Yosemite Sam named new ambassador to Muslimland

[docta seuss]

"Whoever defames our Prophet should be executed"

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up"

"Long live Islam. Destroy our enemies"

"Death to Denmark" and "Death to France,"

An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

"God willing, they are going to face a hard time, have a collapse in their economy and God also will avenge his prophet. It won't be a surprise if a new tsunami or strong earthquake will hit (Denmark)."

what gets me is the hypocrisy..

"It's an uncivilized act. It's heinous"

"vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign that has hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world."

yes, that's right, hurt the feelings of Muslims. didn't chop their heads off, blow them up, or in any other way harm them.

In Baghdad, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, denounced publication of the caricatures. However, he suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for projecting "a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

thank you. it's not rocket science.

the situation is unfortunate, but it didn't just happen out of the blue, and behaviour such as that exhibited by those responsible for the above responses to the cartoons are exactly why they were drawn in the first place.

bottom line, they were disrespectful, but it is not the responsibility of government to decide what papers can and cannot print, and this animosity towards entire countries based on the actions of a few is not only absolutley rediculous, but it is serving only to create yet more animosity towards Islam, when it would have been so easy to use the situation to garner support.


so why are Muslim leaders not chastising Muslims for their absurd behaviour? it does not make their complaints about the cartoons any less valid, yet their silence on the issue certainly does.

the Muslim world is in desperate need of serious introspection, though i suppose it's much easier to continually distract oneself with external conflicts than to take a good hard look within.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by docta seuss
the Western world is in desperate need of serious introspection, though i suppose it's much easier to continually distract oneself with external conflicts than to take a good hard look within.

The temporal coherence of the problem is what escapes people...

 

[praktik]

Originally posted by ~atp~
The temporal coherence of the problem is what escapes people...

What escapes me is the term "temporal coherence"

"Captain, I'm picking up a sub-space disturbance 3.24 light years away, initiating long-range scanners...hmmm... Captain, there appears to be a lack of temporal coherence around the disturbance, it appears as though the fabric of space has twisted..."
"Lieutenant - have you encountered such a disturbance before?"
"No Captain, the readings are unclear, though back at the academy, we were taught the theory of the moebious... a twist in the fabric of space, where time becomes a loop, where time becomes a loop, where time becomes a loop..."

When we reach that point, whatever happens will happen again!

 

[~atp~]

Oh, it is just apparent temporal coherency, not the physical Star Trek-ian concept. It's really just an idea I play with sometimes, in that the temporal distance between two events is related to the way we, on average, connect them causally. When you're talking about obvious things, like mechanics, one can claim that my swinging bat is what caused the ball to change energy vectors. But it isn't really the bat that caused the energy vector to change, since my arms are what generated the bat's energy. Anyway, you start encroaching philosophical concepts of determinism here, but the point is that "caricatures --> muslim rage" creates a strong suggestion of cause and effect in our brains because of the temporal proximity of the two events (obviously only when the events can be seen to have a motivational relationship, ie. caricatures can be seen to motivate muslim rage). This association can create a massive distortion of the effect (muslim rage) depending on other, related circumstances. Something like not taking into account the ERA of the batter before he steps up to the plate.

It's somewhat tangential and not directly related to the moral fascism I've been observing in this thread. Condemning their "bad behaviour" (as we would both condemn and pity the poor savages of Africa) for not protesting in a more "acceptable" manner is condescending and ignorant in the highest degree, much like the attitude toward slaves a few hundred years ago, or African American people(s) in the United States 50 years ago.

It's quite equivalent, and equally abhorrent.

 

[judge wopner]

Originally posted by docta seuss
what gets me is the hypocrisy..

.

bottom line, they were disrespectful, but it is not the responsibility of government to decide what papers can and cannot print, and this animosity towards entire countries based on the actions of a few is not only absolutley rediculous, but it is serving only to create yet more animosity towards Islam, when it would have been so easy to use the situation to garner support.


.

you hit the nail on the head,

the biggest beef by muslims and many others is to ensure that the actions of the few suicide bombers are not parlayed to the muslim world because they dont represent their collective beliefs and wishes.

and here is yet another example of how people are people no mater what, some hick from Alabama is talkig about muslim "terrarists" and some beodin from Yemen is talking about Norwegian infidels.

same generality, different pile.


people are fucking stupid to think years of oppression give you the right to riot like animals at the drop of a hat. its just hte same as Americans thinkign they have the divinely inspired right to invade iraq, kill civilians in the name of "democracy". the sad thing is both sides dont seem to see the similarity in their ignorance.

as if muslims never oppressed any group or anyone before. people are so caught up talking about hte west and how they oppress muslims, they forget how the very religion itself was spread, much like chirsitanity through colonialism, imperialism and war. these religions were often shoved down the throats of others.

muslims often point to the middle ages when jews were living in relative peace among muslims in many parts of the mid east, too bad that was several hundered years ago and since then neither europe or the mid-east has been good to jews. yet i read these examples of islams roots far too often as some sort of throphy case.

no one mentions how much the west and the mid-east are connected culturally and historicaly. we cant just "leave that part of the world" as some people contend. there are milions of muslims living abroad that are part of the west, just as there are many non-mulsim in the mid-east who are very much a part of that culture. its not a simple west vs. mid-east issue.

at the end fo the day the religion of islam taken to its more conservative ends just like christianity is both intolerant, homophobic and sexist. the hope rests with the vast majority of moderate muslims, chritsians, hindus and what not that use their head and reason.

those that fire bomb an embassy over a cartoon do not and if you fail to see the ignorance of thier actions you may be trying to hard to appear sympathetic.

being colour blind and treating eveyrone as equals means holding them to the same standard and not treating htem like children who are incapable of understanding their actions. if you hold the USA to their atrocities, why is it so hard to hold radical and violent muslims to theirs?

 

[praktik]

Originally posted by ~atp~
Oh, it is just apparent temporal coherency, not the physical Star Trek-ian concept. It's really just an idea I play with sometimes, in that the temporal distance between two events is related to the way we, on average, connect them causally. When you're talking about obvious things, like mechanics, one can claim that my swinging bat is what caused the ball to change energy vectors. But it isn't really the bat that caused the energy vector to change, since my arms are what generated the bat's energy. Anyway, you start encroaching philosophical concepts of determinism here, but the point is that "caricatures --> muslim rage" creates a strong suggestion of cause and effect in our brains because of the temporal proximity of the two events (obviously only when the events can be seen to have a motivational relationship, ie. caricatures can be seen to motivate muslim rage). This association can create a massive distortion of the effect (muslim rage) depending on other, related circumstances. Something like not taking into account the ERA of the batter before he steps up to the plate.

It's somewhat tangential and not directly related to the moral fascism I've been observing in this thread. Condemning their "bad behaviour" (as we would both condemn and pity the poor savages of Africa) for not protesting in a more "acceptable" manner is condescending and ignorant in the highest degree, much like the attitude toward slaves a few hundred years ago, or African American people(s) in the United States 50 years ago.

It's quite equivalent, and equally abhorrent.

hehe, I was figuring you were intimating something like the above but I wanted to have some fun.. work is DEADLY boring..

but ya I'm with ya... this thread had me fighting off waves of nausea too buddy...

(PS: THROW IN YOUR CHIPS FOR TECH SUPPORT DUDE!! ITS BEEN TOO LONG!!)

 

[Lurker]

On the topic of rioting, what gives with trashing the offices of the ferry company who's ship sank?

I know it's off topic, but how can trashing the offices make amends for anything? It always seems to be the same thing with Muslims/Islam: angst unleashed in physical aggression.

I apologize for the generalization, but I'm coming from a sheltered Western perspective (playing dumb here).

Where's the tolerance and peacefulness that Islam prides itself on?

 

[deafplayer]

Listen exactly to what the rioters are saying

All you can "listen" to is what gets from those Muslim rioters through reporters througoh agencies through publications down to other reporters and editors and finally to you, by the time its repeatedly focused and filtered through several individuals' and organizations' eyes and ears.
You dont know what else the angry Muslims are saying, do you?
(and this relates to the 'temporal coherence' deal too I think...)

I would have to say that over the many years of living in the Middle East, coming back and forth, living here and then going back there, I have long developed a sense of the distance between these two worlds.
...
...the perceptions that we live with in this country and that we imbibe from our media give us one picture that has almost nothing to do with the picture that people have who are living in the Middle East. This in itself I think is the most single disturbing fact.
...
I do not think that living here in this country and watching routine news broadcasts, especially on television or even reading the leading newspapers, I do not believe it is possible to get a full sense of the realities in the region. [...]I would have to say I think this is some of the greatest isolation of our media that I have seen in most of my professional life on this side and I haven’t even gotten to talk about the Arab media.
...
our own [media] seems to feel that frank examination of some of these issues is taboo in one way or another.

- Former CIA Official Graham Fuller, recently returned from a speaking tour of the Middle East, speaking at a meeting of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, which was created by Congress in 1948 to oversee U.S. Government activities that inform or influence citizens of foreign nations. This is live coverage on the C-SPAN 3.
Commission Reviews Middle Eastern Perceptions of the United States
http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/11844.htm

You're pointing out that they say they are upset that their prophet's image was published, in an insulting racist manner at that. Okay, well do you really think this is merely a matter of a law that says dont draw Mohamed?

In other words do you think these people are fucking retarded children?

The cartoons were insults. They were Western papers knowingly slapping Muslims in the face.

As for our righteous freedom of the press here, radio hosts have been taken off the air by the government here in Canada for doing less than this
Actually, Al-Jazeera was just recently prevented by our government (and lobby groups) from working in Canada, because of its message
Gee could this have to do with us thinking of Muslims in this stupid simplified one-dimensional caricature of angry extreme-violence-prone idiots?

Anyway, lets see what the State Dept. has to say about these barbaric attidues, all the rage that currently is being expressed in reaction to this deliberate racist slap in the face committed by the Western media:
is it values (that means you guys who keep going on about how the child-like Muslims need to "learn" to respect freedom of speech etc)...
or a rational reaction to our policies (that is, what some of you automatically twist into and name-call as "justifying" violence for some strange reason)?

...And just today, if you pick up the New York Times, Tom Friedman's article, he talks about "global animosity."...
Congress, too, has become concerned about how to meet this public diplomacy challenge, and that was manifested when Congressman Frank Wolf of the House Appropriations Committee mandated our group, because his and Congress' very deep concern over the negative attitudes toward America prevailing in the world, not only in the Middle East.
...
Let me be candid about this also: attitudes toward the United States, I would say 80% are formed based on what our policies and our values are. But there is that critical 20%, what we call, for lack of a better term "public diplomacy,"...

[pub. diplomacy = propaganda. Now this is tricky, when they have to talk about 'why they hate us' without admitting that we do bad things (this is where the obsession with "their misunderstanding" comes in). However, I think in this statement, by "values", Djerejian means the actually displayed values of America's foreign policy, since the supposed national "values" like democracy, freedom, etc are precisely the subject of the propaganda ("public diplomacy") he says this 80% is not a reaction to. This fits well with other polls of the Middle East, including Iraq, that show most people there know full well the U.S. has no interest in democracy, since they've been angry at it for decades precisely because it has prevented democracy. So its the "values" expressed by our policies he's talking about here.]

(Former Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian - "recently was asked by Sec. of State Powell to chair a congressionally mandated advisory group on public diplomacy in the Muslim and Arab worlds",...one of the United States' most distinguished diplomats... spanning the administration of eight presidents ...leading expert on... the [M.E.]... has served as U.S. Ambassador to Syria and Israel prior to his service as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs here at the State Department.
...has played key roles in... the establishment of collective and bilateral security arrangements in the Persian Gulf. [and more and more impressive shit]
http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/26910.htm

...I hope just as the freedom of speech here is a little bit different than the one in the Middle East, in which you have freedom of speech, but we cannot guarantee your freedom after the speech. [Laughter.] So please—and, of course, we cannot generalize. It is different from one country to the other, because I see many distinguished ambassadors from the Middle East here. [Laughter.] So please guarantee for me my freedom after the speech. [Laughter.]
To the contrary, you cannot say that we are not showing up in the region. You are. You are in the streets of Baghdad with tanks. You are in the West Bank and Israel with Israeli weapons. You are in speeches telling Arab governments what to do. You are telling the education ministers what should you teach your kids. You are there. You are in the life. And this is mainly because of that; it is not because it is a superpower, and people are picking on it. No, it is because you decided that the Middle East, for many historical reasons, and particularly since 1948 and then 1967, that you decided the Middle East, whether for the security of Israel or for the free flow of oil at reasonable prices--and, of course, reasonable prices is decided by the consumer, not by the producers--that you have to be there, and this is a strategic area for you. This is a reaction, what you are getting in the Middle East is a reaction. People do not wake up and say, Let's hate the U.S. today or let's lash against them.
So, yes, Ambassador Djerejian was right saying that 80% of the problems in most of these polls about what is going wrong is about policies. It is not about values, although some of the remedies that we are trying to do, as you are mentioning Middle East television initiative or something like that [...] things for the pop culture, that even some Americans would like to protect their kids from its influence.
....Ambassador Djerejian... [did not] incit[e] against Arab media, as we hear sometimes... inciting against specific TV stations--al Jazeera it is all Arab's fault--it is not ours. Even now I think the problem is not only with the Arab media; now they have a problem with the American media... It is the whole image and the whole mirror that they are so disturbed by showing them something that they don't like about what they are doing.

- Hafez al-Mirazi, Washington Bureau Chief, Al Jazeera Satelite Channel
Distorted Images: Role of the Global Media in Public Diplomacy: Misperceptions Between America and the Muslim and Arab Worlds
U.S. Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World
www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/26911.htm

...The United States supports many of the governments in power in the Middle East. Millions of young people are their subjects, coming of age with the want to change their world and society, for the better or worse. Many of these young people negatively view the United States and its policies at the political level, not as a cultural society, but on policy.
Harold C. Pachios, Chairman, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy
Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations
Washington, DC
October 8, 2002

Hearing To Examine U.S. Understanding of Arab Social and Political Thought
http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/rls/14230.htm

 

[Lurker]

Interesting read.

Deafplayer; if this was in response to my post, I was asking purely out of genuine curiousity, not out of any Western Whitey arrogance/snobbyness.

I know we're not getting the whole picture here. I totally accept that. My point is that the pictures that we do get here (rioting, violence) are pretty serious. I'm guessing it's the way that feelings are generally expressed. Very passionate and intense. Not necessarily a bad thing to be honest.

But the violence and aggression (towards property as well as people) seems a bit much, even if it's the main picture/gruel we're being fed.

 

[deafplayer]

Originally posted by judge wopner
being colour blind and treating eveyrone as equals means holding them to the same standard and not treating htem like children who are incapable of understanding their actions. if you hold the USA to their atrocities, why is it so hard to hold radical and violent muslims to theirs?

You dont have the authority to "hold them" accountable the same way you do to hold our own governments
Nor do you have the right, arguably, while the other way, holding our gov.'s accountable, you have not only the right but the responsibility
And finally, lets not pretend that you [edit: do not]go fucking absurdly easy on our governments compared to.... uh..... rioting

Yes they must be held accountable for..... rioting!

...because we their kindergarden teachers!

Originally posted by judge wopner
youre assuming like many that the problems faced by the muslim world are essentially the fault of the West.

Am I? I was talking about their anger, and specifically saying that it seems strange to me to consider it or its expression a fault

any action by arabs or muslims to even a cartoon is framed up by your rationale as simply a REACTION to the greater issue of oppression or war being fought on their soil.

No, that would certainly be nice for you though
I'm saying it has to be considered in that context, that this cartoon incident didn't just drop out of the blue sky one day, any more than reaction here to Bin Laden's 'releases' can be considered outside of the context of the war on terror

you deny muslims around the world responsibility and measure in their actions, it says that storiming an EU office at gun point over several cartoon publications is ok because its not really about cartoons, it simply manifest oppression.

No, I dont

i know several croatians who are quite upset about what happened to their families during the war in yugoslavia. should they get into a heated debate with some serbs at the office, with things escalating to a full blown fight, should we not hold them accountable because of all that built up resentment?

Are you people, I mean most posting in this thread, really so completely unaware of the disparaging, demeaning, patronizing, condescending, etc etc racist attitude?
Sorry, they need to be "held accountable" for misbehaviour??
What are they kids? And we're their kindergarden teachers??

i thinks its insulting to muslims to deny them the same expectation of reason that you hold western nations to

Yes exactly, thats exactly it.

i appreciate that the reactoin to the cartoon is a product of built up resentmets but only to a limited extent. your argument permits muslims to act with no regard no matter how trivial the matter because of historical and ongoing oppresion.

This is what Im talking about, this assumption that we are in a position to "permit" or not Muslim behaviour
I dont think you guys realize how deep-rooted that idea is, that we're are above them, that they need to be scolded like children for acting "irrational" and, fuck this is a really amazing part, actually admonishing them for behaving in ways that can be used (are, by you) to rationalize the hatred against them, while that hatred - our own - and the crimes to which you acknowledge they are reacting are still kept out of mind

The hypocracy is mind-boggling

i think an overlooked issue like i posted before is that im willing to charge the actions of some of these mobs with outright ignorance for agressivley pursing this issue while ignoring the much greater mistreatments muslms face at the hands of their own leaders.

i dont think a regular protest is out of line, just the omre violent and aggressive ones.

this is what Im talking about
Why dont you hold a staff meeting in the teachers' lounge and decide on a policy of what will and will not be tolerated of the children

I dont think its necessary to point out the really flagrant resemblance to the 'collonial' attitude

(which is nothing new to the human race, im not singaling out muslims but i dont think they should be given extra leadway with this kind of behaviour any more than the United States or whomever..)

The funny thing is the staff and teachers give themselves about a gazzilion lightyears of "extra leadway" because they dont even think of themselves in the same way
They dont have to ask to go to the washroom
Im saying in some very significant ways people here see people there in that racist, dominearing way

 

[deafplayer]

re: all the questions about why do they resort to violence so readily (as if its at all clear - which it is not - that they resort any more easily than we do (its not violence when we murder hundreds of thousands of them, because we do it by pushing buttons or something))........


....the same was asked about slaves, when they (rarely) revolted, killed their masters and their masters' familes, women, children, servants and all
What barbarity!

wtf do you expect, them to write a letter to the editor of the local white newspaper?


In retrospect, we dont fixate on their barbarity or uncivilized manner, but the obvious over-riding social factors that seem more important now because we have become more civilized, with values of equality freedom etc (just like we declared back then, incidently... )


further, do you think there have NOT been extensive, considerable non-violent efforts to have grievences addressed?
Yeah those efforts aren't priorities on CNN for obvious reasons



Please enjoy this short video (a preview trailor for an educational production.. you'll have to click on 'play video' or something... be warned: requires RealPlayer) on Edward Said and "Orientalism"
(featuring a soundtrack consisting of an excellent track by Phillip Glass!)
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaRaceAndRepresentation/EdwardSaidOnOrientalism

 

[docta seuss]

Originally posted by ~atp~
Condemning their "bad behaviour" (as we would both condemn and pity the poor savages of Africa) for not protesting in a more "acceptable" manner is condescending and ignorant in the highest degree, much like the attitude toward slaves a few hundred years ago, or African American people(s) in the United States 50 years ago.

It's quite equivalent, and equally abhorrent.

as you've been wagging your finger throughout, it's only fair that you likewise provide others with the opportunity by offering up your take on the situation.. preferably in simplified form for the benefit of the uneducated.

 

[deafplayer]

Originally posted by Lurker
It always seems to be the same thing with Muslims/Islam: angst unleashed in physical aggression.

First of all theres probably a LOT more (political) angst there to begin with than Canadians can even imagine
People who've lived in comparable places would attest to that
So who knows how we'd react in similar conditions/conditions and to similar provokations



(NO IM NOT "JUSTIFYING" THEIR VIOLENCE give it up already)

I apologize for the generalization, but I'm coming from a sheltered Western perspective (playing dumb here).

Sorry I didnt mean to insult you or anyone else..... Im just angry

Where's the tolerance and peacefulness that Islam prides itself on?

Seek and you shall find

We dont hear about the peaceful actions

In Egypt grass-roots Muslim associations do considerable progressive social work, charity etc, and are violently repressed by the US-backed "moderate" government
After disasters, they were prevented by the state from providing the humanistic services, aid, what their infrastructure exists for in the first place (the state did not supply the services instead, they simply stamped out any sort of socially-positive Islamic society that might empower the dangerous "irrational" masses... with obvious consequences in terms of making people dangerous and irrational)

Also theres a lot of non-violent resistence in Iraq (that, it is said, had a lot to do with forcing the US to allow elections) that we hear nothing about here
And many peaceful, influential leaders there urge peace, are probably playing a big role in keeping the country out of civil war the UKUSA is provoking by sending one ethnic militia to go pacify a town of another ethnicity.... those peaceful leaders dont make the news the way gossip about terrorists does, nor does the US's really obvious provocation of ethnic tensions

 

[Big Harv]

Originally posted by Lurker
On the topic of rioting, what gives with trashing the offices of the ferry company who's ship sank?

I know it's off topic, but how can trashing the offices make amends for anything? It always seems to be the same thing with Muslims/Islam: angst unleashed in physical aggression.

I apologize for the generalization, but I'm coming from a sheltered Western perspective (playing dumb here).

Where's the tolerance and peacefulness that Islam prides itself on?

We have to be tolerant of their intolerance. If not, we are moral fascists.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by docta seuss
as you've been wagging your finger throughout, it's only fair that you likewise provide others with the opportunity by offering up your take on the situation.. preferably in simplified form for the benefit of the uneducated.

Wagging? It's somewhat closer to "reeling", but yes, thank you for highlighting my opinion on this issue. I think there are probably better examples, but the only one I can come up with in my current state of disbelief is the Nat Turner revolt of 1800-something (okay, fine, I'll look it up).

So in 1831, this African American named Nat Turner (born into slavery):

...He was thirty-one years old when he led a small army on a bloody rampage through Southampton County, Virginia. A self-made preacher, he believed that God had called upon him to avenge slavery. "I was ordained for some great purpose in the hands of the Almighty," he said.

...

He instructed five slaves - Hark, Sam, Nelson, Will, and Jack - to meet in the woods at three o'clock that afternoon. Turner later joined them, and the men planned the slaughter. They agreed not to spare women and children.

Their gruesome killing spree began in the nearby village of Cross Keys, Virginia. Two hours after nightfall, the men went to the house of Joseph Travis, the slaveholder who held Nat Turner in bondage. Using hatchets, Turner's men murdered Travis, his wife, and three children in their sleep.

...

Nat Turner was hanged two months after the killing, but the effects of his mutiny lasted for decades. No other rebellions occurred, yet whites continued to suspect black ministers of holding secret meetings to plan more revolts. Slave churches were torn down, and white churches enforced segregated seating. For the next twenty years, the laws that governed slaves and free blacks became more brutal and oppressive.

...

The uprising so shakes Southern states that they pass more stringent laws related to slaves, increase censorship against abolition, and make military preparations to halt further uprisings.

...

It is hard to overstate the significance of the nationwide terror that followed the Nat Turner incident. White women and children had been slaughtered in the horrifying way: slashed and stabbed with knives, beheaded with axes, shot with crude guns. The victims included non-slaveowners as well as slaveowners, kind owners as well as cruel ones, women and children as well as men.10 The victims had only one thing in commonthey were White. As Joel Williamson put it, The message of the slave insurrection was that when blacks rebelled, all Whites died.11

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by Big Harv
We have to be tolerant of their intolerance. If not, we are moral fascists.

Big Harv, your behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in a civilized country.

 

[judge wopner]

Originally posted by deafplayer
You dont have the authority to "hold them" accountable the same way you do to hold our own governments
Nor do you have the right, arguably, while the other way, holding our gov.'s accountable, you have not only the right but the responsibility
And finally, lets not pretend that you [edit: do not]go fucking absurdly easy on our governments compared to.... uh..... rioting

Yes they must be held accountable for..... rioting!

...because we their kindergarden teachers!


Am I? I was talking about their anger, and specifically saying that it seems strange to me to consider it or its expression a fault
No, that would certainly be nice for you though
I'm saying it has to be considered in that context, that this cartoon incident didn't just drop out of the blue sky one day, any more than reaction here to Bin Laden's 'releases' can be considered outside of the context of the war on terror
No, I dont

Are you people, I mean most posting in this thread, really so completely unaware of the disparaging, demeaning, patronizing, condescending, etc etc racist attitude?
Sorry, they need to be "held accountable" for misbehaviour??
What are they kids? And we're their kindergarden teachers??

Yes exactly, thats exactly it.

This is what Im talking about, this assumption that we are in a position to "permit" or not Muslim behaviour
I dont think you guys realize how deep-rooted that idea is, that we're are above them, that they need to be scolded like children for acting "irrational" and, fuck this is a really amazing part, actually admonishing them for behaving in ways that can be used (are, by you) to rationalize the hatred against them, while that hatred - our own - and the crimes to which you acknowledge they are reacting are still kept out of mind

The hypocracy is mind-bogglingthis is what Im talking about
Why dont you hold a staff meeting in the teachers' lounge and decide on a policy of what will and will not be tolerated of the children

I dont think its necessary to point out the really flagrant resemblance to the 'collonial' attitude
The funny thing is the staff and teachers give themselves about a gazzilion lightyears of "extra leadway" because they dont even think of themselves in the same way
They dont have to ask to go to the washroom
Im saying in some very significant ways people here see people there in that racist, dominearing way

iim sorry mr. deafplayer but this has to be the most ignorant and fucking rascist post ive ever read from a guy i normally find quite intellegent on this board.

you have to be kidding me .

youre comparing the critisims levied against a group who is storming an embasssy at gun point to african slaves?

am i getting this right?

you actually think for one moment you are in some way accusing me or anyoje esle here of rascism or ignorance with that comparison?

i must be confused, but i appreciate i spell poorly and convey my thoughts in a clouded manner so ill summarize what is to me fairly simple:

1. mobs are mobs, and occur everywhere, this is nothing new

2. some mods protest peacefully, thats cool.

3. some parts of mobs protest violently, thats not cool. thats the crux of my argument.

4. if someone storms an embassy at gunpoint, specifically stating it is due to an insulting cartoon, i believe they are not only overreacting, they are being violent and should be punished under whatever law exists in that state.

5. i think anyone who makes apologies for peopel acting violent is falsely ascribing their actions as somehow representative of collective muslim sentiment. they neglect to realize that most moderate and reasonable muslims are equally appalled by violent behavoiur of this kind, regardless of the perpetrators religion.

6. when i say someone should be held accoutable i mean just that, if i saw someone as beneath me from a racial persepctive, i wouldnt ask they be held accountable, i would write them off as savages and decree as slave holders did that such vermin did not know what they do. this is where your line of logic goes.

7. yes context. thats the crux and where we agree. but context is just that context. again i ask you, by your logic, radical muslims neednt even wait for cartoons to storm say the danish embassy, for fuck sakes they ar epart of the coalition of the willing. why wait for a cartoon?

8. im willing to levy my judgement against anyone who says freedom of speech is bullshit the same way i will judge in a negatve light those who say black peope are monkeys. have no qualms calling ignorance just that. if you feel comfortable being sympathetic to people who are glad to react violently in these instances, then by all means please join the cesspool of hate and ignorance.

9. ignorance is the same across the world. when we look at hte way US soldiers mistreat prisoners and call them assholes we are in effect making the same moral judgement as calingn violent protestors assholes. i dotn think anyone has suggested a peacefull or even agressive protest is wrong. but dont even attempt to suggest violent reactions like this are excuseable and not worthy of legal action.

10. do you really belive for a moment my stance on this issue smacks of rascism? forgive my spelling erros and dyslexia but please tell me simply becuae im not some apologist for a group of violent mobs that my assertions are racist.....

i think you have no clue at all what racism or religious intolerance really is if you cant remain objective when being critical of peoples actions. under your rationale or perhasp i may be misjudging it and forgive me if thats the case, but by your system we would give violent protestors hugs and kisses instead of holding them to any laws.... laws which see crime just that, and does not permit resentment of oppression to justify anything under the sun.

........

end rant.
again if i misunderstood your rationale forgive me but this is mind boggling...

 

[Big Harv]

Originally posted by ~atp~
Big Harv, your behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in a civilized country.

If I was guilty of arson or uttering death threats, then I would agree with you.

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by Big Harv
If I was guilty of arson or uttering death threats, then I would agree with you.

I see. Earth. Shovel. Dig.

 

[Deep_Groove]

The religion of peace

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050831,00.html

 

[Big Harv]

Originally posted by Deep_Groove
The religion of peace

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050831,00.html

:

More proof that the cartoon was filled more with the truth than hate.

"A baby girl even had I Love al-Qaeda on her bonnet." I;m positive that baby is going to be raised in an environment that preaches tolerance and respect for human rights.

 

[~atp~]

"A baby girl even had I Love al-Qaeda on her bonnet."

Clearly, the religion of Islam (or its "extreme" cultural form, however that manages to selectively manifest itself within cultures) is inherently insane, or insanity-inducing, as evidenced by the demented and psychotic ravings of this mob. All this from a set of cartoons??? My God, these Arabs are nuts!

 

[~atp~]

Originally posted by Big Harv
More proof that the cartoon was filled more with the truth than hate.

Explain.

"A baby girl even had I Love al-Qaeda on her bonnet." I;m positive that baby is going to be raised in an environment that preaches tolerance and respect for human rights.

You're right, the insinuation is correct. She will not grow up in an environment where the West is respected, and instead, will grow up in an environment where violence is taught as an effective means for parlaying justice in a world of religious virtuosity.

 

[Big Harv]

Originally posted by Deep_Groove
The religion of peace

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050831,00.html

It begs the question why orthodox Muslims even decide to move to liberal western democracies that place fundamental value on freedom of speech like France and Denmark in the first place. If you want to live in a country that is governed by Islamic law, why not move to Iran or Saudi Arabia? Why would you want to live in a country where the entrenched constitutional values constantly go against yours?

I enjoy my rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion (to choose to follow a religion of my choice and be free from a state imposed religion), freedom of association and a country where women can walk around topless. Why the fuck would I move to China or Saudi Arabia as those countries are based on values and rules that go against what I believe in?? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Hal-9000]

Keith did you really just compare whats going on with the Nat Turner rebellion?