Terrorists cant stop Armies, Money and Oil.

[kandrathe]

Nonviolent forms of protest - sometimes neccesary
Violent forms of protest - should be a last resort and probably almost never a tactic.

Most of the Islamic reactions to any percieved affront (at least that make it into most media channels) is encouragement and complicity with the latter.  Publish a picture and there is enough outcry for the death of the individuals responsible that people feel justified in torching buildings and attacking police in locations far removed from the scene of the "crime."

"Living in the 12th Century" is no excuse for behaving in this manner.  A child shouldn't be allowed to play with matches and torture pets simply because they are young.  Grown men shouldn't be firebombing buildings because a newspaper some distance away used poor judgement and printed material insensitive to others.
[right][snapback]101197[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I agree with you. And, just because I can see another persons point of view and try to present that side does not mean I agree with it. Violence is a justified means of struggle when other avenues of change have been tried and thwarted. Such as;

Secret societies known as the Sons of Liberty were formed in every colony, and used propaganda, intimidation, and mob violence to prevent the enforcement of the Stamp Act. The furor culminated with the "Stamp Act Congress", which sent a formal protest to Parliament in October of 1765. Parliament responded by repealing the Stamp Act, but pointedly declared its legal authority over the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.
...
In response, primarily to the Massachusetts Government Act, the inhabitants of Worchester, Massachusetts set up an armed picket line in front of the local courthouse and refused to allow the British magistrates to enter. The magistrates, faced with over 1500 armed men, did not attempt to force entry. Thereafter, the town of Worchester largely governed itself. Similar events occurred, soon after, all across the colony. British troops were sent from England, but, by the time they arrived, the entire colony of Massachusetts, with the exception of the heavily garrisoned city of Boston, had thrown off British control of local affairs.
American Revolution

I believe in freedom of speech, even when that speech is distasteful and offensive. For the USA, the US Supreme Court also has ruled such. The press in Denmark has the right to print whatever they want within the laws of that land, but I also can understand why many (maybe the majority) of Danish Muslims would be offended. When you choose to live in Denmark, then you must accept the Danish way. I would tell the extremists that if you can't stand the freedom, then move to Syria. Having the right to do something may not mean that doing that thing is the right thing to do. I think for instance that what Theo Van Gogh was doing in exposing violence against women was the right thing, and the response to it was barbaric. From what I saw of the newspaper cartoons, they appeared to range from poor taste to vulgar in their portrayal of a major world religions most holy figure. It was probably not the right thing to do, but they had every right to piss on Mohamed, although they should have expected the response they received.

[kandrathe]

Ah - so we finnally have your real position - "cultural relativism".

Youre wecome to that position but if you truely accept it than you shouldnt be disagreeing with anyone including me - if you want to be logically consistant.

Anyway Im happy to end the discussion with you being a culturall relativist and me not being one. I no longer think your opinion is worth my time and I suppose you think the same of my position.
EDIT: I actually noticed at least one of my spelling errors for once.
[right][snapback]101172[/snapback][/right]

Ah, yes, thank you for yet another label. I will refrain from labeling you. We appear to be tuned to different wave lengths. You appear not to understand a word I write. So be it.

[Guest]

Ah, yes, thank you for yet another label.  I will refrain from labeling you.  We appear to be tuned to different wave lengths.  You appear not to understand a word I write.  So be it.
[right][snapback]101207[/snapback][/right]

Techinically Im definetly right on this one. Its cute that you never seem to realize just what you have written.

[kandrathe]

Techinically Im definetly right on this one.  Its cute that you never seem to realize just what you have written.
[right][snapback]101219[/snapback][/right]

Technically, you are the only one who doesn't seem to understand me. I sense you are just trying to get my goat again. Trolling?

[Guest]

Technically, you are the only one who doesn't seem to understand me.  I sense you are just trying to get my goat again.  Trolling?
[right][snapback]101220[/snapback][/right]

If anyone is trolling its you. You keep taking extreme stands and keep making flawed analogies hten when called on them you back out of them with out explaining just claiming you are misunderstood.


For example

"To a Westerner, boycotts and protests are acceptable civic disobediance, but burning down a building and killing people are not acceptable. I think in Syria, and some other countries run by Islamacists, that there is a high level of violence that is acceptable to the culture, and the State, especially if it is justified as defending Islam."

That is definition "cultural relativism". I didnt misunderstand anything there, I suppose it is possible that you mispoke.

[Griselda]

Both of you need to stop replying to one another. Clearly neither is going to get anything productive out of the conversation at this point.

[whyBish]

When you choose to live in Denmark, then you must accept the Danish way.  I would tell the extremists that if you can't stand the freedom, then move to Syria.
[right][snapback]101206[/snapback][/right]

So, what if you have no choice, but to live there? Is it not a natural human response to change a disagreeable environment to one more suitable?

But then, do I really want to get into this discussion, when I'm actually arguing along thet same lines you are anyway ;)

[kandrathe]

So, what if you have no choice, but to live there?  Is it not a natural human response to change a disagreeable environment to one more suitable?

But then, do I really want to get into this discussion, when I'm actually arguing along thet same lines you are anyway  ;)
[right][snapback]101238[/snapback][/right]

Ignore the infidels? Form a community of like minded people away from the Danes, and shut out what is happening within the host culture? I just think the minority of fundamentalist Muslims have little hope of winning a compromise position which the majority of Danes would view as severely restricting freedoms. In the US, we have Amish, Menonnite, Quaker, Mormons, as well as other groups that find a tranquil corner and live as they please. But, they benefit and respect freedom of religion and don't try to force their beliefs onto the majority. But, over generations multi-cultural societies do melt together and work out their differences.

From what I know of Denmark, it has the one highest levels of individual freedom in the world. Beyond freedom of expression, there is plenty for hard line fundamentalists to ruffled by. Seems similiar to moving next to an airport, then complaining of the noise.

[Iolair]

Thanks Occhi for your support, I'm danish and I appreciate it.

The newspaper Jyllands-Posten didn't just post those cartoon for fun. The reason for it actually makes this discussion about free speech even more interesting.

A writer was writing a book about Muhammed and was not able to find any that would make drawings of Muhammed for it. They were too afraid of the reactions from muslisms if they did.
That is what made the newpaper find 12 cartoonists to make the drawings and post them. Because there was a fear among artists to depict Muhammed in a danish book.

It should probably be noted that it is NOT a majority of the muslims in Denmark that support the anger over the pictures. The large and very silent majority of danish muslims is mostly saying 'ok, silly pictures, not nice, but come on, it's just a drawing'.

It seems some people in this forum think it's the muslim taboo of drawing Muhammed that is the problem. Actually what most of the vocal muslims here in Denmark are saying is, that it's not that it is a picture of him, but that it is a picture that makes fun of him. They do NOT have problems with pictures of Muhammed that are honourable and 'pretty'. Such pictures can be found in schoolbooks both in Denmark and Norway already.

[[wcip]Angel]

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.
[right][snapback]101064[/snapback][/right]

The reason our governments take it seriously, is because they're burning our embassies. Our prime minister has demanded that Syria pay for the damages done to our property. :shuriken:

[Guest]

Thanks Occhi for your support, I'm danish and I appreciate it.

The newspaper Jyllands-Posten didn't just post those cartoon for fun. The reason for it actually makes this discussion about free speech even more interesting.

A writer was writing a book about Muhammed and was not able to find any that would make drawings of Muhammed for it. They were too afraid of the reactions from muslisms if they did.
That is what made the newpaper find 12 cartoonists to make the drawings and post them. Because there was a fear among artists to depict Muhammed in a danish book.

It should probably be noted that it is NOT a majority of the muslims in Denmark that support the anger over the pictures. The large and very silent majority of danish muslims is mostly saying 'ok, silly pictures, not nice, but come on, it's just a drawing'.

It seems some people in this forum think it's the muslim taboo of drawing Muhammed that is the problem. Actually what most of the vocal muslims here in Denmark are saying is, that it's not that it is a picture of him, but that it is a picture that makes fun of him. They do NOT have problems with pictures of Muhammed that are honourable and 'pretty'. Such pictures can be found in schoolbooks both in Denmark and Norway already.
[right][snapback]101247[/snapback][/right]

Insulting someone just to prove a point still isnt nice. I really have no respect for the papers now. I can undertand an insult when your dealing with someone you dont like, at least you have a reason for it.
I think it should have been more negative public sentimet initially from the general Danish populace probably.

But that said the paper should be allowed to insult who it wants, it should though be willing to also accept lower sales if it upsets people.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks Occhi for your support, I'm danish and I appreciate it.

[right][snapback]101247[/snapback][/right]

Having been to Copenhagen as a boy, and having had the pleasure of working with Danish officers, both in NATO and working on Afghan operations, and having had that wonderful dessert that I cannot pronounce (sounded like Moethe Groethe Roethe Floethe) I have many wonderful feelings for Denmark. It doesn't hurt the Viktor Borge made me laugh as a boy. (Piccolo and Saxy) My dad always referred to Borge as the "Danish Ham." :D (The pun comes from "ham" being a slang term for a funny person.)

I wish our folks in Washington would remember who America's friends are more frequently. :(

Occhi

[Jester]

I wish our folks in Washington would remember who America's friends are more frequently.  :(
[right][snapback]101285[/snapback][/right]

I think they remember all too well that they have "friends" who wear robes 'n turbans and sell a very large amount of oil to the States.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I think they remember all too well that they have "friends" who wear robes 'n turbans and sell a very large amount of oil to the States.

-Jester
[right][snapback]101291[/snapback][/right]

Those turban coifed aristocrats already got their due, Jester, by WJ Clinton's helping them set up a Muslim client state in Bosnia and Kosovo, and by convincing the NATO leaders to bomb Serbs for 71 days on behalf of Kosovar Muslims. (Ironic shadow of Israel in the Levant, as a US client, don't you think? Circles within circles. :blink: ) On a matter of free speech, there is no need to accept threat of the petroleum pump. How far down the slippery slope is one willing to slide? Ben Franklin has some instructive remarks on that. ;)

The US imports most of its oil from a real friend, Canada. As noted in another thread, US imports about half of its oil consumption. Roughly one fifth comes from the Middle East. Mexico and Venezuela, and Nigeria, are also major suppliers.

The real issue at hand is making sure the oil market, globally stays stable. Look at where Japan gets the bulk of its oil? Our friend, who we look out for. And so on. France? Our dear friends in charge of fine cuisine know where their fuel comes from.

Occhi

PS: From CSL Forum ________ :

France's annual oil demand so much outstrips its annual production that more than 95% of its needs are met by imports (mostly from Saudi Arabia and Norway, with lesser amounts coming from the United Kingdom, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and Russia); this has made France the world's fifth-greatest net oil importer (behind only the United States, Japan, Germany, and Korea).

Consider the differences in US and French populations: 61,000,000 versus roughly 300,000,000, yet they are fifth largest customer at the pump in terms of "need based economics."

It is in America's interest to ensure that its major trading partners do not have an oil crisis.

Food for thought.

[Jester]

It is in America's interest to ensure that its major trading partners do not have an oil crisis.
[right][snapback]101316[/snapback][/right]

Oh, sure, that's well and good as far as it goes.

But what about the fact that France's economy is reeling (possibly even devastated) by Bill O'Reilly's boycott of French products?

I mean, really, the French are already practically terrorists. Why should we care about their stupid, cheese-eating economy?

God bless America!

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, sure, that's well and good as far as it goes.

But what about the fact that France's economy is reeling (possibly even devastated) by Bill O'Reilly's boycott of French products?

I mean, really, the French are already practically terrorists. Why should we care about their stupid, cheese-eating economy?

God bless America!

-Jester
[right][snapback]101346[/snapback][/right]

O'Reilly's boycotts are in the same class of idiocy as the whole "Freedom Fries" stuff some fool in our Congress came up with. I had a lovely Beaujolais a couple of weeks ago, with a juicy grilled Kansas City Strip steak (just to the rare side of medium, it was.) In certain contexts, things of the New World and the ancien regime go great together. Those two are joined by whatever Kings named Louis, the Louisiana Territory, drainage, big brown rivers, French wine, Great Plains herds, and fur trappers coming down the Missouri have in common.

God bless America!

Whoa, back up there a second, do you work for Fox News? :blink:

Courage, Jester. Whoops, wrong network. :D

O'Reilly has no plenipotentiary powers, nor would his call for a boycott likely be heeded. The good little consumers he appeals to are too busy sating their tastes for something "special."

Occhi

[[wcip]Angel]

God bless the muslim community

The problem with media representation of such issues tends to be that the media only picks up the loudest voices, ignoring the rational ones that do not generate as much noise.  Voices that seek tolerance, dialogue and understanding are always drowned out by the more sensationalist loud calls, giving viewers the impression that these views are representative of all the Arab public’s view.

Ain't that the truth!

---------

[kindergarden_platitutdes]
I'm not a psychologist, so I don't know if there's a particular term for this, but I believe people behave the way other people expect them to. In other words, people create a 'role' based on other people's perceptions of you, and, subconsciously, try to act out their 'role'. If the world will not change its views of muslims as violent maniacs, then over time, that is how they'll identify, and that is how they'll act.
[/platitudes]

In other words, the media need to get their sh*t together!

[Occhidiangela]

Angel,Feb 7 2006, 03:26 AM]God bless the muslim community
Ain't that the truth!
[right][snapback]101377[/snapback][/right]

"I'm sorry" doesn't unburn the Chilean Embassy in Damascus. What did the Chileans do to deserve that, other than be in the neighborhood? A real apology carries with it "and I will ensure it won't happen again." The folks apologizing are in no position to follow through on that promise, so empty words once again clutter up the internet.

"I'm sorry"can't undo the violence and destruction deliberately promoted and prompted by cynical "behind the scenes" players, who wish to exploit this cartoon bruhaha for their own long term advantage. The sheep are being moved by the wolves yet again.

It was to someone's benefit that a riot be commenced, or a series of riots, and this latest free speech spat was used as an excuse to have one. The original story is months old.

Rioting need not be the reaction to such matters. So why is it so frequently rationalized as "justified" due to the patronizing characterizations of certain demographics having only that way to express their voices? Look at who is an apologist for the riot being an expectable reaction, a justifiable acting out.

Consider the Rodney King verdict riots. Consider that lack of riots when OJ was not convicted. See these cartoon of the false prophet riots. See also the Burning of the US Flag in the Palestinian streets when 9-11 happened.

There are images and symbols being manipulated here. By whom and why? I am not sure how many different players and factions are involved, but the global bread and circuses, 24/7 media age, is too good of an opportunity to miss for those pursuing an agenda where exploiting an uncritical mass audience advances their aims.

Will Rogers once quipped "I only know what I read in the papers." Sadly, that little joke is becoming a bit too close to the truth in a global sense, but fewer and fewer people are reading. People in the Information Age have gone backwards, and are responding to symbols and images. Small wonder religion as a political motive force is making a comeback. Symbols are religion's bread and butter.

Occhi

[[wcip]Angel]

Well, I think one needs to consider that the primary aim of that website is not to apologise; as you said, how could they apologise for something others did? I would assume that the aim is to remind people that these violent fundamentlists are a minority in an otherwise sane religion.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, I think one needs to consider that the primary aim of that website is not to apologise; as you said, how could they apologise for something others did? I would assume that the aim is to remind people that these violent fundamentlists are a minority in an otherwise sane religion.
[right][snapback]101407[/snapback][/right]

Likewise Ralph Reed. :lol:

Occhi