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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Muslims, Christians and Jews...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Muslims, Christians and Jews...
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A thread in Body and Soul was entitled: "Picture this: why are Muslims so adamant about not depicting Mohammed?"

skdadl made, what I think is, a correct observation about that thread title: "I am sure that a similar thread title about "Jews" would not be permitted, although I am also pretty sure that a similar thread title about "Christians" would."

Why is this double standard acceptable?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
greenie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11988

posted 05 February 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for greenie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's safe to say that xians have played the role of oppressor far more often than the Jews and therefore, it is easier to admonish them. That doesn't mean that any religion's followers haven't had their own transgressions just that xian's have been more prevalent, especially in the Western world.
From: GTA | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A lot of modern hatred of Jews no longer depended on the people being defined as Jews actually practising the religion, but being "constructed" as a "race" or ethnic group. I don't think anyone here would say I was being antisemitic if I spoke out against the fundamentalist views of, say, Chassidim in relation to how they treat women or other communitarian demands.

Obviously the sorry history of violent persecution of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, makes any attack on Judaism a touchy issue.

I have a friend who is Coptic, from Egypt, and of course being a Christian minority group provides an utterly different perspective. For one thing, although she is not religious, she refers to herself as "Christian" as sort of a marker of group identity.

Of course there is a lot of historical bad blood between Muslims and Christians, each monotheism branding the other heathen or infidel.

Nowadays, especially in Europe, a large part of immigrant communities, to a large extent confined in ghettos and subject to employment discrimination, or even outright exclusion, hail from countries where Islam is dominant. As a result, there is a grey area between criticism of the retrograde practices of all patriarchal religions and targeting a downtrodden group.

No easy answers to that.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there are two different concerns, with bigotry and with - what shall we call it? - intelligence?

First, there is an across-the-board, almost automatic - and I would say correct - ban on generalizations about Jews on babble. Why? Because of the history - international and in this country - of anti-Semitism, of oppression and discrimination, still recent and still threatening. Stereotypes are seldom intelligent, but anti-Semitic stereotypes have been too recently actively dangerous.

I would argue - and have been arguing, for the last two days - that the same is true of any group that has been "othered" in North America, which would include blacks, aboriginal peoples, and Muslims. Those stereotypes have to be fought first because they are the most immediately dangerous and oppressive.

Christians in North America mainly haven't faced and aren't facing much in the way of oppression. I would certainly agree that many of the overgeneralizations that get made about some mythical group called "Christians" on babble are not very well-informed or intelligent, but I also don't think they are that immediately dangerous, except to civil conversation.

Please note: I am not talking about censorship here. I oppose censorship; I oppose the hate laws.

However, I believe that civil libertarians take on at the same time the responsibility to denounce hateful speech, all the more because they oppose legislation against it.

Judging someone's evocation of stereotypes to be bigoted is not censorship; it is editorial judgement, or the expression of individual opinion. We do that in the agora (the marketplace), and we call that democracy. The moderators have every right to exercise editorial judgement on babble, and to rule out publication of certain kinds of speech. That's democracy too.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 February 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why is this double standard acceptable?


It isn't a double standard, it is a context-sensitive standard.

Minorities in potential danger should be treated with more care than majorities whose lives and practices are not under physical threat.

So, the real standard would be: "Where the lives or practices of a minority group are in potential danger, criticism of their practices should be sensitive to this."

Of course, it is an empirical question as to which groups are in danger and which not. But that is a separate question from the one about the standard to be applied.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 04:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of double standards, I don't see why it is acceptable to mock Islamic faith on this board by calling oneself the "Profit Mohammed," but then not ok to mock the Jewish faith by calling oneself "Profit of the Jews," regardless of the historical contxt.

Suggesting that the Prophet of the Muslims is linked with greed, is just as offensive. Sure it is said that the age old libel about Jewish greed is contextually different, but are we in the business of propogating a whole new libel here?


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

posted 05 February 2006 04:53 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
It isn't a double standard, it is a context-sensitive standard.

So, within the context of, say, Iran, Christian Iranians should be permitted to publish a derogatory cartoon of Mohammed but Muslim Iranians should be barred from publishing a derogatory cartoon of Christ.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 February 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven: no. Because in an international context, the Christian West has screwed Iran up.

Until we stop doing that, no notion of equivalence will apply.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Devout Muslims would not publish a derogatory cartoon about Jesus (Issa) or Moses (Moussa) because they are Prophets in Islam.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 05:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It like grade school here sometimes. What amazes me is that people seem not only free to discuss what they like, but then come up with wild eyed conclusions about stuff they no absolutely nothing about.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 February 2006 05:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Jylland-Posten had really been interested in doing a experiment in freedom of speech and religious intollerance, they should have published cartoon with Moses inserting a dildo up the Popes ass, while the latter gave Mohammed a blow job.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 05 February 2006 07:55 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But when it comes down to it Sven, is it really the case that these millions of Muslims are all threatening people with death, or trashing embassies? No it is not. Most are organizaing completely peaceful protests and boycotts.

If there were no death threats, no burning embassies and no other threats of violence and if there were only peaceful protests and boycotts, then this would not be an exceptional matter worthy of particular note, would it?

The fact is, that there are death threats, burning embassies and other threats of violence in response to an offensive cartoon. It is that that is noteworthy...and disturbing.


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

posted 05 February 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Sven: no. Because in an international context, the Christian West has screwed Iran up.

Until we stop doing that, no notion of equivalence will apply.


I see. So, the concept free speech must now be analyzed through the lens of whether or not the speaker is the oppressor of, or is oppressed by, the subject of that speaker's speech?

I have an alternative suggestion: Let there be free speech


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

posted 05 February 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
If the Jylland-Posten had really been interested in doing a experiment in freedom of speech and religious intollerance, they should have published cartoon with Moses inserting a dildo up the Popes ass, while the latter gave Mohammed a blow job.

Cueball, I don't think Jylland-Posten was interested in doing any such experiment. Has anyone asserted that they were?

Let's assume they were trying to be offensive. The question is: Do they have the right to do that? If not, who decides that?

That's the beautiful thing about free speech, Cueball. Let the ideas expressed in any particular speech be accepted or rejected for what they are. Otherwise, you are necessarily arguing for censorship.


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

posted 05 February 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am glad you agree that Jylland-Posten was nost simply engaged in an act demonstrating freedom of speech, and simply trying to bait Muslims.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 08:34 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The fact is, that there are death threats, burning embassies and other threats of violence in response to an offensive cartoon. It is that that is noteworthy...and disturbing.

That is indeed regrettable. It is obvious that you have never read any literature about the mob phenomenon. A mob can get out of control easily. Most third world countries do not have the means to control mobs, other than lethal force. Now, were these mobs protesting against their respective dictators, the latter would not hesitate to get control with lethal force. It happens often.

But who blames a ruler for not killing their own people when they are not targeting him ?


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

posted 05 February 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I am glad you agree that Jylland-Posten was nost simply engaged in an act demonstrating freedom of speech, and simply trying to bait Muslims.

Can you point to anyone on babble who has made the assertion that this was merely an experiment in free speech by Jylland-Posten that wasn't intended to offend anyone? If they have, I've missed it (and I think they are wrong).

If, for whatever motivation, I want to publish a paper and print a huge headline across the front page that reads: "FUCK CHRIST", are you going to question my motivation before you decide to defend my right to engage in that speech?

If you want to criticize the message of that headline, then it's your right to speak freely and do so. But, if you start to ask, "What's his motivation?" or "Who is he offending?" or "Is he offending an oppressed group?" or "Is he really just experimenting with free speech limits?", then you start to gravely threaten the very concept of free speech because you are then subjecting speech to a filter of censorship.


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

posted 05 February 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
That is indeed regrettable. It is obvious that you have never read any literature about the mob phenomenon. A mob can get out of control easily. Most third world countries do not have the means to control mobs, other than lethal force. Now, were these mobs protesting against their respective dictators, the latter would not hesitate to get control with lethal force. It happens often.

But who blames a ruler for not killing their own people when they are not targeting him ?


And, your point is...what? That mob behavior cannot be criticized in those circumstances? What other conclusion might I reach from reading your post?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven,

You can criticize as much as you want. The fact remains that it was a deliberate provocation, that one cannot provoke and dictate what the provoked people's reaction should be.

People have had it with being put down, humiliated, occupied, depicted as monsters etc..
You may well call it an offensive cartoon. It could also be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The expectation that they should take it cool, is not realistic. Having said that you can lament and criticize as much as you wish.


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

posted 05 February 2006 09:10 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Sven,

You can criticize as much as you want. The fact remains that it was a deliberate provocation, that one cannot provoke and dictate what the provoked people's reaction should be.

People have had it with being put down, humiliated, occupied, depicted as monsters etc..
You may well call it an offensive cartoon. It could also be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The expectation that they should take it cool, is not realistic. Having said that you can lament and criticize as much as you wish.


So, what, exactly, are you defending, sidra?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 05 February 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm suspicious about this linear scale of oppression - group A always on top, group B always on the bottom. Mainly because it seems so little like what I've seen in the world, in which local context plays a huge role in who is oppressing who (or whom? Sometimes I hate the english language), whether you're talking about religion, race, cast, or whatever.

Seems to me elements of all the religions have taken turns oppressing each other, and still do so in as large a context as they can manage. Which means if you belong to group A in an area dominated by group B, the international context is meaningless when you see your children and family oppressed. People know this in their bones, which is why so many people protest about double standards - and why they've learned to distruct intellectuals on these matters.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 05 February 2006 10:31 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Sven,

You can criticize as much as you want. The fact remains that it was a deliberate provocation, that one cannot provoke and dictate what the provoked people's reaction should be.

People have had it with being put down, humiliated, occupied, depicted as monsters etc..
You may well call it an offensive cartoon. It could also be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The expectation that they should take it cool, is not realistic. Having said that you can lament and criticize as much as you wish.



Provocation or not, the response is just plain unacceptable. It's a basic tenet of civilization that provocation in the form of speech is never a valid justification for violence.

I was taught in kindergarten that you can't hit someone just because they said something you don't like. The cartoons, no matter how provocative or offensive, cannot be used as a justification for burning down embassies.

I am also disgusted at the mealy-mouthed justifications for the violence that some people have posted here. Statements in the vein of "I don't condone this violence, but really there is all this context that makes it understandable" are nothing but disingenous statements used precisely to condone the kind of violence we're seeing.


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

posted 05 February 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And so you are still the kind of sucker who actually thinks this is about cartoons, and not 100 years of peristant Western interferance in the internal political business of Arab and Muslims peoples?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 05 February 2006 10:39 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And so you are still the kind of sucker who actually thinks this is about cartoons, and not 100 years of peristant Western interferance in the internal political business of Arab and Muslims peoples?

Obviously you are still the kind of sucker who thinks that two wrongs make a right.

Even if this is about persistent Western interference in the Arab and/or Muslim world (by the way, could you please pick whether it's the Arab or Muslim world, since it's been made clear that not all Muslims are Arab nor are all Arabs Muslim) it's still an unacceptable action.


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

posted 05 February 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And obviously your the kind of hypocrite who always manages to figure out that two wrongs don't make right, when you are on the receiving end of the wrong.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 February 2006 10:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
That's the beautiful thing about free speech, Cueball. Let the ideas expressed in any particular speech be accepted or rejected for what they are. Otherwise, you are necessarily arguing for censorship.

Yes, Joe McCarthy to 9-11 taught American's that freedom of speech means anything goes, just don't talk socialism or "bog the system down" with making FOI requests concerning corporate America's safety and pollution records. And perhaps those who vote Republican in the U.S. secretly support censorship in the form of increasing rates of
illiteracy and funding cuts to education.

But the concern over freedom of speach in Muslim countries seems to have become an issue only after Marxists and democracy were murdered by the CIA and Brits in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan from the 1950's to now.

The people contemplating bombing of innocent women and children in Iran and insulting a billion Muslims on a regular basis don't give a flying fuck about women's rights in Iran. Iraq or Afghanistan. What they see is a market for corporate America consisting of over a billion people who don't believe in usury or rent - an economic mechanism for transferring vast wealth from the working class to a handful of superrich people who have no intentions that them and theirs will ever have to work for a living.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 05 February 2006 10:47 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
And obviously your the kind of hypocrite who always manages to figure out that two wrongs don't make right, when you are on the receiving end of the wrong.

How the fuck am I a hypocrite now? Care to prove the accusation?

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 February 2006 10:48 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's so refreshing to see people invoking the context of world-historical relationships between the oppressors and the oppressed when considering civil liberties issues like freedom of speech.

If only some of the same kind of consideration could come into play when criticism is levelled at places like Cuba for its alleged shortcomings of democracy and civil rights.

Under the "Human Right Watch" approach of one-size-fits-all-countries, it seems there is no room for context-sensitivity. Cuba is expected to make itself over in the image of a modern bourgeois democracy or suffer the wrath of the self-appointed left opposition.


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

posted 05 February 2006 10:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

How the fuck am I a hypocrite now? Care to prove the accusation?

Because you seem completely oblivious to a wide range of pertinent factors which give rise to Muslim anger, and are completely focussed on the cartoons projecting your "two wrongs don't make a right" aphorism into the narrowist historical context, in such a way that "the cartoon" incident comes across as some kind of bizzare tendency toward Muslim violence, as opposed to the expression of frustration building up over a huge number of things including the slaughter of at least 35,000 Muslim Iraqis over the last 2 years by the USA with the help of its ally Denamrk. As if none of that happened.

Remarkable really. I suppose even the Iraq war doesn't justify violence, in your mind. Tell me, when is it that Muslims may resist occupation and invasion by force of arms?

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 05 February 2006 11:16 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Because you seem completely oblivious to a wide range of pertinent factors which give rise to Muslim anger, and are completely focussed on the cartoons projecting your "two wrongs don't make a right" aphorism into the narrowist historical context, in such a way that "the cartoon" incident comes across as some kind of bizzare tendency toward Muslim violence, as opposed to the expression of frustration building up over a huge number of things including the slaughter of at least 35,000 Muslim Iraqis over the last 2 years by the USA with the help of its ally Denamrk. As if none of that happened.

Remarkable really. I suppose even the Iraq war doesn't justify violence, in your mind. Tell me, when is it that Muslims may resist occupation and invasion by force of arms?



If you think I'm oblivious then say I'm oblivious, don't start insulting me personally.

I think this whole historical context line of reasoning is crap. Go back far enough in history and you can find inumerable examples of Muslims doing nasty things to Christians and Christians doing nasty things to Muslims. Saying that past injustices justify new injustices is an innane argument and guarantees neverending violence.

Furthermore, since when are all Muslims one and the same? How come you lump Iraqi Muslims together with Lebanese Muslims, Sysrian Muslims, Palestinian Muslims, Danish Muslims, etc.? If Muslims are not a homogenous group then the only Muslims who really have a valid beef here are Danish Muslims.


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

posted 05 February 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course you can. Not to long ago I was about to correct Sidra on the Ottoman opression of the Albanian catholics. However, all of that happens outside the living memory of men and women today. Albania is now ferociously Islamic. Whatever.

But the things I am talking about didn't happen five hundred years ago. They happened today, they happened last week, last year. The memory hole you want to create for Muslim people would make them so stupid that grown men and women would not be able to lift Falafel to mouth because they would have forgotten the basic function of how to eat.

But of course they must forgive and forget even as their cousin is in the emergency ward having some physician pick out an 5.56mm bullet from his thigh.

Edited to add: The explanation for your question about the various national distinctions of the Syrian Arab peoples (Sunnis of Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria) is on the parrallel thread.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 05 February 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
You may well call it an offensive cartoon. It could also be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Using a metaphor which invokes animal cruelty and 'camels' is clearly a shot at people of Arabic descent, and is deserving of an apology.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 05 February 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Of course you can. Not to long ago I was about to correct Sidra on the Ottoman opression of the Albanian catholics. However, all of that happens outside the living memory of men and women today. Albania is now ferociously Islamic. Whatever.

But the things I am talking about didn't happen five hundred years ago. They happened today, they happened last week, last year. The memory hole you want to create for Muslim people would make them so stupid that grown men and women would not be able to lift Falafel to mouth because they would have forgotten the basic function of how to eat.

But of course they must forgive and forget even as their cousin is in the emergency ward having some physician pick out an 5.56mm bullet from his thigh.

Edited to add: The explanation for your question about the various national distinctions of the Syrian Arab peoples (Sunnis of Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria) is on the parrallel thread.



The problem with your logic is that we live in a historical continuum that is longer and broader than the living memory of any one person. You can't say that history ceases to matter once a certain amount of time has passed. Either all of history matters or it doesn't. I think it would be a better world if people continually stopped pointing to the past to justify committing new acts of violence.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 February 2006 11:49 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Using a metaphor which invokes animal cruelty and 'camels' is clearly a shot at people of Arabic descent, and is deserving of an apology.

Makwa


It is an expression and off course no pun intended, Makwa. Should anyone feel offended, my unconditional apologies.


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

posted 05 February 2006 11:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Will you allow that the impact of those events is reduced as they fade from living memory. This is not about absolutes of right or wrong, examined like a cut out from a tree trunk, this is about an ongoing accumulation of cause and effect, over time. You are choosing to take these events out of context, lopping them of from their root so that you can compare this cause against this effect, without examining the origin of the cause, which is actually an effect.

Why even talk about the Cartoons at all, why not simply talk about the burning of the embassy? And in fact, this is what everyone will do eventually. I have seen it time and time again, the cartoond will fade from memory, and it will be the Muslims who "started it" by burning down the Danish Embassy.

It is very convenient for the powers that be that we the people only remember what they did to us, and never what we did to them.


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

posted 05 February 2006 11:55 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Using a metaphor which invokes animal cruelty and 'camels' is clearly a shot at people of Arabic descent, and is deserving of an apology.

Makwa

It is an expression and off course no pun intended, Makwa. Should anyone feel offended, my unconditional apologies.



Sidra, if you didn't get the humour in Makwa's comment then I suggest a holiday away from this topic to recharge your humour batteries.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 February 2006 11:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think this whole historical context line of reasoning is crap. Go back far enough in history and you can find inumerable examples of Muslims doing nasty things to Christians and Christians doing nasty things to Muslims.

Oh, go back two days then. Muslims are being murdered by westerners in Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak. Where's your outrage about that?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some people only get to page 3. How could they possibly know about any of that?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 12:03 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Will you allow that the impact of those events is reduced as they fade from living memory. This is not about absolutes of right or wrong, examined like a cut out from a tree trunk, this is about an ongoing accumulation of cause and effect, over time. You are choosing to take these events out of context, lopping them of from their root so that you can compare this cause against this effect, without examining the origin of the cause, which is actually an effect.

Why even talk about the Cartoons at all, why not simply talk about the burning of the embassy? And in fact, this is what everyone will do eventually. I have seen it time and time again, the cartoond will fade from memory, and it will be the Muslims who "started it" by burning down the Danish Embassy.



In that case, the creation of different countries in the Middle East by Western powers should fade from living memory in a few years since that happened almost a century ago. So why keep pointing to that?

You are probably right that in the end this will be remembered more for the Muslim violence than the cartoons. Even if you don't agree that the reason is that violence is a completely ridiculous and unreasonable response to cartoons, then at least it shows how this violence is a completely self-defeating and ineffective response.


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

posted 06 February 2006 12:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US army is in Iraq a century ago? A century ago the US army was the 38th largest in the world after Portugal? The US army is in Iraq today, right now, not a hundred years ago. They didn't just appear there as if they slipped through some black hole connecting to Baghdad from Ohio.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bu t you just go on and on and on talking about the Muslim violence, as if the US army presence in Iraq means nothing, and as if the IDF isn't surrounding Nablus? Are you for real?

But somehow you manage to distill the whole thing to some silly little attack upon the Danish embassy. Tut-tut-tut. Silly Muslim people don't know what looks good on CNN?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 06 February 2006 12:10 AM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are we at the point where any Muslim reaction to any greviance is acceptable because of the current context?
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 12:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are we at the point where we reduce Muslim grievances to patently absurd causes, as if they are as completely disconected from reality as you are?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The US army is in Iraq a century ago? A century ago the US army was the 38th largest in the world after Portugal? The US army is in Iraq today, right now, not a hundred years ago. They didn't just appear there as if they slipped through some black hole connecting to Baghdad from Ohio.

I completely agree that the US army shouldn't be in Iraq. I also think the current US administration who sent them there are a bunch of complete idiots and fundamentalist morons who shouldn't be allowed to run a hot dog stand, much less the world's most armed country. I still don't see how that justifies anyone burning the Danish embassies in Beirut and Damascus, not to speak of the Norwegian embassy.

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

posted 06 February 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Are we at the point where we reduce Muslim grievances to patently absurd causes, as if they are as completely disconected from reality as you are?

Back to the personal attacks again.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one who's disconnected from reality?


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 February 2006 12:21 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are we at the point where using the expression "straw that broke the camel's back" is considered a racist slur against Arabs?

Was Charles Dickens being a racist when he wrote the phrase "as the last straw breaks the laden camel's back"?


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

posted 06 February 2006 12:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:

Back to the personal attacks again.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one who's disconnected from reality?



Let me put it very simply. Is it the case that this reaction to the cartoons makes sense? No, as you have stated repeatedly. Would you react this way? Unlikely? Would I? No. No, I, and I think you too, would likely require much larger provocation to elicit the response of burning down the Danish embassy? Yes.

So. Unless you are of the school that there is something in particular about Muslim people that makes them prone to violence, unlike you or me, the only conclusion that you can come to is that there is more to this story than some cartoons.

I have put forward a number of reasons why some Muslim people might feel pushed to this extreme, I sugest you consider them as bearing on this issue, rather than using simple moralistic device to judge what it is that is happening. Rather establish why. Because the only way it will be possible to relieve these tensions is through understanding, not "two wrongs don't make a right," moralizing.

First off, its not about right and wrong.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 06 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
It is an expression and off course no pun intended, Makwa. Should anyone feel offended, my unconditional apologies.
Um. Tongue. Cheek.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 12:54 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So. Unless you are of the school that there is something in particular about Muslim people that makes them prone to violence, unlike you or me, the only conclusion that you can come to is that there is more to this story than some cartoons.

Look. No one here is saying "Muslim people" are prone to violence. There is a very, very small minority of Muslims who are acting out violently due to the cartoons being published. Just like abortion cllinic killers are a very small percentage of anti-abortion rights people.

Can we not criticize a small group of people for bad conduct simply because they are of a different culture or religion than ours???


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

posted 06 February 2006 12:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then why is it that you only talk about this small minority of people, as opposed to the bigger group. For instance, you do you agree that Muslims have a right to call for a boycott and an apology, or not?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 01:01 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Let me put it very simply. Is it the case that this reaction to the cartoons makes sense? No, as you have stated repeatedly. Would you react this way? Unlikely? Would I? No. No, I, and I think you too, would likely require much larger provocation to elicit the response of burning down the Danish embassy? Yes.

So. Unless you are of the school that there is something in particular about Muslim people that makes them prone to violence, unlike you or me, the only conclusion that you can come to is that there is more to this story than some cartoons.

I have put forward a number of reasons why some Muslim people might feel pushed to this extreme, I sugest you consider them as bearing on this issue, rather than using simple moralistic device to judge what it is that is happening. Rather establish why. Because the only way it will be possible to relieve these tensions is through understanding, not "two wrongs don't make a right," moralizing.

First off, its not about right and wrong.



Maybe you should explain what issue it is that you're talking about. I'm talking about the burning of Danish embassies and the threatening of kidnapping, torutring, and beheading Danes under the pretext of being offended by some cartoons published by a Danish newspaper four months ago. Unlike you, I am far from convinced that there's anything else to this story. If there is, I would want to hear so from those on the ground, not some other armchair pundit typing away on a computer forum (and yes, I do realize that I am such an armchair pundit myself).

Unlike you, I will also not presume to talk about/for all Muslims, but I will say that there is something wrong with those particular people who participated in the embassy burnings or who seriously mean those vicious threats. I don't know what it is exactly that's wrong with them but it doesn't change the fact that something is definitely wrong with them.


From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 01:02 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Then why is it that you only talk about this small minority of people, as opposed to the bigger group. For instance, you do you agree that Muslims have a right to call for a boycott and an apology, or not?

They have a right to call for a boycott (perhaps it's misguided but they certainly have every right to do so). I'm not sure who is going to apologize (the cartoonists? the newspapers editors? the newspaper owners? the governments of the countries in which the cartoons were published? who? all of the foregoing? and, what if all apologize except, say, the cartoonists?) or who they are going to apologize to. But, seeking an amorphous apology is within their rights. I don't think anyone is arguing with that. In fact, I don't think there'd be much discussion on this entire issue at all if there were buildings being burned down and threats of violence and death. Do you see the distinction?


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

posted 06 February 2006 01:06 AM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Then why is it that you only talk about this small minority of people, as opposed to the bigger group. For instance, you do you agree that Muslims have a right to call for a boycott and an apology, or not?

I agree that Muslims or anyone else offended by the cartoons have the right to call for a boycott and an apology. I disagree that a boycott of anything other than the particular newspaper that published the cartoons is fair, but people are free to call for more of a boycott nonetheless. I do think that an apology from the newspaper would be useful and a good gesture, but I also support their right not to apologize.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 February 2006 02:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
In fact, I don't think there'd be much discussion on this entire issue at all if there were buildings being burned down and threats of violence and death. Do you see the distinction?

Just as long as they're only threatening death and not actually dropping thousand pound bombs on Copenhagen in the middle of the night.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
cynic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2857

posted 06 February 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for cynic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The closest analogy I can think of to the reaction of Muslims to this event is race riots, like those in Los Angeles when those cops accused of assaulting Rodney King were acquitted by a white jury, or Kristallnacht in Germany in the '30s (although that was an engineered event).

These race riots didn't start out of nowhere, they were the result of festering thoughts of injustice in a society, legitmate (like in LA), or manufactured (like the Nazis convincing Germans that it was the Jews who were causing their economic problems). The Muslim world has seen itself as a victim of the West since the Europeans carved up their lands, and more recently as Western forces are seen as humiliating Muslims throughout the Islamic world. The particular incident that touched off the violent reaction is not as important as understanding the root cause, and having both sides make some effort to see that more productive responses are available to the people involved.

(editted, as I just remembered Rodney King's name)

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: cynic ]


From: Calgary, unfortunately | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 06 February 2006 08:46 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Then why is it that you only talk about this small minority of people, as opposed to the bigger group. For instance, you do you agree that Muslims have a right to call for a boycott and an apology, or not?
I understood an apology had already been made.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 06 February 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The newspaper apologized. The protesters want the Danish gov't to apologize, and promise not to allow it. That is, they want Denmark to change its laws on free speech, which the Danish gov't (quite rightly in my opinion) refuses to do. It took Europe several millenia to get to the point where they had free speech ... it'd be insane to suddenly give it up now without a fight.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is, they want Denmark to change its laws on free speech.

Seriously? If so, that's unreal. Will we be changing our laws too?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
The newspaper apologized. The protesters want the Danish gov't to apologize, and promise not to allow it. That is, they want Denmark to change its laws on free speech, which the Danish gov't (quite rightly in my opinion) refuses to do. It took Europe several millenia to get to the point where they had free speech ... it'd be insane to suddenly give it up now without a fight.

If the protesters are demanding that the Danes change Danish law to prohibit this type of speech, I wonder if Cueball would support that? In other words, "We'll kill you (or burn down your buildings) if you don't change your laws so that they prohibt offensive speech of this type."

That sounds like blackmail to me.


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

posted 06 February 2006 04:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Muslim protestors are not allowed to ask for changes in law? Repeatedly you make a point of talking about people calling for behehadings? Well in Saudi Arabia beheading is part of the law, just as various forms of really gross kinds of execution are allowed in the USA, and elsewhere. I do not condone capital punishment, but I certainly don't think that people celebrating the death of Ted Bundy should be silenced, or are stepping over their rights of freedom of speech.

Are you saying that people should not be able to advocate capital punishment, and that recommending such should be illegal? What is the matter with your freedom of speech principle now?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we need a good link for this "changing of the laws" assertion.

If it's DANISH protesters calling for a change to DANISH laws, then there's certainly nothing wrong with that (though I hope they don't get all aggreieved if, y'know, democracy overrules them), but if it's not Danes calling for the change then that's as laughable as me "demanding" that Saudi Arabia start selling cheap beer.

I have no clout whatsoever in a country in which I'm not a citizen, and I think we'd all agree that that's as it should be. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to ask Americans how they feel about our SSM laws or lax pot laws. Are our laws any of their business? Didn't think so.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just so you know: The principle that laws can supercede national boudaries has been in place sometime. For the sake of simplicity, it is called "international law." Just so you know.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I actually agree with Cueball that Muslims are definitely allowed to protest and call for whatever changes they want to Danish laws. As long as those protests remain non-violent I've got no issue with them.
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 06 February 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure they should be allowed to ask to change the law to get rid of free speech. They can also ask the Danes to fully implement Sharia law for that matter, or to kill people born on Mondays (never got the hang of Mondays).

However the Danes should be free to ignore requests they think are bad for their country. Giving up free speech is an example of that. It took far too long and was far to hard to establish in Europe to throw it out just because protesters don't like it. Or do you think that if Socons in the US start marching on the street protesting negative articles about GWBush that the Danish gov't should change their laws so that no one can criticise US presidents?

People are free to ask for anything, it doesn't mean they have to be obeyed.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For the sake of simplicity, it is called "international law." Just so you know.

So it can apply to all of us? Better still.

I'd love to be told that I may not, under penalty of International Law, disrespect religious figures.

There's a step forward. Can they count on your support?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 06 February 2006 05:18 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
I'm offended by the portrayal of coyotes as being inept users of Acme rocket technology and the target of numerous anvils falling on their head.

This is all about free speech. If Muslims are offended..TOUGH. I'm offendd by their mythology that relegates women to second rate beings, their hatred against homosexuals and so on. In the western response, however, I'm most offended by so-called 'progresives' with selected morality who are afraid to stand up for freedom because it might offend folks who advocate oppresive practices.


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

posted 06 February 2006 05:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
Sure they should be allowed to ask to change the law to get rid of free speech. They can also ask the Danes to fully implement Sharia law for that matter, or to kill people born on Mondays (never got the hang of Mondays).

However the Danes should be free to ignore requests they think are bad for their country. Giving up free speech is an example of that. It took far too long and was far to hard to establish in Europe to throw it out just because protesters don't like it. Or do you think that if Socons in the US start marching on the street protesting negative articles about GWBush that the Danish gov't should change their laws so that no one can criticise US presidents?

People are free to ask for anything, it doesn't mean they have to be obeyed.


Precisely. So why is it that so many of the free speech advocates, reserve this special palce for Muslims where it only they who must not ask for "death" as the punishment for things they percieve to be "crimes."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 05:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because it's one thing to ask your state to institute the death penalty for well-defined crimes proven in a court of law, and another thing entirely to demand that citizens of another country, who've broken no laws in that country, be beheaded because you're having an emotional overreaction and you're angry.

See? One is how adults behave, and the other is how children behave.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 06 February 2006 05:42 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So supporting free speech means that we must also support the death penalty? That's just ridiculous.
From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 06 February 2006 05:46 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Because it's one thing to ask your state to institute the death penalty for well-defined crimes proven in a court of law, and another thing entirely to demand that citizens of another country, who've broken no laws in that country, be beheaded because you're having an emotional overreaction and you're angry.

See? One is how adults behave, and the other is how children behave.


No, under free speech you're allowed to demand both. That's the point. And others are allowed to say what they don't like about the demands, and so on and so forth. Nowhere is there any implication that what is demanded must be acted upon.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fair enough. In the same spirit, I'm free to ask for the right to fly with my arms, or demand that foreign governments stop reading my mind, I guess.

But I think it's reasonable to say that petitioning your own government to change the laws of your country is still different from simply howling for blood.

I wonder where these protesters were when the Afghani government was blowing up priceless statues of Buddha. Demanding that those responsible be beheaded for disrespecting a religious icon? Or just cheering?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 05:59 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Muslim protestors are not allowed to ask for changes in law? Repeatedly you make a point of talking about people calling for behehadings? Well in Saudi Arabia beheading is part of the law, just as various forms of really gross kinds of execution are allowed in the USA, and elsewhere. I do not condone capital punishment, but I certainly don't think that people celebrating the death of Ted Bundy should be silenced, or are stepping over their rights of freedom of speech.

Are you saying that people should not be able to advocate capital punishment, and that recommending such should be illegal? What is the matter with your freedom of speech principle now?


Not a dern blasted thing is wrong with “my” freedom of speech principle. The protesters are free to advocate law changes. There’s nothing wrong with that. But, the only speech a European country should listen to with regard to changes to that country’s laws is speech from that country’s citizens (Muslim and non-Muslim).


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

posted 06 February 2006 06:03 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Just so you know: The principle that laws can supercede national boudaries has been in place sometime. For the sake of simplicity, it is called "international law." Just so you know.

Just so you know, Cueball, “international law” is largely law by consent of sovereigns. If a country did not want to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example, it wouldn’t matter that all the other countries in the world signed it. It would not apply to that country.

So, no, international laws do not supersede national boundaries if a sovereign country does not wish them to.


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

posted 06 February 2006 06:08 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Precisely. So why is it that so many of the free speech advocates, reserve this special palce for Muslims where it only they who must not ask for "death" as the punishment for things they percieve to be "crimes."

Ah, dude [tap-tap-tappity-tap on your shoulder]: They are calling for murder of people. They are not seeking the death penalty after due process of law. Besides, I doubt an ex post facto law imposing the death penalty for speech (assuming it was even valid prospectively) would be unconstitutional in most if not all European countries. Therefore, the calls for “death” are, by definition, outside of the scope of legal due process of law and must, necessarily, be extra-judicial (i.e., murder).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Can we not criticize a small group of people for bad conduct simply because they are of a different culture or religion than ours???

'Bad' conduct? Really, Sven, step back for a moment and think about how ignorant you sound. Let us first deeply insult a "small group of people", and then condemn them for whatever way they react, all the while defending a newpaper's right to publish whatever it wants in the name of freedom of speech. You are so quick to judge the reactions of the offended group, without giving a thought to determining whether the newspaper or cartoonist were in the 'right' or 'wrong'.

Fine, the newspaper has freedom of speech. But if it is necessary to publish criticism of another's religion, at least do it in a way that won't be perceived as mockery. Cartoons are largely seen as a form of entertainment, something to laugh at, something that makes fun of something else. This particular cartoon is not so much a critique or a political statement as it is offensive, degrading, insulting and humiliating to Muslims who are deeply passionate about their religion. Whatever the purpose of the cartoon was, it has failed. So, once again, we see that that whatever the message is that non-muslims are trying to get across to the muslim world, the communication of that message to muslims isn't getting across, possibly because the non-muslim world hasn't really made the effort to truly understand the Musalman's point of view. So, again, it is time to remind non-muslims to butt out of the affairs of muslims, offer a sincere apology and leave them be.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 06:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Ah, dude [tap-tap-tappity-tap on your shoulder]: They are calling for murder of people. They are not seeking the death penalty after due process of law. Besides, I doubt an ex post facto law imposing the death penalty for speech (assuming it was even valid prospectively) would be unconstitutional in most if not all European countries. Therefore, the calls for “death” are, by definition, outside of the scope of legal due process of law and must, necessarily, be extra-judicial (i.e., murder).


No actually they are appealing to Sharia, which is a code of law. They are demanding that Denamrk apply Sharia.


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

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

No actually they are appealing to Sharia, which is a code of law. They are demanding that Denamrk apply Sharia.


And the Danes rightfully refuse to do such a thing.

Wow, to think how closely we dodged the Sharia bullet here in Ontario. Phew!


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

posted 06 February 2006 06:56 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:

So, once again, we see that that whatever the message is that non-muslims are trying to get across to the muslim world, the communication of that message to muslims isn't getting across, possibly because the non-muslim world hasn't really made the effort to truly understand the Musalman's point of view. So, again, it is time to remind non-muslims to butt out of the affairs of muslims, offer a sincere apology and leave them be.


I think the cartoons were meant for local Danish consumption, not as a message to the Muslim world. Keep in mind that the cartoons are over 4 months old and it's the Danish Muslim clerics who spent a couple of months touring the Middle East trying to get Muslims incensed who brought it to the Muslim world. If anything, they are the ones to blame for this mess.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 February 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think there's a difference between saying that an act is justified and saying that it's understandable. To my mind, no taking of human life is justifiable, whether by the US army or by these protesters. I do think that it can be understandable, and that's how I feel about the current violence. That's not to excuse it, but to question whether it might have seemed predictable/understandable to the cartoonists and editors as well, and question whether they published with the best interests of all in mind.

This is just my gut feeling, but I think that the protesters are genuinely furious about this. It's a real, immediate, relevant thing for them. I do not think that the papers and Western pundits feel that same immediacy. It matters a lot more to them that it does to us. And in that situation, I always have to wonder why the party it matters less to decided to engage.

To reiterate: no taking of human life is justifiable. Just wanted to make sure my opinion on that was totally clear!


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cogito ergo sum:
I think the cartoons were meant for local Danish consumption, not as a message to the Muslim world.

You're joking, right? The cartoon was directed at muslims. It really doesn't matter where the muslims were located.

quote:
Keep in mind that the cartoons are over 4 months old and it's the Danish Muslim clerics who spent a couple of months touring the Middle East trying to get Muslims incensed who brought it to the Muslim world. If anything, they are the ones to blame for this mess.

Well, that's a convenient way to pass the blame. Those pesky muslims uniting with each other to stand up against a common enemy. So, who would you blame the current mess in Iraq or Afghanistan on? Bin Laden, or the US and England uniting to fight whoever it is they are fighting down there?

[punctuation error]

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
'Bad' conduct? Really, Sven, step back for a moment and think about how ignorant you sound.

Yes, “bad” conduct. A person is engaging in “bad” conduct if he burns down buildings and threatens to kill people in response to being offended.

Do you not agree with that?

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
Let us first deeply insult a "small group of people"

You’re not asserting that there is a very large number of people burning buildings and threatening to kill people, are you? Unless, of course, by “large” you mean hundreds of people.

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
and then condemn them for whatever way they react

Actually, no. I don’t condemn them for “whatever way they react”. If they react civilly, what’s to criticize? If they react violently, what’s not to criticize?

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
You are so quick to judge the reactions of the offended group, without giving a thought to determining whether the newspaper or cartoonist were in the 'right' or 'wrong'.

If I say, “Fuck you!!” and, in response, you take a hammer and beat me on the head with it, who has committed the greater offensive?

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
Fine, the newspaper has freedom of speech. But if it is necessary to publish criticism of another's religion, at least do it in a way that won't be perceived as mockery.

I guess those who mock Christianity here at rabble (which I have done myself, I will admit) will have to mend their ways or risk a stern admonition from ephemeral.

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
This particular cartoon is not so much a critique or a political statement as it is offensive, degrading, insulting and humiliating to Muslims who are deeply passionate about their religion.

Please see my “Fuck You!!”/hammer-on-the-head illustration above.

quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
So, once again, we see that that whatever the message is that non-muslims are trying to get across to the muslim world, the communication of that message to muslims isn't getting across, possibly because the non-muslim world hasn't really made the effort to truly understand the Musalman's point of view. So, again, it is time to remind non-muslims to butt out of the affairs of muslims, offer a sincere apology and leave them be. [/QB]

I think you’re vesting the cartoons with too much gravitas. I don’t think that there was a serious “message” to, or a serious attempt as “communication” with, the Muslim world through the medium of a cartoon. In the best light, it was a blunt jab made in very bad taste.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:12 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

No actually they are appealing to Sharia, which is a code of law. They are demanding that Denamrk apply Sharia.


On an ex post facto basis.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lame. People are more than free to make whatever determinations of how they think law should be applied. If someone says seriel rapists should be castrated, even if there is no law on the books that supports that view, they are completely free to do so. I disagree but that is freedom of speech, and there is nothing that indicates that these people calling for beheadings are doing anything less than demanding that an islamic court should be convened in Denamrk, and that it should apply the law to its extermest measure.

Or, it is that you have information to the contrary?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 February 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do not think that the papers and Western pundits feel that same immediacy.

Not for the cartoons, true, but for freedom of speech.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
To reiterate: no taking of human life is justifiable. Just wanted to make sure my opinion on that was totally clear!

That was as clear as XM radio! Thank you.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Lame. People are more than free to make whatever determinations of how they think law should be applied. If someone says seriel rapists should be castrated, even if there is no law on the books that supports that view, they are completely free to do so. I disagree but that is freedom of speech, and there is nothing that indicates that these people calling for beheadings are doing anything less than demanding that an islamic court should be convened in Denamrk, and that it should apply the law to its extermest measure.

Or, it is that you have information to the contrary?


The BBC is reporting that five people have died as a result of the protests. It doesn't sound like there was any due process (Sharia or otherwise) involved in any of those deaths.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I think you’re vesting the cartoons with too much gravitas. I don’t think that there was a serious “message” to, or a serious attempt as “communication” with, the Muslim world through the medium of a cartoon. In the best light, it was a blunt jab made in very bad taste.

But why defend freedom of speech when it is expressed in very bad taste? What purpose is to be accomplished by insulting another group of people? Why be so juvenile? Maybe you should try and understand why the muslims give this cartoon so much 'gravitas'.

And if you told me to fuck off, I might just be tempted to hammer you on the head, or I might not be. It depends on the reason behind you telling me to fuck off. If it was racist or sexist or you insulted somthing that is very dear and personal to me, I would probably choose to ignore you and walk away. But somebody more emotional than I am might just bludgeon, and I may or may not defend that person's reaction.

I really think you're forgetting that religion is an extremely personal, intense and passionate thing. You don't just go up to people and mock their core beliefs, and not expect them to react angrily. Anger clouds judgement, so why provoke people like that?


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you even bother to read the articles you post.

1) Nothing inciates that these deaths were anything other than colateral. For instance it is not clear that the boy in Somalia was not shot by police.

2) Interesting that:

quote:
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.


Even as people are protesting at the US base in Bagram, for some inexplicable reason, given that this is all about the cartoons, as if this is all some sort of grade 12 seminar on the ethics of free speech.

Are you for real?


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:37 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
But somebody more emotional than I am might just bludgeon, and I may or may not defend that person's reaction.

If I simply said, "Fuck you!!" to a person and, in response to that offensive speech, that person started beating me on the head with a hammer, on what basis is there equivocation about whether or not you would defend that person's reaction???


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but you insist that the it is completely irrelevant that the person who said fuck you, earlier in the week went and burnt down the other persons house the week before, and that it was only after a period of extreme tollerance and patience and one final insult that the violent reaction took place.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lol! Regardless of whether I think the person who's doing the hammering is in the right or wrong, I would still think that the person who simply said 'Fuck You' for no reason at all is an idiot. I mean, who does that?? (There's gotta be some history, dude. Otherwise, this line of rationale of yours is getting tiresome and pointless).

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 07:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Do you even bother to read the articles you post.

Ah, yeah.

If you rob someone and in that process someone died as a result of your action (even if you did not intend for anyone to die and even if you didn't do the killing directly yourself), you will very likely be charged with murder.

Had the protests not occurred, no deaths.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
lol! Regardless of whether I think the person who's doing the hammering is in the right or wrong, I would still think that the person who simply said 'Fuck You' for no reason at all is an idiot. I mean, who does that??

Hey, no argument from me there.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Ah, yeah.

If you rob someone and in that process someone died as a result of your action (even if you did not intend for anyone to die and even if you didn't do the killing directly yourself), you will very likely be charged with murder.

Had the protests not occurred, no deaths.


You have lost the thread of the arguement. The argument is about the application of law. It is quite clear that the persons calling for beheadings were targetting specific persons, and at least putatively applying Sharia law, they did not call for others to be killed as part of street violence in protests.

Please stay on track, it is begining to look like you are not interested in pursuing specific threads of deabate, and begining to look more and more like you are simply trying to vilify Muslim people in general.

Now you want to prove that these people are wrong in another way by ducking out of the legal discussion, which you lost.


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, but you insist that the it is completely irrelevant that the person who said fuck you, earlier in the week went and burnt down the other persons house the week before, and that it was only after a period of extreme tollerance and patience and one final insult that the violent reaction took place.

Ah, the old "straw-and-the-camel's-back trick"!!

Yep. Big, bad ol' Denmark has a long and terrific history of destroying property and killing people in the Mideast. If you were talking about the USA, you might have a point. But Denmark?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 February 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Not for the cartoons, true, but for freedom of speech.


Yeah, I just don't sense that. I freely admit that I'm going on personal reacion here, but my impression (in US media at least) has been that pundits are paying lip service to the free speech thing but their hearts aren't in it. I'm getting the sense that they are genuinely excited about damning the Muslims, and thrilled that free speech provides a convenient soapbox to do it from.

It seems cynical. It seems like the pundits are spinning free speech and getting worked up over that because it's an acceptable way to express their anger and rage at the Muslim world in general. I doubt we care so passionately about free speech that we would start a riot and burn embassies just to demonstrate that the right to free speech still exists.

I guess what you are characterizing as a childish reaction, I am characterizing as a deeply felt reaction. And what you are characterizing as the adult reaction, I am characterizing as the reaction of someone who just doesn't care as much about the issue. For better or for worse.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
I guess what you are characterizing as a childish reaction, I am characterizing as a deeply felt reaction. And what you are characterizing as the adult reaction, I am characterizing as the reaction of someone who just doesn't care as much about the issue. For better or for worse.

That's quite well-said, vmichel.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 February 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Ah, the old "straw-and-the-camel's-back trick"!!

Yep. Big, bad ol' Denmark has a long and terrific history of destroying property and killing people in the Mideast. If you were talking about the USA, you might have a point. But Denmark?


Then why were Muslim people protesting the pictures outside of Bagram air base in Afghanistan, if their isn't a bigger picture here, which includes the US, not just Denmark?

Not long ago, you ducked the question I asked about how come you feel completely free to discuss the Muslim world as a unified whole, without disticntion between the many ethnic, cultural groups that make up the Muslim world but then turn around and ask that they pay attention to the discrete national divisions which make up the west, such as the difference between the USA and Denamrk.

Well, perhaps like you, they don't. Perhaps they idnetify us all as the Christian world. In as much as to say they feel that they have the right to be as intollerant and ignorant of "us" as you feel to be about "them."

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 06 February 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not long ago, you ducked the question I asked about how come you feel completely free to discuss the Muslim world as a unified whole, without disticntion between the many ethnic, cultural groups that make up the Muslim world but then turn around and ask that they pay attention to the discrete national divisions which make up the west, such as the difference between the USA and Denamrk.

Well, perhaps like you, they don't. Perhaps they idnetify us all as the Christian world. In as much as to say they feel that they have the right to be as intollerant and ignorant of "us" as you feel to be about "them."


I don't recall ducking any questions. But, be that as it may...

Perhaps they do look at the West as being "the Christian world" and perhaps they do attribute to the Danes conduct of the USA. And, let's assume they are correct (they are not, but let's just assume the opposite).

At most that would help explain the reaction. But, like vmichel said above, that doesn't justify it nor, I might add, insulate it from just condemnation, something you are somehow incapable or unwilling to do.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 06 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Then why were Muslim people protesting the pictures outside of Bagram air base in Afghanistan, if their isn't a bigger picture here, which includes the US, not just Denmark?

Although I do believe there is a bigger picture here, from here:

quote:
-Late January-early February: Media in France, Germany, the United States, Britain, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Hungary, Greenland, Bulgaria, Portugal and Jordan reprint the cartoons.

From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

If I simply said, "Fuck you!!" to a person and, in response to that offensive speech, that person started beating me on the head with a hammer, on what basis is there equivocation about whether or not you would defend that person's reaction???


OK, let's go with this analogy. Let's give them a history (as others have pointed out): say that the person with a hammer has been harassed and abused by the other guy for a while, that he's known to have a short fuse, and that at present the other guy has an injunction on his house or something so blood is running pretty hot right now.

Does that justify bludgeoning the other guy over the head wth a hammer? No.

Does it make the bludgeoning understandable? Yes, in my mind at least.

As a member of the same community as these people, with whom am I more concerned? Who is a greater threat to public safety? To me, it's the guy who said "Fuck You." I get why the other guy bludgeoned him. It wasn't right, but it's an understandable response that any one of us might emit in the right circumstances. The motives of the guy who said "Fuck You" are a lot darker to me. He provoked an attack. And that guy, he's the one I don't want wandering around my community, especially with any weapons. He's someone who is going to stir up trouble, again and again and again, and never act with the best interests of the community at heart.

That's why I'm more worried about the West/Denmark/paper, etc. Killing is unjustifiable, but in this case I think the protesters are the smaller of the two threats.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 February 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
As a member of the same community as these people, with whom am I more concerned? Who is a greater threat to public safety? To me, it's the guy who said "Fuck You."

If a person beats another person with a hammer, at best it's going to be aggrevated battery and, at worst, attempted murder. Either way, that person is likely going to spend time in the slammer (in the latter case, for several years).

You're not telling me that the utterer of the offensive words is worse and, therefore, should spend years in jail for provoking another to attempt to kill him?


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

posted 06 February 2006 08:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It the offensive words are accompanied by brandishing of a revolver, the situation is quite a bit different. But there is no US army, and Danish army in Iraq, and none in Afghanistan either, and that is irrelevant.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 February 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not in those terms, no.

Given their histories, I think that the guy who said "Fuck You" is more of a threat to public safety than the guy who hit back. I didn't say a think about whether one person was better or worse than the other, just that one is a greater threat.

I have no opinion on who should go to jail for what. I just don't know enough about that kind of thing.

In a vacuum, uttering "Fuck You" may not be a big deal. But in this particular situation, with these people's histories, I do think that the speaker is more of a threat (again not worse or better, just more of a threat) than the hitter. And in my community I'd be a lot more worried about the speaker.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 February 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca