ENOUGH political correctness already! [Archive]

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 07:40 AM

Mark

5th February 2006, 07:44 AM

kmortis

5th February 2006, 07:46 AM

There are morons in every religion. Unfortunatly for Islam, they seem to breed like rabbits in their religon. Until the moderates take back their religon, I have nothing but scorn for Islam. Z-N, I'm with ya'.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 07:47 AM

If a cartoon offends them to this level of violence, there is simply no appeasing them. Ever. In anything.Exactly. If their culture and religion is sooooooo ***** threatened by a cartoon that they resort to violence I shall not stand by any longer and cover for these maniacs by being polite - see: politically correct. Enough is enough.

T'ai Chi

5th February 2006, 07:50 AM

No longer shall I curb my anger or carefully watch what I say against terrorism and violence perpetrated by muslims.

I think it is important to distinguish between very large numbers of peaceful Muslims and smallish numbers of violent fundamentalists.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 07:52 AM

I think it is important to distinguish between very large numbers of peaceful Muslims and smallish numbers of violent fundamentalists.Sorry to be sarcastic but we've been doing that since 9-11 and where has that gotten us? Oh...ya...burning embassies across the Middle East over cartoons.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 07:57 AM

I think it is important to distinguish between very large numbers of peaceful Muslims and smallish numbers of violent fundamentalists.
T'ai Chi,
Respectively, where are these "peaceful Muslims" you speak of? The religion preaches that it's not allowed to show an image of the Profit, Allah et al under pain of death. I guess this applies to us Infidels too, huh?

I return to my point. When these moderate Muslims take back their religion, I'll listen. Until that point, Mohmad was a pigf***er.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 07:59 AM

When these moderate Muslims take back their religion, I'll listen. Until that point, Mohmad was a pigf***er.The "pigf***er" part is uncalled for... but the "When these moderate Muslims take back their religion, I'll listen" part is exactly where I am coming from. ;)

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:03 AM

Violence Spreads Over Muhammad Caricatures (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_51)

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Thousands of Muslims rampaged Sunday in Beirut, setting fire to the Danish Embassy, burning Danish flags and lobbing stones at a Maronite Catholic church as violent protests spread over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

Protesters also took to the streets in Afghanistan, the West Bank, Iraq and New Zealand, a day after demonstrators in Syria charged security barriers outside the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and sent the buildings up in flames.

The Danish foreign minister said: "enough is enough."I agree, enough is enough.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:05 AM

The "pigf***er" part is uncalled for... but the "When these moderate Muslims take back their religion, I'll listen" part is exactly where I am coming from. ;)
Ok, ok, claiming that a proment religious figure has sexual relations with a farm animal may be a touch over the top, I withdraw it.

Can I say that his momma dressed him funny?

Mark

5th February 2006, 08:07 AM

Ok, ok, claiming that a proment religious figure has sexual relations with a farm animal may be a touch over the top, I withdraw it.

Can I say that his momma dressed him funny?

Doesn't matter; either one would be equally offensive to them.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 08:08 AM

I hate Scrappy Doo, he is the most annoying cartoon ever.

Lighter? Check!

Petrol? Check!

US Embassy here I come!

PS, not really, it's cold outside and I'm not standing around to wait for a train on a sunday.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:08 AM

Doesn't matter; either one would be equally offensive to them.
Really? So, I can spend minimum time coming up with Muhammad insults that would get maximum effect? Cool.

I wonder what one of our more Photoshop-talented members could do with this?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/campari.jpg

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:10 AM

Ok, ok, claiming that a proment religious figure has sexual relations with a farm animal may be a touch over the top, I withdraw it.Thanks...

Can I say that his momma dressed him funny?I would suggest you save the epithets for the human beings that are perpetuating the terrorism and violence sweeping the globe. It is they that are threatening all non-muslims by using violence to force their belief system upon us.

{edited to add}

...and that belief system I speak of is now proven to be inherently violent and dangerous to non-muslims.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:14 AM

Thanks...

I would suggest you save the epithets for the human beings that are perpetuating the terrorism and violence sweeping the globe. It is they that are threatening all non-muslims by using violence to force their belief system upon us.
Soooo...I should say that Osama bin LAden's mamma dresses him funny?

Except, that doesn't have the oomph that picking on the Profit has.

<sigh>

Can I scribble Fu Manchu's on all the pictures I can find of al Zawkawi?

WildCat

5th February 2006, 08:16 AM

I agree with your thoughts...but wish you wouldn't call it "political correctness." To often that phrase is used simply as an excuse to dismiss good manners.

But the Muslims have shown that thier culture is interested in nothing but our death or conversion (preferably the former). I am fed up too. To say the least.

If a cartoon offends them to this level of violence, there is simply no appeasing them. Ever. In anything.
Talk about a topic that can unite the majority of the Politics forum! Yes Mark, I agree w/ you 100%.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 08:17 AM

I think it is important to distinguish between very large numbers of peaceful Muslims and smallish numbers of violent fundamentalists.

I agree. While it's easy to blame all Muslims for the extremism of a few, we should remember that there ARE Muslims who live out their entire lives wanting only the same things the rest of us want - peace, understanding, happiness, the right to raise their families as they see fit, the respect of those they treat well and the health of those they love.

To go off blaming ALL Muslims (which you may inadvertently do simply by using the word, Muslims - replace it with Blacks, or Chinese, or Hispanics and see how comfortable you are) is the same attitude that brought about the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Slavery in America and, dare I say it . . . the Crusades.

WildCat

5th February 2006, 08:19 AM

It is they that are threatening all non-muslims by using violence to force their belief system upon us.
One of my best friends in high school was a muslim, I said the only reason Islam was popular was the the forced conversions of people. He gave me a book to "disprove" that, it was about Khalid bin Walid, the "Sword of Islam". And it made plain that when he conquered another land, those people had a choice: Convert or die. My friend finally had to admit I had a point.

Mark

5th February 2006, 08:20 AM

Talk about a topic that can unite the majority of the Politics forum! Yes Mark, I agree w/ you 100%.

I gotta write this date down! ;)

Seriously, this was the last straw for me. What could we possibly do that wouldn't offend them? Even our very existence does that!

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:20 AM

Can I scribble Fu Manchu's on all the pictures I can find of al Zawkawi?Hell you can do anything you wish to al-Zarqawi or the leaders of Al Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and any other muslim terror organization. For it is they, the humans who threaten our way of life, that are the true enemy to our society...not Allah.

geni

5th February 2006, 08:21 AM

T'ai Chi,
Respectively, where are these "peaceful Muslims" you speak of?

How about the one who lives accross the hall to me? Ok he's in the teritorial army so maybe not. But what about the ones who didn't set fire to me after a got into an argument with the islamic society?

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:21 AM

I agree. While it's easy to blame all Muslims for the extremism of a few, we should remember that there ARE Muslims who live out their entire lives wanting only the same things the rest of us want - peace, understanding, happiness, the right to raise their families as they see fit, the respect of those they treat well and the health of those they love.

To go off blaming ALL Muslims (which you may inadvertently do simply by using the word, Muslims - replace it with Blacks, or Chinese, or Hispanics and see how comfortable you are) is the same attitude that brought about the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Slavery in America and, dare I say it . . . the Crusades.
Mephisto,
Normally, I'd agree with you. Except that the counterexamples that you claim are there...haven't done a gamned thing to counter this image that the morons have put forth. Where are the moderates speaking out against bin Laden or Zawkawi? Where are the moderates speaking out against the embassy burnings? Oh, yeah, they can't speak up or the morons will kill them. Hmmm...quite the conumdrum, eh?

WildCat

5th February 2006, 08:22 AM

I agree. While it's easy to blame all Muslims for the extremism of a few, we should remember that there ARE Muslims who live out their entire lives wanting only the same things the rest of us want - peace, understanding, happiness, the right to raise their families as they see fit, the respect of those they treat well and the health of those they love.

To go off blaming ALL Muslims (which you may inadvertently do simply by using the word, Muslims - replace it with Blacks, or Chinese, or Hispanics and see how comfortable you are) is the same attitude that brought about the Holocaust, the Inquisition, Slavery in America and, dare I say it . . . the Crusades.
Where the hell are all these "moderate" muslims? The pic below was taken in London for cryin' out loud! Just imagine what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0602/gallery.muslim.protest/01.uk.ap.jpg

geni

5th February 2006, 08:26 AM

I gotta write this date down! ;)

Seriously, this was the last straw for me. What could we possibly do that wouldn't offend them? Even our very existence does that!

To be fair muslims are probably not the only group offended by my very existance.

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 08:26 AM

Where the hell are all these "moderate" muslims?

There have been moderate Muslims in the Norwegian media, both in the papers and on tv, condemning the actions.

I've translated one of the articles here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1423811#post1423811)

And, to add some anecdotal evidence, my Muslim Arab Lebanese friend is pissed off at what his countrymen are doing.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:26 AM

How about the one who lives accross the hall to me? Ok he's in the teritorial army so maybe not. But what about the ones who didn't set fire to me after a got into an argument with the islamic society?
Ok, is he speaking out against these embassy attack? Have you found the lone sane Muslim?

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 08:27 AM

Remember when you were a kid and you drew a picture making fun of your little brother? When your little brother started crying, your mom smacked both of you for being immature?

She was right. You both needed to grow up. I'm tired of the cartoonists and journalists trying to take the moral high ground in this debate. They knew what they were doing when they drew the cartoon.

You're all a bunch of brats, and I'm embarassed to be a part of the same species. It is impossible to take a side in this debate and also maintain the reason we were so fortunate to have evolved over millions of years. Where's mom when you need her?

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:28 AM

To be fair muslims are probably not the only group offended by my very existance.
Well, yeah, but that's too long a list to enumerate here...:p

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 08:28 AM

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0602/gallery.muslim.protest/01.uk.ap.jpg

Am I being silly, or does that middle sign say "Europe you will pay, your 3/11 is on it's way!!!" ?

geni

5th February 2006, 08:28 AM

Where the hell are all these "moderate" muslims? The pic below was taken in London for cryin' out loud! Just imagine what goes on in Saudi Arabia.

Well they don't appear to be beheading anyone in that pic. What the heck is 3/11. I supose it could be messed up 9 but that would make it the 9th of novemeber.

geni

5th February 2006, 08:29 AM

Ok, is he speaking out against these embassy attack? Have you found the lone sane Muslim?

Haven't talked to him about it. I think he is out training with the TA this weekend.

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 08:33 AM

Am I being silly, or does that middle sign say "Europe you will pay, your 3/11 is on it's way!!!" ?

3 shillings and elevenpence? I never knew Muslims used LSD...

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:34 AM

There have been moderate Muslims in the Norwegian media, both in the papers and on tv, condemning the actions.What good does a few moderate Muslims speaking in Norwegian do? Really. I am not being flippant but the people burning Danish embassies across the Middle East do not listen to Norwegian moderate muslims.

Notice that there is not a peep from the Arab League over riots and violence sweeping the Arab League countries...not a peep. There is no central Muslim entity or central Muslim voice condemning this terrorism and violence. They are condemning the cartoons alright. And that is my point.

Enough is enough, I am sick and tired of it. Londoners shouldn't have to be blown up because some muslims don't like Britain, Israelis shouldn't have to be blown up because some muslims don't like jews, America shouldn't have to be blown up because some muslims don't like American foreign policy and Danes shouldn't have to be threatened with death and have their embassies burn to the ground because some muslims don't like cartoons.

The violence and terror is unjustifiable.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 08:35 AM

Haven't talked to him about it. I think he is out training with the TA this weekend.
It's ok. My point is that the collective voice just isn't being heard. Mainly because Islam in not a religion that has learned to deal with discention, from either internal or external sources. Chrisitianty, for the most part, has learned that lesson; when's the last time you've heard of a Hindu uprising because the Simpsons had Homer masquerade as Ganesh? All the other major world religions have learned that discent will happen, and a non-volent means of dealing with it solves more problems.

And I checked...drawing fu manchus on al-Zarqawi wouldn't really amount to much...his beard is too thick. Maybe a propeller beanie.

Mark

5th February 2006, 08:42 AM

To be fair muslims are probably not the only group offended by my very existance.

LOL!

Mine, too. Especially here. ;)

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:45 AM

Here is another example of what I speak of.

Palestinian Stabs 5 on Israeli Bus; 1 Dead (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-israel-stabbing,1,4484567.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines) - 1:28 AM PST, February 5, 2006

JERUSALEM -- A Palestinian man stabbed five people on a minibus in central Israel, killing one woman before passengers subdued him, police and witnesses said.

Police said one woman was killed. Israel's national rescue service said four others were wounded, including three women.

Police said the attack in the central Israeli city of Petach Tikva was politically motivated, but did not elaborate. They said the attacker came from the West Bank, but it was unclear how the he had entered Israel.Enough is enough, I am sick and tired of it. Londoners shouldn't have to be blown up because some muslims don't like Britain, Israelis shouldn't have to be stabbed to death on the bus because some muslims don't like jews, and Danes shouldn't have to be threatened with death and have their embassies burn to the ground because some muslims don't like cartoons.

geni

5th February 2006, 08:45 AM

Chrisitianty, for the most part, has learned that lesson; when's the last time you've heard of a Hindu uprising because the Simpsons had Homer masquerade as Ganesh?

There has been quite a bit of hindu rioting over the last few years. And of course the first indian upriseing/mutiny was triggered partly because of claims that the carterges were greased with fat from cows.

T'ai Chi

5th February 2006, 08:46 AM

, where are these "peaceful Muslims" you speak of?

In the countries where they live, of course.

There's about 1.5 billion total Muslims, I'm sure you're not unskeptical enough to believe all 1.5 billion are violent fundamentalists.

Beerina

5th February 2006, 08:46 AM

Exactly. If their culture and religion is sooooooo ***** threatened by a cartoon that they resort to violence I shall not stand by any longer and cover for these maniacs by being polite - see: politically correct. Enough is enough.

I often wonder why an infinitely powerful god needs the help of decidedly finite mortals to murder His political enemies.

Hawk one

5th February 2006, 08:48 AM

One of my best friends in high school was a muslim, I said the only reason Islam was popular was the the forced conversions of people. He gave me a book to "disprove" that, it was about Khalid bin Walid, the "Sword of Islam". And it made plain that when he conquered another land, those people had a choice: Convert or die. My friend finally had to admit I had a point.

Convert or die... Where have I heard that one before?

Oh yes! It was that way Norway was turned into christianity in the first place! Now, isn't that alanic?

My personal view:
The editors of the two first magazines that printed it didn't do it to be courageous. They, especially the zealous Norwegian magazine, did it to be *********.

The following uproar is some of the most completely moronic behaviour I've ever seen, since Bush decided to invade Iraq and scare us with all the WMD bullcrap. Yes, the concept of free speech is not exactly the same there, but it's still moronic.

And I notice that although one magazine in France also printed said cartoons and caught flak for it, nobody's supporting them. Where are all the French flags? Gotta be consistent here, no?

And finally: We want to get rid of one religion or at least their extreme parts, we need to get rid of them all. Whether their "god" tells them to blow up Syrian embassies, or invade a country under false pretenses, or sue AIM for an "I AM" campaign.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 08:49 AM

Where are the moderates speaking out against the embassy burnings?

If I'm not mistaken, The Fire admitted to being a Muslim woman (although at the time I thought she was a man) living in Denmark. She seems pretty moderate to me. Still, I'm not going to get riled up because a bunch of extremists can't think for themselves and take violence to the streets to placate their anger.

The type of knee-jerk attitudes we're seeing here is exactly what imprisoned Japanese-Americans during WWII. It's exactly how thousands upon thousands of Jews could be herded into prison camps or murdered in their villages without so much as an outcry from Democractic countries.

My grandfather once told me a long time ago (he was full-blooded Apache) that hate is a human emotion and although it should be kept in check by self-restraint and the desire for clear thinking - it should NEVER be leveled at anyone who hasn't PERSONALLY and PHYSICALLY hurt either you or your family. I accept the fact that this type of thinking is exactly what keeps the violence in the middle east alive and well, but I personally can't hate a group of people for the actions of a few. Seeing the support that this incident has caused, it's only a matter of time before the current government spinmeisters see the advantage and start whipping everyone into a nationalistic fervor.

When I was young we all heard about the "Red Menace" which became the "Sleeping Yellow Dragon" and will undoubtedly become the "Muslim Menace." Communism fell, the Yellow Dragon now holds the enormous financial debt of the U.S. in its hands and I have faith that years from now the "Muslim Menace" (i.e. the Islamic extremists) will self-destruct. I only hope that we don't hold the moderate Muslims (who SEEM non-existant simply because they're NOT burning embassies) at fault afterwards.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:49 AM

In the countries where they live, of course.

There's about 1.5 billion total Muslims, I'm sure you're not unskeptical enough to believe all 1.5 billion are violent fundamentalists.It is obvious that 1.5 billion are not violent fundamentalists. But hundreds of thousands are. And that is the core issue...not who isn't a violent fundamentalist but who is a violent fundamentalist and what are muslims going to do about it. Enough is enough. When embassies are burning across the Middle East over a cartoon I draw a line in the sand here and now.

Mycroft

5th February 2006, 08:49 AM

How about the one who lives accross the hall to me? Ok he's in the teritorial army so maybe not. But what about the ones who didn't set fire to me after a got into an argument with the islamic society?

Are you saying there are ones that did set fire to you? :jaw-dropp

Twilek

5th February 2006, 08:51 AM

Well they don't appear to be beheading anyone in that pic. What the heck is 3/11. I supose it could be messed up 9 but that would make it the 9th of novemeber.

I think they're referring to the March 11 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Mycroft

5th February 2006, 08:53 AM

Am I being silly, or does that middle sign say "Europe you will pay, your 3/11 is on it's way!!!" ?

You broke the secret code. They don't have the patience to wait for September, something will happen on March 11. :eek:

Cylinder

5th February 2006, 08:54 AM

Am I being silly, or does that middle sign say "Europe you will pay, your 3/11 is on it's way!!!" ?

It's just another thinly-veiled threat by an Islamic death cult. The Madrid train attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_11,_2004_Madrid_attacks) occurred on March 11, 2004.

geni

5th February 2006, 08:54 AM

You broke the secret code. They don't have the patience to wait for September, something will happen on March 11. :eek:

No in the uk we use dates the other way around.

Mark

5th February 2006, 08:54 AM

If I'm not mistaken, The Fire admitted to being a Muslim woman (although at the time I thought she was a man) living in Denmark. She seems pretty moderate to me. Still, I'm not going to get riled up because a bunch of extremists can't think for themselves and take violence to the streets to placate their anger.

The type of knee-jerk attitudes we're seeing here is exactly what imprisoned Japanese-Americans during WWII. It's exactly how thousands upon thousands of Jews could be herded into prison camps or murdered in their villages without so much as an outcry from Democractic countries.

My grandfather once told me a long time ago (he was full-blooded Apache) that hate is a human emotion and although it should be kept in check by self-restraint and the desire for clear thinking - it should NEVER be leveled at anyone who hasn't PERSONALLY and PHYSICALLY hurt either you or your family. I accept the fact that this type of thinking is exactly what keeps the violence in the middle east alive and well, but I personally can't hate a group of people for the actions of a few. Seeing the support that this incident has caused, it's only a matter of time before the current government spinmeisters see the advantage and start whipping everyone into a nationalistic fervor.

When I was young we all heard about the "Red Menace" which became the "Sleeping Yellow Dragon" and will undoubtedly become the "Muslim Menace." Communism fell, the Yellow Dragon now holds the enormous financial debt of the U.S. in its hands and I have faith that years from now the "Muslim Menace" (i.e. the Islamic extremists) will self-destruct. I only hope that we don't hold the moderate Muslims (who SEEM non-existant simply because they're NOT burning embassies) at fault afterwards.

As a card carrying liberal whacko, I feel bad about my opinion on this. But the fact is, the imprisoned Japanese-Americans in WW2 were decent, law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong, and were royally screwed. To compare them in any way to these violent Muslim cretins, is to dishonor the Japanese.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 08:55 AM

No in the uk we use dates the other way around...and they drive on the wrong side of the road and have funky teeth. :p

geni

5th February 2006, 08:55 AM

The guys closest to the camera in this pic would appear to be moderate:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41297000/gif/_41297140_beirut1.gif

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 08:57 AM

. . . but who is a violent fundamentalist and what are muslims going to do about it.

You could just as easily ask what moderate Christians are going to do about Operation Rescue or the pushing of ID in schools. You could also ask what gays are going to do about the group "Act Up," or what White people are going to do about Skinheads. You're essentially asking moderate Muslims to become extremists (for your cause).

Fighting extremism with extremism makes about as much sense as having sex for virginity or . . . invading a country for Democracy.

T'ai Chi

5th February 2006, 08:58 AM

It is obvious that 1.5 billion are not violent fundamentalists. But hundreds of thousands are. And that is the core issue...not who isn't a violent fundamentalist but who is a violent fundamentalist and what are muslims going to do about it. Enough is enough. When embassies are burning across the Middle East over a cartoon I draw a line in the sand here and now.

I'll be generous, say there are 999,999 violent fundamentalists.

999,999 / 1,500,000,000 = .06 %.

So you're really fumed, and rightly so, at those .06%, not the 94% who are peaceful.. yet you make efforts to not distinguish between the two, probably because you are so angry.

Beerina

5th February 2006, 08:58 AM

Notice that there is not a peep from the Arab League over riots and violence sweeping the Arab League countries...not a peep. There is no central Muslim entity or central Muslim voice condemning this terrorism and violence. They are condemning the cartoons alright. And that is my point.

Religion isn't, and never was, about non-existent gods and what these gods supposedly want you to believe. It's always been about the powerful using it as a tool to control the masses by redirecting the masses' hatred, stirring it up or creating it outright as need be.

In that sense, it's working as designed. :( :jaw-dropp :rolleyes:

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:02 AM

You could just as easily ask what moderate Christians are going to do about Operation Rescue or the pushing of ID in schools. You could also ask what gays are going to do about the group "Act Up," or what White people are going to do about Skinheads. You're essentially asking moderate Muslims to become extremists (for your cause). With all due respect you are obscuring the issue with other issues. The issue is muslims across the middle east are threatening Scandinavians with harm, burning their embassies and generally terrorizing and being unjustifiably violent over a cartoon.

Today is the day to stop obscuring the issue with other issues. These muslim maniacs rioting across the Middle East threaten your way of life Mephisto, they threaten your belief system and your society. Yesterday it was Israel, then America, then Spain, then London, Bali, Beslan.....now the Danes.

It is time to end the political correctness B.S. and stand up for what is right.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 09:03 AM

I think they're referring to the March 11 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Erm, but isn't Madrid in Europe?

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:05 AM

So you're really fumed, and rightly so, at those .06%, not the 94% who are peaceful.. yet you make efforts to not distinguish between the two, probably because you are so angry.I have been "distinguishing between the two" since 9-11 and enough is enough. Today I draw a line in the sand and demand and expect nonviolence and an end to muslim terrorism. Period. No "rationalizations" are acceptable anymore.

Meadmaker

5th February 2006, 09:05 AM

And I notice that although one magazine in France also printed said cartoons and caught flak for it, nobody's supporting them. Where are all the French flags? Gotta be consistent here, no?

My own reason for adding the Danish flag, but not the French, to my avatar is that it was the Danish embassy that was burned. When 9/11 happened, an awful lot of Europeans showed a lot of solidarity with Americans. I wanted to return the favor, in a small way.

Of course, others have been threatened and attacked, but that's too many flags to deal with. I think the Danish flag makes a statement that is understood.

I do agree with those saying that we shouldn't attack all Muslims for these acts. I live in Detroit, where there are lots and lots of Muslims. We haven't had riots in the streets of Dearborn. (That's where the most Muslims live.) It isn't "Muslims" who are burning embassies. It's wacko Arabs whose dictator leaders love to keep anti-Western frenzy at a fever pitch so they can keep their own people subdued. I'm sure King Abdallah likes nothing better than seeing a bunch of Arabs demanding less freedom of the press. It's definite job security for the King.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:06 AM

As a card carrying liberal whacko, I feel bad about my opinion on this. But the fact is, the imprisoned Japanese-Americans in WW2 were decent, law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong, and were royally screwed. To compare them in any way to these violent Muslim cretins, is to dishonor the Japanese.

But, Mark - there ARE Muslims who are law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. Those are the people I'm concerned with and I see no parallel (other than Islam) between them and the violent Muslim cretins. America was wrong to imprison Japanese-Americans for fear that their allegiance was to race instead of country, and we're wrong to label all Muslims for fear that they all interpret their creed to justify violence.

What other recourse is there? Round them up and put them concentration camps or reservations? Drop nuclear weapons on middle-eastern countries? Are we weak for letting Muslim extremists draw the line in the sand, or are we stupid for crossing it?

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:12 AM

It isn't "Muslims" who are burning embassies. It's wacko Arabs whose dictator leaders love to keep anti-Western frenzy at a fever pitch so they can keep their own people subdued.With all due respect it is muslims in muslim countries who are burning embassies over a cartoon. It is not "Arabs" or "dictators" it is muslims. The bombings in London was muslims, Spain...muslims, Bali...muslims, Israel...muslims, Iraq...muslims. Let's stop mincing words and obscuring the truth. As embassies across the middle east are burning, today is the day to stop rationalizing the truth.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:17 AM

These muslim maniacs rioting across the Middle East threaten your way of life Mephisto, they threaten your belief system and your society. Yesterday it was Israel, then America, then Spain, then London, Bali, Beslan.....now the Danes.

Well here is where I'll beg to differ. Muslims haven't threatened me in any way at all and anything ANY extremist says is taken at face value (sticks & stones you know).

Besides, the greatest threats to my belief system came from the U.S. Cavalry, land-grabbing western settlers, cowboys and the Texas Rangers. The greatest threats to my belief system NOW come from my own government who is tossing aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for expedient reasons. The extremism that everyone seems to be advocating here dictates that I toss away my moderation and fight for the lands that my ancestors once roamed, fight against the prejudice that depicts Mexicans as animals to be hunted and fight against the government that advocates invasion, torture and lying to its citizens.

Cylinder

5th February 2006, 09:17 AM

Erm, but isn't Madrid in Europe?

Good point. I was parsing it for meaning - not logic.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:21 AM

Well here is where I'll beg to differ. Muslims haven't threatened me in any way at all and anything ANY extremist says is taken at face value (sticks & stones you know).What about the WOT, 9-11 and the WTC bombings in '93. Would you still say fundamnetalist Muslims do not threatened you in any way at all? I beg to differ.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:21 AM

With all due respect it is muslims in muslim countries who are burning embassies over a cartoon. It is not "Arabs" or "dictators" it is muslims. The bombings in London was muslims, Spain...muslims, Bali...muslims, Israel...muslims, Iraq...muslims. Let's stop mincing words and obscuring the truth. As embassies across the middle east are burning, today is the day to stop rationalizing the truth.

Unless you can prove that Muslims in the U.S. are participating in the violence and embassy burning, I don't think you can say Muslims as a whole.

egslim

5th February 2006, 09:23 AM

I don't mean to defend Islam as a religion in any way, it has now reached a new low of dispicability I would never have imagined even possible.

With that in mind though:
1) There really are Muslims who disapprove of this violence over cartoons and are ashamed by it. That is in no way an excuse for Islam, I would even go as far as to say that if they disapprove it is despite their religion. But if such Muslims speak out against the violence we should welcome them as allies instead of treating them like Islamists.
2) Even though I consider Islamists enemies, I think we should do our best to understand their motives. Not to look for a justification of their actions, but because knowing your enemy makes it easier to defeat him.

RandFan

5th February 2006, 09:23 AM

Fighting extremism with extremism makes about as much sense as having sex for virginity or . . . invading a country for Democracy.?

Who is fighting extremism with extremism? I missed the call for burning of embassies of countries with predominate Muslim populations.

I've seen nothing that would cause me alarm in the free exchange of ideas on this forum. Speaking out against extremism is a good thing in my mind and shouldn't be equated with the extremism.

Hey, if anyone is calling for violence or boycotts or anything else then please let me know and I will verbally slap them down.

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:25 AM

Sorry to be sarcastic but we've been doing that since 9-11 and where has that gotten us? Oh...ya...burning embassies across the Middle East over cartoons.

Personally, I just think the cartoons are an excuse. Anything else would have done the trick, too.

clk

5th February 2006, 09:25 AM

Islam is the most violent and oppressive religion on the planet. I hope people realize now that they are not just waging war against Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. They are not just waging war against the US, Israel, Britain, Spain, Russian, India, and Australia. They will wage war against even small countries that stand for freedom. They are waging war on civilization.

egslim

5th February 2006, 09:29 AM

Personally, I just think the cartoons are an excuse. Anything else would have done the trick, too.
Indeed, it is very clear some Muslim leaders had the deliberate intention to provoke a violent conflict between Muslims and Westerners. If someone is really intent on picking a fight it just isn't possible to deny him an excuse.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:30 AM

What about the WOT, 9-11 and the WTC bombings in '93. Would you still say fundamnetalist Muslims do not threatened you in any way at all? I beg to differ.

. . . then they came for the moderate Muslims, but there was no one to speak for them. . . because, no one believed there was such a thing as they remained quiet and . . . moderate.

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:30 AM

The_Fire

5th February 2006, 09:30 AM

If I'm not mistaken, The Fire admitted to being a Muslim woman (although at the time I thought she was a man) living in Denmark.

I did? Where? Sorry, but my faithcard says "Highly Eclectic Pagan Wannabe bordering on atheism and hating Silver Raven Hoax" ;)

The "Woman" and "Danish" thing is correct though.....

I have, on the other hand, worked with people who were muslims ranging from the dude whom could drink a beer once in a while to the almost-but-not-quiet-fanatic palestinian whom I almost got in to a major row with over 9/11 and I do think that most of the moderates are simply affraid to speak out.
Even in Denmark the Muslim community is fairly shut off from the rest, or thats my impression of it, and as such, the impression of other muslims matters a lot. It's a cop out on why they are not acting, but they are afraid. And with the embassy burnings, the rightwing, both muslim and "ethnic Danish", acting up whom can blame them?

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:34 AM

Unless you can prove that Muslims in the U.S. are participating in the violence and embassy burning, I don't think you can say Muslims as a whole.I am not your enemy but that rationalization seems vacant these days in the light of 9-11, Bali, London, Madrid, Ankara, Beirut, Baghdad, Tel Aviv, Gaza, Kabul...and now...the cartoon Jihad!

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:34 AM

And I notice that although one magazine in France also printed said cartoons and caught flak for it, nobody's supporting them. Where are all the French flags? Gotta be consistent here, no?

You've convinced me NOT to convert my Avatar, Hawk. The demon just says it all.

And finally: We want to get rid of one religion or at least their extreme parts, we need to get rid of them all. Whether their "god" tells them to blow up Syrian embassies, or invade a country under false pretenses, or sue AIM for an "I AM" campaign.

Thanks, man. I needed that.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 09:38 AM

Not that I disagree, Delphi, but that doesn't excuse what those guys are doing one bit.

...I hate religion.

It doesn't excuse what anyone is doing. Stop burning down buildings. Stop publishing pictures ridiculing other people's imaginary friends to get a reaction. Stop pontificating that all Muslims are savages because this makes them angry. Stop talking about how angry their anger makes you.

It's all so [Rule 8]ing childish. Where do I go to return my humanity membership card? I don't want anything to do with this species.

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:39 AM

Religion isn't, and never was, about non-existent gods and what these gods supposedly want you to believe. It's always been about the powerful using it as a tool to control the masses by redirecting the masses' hatred, stirring it up or creating it outright as need be.

More or less, in the sense that both the powerful and the masses BELIEVE in it.

Hawk one

5th February 2006, 09:39 AM

Thanks, man. I needed that.

You're welcome. I also notice I made a glaring mistake, but I'm sure you and everyone else understood I -meant- to say "Danish embassies in Syria". Should be quite clear from the overall context, no? ;)

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:40 AM

It doesn't excuse what anyone is doing. Stop burning down buildings. Stop publishing pictures ridiculing other people's imaginary friends to get a reaction. Stop pontificating that all Muslims are savages because this makes them angry. Stop talking about how angry their anger makes you.

It's all so [Rule 8]ing childish. Where do I go to return my humanity membership card? I don't want anything to do with this species.

Calm down, man. I always say that if you don't want to get your face bashed in you shouldn't taunt the large guy at the bar. That's exactly what the cartoonist did.

I don't want to be part of this species either. Been saying that for 2 decades, now. Wanna form a club ?

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:41 AM

?

Who is fighting extremism with extremism? I missed the call for burning of embassies of countries with predominate Muslim populations.

I was speaking of the general tone of the thread. It doesn't sound to me like many of the angry people here are calling for a boycott of Muslim-owned companies or businesses, it doesn't sound like an attempt to reach out to moderate Muslims and it certainly doesn't sound like an even-tempered call to understanding that extremists DON'T speak for everyone.

BTW, where have you been? You've been missed for the few days we didn't see you around. :)

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 09:43 AM

I always say that if you don't want to get your face bashed in you shouldn't taunt the large guy at the bar.

However, if you talk about the large guy to your family when you go home you may be justified in feeling upset when he comes to burn your house down.

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:45 AM

. . . then they came for the moderate Muslims, but there was no one to speak for them. . . because, no one believed there was such a thing as they remained quiet and . . . moderate.

Unfortunately, Mephisto, although most Muslims aren't fundamentalists, the few that are cause a lot of trouble, to everyone, it seems. Just like criminals in any society: few in numbers, but something's got to be done. I'm just not smart enough to know what that is.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:46 AM

....and it certainly doesn't sound like an even-tempered call to understanding that extremists DON'T speak for everyone.As far as I am concerned you are correct. Today is the day I draw a line in the sand and will no longer accept excuses for the actions of Islamic extremists from London to Karachi. It is time to ask not what we should do... but ask what are Muslims gonna do to curb the Islamic extremists who live amongst them.

Mojo

5th February 2006, 09:46 AM

Soooo...I should say that Osama bin LAden's mamma dresses him funny? People have already, er, belittled him in other ways:

http://ugandandiscussions.co.uk/1041/

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:47 AM

However, if you talk about the large guy to your family when you go home you may be justified in feeling upset when he comes to burn your house down.

This is where everything gets complicated : everyone always has a good reason to be upset. I honestly know of no solution to that.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 09:47 AM

However, if you talk about the large guy to your family when you go home you may be justified in feeling upset when he comes to burn your house down.

However, if you invite the big guy over for steak and you have leftovers and he takes them home and you're all like "what's up with that" and then you both go to see a movie starring Gene Hackman because the grocery store is closed and your socks don't match...

What the hell are you talking about?

rikzilla

5th February 2006, 09:47 AM

I gotta write this date down! ;)

Seriously, this was the last straw for me. What could we possibly do that wouldn't offend them? Even our very existence does that!

It's what I've been saying all along Mark...(but then again I don't remember you disagreeing much)...

This is why I welcome the cartoon effect! Now I can be sure that when I vote for a Dem for purely domestic and social reasons I will be able to count on Her to actively fight the terrorism war!! (at least I sure hope so) I also want that holy-roller out of the White House!!! I just never could trust that his more rational replacement would keep killing jihadis.

Whew...I feel much better now...and more hopeful than I have in a long long time!

-z

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 09:48 AM

I don't want to be part of this species either. Been saying that for 2 decades, now. Wanna form a club ?

I'm certainly with you on that one! Count me in! We can call ourselves the Moderate Human Club. ;)

Belz...

5th February 2006, 09:50 AM

I'm certainly with you on that one! Count me in! We can call ourselves the Moderate Human Club. ;)

Human ? No no no... same word. Won't do. We need a new species.

Homo Skepticus ? Still human...

...

Darn! Stupid darwinistic evolution and its survival traits. I just HATE religion. And even more since this silly cartoon thing.

egslim

5th February 2006, 09:52 AM

This is where everything gets complicated : everyone always has a good reason to be upset. I honestly know of no solution to that.
This is indeed the fundamental problem. In Western culture if someone is upset they sue, and an independent third party determines who's right.

In Arab culture if someone is upset they respond with violence. Which in turn incites more violence, etc. Westerners used to do the same thing in the Dark Ages, but we learned the judicial system was more practical.

Mark

5th February 2006, 09:53 AM

It's what I've been saying all along Mark...(but then again I don't remember you disagreeing much)...

This is why I welcome the cartoon effect! Now I can be sure that when I vote for a Dem for purely domestic and social reasons I will be able to count on Her to actively fight the terrorism war!! (at least I sure hope so) I also want that holy-roller out of the White House!!! I just never could trust that his more rational replacement would keep killing jihadis.

Whew...I feel much better now...and more hopeful than I have in a long long time!

-z

In an odd way, I do too. Although we surely disagree on how to fight these morons, we can at least agree that their culture is one of violence and the blood feud. There is no getting along with them.

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 09:53 AM

What the hell are you talking about?

Everyone should be free to behave how they want in their own home. Including Danes.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 09:55 AM

Everyone should be free to behave how they want in their own home. Including Danes.

Er... what does that have to do with anything? :confused:

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 09:58 AM

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060205/i/r2883702830.jpg

Pakistani Islamists from Ahle Hadith party burn an effigy of Danish prime minister during a rally in Lahore February 5, 2006. REUTERS/Mohsin Raza

They are burning an effigy of the Danish prime minister over a cartoon! Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 09:58 AM

However, if you invite the big guy over for steak and you have leftovers and he takes them home and you're all like "what's up with that" and then you both go to see a movie starring Gene Hackman because the grocery store is closed and your socks don't match...

What the hell are you talking about?

http://img428.imageshack.us/img428/2609/avatar8qe.jpg

Jihad?

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 10:02 AM

Er... what does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Get someone else to explain it to you.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 10:03 AM

Get someone else to explain it to you :roll:

Too lazy to make your own point without gibberish analogies?

geni

5th February 2006, 10:06 AM

They are burning an effigy of the Danish prime minister over a cartoon! Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Nah the whole anti golablisation movement has lowered the bar for burning effigies somewhat.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 10:10 AM

Nah the whole anti golablisation movement has lowered the bar for burning effigies somewhat.Damn them! ;)

Meanwhile:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0602/gallery.muslim.protest/08.gaza.gi.jpg

Palestinian supporters of the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas demonstrate Friday in Gaza City. Some Europeans are being recalled from Gaza over concerns for their safety. (CNN)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0602/gallery.muslim.protest/01.uk.ap.jpg

Protesters chant slogans outside the French embassy in London denouncing cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. (CNN)

Wake up folks.

clk

5th February 2006, 10:20 AM

There has been quite a bit of hindu rioting over the last few years. And of course the first indian upriseing/mutiny was triggered partly because of claims that the carterges were greased with fat from cows.

The vast majority of Hindu rioting is caused by Muslims. Example: A few years ago, Muslims found a train full of Hindus that were going to a religous site. The Muslims burned the Hindus alive. After that, several days of rioting followed. The pattern has become clear: Islam is at war with all of the major countries and religions. United States, Israel, Spain, Britain, Australia, Russia, China, India, etc. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...they even fight against the Buddhists! Who fights against Buddhists??

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 10:24 AM

...they even fight against the Buddhists! Who fights against Buddhists??

Sadly, this is true. Several monasteries have been torched and the monks massacred in southern Thailand the last few years.

Belz...

5th February 2006, 10:31 AM

Too lazy to make your own point without gibberish analogies?

Gee, Delphi. When I said "new species" I hadn't thought of something like that new Avatar of yours. But whatever's not human works, I guess. I'll be making some of those new club membership cards, if you want one.

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 10:31 AM

...they even fight against the Buddhists! Who fights against Buddhists??

China? :rolleyes:

(Sorry for replying to the same post twice)

geni

5th February 2006, 10:33 AM

The vast majority of Hindu rioting is caused by Muslims. Example: A few years ago, Muslims found a train full of Hindus that were going to a religous site. The Muslims burned the Hindus alive. After that, several days of rioting followed.

Umm the report into the fire found that it was acidental.

geni

5th February 2006, 10:34 AM

Who fights against Buddhists??

Tamil tigers.

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 10:37 AM

Tamil tigers.

How could I forget that...

clk

5th February 2006, 10:41 AM

Umm the report into the fire found that it was acidental.

There are many other instances of Hindu-Muslim violence. The point is this: can you name me one other religion that is at war with every other major religion and country? No, there are no other religions that are quite as violent. Hindus don't train guerilla fighters to go and fight wars against Jews in Israel or Christians in the US.

geni

5th February 2006, 10:42 AM

Palestinian supporters of the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas demonstrate Friday in Gaza City. Some Europeans are being recalled from Gaza over concerns for their safety. (CNN)

Situation normal.

Protesters chant slogans outside the French embassy in London denouncing cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. (CNN)

Uh hu. So they didn't invade it and start a protracted siege?

geni

5th February 2006, 10:46 AM

There are many other instances of Hindu-Muslim violence. The point is this: can you name me one other religion that is at war with every other major religion and country?

Since when has islam been at war with Japan?

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 10:50 AM

Since when has islam been at war with Japan?

Since they stationed troops in Iraq.

clk

5th February 2006, 10:56 AM

Since when has islam been at war with Japan?

This reminds me of something Bin Laden once said: "Unlike what Bush says --- that we hate freedom ---- let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example."

But he is full of sh*t. I have no doubt, that if he had his way and were able to take over the US and other countries, that he would attack Sweden. He would find some stupid excuse (the Swedes published a cartoon of the prophet...let's kill them!). Anyways, they are fighting against China, India, US, Britain, Spain, Russia, Australia, and other countries. Can you find me a religion at war with this many major countries? Can you find me a religion that is at war with all of the others?

To this day, no major Arab Muslim cleric has issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. That tells you all that you need to know.

kmortis

5th February 2006, 10:58 AM

Look, Z-N has hit it. This latest round has reached a new low, even for the extremest of the fundamentalists. All this rioting and burning is over CARTOONS, GAMNIT!!

kmortis

5th February 2006, 10:59 AM

To this day, no major Arab Muslim cleric has issued a fatwa against Bin Laden. That tells you all that you need to know.
Maybe they feel his kidneys have done it for them?

Jon_in_london

5th February 2006, 11:03 AM

There has been quite a bit of hindu rioting over the last few years. And of course the first indian upriseing/mutiny was triggered partly because of claims that the carterges were greased with fat from cows.

Of course, the Muslim Sepoys mutinied because thought they were greased with pigs fat.

Damned impudent natives! well... except for the Sikhs... who remained loyal... bloody good show what!

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 11:03 AM

I agree. It's long past time to stop treating fundamentalism with kid gloves.

So, who should we slaughter first, the Muslims, or the Jews? I call dibs on the IDists!

The_Fire

5th February 2006, 11:05 AM

There are many other instances of Hindu-Muslim violence. The point is this: can you name me one other religion that is at war with every other major religion and country? No, there are no other religions that are quite as violent. Hindus don't train guerilla fighters to go and fight wars against Jews in Israel or Christians in the US.

You know, This got me googling......

Remember This (http://www.warc.ch/dcw/rw984/04.html)

Those were mainly Christians behind that atrocity.

There are jerks within every religion.

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 11:06 AM

You know, This got me googling......

Remember This (http://www.warc.ch/dcw/rw984/04.html)

Those were mainly Christians behind that atrocity.

There are jerks within every religion.

Not to mention the atrocities comitted against the Muslims in Bosnia.

clk

5th February 2006, 11:07 AM

You know, This got me googling......

Remember This (http://www.warc.ch/dcw/rw984/04.html)

Those were mainly Christians behind that atrocity.

There are jerks within every religion.

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming that all of the other religions are peaceful. Just that Islam is much more violent and oppressive than them.

T'ai Chi

5th February 2006, 11:10 AM

There are jerks within every religion.

And every non-religion.

Welcome to planet Human.

The_Fire

5th February 2006, 11:11 AM

The_Fire

5th February 2006, 11:20 AM

Daffy looked so...so....naked!:eek::p

plindboe

5th February 2006, 11:24 AM

My personal view:
The editors of the two first magazines that printed it didn't do it to be courageous. They, especially the zealous Norwegian magazine, did it to be *********.

In other words, you think newspapers should self-censor anything that can provoke muslims due to fears of death threats. No newspaper should print anything that is offensive to anyone, much better to remain quiet and only print stuff that no one can possibly get angry about.

Either you have no interest in or understanding of free speech, of you are absolutely ignorant about Jyllandspostens arguments, and the context in which the cartoons were printed.

Mark

5th February 2006, 11:24 AM

Daffy looked so...so....naked!:eek::p

Everybody hates the little black duck.

Btw, I would like to see evidence for the claim in your sig. ;)

The_Fire

5th February 2006, 11:28 AM

Everybody hates the little black duck.

Btw, I would like to see evidence for the claim in your sig. ;)
People keep asking me that and I keep telling people: Only if you bribe the snakes in my hair !:p

Mark

5th February 2006, 11:30 AM

People keep asking me that and I keep telling people: Only if you bribe the snakes in my hair !:p

...must resist bad taste pun about turning me to "stone"...must resist...

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 11:33 AM

Too lazy to make your own point without gibberish analogies?

The analogy wasn't gibberish, it just required a couple of seconds of thought.

Everyone should be free to behave how they want in their own home. Including Danes =Non-Danish Muslims have no right to tell Danes how to behave in Denmark.

Do you have trouble with irony too?

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 12:24 PM

I don't see this whole affair so much as an argument against Islam, but an argument for secularism. If everyone would leave their religions out of their dealings with other people, we wouldn't have these kind of issues. You don't like what the Danish do in Denmark? And vice versa? So what? I don't like my neighbor's curtains. But they're her curtains, not mine, and therefore I don't let my feelings about them interfere in my relations with her. It's called civilization, when you and other people agree to follow a set of conventions. Secularism, universally applied, ought to be one of those conventions. Practice your religion as much as you like. But recognize that it's your business, not anybody else's. This is best for the religious, too, if they only would realize it.

It will never happen, of course. But I did think it necessary to point out that one doesn't have to hate, disapprove, or have any feelings at all about Islam to condemn the current activities of some of its followers. Their fault, in my monkey opinion, is not in their religion, but in the application of religion, which should be private, into the public sphere.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 12:35 PM

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 01:01 PM

The religion is based around the idea of faith intruding into the public sphere. That's why it includes an entire system of law.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 01:01 PM

Do you have trouble with irony too?

Apparently you do. Aren't you complaining about the way these Muslim radicals are behaving in their own country?

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 01:09 PM

The religion is based around the idea of faith intruding into the public sphere. That's why it includes an entire system of law.

So are other religions. Christianity and Judaism, for two that spring to mind. Religions tend to do that: most of them originate in times and places where there was no ideal of secularism. Religion was the first politics. They're old, way older than science and the Enlightenment. However, religions can be brought to heel under a secular framework for the public good. Christianity in the US, for example. Yeah, sometimes the devout try to sneak something past, and yeah, sometimes they succeed. But it hasn't reached a point that we would need to eliminate the religion itself. There need be no conflict, as long as the agreed-upon secular truce is held. Islam could receive the same treatment. It would take more work, because Islam isn't used to the idea of secularism and separation of church and state. It's a newer religion, still a little rough around the edges, not aged to the point where it recognizes that compromise is necessary. But it's certainly worth the effort to try, rather than triggering a jihad, or a war on a religion. Those tend to be messy.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 01:17 PM

Apparently you do. Aren't you complaining about the way these Muslim radicals are behaving in their own country?

There were people on the streets of London calling for people to be beheaded. Being British I condemn their behaviour.

Ralph

5th February 2006, 01:48 PM

Enough political correctness already! I am sick and tired of the justifications for muslim terrorism and muslim violence. Enough is enough. Today is the day I turn over a new leaf as I watch Danish embassies burn across the Middle East over cartoons.

If the cartoon Jihad has taught us nonmuslims one thing it is that we've had enough muslim terrorism and muslim violence. The reaction to a few frikkin cartoons is so over the top and out of proportion that it cannot be justified by any rational argument. This is a wake up call to all those useful idiots who justify muslim terrorism and muslim violence as a "result" of some other issue.

No longer shall I curb my anger or carefully watch what I say against terrorism and violence perpetrated by muslims. For this I shall be branded an islamophobe and a racist, but that is the point. I am not an islamophobe or a racist but I am definitely against terrorism and violence which has no justification in a civilized world. The game will be to brand people like me who have had enough as an islamophobe or a racist to maginalize me and deflect from the clear and present danger, muslim terrorism and muslim violence sweeping the globe. So be it I say.

Thoughts?

I think I was around 20 when the Munich Massacre occurred. Of course back then...Islamic terrorism wasn't the household word it is today. Murdering athletes at the Olympics, of all places, just seemed so horrific.

Then as the years passed it turned into this endless stream of kidnappings and plane hijackings and other assorted acts of murder. It almost seemd like we were getting used to all this.

Eventually though it became apparent that this wasn't just the isolated acts of a few lunatics.

As the body count rose and the barbarity of the acts increased I found myself thinking "just what the hell is it going to take before the civilized world says "ENOUGH". I always assumed of course that what triggered this would some horrific event or an enormous body count.

When school buses started to be targeted I though THIS would do it. How could anyone possibly condone the deliberate murder of school children.

Obviously I was wrong and things continued on as they had been.

After Belsan I thought "this finally will be what causes that line to be drawn in the sand" but again I was wrong.

Finally though, it seems like the civilized world is saying "No More"......and it's not because of some horrible atrocity..................it's over a freakin CARTOON!!!!!

The question is---where does this go from here?

I think recent events should convince most people (other than Orwell anyway) that allowing a country like Iran to possess nukes is sheer insanity.

I'm inclined to believe Webfusion's ideas that those two Iranian enrichment sites are toast by the end of March.

That should make for some rather interesting events I suspect.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 01:49 PM

There were people on the streets of London calling for people to be beheaded. Being British I condemn their behaviour.

But only their behavior, right? The people burning embasies in the Middle East are just fine with you? I think your moral code is a bit cracked.

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 02:03 PM

Christianity and Judaism, for two that spring to mind. Judaism is safely contained, and Christianity has been effectively neutered.

If the Spanish Inquisition were taking place now, though, I think you might think rather differently about the value of Christianity.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 02:09 PM

But only their behavior, right? The people burning embasies in the Middle East are just fine with you? I think your moral code is a bit cracked.

Oh no, the burning of embassies was the thing that made me take sides in this. Attacks on Danish and Norwegian property are wholly unacceptable.

I find it ironic that British muslims are using their freedom of speech to call for limits to be imposed on freedom of speech.

Muslims believe I'm going to hell for being an infidel. In a way I find that somewhat offensive. Should I go and protest outside the embassies of muslim nations? Or should I continue to do what I've always done, and realise that their opinions don't mean squat to me?

Meadmaker

5th February 2006, 02:09 PM

With all due respect it is muslims in muslim countries who are burning embassies over a cartoon. It is not "Arabs" or "dictators" it is muslims. The bombings in London was muslims, Spain...muslims, Bali...muslims, Israel...muslims, Iraq...muslims.

The point is, and I would think eveyone understood this, is that there is nothing about being a muslim that makes you want to burn down an embassy. Your faith doesn't require you to blow things up. I know plenty of Muslims, and I have never met any of them who seemed intent on wanting to kill me. If Muslims were busy killing everyone, then the streets of Dearborn wouldn't be safe for us palefaces.

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 02:15 PM

I find it ironic that British muslims are using their freedom of speech to call for limits to be imposed on freedom of speech. Shame we can't force them to practice what they preach and shut the hell up, isn't it?

Alas, people calling for freedom of speech to be curtailed are rarely concerned with trivial things like consistency...

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 02:22 PM

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 02:24 PM

The point is, and I would think eveyone understood this, is that there is nothing about being a muslim that makes you want to burn down an embassy. Your faith doesn't require you to blow things up. I know plenty of Muslims, and I have never met any of them who seemed intent on wanting to kill me. If Muslims were busy killing everyone, then the streets of Dearborn wouldn't be safe for us palefaces.

This is absolutely true. I think the problem is that people only see the muslims that make the news, as people going peacefully about their everyday lives isn't in any way interesting.

But on the other hand, maybe those ordinary muslims do need to make the news more, to show absolute condemnation of all things the crazy ones get up to.

For instance, this press release from the Muslim Council of Britain, dated 30th January:

The Muslim Council of Britain strongly deplores the continuing refusal of newspapers in Denmark and Norway to apologise for printing a series of sacrilegious cartoons vilifying the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

"These newspapers have printed extremely offensive caricatures of the beloved Prophet of Islam and this case, worryingly, reflects the emergence of an increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted towards Muslims in parts of the Western media. Newspaper editors must exercise due care and restraint when dealing with issues like this.

Muslims respect and love the Prophet as being dearer to them than their own families. We should not allow our valued freedoms in Europe to be abused by those deliberately seeking to provoke hatred and division between communities," said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

At the same time, the MCB regards the violent threats made against Danish and EU citizens by some groups in the Muslim world as completely unacceptable and displaying an utter disregard of basic Islamic injunctions on how to resolve disagreements and differences.

A delegation from the Muslim Council of Britain is shortly due to meet with the Danish Ambassador to the UK to convey the concerns of British Muslims

Source (http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/presstext.php?ann_id=185)

To me it seems heavy on condemnation of "islamophobia", but less so on the actions of extremist groups.

Again, from the MCB, this time dated 3rd February:

The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply concerned by the continuing refusal of several European newspapers to understand and acknowledge the immense hurt they have caused to Muslims the world over by printing gratuitously offensive caricatures of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“We reiterate our absolute condemnation of the decision to publish these images in Denmark and view their republication in other European countries as a deliberate and senseless act of provocation. Newspaper editors must exercise restraint and good judgement instead of adding to the increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted in parts of Europe against Muslims. These newspapers should apologise immediately for the harm they have caused,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB acknowledges the fundamental right of peoples of all faiths to freedom of speech and expression. This does not mean however that they should be free to create social unrest and instability. Neither should that freedom be abused to undermine national interests at home and abroad.

Inevitably some elements may seek to exploit this current crisis to provoke negative or extreme reactions among Muslims. The MCB urges fellow British Muslims to exercise the utmost restraint in the face of these provocations.

“There may be elements that would want to exploit the genuine sense of anguish and hurt among British Muslims about the manner in which the Prophet has been vilified to pursue their own mischievous agenda. We would caution all British Muslims to not allow themselves to be provoked. They should respond peacefully and with dignity at all times,” added Sir Iqbal.

Again, three paragraphs of "insensitive newspapers", and then a suggestion that British muslims should behave.

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 02:24 PM

I agree with your thoughts...but wish you wouldn't call it "political correctness." To often that phrase is used simply as an excuse to dismiss good manners.

But the Muslims have shown that thier culture is interested in nothing but our death or conversion (preferably the former). I am fed up too. To say the least.

If a cartoon offends them to this level of violence, there is simply no appeasing them. Ever. In anything.[Deep menacing voice] Welcome to the dark side. Now arise, "Darth Daffy".
;)

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 02:26 PM

Oh no, the burning of embassies was the thing that made me take sides in this. Attacks on Danish and Norwegian property are wholly unacceptable.

But you're not Norwegian, and these attacks didn't happen on United Kingdom soil. What business is it of yours? You're being totally inconsistent here.

And what of attacks on non-embassy property? You're okay with that?

(I'm not asking these questions to be pedantic. I'm asking to point out the fact that the moral code outlined earlier in ridiculous analogies is too simplistic to be of any use to anyone. From what you posted, it's clear that even you're not okay with others doing whatever they please in their own "house.")

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 02:44 PM

Judaism is safely contained, and Christianity has been effectively neutered.

If the Spanish Inquisition were taking place now, though, I think you might think rather differently about the value of Christianity.

You accept my point, then, that it is entirely possible to tame rampant religions.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 02:46 PM

But you're not Norwegian, and these attacks didn't happen on United Kingdom soil. What business is it of yours? You're being totally inconsistent here.

And what of attacks on non-embassy property? You're okay with that?

(I'm not asking these questions to be pedantic. I'm asking to point out the fact that the moral code outlined earlier in ridiculous analogies is too simplistic to be of any use to anyone. From what you posted, it's clear that even you're not okay with others doing whatever they please in their own "house.")

Embassies are considered foreign soil, so an attack on an embassy is an attack on another country. I think that's where the house analogy comes from. If the danish print something in Denmark, then it's not covered by the islamic laws in place in the middle east. If their embassy is attacked then that is not anything to do with the laws of the country that the embassy is in, that comes under international laws.

To use the house analogy, say there's no swearing in my house, but you allow swearing in yours. You can swear all you like in your house, but if I start coming round and smashing your windows for being foul mouthed, then I start breaking the law of the country we're in.

Danish muslims are free to complain about being offended, and should file a complaint against the paper if they feel that way. For muslims in another country to attack the Danish embassy is wrong. They can show agreement with Danish muslims, by all means. British muslims can show solidarity as well, but only within the limits of the law, not by calling for people to be beheaded.

Likewise, attacks on non-embassy property are illegal in those countries, so people shouldn't do it.

It's business of mine because muslims seem to have the idea that islamic law applies to everyone, and not just muslims.

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 02:49 PM

You accept my point, then, that it is entirely possible to tame rampant religions. Yes, but we don't have the centuries necessary to do it in - and that's in the case where slow travel permits isolated memetic environments.

Judaism is a dangerous and virulent set of beliefs, but it concentrated on perpetuating itself within a guaranteed population instead of spreading. Christianity has less virulence, but it can infect outsiders instead of just progeny, and it's left an indelible mark on the global consciousness. Islam is even more virulent than Christianity. It explicitly encourages conversion by force. That wouldn't be so much of a problem - Christianity has gone through similar stages - except that Islam is currently in the midst of its Dark Ages of fundamentalism.

It's long past time that we stopped tolerating this madness. Religious beliefs are simply not sane, and the fact that humans are predisposed to them is not a justification.

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 02:51 PM

It's business of mine because muslims seem to have the idea that islamic law applies to everyone, and not just muslims. They believe that Islamic law came directly from God and that everyone is supposed to be a "Muslim" (one who submits). In their minds, the laws DO apply to everyone. We don't follow them because we're evil.

It's rather the same way Judaism traditionally asserted that all human beings were called to obey certain laws, except Judaism is a geneologically tribal religion not given to intercultural transmission.

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 02:56 PM

Yes, but we don't have the centuries necessary to do it in

We'll just have to work smarter, not harder? Seriously, though, anything we try is going to be easier than a religious war. Those things are nightmares. We'd be fighting people in caves for centuries.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 02:58 PM

It's business of mine because muslims seem to have the idea that islamic law applies to everyone, and not just muslims.

But you also seem to have the idea that your ethics and law apply to everyone, including those who live outside your country. How are you any different?

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 02:59 PM

We'll just have to work smarter, not harder? Seriously, though, anything we try is going to be easier than a religious war. Those things are nightmares. We'd be fighting people in caves for centuries. It would be far easier to build a space-going generation ship and load all of the sensible people into it.

If the hyper-tribalism of religion really is built into our brains, there will never be a solution until we engineer it out, and I don't think we have time for that. The US looks more and more like the alternate backhistory of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and where the US goes the rest of the Western World tends to follow.

Elind

5th February 2006, 03:03 PM

Enough political correctness already!

Thoughts?

Isn't that what what the majority of us have been saying, more or less?

My only thought is that the rhetoric must not match that of the other side.

Elind

5th February 2006, 03:05 PM

Elind

5th February 2006, 03:06 PM

I think it is important to distinguish between very large numbers of peaceful Muslims and smallish numbers of violent fundamentalists.
As I said just now, that's fine if you can find them; although I might suggest that they might be in the US, that spawn of the devil, since they have been pretty civil so far, as has everyone else.

Ryokan

5th February 2006, 03:07 PM

The JREF have dropped their political correctness! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51625) :D

Melendwyr

5th February 2006, 03:08 PM

But you also seem to have the idea that your ethics and law apply to everyone, including those who live outside your country. How are you any different? Exactly. There can ultimately be only one meta-culture, one set of beliefs that unify all of mankind, with each example of what we normally consider to be cultures representing just a possible state in the solution space defined by the meta-culture.

This is part of a war to determine what those rules will be. So is the rising fundamentalism in the US. So is the chaos of China. And so on, and so forth.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 03:12 PM

Unfortunately, Mephisto, although most Muslims aren't fundamentalists, the few that are cause a lot of trouble, to everyone, it seems. Just like criminals in any society: few in numbers, but something's got to be done. I'm just not smart enough to know what that is.

I willing to admit that I'm not smart enough either. I'm also willing to admit that I'm really happy that everyone here exists in a culture that allows us all to address these concerns and current events. You're absolutely right that it's the fundies that are causing the trouble - just as it's the fundies who are trying to pass off creationism as science, shooting abortion doctors and blowing up clinics and complaining bitterly that their Ten Rules aren't pushed on the general population in public buildings.

This entire thing is almost a comical conumdrum, the idea that violence is caused by people certain that what they believe happens to us after we die is true and that they have a monopoly on that claim. Now we have nothing left to do but sit back and watch the reactions of Christian or nationalistic extremists swing the pendulum the opposite way. The sad thing (as usual) is the fact that innocents will be caught in the middle.

zenith-nadir

5th February 2006, 03:12 PM

My only thought is that the rhetoric must not match that of the other side.No matter how badly I dissaprove of the islamic fundamentalists I would never:

A) start torching their embassies
B) randomly blow up their buses, subways or nightclubs
C) fly planes into their buildings
D) demand what they can and cannot put in their media
E) join in violent protests and burn their flags or goods

But I will eventually draw a line in the sand when they become insane and unjustifiably dangerous.

The cartoon Jihad is definitely an instance where they - the fundamentalist muslims - have become insane and unjustifiably dangerous.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 03:19 PM

But you also seem to have the idea that your ethics and law apply to everyone, including those who live outside your country. How are you any different?

No, I said that people were free to act within the limits of their own countries laws, as well as the limits of international laws.

I'm not suggesting that people in other countries should conform to my ethics, I'm saying they shouldn't try to make me conform to theirs.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 03:29 PM

No, I said that people were free to act within the limits of their own countries laws, as well as the limits of international laws.

I'm not suggesting that people in other countries should conform to my ethics, I'm saying they shouldn't try to make me conform to theirs.

You don't see where those two sentences contradict one another? You're advocating international law as a higher ethic than Muslim law and requiring that these radicals conform to your ethics.

Elind

5th February 2006, 03:32 PM

I'll be generous, say there are 999,999 violent fundamentalists.

999,999 / 1,500,000,000 = .06 %.

So you're really fumed, and rightly so, at those .06%, not the 94% who are peaceful.. yet you make efforts to not distinguish between the two, probably because you are so angry.

Do you not realize how utterly silly your logic is?

99.94% of all Muslims are utterly incapable of controlling .06% of them? They want us to do so and then bitch about how we do it?

On the other hand the numbers could be wrong, but there is only one direction it could be isn't there?

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 03:33 PM

You don't see where those two sentences contradict one another? You're advocating international law as a higher ethic than Muslim law and requiring that these radicals conform to your ethics.

Yes. Otherwise you get trapped by paradox if you attempt to tolerate intolerance, for example. Something has to give way.

You can't let a logical paradox stop you from acting. Otherwise you'll spend eternity trying to work out whether "This statement is a lie" is true or false.

Elind

5th February 2006, 03:35 PM

No matter how badly I dissaprove of the islamic fundamentalists I would never:

A) start torching their embassies
B) randomly blow up their buses, subways or nightclubs
C) fly planes into their buildings
D) demand what they can and cannot put in their media
E) join in violent protests and burn their flags or goods

But I will eventually draw a line in the sand when they become insane and unjustifiably dangerous.

The cartoon Jihad is definitely an instance where they - the fundamentalist muslims - have become insane and unjustifiably dangerous.

No problem with your logic, I just commented on rhetoric. I speak from personal experience. I sometimes have trouble doing so too, but I'm feeling much better now, really I am:D

Darat

5th February 2006, 03:40 PM

There were people on the streets of London calling for people to be beheaded. Being British I condemn their behaviour.

I actually go further and want to know why those people weren't arrested for incitement to murder.

egslim

5th February 2006, 03:41 PM

We'll just have to work smarter, not harder? Seriously, though, anything we try is going to be easier than a religious war. Those things are nightmares. We'd be fighting people in caves for centuries.
On the other hand, if a bunch of cartoons is enough to provoke these people then simply trying to not incite them will prove to be practically impossible. Besides, it is clear there are a number of Muslim leaders intent on a religious war, so they will somehow find an excuse.

As long as this crisis remains limited to torching a couple of embassies, we can continue to try to ignore them, I hope that works. But if there is a large wave of terrorist attacks we will have to do something more drastic.

I think our best option is education. Get to those Muslim kids at an early age and teach them secular values about non-violence and religious tolerance. Get rid of all imams promoting violence.
Only problem is, we need to somehow get their governments to fully and enthousiastically cooperate. But confronting a few governments is far less messy than doing the same with 1.8 billion Muslims.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 03:56 PM

I actually go further and want to know why those people weren't arrested for incitement to murder.

I read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4683002.stm) that the police were aware of what was going on and had surveillance teams in operation, but chose not to act immediately, I guess because they'd be portrayed as disrupting free speech. Whether this was the right way to go about it we'll have to wait and see.

Darat

5th February 2006, 03:59 PM

I read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4683002.stm) that the police were aware of what was going on and had surveillance teams in operation, but chose not to act immediately, I guess because they'd be portrayed as disrupting free speech. Whether this was the right way to go about it we'll have to wait and see.

But as with justice sometimes it is better for it to be seen that the law is being enforced.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 04:00 PM

gnome

5th February 2006, 04:00 PM

I generally agree with the sentiments already expressed here... but I thought something was worth pointing out. Because something is expressed in a cartoon does not necessarily make it in any way trivial or inconsequential. I have seen some powerful political cartoons--even though they were ostensibly light hearted.

This is not to say that the extremist muslim outrage is justified--just to say that it is little different from being outraged by a book, or a speech.

Mycroft

5th February 2006, 04:06 PM

Why only muslims. There are numerous hot spots around the world, where innocent people are killed, every day. Why only Muslim? If the issue was Islamic terrorism and violence sweeping the globe, we would be in the midst of a war that the world has never seen before. The issue is extremists. The battle should be for the 'hearts and minds' of the moderates. To take the stance that you are taking is to drive a wedge between moderates around the world, who want their children to live and grow in peace, and those who think it is worth sacrificing their children to extremist ideals.

A wedge should be driven between Muslim moderates and Muslim extremists.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 04:24 PM

You don't see where those two sentences contradict one another? You're advocating international law as a higher ethic than Muslim law and requiring that these radicals conform to your ethics.

International law says neither of us can force our ethics on each other. It is a means to which we somehow manage to all share this planet, it came about as a way to protect everyones way of life. If they choose to throw that protection away in favour of their own law, if they believe it to be from a higher authority, then they can do that, but the rest of the world still has a right to defend itself. If they wish to become totally intolerant then that's all they can expect in return.

That's not forcing your ethics on someone, that's protecting them.

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 04:35 PM

Why only muslims. There are numerous hot spots around the world, where innocent people are killed, every day. Why only Muslim? If the issue was Islamic terrorism and violence sweeping the globe, we would be in the midst of a war that the world has never seen before. The issue is extremists. The battle should be for the 'hearts and minds' of the moderates. To take the stance that you are taking is to drive a wedge between moderates around the world, who want their children to live and grow in peace, and those who think it is worth sacrificing their children to extremist ideals.Why is it a bad thing to drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists? How else will the moderates rise up to take the world of Islam, and relegate the extremist Muslim terrorists to the trash heap of history?

gnome

5th February 2006, 05:10 PM

Why is it a bad thing to drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists? How else will the moderates rise up to take the world of Islam, and relegate the extremist Muslim terrorists to the trash heap of history?

I think the "dustbin of history" may wind up one of my favorite Bushisms that isn't a grammatical error.

I'm all for that wedge...

Elind

5th February 2006, 05:21 PM

The battle should be for the 'hearts and minds' of the moderates.

I always thought the phrase was "for the hearts and minds of the extremists".

The moderates are already with us, or are they?

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 05:33 PM

International law says neither of us can force our ethics on each other. It is a means to which we somehow manage to all share this planet, it came about as a way to protect everyones way of life. If they choose to throw that protection away in favour of their own law, if they believe it to be from a higher authority, then they can do that, but the rest of the world still has a right to defend itself. If they wish to become totally intolerant then that's all they can expect in return.

That's not forcing your ethics on someone, that's protecting them.

And they're trying to protect us all from damnation. You can't have it both ways. You cannot comdemn someone else for imposing their beliefs on you while you impose yours on someone else. You're angry with them for judging the cartoonists by Muslim standards while you judge them by Western standards.

If you want to comdemn them for being wrong and supporting an ancient mythology that is no longer relevant and backward, I could get behind that. If you want to condemn them for being violent and irrational, fine. Just don't feed me this line about international law being blind to ethics.

Elind

5th February 2006, 05:43 PM

Elind

5th February 2006, 05:47 PM

I saw this somewhere on the news. Wasn't it the OIC the ones who started this back in December by passing a resolution calling for an apology from Denmark?

The world’s leading Islamic body condemned the violence. “Over-reactions surpassing the limits of peaceful democratic acts . . . are dangerous and detrimental to the efforts to defend the legitimate case of the Muslim world,” the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, representing 57 nations, said.

gnome

5th February 2006, 05:48 PM

I always thought the phrase was "for the hearts and minds of the extremists".

The moderates are already with us, or are they?

I'm thinking of the "hearts and minds" of those that might waver. Moderates that might, sufficiently motivated, become violently extreme... or those in the company of extremists that might find themselves alienated from them, given a viable alternative.

Johnny Pixels

5th February 2006, 05:57 PM

And they're trying to protect us all from damnation. You can't have it both ways. You cannot comdemn someone else for imposing their beliefs on you while you impose yours on someone else. You're angry with them for judging the cartoonists by Muslim standards while you judge them by Western standards.

If you want to comdemn them for being wrong and supporting an ancient mythology that is no longer relevant and backward, I could get behind that. If you want to condemn them for being violent and irrational, fine. Just don't feed me this line about international law being blind to ethics.

I'm not imposing my beliefs on them, I'm protecting myself from having their beliefs imposed on me. It's not my belief that they shouldn't force their beliefs on me. I don't want their beliefs forced on me. In the same way I don't want cancer forced on me. It's not a belief issue.

International law is not without ethics, but they are universal, as opposed to being no longer relevant, backward, violent and irrational. If it were then it would be changed. That is why I stand by it, because it is open to reason, rather than dogma.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 05:57 PM

What beliefs are being imposed on them?:confused:

The belief that we can say what we want in our house?

That is an ethical standard. I happen to think it's a rational one, but it doesn't get you away from the fact that you're judging someone else based on your own standards.

And this "say what we want in our own house" analogy is pathetic. This was printed in public, not whispered between two people.

delphi_ote

5th February 2006, 06:02 PM

I'm not imposing my beliefs on them, I'm protecting myself from having their beliefs imposed on me. It's not my belief that they shouldn't force their beliefs on me. I don't want their beliefs forced on me. In the same way I don't want cancer forced on me. It's not a belief issue.

International law is not without ethics, but they are universal, as opposed to being no longer relevant, backward, violent and irrational. If it were then it would be changed. That is why I stand by it, because it is open to reason, rather than dogma.

Now I think we're starting to see a little more eye to eye.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 06:47 PM

I always thought the phrase was "for the hearts and minds of the extremists".

The moderates are already with us, or are they?
You have the rabble rousing happening here going to extremes whereby it is 'muslims' that are the problem, not extremist muslims, then we are heading down towards a very dim and dismal future.

I have read of several proto extremists saying it is the war in Iraq that is motivating them. Not Afghanistan, which I think most people saw as simple retribution for 9/11, but Iraq, which was sheer pig headed lunacy.

The West has to stick to standards if it is going to demand that the Islamic world does, too.

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 06:58 PM

I have read of several proto extremists saying it is the war in Iraq that is motivating them. Would these be the same extremists that burned down buildings OVER FRICKING CARTOONS??!?!

If so, why would you even care what they thought? Is there anything someone can do to make you write them off, and give up trying to please them?

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 07:00 PM

I would care what they thought because it might give me some indication on their motivations.

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 07:04 PM

I would care what they thought because it might give me some indication on their motivations.So what does that have to do with rioting over CARTOONS?

How about this for a motivation: those rioting are totally nuts. Does that sound accurate?

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 07:33 PM

BS Investigator

5th February 2006, 07:41 PM

zenith-nadir, I agree with your OP.

I beieve that this current cartoon flap has done more to expose the evils of Islam around the world than any of the recent terror bombings, including Madrid and London.

How better to illustrate the crazed and dangerous mindset of these Muslims? They are exposing themselves.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 07:45 PM

That's what I can't understand. When 9/11 happened, I wondered why so many people were surprised. It had been a possibility for years.

The rise of fundy Islam was well known for years before then, if anyone was interested. The reasons for the rise, and the West's actions in contributing to that rise, were not on the TV current affairs shows. (Such news would have crowded out the latest diet, small time crook or film star marriage/split/birth.)

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 08:03 PM

There is a history of the resurgence of extremist Islam. A part of the reason for that rise is actions by the west. To just write them off as 'nuts', ( and I do disagree with their actions), is self defeating.But is it accurate?

And keep in mind I'm not talking about all Muslims, or even all extremist Muslims. We can keep it focused just on those that would kill and burn down buildings over catoons. Is it accurate to say that they are crazy? Or do you think sane, rational, normal people kill and destroy over cartoons?

PixyMisa

5th February 2006, 08:20 PM

I'm tired of the cartoonists and journalists trying to take the moral high ground in this debate.
Which side is rioting, burning embassies, and threatening murder?

You'll find that the other side most likely has the moral high ground.

They knew what they were doing when they drew the cartoon.
You know, I don't think they really did.

The cartoons came about because the author of a book on Muhammed couldn't find anyone willing to illustrate it. The editors of Jyllands-Posten wanted to point out the degree to which the West was censoring itself to avoid irrational and violent reactions from the Islamic world.

They published twelve - for the most part, very mild - cartoons about Muhammed. The result? Rioting, burning embassies, death threats.

I think they expected protests, but I don't think they understood how deeply disfunctional Islam is.

You're all a bunch of brats, and I'm embarassed to be a part of the same species.
Yeah, whatever.

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 08:28 PM

Sadly, this is true. Several monasteries have been torched and the monks massacred in southern Thailand the last few years.And the Taliban destroyed a lot of Buddhist statues after they came to power. Including the two tallest standing Buddha statues in the world.

Compare the world's reaction to that, to the fundamentalist Islam reaction to a few cartoons.

Elind

5th February 2006, 08:29 PM

I'm thinking of the "hearts and minds" of those that might waver. Moderates that might, sufficiently motivated, become violently extreme... or those in the company of extremists that might find themselves alienated from them, given a viable alternative.

I guess that covers just about everyone anywhere anytime, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

Elind

5th February 2006, 08:40 PM

That is an ethical standard. I happen to think it's a rational one, but it doesn't get you away from the fact that you're judging someone else based on your own standards.
Of course:boggled:. Do you judge based on someone else's standards?

And this "say what we want in our own house" analogy is pathetic. This was printed in public, not whispered between two people.
This is called pedantic literalism. In my house, in my place, in my home, in my country, in my frame of reference. Get the idea?

RandFan

5th February 2006, 08:56 PM

Freakshow

5th February 2006, 09:00 PM

Good point.[Imitating God, from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"...]
OF COURSE its a good point!!!!
:D

RandFan

5th February 2006, 09:06 PM

[Imitating God, from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"...]
OF COURSE its a good point!!!!
:D Where would we be without Monty Python? :D

Nyarlathotep

5th February 2006, 09:20 PM

Why is it a bad thing to drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists? How else will the moderates rise up to take the world of Islam, and relegate the extremist Muslim terrorists to the trash heap of history?

I think it may be a good thing for that wedge to be driven too, if history is any guide. Back in the 16th century several radical Christian sects arose, known collectively as anabpatists. Some of these sects were fairly peacable but some were violent and made some pretty determined efforts at establishing theocracies (especially in the City of Munster and in parts of Switzerland) by force. In the end, after a few wars and battles that ultimately saw Catholics and mainstream Protestants take a break from butchering each other in order to deal with these guys, the violent sects were either wiped out or forced to swear off violence. As for the rest, they are known today as the Mennonites and Amish, about as non-violent a bunch as can be.

If we can get similar results out of this conflict, I think that wedge may be a good thing.

Meadmaker

5th February 2006, 09:39 PM

It certainly does not affect everyone that way. But why is there a small number of people that are driven to violence the way they are? Is it something in particular with Islam? Is it just the state of Islam today? Is it just a complete coincidence?

Seriously asking. I'm not just putting out rhetorical questions.

Back when Christian countries were ruled by kings, they regularly killed each other and any heathens they could get their hands on. That's just my opinion, anyway. I don't think it's quite that simple, but it's close.

I don't know enough about Islam to know whether there really is some incompatibility between human rights, freedom of religion, democracy, and Islam. The ones I have known assure me that there is no such conflict, and I'm inclined to believe them, but I could be wrong.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 09:50 PM

But is it accurate?

And keep in mind I'm not talking about all Muslims, or even all extremist Muslims. We can keep it focused just on those that would kill and burn down buildings over catoons. Is it accurate to say that they are crazy? Or do you think sane, rational, normal people kill and destroy over cartoons?

History has shown that, at various times, for various reasons, otherwise normal people seem to suffer bouts of collective insanity. The Germans under Nazism being the most obvious example.

The question is, how to react to it, what to do to not help create it.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 09:53 PM

Why is it a bad thing to drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists? How else will the moderates rise up to take the world of Islam, and relegate the extremist Muslim terrorists to the trash heap of history?

When you drive a wedge, you force people to choose, you risk splitting them at the wrong point. Don't forget, many perceive the West to be currently engaging in yet one act in a long history of imperialism and colonialism that involves Islamic countries.

What worries me is that this is one more step towards a murderous war. Tit for tat reaction and over-reaction. The more jolly and self righteous the mood, the more worrying for me and my children.

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 09:58 PM

Don't forget, many perceive the West to be currently engaging in yet one act in a long history of imperialism and colonialism that involves Islamic countries.

Interestingly in Hungary, with church bells rung at 12 noon every day to commemorate Janos Hunyadi freeing Christendom from the Turks and Muslim architecture still visible around South Western Hungary, the view is the exact opposite.

And Népszabadság was one of the newspapers to reprint the cartoons.

BS Investigator

5th February 2006, 10:02 PM

It is better to have the dangers of Islam illustrated by a flap over some cartoons than to have those dangers illustrated, once again, with bombs going off in our major cities. I think this cartoon thing has been very valuable and will draw free nations together in the face of intolerant Islam.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 10:06 PM

Interestingly in Hungary, with church bells rung at 12 noon every day to commemorate Janos Hunyadi freeing Christendom from the Turks and Muslim architecture still visible around South Western Hungary, the view is the exact opposite.

And Népszabadság was one of the newspapers to reprint the cartoons.

I wasn't talking about hundreds of years ago.

Nyarlathotep

5th February 2006, 10:12 PM

I wasn't talking about hundreds of years ago.

Perhaps not, but I see their attempt to force the people of Denmark to abide by the restrictions of Islam to be an act of Imperialism and Agression too. And that's today. Add to that the protestors in London waving around signs with slogans like "Europe is the caner Islam is the Answer" and the various calls from various and sundry Imams that call for Jiahd agianst all westerners that seem to issue froth from the Islamic world on a regular basis, and it really makes any cries of 'Imperialism' from their side ring hollow, does it not?

John de Combe

5th February 2006, 10:26 PM

I wasn't talking about hundreds of years ago.

I know you weren't - I wasn't entering into your argument, just offering an aside that I find interesting.

And although it was hundreds of years ago, this still informs attitudes of many here to this day.

TragicMonkey

5th February 2006, 10:30 PM

And although it was hundreds of years ago, this still informs attitudes of many here to this day.

Yeah. I love the al Qaeda rhetoric about the Crusades. Date of the First Crusade? 1095. Muslim conquest of Spain? 711.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 10:36 PM

Human ? No no no... same word. Won't do. We need a new species.

Homo Skepticus ? Still human...

...

Darn! Stupid darwinistic evolution and its survival traits. I just HATE religion. And even more since this silly cartoon thing.

I've always hated religion (I was raised staunch Catholic) and personally believe that its only use is to draw a dividing line between men. Even in countries where ethnic differences are nearly non-existant, religion provides the excuse to kill and maim. Couple religious hatred with nationalism and you've got a ready-made recipe for disaster. Only (supposedly) enlightened humans are capable of this type of chaos, we are like a ship of fools arguing over who gets to steer the boat while we plunge off the face of the earth.

How about Demonus Skepticus?

BS Investigator

5th February 2006, 10:38 PM

History has shown that, at various times, for various reasons, otherwise normal people seem to suffer bouts of collective insanity. The Germans under Nazism being the most obvious example.

The question is, how to react to it, what to do to not help create it.

Well the people of the middle east have been suffering a "bout of collective insanity" for over a thousand years. It's called Islam, and it hasn't changed one bit in all that time.

Only now, technology is catching up with Islam and forcing it face, and react to, the rest of the world.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 10:49 PM

This is indeed the fundamental problem. In Western culture if someone is upset they sue, and an independent third party determines who's right.

In Arab culture if someone is upset they respond with violence. Which in turn incites more violence, etc. Westerners used to do the same thing in the Dark Ages, but we learned the judicial system was more practical.

You mean the Native American genocide, the enslavement of Africans, the decimation of Aztecs by the Spanish all happened in the Dark Ages?

I think Westerners respond with violence just as readily as do the Muslims (remember the Crusades?), although that isn't quite the case lately (at least on a small non-organized scale). Is it because of our judicial system that we don't attack Muslims or is it because we rely on our government to provide the justification to invade a Muslim country?

Speaking of which, didn't our illustrious leader tell us that the war in Iraq was going to make the world a safer place. In the midst of all this anger, I'm not too sure anyone has noticed that it's not working.

Mycroft

5th February 2006, 10:49 PM

You cannot comdemn someone else for imposing their beliefs on you while you impose yours on someone else.

Sure you can. The issue is which belief is correct.

Mephisto

5th February 2006, 11:11 PM

It certainly does not affect everyone that way. But why is there a small number of people that are driven to violence the way they are? Is it something in particular with Islam? Is it just the state of Islam today? Is it just a complete coincidence?

Seriously asking. I'm not just putting out rhetorical questions.

And a good rhetorical question too, Freakshow. I'd be willing to step out on a limb to say that it's the dangerous combination of religious fanaticism and lack of education. Ever talk to a X-tian fundie about abortion, the Ten Commandments in public buildings or prayer in the schools? They're just as vehement, but Western civilization generally frowns upon citizens carrying machine guns otherwise arguments would be settled with AK-47s.

This to me is nothing more than the wild west on a grand scale. The worst part of the whole thing is . . . the guys in white hats aren't always the good guys and the guys in turbans aren't always the bad guys.

Skeptic

5th February 2006, 11:18 PM

You're angry with them for judging the cartoonists by Muslim standards while you judge them by Western standards.

That's right. So? Not all standards are equal. The western standards are those of civlized, modern society, Islamic standards those of a backward, mideaval, theocratic one.

Skeptic

5th February 2006, 11:19 PM

Yeah. I love the al Qaeda rhetoric about the Crusades. Date of the First Crusade? 1095. Muslim conquest of Spain? 711.

By the way, many leading lights of the Muslim world consider Spain to be part of the world that must be "liberated", right after, of course, the second holocaust in "occupied Palestine" is completed.

So much for the "let them destroy israel, then they'll leave us alone" theory.

Mark

5th February 2006, 11:40 PM

But, Mark - there ARE Muslims who are law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. Those are the people I'm concerned with and I see no parallel (other than Islam) between them and the violent Muslim cretins. America was wrong to imprison Japanese-Americans for fear that their allegiance was to race instead of country, and we're wrong to label all Muslims for fear that they all interpret their creed to justify violence.

What other recourse is there? Round them up and put them concentration camps or reservations? Drop nuclear weapons on middle-eastern countries? Are we weak for letting Muslim extremists draw the line in the sand, or are we stupid for crossing it?

Well, the course is to end our dependence on oil (I am not saying it would be easy) and let them go shoot each other in the sand.

epepke

5th February 2006, 11:45 PM

There have been moderate Muslims in the Norwegian media, both in the papers and on tv, condemning the actions.

I've translated one of the articles here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1423811#post1423811)

And, to add some anecdotal evidence, my Muslim Arab Lebanese friend is pissed off at what his countrymen are doing.

Well, good for them. I hope they win.

I agree that it would be wrong to assume that all Muslims are like this. Many aren't, and as you've pointed out, some are speaking out. However, I think that one would have to have a really strong Islamic Reality Distortion Field to declare that they are more influential at the present time than the ones calling for beheadings.

However, the clearest sine qua non of people calling for beheadings over cartoons is that they're Muslims.

Many of them are not Arabs; many of them are not Wahabbists; many of them are not living in Islamic countries; many of them are not poor; many of them are not particularly oppressed; etc.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 11:48 PM

Well the people of the middle east have been suffering a "bout of collective insanity" for over a thousand years. It's called Islam, and it hasn't changed one bit in all that time.

Only now, technology is catching up with Islam and forcing it face, and react to, the rest of the world.

Rubbish. Ignorance is not an argument.

a_unique_person

5th February 2006, 11:49 PM

Well, good for them. I hope they win.

I agree that it would be wrong to assume that all Muslims are like this. Many aren't, and as you've pointed out, some are speaking out. However, I think that one would have to have a really strong Islamic Reality Distortion Field to declare that they are more influential at the present time than the ones calling for beheadings.

However, the clearest sine qua non of people calling for beheadings over cartoons is that they're Muslims.

Many of them are not Arabs; many of them are not Wahabbists; many of them are not living in Islamic countries; many of them are not poor; many of them are not particularly oppressed; etc.
You know this how?

epepke

5th February 2006, 11:51 PM

As a card carrying liberal whacko, I feel bad about my opinion on this. But the fact is, the imprisoned Japanese-Americans in WW2 were decent, law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong, and were royally screwed. To compare them in any way to these violent Muslim cretins, is to dishonor the Japanese.

Exactly.

Also, let's remember that if there are cartoons that offend Muslims now, there were plenty of cartoons showing Japanese as stooped, wearing round glasses and as having huge buck teeth that were, by any sane account, orders of magnitude more offensive and more prevalent. I'm not aware of any demonstrators in any country calling for the beheading of the writers of these cartoons, even though Japan has traditionally had a sword culture in much the same way that the US has a gun culture.

epepke

5th February 2006, 11:58 PM

I think we just notice it more. During the Bosnia war, you didn't here about religion unless it was to point out the belief of one side of the war, the Muslims. The christians didn't get mentioned as anything else than the Serb Army.

The reason we notice it more is that it is in more places. Not just Bosnia or Rwanda. Not just the US or Israel, anymore, either.

epepke

6th February 2006, 12:01 AM

IBut I did think it necessary to point out that one doesn't have to hate, disapprove, or have any feelings at all about Islam to condemn the current activities of some of its followers.

No, but it gets imputed all the time. This is probably because it has worked in the past. There are hardly any better or easier ways to get credit from one's peers than to claim that someone else is a bigot.

epepke

6th February 2006, 12:10 AM

And the Taliban destroyed a lot of Buddhist statues after they came to power. Including the two tallest standing Buddha statues in the world.

Compare the world's reaction to that, to the fundamentalist Islam reaction to a few cartoons.

The straw that breaks the camel's back isn't necessarily a really big straw or a special straw.

It's just the one that's enough.

I objected rather a lot to the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues, but then again, I've never been a fan of the Litany.

epepke

6th February 2006, 12:19 AM

You know this how?

Basically, because I have a functional brain.

Many of them are not Arabs; because a fair number of them are Persian.
many of them are not Wahabbists; because the Danish Muslim group was not Wahabbist
many of them are not living in Islamic countries; because the Danish group is, like, you know, Danish.
many of them are not poor; Gee, I'd sure like to have enough money to put some cartoons on display,
many of them are not particularly oppressed; See previous, and also consult the perqs that immigrants and the children thereof get in Europe.

delphi_ote

6th February 2006, 03:36 AM

Sure you can. The issue is which belief is correct.

If you actually care about that discussion, read it from the beginning rather than trying to get one zinger in at the end.

delphi_ote

6th February 2006, 03:50 AM

The cartoons came about because the author of a book on Muhammed couldn't find anyone willing to illustrate it. The editors of Jyllands-Posten wanted to point out the degree to which the West was censoring itself to avoid irrational and violent reactions from the Islamic world.

And so they uncensored themselves and got exactly the reaction they'd hoped for. That's something to be proud of. Very adult of them. The cartoonists aren't burning down buildings, but I'm not about to support their behavior either. The whole conflict is 4th grade recess all over again.

Johnny Pixels

6th February 2006, 04:22 AM

And so they uncensored themselves and got exactly the reaction they'd hoped for. That's something to be proud of. Very adult of them. The cartoonists aren't burning down buildings, but I'm not about to support their behavior either. The whole conflict is 4th grade recess all over again.

I'd add an extra argument here, that it is not entirely the Danish cartoons that have inflamed the situation, but also the three fakes that were circulated by some muslims to purposefully inflame the situation.

In this sense I think the papers were right to reprint the cartoons, to show which cartoons they were talking about, and to distance themselves from the faked cartoons.

egslim

6th February 2006, 04:24 AM

I think Westerners respond with violence just as readily as do the Muslims
No, we don't. As a response to the Danish cartoons some Muslims published cartoons offensive to Europeans - including one of Anne Frank having sex with Hitler to show Europeans have sensitivities too. That same day a Jewish organisation simply sued them. No violence at all.

The same happened when Theo van Gogh made a movie insulting to Jews. They sued him and won their case. Some ten years later he made a similar movie insulting Muslims and was subsequently killed by one.

In Western culture we have deferred the right to use violence from individuals to our governments. And with organisations like the UN there is even a trend to defer the use of violence from governments to supra-national organisations. Note how anxious the US was to gain coalition support for the invasion of Iraq, even though in practical terms it didn't amount to much.

Darat

6th February 2006, 04:39 AM

No, we don't. As a response to the Danish cartoons some Muslims published cartoons offensive to Europeans - including one of Anne Frank having sex with Hitler to show Europeans have sensitivities too. That same day a Jewish organisation simply sued them. No violence at all.

The same happened when Theo van Gogh made a movie insulting to Jews. They sued him and won their case. Some ten years later he made a similar movie insulting Muslims and was subsequently killed by one.

In Western culture we have deferred the right to use violence from individuals to our governments. And with organisations like the UN there is even a trend to defer the use of violence from governments to supra-national organisations. Note how anxious the US was to gain coalition support for the invasion of Iraq, even though in practical terms it didn't amount to much.

You make an interesting point however the situation in the UK is quite different. We have laws to prevent among other things discrimination with regards to race and in the UK being Jewish is classed under that legislation as being a race. So it is possible in the UK for a Jewish person or organisation to "sue" for discriminating against them for being Jewish BUT the same legislation doesn't recognise "Muslim" as a race so a Muslim can't sue someone for discriminating against them for being a Muslim. (But then we do have some legislation that it does cover religious discrimination and Muslim is recognised as a religion under that legislation!) So I have heard some Muslims state that this is a sign of state-sanctioned discrimination, which of course it is.

I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses.

David Swidler

6th February 2006, 04:43 AM

You make an interesting point however the situation in the UK is quite different. We have laws to prevent among other things discrimination with regards to race and in the UK being Jewish is classed under that legislation as being a race. So it is possible in the UK for a Jewish person or organisation to "sue" for discriminating against them for being Jewish BUT the same legislation doesn't recognise "Muslim" as a race so a Muslim can't sue someone for discriminating against them for being a Muslim. (But then we do have some legislation that it does cover religious discrimination and Muslim is recognised as a religion under that legislation!) So I have heard some Muslims state that this is a sign of state-sanctioned discrimination, which of course it is.

I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses.

It's something of a derail to explore this point, but what you see as an inconsistency is a function of the dual status of Jewishness. On the one hand it's an ethnicity, and on the other it's a religion that accepts converts. Kind of hard to place it in the same category as other sources of discrimination, especially when that discrimination focuses on either one of the variables.

Darat

6th February 2006, 04:53 AM

It's something of a derail to explore this point, but what you see as an inconsistency is a function of the dual status of Jewishness. On the one hand it's an ethnicity, and on the other it's a religion that accepts converts. Kind of hard to place it in the same category as other sources of discrimination, especially when that discrimination focuses on either one of the variables.

Yes but many Muslims would claim this dual status yet they aren't recognised under current legislation. (Using your argument I do agree with them.) How much this really means in a practical sense is hard to gauge, I suspect very little but it is one of those facts that can be spun by someone looking to spread dissent e.g. "They protect X but not us".

(Personally as I have argued on the forum before I don't think there is meaningful use of the label of "Jewish" that is not dependent on a religious argument or definition - but that is really going off on a tangent for this thread!)

BPSCG

6th February 2006, 04:54 AM

Well here is where I'll beg to differ. Muslims haven't threatened me in any way at all and anything ANY extremist says is taken at face value (sticks & stones you know). So when the crowds are screaming, "Death to America!", they aren't threatening you...

Gotcha.

BPSCG

6th February 2006, 05:02 AM

I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses.And do you believe that would make the slightest difference to someone who's assembling a bomb?

Darat

6th February 2006, 05:05 AM

And do you believe that would make the slightest difference to someone who's assembling a bomb?

What's my comment got to do with bomb making?

egslim

6th February 2006, 05:18 AM

So it is possible in the UK for a Jewish person or organisation to "sue" for discriminating against them for being Jewish BUT the same legislation doesn't recognise "Muslim" as a race so a Muslim can't sue someone for discriminating against them for being a Muslim.
True, but I'm guessing there are some legal avenues available. Perhaps based on racist discrimination against Arabs? And we're living in a democracy, laws can always be changed if a majority of the population wants to.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2006, 05:23 AM

Also, let's remember that if there are cartoons that offend Muslims now, there were plenty of cartoons showing Japanese as stooped, wearing round glasses and as having huge buck teeth that were, by any sane account, orders of magnitude more offensive and more prevalent. I'm not aware of any demonstrators in any country calling for the beheading of the writers of these cartoons, even though Japan has traditionally had a sword culture in much the same way that the US has a gun culture.Exactly my point. There is no other religion or ethnic group who is as violent and dangerous as the fundy muslims at this point in history. Not one. They are even more dangerous in the 21st century because most of us don't live in the wild west, carry AK-47s and generally people ride the subway in peace and don't expect to be blown up. But nowhere is safe anymore, the fundy muslims have struck in New York, London, Madrid, Ankara, Tel Aviv, Beirut, Baghdad, Jakarta, Bali... all because of Iraq? or Afghanistan? What a load of crap that rationalization is.

And now they are even so insane with religious lust that they have resorted to torching embassies and calling for the destruction of countries who printed a frikkin cartoon of their "god". Sorry but at that point I say "F" you and your sensitivities, enough liberal B.S. rationalizations for their behavior, I have drawn a line in the sand and I expect the muslim community to stand up and begin to control the hundreds of thousands of fundamentalists living in their midst. I will no longer act in a way that will not offend them they must act in a way that will not offend me or pose a danger to my society.........plain and simple.

Hell, these same fundies pose an equal danger to muslims - see: insurgents blowing up muslims daily in Iraq, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Queda, Iran, Hezbollah...the list is long.

p.s. I support Denmark, the freedom of speech and a society free from violent muslim harassment and violent religious extortion.

gnome

6th February 2006, 05:41 AM

I guess that covers just about everyone anywhere anytime, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

No, I don't think so. There are plenty that will never be tempted by extremism, and plenty that will never be pacified by reason and respect. But the practical purpose of tempering our defense with respect (if "because we're the civilized ones" isn't enough) is to reach those who can be saved, and to keep the ones who might fall.

Why forego a chance to reduce the enemy's numbers? What advantage are we giving up?

BPSCG

6th February 2006, 05:43 AM

What's my comment got to do with bomb making?Well, you wrote:I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses.I assumed by "excuses", you meant excuses for violent overreaction to real or perceived insults to Islam.

If not, then "excuses" for what?

egslim

6th February 2006, 05:46 AM

Sorry but at that point I say "F" you and your sensitivities, enough liberal B.S. rationalizations for their behavior, I have drawn a line in the sand and I expect the muslim community to stand up and begin to control the hundreds of thousands of fundamentalists living in their midst. I will no longer act in a way that will not offend them they must act in a way that will not offend me or pose a danger to my society.........plain and simple.
Right. So, assuming the Muslim community fails to act, what do you propose we do in practical terms?

In our own countries we can and should make sure radical imams stop preaching violence. Muslim children should learn our secular values from a very early age, and integrate with native children. That's the easy part.

But what about these Middle-Eastern countries? Invading each and everyone of them to install a democracy like in Iraq doesn't seem like a very practical idea. We're not even sure the democracy in Iraq will eventually prove stable without substantial foreign millitary support. Second, the Western world doesn't have the military resources to pull it off.

Darat

6th February 2006, 05:55 AM

Well, you wrote:I assumed by "excuses", you meant excuses for violent overreaction to real or perceived insults to Islam.

If not, then "excuses" for what?

Some excuses for saying that Muslims are discriminated against in the UK.

BPSCG

6th February 2006, 06:01 AM

Some excuses for saying that Muslims are discriminated against in the UK.So you think passing a law giving Muslims recognition and legal protections as a race as well as a religion will make them shut the @#$% up about how they're being mistreated?

Melendwyr

6th February 2006, 06:04 AM

The worst part of the whole thing is . . . the guys in white hats aren't always the good guys and the guys in turbans aren't always the bad guys. Oh, the guys in turbans are always the bad guys. It's just that the guys in the white hats are also always the bad guys.

Where's the lonely drifter who moseys into town and kills everybody when you need him?

zenith-nadir

6th February 2006, 06:05 AM

Right. So, assuming the Muslim community fails to act, what do you propose we do in practical terms?No matter what we do it will never be enough. Why? Because we are not Muslim. We are not seen a equals in the eyes of the fundy muslims. There is nothing a non-believer can do to escape their wrath except to convert to their belief system so that we do not offend their belief system.

All these riots are over exactly that. The cartoons do not conform to their belief system so they freak out and become violent across the Arab world. They want us to conform to them.... they, the fundys, have no interest in tolerance of our belief systems.

In our own countries we can and should make sure radical imams stop preaching violence. Muslim children should learn our secular values from a very early age, and integrate with native children. That's the easy part.The muslim community knows who is radical in there community just like the christians and jews know the radicals in their communities. The difference is the jews and christians marginalize the radicals openly.

But what about these Middle-Eastern countries? Invading each and everyone of them to install a democracy like in Iraq doesn't seem like a very practical idea. We're not even sure the democracy in Iraq will eventually prove stable without substantial foreign millitary support. Second, the Western world doesn't have the military resources to pull it off.It's not a military answer...it is a cultural one. We need somebody from the muslim world to stand up and be counted. He must stand up and say to the fundys that you are destroying the image of Islam and you are alienating other cultures and this is going to stop today. All we have so far are excuses and rationalizations for the fundies. Generally these excuses and rationalizations involve "our" actions as the root cause for their actions which is total B.S. Just becasue I don't like Buicks doesn't give me the right to go around rioting and destroying Buicks. Someone has to say when it's gotten to the point where you riot over cartoons from a country you will never see in a paper 99.9% of you can't even read something is seriously "F"ed up.

Darat

6th February 2006, 06:09 AM

So you think passing a law giving Muslims recognition and legal protections as a race as well as a religion will make them shut the @#$% up about how they're being mistreated?

I've never posted anything like that, so I struggle to understand why you are asking me that question. I think you may be either confusing me with someone else's posts or assuming things I haven't posted and associating your assumptions with me.

Darat

6th February 2006, 06:11 AM

...snip...

The muslim community knows who is radical in there community just like the christians and jews know the radicals in their communities. The difference is the jews and christians marginalize the radicals openly.

...snip...

And as several of us have posted many of them couldn't be clearer about "marginalising" the extremists. Some even going so far as criticising the police for not arresting the extremists.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2006, 06:15 AM

And as several of us have posted many of them couldn't be clearer about "marginalising" the extremists. Some even going so far as criticising the police for not arresting the extremists.It is not the police's responsibility to arrest muslims who other muslims don't like. They arrest people for breaking laws which the government decides upon. That is the whole point, they - the muslim community - are side-stepping their responsibility to marginalize the fundys in their own communities by putting the responsibility on the police.

How about the tolerate muslims organize peaceful marches to marginalize the fundy muslims? How about they write articles and actively seek to marginalize fundy muslims where ever they see them. So far the only people actually marching for peace in the "cartoon jihad" are white non-muslims in Denmark. That's the truth and thats the clue.

Tolerant muslims across the globe have had over a week to organize a march against the riots and embassy burnings...but not a single one has taken place anywhere on earth. Seems the fundys are more powerful and much better organized than the tolerant Muslims. That's why I have taken a stand.

egslim

6th February 2006, 06:23 AM

No matter what we do it will never be enough. Why? Because we are not Muslim. We are not seen a equals in the eyes of the fundy muslims. There is nothing a non-believer can do to escape their wrath except to convert to their belief system so that we do not offend their belief system.
I agree.

It's not a military answer...it is a cultural one. We need somebody from the muslim world to stand up and be counted. He must stand up and say to the fundys that you are destroying the image of Islam and you are alienating other cultures and this is going to stop today.
Well, there are some - a few - Muslims already standing up like you suggest. Trouble is, apparently they're not being listened to very well. If we wait long enough someone may appear who does make an impression, but that may take anywhere between 5 and 500 years. I don't fancy living under a terrorist threat for the rest of my grandchildren's life, though.
So what do you propose we do in practical terms to speed up this proces?

BPSCG

6th February 2006, 06:25 AM

I've never posted anything like that, so I struggle to understand why you are asking me that question. I think you may be either confusing me with someone else's posts or assuming things I haven't posted and associating your assumptions with me.Then I guess I missed the entire point of what you were getting at when you said, "I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses."

Why should the UK sort out those inconsistencies? What purpose would it serve?

Darat

6th February 2006, 06:31 AM

It is not the police's responsibility to arrest Muslims who other muslims don't like. They arrest people for breaking laws which the government decides upon. That is the whole point, they - the muslim community - are side-stepping their responsibility to marginalize the fundys in their own communities by putting the responsibility on the police.

Are you saying it is wrong for the Muslims to call on the police to uphold the laws of the land? Are you suggesting the non-extremists should have taken the law into their own hands and done what? Shoot the extremists? Kidnapped them?

How about the tolerate muslims organize peaceful marches to marginalize the fundy muslims? How about they write articles and actively seek to marginalize fundy muslims where ever they see them. So far the only people actually marching for peace in the "cartoon jihad" are white non-muslims in Denmark. That's the truth and thats the clue.

Er they have done, and they are doing. See some of the various quotes several of us have posted here.

Tolerant muslims across the globe have had over a week to organize a march against the riots and embassy burnings...but not a single one has taken place anywhere on earth. Seems the fundys are more powerful and much better organized than the tolerant Muslims. That's why I have taken a stand.

Your time line is messed up.

Darat

6th February 2006, 06:34 AM

Then I guess I missed the entire point of what you were getting at when you said, "I think it is about time in the UK at least these various inconsistencies were sorted out that would at least remove some excuses."

Why should the UK sort out those inconsistencies? What purpose would it serve?

I pretty much answered that in a previous post e.g. "...How much this really means in a practical sense is hard to gauge, I suspect very little but it is one of those facts that can be spun by someone looking to spread dissent e.g. "They protect X but not us"...."

zenith-nadir

6th February 2006, 06:40 AM

Are you saying it is wrong for the Muslims to call on the police to uphold the laws of the land?Since the police can only act when a law is broken or on reasonable grounds for suspicion please cite for me the laws that where broken by muslim fundys marching in London.

Are you suggesting the non-extremists should have taken the law into their own hands and done what? Shoot the extremists? Kidnapped them?Nope. As I said before there hasn't been one single march for peace by the muslim community in the entire cartoon jihad. Not a single one. Meanwhile there have been hundreds of violent marches by muslims in the cartoon jihad across the globe. What does that tell you?

Your time line is messed up.My timeline is irrelevant. I have had enough of the fundy muslims and I call upon the tolerant muslims to do something about it and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them.

Darat

6th February 2006, 06:52 AM

Since the police can only act when a law is broken or on reasonable grounds for suspicion please cite for me the laws that where broken by Muslim fundys marching in London.

You have left me totally and utterly flabbergasted. Here we have evidence of moderate Muslims doing exactly what you claim you want them to do, and at the same agreeing with the Prime Minster, the Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Attorney General that some of the protesters actions were unacceptable and somehow this is still bad!

Nope. As I said before there hasn't been one single march for peace by the muslim community in the entire cartoon jihad. Not a single one. Meanwhile there have been hundreds of violent marches by muslims in the cartoon jihad across the globe. What does that tell you?

Er that the extremists are organised because they have a specific goal?

My timeline is irrelevant. I have had enough of the fundy muslims and I call upon the tolerant muslims to do something about it and stop expecting everyone else to do it for them.

Yet when one of these does just that in the UK - somehow that doesn't count!

richardm

6th February 2006, 07:06 AM

Since the police can only act when a law is broken or on reasonable grounds for suspicion please cite for me the laws that where broken by muslim fundys marching in London.

Quite a lot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4686164.stm), with precedent:

Incitement, a common law offence.

Incitement to commit a serious act of violence under the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 - Section 4 makes it unlawful to "solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade" a person to kill another anywhere in the world. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

Public Order Act 1986. This makes it unlawful to use " threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".

Bang to rights, I should hope. The police didn't break up the protests at the time because they didn't want to cause a riot. They prefer to kick in their doors at 3 am and drag them off.

zenith-nadir

6th February 2006, 07:32 AM

You have left me totally and utterly flabbergasted. Here we have evidence of moderate Muslims doing exactly what you claim you want them to do, and at the same agreeing with the Prime Minster, the Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Attorney General that some of the protesters actions were unacceptable and somehow this is still bad!Perhaps you misread me. I expect the global muslim community to marginalize the fundys before they are chanting "death to Britain" in protests. I expect the global muslim community to marginalize the fundys before they are burning embassies in protest over a cartoon. I expect the global muslim community to marginalize the fundys before they are organized into well-funded and widely-supported terror groups.

I keep hearing the excuse that these fundys are "a small minority" of Muslims...well then the "majority" of Muslims must step up to the plate today and crush the small minority of Muslims giving Islam such a bad name. It is in their own interest.

Er that the extremists are organised because they have a specific goal?There is no way anyone will convince me that the moderate Muslims are incapable of countering the fundy muslims with peace marches if they were so inclined.

Yet when one of these does just that in the UK - somehow that doesn't count!How many embassies were torched in Britain? Zero. Yet the fundys reach spans from London to Jakarta. I say the fundys pose a grave threat to our community especially when it gets to the point where they become violent over cartoons.

Bang to rights, I should hope. The police didn't break up the protests at the time because they didn't want to cause a riot. They prefer to kick in their doors at 3 am and drag them off.So now the police cannot even do their job because they are afraid of causing riots by fundy muslims. Which is my point for starting this thread. Enough political correctness already "rule8" the fundy muslims and if they don't like our laws and rules then I'll drive them to the airport and put 'em on a plane personally.