Danish Counter-boycott
Dave Smith
have no control over the newspaper than published the
offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
speech. As a result, the Muslims are revolting ....again,
and calling for a boycott of Danish products.
We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
counter boycott. Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
protests if they backfire on them.
If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
dressing with Danish blue.
Ophelia
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:43E51840...@sympatico.ca...
PC has gone mad here. The muslims are rioting at the embassies in
London. They have banners threatening death and destruction to
Westerners. The police do nothing!!! One man stood up against them in
defiance and guess what? The police arrested him!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Smith
>
> > If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
> > they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
> > Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
> > for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
> > you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
> > dressing with Danish blue.
>
> PC has gone mad here. The muslims are rioting at the embassies in
> London. They have banners threatening death and destruction to
> Westerners. The police do nothing!!! One man stood up against them in
> defiance and guess what? The police arrested him!!!!!!!!!!
We need that guy who decided to fight back against IRA violence by going to
an IRA funeral and started lobbing grenades among the guests.
Ophelia
Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave Smith
>
> >>
> >> PC has gone mad here. The muslims are rioting at the embassies in
> >> London. They have banners threatening death and destruction to
> >> Westerners. The police do nothing!!! One man stood up against them
> >> in
> >> defiance and guess what? The police arrested him!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > We need that guy who decided to fight back against IRA violence by
> > going to
> > an IRA funeral and started lobbing grenades among the guests.
>
> Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Opps. Can't stoop to their level.
Ophelia
*sigh* please do!
Michel Boucher
You mean exacerbate the situation as a response to justified anger (and
not particularly justified violence)?
Remember that there a 1.6 billion muslims. In fact, they form the
largest single group on the planet. And they turn their dead into
martyrs. The last thing you want to do is make things worse because
killing more of them is not going to improve the situation any nor make
the dead come back to life.
--
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
Dom Helder Camara
Ranee Mueller
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Absolutely! I bought some havarti this week. The editor of the
French paper who reprinted the cartoons with a statement about freedom
of speech was fired. Nice.
Regards,
Ranee
Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.
"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
sf
> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> have no control over the newspaper than published the
> offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> speech. As a result, the Muslims are revolting ....again,
> and calling for a boycott of Danish products.
The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as a
terrorist and that's what made them so mad. In any case, I think they
are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of Jews and
Christians in their newspspers daily.
--
Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.
Lisa Ann
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:43E51840...@sympatico.ca...
> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> have no control over the newspaper than published the
> offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> even take offence.
I'm not sure about that last statement about taking offense...in the US, the
fundies have been known to take offense to anything that depicts Jesus in
anything other than their image of him.
>The crime of the Danish government was to
> refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> speech. As a result, the Muslims are revolting ....again,
> and calling for a boycott of Danish products.
What is it that you expected the Danish government to do? I'm confused by
your statement. Were they supposed to intervene with the paper and prohibit
the cartoon from being published? Or were they supposed to intervene with
the protesters and somehow stop the boycott? Both are free speech.
Personally, I got a chuckle out of the cartoon, but I'm not Muslim. Maybe
I'd feel differently if I were.
That being said...any excuse to buy Danish Blue Cheese works for me. ;)
Lisa Ann
Boron Elgar
>Dave Smith wrote:
>> .... and no one but a whacked Muslim would
>> even take offence.
>
>Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
>Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
>only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
>stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
>Muslims to take offence.
No it isn't This is fundie started & fundie fueled. There is a long a
beautiful history of images in Islam. Ever seen any Persian
miniatures?
>
>Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
>show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
>
>I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
>desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
>insult believers they get angry.
Then maybe all of them need to be smack on the bottom and set to bed
without dinner to teach them all a lesson.
>
> > We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
>> counter boycott.
>
>Oh nonsense. I don't owe the Danes shit. I might sympathize with the
>innocent getting caught up in generalized protest, but what else is
>new? I have more sympathy for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians
>that have been killed in the past few years.
I think it would be nice to stand up to religious bigotry. There are
any number of ways it can be done.
>
>> Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
>> protests if they backfire on them.
>
>More nonsense. People who believe their religion is under attack are
>going to change their thinking because you buy more Havarti? What
>planet are you living on? -aem
These are insane fundies. Think of them as Pat Roberston on a prayer
rug.
Boron
Dave Smith
>
> The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as a
> terrorist and that's what made them so mad.
There are no pictures of the prophet Mohammed, so it probably doesn't look
like the original at all. It's just speculation. Given their
predisposition to name their children Mohammed, it could be any one of
several million Mohammeds.
> In any case, I think they
> are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of Jews and
> Christians in their newspspers daily.
I guess that is because they figure it is different. Those are the idols
of the infidels, so naturally subject to abuse.
Dave Smith
> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
You can take offence without burning down buildings and threatening to kill
and kidnap.
> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.
then they should learn to deal with their frustration in a healthier
manner.
>
> > We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> > counter boycott.
>
> Oh nonsense. I don't owe the Danes shit.
I do. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war, and a lot of
Danes risked their lives to help him escape to Sweden. But on a more
general note, the thing that has really pissed off the Moslems is that the
Danish prime minister has refused to intervene because he considers it to
be a matter of freedom of speech. That is a principle that most of us in
the west value and we would hate to see that freedom lost because of
threats of violence from fundamentalist thugs.
> > Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> > protests if they backfire on them.
>
> More nonsense. People who believe their religion is under attack are
> going to change their thinking because you buy more Havarti? What
> planet are you living on? -aem
There aim is to punish Denmark economically. If people stop buying Danish
foods or stores are afraid to sell Danish products for fear of Islamic
reprisals they win and will continue the tactic. If people rebel at their
boycott and and sales increase, the boycott backfires.
Glitter Ninja
>The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as a
>terrorist and that's what made them so mad. In any case, I think they
>are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of Jews and
>Christians in their newspspers daily.
I just read a post on LiveJournal (I can link it if you want) by a
gentleman who spent some years in the Middle East. He said that a
Muslim traditionalist will say that other religions can take criticism
because that religion is false. Islam is the truth so in their eyes any
criticism must be fought. If they do not fight against criticism of
their religion, it is offensive to their God.
Stacia
Dave Smith
If there was truth to religion they would stand up to scrutiny and not have
to protect themselves with the coercive pressures of rules of blasphemy. If
they felt there was nothing to fear they wouldn't have to threaten
consequences on Earth.
J. Eric Durbin
From God's mouth to your ears...
Curly Sue
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
>have no control over the newspaper than published the
>offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
>even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
>refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
>speech.
Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
as in this case, to provoke.
The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
them.
The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
point about being offended.
The actors are following the script.
Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
Dave Smith
> >Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> >have no control over the newspaper than published the
> >offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> >even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> >refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> >speech.
>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.
True enough, but it is an interesting sort of provocation. I suppose that
it could be said that they were provoking a reaction from a group that
suppresses freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of religion.
> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead.
How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
of arson? There is a good chance that the people who are protesting and
rioting never even saw the cartoons, just like the Christians who
protested movies like The Last Temptation of Christ, or the Moslems who
protested Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
> These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
True. That was done by the papers. More accurately, it was a decision made
by the editors of the paper. It was not the Danish people. It was not the
Danish Government.
> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.
That would exclude me. The boycott of French products was an American
issue because France refused to go along with the invasion of Iraq in
order to search for WMDs that the French government did not believe were
there and because they knew that an invasion would result in utter chaos.
They were right on that one. I agreed with them. I made a point of buying
French products over American. I got into the habit of buying French
cheeses and wines.
> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.
They have certainly exposed the Islamic world for what it is, and we need
to choose sides.
zxcvbob
> "Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:43E51840...@sympatico.ca...
>
>>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
>>have no control over the newspaper than published the
>>offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
>>even take offence.
>
>
> I'm not sure about that last statement about taking offense...in the US, the
> fundies have been known to take offense to anything that depicts Jesus in
> anything other than their image of him.
>
>
How many embassies have they burned down? Taking offense is different
than taking advantage of that offense to to promote violence and mayhem.
I find a lot of what Sheldon says to be offensive, but I haven't
burned down the newsgroup.
BTW, I'm curious about who drew those extra 3 extra-offensive cartoons
that were being distributed in the Middle East to incite riots.
Bob
Michel Boucher
news:ds56ag$efp$1...@news.xmission.com:
> sf <see_repl...@nospam.com> writes:
>
>>The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as
>>a terrorist and that's what made them so mad. In any case, I
>>think they are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of
>>Jews and Christians in their newspspers daily.
But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus to be
Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that Muhammad being the
most recent is the more accurate.
> I just read a post on LiveJournal (I can link it if you want) by a
> gentleman who spent some years in the Middle East. He said that a
> Muslim traditionalist will say that other religions can take
> criticism because that religion is false.
Not true. Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as divinely
revealed religions. However, they do believe that the revelations have
been corrupted and it is the corruption that they attack.
You can argue that that is hypocritical, but that won't change
anything. Personally, I don't like the idea of someone, either George
Bush or some Shi'ah leader, telling me that I *must* live in a
theocracy. But I can see their point. If people who profess to being
Christians cannot clean the corruption in their relationship to their
holy book, why should anyone have respect for them? Much the same
holds for Randites and Marxists...and for Muslims too.
Unfortunately for our point of view, they outnumber us.
Michel Boucher
>> The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as
>> a terrorist and that's what made them so mad.
>
> There are no pictures of the prophet Mohammed, so it probably
> doesn't look like the original at all. It's just speculation.
> Given their predisposition to name their children Mohammed, it
> could be any one of several million Mohammeds.
However, it is a purported representation.
Glitter Ninja
>Curly Sue wrote:
>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>of arson?
Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
antagonize, end of story.
>by the editors of the paper. It was not the Danish people. It was not the
>Danish Government.
Good point. I haven't seen anyone on any of the political blogs I go
to who has been able to justify boycotting a Danish cheesemaker because
of these cartoons. People have to boycott or complain or whatever to
make their point, I guess.
The newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, but they also
have a responsiblity which I feel they shirked, and now unrelated
businesses are suffering for it, plus they deliberately provoked an
entire religion of 1.6 billion people. What could they have hoped to
accomplish?
Or, should I say, Mission Accomplished?
Stacia
Dave Smith
> >> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> >> they were doing and where this would lead.
>
> >How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
> >of arson?
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
> entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
> and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
> antagonize, end of story.
There is nothing disingenuous. They probably felt, as do I, that there is
nothing to get upset over. Having lived in freedom and democracy all my life I
have enjoyed not having a religion shoved down my throat and not having to
abide by the rules that various religions make up for themselves.
> The newspaper had the right to publish the cartoons, but they also
> have a responsiblity which I feel they shirked, and now unrelated
> businesses are suffering for it, plus they deliberately provoked an
> entire religion of 1.6 billion people. What could they have hoped to
> accomplish?
> Or, should I say, Mission Accomplished?
Perhaps they should be applauded for the bravery in standing up to the thugs.
They certainly have my support.
Gregory Morrow
sf wrote:
Yup that is the absolute truth. Their hateful propaganda puts the spin
- meisters of the Third Reich or Stalin's USSR or Castro's Cuba to
absolute shame...Julius Streicher is but a piker compared to the
ignorant goons who infest and run most of the Arab media.
Even the Egyptian popular press constantly spews age - old lies about
Jews, e.g. that they sacrifice Christian children, etc. And this is a
country that is at relative *peace* with Israel...
I've noticed that not a whole lot of Arab newspapers/media are easily
available on - line. There is a *reason* for that...
If you have a shortwave radio you can tune in to some of the Arab state
- run stations that propagate this crap. It's laughable stuff to folx
like us, but not so funny when you realise that many, many millions
consider it gospel truth...
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
Dave Smith wrote:
> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> have no control over the newspaper than published the
> offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> speech. As a result, the Muslims are revolting ....again,
> and calling for a boycott of Danish products.
>
> We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> counter boycott. Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> protests if they backfire on them.
Well said, Dave...
> If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
> they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
> Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
> for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
> you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
> dressing with Danish blue.
I am going to make the effort to buy Danish food products from now on.
IIRC my local soopermart (Treasure Island in Chicago) sometimes has a
"Danish Food Week" featuring products from Denmark. I'll have a word
with the manager and make inquires about it...the store has a
relatively sophisticated clientele (also heavily Jewish) so this would
go over well I think.
You also might consider one of those lovely Bang & Olufsen stereo sets
(if only I could afford one!)...
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
aem wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > .... and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> > even take offence.
>
> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
>
> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.
>
> > We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> > counter boycott.
>
> Oh nonsense. I don't owe the Danes shit. I might sympathize with the
> innocent getting caught up in generalized protest, but what else is
> new? I have more sympathy for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians
> that have been killed in the past few years.
>
> > Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> > protests if they backfire on them.
>
> More nonsense. People who believe their religion is under attack are
> going to change their thinking because you buy more Havarti? What
> planet are you living on? -aem
Well and eloquently put, Neville Chamberlain...
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
Dave Smith wrote:
> aem wrote:
> > Oh nonsense. I don't owe the Danes shit.
>
> I do. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war, and a lot of
> Danes risked their lives to help him escape to Sweden. But on a more
> general note, the thing that has really pissed off the Moslems is that the
> Danish prime minister has refused to intervene because he considers it to
> be a matter of freedom of speech. That is a principle that most of us in
> the west value and we would hate to see that freedom lost because of
> threats of violence from fundamentalist thugs.
Remember the Danish resistance to the Nazi occupiers during WWII. They
managed to evacuate a goodly number of Jews to safe haven (at great
risk to themselves). IIRC when the Nazis stipulated that Jews must
wear a yellow Star of David the Danish royal family as a sign of
solidarity donned yellow Stars too...
Much of this resistance was passive - aggressive and often took
something of a comical turn - but it was fairly effective. The Danes
have lessons for us all...
--
Best
Greg
Boron Elgar
Ninja) wrote:
>Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>Curly Sue wrote:
>
>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>
>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>of arson?
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>antagonize, end of story.
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
one. Below is a quote from an interview from Newsweek with the section
editor who made the decision to publish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/
ROSE: I was concerned about a tendency toward self-censorship among
people in artistic and cultural circles in Europe. That's why I
commissioned these cartoons, to test this tendency and to start a
debate about it.
It was not a media stunt. We just approached that story in a different
way, by asking Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they see him. I
did not ask for caricatures. I did not ask to make the prophet a
laughingstock or to mock him.
But you depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, armed with a
knife and with a broken halo that resembled satanic horns.
The cartoon with horns didn't arouse special criticism; it was the
other two. The one with the bomb in his turban doesn't say, "All
Muslims are terrorists," but says, "Some people have taken Islam
hostage to permit terrorist and extremist acts." These cartoons do not
treat Muslims in any other way than we treat other citizens in this
country. By treating them as equals, we are saying, "You are equal."
And from the overall paper editor;
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=25487
Open Letter to Fellow Muslim Citizens
Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and
freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human
being to practise his or her religion. Serious misunderstandings in
respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much
anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.
Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.
On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12
different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have
looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public
debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to
be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have
indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The
Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen
Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been
offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds
that they violated our ethical code.
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the
highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental
values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings
were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen
Jyllands-Posten.
Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to
publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against
Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.
I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the
very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and
because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her
religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs
is unthinkable to us.
That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.
As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings,
we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings
were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought
in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.
It is the wish of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten that various ethnic
groups should live in peace and harmony with each other and that the
debates and disagreements which will always exist in a dynamic society
should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
For that reason, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has published many
articles describing the positive aspects of integration, for example
in a special supplement entitled The Contributors. It portrayed a
number of Muslims who have had success in Denmark. The supplement was
rewarded by the EU Commission.
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten takes exception to symbolic acts suited
to demonise specific nationalities, religions and ethnic groups.
Sincerely yours
Carsten Juste
Editor-in-Chief
Dave Smith
>
> > We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> > counter boycott. Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> > protests if they backfire on them.
>
> Well said, Dave...
>
> > If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
> > they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
> > Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
> > for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
> > you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
> > dressing with Danish blue.
>
> I am going to make the effort to buy Danish food products from now on.
> IIRC my local soopermart (Treasure Island in Chicago) sometimes has a
> "Danish Food Week" featuring products from Denmark. I'll have a word
> with the manager and make inquires about it...the store has a
> relatively sophisticated clientele (also heavily Jewish) so this would
> go over well I think.
You might remind them about how the Danes rallied to save the Jews when
the Nazis tried to round them up.
Gregory Morrow
zxcvbob wrote:
> I find a lot of what Sheldon says to be offensive, but I haven't
> burned down the newsgroup.
Lol...excellent point ;-)
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
Dave Smith wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > I am going to make the effort to buy Danish food products from now on.
> > IIRC my local soopermart (Treasure Island in Chicago) sometimes has a
> > "Danish Food Week" featuring products from Denmark. I'll have a word
> > with the manager and make inquires about it...the store has a
> > relatively sophisticated clientele (also heavily Jewish) so this would
> > go over well I think.
>
> You might remind them about how the Danes rallied to save the Jews when
> the Nazis tried to round them up.
The owners are Greek but that may very well work :-)
--
Best
Greg
The Wolf
of Man.
Even canadians can be brought to bay overf time........:-)
Michel Boucher <alsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:43E52212...@sympatico.ca:
>
> >> > If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
> >> > they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
> >> > Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
> >> > for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
> >> > you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
> >> > dressing with Danish blue.
> >>
> >> PC has gone mad here. The muslims are rioting at the embassies
> >> in London. They have banners threatening death and destruction
> >> to Westerners. The police do nothing!!! One man stood up
> >> against them in defiance and guess what? The police arrested
> >> him!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > We need that guy who decided to fight back against IRA violence by
> > going to an IRA funeral and started lobbing grenades among the
> > guests.
>
> You mean exacerbate the situation as a response to justified anger (and
> not particularly justified violence)?
>
> Remember that there a 1.6 billion muslims. In fact, they form the
> largest single group on the planet. And they turn their dead into
> martyrs. The last thing you want to do is make things worse because
> killing more of them is not going to improve the situation any nor make
> the dead come back to life.
Gregory Morrow
Boron Elgar wrote:
> I think it would be nice to stand up to religious bigotry. There are
> any number of ways it can be done.
The pocketbook method is often a good way. Boycotting or supporting a
group or cause or business via the bottom line is often very, very
effective...tyrants and despots know this and so do us informed
consumers :-)
--
Best
Greg
Dave Smith
My father had to walk across the island of Sjaelland in 1943. Anyone got helping
him would have been executed by the Germans. On his way across he stopped at a
half dozen farm houses to ask for food and water. Nobody turned him down, and
nobody turned him in. One family invited him in for Easter dinner. Some of the
Resistance people who helped him were the same people who helped get the Jews
out safely.
The Resistance was widespread. My father was taken to the police station in
Copenhagen to get a set of identity papers, and it was the police that provided
the colour code of the day to flash if approached by a German patrol boat.
When he got to Sweden they had to put hm in jail for a few days, but when he was
released the police in Malmo gave him and the Dane who escaped with him a set of
gold cuff links.
The way I figure it is that we have the option of siding with the sort of people
who would fight to maintain the sort of personal freedoms that we value, or to
support the religious fanatics.
I sure am enjoying my Tubourg beer, and Moslems wouldn't let me do that.
:-)
Boron Elgar
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I sure am enjoying my Tubourg beer, and Moslems wouldn't let me do that.
You better hope some of the Baptist sects don't take over, either.
Boron
Dave Smith
I won't be able to have sex standing up either. Baptists are afraid that it
might lead to dancing.
:-)
Arri London
Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> sta...@xmission.com (Glitter Ninja) wrote in
> news:ds56ag$efp$1...@news.xmission.com:
>
> > sf <see_repl...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> >>The Danish caricature depicted Mohamed (not just "any muslim") as
> >>a terrorist and that's what made them so mad. In any case, I
> >>think they are being hypocritical because they put caricatures of
> >>Jews and Christians in their newspspers daily.
>
> But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus to be
> Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that Muhammad being the
> most recent is the more accurate.
YOu must never have lived in a Muslim neighbourhood. They do indeed
caricature Moses and Jesus. And they do not consider Moses and Jesus as
prophets equal to Muhammed.
>
> > I just read a post on LiveJournal (I can link it if you want) by a
> > gentleman who spent some years in the Middle East. He said that a
> > Muslim traditionalist will say that other religions can take
> > criticism because that religion is false.
>
> Not true. Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as divinely
> revealed religions. However, they do believe that the revelations have
> been corrupted and it is the corruption that they attack.
Islam recognises Islam as being superior to Christianity and Judaism.
Muslims believe that Jesus isn't God; that really is blasphemy to a
Christian.
>
> You can argue that that is hypocritical, but that won't change
> anything. Personally, I don't like the idea of someone, either George
> Bush or some Shi'ah leader, telling me that I *must* live in a
> theocracy. But I can see their point. If people who profess to being
> Christians cannot clean the corruption in their relationship to their
> holy book, why should anyone have respect for them? Much the same
> holds for Randites and Marxists...and for Muslims too.
>
> Unfortunately for our point of view, they outnumber us.
They don't. There are only about one billion Muslims on the planet. The
rest of the world's population (about 5 billion plus) isn't Muslim. Non
Muslims outnumber Muslims by rather a large margin.
Curly Sue
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Glitter
>Ninja) wrote:
>
>>Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>
>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>
>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>of arson?
>>
>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>antagonize, end of story.
>
>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>
>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>one.
Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten
> Below is a quote from an interview from Newsweek with the section
>editor who made the decision to publish.
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/
>
>
>>ROSE: I was concerned about a tendency toward self-censorship among
>>people in artistic and cultural circles in Europe. That's why I
>>commissioned these cartoons, to test this tendency and to start a
>>debate about it.
Oh sure. Not by starting it with discussion or civil discourse with
the interested parties, but by firing a shot and see where it hits.
>>(ROSE) It was not a media stunt.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>(ROSE) These cartoons do not
>>treat Muslims in any other way than we treat other citizens in this
>>country. By treating them as equals, we are saying, "You are equal."
Except that he commissioned cartoonists to do this highlighted series
rather than simply run them one at a time at random.
These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
Michel Boucher
news:43E69F3C...@ic.ac.uk:
>> But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus
>> to be Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that
>> Muhammad being the most recent is the more accurate.
>
> YOu must never have lived in a Muslim neighbourhood.
I lived in a Muslim country, does that count? I also studied Islam,
does that count? But obviously your experience far outweighs mine...
> They do
> indeed caricature Moses and Jesus.
Please provide some examples.
> And they do not consider Moses
> and Jesus as prophets equal to Muhammed.
But they consider them all to have brought a divine revelation.
> Islam recognises Islam as being superior to Christianity and
> Judaism. Muslims believe that Jesus isn't God; that really is
> blasphemy to a Christian.
Muslims don't believe that any revealed religion is revealed TO God,
but rather BY God to humans able to receive the message. They
Believe that Jesus received a revelation as did Muhammad and Moses.
Muhammad's is more recent and therefore in their eyes more advanced,
like Religion v3.0.
> They don't. There are only about one billion Muslims on the
> planet. The rest of the world's population (about 5 billion plus)
> isn't Muslim. Non Muslims outnumber Muslims by rather a large
> margin.
1.6 billion and they outnumber Westerners. I didn't think I had to
draw you a picture.
Michel Boucher
news:1139177797.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The pocketbook approach works if you have leverage which you don't with
a lot of Muslim countries because you have alienated them. What are
you going to do? Tell them you won't buy things that you're already
not buying?
Desperate much?
zxcvbob
As I understand it, islam recognizes Christians and Jews as "People of
the Book", but they consider Christianity and Judaism as apostate
religions. That's why they hate Christians and Jews more than other
"infidel" religions.
I wonder what Mohammed would think of his followers making these
pictures into "graven images" -- the muslim leaders are worshiping
Mohammed over Allah by making such a fuss about the cartoons.
Perhaps most muslims are peaceful people who just wanna be left alone to
live their lives, but islam is not a peaceful religion. (Most muslims
are not islamist radicals.) Christianity went thru a phase like that
about 1000 years ago, but we pretty much grew out of it.
Best regards,
Bob
Boron Elgar
Sue) wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:33:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:28:50 +0000 (UTC), sta...@xmission.com (Glitter
>>Ninja) wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>>>Curly Sue wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
>>>>> they were doing and where this would lead.
>>>
>>>>How could they know that it would lead to violent demonstrations and acts
>>>>of arson?
>>>
>>> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
>>>entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
>>>and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
>>>antagonize, end of story.
>>
>>Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
>>
>>The paper, with a circulation of about 150k, by the way, is a liberal
>>one.
>
>Specifically, liberal-independent-right-wing.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten
If so, I stand corrected. I am finding conflicting online reports on
its stance. That would make me suspicious of the paper to some extent,
but what evidence do you have that the commission of the cartoons was
of a deliberately provocative nature. Take a look around you on the
Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?
And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?
I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?
Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
ago....look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
religious writing as the true word of their god.
snip
>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>
I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
example.
Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.
Boron
Peter Huebner
> Christianity went thru a phase like that
> about 1000 years ago, but we pretty much grew out of it.
>
> Best regards,
> Bob
>
>
Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of humour
displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and probably a bit
more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
Think of those retards blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors 'to
save lives'.
Too much Religion is bad for the soul. -P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
zxcvbob
> In article <44nn1nF...@individual.net>, zxc...@charter.net
> says...
>
>> Christianity went thru a phase like that about 1000 years ago, but
>> we pretty much grew out of it.
>>
>> Best regards, Bob
>>
>>
>
>
> Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
> humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
> probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
[snip]
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
Bob
Amarantha
>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>
>
> Bob
Don't get me started...
xim xim
the way i see it is that WE---U.S. and other
friendly nations---are CIVILIZED people
and the rioters/protestors aren't....and they
never will be.
maybe we should do the same to them. the
next time they insult us or kidnap innocent
people we should just let some heads roll.
Curly Sue
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
than to provoke.
>Take a look around you on the
>Internet, which reaches more than the circulation of 150 thousand as
>the Denmark paper....do you REALLY think that these cartoons are of
>some level of greater evil that what surrounds us daily?
I never said anything of the sort.
>And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
>White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
>marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
>of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
>not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?
The violence is not justified, but it's reactive not provocative.
>I do not care how hateful the cartoons may be though of by some. Any
>excuse is used by fundies on both sides of the aisle to control the
>media. The fundie, right wing American Family Association just made
>sure that a show (Book of Daniel) was pulled from the NBC lineup
>though it's organized protestations. I do not like those fundies
>trying to censor what I see, either. Do you want more examples of
>religion getting it knickers in a knot and trying to control what they
>do not like, even among those who do not belong to their religion?
There is as much of that from the secular "fundies," who get their
knickers in a knot and don't want to hear any mention of peoples'
religious beliefs.
>Look at the BS about the term "Happy Holidays," just a month
>ago...look at what has come up in discussions around here when people
>have been accused of being bigoted for not taking someone else's
>religious writing as the true word of their god.
And there is plenty of the secular fundies making ugly comments about
religious beliefs.
>snip
>>These guys can blah-blah all they want about their high-minded ideals
>>and who they didn't want to offend, but there's no doubt that they
>>were looking for a rumble. So they got it.
>>
>
>I do not care what the newspaper published. I am a believer is freedom
>of the expression, even if it is espouses opinions I find repulsive.
>Once again, I offer the televised antics of Pat Robertson as a counter
>example.
Well, other people don't have the same beliefs as we do, and the
newspaper knew it. In fact that is why they commissioned the
cartoons. Pulling the strings of angry zealots makes that newspaper
culpable to some degree in the subsequent destruction.
>Riots and burning of embassies in reaction to these cartoons is
>idiotic, bigoted and untenable by any account. What happened Denmark
>was not incitement to riot, but the reaction to it has been insane
>over-reaction by fundamentalist bigots.
>
>Boron
It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
response.
Lisa Ann
news:1139178184.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Remember the Danish resistance to the Nazi occupiers during WWII. They
> managed to evacuate a goodly number of Jews to safe haven (at great
> risk to themselves). IIRC when the Nazis stipulated that Jews must
> wear a yellow Star of David the Danish royal family as a sign of
> solidarity donned yellow Stars too...
Sadly, not true about the Danish King and the Star of David...
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.htm
Lisa Ann
Boron Elgar
It does not matter if they were or were not "bigoted." You have, once
again, missed the point completely.
And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
Boron
Ophelia
"zxcvbob" <zxc...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:44nu3sF...@individual.net...
NO-ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition......
Boron Elgar
Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
you do?
Boron
Michel Boucher
news:44nn1nF...@individual.net:
> As I understand it, islam recognizes Christians and Jews as
> "People of the Book", but they consider Christianity and Judaism
> as apostate religions. That's why they hate Christians and Jews
> more than other "infidel" religions.
They hardly consider Christianity and Judaism as apostate religions.
In Islam, Christianity and Judaism are viewed as revealed religions
in the same way as Islam was revealed, by the message being given by
a Prophet. What they consider to be serious flaws in Christianity re
the lack of Shar'iah and the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation
which they believe compromise divine unity. Those, they hold, are
later human interpolations and THAT is what they consider apostate.
Now, as in all religions, some people hold views divergent from the
fundamental message of love thy neighbour (which is common to
Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Their interpretation is heavily
coloured by their prejudices and their political views, be they
Christian or Muslim. Most of what we see has little to do with Islam
as a revealed religion and more to do with a political reaction to
various stimuli, such as the recent refusal by western nations to
recognize Hamas after they had cornered the Palestinians into the
democratic process with promises of validation.
Hamas was elected January 25 and the current wave of popular protests
against the caricatures began on January 27. Previous protests
(which began in October 2005) had been limited to diplomatic action.
So far, I haven't seen anyone correlate these two events...draw your
own conclusions, but in my view, it's a case of "you fuck with us, we
fuck with you".
Don't tell me that isn't hypocrisy of the worst sort. If Bush and
Blair didn't want Hamas elected, they should have stipulated that
they would only accept a predetermined outcome (the "do as you're
told" school of democratic thought) and appeared clearly as the lying
scum they now have revealed themselves to be. At least Muslims speak
frankly.
Now, before you reply, consider that, as a Marxist, I do not in any
way favour the spread of organized religion, but I do recognize that
religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, what have you) gives hope to
those who need it most, especially those living in dire
circumstances.
Dave Smith
>
> > Which pretty much sums it up. Little or no difference to the sense of
> > humour displayed by frothing at the mouth fundamentalist X-tians and
> > probably a bit more forgiving than the Spanish Inquisition.
>
> [snip]
>
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
:-)
sarah bennett
I was ignoring this thread, but now I'm glad I read it. Never want to
miss out on a Python reference.
--
saerah
http://anisaerah.blogspot.com/
"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams
Dave Smith
>
> There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
> than to provoke.
>
That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government that waved
a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper. The
government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting with
some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an issue of
free speech.
> >And think...even if it *were* deliberately provocative, as KKK or
> >White supremacists marching in African American areas or neo-nazis
> >marching in Jewish areas, what justification is there from the kinds
> >of behavior seen in Syria, Gaza & Lebanon? Is this merited? Is this
> >not it its own way provocative in a very deliberate way?
>
> The violence is not justified, but it's reactive not provocative.
We like to think not, but when you consider first major attack on an embassy was
in Syria, where people live under an iron fist, and things like this don't happen
expect with the consent of the government, and that the second one was in Lebanon,
which has been heavily influenced by Syria, and that most of the culprits who were
arrested for their involvement were Syrians.
> There is as much of that from the secular "fundies," who get their
> knickers in a knot and don't want to hear any mention of peoples'
> religious beliefs.
I don't know about the others but I can handle hearing about them. I just don't
want my life governed by their various mythologies. I don't want to have to choose
one or the other.
> Well, other people don't have the same beliefs as we do, and the
> newspaper knew it. In fact that is why they commissioned the
> cartoons. Pulling the strings of angry zealots makes that newspaper
> culpable to some degree in the subsequent destruction.
Sorry, but I don't buy that. It just helps to expose them for what they are.
>
> It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
> response.
It is interesting that they tend to present an image of behaviour strikingly
similar to that which was the response. Perhaps the truth hurts.
Peter Aitken
news:43E76360...@sympatico.ca...
> Curly Sue wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no other explanation for waving a red flag at a bull other
>> than to provoke.
>>
>
> That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
> that waved
> a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
> The
> government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
> with
> some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
> issue of
> free speech.
>
What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
"news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
policies.
--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm
Dave Smith
>
> > That may be, but it was not the Danish people or the Danish government
> > that waved
> > a proverbial red flag. It was the action of the editors of a newspaper.
> > The
> > government's big sin is that the prime minister refused to have a meeting
> > with
> > some Islamic embassadors to discuss it because he thought that it was an
> > issue of
> > free speech.
> >
>
> What I find particularly troubling is that when the original cartoons were
> circulated in the Muslim world, some persons unknown added additional and
> even more offensive cartoons that they created, attributing them to the
> Danish newspaper, to further inflame the population. While much more
> blatant, this is akin to the continual program of disinformation from the
> Bush administration, with the willing help of Fox News and other servile
> "news" outlets, to whip up public support for the war and their other
> policies.
>
It would certainly be ironic that someone in the middle east, and presumably
Moslem, would create even more offensive cartoons than the originals. One would
expect that to be a greater sin than drawing or publishing the originals.
maxine in ri
For heaven's sake, NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
maxine in ri
zxcvbob
>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>
>>Boron
>
>
>
> Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
> times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
> sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
> up from one of those? Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
> statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
> you do?
>
> Boron
Try searching for "Secular fundamentalism" instead. You used "fundie"
in a previous post and I believe Sue just picked up on it and tried to
use your own words so you would understand them. HTH :-)
Best regards,
Bob
Peter Aitken
This whole "secular fundamentalism" notion is yet another feeble-minded
attempt of the religious right to try to place reason and knowledge on the
same level as their bizarre superstitious beliefs. It's been tried before,
in court cases that attempt to define secularism as a religion that should
be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as traditional religions.
It would be bad joke if so many nitwits did not take it seriously.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
"Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
"fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
rather than substance.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Vraiment.
Boron
zxcvbob
"Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will
see over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.
Best regards,
Bob
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:03:07 -0600, zxcvbob <zxc...@charter.net>
>>
>> "Fundie" is not a term that is confusing or misunderstood. The term
>> "fundamentalism" is well known, well defined and commonly understood.
>> Since the definition of "fundamentalism" mentions an opposition to
>> secularism, that would still make the term one of contradiction,
>> rather than substance.
>>
>>
>> Boron
>
>
>"Fundamentalism" is not well defined nor understood. Do a google search
>on "define: fundamentalism" (without the quotation marks) and you will
>see over a dozen widely conflicting definitions.
>
>Best regards,
>Bob
Fundamentalism has common and similar entries in standard dictionaries
and encyclopedias. No need to go to blogs for redefinitions based on
claptrap.
Boron
Peter Aitken
Google? Oh please.Useful to be sure but hardly the way to find valid
information. It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
religious nutcase.
--
Peter Aitken
zxcvbob
How about this one? (first actual dictionary I checked, and I didn't
look any further): http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fundamentalism
There's enough difference between the 1st and 2nd definition to cause
misunderstandings.
Bob
Michel Boucher
$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
> It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
> valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
> religious nutcase.
Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...
Boron Elgar
<alsa...@rogers.com> wrote:
>"Peter Aitken" <pai...@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in news:vvMFf.10718
>$no3....@tornado.southeast.rr.com:
>
>> It will turn up everything from a well researched and perfectly
>> valid page at a university to the foam-at-the-mouth rantings of some
>> religious nutcase.
>
>Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...
The reality is what you see below.. remember well, this was .triggered
by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government printing them, not
a political party doing it, not an official representative of anything
whatsoever, but some small circulation newspaper in some small
country...and look at what the result is - death and destruction.
I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of some
subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is absurd,
barbaric and unconscionable.
I'd also like to thank George W. Bush as an enabler in all of this,
becuase were we not in Iraq, the world woudl be a safer place for us
all.
Muslim cartoon fury claims lives
At least five people have been killed in Afghanistan as protests
against European cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad swept across
the country.
Two people died when protesters turned on the US airbase at Bagram -
although the US has had no involvement with the images, which
originated in Denmark.
Meanwhile in Somalia, a teenage boy died after protesters attacked
police.
Iran announced it was halting trade with Denmark, as protesters pelted
the Danish embassy with petrol bombs.
Police fired tear gas in a bid to keep back hundreds of angry
demonstrators, some of whom attempted to scale the wall into the
embassy compound. Earlier, the Austrian embassy in Tehran came under
attack.
The violence follows attacks on Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon
over the weekend. The cartoons were first published in a Danish
newspaper.
Tensions continue to escalate around the world:
Norway demands compensation from Syria after its embassy in Damascus
was set on fire on Saturday
The Turkish and Spanish prime ministers make a joint plea for respect
and calm in an article in the International Herald Tribune
In Indonesia, protesters target the Danish and US consulates in
Surabaya, the country's second largest city. Protests are also held in
the capital, Jakarta
Riot police in the Indian capital, Delhi, fire tear gas and water
cannons to disperse hundreds of student protesters
Shops and businesses across Indian-administered Kashmir close after a
general strike is called in protest at the drawings
In Thailand, protesters shout "God is great" and stamp on Denmark's
flag outside the country's embassy in Bangkok, the Associated Press
news agency reports
There are protests again outside the European Union offices in Gaza,
following demonstrations there last week.
'Test our feelings'
Hundreds of people took part in the morning demonstration in
Afghanistan's Laghman province, in a second day of protests in the
city.
Three people died when police fired on protesters after a police
station came under attack, a government spokesman said.
Demonstrators shouted "death to Denmark" and "death to France". They
called for the expulsion of diplomats and soldiers, who were sent by
both countries as part of international efforts in the US-led "war on
terror".
CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut
"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu
Israra told the BBC.
"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to
them and to their newspapers," he said.
In Bagram district, a peaceful protest in the morning turned violent
when around 300 "bandits and gangsters" tried to enter the US base,
local police chief Mawlana Sayed Khel told the BBC.
A shoot-out with police left two protesters dead, and six police
officers injured, he said.
Elsewhere, hundreds protested in Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and the
north-eastern province of Takhar. Some 200 demonstrators gathered
outside the Danish embassy in the capital, Kabul.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated his condemnation of the
cartoons and called on western nations to take "a strong measure" to
ensure such cartoons do not appear again. "It's not good for anybody,"
he told CNN.
'Defending freedoms'
In the autonomous Somali region of Puntland, demonstrators marched
through the port city of Bosaso, shouting anti-Western slogans and
converging on the UN and international aid agency buildings.
A 14-year-old boy was reportedly trampled underfoot as police fired
into the air to try and disperse an increasingly angry crowd.
Peaceful protests were held in several other Somali towns.
The cartoons first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and
caused outrage among Muslims, who consider any images of Muhammad
offensive.
One of the cartoons shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Newspapers across Europe republished the pictures last week, saying
they were defending freedom of expression.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm
Published: 2006/02/06 18:59:21 GMT
© BBC MMVI
Michel Boucher
news:j1dfu15ghl0tcdoss...@4ax.com:
> remember well, this was
> .triggered by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government
> printing them, not a political party doing it, not an official
> representative of anything whatsoever, but some small circulation
> newspaper in some small country...and look at what the result is -
> death and destruction.
I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
this would have come to pass.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/06/news/web.0206toon.leb.php
> I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
> what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
> cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of
> some subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is
> absurd, barbaric and unconscionable.
Tell that to Bush. Obviously, that's his (or his advisors') agenda.
Dave Smith
>
>
> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
> this would have come to pass.
There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand that
Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a bomb, since it
would characterize them as being violent. But to me, to react to the
offensiveness of the portrayal by starting riots that have lead to murder
and arson??? I have to say that it doesn't do much for their argument that
it is unfair to portray them as being violent.
notbob
> The reality is what you see below.. remember well, this was .triggered
> by a newspaper printing cartoons >
>
> CARTOON ROW
> 30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
I doubt it. Look at the timeline. It sure as Hell didn't take the
street crazies 3 months to work up a froth. I have no doubt this is a
concerted effort by known terrorists to work extremist muslims into
frenzy to get the World's attention one more time. I believe the
purpose is to get the targets of all this mob hysteria to lose it and
over react and make Muslims look like the victims of anti Islam
persecution, thereby garnering more sympathy for the terrorist cause.
So far, it appears to be working just fine.
nb
nb
Gregory Morrow
Michel Boucher wrote:
> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:j1dfu15ghl0tcdoss...@4ax.com:
>
> > remember well, this was
> > .triggered by a newspaper printing cartoons - not a government
> > printing them, not a political party doing it, not an official
> > representative of anything whatsoever, but some small circulation
> > newspaper in some small country...and look at what the result is -
> > death and destruction.
>
> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a diplomatic
> solution since the publication which obviously Denmark ignored.
> Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much earlier and none of
> this would have come to pass.
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/06/news/web.0206toon.leb.php
>
> > I do not care what the content of the cartoons were. I do not care
> > what the purpose behind them was. The actions of the entire world
> > cannot be controlled, compromised or based upon the beliefs of
> > some subset of a religion. To think so and allow it sway is
> > absurd, barbaric and unconscionable.
>
> Tell that to Bush. Obviously, that's his (or his advisors') agenda.
Which has nothing to do with Boron's point...it's simply a cheap shot
on your part.
Your constant anti - US frothing at the mouth is getting *increasingly*
tiresome.
--
Best
Greg
Peter Aitken
Bush supporters *do* tend to find truth, logic, and reason to be tiresome.
They much prefer Fox news and Republican propaganda. Oops, same thing!
--
Peter Aitken
Peter Aitken
Right to the point!
--
Peter Aitken
Gregory Morrow
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Gregory Morrow" <gregor...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:1139177797.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> >> I think it would be nice to stand up to religious bigotry. There
> >> are any number of ways it can be done.
> >
> > The pocketbook method is often a good way. Boycotting or
> > supporting a group or cause or business via the bottom line is
> > often very, very effective...tyrants and despots know this and so
> > do us informed consumers :-)
>
> The pocketbook approach works if you have leverage which you don't with
> a lot of Muslim countries because you have alienated them. What are
> you going to do? Tell them you won't buy things that you're already
> not buying?
>
> Desperate much?
Nope. I frequent progressive businesses (especially pro - gay) as much
as I can...and the efforts of myself and others have yielded results
(and that includes down to the neighborhood level).
Can't really do that as regards to regressive Arab/Muslim - owned
companies as they don't do much business on the consumer end of things.
Now I'd really like to put the kibbosh on having to depend on Aramco
for US energy needs, but it seems those Alberta tar sands will
eventually yield much more oil than Saudi Arabia could ever dream of.
Believe me I'm *very* happy to spend money to support Canadian
businesses...
--
Best
Greg "pour me a Labatt's..."
Curly Sue
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:51:37 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 06:53:40 GMT, address...@nyc.rr.com (Curly
>>Sue) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It seems that you don't see the cartoons as "bigoted," only the
>>>response.
>>>
>>
>>It does not matter if they were or were not "bigoted." You have, once
>>again, missed the point completely.
>>
>>And what is a "secular fundie"? Did you make that up all by yourself?
>>
>>Boron
>
>
>Ah...I have searched the term "secular fundie." Google sees it 77
>times. It is used by right wing extremist religious web
>sites...infrequently, at that, but that is its source. Did you pick it
>up from one of those?
No, I'd never heard of it before. It just seems to perfectly describe
the attitudes of those who mirror religious fundamentalists.
> Are you trying to express some sort of bigoted
>statement about those who are do not believe about religion the way
>you do?
You have tossed the word "bigot" around at those who you disagree
with, from the rioters to me. For shame.
Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
Arri London
Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> Arri London <bio...@ic.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:43E69F3C...@ic.ac.uk:
>
> >> But not caricatures of Moses or Jesus. They hold Moses and Jesus
> >> to be Prophets equal to Muhammad, although they hold that
> >> Muhammad being the most recent is the more accurate.
> >
> > YOu must never have lived in a Muslim neighbourhood.
>
> I lived in a Muslim country, does that count? I also studied Islam,
> does that count? But obviously your experience far outweighs mine...
Apparently it does (and yes I've also studied Islam). Have seen enough
Muslim literature stating that Muhammed is greater than Moses and Jesus.
And no I don't have those materials with me right now.
>
> > They do
> > indeed caricature Moses and Jesus.
>
> Please provide some examples.
Don't have those materials here. If you lived in a Muslim country and
could read the local languages you would have seen such things.
>
> > And they do not consider Moses
> > and Jesus as prophets equal to Muhammed.
>
> But they consider them all to have brought a divine revelation.
Yes; never said otherwise.
>
> > Islam recognises Islam as being superior to Christianity and
> > Judaism. Muslims believe that Jesus isn't God; that really is
> > blasphemy to a Christian.
>
> Muslims don't believe that any revealed religion is revealed TO God,
> but rather BY God to humans able to receive the message.
Yes that's obvious. That's why they can blaspheme Jesus/God so readily.
They
> Believe that Jesus received a revelation as did Muhammad and Moses.
> Muhammad's is more recent and therefore in their eyes more advanced,
> like Religion v3.0.
Advanced isn't really the word I've heard most Muslims use.
>
> > They don't. There are only about one billion Muslims on the
> > planet. The rest of the world's population (about 5 billion plus)
> > isn't Muslim. Non Muslims outnumber Muslims by rather a large
> > margin.
>
> 1.6 billion and they outnumber Westerners. I didn't think I had to
> draw you a picture.
We weren't talking about only Westerners; didn't think I had to draw you
a picture.
Boron Elgar
<do...@invalid.com> wrote:
>My take, from a Midwestern
>liberal stance is; Bush sucks. That pretty much says it all for me. He is
>a total loser as was his father. JMO of course.
>
Amen, Brother.
That is as close to religion as I get.
Boron
Curly Sue
There are only Muslims in the Middle East? Someone else wants to
blame this affair on Bush...
When I see such thinking in anti-Bushites, I despair that we'll ever
get rid of the neocons.
Ranee Mueller
"aem" <aem_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
>
> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.
And the Muslims have every right to be angry, to write letters to the
editor and publisher of the newspaper, boycott the paper and publicize
the insult. They do not have the right to riot, beat Danish employees,
tear up and vandalize embassies, and kill. That is the difference
between the Christian response to the television show and the Muslim
response to cartoons.
Regards,
Ranee
Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.
"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
Ranee Mueller
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No it isn't This is fundie started & fundie fueled. There is a long a
> beautiful history of images in Islam. Ever seen any Persian
> miniatures?
There is a big difference between the Shiite minority and the Sunni
majority view, and actually graven images, any image of human or animal
is prohibited. This is why there are so many beautiful geometrics and
mosaics from Muslim culture.
Ranee Mueller
sta...@xmission.com (Glitter Ninja) wrote:
> Don't be disingenuous. The cartoons (there are 13 of them) are almost
> entirely negative and were the product of months of newspapers provoking
> and criticising the Muslims in their country. They did it to
> antagonize, end of story.
I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword. However,
study of the Qu'ran as well as the statements of Muslim leaders
throughout the world would support these depictions. They are quite
quick to associate Mohammed with militant power.
Peter Huebner
alsa...@rogers.com says...
>
> Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...
>
Michel, you are increasingly defending the indefensible.
I see caricatures of the pope in a newspaper - does this mean that catholics
all over the world are beginning to burn down New Zealand embassies? Not on
your nelly.
Nor have the Mormons declared a Holy War because somebody took the piss out of
them.
Your argumentation sounds frightfully close to me to something like: We
shouldn't portray slaveholders in a bad light because it might hurt their
feelings. We shouldn't mention Nazi deathcamps because we might offend the
Nazis' political credo. Get real.
What we are seeing at the moment, across the Muslim world, and most likely
fanned by unsonscionable clerics and political agitators (to wit, the fake
drawings that are being circulated in Muslim countries) actually _confirms_
the perception the cartoonists captured on paper. No more, no less.
I can virtually guarantee that 99% of Islam doesn't give a shit wether X-
tianity is also a revealed religion or a pagan cult. With, maybe, the exception
of a few recluse scholars.
The bottom line a.f.a.i.c.s. is this: two tribes going "our tribe better than
your tribe" "We have big clubs" "We hit your women and children over the head
if you don't do as we say". (sorry, this is about as close to neanderthal speak
as I can get).
Usually I don't take sides in these conflicts, but in this case I know which
side I stand on. As a psychologist and social worker I have seen entirely too
much of how Muslim men, be they political refugees or be they immigrant
workers, behave towards their hosts and towards their own for me to have much
respect for that religion/culture. What decides me is not the theological fine
print (yeah, I have studied theology for 3 semesters, too) but the teenage girl
beaten to within an inch of her life because she wants another year of
schooling in a German highschool, or because she doesn't want an arranged
marriage with a 75 year old in Anatolia. Or outright stabbed to death by her
brothers because she allowed herself to be raped by one of their mates. Blah,
blah. Too much of that, entirely too much. Barbaric.
So somebody puts pen to paper to voice their opinion and here you come with
your 'revealed religion'. Sorry man, but that carries no more weight with me
than pastors who bless guns (remember, you shall not kill?!?) and Southern
Baptists who thank the Lord for the Nucular Bomb So We Can Show Those Reds.
The bloody lot of them should burn in Hell, unfortunately that's just a silly
concept to scare little children and the Hard of Thinking. And piss off the
politically correct with a brown ring somewhere around their neckline who can't
see what's going on around them because they have their head in the [not-sand].
regds, -Peter
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Dave Smith
> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.
And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.
notbob
It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.
OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammeds-breakfast-of-blasphemy/
nb
zxcvbob
Shouldn't these immams be stoned for blasphemy (drawing Mohammed with a
pig snout, etc) and bearing false witness by claiming that the Danes had
drawn/published them? I believe blasphemy and false witness of a
capital offense were both punishable by death under the Mosaic law, and
so probably also punishable by death under Islamic law.
Best regards,
Bob
Stan Horwitz
iow...@webtv.net (xim xim) wrote:
> the way i see it is that WE---U.S. and other
> friendly nations---are CIVILIZED people
> and the rioters/protestors aren't....and they
> never will be.
> maybe we should do the same to them. the
> next time they insult us or kidnap innocent
> people we should just let some heads roll.
So, you are saying that we shoot stoop to their level and respond to
uncivilized violent behavior with more of that same behavior? If so, you
are not as civilized as you think you are.
Stan Horwitz
address...@nyc.rr.com (Curly Sue) wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, Dave Smith
> <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> >have no control over the newspaper than published the
> >offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> >even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> >refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> >speech.
>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.
>
> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
>
> Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
> of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
> actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
> can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.
>
> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.
Sue, I couldn't agree more!
The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
editors knew it. I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
shop for some Danish products tonight though!
I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.
Dave Smith
> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.
I don't doubt that they expected some Moslems to be offended. There are
about 100,000 Moslems there, and some of them may actually have seen the
cartoons in question. I don't think that they would have expected the furor
to that arose, or that it would become an issue across the entire Moslem
world.
> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
> shop for some Danish products tonight though!
Good for you. I bought a case of Tubourg beer. It is one of my favourites
anyway.
> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.
And I would suggest that Moslems spend more time trying to present a better
image to the West instead of using this issue to vent their frustration.
Dave Smith
>
> > The actors are following the script.
>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.
Yes, the editors should have expected some sort of reaction. It was the
editors who commissioned the cartoons. It was the editors who selected the
cartoons to run, and it was the editors' decision to run them.
The Danish people had nothing to do with it. The Danish government had
nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the
sentiment of the cartoons, the depiction of the Prophet (not universally
accepted my Moslems as a violation of the Quran), or the image of Moslems as
violent, and goodness knows how they ever made that connection, they had no
say it in it. Never the less, it is a democratic society where there is
freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
>
> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan toshop for some Danish
> products tonight though!
The way I see it is that we should be supporting one side or the other. If
we boycott Danish products, or even if we just stand by and allow them to be
bullied, we condone the violent and coercive forces of the radicals who have
hijacked Islam. I am not recommending counter protests or violence against
Moslems. I do not incensed enough to want to stoop to their level, but I
will do my utmost to counter their economic boycott. I am boycotting
Moslems. I am boycotting any stores that have removed Danish products. I am
going out of my way to buy Danish goods.
>
> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.
I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio today. A Moslem who described
himself as a liberal thinker indicated that despite his secular views, found
the cartoons offensive. He did not think they warranted violent protests.
However, he pointed out that in Arab countries the governments must have
been involved in the demonstrations. They all have repressive governments,
and in countries like that you cannot get large a turnout and massive
participation without government consent. He suggested that the government
used the occasion to allow their people to vent their frustrations. There
are a lot of things to protest about over there. People are hopping mad,
and usually at their own government but powerless to do anything about that,
so they allow their attention to be directed at other things.
Michel Boucher
So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill. How, pray
tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
invasion of Iraq. Putting things in perspective, I believe the
Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly pissed at the West right
now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
diplomatically are only the latest straw.
And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
sovereignty. Of course that's actually funny, but obviously their
close association with the Bush administration in recent years has
caused them to disregard the sensitivities of others in emulation of
the Erstwhile Jet Pilot (copyright Michel Boucher 2006).
Dave Smith
> > There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand
> > that Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a
> > bomb, since it would characterize them as being violent. But to
> > me, to react to the offensiveness of the portrayal by starting
> > riots that have lead to murder and arson??? I have to say that it
> > doesn't do much for their argument that it is unfair to portray
> > them as being violent.
>
> So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill.
It is more than a matter of level of articulation. It is a sad irony that
they have violent demonstrations to protest being betrayed as violent.
> How, pray
> tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
> to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
> unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
> also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
> invasion of Iraq.
How much of a role do you think their governments have had in these
protests. They aren't allowed to question things about their (state)
religion. They aren't allowed to protest against their government. If
they are protesting against something western or a foreign government, it
is a safe bet that their own government is actively involved.
> Putting things in perspective, I believe the
> Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly pissed at the West right
> now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
> our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
> Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
> diplomatically are only the latest straw.
It wasn't Denmark that did it. It was the decision of the editors of one
newspaper in Denmark. The Danish government would not act because it is
a matter of freedom of speech. It should be noted that the issue had
been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the newspaper
printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other countries ran the
cartoons. Then there are the stories about some imams having been
responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons for
distribution.
>
> And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
> leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
> sovereignty.
I have an affinity for Denmark because of what Danes have done for me and
my family. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war and a lot
of Danish citizens risked their lives to help him, and they would been
executed by the Germans if they had been caught. When my father died we
took his ashes over to Denmark to be interred alongside the graves of his
dead crew mates, and when people over there caught wind of our planes
they arranged special ceremonies and receptions. We were overwhelmed by
the hospitality shown by the Danish people. I have been there twice for
Liberation Day ceremonies and seen them demonstrate their gratitude to
the Allies who fought to free them.
They are freedom loving people. As far as this cartoon issue is
concerned, the Danish people did nothing wrong. Their big crime was to
uphold the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but
they ended up being victimized by the radical Moslems who are trying to
vent their hostility against the West. Given the option of siding with
freedom loving people like the Danes. who committed no wrong, or with the
religious fanatics, I prefer the Danes. I hate to see the Danes vilified
over such a trivial matter. I hate to see that sort of coercion against
an innocent people. So I will do my best to counter the boycott and urge
reasonable people everywhere to do the same.
Michel Boucher
> It wasn't Denmark that did it. It was the decision of the editors
> of one newspaper in Denmark. The Danish government would not act
> because it is a matter of freedom of speech.
However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
outbreaks of this sort...usually.
> It should be noted that the issue had
> been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the
> newspaper printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other
> countries ran the cartoons.
And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
literature.
> Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> for distribution.
I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
plausible.
zxcvbob
> Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:43E8C955...@sympatico.ca:
>
>
>>responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
>>for distribution.
>
>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.
>
http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.html
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Best regards,
Bob
-L.
Dave Smith wrote:
> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong.
No, they didn't. But what I find ironic is how all the Fundies are
jumping on the "support the Danish" bandwagon, when, if it had been
their pweshus Jesus who was the center of attack, they'd all be
lamenting "We're soooooo persecuted!!!"
Fucking hypocrites.
Seems like freedom of speech is alive and well until Jesus/Christianity
is involved.
-L.
Michel Boucher
news:44s3q6F...@individual.net:
>> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk
>> being found in breach of the law forbidding representation of
>> living creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does
>> not seem plausible.
>>
>
> http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/imams-showed-pedophile-mohamed.
> html
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
And that is conclusive...a blog...
zxcvbob
I don't recall *any* riots or mobs in response to Chris Ofili's "The
Holy Virgin Mary", made from elephant dung, or Andres Serrano's "Piss
Christ" (crucifix in a glass of urine.)
But don't let that stop you from making a gratuitous slap at Christians.
Bob