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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » the media   » A new take on the cartoon controversy

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A new take on the cartoon controversy
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 14 February 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No fury, no riots, no death threats. Just a bunch of Yids using humour to fight hate.

From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel: It is always the privilage of the powerful to mock themselves, especially when such points out the failings of the less powerful.

"What's the matter with these A-Rabs, can't they take a joke? He Haw haw haw!"

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:17 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Awesome.
From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not suprising to here that from someone who is so caught up in himself that he actually believes that Muslim people actually care if he eats pork or not.

Your ignorance is apparently without bounds.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 14 February 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BBC: Italy minister stirs cartoon row

quote:
An Italian government minister says he is distributing T-shirts displaying controversial cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

Roberto Calderoli, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, is minister without portfolio for institutional reform and devolution.

His remarks are likely to be seen as provocative by Muslim organisations.

They could also prove a serious diplomatic embarrassment to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's coalition.

Mr Calderoli's comments were made in an interview with the leading Italian news agency, Ansa. The minister is quoted as saying: "I've had T-shirts made with the cartoons that have upset Islam and I shall start wearing them today."

He added that it was "time to put an end to this story that we need to dialogue with these people", and asked: "What have we become, the civilisation of melted butter?"



From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 14 February 2006 09:23 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That IS a pretty good way to take the wind out of the sails of the Iranian holocaust cartoons. However, I agree with Cueball that it's not quite the same thing when a dominant group does it to itself.
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And so now we see that these are not just a bunch of harmless cartoons, but actually the calling card of very vile and racist elements in westtern society, whom trumpet their racist cause as freedom of speech.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
At first I was a little demoralized thinking that many babblers thought like Cueball (see his not so innocuous posts elsewhere) but then I noticed Cueball and just one or two other babblers debating pretty much everyone else in topic after topic.

Three cheers to Cueball pissing in the wind.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that the best you got?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Not suprising to here that from someone who is so caught up in himself that he actually believes that Muslim people actually care if he eats pork or not.

Your ignorance is apparently without bounds.


Well, I raised this issue with my pakistani sunni friend the other day when I ordere tonkatsu at an all you can eat Sushi restaurant. You know what, I learned it always bothered him that I ate it, he didn't like it on the table (he, like my catholic friends - thinks I'm going to hell) but that he didn't think he had any right to tell me what to eat - it bothers him, he cares what I eat, but tolerates my choices.

(During poker I asked ny two Ismali friends - me eating pork didn't bother them so much - but they also think I'm going to hell)

Recap, some Muslims care that I eat pork.

So Cueball, a big fuck you.

P.S. Still think the cartoons are analogous to tatooing Jews?


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right so they think you are going to hell, but they don't think its there place to fuck with your decisions, right. Which is the point. What about these militant Muslims insisting that you conform to their beliefs.

Wow, the real people aren't like the ones you hear about in the news?

Hey! Maybe everything you read about in the papes isn't true?

Dupe.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Right so they think you are going to hell, but they don't think its there place to fuck with your decisions, right. Which is the point. What about these militant Muslims insisting that you conform to their beliefs.

Wow, the real people aren't like the ones you hear about in the news?

Hey! Maybe everything you read about in the papes isn't true?

Dupe.


??? You now agree with me and I'M the dupe?

Who are you arguing with?

...ah forget it.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What sums you up best about this little story of yours, is that you have been spouting off about your preconcieved notions about Islam, pork and whatever, and it is only now, after I scroned you on your stupid shit, that you bothered to ask your "friend" what he thought.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Is that the best you got?

(Almost) every intelligent thing I have to say to you has been said by me or others in a dozen other topics. I'm getting tired and I'm only left with cheap shots.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cheap shot jingoism is what you started with. I had a problem with that.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
What sums you up best about this little story of yours, is that you have been spouting off about your preconcieved notions about Islam, pork and whatever, and it is only now, after I scroned you on your stupid shit, that you bothered to ask your "friend" what he thought.

My preconcevied notions were correct, your's were wrong. I safely assumed he was bothered, you assumed that muslims weren't bothered by others eating pork - who is less sensitive?

The fact we don't talk about our feelings relates more to being a guy (for better or worse) not some sort of xenophobia (if that's what you're implying).

I've been courteous us enough to reply to your questions. So, are you ever going to apologize for your incredibly stupid and offensive tatoo analogy?

P.S. I'm also bothered that you put quotes around friend, but whatever...

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: BC NDPer ]


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am jew dude. No I wont apologize.

I someone wants to assert that our values trump someone elses values by saying something like, its ok to make fun of Mohammed because we in the west use jesus as the centerpiece of art and make fun of catholics, by ignoring the fact that making fun of Mohammed is an invasion of the private space of of Muslim people, and by publishing it and forcing them to see it, then why not tatoo numbers on Jews since that is also an invasion of their personal space, and justify that by saying well its quite normal for people to get tatoos these days, so what the fuck.

To me its the same kind of justification.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 15 February 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
making fun of Mohammed is an invasion of the private space of of Muslim people

Cueball:

What about an academic historian who writes a "warts-and-all" biography of Muhammed's life for a univeristy press? He doesn't set out to tear the guy to shreds, but he reports a number of unflattering details and maybe gets in a few caustic asides in the end notes(the same thing he might do if he were writing a biography of Lincoln). Is this historian also guilty of invading the private space of Muslim people?

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 February 2006 12:44 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If that person is not making an obvious attempt to provoke violence towards, or from, the groups being discussed, then we should protect that person's right of free speech ... but in a case, like the WS, where there is no other purpose served ,and I doubt very much that any other purpose was contemplated, except to cause confrontation and self serving sensationalism, then the need for society to protect the right of someone to harm society in this way is certainly questionable.

Personally I would rather that there were no such "hate laws", then bigots like Levant would be less inclined to play pussy games where they provoke for the sake of causing conflict, and claim they're standing up for free speech ... without such laws, they would no doubt feel free to say what is really on their mind, and then we could fight them on an even playing field.

It's the same old story ... as long as they preach their hate in a "polite manner", then people are fooled into believing that they deserve to be protected from "hate speech laws".

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 15 February 2006 12:56 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If that person is not making an obvious attempt to provoke violence towards, or from, the groups being discussed, then we should protect that person's right of free speech ... but in a case, like the WS, where there is no other purpose served ,and I doubt very much that any other purpose was contemplated, except to cause confrontation and self serving sensationalism, then the need for society to protect the right of someone to harm society in this way is certainly questionable.
Personally I would rather that there were no such "hate laws", then bigots like Levant would be less inclined to play pussy games where they provoke for the sake of causing conflict, and claim they're standing up for free speech ... without such laws, they would no doubt feel free to say what is really on their mind, and then we could fight them on an even playing field.

It's the same old story ... as long as they preach their hate in a "polite manner", then people are fooled into believing that they deserve to be protected from "hate speech laws".


No Yards:

Yes, but is the academic historian intruding on the private space of Muslims? That was the question I asked Cueball.

(I agree with you, by the way, on both Levant's motivations and the counterproductiveness of the hate laws. However, I don't think you'd ever be able to prove conclusively in court that Levant was trying to provoke violence).

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 15 February 2006 01:21 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Organized religion as a "private space"?

One would at first brush seem to naturally conclude that honest academics could not be an intrusion on any "private religious space", but in practise, that accusation is often made on some supposed academic works with religious subjects.

It really doesn't matter if the academic is intruding on a private religious space or not ... that "reality" is in the eye of the beholder, and since some "beholders" believe it to be so ... it is so.

The question should instead be how does society as a whole make the determination of whether an academic work that seems to negatively invade that private space is to be judged as "hateful" or "free speech".


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Cueball:

What about an academic historian who writes a "warts-and-all" biography of Muhammed's life for a univeristy press? He doesn't set out to tear the guy to shreds, but he reports a number of unflattering details and maybe gets in a few caustic asides in the end notes(the same thing he might do if he were writing a biography of Lincoln). Is this historian also guilty of invading the private space of Muslim people?

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


That is totally defensible. Salman Rushdie was defensible. What is goning on now is something else. It is serious work, these cartoons are just a simplistic and snide attack.

It would be naive if we could define life by some set of all encompassing principles which always had equal weight, and whose relative postions with each other statyed constant, but that isn't the way it is. This all part of some open ended racist attack upon Muslim people.

I think we have to balance what we mean by freedom of speech and balance that against the intent, and the freedom of people not to be stygmatized unfairly.

All one has to do is look at the type of stuff that comes out here, between the moments where some are talking about freedom of speech, little things like "fuck Islam" and the like keep cropping up. It is clear that (for some) the freedom of speech angle is being used a s wedge to insert some pretty base prejudice into our dialogue.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 15 February 2006 07:52 AM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

"What's the matter with these A-Rabs, can't they take a joke? He Haw haw haw!"


Are you making this up for the sake of pure mischief?

The largest Muslim country in the world is not Arabic. Nor is Iran an Arab country. Or Pakistan.
Same for Nigeria. Also, not all Arabs are Muslim.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 08:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for that, but as far as Israel goes, you know, they're A-rabs. As for the compostion of those contries that make up the Levant and the Maghrib you are also right, they are not all Muslim. For instance the new Mayor of East Jeruasalem is a Christian woman elected by Hamas.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 15 February 2006 08:07 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Christian Symbols Aren't Off-Limits for Parody

Wow. You want blasphemy, try Christianity in America.

- snip -

Such convictions came to an end in the 20th century. Civil libertarians in this country began to regard blasphemy as a strictly religious issue, and the courts agreed. The new American way was a sharp cultural break from the underlying bodies of legal thought in Europe and the United Kingdom, which had state-sanctioned churches. The position was cemented by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952, in a case called Burstyn v. Wilson . New York had banned Italian filmmaker's Roberto Rossellini's film, "The Miracle," about a peasant woman who believed she was the Virgin Mary. It was legally imported into the country, but the Catholic Church lambasted it as sacrilegious. It was banned, a decision upheld by the state appellate court.

But the Supreme Court overturned the case, ruling: "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine."

Since then, the image and topic of Christ has been subjected to almost every indignity imaginable.

- snip -

Syeed, who was born in Kashmir and immigrated to the United States as an adult, says that while millions of Muslims may think of America as a pro-Israeli invader of Iraq, it is still true that much of that knowledge is not based on personal experience. European affronts, through a long history of colonialism and exploitation, are more visceral. They've left scars. They've created a different psychological relationship.

"European countries were colonial masters of several Muslim lands, and the psychological aspects of that relationship have lived on and on," Syeed says. "It's difficult for the Belgians, the Danes, the French -- it's difficult for them to believe that these former colonies have a religion that is of consequence. They get a kick out of insulting them."

Yvonne Haddad, professor of the history of Islam and of Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown University, continues the theme:

"Of the 57 nations that belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 54 have been colonized by Europe," she says. "That history is well known in Islamic countries, you've got the current war in Iraq. . . . Those things form the context for this sort of response. Devout Muslims are offended by the cartoons, but this is not just a religious affront. It's also political."


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 15 February 2006 08:09 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For instance the new Mayor of East Jeruasalem is a Christian woman

As is Mrs. Arafat.


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

posted 15 February 2006 08:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She converted.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 15 February 2006 08:13 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball:

What about an academic historian who writes a "warts-and-all" biography of Muhammed's life for a univeristy press? He doesn't set out to tear the guy to shreds, but he reports a number of unflattering details and maybe gets in a few caustic asides in the end notes(the same thing he might do if he were writing a biography of Lincoln). Is this historian also guilty of invading the private space of Muslim people?

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

That is totally defensible. Salman Rushdie was defensible. What is goning on now is something else. It is serious work, these cartoons are just a simplistic and snide attack.


But who determines that the professor and Rushdie are defensible, while the Danish cartoons are a violation of private space? Because I seem to recall a lot of Muslims circa 1989 whose opinion of The Satanic Verses was that it wasn't defensible. (Not that they supported the fatwa, just that they thought the book was offensive)


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 15 February 2006 08:16 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
She converted.

You mean she converted to Islam from Christianity when she married Mr. A?


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

posted 15 February 2006 08:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I do and you do. We all do. It's not all calculus. We know what is being said. We can see it. Even if these cartoons were produced with innocent intent (Hell! Most racists don't even think they are racist,) they are now being used for other purposes, and we see that.

Did the Swastika start out as the symbol for Nazi hate? No. It was appropriated.

Trying to create law which covers all possible angles is an obviously Sysyphian impossibility. This is why the courts interpret the law, set precedents and whatever.

I think there is also a difference between what is inserted into the private discourse between and the public discourse.


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

posted 15 February 2006 08:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

You mean she converted to Islam from Christianity when she married Mr. A?


Right.


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

posted 15 February 2006 08:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edward Said's mother was Marionite Christian from Beriut, his dad was Baptist and then other parts of his family were Muslim I think.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 15 February 2006 09:30 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Roberto Calderoli's t-shirt campaign is especially reprehensible, as he is an elected representative of all the people in his constituency, even the Muslims and/or people of Arab or other Middle Eastern origins. But who is surprised by the Northern League saying idiotic things? Remember, they started out as a protest movement against... Southern Italians.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 15 February 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Dutch experience in Indonesia was devastating, the British were the first to use gas weapons in Iraq to suppress a largely Shiite rebellion in 1920, the British and French betrayed the Arab world by carving it up at the end of WWI, on V-E Day itself France slaughtered an untold number of Algerians (estimates vary from 15,000 to 45,000), all the ultra-conservative kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula were installed by the British who also suppressed a rebellion in the Sudan, the US overthrew the hopes of a generation of Iranians but enabling a brutal feudal dictatorship, etc, etc.

Although Muslims also got their licks in -- the British were humiliated twice by the Afghans, before being able to impose their hegemony over the region.

And not to forget, the Danes also have a colonial history -- they owned the US Virgin Islands for almost 200 years and suppressed many slave revolts. If you got further back, they devastated parts of England and Ireland at the turn of the last millennium!

Thus the history is very long -- at the present moment we don't just have the cartoons, but the continuing humiliations of Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo, the bombing of Pakistani civilians, the targetting of Iran and Syria, and of course, the continuing slaughter in Iraq.

I am willing to bet that in some of the Arab countries closely allied with the US the protests are being allowed when others more critical of the US are suppressed.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 10:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Churchill only talked about using gas against the Kurds in Iraq in th 1920's. I am not sure if they actually did it. Gas, back then, was a difficult weapon to use, and the primary reason that it fell out of favour with armies was not, as it is popularly believed, some strange military impulse towards humanitarianism, but because it was difficult to use.

As an example, it was difficult to get your own army to invest and march into a zone that they new had just been gassed, and army soliders in gas gear seriously hammpered in effectiveness.

For instance I just found out that the German army lied to their front line soldiers during their last March 1918 offensive in the Somme. German soldiers were told that the gas being used against the British was harmless and only intended to frighten and harrass the British.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 15 February 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thus the history is very long

Extremely long. Lots of invasions by all involved over the last millenium and a half. People in Europe and the middle east tend to take a longer view of history than North Americans ... things like the Crusades and the Muslim invasion of Spain and the Balkans are still remembered.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just out of curiosity, was it a Muslim invasion of Spain or a Berber invasion of Spain, and then was the local population converted and assimilated into the larger politcal network of the Caliphate? My understanding is that even as late as 1200 AD Islam was still by far an away the minority religion of the Caliphate, which was more of a politcal structure than a religious one.

Islam was the religion of the elite, and Arabic the lingua-Franca of empire, the Qu'ran being the primary tool of teaching the language but it seems that is was a plurality of some kind. At this time the period between 800 and 1220, when the Mongols became the first non-Muslim empire to conquer Baghdad (the second being the British in 1920) it is not even clear that the differentiation between Islam, Judaism and the various Christian sects was, in the popular mind at least, greater than that between the various Christian sects we see today -- they were all people of the book, as the Muslims like to say.

But too your point. The last point at which any Islamic power held sway in any part of what is nominally southern Europe would be 1920, and as far as the majority of Europe goes the Ottoman empire never really made it past Hungary, and not even to Vienna, and began retreating from its high water mark in the 1660's. So it is really not fair to say that "Islam," in the form of an agressive Islamic state, has been a threat to the heartland of Christendom in any signifcant way since around 1700, 300 years ago.

On the other hand the period of European colonial expansionism into Africa and the Middle East, and Russian invasion of Asia corresponds to the period of the European invasion of North America, and is not just recent history but current, as European armies now occupy Baghdad, and the Russians are in Chechnya, and playing kingmaker in the "Stans."

I certainly never pooh-pooh the revolt in Oka, simply because the Indian wars were over by 1880, as not relevant today.

Perhaps its just not clear to the people of the Muslim countries that they are a subject people, or something naive like that. Stupid pride, eh?

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 15 February 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To me its the same kind of justification.
Let's take the free speech argument step further.

When anti-Semitic cartoons etc. were running rampant in pre-war Germany (and elsewhere), should the left and Jewish community have been trumpetting free speech as the overarching principle and defending the rights of those who were publishing them?

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
When anti-Semitic cartoons etc. were running rampant in pre-war Germany (and elsewhere), should the left and Jewish community have been trumpetting free speech as the overarching principle and defending the rights of those who were publishing them?

Word.

These cartoons are just as racist, or at least the one that I saw was.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 February 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Depends at what point you're talking about.

There was a point reached, well before the war, when the left and the Jews (and the Roma and the gays, and the trade unions, etc.) had no civil rights to speak of, least of all the right of free speech. They were in no position to campaign for the rights of others.

And they had reached that point precisely because of their previous failure to recognize the importance of mobilizing to fight for their rights.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually it was because the communists were more concerned about the real enemy the SPD, because they were a reform socialist party leaching of support from the glorious Bolsheviks.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Enabling Act came after not before Hindenberg gave the nod to Hitler.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But they were all interned together weren't they? Also, the same can be said about the glorious NDP trying to pry loose Liberal votes in this past election.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly. But Spector was misinforming people as to the facts.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 15 February 2006 12:50 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just out of curiosity, was it a Muslim invasion of Spain or a Berber invasion of Spain, and then was the local population converted and assimilated into the larger politcal network of the Caliphate? My understanding is that even as late as 1200 AD Islam was still by far an away the minority religion of the Caliphate, which was more of a politcal structure than a religious one.

Actually I agree it was a Berber invasion, but then again I don't think the Crusades were primarily Christian in nature either - they were also politically inspired and enacted. However, its generally shortened to Christians vs Muslims, and I got sloppy and followed that.

Note that I have never said the Islamic countries shouldn't resist imperealism, I was just pointing out that some groups (including aboriginals as you point out) have a long sense of memory. A century or two is nothing either way - fear on both sides isn't wiped out because of the current score in a millenium and a half conflict. Its why so few countries (other than their immediate neighbors) really fear the Chinese ... they've never really wanted to conquer the world, so no one really expects them to do so now.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 February 2006 10:07 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hypocritical cowardly fucks ... how, with this new "free speech for Jews only" rule, is this in any way comparable?


quote:
Contest Deadline: March 5 Contest open to Jew creators only! Sorry! This is Jews joking about themselves here! Please send us only works that you yourself have created! Please also write full name or pseudonyme, and city, country of residence

From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 17 February 2006 10:10 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well it says to send them the work, and make sure to include your pseudonym, so I'd say it's still open to Gentiles.

It's not like they're demanding you attach your foreskin.


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

posted 17 February 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is one of the submissions:


Now is this actually anti-semitic, or is it an ironic parody of common anti-semitic themes? And therefore anti-anti-semitic.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 17 February 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
but then again I don't think the Crusades were primarily Christian in nature either

The principle reason, in the beginning, was to regain access to the "holy sites" in Jerusalem and other places in the region.

quote:
Until 1070, Jerusalem and the surrounding area had been ruled by the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. The Fatimids were relatively mild and tolerant, not bothering the many Christian pilgrims who came every year. The arrival of the Seljuk Turks changed all of that, however,

The Seljuks were not nearly so tolerant as the Fatimids, or at least that what the pilgrims returning to Europe told everyone. It's quite possible that many of their stories were exaggerated, but there's no question that a change had occurred and this was cause for a great deal of concern among Christian leaders in the West.


source

The Pope (s) instigated the vast majority of the crusades, so an argument could be made for political motives, all the same it was presented as a "holy endeavor", in some cases even "penance" for sins committed.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: cdnviking ]


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

posted 17 February 2006 10:29 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd say that is obviously ironic. It's actually pretty funny - I laughed.

What makes it ironic, obviously self-ironizing? The cutesy way the tablet is engraved (the PS, eg), and the way that "Moses" is dressed. All that suggests self-referentiality to me, which tends to take the sting out and authorize laughter.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 February 2006 10:29 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, when I saw that cartoon it stuck me as being more directed at making fun of "Jewish world control conspiracy nuts" than being in anything that could be mistaken for real anti-Semitic literature.

"I'm not a member of a victimized racial group, but I play one on the Internet."

What a complete cop-out.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed, but then its a nice little piece of irony all by itself, as Skdadl points out. Funny.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 17 February 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The principle reason, in the beginning, was to regain access to the "holy sites" in Jerusalem and other places in the region.

Sure, but the stated reason for expanding into Europe was to spread Islam. But I don't think the rulers on either side (Christian or Muslim) paid much attention to religous reasons. The Christian rulers routinely ignored the Pope unless his wishes coincided with theirs - even created a second one at one point. Nominally Christian and Islamic countries were just doing what countries often try to do ... gain territory.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 17 February 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Here is one of the submissions:


Now is this actually anti-semitic, or is it an ironic parody of common anti-semitic themes? And therefore anti-anti-semitic.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I find that anti-semetic, because I don't understand irony. Consequently, I'm offering anybody who can kill the cartoonist one and a half million dollars, plus a car.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadly, I don't think that said cleric is being ironical.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
That is 1.5M rupees or about $20K.

I believe the cartoons,while protected by the right to free speech,were designed to provoke.

Cueball: The British prison service has banned the use of St.George symbols by staff because Muslims complained they were offensive.I also note that the Danish flag also represents a cross,offensive to Muslims.References to pork or its consumption are offensive.

To what degree must one defer to the sensitivities of Muslims when one's culture offends them.

I do not refer to Muslim tolerance of the rights of others to their own culture,rather the more extreme Muslims who complain of the above examples.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To what extent does the image of Mohammed represent "our" culture?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 17 February 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball: The British prison service has banned the use of St.George symbols by staff because Muslims complained they were offensive.I also note that the Danish flag also represents a cross,offensive to Muslims.References to pork or its consumption are offensive.

To what degree must one defer to the sensitivities of Muslims when one's culture offends them.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the St George's cross banned in prisons because white supremacist groups had made it into one of their symbols? If that's the case, then it seems to me that that's a bit different than just some Muslims saying "we've decided we don't like this symbol, get rid of it".


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
To what extent does the image of Mohammed represent "our" culture?

I refer to the examples of the two flags and references to pork.

Obviously,images of Mohammed belong to Islam.A deliberately obtuse answer to an honest question.

The question I am asking is when does polite respect for the sensibilities of others( such as not ordering a pork dish when dining with people who find it offensive) become craven appeasement to coersion by the intolerant.

This question also holds true for attending a film that fundamentalist Christians find offensive.Should one defer to the sensibilities of others and not attend?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 17 February 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I also note that the Danish flag also represents a cross,offensive to Muslims.

Is there some kind of point to this "observation"?

Are you suggesting that Muslims have called for violence on all countries that have a cross on their flags? Did someone demand that the Danish flag be redesigned?

What exactly is your reasoning in making such a tenuous connection to the cross on the Danish flag and Muslims?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

I refer to the examples of the two flags and references to pork.


When were the, ummm, "Pork Riots," I missed that. When were the "Flag Riots." I missed that as well.

Just because the Danish flag has a cross on it, does not mean that is why some Muslim people burned Danish flags. As we know they burned them because of the present fracas around the cartoons. If you maintain such you are the one being obtuse.

You see so the answer is not obtuse it is directly to the point.

You ask:

quote:
To what degree must one defer to the sensitivities of Muslims when one's culture offends them.

I say they have not acted to attack us for our culture, our eating of pork, or our making crosses on flags, they have reacted to our appropriation of an image sacred to them within their culture for our amusement.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 01:34 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
What exactly is your reasoning in making such a tenuous connection to the cross on the Danish flag and Muslims?

My reasoning is the response of the British penal service to the use of St George tie pins by staff.

The Danish flag is similar to the St.George flag with the colours reversed.

According to the penal service,the St George flag is offensive to Muslim complainers because of its origins as a Crusader flag.They are defusing the situation by banning unauthorised accutrements.

Is the Danish flag also offensive as a crusader emblem or is it not?

I have googled sites in response to VoD's interesting observation that the St. George flag is coopted by fascist organisations in Britain.

So far,it appears that the BNP fascists utilise the Union flag rather than the St. George but the following link is an article about a confrontation over the use of the St.George flag on St. George's Day I have not as yet found reference to the use of the St. George flag as a fascist emblem.

There are also many references to the banning of piggy banks,references to Pooh's friend Piglet etc from government offices in deference to Muslims.

Are these examples of tolerance for Muslim sensibilities or are they a voluntary dhimmitude?

Is it reasonable for Muslims to complain over the national flag of England as an emblem of the Crusades when they make no effort to remove their own crescent emblem?.

Edited for formatting errors
[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: jester ]


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 17 February 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to the penal service,the St George flag is offensive to Muslim complainers because of its origins as a Crusader flag.They are defusing the situation by banning unauthorised accutrements.

Is the Danish flag also offensive as a crusader emblem or is it not?

I have googled sites in response to VoD's interesting observation that the St. George flag is coopted by fascist organisations in Britain.

So far,it appears that the BNP fascists utilise the Union flag rather than the St. George but here is an article about a confrontation over the use of the St.George flag on St. George's Day I have not as yet found reference to the use of the St. George flag as a fascist emblem.


If that's the case, then I withdraw my previous allegation about the flag. Thanks for the research, Jester.

Oh, and uhh, would you mind fixing your link? It doesn't work and screws up the positioning of the page.

www.tinyurl.com

Edited: MUCH better!

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: jester ]


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 17 February 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Baby Jebus is crying.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 17 February 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uhh, Jester. Your problem is back, at least on this computer. Probably best not to post the link, if you can't do it without messing up the positioning. I take your word what you said is true.
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah...I'm inserting the link in the url but it comes out full length and now I can't find the thread in which Spector posted instructions.

It is germaine to the idea that British fascists are using the flag to create animosity though...i'll try tinyurl...sorry for the drift


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
http://tinyurl.com/dsx4z

South London News on fascist attack on St. George's Day


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Fatfingered format..sorry
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Baby Jebus is crying.

Why, Bubba?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 17 February 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Asbos.

After the incident on April 24 last year, police found three


Interesting story, thanks.

It still leaves a few questions up in the air, though. Were the Mizzis flying the flag because it's a fasicst emblem, or did Ms. Green assume it's a fascist emblem because the BNP-aligned Mizzis were flying it? OR, did Ms. Green just not want the flag up because she thought that other people in the "mixed-race neghbourhood" would take offense?

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Don't know yet but if not for the BNP connection would the Mizzis have flown the St. george flag at all?

Another source states that the St.George has only found favour in England since the Euro96 football games.

Are use of the St.George flag and the Danish cartoons merely meadow muffin rearranging or are they deliberate provocations? More snooping to do.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 February 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Right.


She also converted EU funds earmarked for Palestinian aid into a swell lifestyle for herself in Paris.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 February 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well it is curious that people seemed to take exception to Mrs. Arafat living high on the hog in Paris, while the wives of other heads of state can do it and not raise an eyebrow. It seems to be considered part of their function to host charity fundraisers, go to parties, and otherwise grease the wheels of European politics.

But even the wife of the Palestinian head of state is supposed to live in a mud puddle according to some.

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 17 February 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

Why, Bubba?


Sidescroll. That's it.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 18 February 2006 10:57 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
so much of this thread is about po-ta-toe, po-tate- o. As previously noted by another 'forget the squabbling over what form censorhip should take. Let all voices be heard'. To do otherwise is to attempt to 'colonize' thought itself. The most disagreeable voices will experience the most powerful social control ever created, namely being shunned by their detractors or worse, reasoned debate.

Once a difference of opinion is removed as the excuse for violent response the predators that skulk the shadows of society begin to stand out against the enlightened backdrop of reasoned debate.

But when all that is at stake is a difference of opionion - one belief system or another - there is absolutely no rationalization or justification for violent responses. Beasts tear at each other. We are supposed to be more aware, more intelligent, more responsible than that.

Any attempt to sanctify a violent response for a difference of opinion is blowing smoke up someone's back passage.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 19 February 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Don't know yet but if not for the BNP connection would the Mizzis have flown the St. george flag at all?

The BNP is generally more associated with the union flag than the flag of St. George. They are a nationalist party and so would oppose anything that would symbolize a lessening of national identity, such as the lowering of a flag.

quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Another source states that the St.George has only found favour in England since the Euro96 football games.

As an Englishman who emigrated to Canada in 1997 I would have to disagree with your source. The flag of St. George has always been used / flown / displayed at sporting events in which the English are competing as English and not as a representative of Great Britain. Hence it has always been used for soccer games, rugby games, cricket games. The Union glag has always been used at the Olympics for example because the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish all compete under the GB banner. Euro 96 was held in England so there was of course going to be a much higher presence of the flag of St. George. As there was in 1966 when England hosted the Soccer World Cup. England did well in both competitions so the fervour was very high.

Question: Is it wrong to stop using a national flag if a nationalist party attempts to hijack it? How would Canadians feel if a group said that the Maple Leaf was offensive? Would the Maple Leaf be banned?

quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Are use of the St.George flag and the Danish cartoons merely meadow muffin rearranging or are they deliberate provocations? More snooping to do.

How can using your national flag ever be considered provocative. I fail to see the link between a flag and cartoons that have prompted a response far in excess of that that it deserves.


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 February 2006 12:52 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Question: Is it wrong to stop using a national flag if a nationalist party attempts to hijack it? How would Canadians feel if a group said that the Maple Leaf was offensive? Would the Maple Leaf be banned?

It doesn't matter, because we have a fall-back contingency:

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 19 February 2006 01:30 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Jooge: thx for the firsthand info.

I don't know how reliable the sources I used are but from your perspective is the use of tie pins with the St.George flag on them prevalent?

There appears to be some attempt to link the wearing of the pins to a deliberate attempt to affront Muslims.

Is wearing these pins similar to wearing regimental ties or wearing team logos?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480

posted 19 February 2006 03:16 PM      Profile for Jooge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Jooge: thx for the firsthand info.

I don't know how reliable the sources I used are but from your perspective is the use of tie pins with the St.George flag on them prevalent?

There appears to be some attempt to link the wearing of the pins to a deliberate attempt to affront Muslims.

Is wearing these pins similar to wearing regimental ties or wearing team logos?


You know I can't say I have ever seen anybody wearing a pin with the flag of St. George on. I have seen plenty with the Union flag (I wore one with a Canadian flag for sometime while I was going through the immigration process). Displays of the FoSG tend to be actual flags at sporting events, t-shirts, hats etc.

Now I am not in a place to comment on this pin issue in particular but I guess if you know somebody is going to get to have issues with this then wearing a pin would sure be a way to make a dig. But I can't see this happening much at all. I had a number of muslim friends in England and they never highlighted this as an issue, and as englishmen themselves quite often celebrated English sporting victories wearing the FoSG in some guise. Non issue in my opinion and just an example of PC gone wild.


From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, well it is curious that people seemed to take exception to Mrs. Arafat living high on the hog in Paris, while the wives of other heads of state can do it and not raise an eyebrow. It seems to be considered part of their function to host charity fundraisers, go to parties, and otherwise grease the wheels of European politics.

I expect Stephen Harper's wife to enjoy certain perks of the job.

I also assume she'll be enjoying them in Canada.

If she's running off to Paree to enjoy the nightlife, that doesn't count.

I also assume that Laureen will be giving up the trappings of the PMs wife once Harper is no longer in office. Did Arafat's wife return the money and go back to normal life?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 20 February 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
But even the wife of the Palestinian head of state is supposed to live in a mud puddle according to some

[end quote]

The point is that the wife of the former Palestinian head of state is living high on the hog in Paris on an estimated 2 BILLION dollars while the Palestinian people have lived in a mud puddle for 4 generations.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 February 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am sorry, you will have to source this $2 billion reference.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody knows exactly how much.

quote:
Al Jazeera published a report saying Arafat had signed a will leaving his fortune—which it estimated at $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion—to Suha's family, but that top Palestinian officials insist the money belongs to the Palestinian people.

From Slate.

But a quick google of "suha arafat billion" brings up all sorts of interesting factoids. I suggest reading a few before you continue to maintain that she was just another political spouse entitled to the odd cocktail party.


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

posted 20 February 2006 03:52 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I am jew dude. No I wont apologize.

I someone wants to assert that our values trump someone elses values by saying something like, its ok to make fun of Mohammed because we in the west use jesus as the centerpiece of art and make fun of catholics, by ignoring the fact that making fun of Mohammed is an invasion of the private space of of Muslim people, and by publishing it and forcing them to see it, then why not tatoo numbers on Jews since that is also an invasion of their personal space, and justify that by saying well its quite normal for people to get tatoos these days, so what the fuck.

To me its the same kind of justification.



Huh? What the hell is this "invasion of personal space" crap? Religious figures might have personal meaning to some people but they're definitely in the public domain.

Who "forced" anyone to see the cartoons? Heck, the blame for shopping the cartoons around the Middle East lies with the fundamentalist Danish Muslim groups.


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

posted 20 February 2006 04:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They were not Fundamentlaist Danish Muslim groups. What a bizarre construction. Where do you get the idea that they were activist Salfist jihadists? Please back that up.

Geeze you are very suceptible to very common place hyperbolic prejudice for someone who takes as his moniker an adage which symbolizes reasoned thought based substantiated evidence.

Thanks for being the second poster to reprint this remark I made in full, and continue to support! Yeah you!

Personal space is a psychological contruct, not just a material one. Gee how offeneded you are. Should you not be defending my right to freedom of speech, but no, I am being denounced, how typical!

You don't seem to understand. Let me try this another way. Do you walk around your town wearing only a trenchcoat, and then show off your aparatus to women whom you would like to meet? Or do you think that such, even though it doesn't directly harm them physically, or in anyway physically interedict their behaviour is an offence against their right, not to be pyschologically harrassed?

Further, do you think that it is possible, even in our domestic wonderland that violence might be perpetrated upon you, not just by the subject of your, no doubt, friendly advance but by passers-by and even the local police, in the way of making you put away your thing?

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 20 February 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you walk around your town wearing only a trenchcoat, and then show off your aparatus to women whom you would like to meet? Or do you think that such, even though it doesn't directly harm them physically, or in anyway physically interedict their behaviour is an offence against their right, not to be pyschologically harrassed?

A real live man exposing himself to a woman implies a threat of further action by that real live man. And it's also illegal.

But if a woman were to look down at the ground and see a drawing of a man's penis, I honestly wouldn't lose a second's sleep over it. It poses no threat whatsoever.

To be fair to this whole brouhaha, the drawings were drawings. Not real live anything.

Nobody's "personal space" is somehow sacred, and not having one's personal space sullied by ideas is nobody's right.

So what about Suha living large? Any comment now that you've got the link you requested? Or shall I lift the corner of this rug and you do the sweeping?


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

posted 20 February 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is fine Magoo, forget everything you just heard and go ack to sleep.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 20 February 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Taking your football and going home, Cueball?

Note to self: if you want Cueball to stay and play, don't refute him.

Can't come up with some threat that a drawing of a naked man could represent? Realizing how silly your little suggestion of "personal space" looks to normal people? Still trying to manufacture outrage over a few cartoons?

Or are you leaving because you didn't expect any kind of link re: Suha's permanent spa vacation, and now you have no idea what to do?

Well, on second thought, take your football and go.


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

posted 20 February 2006 04:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just bored with the logical cunundrum game.

You know, I propose a scenario. I set my premise. I introduce evidence. I produce a conclusion. You say that my premise was not my premise. Deny my evidence. And then say the conclusion I reached was not the one I intended to reach.

So, just to be clear. What I was saying was very limited in scope. I was simply exmpling the existance of personal space, as an actionable social construct, and nothing more.

You want me to go beyong that and pretend that I was talking about something else. Be my guest, but it does not interest me.


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

posted 20 February 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You want me to go beyong that and pretend that I was talking about something else. Be my guest, but it does not interest me.

Not at all. I think my response to your paragraph was of reasonable scope. You said something and I believe I responded to it without trying to expand your scope.

I agree that a real live man forcing a real live woman to look at his junk is unacceptable. But I think that within the context of these cartoons a better analogy would be that of a drawing of a naked man, not a naked man. And in that case we'd find any assertion that her space was somehow invaded to be laughable.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 21 February 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball's periodic (and predictable) ideological temper tantrums have become part of my regular reading. Another guilty pleasure!
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 21 February 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Interesting thought to ponder: if the cartoons are indeed blasphemous and justify a violent reaction, aren't the fundamentalist activists who travelled to the Middle East from Denmark to stir things up (and who added some other even more insulting anti-Mohammed cartoons to the mix to help light the fires) themselves serial blasphemers deserving of punishment? Shouldn't the demo organizers in the countries whwere riots have occurred burn down their own headquarters and bomb their own government buildings? Shouldn't they be hauled in front of the police tribunals in Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria and all those other wonderfully democratic human rights-respecting regimes and be severely, severely punished? After all, they have blasphemed repeatedly by showing the cartoons.

Just a thought...

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 February 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is a bit much coming from someone who throws around weak modifiers and adjectives like a late Soviet period Pravda writer whose editor tells them that after their piece on "the Good Life in Kabul" came back from the censors it was too short for publication.

Well since it seems you are posing yourself as the voice of reasoned and evidenced thought, as opposed to my "periodic (and predictable) ideological temper tantrums" perhaps you have bothered to look at what I wrote at the end of the Western Standard 3 thread in regard to how I interpret the Jylland-Posten scandal in general, as what I write has "become part of" your "regular reading."

I was hoping that you might, as repeated attempts to apply your meager intellectual resources to inventing my viewpoint from scratch, is rather like reading a comic book with every second page ripped out.

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 21 February 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Rather than start a new thread : A student paper at the U of T posted a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus kissing. Strangely I have seen no reaction. Anyone here seen it?
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 21 February 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could the lack of reaction be an indication that sex really does sell?

(probably more an indication that the cartoon is not in wide distribution, yet)


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 21 February 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sometimes the shit and the fan are simply too far apart for the usual interaction to occur spontaneously.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 February 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One can always find evidence of apparent hypocrisy if one focuses on detail at the exclusion of the bigger picture. Its called: taking something out of conetx.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 February 2006 07:25 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