has anybody actually seen them? are they really that offensive?

what's with people demonstrating and burning flags over cartoons? i have to admit i find organized religion in general to often be kinda silly and annoying. more people have done more stupid, cruel and inhumane things in defense of their belief in some variety of sky pixie or another than for any other reason...

there. taht should stir up some controversy.

from a danish site you can sort of see the images.

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aiid=3530562:img=P/

from a danish site you can sort of see the images.

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aiid=3530562:img=P/




This site here has a much clearer image of the cartoons:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/Mo_Cartoons.jpg


And this Wikipedia article has an explanation of the whole controversy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

you should not make images of Allah


Or Mohammad as the case is. ;)

Essentially it comes down to two things.

I feel that if the Government sponsored flag burning in Tehran was stopped, the Anti-Semetic hate speech celebrated throughout the Islamic world was stopped and the opression of anything other than Stright Islam was called to a halt, then they would have a right to complain, but complain is all they'd have a right to do.

Here is the other point, it's essentially like telling you that "Hey, you can't eat a cow, It could offend Hindu's!"

Ya know, here in the U.S and in most other 'Advanced' (  ;) Yeah, i said it) nations, there are variations on what we call the Bill of Rights. Usually one of the main ones is Free Press and Free Speech. As long as seperation of church and state exists then we have the right to poke fun at whatever religion we want.

The over reaction is fierce, but we don't know what the reaction would be if the name on the cartoons was changed to
Jesus instead of Mohammed. (do we?)

There HAVE been cartoons of this type with Jesus....some have been even worse....


And films too...'Life Of Brian' being the best example...

And I make no apologies for it, I thought it was hilarious!

http://prorev.com/2006/02/backing-off-of-hate_06.htm

I really like this. I'm a staunch anti-extremist. I think everything having to do with extremism should be BURNED IN EFFIGY!

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BACKING OFF OF HATE
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

SAM SMITH - When a situation such as the one created by the
anti-Muslims cartoons and their reaction, the tendency for all parties
is to seek ever higher ground of self-righteousness - all the time
exacerbating the situation. The fact is that the biggest danger to the
world at the moment comes from the conflicting certainties of
Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalists. These certainties are
rooted in a varied mixture of paranoia, real persecution, cultural
egotism, and a search for more simple answers than the world willingly
provides.

There is an alternative approach, namely to back off from the conflict
at issue and ask: how do we lessen the chance of this happening again?

The traditional answer of the extreme branches of all three cultures
is found in new law. It doesn't work well. For example, Metafilter
recently summarized laws designed to reduce anti-Semitism: "In Austria
it against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of
the Holocaust. . . Laws in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Switzerland make it
a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust in public. Germany's
parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the
extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone
who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the
Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than
the imposition of a fine." In this country we  have also passed hate
crime laws, many of which directly conflict with the First Amendment
and certainly haven't proved effective.

In fact, violent or nasty offenses against cultures and beliefs are
far more dependent on the political or social conditions of the time
than on any law or lack thereof. Thus Israel's policies have spurred
anti-Semitism just as 9/11 spurred anti-Islamic expression in this
country. In the end it is far more like a disease than a crime and the
cure is not the forcible elimination of symptoms but the riddance of
viruses causing them.

Allah,  Mohammad, they're all the same to us heathens ;)


Well blow me down I must be an infidel!!  ;D ;D

Amazingly the Islamic guy who dressed up as a suicide bomber while demonstrating in London at the weekend is actually out 'on licence' serving an existing five year prison sentence for dealing in heroin and cocaine.. I reckon he was made to apologise for his behaviour, he didn't do it of his own freewill??

Amended

Amazingly the Islamic guy who dressed up as a suicide bomber while demonstrating in London at the weekend is actually out 'on licence' serving an existing five year prison sentence for arms dealing.. I reckon he was made to apologise for his behaviour, he didn't do it of his own freewill??


I don't think he was expecting the backlash from it...you could probably hear his backside falling out whilst he was 'apologising'...

Still...out on licence on a five-year stretch...proves how 'soft' this country is...

I think the threats of violence in response to these cartoons pertain to Islam encompassing the whole of the Muslim's societal identity.  Church, state, and social affairs are not separated these Islamic cultures. Furthermore, the Muslims, with some justification, who responded with outrage view themselves as besieged and oppressed.
I don't mean this as a put-down of Islam, just a guess I'm wagering.

It is also important to remember American Christian Fundamentalists are rather touchy about criticism.  The leaders of American Christian fundamentalism don't find it necessary to call adherents to acts of physical violence.  I mean, there are a few fringe screwballs out there associated with white supremecy, but they are shunned by the mainstream of Christian fundamentalism.  Again, this goes back to our cultural separation of the organs of church and state.  The American state has a history of constant war-
making ever since we became a competetive global economic force in the 19th century.  Until WWII, Christian rhetoric was indeed used to justify policies of aggression and extermination everywhere from the Congo to the Phillipines--and not just by Americans, but by all the Christian European imperial states.

In our time, America uses buzzwords such as "democracy," "free market," and "liberation" to invade Third World nations--such as Iraq, Nigacagua, and Vietnam.

Anyway, remember a little photographic artwork called "Pisschrist"? 
"Serrano, that jerk, let 'im get his own wall, and his own crayon!"
--Sen. Jesse Helms

Personally, I wish the Muslim funamentalists would lighten up a bit and get a sense of humor.  The most dangerous people in the world are people who take themselves too goddam seriously!  Let Rushdie write his silly book, let the Danish illustrators draw their silly cartoons, and go about your business...yeah, right!

maxwell, your posts rock. i dunno if i ever bothered to say so in so many words.

maxwell, your posts rock. i dunno if i ever bothered to say so in so many words.

Thanks.
Oh, I meant "Nicaragua," not "Nigacagua," in case anybody wuz wondering!
:D

I don't think he was expecting the backlash from it...you could probably hear his backside falling out whilst he was 'apologising'...

Still...out on licence on a five-year stretch...proves how 'soft' this country is...


HAHAHA!  ;D

Yeah too right Paul..judging by these guys standards of punishment, hanging would be pretty lame - I'll get the gibbet ready! 


ps I amended my post above, must've misheard and thought it was 'arms' dealing, infact it was drugs.

ps I amended my post above, must've misheard and thought it was 'arms' dealing, infact it was drugs.


Which, so I'm informed, is completely against the Koran's teachings...

So what exactly is/was this bloke's game?

I just read on the BBC site that he has been made to apologise for impersonating a suicide bomber.  And he has gone back to prison.

How did the police know he was impersonating a suicide bomber and wasn't actually a suicide bomber?  ???

How did the police know he was impersonating a suicide bomber and wasn't actually a suicide bomber?   ???


Probably because he's still alive...!

Probably because he's still alive...!


But they shot that Brazilian for merely looking foreign as far as I could work out.  This other guy was parading round with a padded belt and whatsit on.  Why wasn't he shot 7 times in the head?

But they shot that Brazilian for merely looking foreign as far as I could work out.  This other guy was parading round with a padded belt and whatsit on.  Why wasn't he shot 7 times in the head?


Well, as far as I can ascertain, the 'Brazilian guy' was mistaken for someone whose name was on a list of those suspected of having terrorist connections...

Our 'suicide bomber' was just a fool going over the top...

Great to see that Muslim Cleric Abu hamzah  or however you spell it has just been given a 7 year jail sentence at
The Old Bailey for his incitement to hatred campaigns and preaching on the streets blah blah, he also used a Mosque in Finsbury Park, London to run his meetings otherwise known as dirty dealings etc
*(&^*%%   ;D

Was there a big fuss made when Bin Laden appeared in South Park?

Great to see that Muslim Cleric Abu hamzah  or however you spell it has just been given a 7 year jail sentence at
The Old Bailey for his incitement to hatred campaigns and preaching on the streets blah blah, he also used a Mosque in Finsbury Park, London to run his meetings otherwise known as dirty dealings etc
*(&^*%%   ;D


I think that's our 'suicide bomber' who got seven years...

Mod...you're quite right, Jules - it was Hamza, my apologies!

For all that time, trouble and potential danger...seven years! Wow!

I've written longer sentences!

Take off the time on remand and I still guarantee he'll be out in three...

payback is a b1tch, isn't it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11216508/

payback is a b1tch, isn't it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11216508/

In what respect, exactly, would an Iranian paper printing holocaust cartoons be payback for a secular Danish newspaper printing ones of Mohammed?

All it does is prove that these hysterical, fanatical religious types are incapable of thinking straight.  But then again, we knew that already.

In what respect, exactly, would an Iranian paper printing holocaust cartoons be payback for a secular Danish newspaper printing ones of Mohammed?

All it does is prove that these hysterical, fanatical religious types are incapable of thinking straight.  But then again, we knew that already.


In their collective wisdom, the end result of the moslem protests about the funny papers has been that at least 4 moslem protesters have been killed.  Oh well, the gene pool got worked out.  Anyone willing to risk their lives over a cartoon is best weeded out of th gene pool ASAP.

What a bunch of maroons.  :P

[quote author=Ły

Ya know, I don't think anybody has mentioned this yet - Since when was Norway.. Denmark  ???

I don't suppose they can read English, un-civilised, un-educated, disposable.

To be honest, I'm gonna have to break tact and support Dubyah for the rest of his term is this carry's on. He wants to get the Hydrogen fuel up and running, the sooner the better I say. We can cut off aid to Israel and let them Nuke the snot out of the whole of the middle east. Problem Solved.

Maybe they would do a lottery to see who'd push the button  ;D

ah, yes. nothing like a little genocide for freedom.

i think this whole burning-flags-over-cartoons thing is a bit silly but nuking the entire middle east seems a bit extreme. this "war" really does seem to bring out the inner nazi in people, i'm noticing, though. killin' rules! we're gonna destroy the middle east in order to save it!

I think that's our 'suicide bomber' who got seven years...

Mod...you're quite right, Jules - it was Hamza, my apologies!

For all that time, trouble and potential danger...seven years! Wow!

I've written longer sentences!

Take off the time on remand and I still guarantee he'll be out in three...


np

I hope he is made to do the full stretch and then handed over to the US, they should have their time with him too  ;D

ah, yes. nothing like a little genocide for freedom.

i think this whole burning-flags-over-cartoons thing is a bit silly but nuking the entire middle east seems a bit extreme. this "war" really does seem to bring out the inner nazi in people, i'm noticing, though. killin' rules! we're gonna destroy the middle east in order to save it!


I was being facetious. Obviously I don't support obliterating the middle east with Nuclear weapons.
I wish it was that easy but unfortunately it's not.
Killin' does indeed rule, we reduce the global population, free up some land space, remove a problem and allow ourselves free reign over all the oil in the region.
To be brutally brutally honest here and this is the honest truth.
If it turned out Iran had indeed managed to build Nuclear weapons and were prepare to be hostile. I would adamantly support a joint Nuclear strike between ourselves and Israel against Iran and any other state in the area supporting them.

During the cold war M.A.D stopped the U.S and the U.S.S.R launching against each other. Nobody in Tehran cares about their people, they just want to destroy the great Satan. I say, strike first.

Ya know, I don't think anybody has mentioned this yet - Since when was Norway.. Denmark  ???

Denmark printed the original cartoons, they were reprinted in Norway to say "we've got free speech too"; the news was reporting a French magazine reprinting them as well.


To be honest, I'm gonna have to break tact and support Dubyah for the rest of his term is this carry's on. He wants to get the Hydrogen fuel up and running, the sooner the better I say.
At the risk of going off-topic, here: switching to a hydrogen fuel economy won't change a dependence on oil one iota unless you can come up with a way of generating hydrogen (i.e. electricity as hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water) that doesn't burn oil, coal or gas.  In other words nucular... 'sides, didn't Dubya later retract his "addicted to oil" statement?


During the cold war M.A.D stopped the U.S and the U.S.S.R launching against each other. Nobody in theran cares about their people, they just want to destroy the great Satan. I say, strike first.

To which planet were you considering moving, then?

At the risk of going off-topic, here: switching to a hydrogen fuel economy won't change a dependence on oil one iota unless you can come up with a way of generating hydrogen (i.e. electricity as hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water) that doesn't burn oil, coal or gas.  In other words nucular... 'sides, didn't Dubya later retract his "addicted to oil" statement?

An excellent point that I had no idea of. More people should be talking about this. Now I know why Bush has gone all Hydro... his people still make money whether we nix gasoline or not.

To which planet were you considering moving, then?


Que?

If your referring to the nuclear radiation that would spread, there are obvious ways of protecting yourself from it.
Ideally there would be no need to use Nuclear weapons but unfortunately Rummy's smart bombs seem to have failed their I.Q tests.

Que?

If your referring to the nuclear radiation that would spread, there are obvious ways of protecting yourself from it.
Ideally there would be no need to use Nuclear weapons but unfortunately Rummy's smart bombs seem to have failed their I.Q tests.

OK, what do *you* think the consequences of your "strike first" idea would be?

...or are you turning into the sort of Bushie who doesn't start thinking about consequences until after taking action?

To which planet were you considering moving, then?


Well, I was going to move to Venus, but I think I'll just wait around for the greenhous effect to turn this planet into Venus.  Of course, if there's a thermonuclear war, Earth will end up more like Mars.  There's some cold irony--Mars, the god of war!

Well, I was going to move to Venus, but I think I'll just wait around for the greenhous effect to turn this planet into Venus.  Of course, if there's a thermonuclear war, Earth will end up more like Mars.  There's some cold irony--Mars, the god of war!



you know, I hear on mars like it can be 70 degrees F where your feet are and where your head is, it's like -50.

Some moons of Jupiter come surprisingly recommended. Jupiter emits some heat so there's talk of some of its moons possibly being relatively comfortable. Although their atmospheres are still likely to contain a tad more methane and such than I tend to care for.

OK, what do *you* think the consequences of your "strike first" idea would be?

...or are you turning into the sort of Bushie who doesn't start thinking about consequences until after taking action?


The consequences would be mass slaughter on a scale I don't wish to consider.

In answer to your question, No I am not turning in to 'the sort of Bushie who doesn't start thinking about consequences'. I consider all possible circumstance that i can conceive and ways in which to avoid them, much like any other rational human.

At the same time, I can't help but feel that the threat that the Middle East poses is far too great to ignore.

I fear that in this instance diplomacy will not work. For years men and women from around the world have tried to engage in rational discourse with these people but time and time again their efforts are for nothing.

In my opinion destruction is a viable option.

I'd rather see theran, Damascus, Beirut and Riyadh levelled than suffer the consequences of allowing people who seem to be devoid of the cognitive capacity of a cow, get their hands on Nuclear Weapons.
I'm not buying in to the right wing spin machine "Saddam has Nuclear Weapons" that's a crock, but give it time and a lot of these nations will procure Nuclear arms.
It is only a matter of time. This isn't a statement designed to inspire fear, just inform.
After the United States built and used the first Nuclear weapons it was only a few years before most of the major powers in the world had them.

Consider if you will that your in charge of the Iranian government. Your main priority is to developer Nuclear weapons. Where do you plan to launch them? Who in this world do you hate the most?

If you answered Israel you get 1 point, if you answered Israel and the United States you win.

It's a situation that I would hope we never had to face, but I'm afraid blinding yourself won't help you. Eventually some of these nations will developer Nuclear weapons, most of these nations wouldn't think twice about launching them in to densely populated civilian areas. I can think of a few here in the U.S.

In my opinion destruction is a viable option.

I'd rather see theran, Damascus, Beirut and Riyadh levelled than suffer the consequences of allowing people who seem to be devoid of the cognitive capacity of a cow, get their hands on Nuclear Weapons.

Destruction on that kind of scale is *never* a viable option: you're talking about a level of killing many times worse than the world has ever seen based on a complete lack of understanding of the people in that region.  Sure, they do seem ridiculously stupid and a large number follow blindly a religion that I for one consider to be a humungous pile of fetid dingo's faeces.. but nuking millions of innocents for that would quite simply be a crime against humanity.  Listen to yourself: it's fear talking, not rationality.

And why do you think the government in Teheran is so anti-Western?  It has a little to do with religion, and everything to do with history: Iran had a stable democracy fifty years ago, then the US and UK between them deposed the democratically elected government and imposed a West-friendly Shah as a dictator... I don't know about you, but I find the hypocrisy in today's Western intervention in the ME to be kind of ironic.

I would be very, VERY surprised if an Islamic/Arab government took it upon themselves to nuke Israel: it would be a bit like trying to get that flea off your foot with a shotgun...

In what respect, exactly, would an Iranian paper printing holocaust cartoons be payback for a secular Danish newspaper printing ones of Mohammed?

All it does is prove that these hysterical, fanatical religious types are incapable of thinking straight.  But then again, we knew that already.


I, personally, would have preferred a cartoon of Jesus gettin' it on with Mary Magdalene, or better yet, a cartoon of Jesus as a flamin' homosexual  getiin it on with the 12 Apostles!!!

Imagine how many Bible thumpin', gun totin', confederate flag wavin' born again christians would take to the streets and cause mayhem? YEE-E-EEE-EE-EEHA-A-A-A-W!!!!

I, personally, would have preferred a cartoon of Jesus gettin' it on with Mary Magdalene, or better yet, a cartoon of Jesus as a flamin' homosexual  getiin it on with the 12 Apostles!!!

Imagine how many Bible thumpin', gun totin', confederate flag wavin' born again christians would take to the streets and cause mayhem? YEE-E-EEE-EE-EEHA-A-A-A-W!!!!


Yeah I'd bet they'd be absolute mayhem, Christians would be setting off bombs right left and centre. 

I, personally, would have preferred a cartoon of Jesus gettin' it on with Mary Magdalene, or better yet, a cartoon of Jesus as a flamin' homosexual  getiin it on with the 12 Apostles!!!

Well, part of the supposition of Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (the book on which the Da Vinci Code was based) was that JC and Mary Magdalene *were* an item (and that the description of the wedding at which Jesus turned water into wine was their wedding)... but the thought of a camp Christ.. nope, wouldn't work: he didn't turn the water into Babycham ;)


It's a situation that I would hope we never had to face, but I'm afraid blinding yourself won't help you. Eventually some of these nations will developer Nuclear weapons, most of these nations wouldn't think twice about launching them in to densely populated civilian areas. I can think of a few here in the U.S.

A quick PS: Have you considered how similar your position is to the Iranian government?  "There's this bunch of religious zealots who we don't understand, but we know they don't like us and we're worried about them using nuclear weapons on us.  We need to defend ourselves, and if that means a preemptive nuclear strike, then so be it..."

Well, part of the supposition of Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (the book on which the Da Vinci Code was based) was that JC and Mary Magdalene *were* an item (and that the description of the wedding at which Jesus turned water into wine was their wedding)... but the thought of a camp Christ.. nope, wouldn't work: he didn't turn the water into Babycham ;)
A quick PS: Have you considered how similar your position is to the Iranian government?  "There's this bunch of religious zealots who we don't understand, but we know they don't like us and we're worried about them using nuclear weapons on us.  We need to defend ourselves, and if that means a preemptive nuclear strike, then so be it..."


Yup and i stand by it.

I'm not saying it's right, i'm saying it's survival.

I'm also not claiming that they're to blame for the circumstances that have arisen.

I'm saying it's the solution i see.

Please, please I beg you, come up with a solution that dosen't end in bloodshed, I will forever be in your debt.

When the cartoon was first printed in September of last year(yep, last year) in Denmark it received moderate protest. Two Muslim Clerics in Denmark then apparently decided to up the ante and get a more ferocious response by sending the cartoon plus two others that were never printed to the Middle East. Sounds like these two fellows are basically guilty, at the least, of inciting a riot.

When the cartoon was first printed in September of last year(yep, last year) in Denmark it received moderate protest. Two Muslim Clerics in Denmark then apparently decided to up the ante and get a more ferocious response by sending the cartoon plus two others that were never printed to the Middle East. Sounds like these two fellows are basically guilty, at the least, of inciting a riot.


No. They're innocent victims of radical fundamentalists. The poor guys in Denmark have had to go into hiding - yet religious nuts can say almost what they want in this country 'Free Speech' and all and often go unchallenged for years. ::)  ::) Makes me sick.
Goes and gets the gibbit ready.

Yeah I'd bet they'd be absolute mayhem, Christians would be setting off bombs right left and centre. 


i don't know if you noticed but the "christians" have b-52s dropping 2,000-pound blockbusters and m1 tanks that fire depleted uranium shells. they hardly have to resort to street-protests and suicide bombings but kill pa-LENTY of innocent people nonetheless. it just looks a little more antiseptic on the evening news so people don't really comment on it so much. at least not in muslim-minority countries.

Yup and i stand by it.

I'm not saying it's right, i'm saying it's survival.

I'm also not claiming that they're to blame for the circumstances that have arisen.

I'm saying it's the solution i see.

Please, please I beg you, come up with a solution that dosen't end in bloodshed, I will forever be in your debt.


i don't get where the middle east poses any viable threat at all. the nations in the middle east are thoroughly divided, typically impoverished, and have virtually no viable military -- at least not in relation to the western countries. as for iran getting nuclear weapons -- get used to it; the bush administration's idiotic foreign policy has guaranteed that countries ALL OVER will be trying to get nuclear weapons. because of the clear lesson of the axis-of-evil! iraq: no nuclear weapons, gets pre-emptively invaded, 30,000 dead minimum. north korea: nuclear weapons, gets ignored and swept under the rug as an embarrassment. lesson for iran: get nukes, or get invaded. syria will probably be trying to get nuclear weapons next. every country that the bush administration shows hostility toward will now try and get nuclear weapons.

i remember there was an election in iran a few years ago pitting academic moderates against religious radicals and bush said in a speech, hey, you should vote for the academic moderates, and the next day the religious radicals shot up like ten points in the polls. when the bush administration tries to use diplomacy, this is what happens. they don't know how to do it. all they know how to do is fight wars or threaten them, and as long as they're in power things are just going to get worse.

but at least their supporters get to talk about nuking the middle east and slaughtering millions of innocent people for no good reason. i imagine that feels good, if you're into that sort of thing.

i don't know if you noticed but the "christians" have b-52s dropping 2,000-pound blockbusters and m1 tanks that fire depleted uranium shells. they hardly have to resort to street-protests and suicide bombings but kill pa-LENTY of innocent people nonetheless. it just looks a little more antiseptic on the evening news so people don't really comment on it so much. at least not in muslim-minority countries.


Actually it takes a 15,000 pond bomb tpo qualify as a blockbuster.  In any event you are talking about the actions of a government, not a populace, and M1 (or for that matter A10 aircraft) that fire depleted Uranium shells do so in combat against other armored military forces.

Do you see popular organizations in the USA, Britain, Germany, France, or Denmark strapping bombs to themselves and walking into churches of different (or same) denominations?  Do you see broad-based christian groups burning down embassies whenever satiric cartoons are published?  Other than the usual oddball or two you do not see this in the civilized world.  But it is a regular event in the countries that would identify themselves as "moslem".

Note that in their devout and religious violent protest to the Danish funny papers, at last count the protests have resulted in the deaths of 11 fellow moslems in the mayhem that they've generated.

The fact is that moslems in their tantrums have killed far more of their own people than they ever have "westerners" or "infidels", even though their actions are done in the name of defeating the Great Satan of the west.  It is all really an excuse to shed blood, that's all..  Mayhem appears to be part of the lifestyle in those countries, and it is one of the reasons why these countries have a long staid history of being conquered and subjugated by guys like Hussein or Assad.  When your focus is on mayhem, mayhem is what you get.

[quote author=Ły

whatever.

a. government vs. populace: so what? why are the violent actions of a government justified, and the violent actions of a populace not? particularly when the pretext for the actions of said government have been shown to be unsubstantiated at best, outright lies at worst.

b. the m1s are arrayed against armored military forces: this is just plain bald-faced wrong. in iraq they're being used to ferret out snipers and alleged small squads of militants by destroying entire buildings they're supposed to be in. then, nine times out of ten, it turns out the militants left hours before and there was no one in the building but civilians. you must be so proud!

no. like i say, in the "civilized world" instead you see the use of white phosphorous to burn people's flesh off, and the liberal use of sleep deprivation, stress positions, water-boardings and israeli hangings -- the practice of tying someone's hands behind them and then suspending them in the air until they pass out from the pain.

your "civilized world" doesn't impress me, sorry.

c.f. what i said before about bush's ham-handed attempt to appeal to islamic moderates. the fact is that the bush policy itself is so violent and primitive that it breeds extremism throughout the world. (AND domestically -- notice all the pinheads on the internet talking about nuking the middle east! because there are muslim protestors who, as you point out, are by and large the ones getting shot!) there ARE islamic moderates but the more ignorant violence the bush administration exports, the more marginalized and persecuted these moderates will find themselves as the countries the adminstration is attacking or threatening find their populations screaming to fight fire with fire.


Some of us evil Westerners are moderates, too.

Some of us evil Westerners are moderates, too.



sure. i don't think lyricboy is a moderate, though.

sure. i don't think lyricboy is a moderate, though.


Maybe...maybe not. I don't know. I find politics (at least the way it's played today) to be a tremendous waste of time. That's not to say I don't encourage debate in a free and open society, but the labelling and namecalling that usually comes with it on both sides of the aisle is frustrating to no end. There's a reason we don't have smarter people in office anymore; they're too damn smart to run for office! Why would anyone want to put up with all the crap in that arena? Sorry guys, the private sector is where it's at...for me.

It's no wonder I'm an Independent.  :(

i don't get where the middle east poses any viable threat at all. the nations in the middle east are thoroughly divided, typically impoverished, and have virtually no viable military -- at least not in relation to the western countries. as for iran getting nuclear weapons -- get used to it; the bush administration's idiotic foreign policy has guaranteed that countries ALL OVER will be trying to get nuclear weapons. because of the clear lesson of the axis-of-evil! iraq: no nuclear weapons, gets pre-emptively invaded, 30,000 dead minimum. north korea: nuclear weapons, gets ignored and swept under the rug as an embarrassment. lesson for iran: get nukes, or get invaded. syria will probably be trying to get nuclear weapons next. every country that the bush administration shows hostility toward will now try and get nuclear weapons.

i remember there was an election in iran a few years ago pitting academic moderates against religious radicals and bush said in a speech, hey, you should vote for the academic moderates, and the next day the religious radicals shot up like ten points in the polls. when the bush administration tries to use diplomacy, this is what happens. they don't know how to do it. all they know how to do is fight wars or threaten them, and as long as they're in power things are just going to get worse.

but at least their supporters get to talk about nuking the middle east and slaughtering millions of innocent people for no good reason. i imagine that feels good, if you're into that sort of thing.


Kinda proved my point.

I'm not calling for what is essentially Genocide, I'm making the point that eventually it will happen.
Nuclear weapons are primarily a detterent. That's why we didn't invade North Korea. (that and the 14,000 some Conventional weapons aimed at Seoul) I happen to be of the opinion that if a country like Syria, Iran etc managed to develope Nuclear weapons they would use them.

Remember, we aren't dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with fanatically devout religious psychopaths. The Muslims are, right now, at about the stage Christianity was in during the Spanish Inquisition. However, they have the ability to develope weapons capable of destroying much of the world, the Spaniards just had swords and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Kinda proved my point.

I'm not calling for what is essentially Genocide, I'm making the point that eventually it will happen.
Nuclear weapons are primarily a detterent. That's why we didn't invade North Korea. (that and the 14,000 some Conventional weapons aimed at Seoul) I happen to be of the opinion that if a country like Syria, Iran etc managed to develope Nuclear weapons they would use them.

Remember, we aren't dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with fanatically devout religious psychopaths. The Muslims are, right now, at about the stage Christianity was in during the Spanish Inquisition. However, they have the ability to develope weapons capable of destroying much of the world, the Spaniards just had swords and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.


"*Nobody* expects the Spanish Inquisition!!"

Sorry, had to drop in the odd Monty Python reference.  ::)

"*Nobody* expects the Spanish Inquisition!!"

Sorry, had to drop in the odd Monty Python reference.  ::)


Kinda hoped somebody would, didn't realise things got so heavy in here  ;D

Kinda proved my point.

I'm not calling for what is essentially Genocide, I'm making the point that eventually it will happen.
Nuclear weapons are primarily a detterent. That's why we didn't invade North Korea. (that and the 14,000 some Conventional weapons aimed at Seoul) I happen to be of the opinion that if a country like Syria, Iran etc managed to develope Nuclear weapons they would use them.

Remember, we aren't dealing with rational people here, we're dealing with fanatically devout religious psychopaths. The Muslims are, right now, at about the stage Christianity was in during the Spanish Inquisition. However, they have the ability to develope weapons capable of destroying much of the world, the Spaniards just had swords and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.


well, don't forget, for iran or syria to really have a viable end-of-the-world option, they need to get not only nuclear weapons but hydrogen bombs of the multi-megaton-of-t.n.t.-of-explosive-force variety, would probably need something like a few dozen of them, and would also need missile technology to send them over the ocean. i rather instead think they might get a few hiroshima-style weapons with scud-level missile technology for delivering them. now that will suck, because they could probably kill tens of thousands of people with them if they're lucky, but we're hardly talking about end-of-the-world type stuff until the industrialized nations respond with 20-megaton ICBMs. even for religious fanatics, i hardly see how killing 10,000 infidels and then getting wiped off the face of the earth along with your entire religion makes any sense at all.

in any case, we're not looking at end of the world unless WE make it so. religious fanatics using nukes still won't have that kind of power. i suppose if theyre really, really, REALLY crazy they might spread some horrific biological like black plague and that might put a stop to civilization. but i don't think it'll happen with nukes.

well, don't forget, for iran or syria to really have a viable end-of-the-world option, they need to get not only nuclear weapons but hydrogen bombs of the multi-megaton-of-t.n.t.-of-explosive-force variety, would probably need something like a few dozen of them, and would also need missile technology to send them over the ocean. i rather instead think they might get a few hiroshima-style weapons with scud-level missile technology for delivering them. now that will suck, because they could probably kill tens of thousands of people with them if they're lucky, but we're hardly talking about end-of-the-world type stuff until the industrialized nations respond with 20-megaton ICBMs. even for religious fanatics, i hardly see how killing 10,000 infidels and then getting wiped off the face of the earth along with your entire religion makes any sense at all.

in any case, we're not looking at end of the world unless WE make it so. religious fanatics using nukes still won't have that kind of power. i suppose if theyre really, really, REALLY crazy they might spread some horrific biological like black plague and that might put a stop to civilization. but i don't think it'll happen with nukes.

I know what you mean.
But, it's only a short step from a Hiroshima style bomb catapauled a few hundred miles to an I.C.B.M capable of destroying targets elsewhere.
The Biological threat is a bit of a worry. Something like Ebola would be nasty.
Of course, you have to take in to account the option of smuggling a bomb in to the U.S. Contrary to what the Government would have you believe, it's incredibly easy to get more or less anything in to the country.
Why do you think so many farm boys up in North Dakota carry AK-47's.

Kinda hoped somebody would, didn't realise things got so heavy in here  ;D


I feel ya, as the more hip among us would say. I'm not much of a politico, myself. Sure, I like to stay informed, but I'm just enough of a cynic that I tend to not to get involved in the heavy stuff.

I know what you mean.
But, it's only a short step from a Hiroshima style bomb catapauled a few hundred miles to an I.C.B.M capable of destroying targets elsewhere.
.


And I suppose Iran will spend billions to rebuild whatever nation they decide to bomb, too... er, wait.. that's only an "evil western" policy... ::)

And I suppose Iran will spend billions to rebuild whatever nation they decide to bomb, too... er, wait.. that's only an "evil western" policy... ::)

How can we build a doomsday machine and forbid our rivals to do the same?  Wouldn't that be an unfair advantage over everybody else?
???

And I suppose Iran will spend billions to rebuild whatever nation they decide to bomb, too... er, wait.. that's only an "evil western" policy... ::)


I never said anything about "evil western" anything. That guy guy put those words in my mouth. Although I do poo-poo a bit when people talk about how we're "civilized" and they're "uncivilized" when the so-called civilized ones are dropping cluster bombs that look like children's toys and doing thumbs-up photo ops over black and blue corpses. I do in fact think the West has it up on Islam generally in terms of civilization but folks looking at america's conduct in this war could hardly be blamed for thinking otherwise.

The rebuilding thing is, frankly, a bit of a crock. It's rife with corruption, no-bid contracts going to administration political supporters, shabby contracting work, and billions in funds that have just gone missing. This war is a racket and the "rebuilding" is a big part of the slop going in the trough.

How can we build a doomsday machine and forbid our rivals to do the same?  Wouldn't that be an unfair advantage over everybody else?
???


I know what you mean, it seems, nay, is hypocritical to say "We have this, but you can't have it" It all comes down to responsibility.

We've been responsible with nuclear weapons, i doubt they would take the same attitude.

I never said anything about "evil western" anything. That guy guy put those words in my mouth. Although I do poo-poo a bit when people talk about how we're "civilized" and they're "uncivilized" when the so-called civilized ones are dropping cluster bombs that look like children's toys and doing thumbs-up photo ops over black and blue corpses. I do in fact think the West has it up on Islam generally in terms of civilization but folks looking at america's conduct in this war could hardly be blamed for thinking otherwise.

The rebuilding thing is, frankly, a bit of a crock. It's rife with corruption, no-bid contracts going to administration political supporters, shabby contracting work, and billions in funds that have just gone missing. This war is a racket and the "rebuilding" is a big part of the slop going in the trough.



The "evil western" comment wasn't directed at you, although I did borrow it from a previous post... it was more in reference to the way Iran sees us.

America's conduct in this war...is actually quite civilized compared to what Americans are putting up with over there...  American troops die themselves in order to avoid shooting a possibly innocent person.  American troops do not pose as ordinary civilians and hide behind women and children.  American troops do not kidnap reporters and behead them while video cameras capture the ordeal.

I agree with you about the "children's toys" statement... and that is my biggest gripe against the US government.  With all the technology and defense budget available to us, we should be able to provide our troops with sufficient armor so that these children's toy bombs won't cause any more harm to them than a simple "ouch!".

I know what you mean, it seems, nay, is hypocritical to say "We have this, but you can't have it" It all comes down to responsibility.

We've been responsible with nuclear weapons, i doubt they would take the same attitude.


Well, of course, we're the only ones to have ever actually used them on civilians (twice) but other than that...

Well, of course, we're the only ones to have ever actually used them on civilians (twice) but other than that...


Yes, ending a war in which an estimated 50-70,000,000 people had already been killed in.

America's conduct in this war...is actually quite civilized compared to what Americans are putting up with over there...  American troops die themselves in order to avoid shooting a possibly innocent person.  American troops do not pose as ordinary civilians and hide behind women and children.  American troops do not kidnap reporters and behead them while video cameras capture the ordeal.



Oh sure, sure, right!  They also took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary!
;D

Oh sure, sure, right!  They also took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary!
;D


I'm afraid I fail to see the point your trying to make here.

You think that American troops are perpetrating these acts?

Oh sure, sure, right!  They also took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary!
;D


Which of my examples do you disagree with? ???

Something that nobody seems to have picked up on..

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments, which include a ban on depicting God, as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers.

I'm afraid I fail to see the point your trying to make here.

You think that American troops are perpetrating these acts?

There is no such thing as a humane military occupation.  If we've learned anything about war over the past century, we've learned that governments LIE about it.  I'm not trying to demonize the soldiers.  They've been thrust into a hell they cannot control.  I don't think American troops are kidnapping journalists, or using civilians as human shields, mind you, but in ordeal of occupying a hostile population, a lot of atrocious things are bound to happen.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking American troops are saintly, saintliness is precluded from their list of options!

The "evil western" comment wasn't directed at you, although I did borrow it from a previous post... it was more in reference to the way Iran sees us.

America's conduct in this war...is actually quite civilized compared to what Americans are putting up with over there...  American troops die themselves in order to avoid shooting a possibly innocent person.  American troops do not pose as ordinary civilians and hide behind women and children.  American troops do not kidnap reporters and behead them while video cameras capture the ordeal.

I agree with you about the "children's toys" statement... and that is my biggest gripe against the US government.  With all the technology and defense budget available to us, we should be able to provide our troops with sufficient armor so that these children's toy bombs won't cause any more harm to them than a simple "ouch!".


Well, compared to suicide bombers, beheaders and hostage takers the US rules of engagement ARE relatively humane but that's setting the bar awfully low. It's sorta like when people are confronted about the wire-tapping stuff, for instance, and say, "well, at least we're not as bad as china." I mean why not say, well, sure, abu ghraib is bad but at least we're not cannibals?

If you look at the history of it I think you'll see that what you're saying (us soldiers regularly die rather than kill innocent civilians) is false at least as often as it's true. Look at the checkpoints -- cars full of civilians are regularly gunned down at checkpoints because US soldiers are afraid of getting carbombed. And I don't blame them for that fear but the fact is we invaded that country. And check out the latest rationale for the war I hear most often -- "better to fight them there than fight them in America." Implicit in that statement is the idea that innocent Iraqi lives are less valuable than innocent American ones. Not terribly compatible with the idea that the US is bending over backward to accommodate the welfare of the Iraqis and, when considered in the context of extraordinary rendition, guantanamo bay, abu ghraib, and the uncontested innocent death toll of 30,000 from US force (that's by bush's own admission) the picture's not a pretty one.

Yes.  There is no such thing as a humane military occupation.  If we've learned anything about war over the past century, we've learned that governments LIE about it.  I'm not trying to demonize the soldiers.  They've been thrust into a hell they cannot control.


Ok, I understand.

Obviously there are acts perpetrated by soldiers in ever war zone that can be called horrific, but at least you have the courtesy and cognitive capacity to appreciate the fact that oftentimes it's something out of their control.

Well, compared to suicide bombers, beheaders and hostage takers the US rules of engagement ARE relatively humane but that's setting the bar awfully low. It's sorta like when people are confronted about the wire-tapping stuff, for instance, and say, "well, at least we're not as bad as china." I mean why not say, well, sure, abu ghraib is bad but at least we're not cannibals?

If you look at the history of it I think you'll see that what you're saying (us soldiers regularly die rather than kill innocent civilians) is false at least as often as it's true. Look at the checkpoints -- cars full of civilians are regularly gunned down at checkpoints because US soldiers are afraid of getting carbombed. And I don't blame them for that fear but the fact is we invaded that country. And check out the latest rationale for the war I hear most often -- "better to fight them there than fight them in America." Implicit in that statement is the idea that innocent Iraqi lives are less valuable than innocent American ones. Not terribly compatible with the idea that the US is bending over backward to accommodate the welfare of the Iraqis and, when considered in the context of extraordinary rendition, guantanamo bay, abu ghraib, and the uncontested innocent death toll of 30,000 from US force (that's by bush's own admission) the picture's not a pretty one.



First of all you say we invaded "their" country... so I assume you are referring to Iraqis when you say "their"... however most of the car bombers are not Iraqi...  they are killing innocent Iraqis (and Americans, British, Koreans, Australians, etc) and we are trying to stop them.  So I wouldn't say that innocent Iraqi lives are less or more valuable - since the Iraqis are more the victims of insurgents at this point than they are the victims of American soldiers.

Ok, I understand.

Obviously there are acts perpetrated by soldiers in ever war zone that can be called horrific, but at least you have the courtesy and cognitive capacity to appreciate the fact that oftentimes it's something out of their control.

Not only is it out of their control, but after a few months of living the hell of war, some people's humanity crumbles underneath them.  That's how we got the My Lai massacre in Vietnam (BTW Lt. Calley is only infamous because he got caught---that sh*t went on all the time--and he was made a scapegoat by his superiors), and god only knows what atrocities may be occuring in occupied Iraq.  You get a bunch of nervous kids, barely old enough to drink or vote, and shove them into a sweltering world of bombs and snipers seven thousand miles away, and more than a few of them will go a little, you know, funny in the head!

I like debating politics but I keep thinking I'm debating this guy

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=13842;type=avatar

which is very disconcerting. :D

I like debating politics but I keep thinking I'm debating this guy

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=13842;type=avatar

which is very disconcerting. :D


More disconcerting than a guy with a shoe phone?
;D

I like debating politics but I keep thinking I'm debating this guy

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=13842;type=avatar

which is very disconcerting. :D



Don't worry, I have trouble harboring resent towards a cute little 12 year old  ;D

Yeah I'd bet they'd be absolute mayhem, Christians would be setting off bombs right left and centre. 


... or even better yet: a cartoon of Jesus performing fellation on with a donkey!!! how would the good ol' boys react?

Don't worry, I have trouble harboring resent towards a cute little 12 year old  ;D
*ahem*

I'm 13!
:D

Yeah, I just barely remember the days I used to get incensed when people underguessed my age. :)

There HAVE been cartoons of this type with Jesus....some have been even worse....


I agree.  What would they be doing if somebody displayed "Art", which featured the Koran resting in a bottle of urine?

A lot of Christians were upset about the entire Andres Serrano exhibit, but I do not remember anybody being killed because of it.

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments, which include a ban on depicting God, as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers.


Actually there are a lot of pictures of Mohammad.  However, if you look closely, they almost always have blanks where the eyes are.  In 7th Century Shia, it was believed that the eyes were the gates to a person's soul.  So as long as you did not include the eyes, it was not forbidden.  This even went to paintings of other people, not just Muhammad.  I saw a gallery once of historical Shahs, and for about 200 years, none of them had eyes.  Even the statues had flat areas where eyes would normally be carved.

Of course, the Jewish and Christian faiths also have such a prohibition against depictions of God.  That does not stop a lot of Christians from having pictures or statues of Jesus, nor of the painting of God's hand on the ceiling of the SIsteen Chapel.

Actually there are a lot of pictures of Mohammad.  However, if you look closely, they almost always have blanks where the eyes are.  In 7th Century Shia, it was believed that the eyes were the gates to a person's soul.  So as long as you did not include the eyes, it was not forbidden.  This even went to paintings of other people, not just Muhammad.  I saw a gallery once of historical Shahs, and for about 200 years, none of them had eyes.  Even the statues had flat areas where eyes would normally be carved.

Of course, the Jewish and Christian faiths also have such a prohibition against depictions of God.  That does not stop a lot of Christians from having pictures or statues of Jesus, nor of the painting of God's hand on the ceiling of the SIsteen Chapel.


Very true. I should have mentioned that.

By the way, Love your display picture!

Very true. I should have mentioned that.

By the way, Love your display picture!


LOL, thanks.  It is from the January 1972 cover of National Lampoon.

And no, it is not some form of poke at Don Carlos.  I simply saw it today, and realized I wanted to use it for a while.  Do not read into it anything other then it struck my funnybone.

I think Mad magazine ought to do one of their pun covers.  It would depict the prophet with the face Alfred E. Neumann and the caption would be "Mohammad."  They could start a fatwa against Bill Gaines, but he's already dead!
  ;D

Seriously, when I saw those creeps burning the Danish flag, I thought, "Now, there's something I never thought I'd see!"  By rights, I should declare jihad against the Danes because they made MY ancestors serfs in like 732 A.D.
Remember "Freedom Fries"?  Well, apparently, a certain delicious pastry called a "Danish" is very popular in Iran.  However, the Iranian government has forbidden the pastry to be referred to as "Danish" anymore.  When I first heard that on the news I thought, what are they gonna call it, an "Iran"? Actually, they're now to be called "Rose-of-The-Prophet-Mohammad."
:D

http://www.meatandhealth.co.uk/consumer/images/pics/danish-pastry.jpg
A "Rose-of-the-Prophet Mohammad"

Not sure if this has been raised already in this thread, but all is not what it seems for the Danish cartoons: evidently the Danish imam who took the published 'toons to the ME and raised a merry stink about them took three more that were *much* worse (including one that had a man with a pig's head that came from some traditional French piss-up, and nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed)... I can't help but wonder how many of the rampaging hordes over there think that these are the main images they're up in arms about.

Basically, it's a set-up.  According to Private Eye (one of the more reliable news sources for this sort of thing, IMHO), six members of the mosque where this imam preaches were arrested recently for suspected terrorist activities.  Seems like this is how he gets his own back...