
considerable detriment. It is quite possible, therefore, to publish
racist cartoons of Jews, or of Muslims.
I think the comparison between Muslims and Jews (and for Jews
we might substitute a number of categories) is curious in that so
many people of the West are willing to congratulate themselves
on the racist abuse of Muslims, whereas the racist abuse of Jews,
such as the famous Nazi march in Skokie, is not a subject of
self-congratulation but of regret -- it's the sort of thing we have
to put up with because of our devotion to free expression. So
there is this interesting difference, and when I point it out, there
is a good deal of waving and dancing, which is amusing in
its sad way, but no engagement of the issue so far that I
have seen. Oh, someone did say that Jews were nicer than
Muslims -- they aspired to be dentists instead of suicide
bombers -- but that didn't seem to go anywhere.
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
...>>
That would be an interesting argument if I had seen, in this discussion,
any self-congratulation regarding racist cartoons. What I've seen is
precisely "that's what you have to put up with under the rule of law."
You may be missing the kind of engagement you seek since nobody is
willing to inhabit the position you seek to debate. Amusing in an
amusing way.
And once again, how exactly does throwing bombs is a smart reaction to
the charge that you're a bomb-thrower?
*Anarcissie*
Well, it is. I haven't been considering Muslim strategies here.
It is the smug self-congratulation and sanctimony of Western
man that piques my interest, especially when it is trotted out
in support of racist offal. All I know about the Muslim side
of this ugly nonsense is what is reported in the Western media,
reports which I assume with reason to be somewhat less than
absolutely veracious. But anyway, is that what all the Muslims
do, throw bombs? Goodness, it must be noisy in, uh, where-
ever they live.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> ...>>
> >>I wasn't aware that Islam is a race. Mocking Xtianity, OT and NT
> >>varieties, is an everyday occurrence (Piss-Christ, anyone?), as are
> >>Jewish jokes.
> >>
> >> And perhaps you can explain the relevance you have in mind -- it might
> >>have been relevant if the cartoons in question had been published by an
> >>Israeli newspaper. Is the point here that some Danes would be more
> >>reluctant to mock Judaism than to mock Islam? And if so, what follows?
> >
> >
> > "Jew" is not a race either. In fact, races don't exist (in the form
> > they are supposed by racists to exist). Nevertheless, Jews were
> > construed to be a race in the not too distant past, to their and our
> > considerable detriment. It is quite possible, therefore, to publish
> > racist cartoons of Jews, or of Muslims.
> >
> > I think the comparison between Muslims and Jews (and for Jews
> > many people of the West are willing to congratulate themselves
> > on the racist abuse of Muslims, whereas the racist abuse of Jews,
> > such as the famous Nazi march in Skokie, is not a subject of
> > self-congratulation but of regret -- it's the sort of thing we have
> > to put up with because of our devotion to free expression. So
> > there is this interesting difference, and when I point it out, there
> > is a good deal of waving and dancing, which is amusing in
> > its sad way, but no engagement of the issue so far that I
> > have seen. Oh, someone did say that Jews were nicer than
> > Muslims -- they aspired to be dentists instead of suicide
> > bombers -- but that didn't seem to go anywhere.
>
> That would be an interesting argument if I had seen, in this discussion,
> any self-congratulation regarding racist cartoons. What I've seen is
> precisely "that's what you have to put up with under the rule of law."
Here you go -- the message that started this thread, I believe.
"Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake
up and smell freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians
chess board, perverting a religion for the sake of their own sick,
Orwellian fantasies. Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...
but when they get a taste they come unglued.
Good for the Danes.
*champagne cork goes pop*
JT"
And that's just this thread. Just imagine what I could dredge
up trolling less dignified newsgroups than this one, or the
blogs.
Bruce McGuffin
So
> there is this interesting difference, and when I point it out, there
> is a good deal of waving and dancing, which is amusing in
> its sad way, but no engagement of the issue so far that I
> have seen. Oh, someone did say that Jews were nicer than
> Muslims -- they aspired to be dentists instead of suicide
> bombers -- but that didn't seem to go anywhere.
That didn't go anywhere because as soon as it came up you started
doing the "I'm too stupid to argue with" act, responding to perfectly
reasonable statements with irrelevencies and non-sequetors.
The relative danger of insulting Muslims and others is the nub of the
issue. If I published a cartoon today painting right wing Jewish
groups as a bunch of violent idiots (which is what the most egregious
of the Danish cartoons did), I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to go
into hiding for my own safety. Yet at least one news account claimed
some of the Danish cartoonists were in hiding. Don't forget the
original impetous for these cartoons was the difficulty of finding an
illustrator for a childrens book on Mohamid, because artists were
afraid of reprisals from Muslem fundamentalists if they drew pictures
of him.
And to argue that laws allowing free speech means people have free
speech is to ignore a century of history. It doesn't matter what the
law says, if extra-judicial punishment squads exist to prevent free
speech.
Bruce
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>
>>...>
>>
>>>So what do "the Muslims" do? There are about one billion of
>>>them. I really doubt that they all do or think one thing. What
>>>is wrong with a racist characterization of Muslims is exactly
>>>what is wrong with a racist characterization of Jews. I am
>>>surprised I have to explain this.
>>
>>One also shouldn't have to explain the nature of a caricature, which is,
>>by definition, unjust. I can't remember anyone here saying that it was a
>>great idea to commission a bunch of anti-Islam drawings. It just seems
>>rather bizarre to defend yourself against the accusation that you're a
>>bomb-thrower by throwing bombs.
>
>
> Well, it is. I haven't been considering Muslim strategies here.
> It is the smug self-congratulation and sanctimony of Western
> man that piques my interest, especially when it is trotted out
> in support of racist offal.
Okay, so point me to a contribution to these threads where some western
man congratulates himself in support of racist offal, and we can talk.
> All I know about the Muslim side
> of this ugly nonsense is what is reported in the Western media,
> reports which I assume with reason to be somewhat less than
> absolutely veracious. But anyway, is that what all the Muslims
> do, throw bombs? Goodness, it must be noisy in, uh, where-
> ever they live.
I happily assume that most of them react to the drawing like reasonable
people. It seems that what we are discussing are, in fact, the news. It
can't be the thing-in-itself, right?
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Are you serious? You happily identify yourself as trollfood?
>
Alan Hope
>Oh and one last fact: There is evidence that some of the cartoons that were
>exhibited in Egypt were NOT from Jyllans Posten. But you knew that.
Yes, I knew that. There's quite clearly been manipulation of the issue
by the two Danish imams, which explains the long delay between
publication (and the low-key local reaction) and the worldwide riots
we're seeing now.
However there's no doubt in my mind that at least two of the
caricatures that were published by Jyllands Posten were on the face of
it offensive to Muslims as a whole -- and I'm ignoring the debatable
issue of depiction of the Prophet. The drawings I'll refer to as
Turban and Dagger (you'll know which ones they are) have really no
justification at all. Those who have reflexively republished the
caricatures are insisting on the issue of free speech for a not very
good reason. I'm as virulent a proponent of free speech as anyone, but
to my mind the principle is not there for stupid pointless expressions
like that. Those drawings are offensive merely for the sake of
offence. The position seems to be: we do it because we can, so suck it
up, Abdul.
And those are fighting words.
--
AH
unglued
JT wrote:
> Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake up and smell
> freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board, perverting a
> religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian fantasies.
> unglued. Good for the Danes.
> *champagne cork goes pop*
I don't think the Danish cartoonists are as upbeat as you, I think they
feel very small and vunerable now.
>
> JT
unglued
Alan Hope wrote:
> JT goes:
>
> >They don't have a leg to stand on when it comes
> >to being offensive
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
Just for the record, do you think it's justifiable to kill people and
burn down embassies because someone from that country (or a country
close by) drew a caricature you find offensive ? Or that the two acts
are in any degree on par ?
>
>
> --
> AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> JT goes:
>> >They don't have a leg to stand on when it comes
>> >to being offensive
>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>Just for the record,
Fuck you and your "record".
>do you think it's justifiable to kill people and
>burn down embassies because someone from that country (or a country
>close by) drew a caricature you find offensive ? Or that the two acts
>are in any degree on par ?
Did I say anything like that?
--
AH
P Settli
And, apparently, that's how the Danes are taking it. Several sources have
noted that this is the biggest thing to hit Denmark since the Second World
War.
Just did a read of the latest issue of Jyllands-Posten and came on this
commentary. Danish is a fairly easy read for Norwegians (even one like me,
who was a 37 years away from the homeland and left before I'd finished
second grade).
http://www.jp.dk/meninger/artikel:aid=3552514/
For those who don't read Danish:
The headline:
Muhammed og S-katastrofen
Muhammed and the S-Catastrophe [the S are the Social Dmocrats]
Muhammed-effekten har sendt voldsomme rystelser gennem dansk politik. Dagens
Rambøll-måling viser, at forløbet omkring tegningerne har skabt en dramatisk
vælgerbevægelse fra Socialdemokratiet til Dansk Folkeparti.
-----
Tanslation) The Muhammed-effect has sent powerful shock waves through Danish
politics. Todays Ramboll-poll shows, that the development around the
cartoons
have shaped a dramatic movement of voters from the Social Democrats to the
Danish Peoples Party.
(For those not familiar with Danish politics I again refer you to Juan
Cole's letter from what I can gather is an ex-pat living in Denmark):
http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/politics-of-race-and-religion-in.html
The article reveals that with a vote today the Social Demorats would lose
nine seats in Parliament and the Danish Peoples Party would gain eight.
The commentator's evaluation is that the Social Democrat's strategy in
handling the crisis has not only fallen on deaf ears but is opposed to
Danish opinion.
He criticizes the Social Democrats by names and strategies and writes:
-----
Alt tyder på, at disse udlægninger er helt ude af trit med vælgerne. De
fleste mener, at Fogh og udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller har håndteret
konflikten godt. De mener også, at sagen i høj grad drejer sig om
ytringsfrihed. Og de giver islamiske kræfter i ind- og udland det absolutte
hovedansvar for forløbet. For vælgerflertallet synes konflikten at bunde i
store kulturforskelle.
---
Everything points to that all these comments(?) [ can't quite get this one],
are totally out of step
with voters. The majority think that {Prime Minister]Fogh and foreign
minister Per Stig Møller have handled the conflict well. They also believe
that the case at the highest level is about freedom of expression. And they
deliver to Muslins, domestic and foreign, the responsibilty for (future)
developments. For the voters, the conflict seems to be founded in cultural
conflicts.
---
As I wrote, "this shit ball has been a long time a brewing" (which I think
is a mixed metaphor but I'm not sure but just to be safe) " a long time a
fermenting".
It would appear, that despite what you or I (and I'm not even with you on
this) think or believe, the Danes view this as War.
If I were to catatogize the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway,Sweden -
I exclude the Finns because they haven't let anybody in) in War terms: The
Danes are on the front lines, the Swedes surrendered at the start of
hostilities and the Norwegians are defending but looking confused about).
--PS
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
>
>
>>Okay, so point me to a contribution to these threads where some
>>western man congratulates himself in support of racist offal, and we
>>can talk.
>
>
> There's been lots of sanctimonious support in the various media for
> the publication of the cartoons. No, I don't have a URL, but check
> out the usual suspects.
Sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law is more or less okay with me, if
we count sanctimonies.
>
>
>>I happily assume that most of them react to the drawing like
>>reasonable people.
>
>
> Most of them probably don't, for your definition of "reasonable". Any
> data on how many Muslims support or sympathize with the demonstrators?
> How many think the European governments should outlaw such blasphemy
> against Islam?
As if we needed more reasons against majority rule.
>
>
>>It seems that what we are discussing are, in fact, the news. It
>>can't be the thing-in-itself, right?
>
>
> Echoes of the old liberal "extremists on both sides" spiel. Say it
> ain't so, Silke.
Nah -- my point was that we aren't discussing the nature of blasphemy.
Seems nobody around here gives a shit. Which would include me.
smw
The Other wrote:
> michael <vafu...@urcon.com> writes:
>
>
>>let's say the danes did decide to go after "jews" in their quest for
>>freedom of speech... what kind of cartoons might they come up with
>>that are as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of their
>>jewishness as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the
>>name of the prophet? jewish mom pressures son to succeed in a
>>profession? jahweh parts the red sea and settlers rush in,
>>subsequently refusing to go? (already we're leaving jewishness per
>>se and talking israeli or zionist "politics")...
>
>
> How about: Jewish pressure groups suppress media criticism of Jews?
> I'm sure somebody could come up with some cartoons about that.
And you're saying _that_ would lead to burning embassies? Seems I've
heard it before... face it, there _are_ no analogies handy here.
smw
The Other wrote:
> Anarcissie said that the Danish papers didn't publish analogous things
> about Jews, Africans, and so on. michael suggested that there could
> be no such analogous cartoons about Jews. Note: that's the cartoons
> themselves, not the reaction.
As I said, nobody's been talking either about the cartoons or blasphemy
as such -- probably because the cartoons are lame and nobody is
sufficiently religious to care about blasphemy hereabouts. By
themselves, the cartoons aren't newsworthy; it's only the reaction to
them that matters, and all attempts at producing tu quoques have failed
miserably.
I replied with the above analogy,
> something that is "as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of
> their jewishness as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the
> name of the prophet".
This doesn't work everybody tries or is said to try to control the media
(take your pick between Jews, the left, or the right). It's a
commonplace, and if some marginal Danish newspaper published cartoons
about it, nobody would give a shit.
>(I took michael's description on its own terms,
> but note that it's bogus because the cartoons are offensive mainly
> because of their depiction of Muhammed, not because of their criticism
> of Muslim terrorism.)
>
> Of course I wasn't saying it would lead to burning embassies. Now
> that having been disclaimed -- the likely Jewish response to
> accusations of Jewish illiberalism would in fact be quite illiberal,
> analogous to...
Analogous to what?
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
>
>
>>The Other wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There's been lots of sanctimonious support in the various media
>>>for the publication of the cartoons. No, I don't have a URL, but
>>>check out the usual suspects.
>>
>>Sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law is more or less okay with me,
>>if we count sanctimonies.
>
>
> I meant support for actually publishing them, not for the right to
> publish them.
>
> The hypocrisy is in -- to take an example at random -- German
> "sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law", specifically the law that
> censors Holocaust Denial. It's the (secular) Christians who are the
> hypocrites, not the Muslims. The Muslims don't pretend to be liberal,
> the Christians do.
Besides the point, since the cartoons weren't published in an Islamic
country. Do "the Muslims" commonly pretend to (have the right to)
control the Western press? And what's hypocritical about adhering to
specific laws passed through the usual channels? Germany, to stick with
your example, doesn't have the quasi-religious rhetoric re free speech
the US has; not that there isn't any country that doesn't restrict some
forms of speech. The question is whether the laws protect this specific
form of speech in Europe, and it seems that it does. "The law is the
law" isn't hypocrisy, it's shorthand of a well-established philosophical
principle.
The reaction is either unbelievable stupid or unbelievably intelligent,
depending on whether you assume that Muslim minorities in Europe want
Turkey to join the EU or not (and related matters concerning escalations
of manufactured conflict).
>>>Most of them probably don't, for your definition of "reasonable".
>>>Any data on how many Muslims support or sympathize with the
>>>demonstrators? How many think the European governments should
>>>outlaw such blasphemy against Islam?
>>
>>As if we needed more reasons against majority rule.
>
>
> Depends who We is. If We is France or Israel, yeah, one-man-one-vote
> is a domestic problem that's only going to get a lot worse,
> demographically.
I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about majority sentiment in
relation to constitution and the like. Analogously, it'd be easy to find
quite a few European majorities in favor of the death penalty.
But if We is the US, what's the big problem with
> Muslim democracy? Just listen to peaceniks like Pat Buchanan: get out
> of the Middle East, be respectful of Islam without undermining
> friendly secular dictatorships, so that in the unfortunate event of
> democratic rule in the Middle East, you can just sit back and let all
> the democratic-terrorist Muslims bomb the Europeans and the Israelis
> instead of Americans.
>
> It's America First, circa 1940. I think it would work. America,
> unlike Western Europe and Israel, is blessed with the option of
> sitting out the war.
Awaiting the rapture, yeah.
Alan Hope
>Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>> The relative danger of insulting Muslims and others is the nub of
>> the issue. If I published a cartoon today painting right wing Jewish
>> groups as a bunch of violent idiots (which is what the most
>> egregious of the Danish cartoons did),
>No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.
>> I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to go into hiding for my own
>> safety.
>If you published analogous cartoons directed at Jews, you wouldn't
>have to go into hiding -- but you would go into obscurity. Your
>career as a journalist would be destroyed. Anarcissie is exactly
>right on everything he's been saying about Western hypocrisy.
The Jyllands-Posten three years ago refused to publish cartoons
featuring Jesus in less than flattering light, according to The
Guardian, because they might upset people.
When Danish Muslims first objected to the Mohammad caricatures in
September last year, the paper issued an apology. Funny way to stand
up for free speech.
Since then, protest has been stirred up in the Middle East by two
Danish Muslims, one an imam and one some sort of "community leader" by
using the 12 J-P caricatures and three unconnected -- and far more
egregious -- images. The understandable outrage (understandable since
the people there can't really be expected to check out the
Jyllands-Posten archives for themselves) has fed back to Europe and
elsewhere.
So in as few words as possible:
The newspaper is sorry they printed the caricatures;
The outrage we're not seeing in the Muslim world is in fact based on
something else.
--
AH
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
>
>
>>The Other wrote:
>>
>>>I replied with the above analogy, something that is "as relevant
>>>to what jews tend to do in the name of their jewishness as the
>>>cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the name of the
>>>prophet".
>>
>>This doesn't work everybody tries or is said to try to control the
>>media (take your pick between Jews, the left, or the right).
>
>
> Aw, now you're just bullshitting. Jews and Muslims are both Victim
> players in the Sensitivity Game (at some times, anyway). Political
> Left and Right are not.
Sorry, "the Jews control the media" is not gonna lead to worldwide
riots. And it isn't blasphemous.
>
>
>>It's a commonplace, and if some marginal Danish newspaper published
>>cartoons about it, nobody would give a shit.
>
>
> In America at least, discussion of the alleged Jewish control of the
> media -- note that's "control", not "try to control" -- is *not* a
> commonplace in the mainstream media. Folks sure would give a shit if
> a newspaper printed "anti-Semitic" cartoons. I'd bet the same about
> Germany. Is Denmark that different?
We're not talking about US mainstream media but about Danish almost
marginal media. And, yeah, of course Denmark is very different in
importance from both Germany and the US when it comes to these things.
>
>
>>>Of course I wasn't saying it would lead to burning embassies. Now
>>>that having been disclaimed -- the likely Jewish response to
>>>accusations of Jewish illiberalism would in fact be quite
>>>illiberal, analogous to...
>>
>>Analogous to what?
>
>
> Analogous to Muslims burning embassies. "Don't accuse us of being
> _____, or we'll [do something that's _____.]" Though as I already
> said, the analogy is based on your (and others') mis-statement about
> the Muslim side; they're reacting to blasphemy, not to being called
> violent.
I think the Jewish response to anti-semitic media has been far smarter
than you acknowledge. The "reaction to blasphemy" is, I think, pure
crock. Do you believe it? Are you with Fish on this matter?
smw
The Other wrote:
> smw <sm...@ameritech.net> writes:
>
>
>>The Other wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The hypocrisy is in -- to take an example at random -- German
>>>"sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law", specifically the law
>>>that censors Holocaust Denial. It's the (secular) Christians who
>>>are the hypocrites, not the Muslims. The Muslims don't pretend to
>>>be liberal, the Christians do.
>>
>>Besides the point, since the cartoons weren't published in an
>>Islamic country.
>
>
> They were published in countries with lots of Muslims. Way too many
> Muslims, in fact. Well, except for Jordan.
>
>
>>Do "the Muslims" commonly pretend to (have the right to) control the
>>Western press?
>
>
> From what I see, lots of Muslims in Europe are demanding that their
> governments censor stuff like this.
I'm not sure where we are going here -- the protests in Europe have been
overwhelmingly peaceful, and entirely within rule-of-law.
>
>
>>And what's hypocritical about adhering to specific laws passed
>>through the usual channels? Germany, to stick with your example,
>>doesn't have the quasi-religious rhetoric re free speech the US has;
>>not that there isn't any country that doesn't restrict some forms of
>>speech. The question is whether the laws protect this specific form
>>of speech in Europe, and it seems that it does. "The law is the law"
>>isn't hypocrisy, it's shorthand of a well-established philosophical
>>principle.
>
>
> I thought the German defense was based on the liberal idea of a free
> press (no government control) -- implying that was a good thing -- and
> not on "Well, it's the law, we can't stop them, our hands are tied".
> I admit I could be wrong though, I don't remember the exact statement.
To repeat, "the law is the law" isn't some banal "gee, that's the way it
is" line. I was thinking along the lines of Verfassungspatriotismus.
>
> Either way, it's hypocritical. The law in Germany says that if you
> publish certain factual assertions about mid-20th-century history, you
> go to jail. Blaspheming the Prophet could certainly be added to the
> list of legally verboten topics; where there's a will -- and Will is a
> German specialty -- there's a way. Not in time for the Danish
> cartoons, but in time to prevent the next blasphemy against Islam.
> Even if you are right and Germans did plead "rule of law", that
> doesn't cut it as an excuse when used by lawmakers.
Of course they could -- and if they did, that'd still be the German law,
not the Danish one. As far as I can see, Germany doesn't give a damn
about other countries not persecuting holocaust denials. So, again, your
point is?
smw
> Oh, I think it's been extremely smart! Hypocritical and
> self-deceived, but very, very smart.
>
Hence not analogous to the violent Muslim response of the last past days
(unless, again, one assumes that the desire is to cut all ties, keep
Turkey out of the EU, and let escalations escalate. On the other hand,
the NYT op-ed piece that suggested that protests are designed to
distract from atrocious political failures and corruptions at home also
makes some sense).
>
>>The "reaction to blasphemy" is, I think, pure crock. Do you believe
>>it?
>
>
> Yeah, I believe it, that most of the demonstrators were reacting
> primarily against the blasphemy, given a historical background of
> European offenses against Islam. It's also obvious that the people
> were being manipulated.
So they weren't reacting to a blasphemy, which is, after all, a dime a
dozen, but to manipulations concerning this specific rather mild blasphemy.
I don't know the strategy of the people
> pulling the strings.
>
>
>>Are you with Fish on this matter?
>
>
> I don't know what Stanley Fish said about this.
In essence, it's to the credit of strong believers to believe something
strongly, and to the discredit of liberals to not believe anything very
much or certainly not enough to go bombing for.
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I haven't been considering Muslim strategies here. It is the smug
> > self-congratulation and sanctimony of Western man that piques my
> > interest, especially when it is trotted out in support of racist
> > offal.
>
> Smug self-congratulation is necessary in times of war. Some have
> criticized the European defense on strategic grounds: that the
> Europeans are choosing the wrong battle, fighting over some stupid
> cartoons when more important battles need to be fought. But I see it
> as mobilization, the first stage in the war. The purpose of the
> cartoons and of their defense by the West is not to engage the enemy,
> but to mobilize the troops. I support the Western reaction, silly and
> sanctimonious as it is, on those grounds.
The Western religion seems to be belief in liberalism, freedom
of expression being one cardinal principle. However, Westerners
are not clear on this. Liberalism also means capitalism, and as
things have worked out capitalism constrains free expression
considerably and with increasing vigor -- wherever it impinges on
the rights of property.
To truly understand a war however it is necessary to have some
understanding of both sides, and while I think I have some grasp
of the Western side, I find the Muslim side fairly mysterious. I
lack the confidence so many of you so vigorously exhibit.
Bruce McGuffin
> Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > The relative danger of insulting Muslims and others is the nub of
> > the issue. If I published a cartoon today painting right wing Jewish
> > groups as a bunch of violent idiots (which is what the most
> > egregious of the Danish cartoons did),
>
> No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.
If I understand correctly, there are many paintings of the prophet in
the muslem world, among the shi'ites and in Turkey, for example.
Sunni Muslems may not approve, but they aren't burning down the
Turkish embassy, and most aren't attacking Shi'ites, forcing me to
conclude that however much they talk of blasphemy, that isn't what
really has them so pissed off.
>
> > I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to go into hiding for my own
> > safety.
>
> If you published analogous cartoons directed at Jews, you wouldn't
> have to go into hiding -- but you would go into obscurity. Your
> career as a journalist would be destroyed. Anarcissie is exactly
> right on everything he's been saying about Western hypocrisy.
Unpleasant though it may be to have your work dropped by mainstream
publications, it beats the hell out of getting killed, or even
severely beaten.
And I'll bet there are plenty of leftie european publications willing
to pick up a cartoonist who mocks right-wing Jews.
Bruce
*Anarcissie*
> Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > The relative danger of insulting Muslims and others is the nub of
> > the issue. If I published a cartoon today painting right wing Jewish
> > groups as a bunch of violent idiots (which is what the most
> > egregious of the Danish cartoons did),
>
> No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.
>
> > safety.
>
> If you published analogous cartoons directed at Jews, you wouldn't
> have to go into hiding -- but you would go into obscurity. Your
> career as a journalist would be destroyed. Anarcissie is exactly
> right on everything he's been saying about Western hypocrisy.
I was thinking about this and I guess I would not say that
the self-congratulators are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is a kind
of consciousness, and what I see most is unconsciousness.
Hence the very easy way in which racists have identified
themselves with free speech on the Western side and
gotten proud little boys and girls to march about waving
their Imperial Majesties' flags. There have been similar
tricks played on the Muslim side, I imagine, but I don't
read Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Urdu and Malayalam so I
really don't know what's going on over there.
Bruce McGuffin
> Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > The Other <ot...@other.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, there are many paintings of the prophet in
> > the muslem world, among the shi'ites and in Turkey, for example.
> > Sunni Muslems may not approve, but they aren't burning down the
> > Turkish embassy, and most aren't attacking Shi'ites, forcing me to
> > conclude that however much they talk of blasphemy, that isn't what
> > really has them so pissed off.
>
> I wasn't talking about some theoretical "true Islam". The cartoons
> were perceived as blasphemous, and that's what counts. As I said in
> another post, the whole show was obviously manipulated, but that
> doesn't take away from the sincerity of the demonstrators.
And I'm saying that whoever did it couldn't have whipped the
demonstrators up about "Western Blasphemy" unless there were more
going on than pictures of Mohammed. Suppose the pictures had been
complementary of Islam and Mohammed? Would we be seeing the same
reaction?
Bruce
Bruce McGuffin
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > To truly understand a war however it is necessary to have some
> > understanding of both sides, and while I think I have some grasp of
> > the Western side, I find the Muslim side fairly mysterious. I lack
> > the confidence so many of you so vigorously exhibit.
>
> Well, confidence is an important rhetorical tool. I don't pretend to
> understand Muslims, though I don't see anything mysterious about them
> either. On the question of motivations, I usually take people at
> their word unless there's some specific reason not to. The fact is
> that Muslims (like most people) seem pretty forthcoming about what
> pisses them off, which would make life a lot easier for the USA, if
> its leaders were willing to listen.
Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop
harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/02/15/on_turkeys_big_screen_america_cast_as_villain/
That's going to be a tough one to change.
Bruce
M J Carley
>Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop
>harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
>
>http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/02/15/on_turkeys_big_screen_america_cast_as_villain/
>
>That's going to be a tough one to change.
Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
*Anarcissie*
> In the referenced article, Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>
> >Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop
> >harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
> >
> >http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/02/15/on_turkeys_big_screen_america_cast_as_villain/
> >
> >That's going to be a tough one to change.
>
> Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
> children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
Inasmuch as many, many people, including important people,
want to make Muslims look bad, I suggest two things:
1. If you don't read Arabic and other languages in which
Islam is most at home, and must depend on the Western
media for reports as to what is going on, do take them with
a grain of salt. I have been shocked at the difference
between what is published in Latin American media and
what is published in the U.S. about the same matters.
I think we can assume the same sort of filtering occurs
with regard to Middle Eastern events and situations.
2. Recall that Muslims have many non-frivolous
complaints about the West, including the killing and
maiming of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)
of Muslims and the indefinite seizure of two Muslim
countries by a Western power. The racist caricature of
Muhammad is not a stand-alone event.
I realize these suggestions will not be welcome, but
perhaps when marching around waving one's little flag
grows wearisome they may beguile a tedious hour.
M J Carley
>1. If you don't read Arabic and other languages in which
>Islam is most at home, and must depend on the Western
>media for reports as to what is going on, do take them with
>a grain of salt. I have been shocked at the difference
>between what is published in Latin American media and
>what is published in the U.S. about the same matters.
This is not only true of Latin America and Arabic-speaking countries:
I understand that the Israeli press routinely publishes views which
would be denounced as `anti-Semitic' in the US, because they criticize
Israeli crimes.
Michael Zeleny
> In the referenced article, Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
>> Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop
>> harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
>>
>> http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/02/15/on_turkeys_big_screen_america_cast_as_villain/
>>
>> That's going to be a tough one to change.
> Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
> children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
The character of Willard, the army captain who toils up-river to
terminate Colonel Kurtz and his renegade command, was based on Fred
Rexer, whom Milius had met at a gun show soon after completing _The
Wind and the Lion_. Rexer had been a Green Beret in Laos and had taken
part in the Phoenix programme to subdue VC influence in the villages.
Surreal by nature, he told Milius how he and his comrades had gone into
Vientiane, ordered tiger-striped tuxedos from the local tailor and then
dined together in their new regalia. Rexer had actually experienced the
scene recounted by Kurtz in the film, where the arms of children are
hacked off by the Vietcong. Sensing the symbiosis between Kurtz and
Willard, Coppola wrote in one his earliest notes about the film in
prospect, `if [Willard] can accept Kurtz, then he can accept himself'.
--Peter Cowie, The Apocalypse Now Book, Da Capo Press, 2001, p. 158
Fred Rexer is a friend of mine. If he tells it, so it happened.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Sy Grass
"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140308412....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>M J Carley wrote:
>> In the referenced article, Bruce McGuffin <mcgu...@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu>
>> writes:
>
>>> Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop
>>> harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
>>>
>>> http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/02/15/on_turkeys_big_screen_america_cast_as_villain/
And we can feel so secure in the truth of that as of the fact that Jews have
always mixed the blood of goyischer brats with wheat flour for the
unleavened bread of Passover. So why should any be surprised by some
Turkish movie about a hot Jewish market in slightly used Mussulman body
parts?
>>>
>>> That's going to be a tough one to change.
>
>> Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
>> children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
>
> The character of Willard, the army captain who toils up-river to
> terminate Colonel Kurtz and his renegade command, was based on Fred
> Rexer, whom Milius had met at a gun show soon after completing _The
> Wind and the Lion_. Rexer had been a Green Beret in Laos and had taken
> part in the Phoenix programme to subdue VC influence in the villages.
> Surreal by nature, he told Milius how he and his comrades had gone into
> Vientiane, ordered tiger-striped tuxedos from the local tailor and then
> dined together in their new regalia. Rexer had actually experienced the
> scene recounted by Kurtz in the film, where the arms of children are
> hacked off by the Vietcong. Sensing the symbiosis between Kurtz and
> Willard, Coppola wrote in one his earliest notes about the film in
> prospect, `if [Willard] can accept Kurtz, then he can accept himself'.
>
> --Peter Cowie, The Apocalypse Now Book, Da Capo Press, 2001, p. 158
>
> Fred Rexer is a friend of mine. If he tells it, so it happened.
Can't wait to see Zeleny in his tiger-striped tux--maybe he has some of that
highly endangered material left over from his Harvard graduation cap and
gown?
Next Year in Jerusalem!
And may auld acquaintence be forgot.
--
Mackie
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels. " --Groucho Marx
--
.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
>
>> This is not only true of Latin America and Arabic-speaking
>> countries: I understand that the Israeli press routinely publishes
>> views which would be denounced as `anti-Semitic' in the US,
>
>they were right.
>
>On the other hand, the US is more factually accurate on Israel, less
>egregiously distorted, than the British and other European presses.
I doubt that. Maybe you could give us some examples.
>> because they criticize Israeli crimes.
>Uh, I think it may be a little more nuanced than that.
Hit me with a nuance.
M J Carley
>M J Carley wrote:
>> Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
>> children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
>
>The character of Willard, the army captain who toils up-river to
>terminate Colonel Kurtz and his renegade command, was based on Fred
>Rexer, whom Milius had met at a gun show soon after completing _The
>Wind and the Lion_. Rexer had been a Green Beret in Laos and had taken
>part in the Phoenix programme to subdue VC influence in the villages.
>Surreal by nature, he told Milius how he and his comrades had gone into
>Vientiane, ordered tiger-striped tuxedos from the local tailor and then
>dined together in their new regalia. Rexer had actually experienced the
>scene recounted by Kurtz in the film, where the arms of children are
>hacked off by the Vietcong. Sensing the symbiosis between Kurtz and
>Willard, Coppola wrote in one his earliest notes about the film in
>prospect, `if [Willard] can accept Kurtz, then he can accept himself'.
>
>--Peter Cowie, The Apocalypse Now Book, Da Capo Press, 2001, p. 158
That's interesting, because a journalist who asked Milius about the
children's arms being chopped off got a Special Forces death's head
by return of post.
>Fred Rexer is a friend of mine. If he tells it, so it happened.
Has he told you this?
Michael Zeleny
> In the referenced article, "Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> writes:
>> M J Carley wrote:
>>> Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese
>>> children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated.
>> The character of Willard, the army captain who toils up-river to
>> terminate Colonel Kurtz and his renegade command, was based on Fred
>> Rexer, whom Milius had met at a gun show soon after completing _The
>> Wind and the Lion_. Rexer had been a Green Beret in Laos and had taken
>> part in the Phoenix programme to subdue VC influence in the villages.
>> Surreal by nature, he told Milius how he and his comrades had gone into
>> Vientiane, ordered tiger-striped tuxedos from the local tailor and then
>> dined together in their new regalia. Rexer had actually experienced the
>> scene recounted by Kurtz in the film, where the arms of children are
>> hacked off by the Vietcong. Sensing the symbiosis between Kurtz and
>> Willard, Coppola wrote in one his earliest notes about the film in
>> prospect, `if [Willard] can accept Kurtz, then he can accept himself'.
>>
>> --Peter Cowie, The Apocalypse Now Book, Da Capo Press, 2001, p. 158
> That's interesting, because a journalist who asked Milius about the
> children's arms being chopped off got a Special Forces death's head
> by return of post.
A likely story. Fred Rexer is something of a Jesus figure to his
congenitally civilian friends. The man who kills for our sins.
>> Fred Rexer is a friend of mine. If he tells it, so it happened.
> Has he told you this?
Not this one. But I don't believe that he lied to Milius.
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Sy Grass
"The Other" <ot...@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:ly64nbh...@circe.aeaea...> How about the Jenin Killing Fields of '02?
If only it were so.
> Remember all the hundreds,
> perhaps thousands of bodies of civilians decomposing in mass graves?
If only it were so, peace would be the heritage today, as that always
follows upon a just retribution for any such like savage aggression,
Arab/Islamic or otherwise, as e.g. against the U.S. at the hands of Japan:
peace came thanks to that lovely nuclear bloom at Hiroshima, and as a
fire-storm over Germany, thanks to those "killing fields" at Dresden. But
Israel, weakened by an ill-perceived need of Yanqui aid just never gets
around to really putting the idea of peace firmly across to the aggressor,
to people like *you* with a force sufficient to the job; to even the score
to the extent of say 1,000 dead and stinking Arabs in return for every bus
bombed Israeli school girl. You want a "crime"?
One for one is never sufficient. One dead member of the bus and cafe
bomber's savage tribe is not equivalent, head for head to one member of the
civilized people who do not do such things. Not even one to a thousand is
equal, for if I were in charge of things over there, I would tell them: you
bomb one more innocent Israeli child, and I will wipe out your entire
population. And I would do that, in a heartbeat and without a blink of the
eye for a thousand eyes, and I would hope and even pray that your stinking
blown to bits cluelessly indoctrinated, and therefore worthless, savage
Jew-baiting corpse would be there among them.
Killing fields? You want the "killing fields"? I'll give you the
schtupping killing fields in the 1948 Arab Legion attack on Jerusalem's
Hadassah hospital--yeah, think about that, as I mean to say THINK about
it--as one of the first Arab targets of May 20, during the war of
Independence. Even when the International Red Cross pleaded with those
Islamic savages to stop the shelling, they would not stop.
Think about it!
There's the stinking "innocents" of your "Killing Fields" who are of a like
morality to yourself, seeing how much the glories of their bloody-awful
utterly needless cause holds such an appeal to your sensibility.
"The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however
generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact.
The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine
right."
--Alexander Hamilton
Running Amuk
"Sy Grass" <jpd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43f8f640$0$13174$8826...@news.atlantisnews.com...
Sir, you have just offended the sensibilities of dozens--yea, thousands--of
liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing
of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker
end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in
large numbers those nice Palestinians is a repugnant thought.
After all, Islam is a religion of peace; and as soon as those infidel Danish
cartoonists are killed and their burning bodies dragged through the streets
and their copyrights violated, the A-rab nations will prove it. Hide and
watch.
--Running Obbligato
Pies de Arcilla
Running Amuk wrote:
> liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing
> of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker
> end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in
Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of
the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.