Terrorists cant stop Armies, Money and Oil.

[Guest]

???  ;)  You seem to wave that goad around alot. 

I seem to recall this guy named Eric Rudolph...
[right][snapback]101019[/snapback][/right]

And thats more intellectual dishonesty(I mention it frequenty because some of you do it frequently.).

You implying that I said Christians dont do nasty #$%& - which is wrong.

And because of what you are replying to you imply the converse - that I think being Muslim makes people do nasty #$%&.

What I really did if you had bothered to read it was point out someone making yet another broken analogy.

[Guest]

It's been plastered all over the local media for the last few months. Not that it'd do much good to link those sources here since it's all in danish.

Main concern right now seems to be that dairy export is going down dramatically due to the boycotts.
[right][snapback]101024[/snapback][/right]

Boycotts are fair. Your media insults people - people dont buy your stuff.

[Occhidiangela]

It's worth noting, Occhi, that *any* depection of Muhammed is strictly taboo. It's not like cartoons featuring Jesus; there are tenets of faith based upon it.

*shrug*. It's a tricky analogy.
[right][snapback]100991[/snapback][/right]

How is it confirmed that the image is of Muhamed, explicitly, and not just some random overwrought, fashion impaired follower of Mohamed? Did I miss a detail in the article?

There may be no analogy.

Occhi

[concre+e]

How is it confirmed that the image is of Muhamed, explicitly, and not just some random raghead?  Did I miss a detail in the article? 
[right][snapback]101038[/snapback][/right]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698/
... has all 12 images of Muhamed the Danish newspaper published to try freedom of speech vs self-cencorship in September 05.
The story there isn't quite up to date anymore though. A lot of newspapers in most European countries meanwhile republished the images.

Another fun link: http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

c+

Everybody's favorite:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7374/33...en_Cartoons.jpg

[Jester]

Concessions and backing down are viewed by many Arabs as weakness, and weakness is to be exploited.
[right][snapback]100999[/snapback][/right]

Moreso than other people? Or are you just pointing out a specific example of the general rule that many people interpret concessions and backing down as weakness?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698/
... has all 12 images of Muhamed the Danish newspaper published to try freedom of speech vs self-cencorship in September 05.
The story there isn't quite up to date anymore though. A lot of newspapers in most European countries meanwhile republished the images.

Another fun link: http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

c+

Everybody's favorite:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7374/33...en_Cartoons.jpg
[right][snapback]101043[/snapback][/right]

Ah, so The Prophet is also "He Who Must Not Be Drawn." Right, Voldemort with a camel and a turban, I ain't impressed.

I've read his Koran, which he didn't write. It was boring and trite, though to be fair I didn't read it in Arabic. I like waving with my left hand too much. :rolleyes:

Al Quran made the OT seem quite the Clancy thriller, though it has moments where its adages resonate nicely, like the Psalms and Proverbs. Wait a minute, where'd that format come from, I wonder? Mohamed was a merchant. He was a plagiarist, conceptually.

As a prophet, he is by the definition of the God he worshipped a false prophet, since his alleged revelations held generally valid the previous Words and Books, with his "oh, I got the third edition in a cave" profoundly secular in focus.

Those vocal screaming Muslims can either get over it, and write off the Danish as boorish twits, or they can get all over wrought and medeival.

Really sells the product, eh? "Hey, Muslim is the only way to be, watch how we handle tolerance and patience."

Turban crowned nitwits are doing everything they can to associate themselves, it seems to me, with the kind of blinders on wit and perspective that the Klan had nailed down for years.

Good for them, I supose folks need to have goals in life.

The cloth on the head similarity just struck me, but it appears to be further evidence that social conservatives, like Way Right Fundamentalist Christians and Reactionary Fundamentalist Moslems, have a heck of a lot more in common with one another than either group ever will admit. They hate MTV and think Madonna and Paris Hilton are both the Whore of Babylon.

Wait a minute, are they on to something? Two down, how many to go before I have to admit I am a Born Again Fundamentalist Berean Muslim Wasabi Sushi Washcloth Kepian's Witness?

/sarcasm off

But this line takes the cake, from your article link (thanks :) ) concre+e.

"“We want respect for Muhammad restored and we want him to be described as the man he really was in history, and that he gets the respect he deserves,” Akkari stressed that Muslim organizations are still deeply opposed to the publication of the cartoons."

1. How about you restore respect to Mohamed by your actions, rather than by your demand for respect? Walk a good witness, stop being a cry baby, and people will respect you and your God."

At times like this, I am glad to have helped send a few souls to Paradise in order for them to be in the company of their 72 Virginians: Stonewall Jackson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Robert E Lee, Patrick Henry, Light Horse Harry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, my Physice teacher from High School . . . :P

Occhi

[Jester]

As a prophet, he is by the definition of the God he worshipped a false prophet, since his alleged revelations held generally valid the previous Words and Books, with his "oh, I got the third edition in a cave" profoundly secular in focus.
[right][snapback]101048[/snapback][/right]

I think he was pretty clear about the matter. The prophets that came before were good enough for their time and place, but that his revelation is the final, correct one. How is that "profoundly secular in focus"? It's about God, and what he wants. Sounds pretty religious to me.

The "God he worshipped" quite obviously believed in the truth of his prophecy, seeing as that's the whole basis for his prophethood, which is in turn the basis for his religion.

Methinks you're trying to be a little too clever here, and have ended up priveledging one version of "the word" above another.

For the record, I think they're all either crazy, opportunistic, or both. But that's just me.

-Jester

[concre+e]

Ah, so The Prophet is also "He Who Must Not Be Drawn."  Right, Voldemort with a camel and a turban, I ain't impressed.

Exactly. If you'd define this <:-{} as an image of Mohamed, then I guess it is.

Actually the reason he shouldn't be depicted is because he's only the prophet and it would be wrong to worship him, or something to that extent.

Those vocal screaming Muslims can either get over it, and write off the Danish as boorish twits, or they can get all over wrought and medeival.

Looks like that's happening. Although to be fair, some people over here are getting medievalish themselves. Major trolling by the Danish newspaper too of course.

Some Dutch blog started an "depict Mohamed" contest recently as a reaction. Dont go there if you're easily offended. I mean it. http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C
Woah. Wait till they see that.

They hate MTV and think Madonna and Paris Hilton are both the Whore of Babylon.
Wait a minute, are they on to something?
[right][snapback]101048[/snapback][/right]

No question. I was just going to say that.

c+

[SwissMercenary]

Insensetive, offensive, or not, it's free speech. Don't like it, don't listen to it, don't live in a country that permits it, don't let it into your country, I'm not going to care. I can't believe the wailings and railings about those caricatures are at all being taken seriously by the European powers.

[kandrathe]

And thats more intellectual dishonesty(I mention it frequenty because some of you do it frequently.).

You implying that I said Christians dont do nasty #$%& - which is wrong.

And because of what you are replying to you imply the converse - that I think being Muslim makes people do nasty #$%&.

What I really did if you had bothered to read it was point out someone making yet another broken analogy.
[right][snapback]101035[/snapback][/right]

For my part we are having a discussion, which you make harder by that huge chip on your shoulder. Calling people "intellectually dishonest" is a poor way to engage in a reasonable dialog.
When you say;

Are you blind? Are you missing the crucial difference?

Seems intellectually dishonest then since you obviously know I'm not blind. Are you trying to call me stupid? Maybe it's your approach, but you seem to be spoiling for a fight all the time. Rather than try to have a discussion about protesting, boycottting, and acts of violence you resort to ad hominem attacks.

The analogy is that Muslims might get bent out of shape by a newspaper publishing a cartoon portraying their prophet in a bad light, just as Christians might get bent out of shape by a TV station running a show portraying their prophet in a bad light. The similiarity is that fundamentalism and extremism in response to media disrespect are not isolated to one religion. Seems like an analogy to me. The response of the two groups might in general be different, but my point was that there are some extremist individuals in either religion who are willing to take a boycott, and protest to a higher level of violence.

I never implied that you said anything, I was disagreeing with your criticism. You might be reading too much into my posts where I tend to try to draw specific things out to a broader perspective. Talking about an isolated Danish incident is fruitless, but to have a discussion about the role of respect (for muslim beleifs in this case) in media and social discourse is more interesting to me.

But, if you are still spoiling for a fight you can look elsewhere.

[Occhidiangela]

http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C
Woah. Wait till they see that.
[right][snapback]101051[/snapback][/right]

Too Funny
Thanks for the link, the irreverent approach is the best, some of those pics were pure comedy gold.

Occhi

[Guest]

For my part we are having a discussion, which you make harder by that huge chip on your shoulder.&nbsp; Calling people "intellectually dishonest" is a poor way to engage in a reasonable dialog.&nbsp;
When you say;Seems intellectually dishonest then since you obviously know I'm not blind.&nbsp; Are you trying to call me stupid?&nbsp; Maybe it's your approach, but you seem to be spoiling for a fight all the time.&nbsp; Rather than try to have a discussion about protesting, boycottting, and acts of violence you resort to ad hominem attacks.

The analogy is that Muslims might get bent out of shape by a newspaper publishing a cartoon portraying their prophet in a bad light, just as Christians might get bent out of shape by a TV station running a show portraying their prophet in a bad light.&nbsp; The similiarity is that fundamentalism and extremism in response to media disrespect are not isolated to one religion.&nbsp; Seems like an analogy to me.&nbsp; The response of the two groups might in general be different, but my point was that there are some extremist individuals in either religion who are willing to take a boycott, and protest to a higher level of violence.

I never implied that you said anything, I was disagreeing with your criticism.&nbsp; You might be reading too much into my posts where I tend to try to draw specific things out to a broader perspective.&nbsp; Talking about an isolated Danish incident is fruitless, but to have a discussion about the role of respect (for muslim beleifs in this case) in media and social discourse is more interesting to me.&nbsp;

But, if you are still spoiling for a fight you can look elsewhere.
[right][snapback]101070[/snapback][/right]

You dont know what it means I guess. "Are you blind?" isnt intellectually dishonest. You now the readers never for a second supposed it was a real question.

You on the other hand presented your questions base as being a dervative of my comments - it wasnt.(and yes you really did imply that, your denials to the contrary.)






Its a shame to devolve so many discussions here into the elements of rhetoric, but its the only way to deal with subtley disengenous comments like you made there.

[kandrathe]

You dont know what it means I guess. "Are you blind?" isnt intellectually dishonest. You now the readers never for a second supposed it was a real question.

You on the other hand presented your questions base as being a dervative of my comments - it wasnt.(and yes you really did imply that, your denials to the contrary.)
Its a shame to devolve so many discussions here into the elements of rhetoric, but its&nbsp; the only way to deal with subtley disengenous comments like you made there.
[right][snapback]101084[/snapback][/right]

I know what it means, and I also know you misuse it far too often. I'm done with you go fight with someone else.

[roguebanshee]

Boycotts are fair. Your media insults people - people dont buy your stuff.
[right][snapback]101036[/snapback][/right]

Well, the current case would be like boycotting Mac Donalds & Burger King because the New York Times brought an unflattering image of your grandmother.

[NiteFox]

Well, the current case would be like boycotting Mac Donalds & Burger King because the New York Times brought an unflattering image of your grandmother.
[right][snapback]101090[/snapback][/right]

Or, with the Muslim protests in London, boycotting McDonalds and Burger King because Paul McCartney drew an unflattering image of your grandmother.

No British paper had published the cartoons in question before thousands of protestors starting waving around placards carrying slogans consisting largely of the words "death", "behead", "kill", and "9/11 will come".

[Occhidiangela]

I think he was pretty clear about the matter. The prophets that came before were good enough for their time and place, but that his revelation is the final, correct one. How is that "profoundly secular in focus"? It's about God, and what he wants. Sounds pretty religious to me.

The "God he worshipped" quite obviously believed in the truth of his prophecy, seeing as that's the whole basis for his prophethood, which is in turn the basis for his religion.

Methinks you're trying to be a little too clever here, and have ended up priveledging one version of "the word" above another.

For the record, I think they're all either crazy, opportunistic, or both. But that's just me.

-Jester
[right][snapback]101050[/snapback][/right]

Jester: Follow a line of reasoning with me, OK? A False prophet leads to a False Faith, thence to a False religion, which leads to Mohamed's religion being False by its very nature and its foundation in the eyes of God, which thus makes the ludicrous cultural taboos on drawing people and animals nothing more than mummery over which to get over wrought. Arabs are prone to drama, it's a cultural thing, which I guess means that we are getting to be more like them every year, what with America's apparent worship nowadays in "the cult of the Drama Queen."

Some people just look for an excuse to get pissed off about something, walking about with chip on shoulder, waiting for someone to bump into them so they can launch into a frenzy. There, I have described the "Arab Street" (a mythical construct that goes well with poitical mummery of all sorts) and for that matter, my own self on bad days. :(

*goes off in search of cofee, and sense of humor*

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Ken, this may open a can of worms, but I am tired of hearing how sensitive I am asked to be to someone's religion, without limit, without any tempering of my context. I get the sense that the Danish feel similarly on that, and I admire their stand of "our house, our rules, we don't accept censorship from superstitious Semites." (More on this below.) **

It's worth noting, Occhi, that *any* depection of Muhammed is strictly taboo. [right][snapback]100991[/snapback][/right]

For a Muslim. It matters not what others who subscribe to other faiths do. The Danish in question are not Muslims in belief nor faith, so they are not bound by Muslim taboo.

1. To draw something is not to worship it. Two different verbs. The Commandment is not to woship a graven image, which is not a prohibition against drawing. Those who worship statues (the Cult of Selena here in Corpus Christi is a typical example) have to deal with that.

2. According to a Muslim, the paintings on the Cistine Chapel are a sacrilege. Well, screw them. Muslims are free to construct their mosques and decorate them by their building codes, for their habits, and are free to butt out of other people's habits who are not members of their religion.

3. There is no requirement to respect anyone else's religion. It is best to try to understand them, and where practical to tolerate them, but I don't respect snake worshipers. Nor do I respect the shrill and intolerant Muslims in this debate, since their purpose is secular, not spiritual, and since their proponency on this matter is to force others to accept their religious taboo.

That is no quid pro quo, it is an attempt at bullying and extortion.

** The more on this feature is: should democracy be evangelized? Should it be forced at the point of the bayonet, or should it be grown from the ground up? I am of the opinion that the former method does not result in a democracy, the latter does.

Occhi

[Guest]

Still think its the same as boyvotting a TV show?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/...n.ap/index.html


Burning buildings and death threats now.

[Griselda]

Occhi,

You've gone too far. There's no reason to attack any religion that directly here. I know that you disagree, and I'm sorry, but your beef with Islam in general will have to be taken elsewhere.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi,

You've gone too far.&nbsp; There's no reason to attack any religion that directly here.&nbsp; I know that you disagree, and I'm sorry, but your beef with Islam in general will have to be taken elsewhere.
[right][snapback]101111[/snapback][/right]

Free Speech. That is the core issue in the dispute in Denmark. Of course, posting here won't change that.

Occhi