|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia
| OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #210486] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 00:21 |
|
"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
> Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few days,
over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some time
ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick, at
least, *before* finishing that joke.
An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who appear
in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This caused a
far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe and
the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's an
insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather self-defeating,
isn't it?
Jon Lennart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #210488 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 00:55 |
|
"One man's theology is another man's belly-laugh."
Lazarus Long
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #210490 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 05:55 |
|
Raven wrote:
> "John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>
>
>>Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
>
>
> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few days,
> over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some time
> ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick, at
> least, *before* finishing that joke.
> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who appear
> in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This caused a
> far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
> insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe and
> the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's an
> insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
> notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather self-defeating,
> isn't it?
>
> Jon Lennart Beck.
>
>
Religion based insults have, none the less, had a polarizing and escalating
effect on the world situation, e.g., the allegations that American soldiers in
Guantanamo acted with disrespect to the Qur'an in the presence of Moslem
prisoners.
I fear that the current world crisis is in fact a religious one, not a
nationalistic one. Media interviews with numerous Moslems in the mid-east have
one common thread. They regard the military action against Moslems in Iraq and
Afghanistan as attacks on all Moslems. This is at least in part, if not in
main, the reason why recruitment of soldiers and suicide bombers from Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and and other Moslem countries has fueled the
continuing strife in these countries.
Then too Moslem nations see the tsunami wave of western culture as a threat to
the continued existence of their own culture. In the 1970s, Canada feared a
cultural takeover by the US, and it is in fact very similar to the US. Imagine
what a radically different society must feel.
But also underlying this antipathy is a philophical/ideological rejection of the
West. For those of you who are not familiar with Sayyid Qutb, the philosophic
mentor of Osama bin Laden, I quote here from the Introduction to his book
"Milestones" written while he was in prison in Egypt before his execution as a
radical Moslem fundamentalist:
-------------------------
Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger of
complete annihilation which is hanging over its head - this being just a symptom
and not the real disease -but because humanity is devoid of those vital values
which are necessary not only for its healthy development but also for its real
progress. Even the Western world realises that Western civilization is unable to
present any healthy values for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does
not possess anything which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its
existence.
Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is
borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic
system, under the name of socialism. It is the same with the Eastern bloc. Its
social theories, foremost among which is Marxism, in the beginning attracted not
only a large number of people from the East but also from the West, as it was a
way of life based on a creed. But now Marxism is defeated on the plane of
thought, and if it is stated that not a single nation in the world is truly
Marxist, it will not be an exaggeration. On the whole this theory conflicts with
man's nature and its needs. This ideology prospers only in a degenerate society
or in a society which has become cowed as a result of some form of prolonged
dictatorship. But now, even under these circumstances, its materialistic
economic system is failing, although this was the only foundation on which its
structure was based. Russia, which is the leader of the communist countries, is
itself suffering from shortages of food. Although during the times of the Tsars
Russia used to produce surplus food, it now has to import food from abroad and
has to sell its reserves of gold for this purpose. The main reason for this is
the failure of the system of collective farming, or, one can say, the failure of
a system which is against human nature.
It is essential for mankind to have new leadership!
The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because
Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military
power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end
primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values which enabled it to
be the leader of mankind.
It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material
fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such
high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and
which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with
human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable.
Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of life.
The period of the resurgence of science has also come to an end. This period,
which began with the Renaissance in the sixteenth century after Christ and
reached its zenith in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, does not possess
a reviving spirit.
All nationalistic and chauvinistic ideologies which have appeared in modern
times, and all the movements and theories derived from them, have also lost
their vitality. In short, all man-made individual or collective theories have
proved to be failures.
At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim
community has arrived -the turn of Islam, which does not prohibit material
inventions. Indeed, it counts it as an obligation on man from the very beginning
of time, when God deputed him as His representative on earth, and regards it
under certain conditions a5 worship of God and one of the purposes of man's
creation.
"And when Your Sustainer said to the angels, I am going to make My
representative on earth.," (Qur'an 2:30)
"And I have not created jinns and men except that they worship Me." (2:143)
Thus the turn of the Muslim community has come to fulfill the task for mankind
which God has enjoined upon it.
------------------------
For further reading, see:
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/h old/index_2.asp
This work stands to his main work "In the Shade of the Qur'an", a ten volume
commentary on the Qur'an, as "The Communist Manifesto" stands to "Das Capital".
Milestones is the manifesto; In the Shade of the Qur'an is the philosophical
analysis underlying the ideology. In another 100 years, Qutb will probably be
seen as the Thomas Aquinas of Islam.
On the other hand, the religious right in the US has set its own agenda for
obliterating the First Amendment of the US Constitution and melding church and
state into the kind of theocracy that many of the early American colonies once
were. This religious dash for power cannot but affect perceptions worldwide,
especially in Moslem nations. And with the fawning obeisance that the current
President Bush gives to the radical right, there are many, including many in the
US, who see that that power has already been obtained. And once in power in the
US, what would be the next logical step for a Christian theocracy? Advancement
of the cause beyond the borders.
So what is it that other nations perceive when the US says that it wants to
"democratize" them? I suggest that non-Christian nations see a
religious-political cabal planning a revolution from the bottom to topple the
ages old religious-political structures where power flows from the top under the
guidance of the Imam and other religious leaders. They see not just a political
upheaval, but an attempt to bring Christian missionaries to their countries
under cover of political reform, to undermine and destroy Islam. Consider the
latest kidnapping in Iraq - Christian missionaries. While Americans and other
westerners probably think "Why them? They mean no harm," Moslems, however,
probably think that such people pose a greater threat than the American soldiers
and their bullets and rockets.
If I am right, and I deeply hope I am wrong, we stand in the first years of the
second great conflict between Islam and Christianity, and I ask all who read
this to remember how many dark centuries the last conflict lasted. Both
ideologies intend to proselytize and to make the world into their own image.
And they are now face to face with each feeling threatened by the other.
Secularism in the West is in for a difficult time. As secularists, and I count
myself one, stand in the middle ground, and as polarized opponents demand, as
did Bush when he said, "You are either with us or against us", the middle is the
first to suffer. Attempts to remain rational advocates of third possibilities
can be seen as treason to a religious fanatic.
I have spoken so far only of the US. But the anti-Islam sentiment has been seen
and is growing in Britain, France, Germany and now maybe Denmark? Despite the
unwillingness of most European nations to be drawn into the offensive war
against Iraq, the underlying anti-Islamic sentiment in those countries runs
high, and little empathy exists for the condition of Iraqis. The fact that many
want the US to withdraw has little to do with concern for Iraq and more for the
sense that justice was violated when the war began.
Then there have been the bombings in Spain, Britain and elsewhere. Certainly,
some of these have had immediate political objectives, e.g., the Madrid
bombings. But that is not their sole purpose. There is a broader attack on
western values that underlies all this, if Qutb's remarks quoted above are to be
accepted as guiding militant Islam, as I think they are.
The heaping of insults, graphic or verbal, will smoothe the way into
self-justification of self-superiority and the conviction about the evil that
must inspire the other side, whichever that is.
Sadly, I can offer no guidance as to how this conflict can be avoided. The pace
of hatred and self-justification has, I fear, reached that fever pitch that
plunged Europe into WWI in the spring and summer of 1914. To use Qutb's
analogy, we (the western and Islamic world together) may have already gone over
the precipice. We are at least so close to the point of no return on that slope
that gravity, in the form of human nature, will let us slide over the edge into
prolonged, violent conflict without the aid of some brilliant peacemaker. And I
see none around. Nor does the world tend to give much ear to peacemakers.
Francis A. Miniter
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #210494 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 14:39 |
|
"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
news:43dd9c94 [at] kcnews01...
> Raven wrote:
>
>> "John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>>
>>
>>>Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
>>
>>
>> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few
>> days,
>> over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some
>> time
>> ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick,
>> at
>> least, *before* finishing that joke.
>> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who
>> appear
>> in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This
>> caused a
>> far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
>> insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
>> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe and
>> the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's
>> an
>> insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
>> notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather
>> self-defeating,
>> isn't it?
>>
>> Jon Lennart Beck.
>>
>>
> Religion based insults have, none the less, had a polarizing and
> escalating effect on the world situation, e.g., the allegations that
> American soldiers in Guantanamo acted with disrespect to the Qur'an in the
> presence of Moslem prisoners.
Why is it that even allegations of disrespect to the Koran stir up so much
condemnation, even from non-muslims, but the complete and total desecration
of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian muslims (unless
you consider pissing and defecating in the grotto some sort of homage) was
almost entirely ignored as far as that angle goes.
Isn't that sort of strange?
>
> I fear that the current world crisis is in fact a religious one, not a
> nationalistic one. Media interviews with numerous Moslems in the mid-east
> have one common thread. They regard the military action against Moslems
> in Iraq and Afghanistan as attacks on all Moslems. This is at least in
> part, if not in main, the reason why recruitment of soldiers and suicide
> bombers from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and and other Moslem
> countries has fueled the continuing strife in these countries.
>
> Then too Moslem nations see the tsunami wave of western culture as a
> threat to the continued existence of their own culture. In the 1970s,
> Canada feared a cultural takeover by the US, and it is in fact very
> similar to the US. Imagine what a radically different society must feel.
>
> But also underlying this antipathy is a philophical/ideological rejection
> of the West. For those of you who are not familiar with Sayyid Qutb, the
> philosophic mentor of Osama bin Laden, I quote here from the Introduction
> to his book "Milestones" written while he was in prison in Egypt before
> his execution as a radical Moslem fundamentalist:
>
> -------------------------
>
> Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice, not because of the danger
> of complete annihilation which is hanging over its head - this being just
> a symptom and not the real disease -but because humanity is devoid of
> those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy
> development but also for its real progress. Even the Western world
> realises that Western civilization is unable to present any healthy values
> for the guidance of mankind. It knows that it does not possess anything
> which will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.
>
> Democracy in the West has become infertile to such an extent that it is
> borrowing from the systems of the Eastern bloc, especially in the economic
> system, under the name of socialism. It is the same with the Eastern bloc.
> Its social theories, foremost among which is Marxism, in the beginning
> attracted not only a large number of people from the East but also from
> the West, as it was a way of life based on a creed. But now Marxism is
> defeated on the plane of thought, and if it is stated that not a single
> nation in the world is truly Marxist, it will not be an exaggeration. On
> the whole this theory conflicts with man's nature and its needs. This
> ideology prospers only in a degenerate society or in a society which has
> become cowed as a result of some form of prolonged dictatorship. But now,
> even under these circumstances, its materialistic economic system is
> failing, although this was the only foundation on which its structure was
> based. Russia, which is the leader of the communist countries, is itself
> suffering from shortages of food. Although during the times of the Tsars
> Russia used to produce surplus food, it now has to import food from abroad
> and has to sell its reserves of gold for this purpose. The main reason for
> this is the failure of the system of collective farming, or, one can say,
> the failure of a system which is against human nature.
>
> It is essential for mankind to have new leadership!
>
> The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not
> because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic
> and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has
> come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving
> values which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.
>
> It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the
> material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide
> mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained
> undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way
> of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and
> constructive, and which is practicable.
>
> Islam is the only System which possesses these values and this way of
> life.
>
> The period of the resurgence of science has also come to an end. This
> period, which began with the Renaissance in the sixteenth century after
> Christ and reached its zenith in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
> does not possess a reviving spirit.
>
> All nationalistic and chauvinistic ideologies which have appeared in
> modern times, and all the movements and theories derived from them, have
> also lost their vitality. In short, all man-made individual or collective
> theories have proved to be failures.
>
> At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim
> community has arrived -the turn of Islam, which does not prohibit material
> inventions. Indeed, it counts it as an obligation on man from the very
> beginning of time, when God deputed him as His representative on earth,
> and regards it under certain conditions a5 worship of God and one of the
> purposes of man's creation.
>
> "And when Your Sustainer said to the angels, I am going to make My
> representative on earth.," (Qur'an 2:30)
>
> "And I have not created jinns and men except that they worship Me."
> (2:143)
>
> Thus the turn of the Muslim community has come to fulfill the task for
> mankind which God has enjoined upon it.
>
> ------------------------
>
> For further reading, see:
> http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/h old/index_2.asp
>
> This work stands to his main work "In the Shade of the Qur'an", a ten
> volume commentary on the Qur'an, as "The Communist Manifesto" stands to
> "Das Capital". Milestones is the manifesto; In the Shade of the Qur'an is
> the philosophical analysis underlying the ideology. In another 100 years,
> Qutb will probably be seen as the Thomas Aquinas of Islam.
>
>
> On the other hand, the religious right in the US has set its own agenda
> for obliterating the First Amendment of the US Constitution and melding
> church and state into the kind of theocracy that many of the early
> American colonies once were. This religious dash for power cannot but
> affect perceptions worldwide, especially in Moslem nations. And with the
> fawning obeisance that the current President Bush gives to the radical
> right, there are many, including many in the US, who see that that power
> has already been obtained. And once in power in the US, what would be the
> next logical step for a Christian theocracy? Advancement of the cause
> beyond the borders.
>
> So what is it that other nations perceive when the US says that it wants
> to "democratize" them? I suggest that non-Christian nations see a
> religious-political cabal planning a revolution from the bottom to topple
> the ages old religious-political structures where power flows from the top
> under the guidance of the Imam and other religious leaders. They see not
> just a political upheaval, but an attempt to bring Christian missionaries
> to their countries under cover of political reform, to undermine and
> destroy Islam. Consider the latest kidnapping in Iraq - Christian
> missionaries. While Americans and other westerners probably think "Why
> them? They mean no harm," Moslems, however, probably think that such
> people pose a greater threat than the American soldiers and their bullets
> and rockets.
>
> If I am right, and I deeply hope I am wrong, we stand in the first years
> of the second great conflict between Islam and Christianity, and I ask all
> who read this to remember how many dark centuries the last conflict
> lasted. Both ideologies intend to proselytize and to make the world into
> their own image. And they are now face to face with each feeling
> threatened by the other.
>
> Secularism in the West is in for a difficult time. As secularists, and I
> count myself one, stand in the middle ground, and as polarized opponents
> demand, as did Bush when he said, "You are either with us or against us",
> the middle is the first to suffer. Attempts to remain rational advocates
> of third possibilities can be seen as treason to a religious fanatic.
>
> I have spoken so far only of the US. But the anti-Islam sentiment has
> been seen and is growing in Britain, France, Germany and now maybe
> Denmark? Despite the unwillingness of most European nations to be drawn
> into the offensive war against Iraq, the underlying anti-Islamic sentiment
> in those countries runs high, and little empathy exists for the condition
> of Iraqis. The fact that many want the US to withdraw has little to do
> with concern for Iraq and more for the sense that justice was violated
> when the war began.
>
> Then there have been the bombings in Spain, Britain and elsewhere.
> Certainly, some of these have had immediate political objectives, e.g.,
> the Madrid bombings. But that is not their sole purpose. There is a
> broader attack on western values that underlies all this, if Qutb's
> remarks quoted above are to be accepted as guiding militant Islam, as I
> think they are.
>
> The heaping of insults, graphic or verbal, will smoothe the way into
> self-justification of self-superiority and the conviction about the evil
> that must inspire the other side, whichever that is.
>
> Sadly, I can offer no guidance as to how this conflict can be avoided.
> The pace of hatred and self-justification has, I fear, reached that fever
> pitch that plunged Europe into WWI in the spring and summer of 1914. To
> use Qutb's analogy, we (the western and Islamic world together) may have
> already gone over the precipice. We are at least so close to the point of
> no return on that slope that gravity, in the form of human nature, will
> let us slide over the edge into prolonged, violent conflict without the
> aid of some brilliant peacemaker. And I see none around. Nor does the
> world tend to give much ear to peacemakers.
>
>
> Francis A. Miniter
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215314 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 21:16 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
>"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
>news:43dd9c94 [at] kcnews01...
>
>
>>Raven wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few
>>>days,
>>>over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some
>>>time
>>>ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick,
>>>at
>>>least, *before* finishing that joke.
>>> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who
>>>appear
>>>in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This
>>>caused a
>>>far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
>>>insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
>>> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe and
>>>the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's
>>>an
>>>insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
>>>notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather
>>>self-defeating,
>>>isn't it?
>>>
>>>Jon Lennart Beck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Religion based insults have, none the less, had a polarizing and
>>escalating effect on the world situation, e.g., the allegations that
>>American soldiers in Guantanamo acted with disrespect to the Qur'an in the
>>presence of Moslem prisoners.
>>
>>
>
>Why is it that even allegations of disrespect to the Koran stir up so much
>condemnation, even from non-muslims, but the complete and total desecration
>of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian muslims (unless
>you consider pissing and defecating in the grotto some sort of homage) was
>almost entirely ignored as far as that angle goes.
>
>Isn't that sort of strange?
>
>
>
>
That you mention it shows that probably many are outraged by it. But
what what made the incident I mentioned newsworthy was that it was done
to persons in custody, who were without power to respond., and
constituted a violation of the 3rd or 4th Geneva Convention depending on
their status. More outrageous by far than any of these is the repeated
beheading of westerners who fall into the hands of Moslem insurgents.
Perhaps, I should have used a second incident going the other way, but I
simply wanted to illustrate an effect that I see happening on both
sides. Each outrage further angers the other side and escalates the
level of retaliation. Reason is absent and even shunned by those
exhibiting their righteous indignation.
Francis A, Miniter
"There is a time for thinking and a time for action, and this is
definitely not a time to think."
John Candy in "Canadian Bacon"
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215316 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 02:27 |
|
"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:43de746a [at] kcnews01...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>
>>"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
>>news:43dd9c94 [at] kcnews01...
>>
>>>Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
>>>>>
>>>> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few
>>>> days,
>>>>over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some
>>>>time
>>>>ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick,
>>>>at
>>>>least, *before* finishing that joke.
>>>> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who
>>>> appear
>>>>in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This
>>>>caused a
>>>>far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
>>>>insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
>>>> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe
>>>> and
>>>>the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's
>>>>an
>>>>insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
>>>>notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather
>>>>self-defeating,
>>>>isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>Jon Lennart Beck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Religion based insults have, none the less, had a polarizing and
>>>escalating effect on the world situation, e.g., the allegations that
>>>American soldiers in Guantanamo acted with disrespect to the Qur'an in
>>>the presence of Moslem prisoners.
>>>
>>
>>Why is it that even allegations of disrespect to the Koran stir up so much
>>condemnation, even from non-muslims, but the complete and total
>>desecration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian
>>muslims (unless you consider pissing and defecating in the grotto some
>>sort of homage) was almost entirely ignored as far as that angle goes.
>>
>>Isn't that sort of strange?
>>
>>
>>
> That you mention it shows that probably many are outraged by it. But what
> what made the incident I mentioned newsworthy was that it was done to
> persons in custody, who were without power to respond., and constituted a
> violation of the 3rd or 4th Geneva Convention
How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
considered to be some sort of torture? Oe sleep deprivation or playing
Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the point).
If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another story.
depending on
> their status. More outrageous by far than any of these is the repeated
> beheading of westerners who fall into the hands of Moslem insurgents.
I wasn't even getting to that, as my understanding was that you were putting
forth the notion that the Koran things were some sort of major offense
>
> Perhaps, I should have used a second incident going the other way, but I
> simply wanted to illustrate an effect that I see happening on both sides.
> Each outrage further angers the other side and escalates the level of
> retaliation. Reason is absent and even shunned by those exhibiting
> their righteous indignation.
>
> Francis A, Miniter
>
>
> "There is a time for thinking and a time for action, and this is
> definitely not a time to think."
> John Candy in "Canadian Bacon"
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215317 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 04:05 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
> "Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:43de746a [at] kcnews01...
>
>>BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Francis A. Miniter" <miniter [at] attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
>>>news:43dd9c94 [at] kcnews01...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Raven wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>>news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few
>>>>>days,
>>>>>over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some
>>>>>time
>>>>>ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick,
>>>>>at
>>>>>least, *before* finishing that joke.
>>>>> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who
>>>>>appear
>>>>>in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This
>>>>>caused a
>>>>>far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
>>>>>insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
>>>>> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe
>>>>>and
>>>>>the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's
>>>>>an
>>>>>insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
>>>>>notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather
>>>>>self-defeating,
>>>>>isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Jon Lennart Beck.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Religion based insults have, none the less, had a polarizing and
>>>>escalating effect on the world situation, e.g., the allegations that
>>>>American soldiers in Guantanamo acted with disrespect to the Qur'an in
>>>>the presence of Moslem prisoners.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why is it that even allegations of disrespect to the Koran stir up so much
>>>condemnation, even from non-muslims, but the complete and total
>>>desecration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem by Palestinian
>>>muslims (unless you consider pissing and defecating in the grotto some
>>>sort of homage) was almost entirely ignored as far as that angle goes.
>>>
>>>Isn't that sort of strange?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That you mention it shows that probably many are outraged by it. But what
>>what made the incident I mentioned newsworthy was that it was done to
>>persons in custody, who were without power to respond., and constituted a
>>violation of the 3rd or 4th Geneva Convention
>
>
> How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
> considered to be some sort of torture?
I never mentioned torture. The issue was insults and the escalating state of
animosity.
Oe sleep deprivation or playing
> Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the point).
> If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another story.
>
> depending on
>
>>their status. More outrageous by far than any of these is the repeated
>>beheading of westerners who fall into the hands of Moslem insurgents.
>
>
> I wasn't even getting to that, as my understanding was that you were putting
> forth the notion that the Koran things were some sort of major offense
>
You missed the point. So I will repeat the crucial comment in my last post:
"Perhaps, I should have used a second incident going the other way, but I simply
wanted to illustrate an effect that I see happening on both sides. Each outrage
further angers the other side and escalates the level of retaliation.
Reason is absent and even shunned by those exhibiting their righteous indignation."
Francis A. Miniter
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215320 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 09:52 |
|
Raven wrote:
[worries about Imams]
Lookit.
ALl of these guys are unelectedm unappointed successes.
They appoint themselves, as I understand the Muslim religion.
I may be wrong on this and welcome correction if I am.
There area lot of them.
There is no overall control over them, just the words of the Koran, which
can be interpreted in various ways.
Certainly on the national carrier and other radio stations in Ireland I
have heard moderate Muslims decrying the actions of "suiciders".
Others quote one or two particular passages from the Koran [possibly
written when Mohammed was having a bad mood day] which imply that it is
the duty of Muslims to kill infidels and support opporessed muslims by
any means or carry out suicide runs in support of their fellow muslims
and religion an dget transported to "heaven", which seems to mean fo
rthem, lots of cool fountains and hot virgins.
I ask you! Living in a desert under a hot sun these bois seem to think of
nothing else but killing their enemies and getting laid. To make thoughts
like that the central piers of a religion is simply wrong.
There is no way forward with that, just as their is no way forward with
the Jewish "an eye for an eye" maxim, or any other exclusionist approach
that rests on attack revenge as a primary directive.
This attitude is worse than ignorant backwoods hillbillies in the
Americas feuding amongst each other because of an insult going back
generations - at least the hillbillies don't clothe their actions in
verses from the New Testament, the Bible or the Koran.
I have no time for people justifying their murderous or repressive
actions by referring to words in a book, be they Christian, Muslim or
Jew.
I have very little time for the actions of prepressive rogue states with
weapons of mass destruction, be it America, Britain, France, Russia,
China or Israel either. They all need regular slaps on the head.
They are all sad cases looking for excuses for their extraordinary
behaviour.
Worse, they have in fact very little to do with bringing prosperity
enlightenment or salvation to their flocks, and a heck of a lot to do
with accreting personal, that is secular, political power.
And is some nutter was to issue a Papal Edict or a Fatwa or a Jihad
against me for telling the truth about murder in the name of God, Jehovah
and Mohammed - so be it.
If you fail I'll take the piss out of you unmercifully and totally
descredit your religion. If you succeed I'll come back and haunt you into
an early afterlife full of dry basins and syphilitic old crones with
jagged teeth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215333 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 22:57 |
|
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43DF2535.9895842E [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> Raven wrote:
> [worries about Imams]
> Lookit.
> ALl of these guys are unelectedm unappointed successes.
> They appoint themselves, as I understand the Muslim religion.
> I may be wrong on this and welcome correction if I am.
I believe that you are correct. A Catholic priest is part of a formal
hierarchy, isn't he? You cannot read the Bible a little extra and then
claim to be a Catholic priest, any more than you can read a medical book and
claim to be a doctor, with the same privileges as real doctors have. Within
the world, a Catholic priest is ultimately answerable to the Pope, and has
to first be formally schooled. Or so is my understanding. But this is not
so in Islam. This means that you cannot attribute the opinions expressed by
any single imam to the Muslim community as such. The most powerful imams
are not the ones who are near the top of some hierarchy, but the ones that
are the most trusted and admired by the masses. Although this of course
changes when Islam and politics are mixed...
But equally you cannot take the opinion of one newspaper and attribute it
to the entirety of the people. A lot of people appear to do so, these days.
There are Muslims who consider democracy to be decadent and corrupted.
This al Qutb character who was recently mentioned in this thread, for one.
I have also heard a European call Islam "the dumbest of the religions". If
we can endure "corrupted" then we must be permitted "dumbest", surely?
Insults have gone both ways, both before and after these drawings. Such
as the recent flag burnings. Incidentally, both the Danish and Norwegian
flags have a cross motif, to indicate the Christian religions of our
countries. Thus, burning these flags is to a degree also burning crosses,
or so I saw it opined recently. A desecration of Christianity. But what
with the flag burnings and the threats against Denmark and Norway and, for
some obscure reason, Sweden, one should think that the original insult has
been paid for. We insulted them, and for four months now, and especially
for the last week, they have reciprocated strongly. But they still want an
apology. Some want us to crawl before them before they are satisfied. And
while a large number of Muslims appear to be against the very violent
responses from other Muslims, I have yet to see one in the media mention the
insults that have gone the other way. Perhaps those Muslims have just not
been reported by the journos.
But what puzzles me is the anger that insults produce among some people.
Some time ago I was badly insulted by a total stranger. I didn't agree to
something that he wanted me to do, and before he left the bar he leaned over
the table with a wet middle finger and flipped me the most scornful possible
birdie. His entire demeanour incidated that he thought me a putrid little
cesspool nematode. And my response was, ho hum. What is it to *me* what a
stranger who is so obviously a fool thinks of me? Nothing more than the
yipping of a rat-sized dog out of its owner's purse. This opinion on my
side prevented a brawl, of course - some people would have busted out after
him with a will to jump up and down on his chest until he stopped twitching
and then some. And the imam I mentioned before, what is it to *me* if such
a flake thinks my mother an agent of the Devil for wearing her hair
uncovered in public? I'll deal with him, by staving his head in if
necessary, if he starts pushing her around, and until then he can be welcome
to what I consider his follies.
Surely the evil which leaves your lips pollutes you far worse than the
evil which enters your ears.
The greatest anger seems to appear in the Palestinian areas, Gaza and the
West Bank. Strange. One should think that they have enemies enough, and
closer. But presumably the anger comes precisely from their weakness. I am
strong and feel secure. I can afford to shrug off an unpleasant opinion of
me. But the dog with only one fang is more dangerous than the dog with both
of them intact. And the most dangerous creature is the frightened man with
a gun.
> I have no time for people justifying their murderous or repressive
> actions by referring to words in a book, be they Christian, Muslim or
> Jew.
Amen (exCUZE the pun...)
I may mention somewhat of what preceded and to a degree caused the
newspaper Jyllandsposten to publish these twelve drawings. About a year ago
there was a non-Muslim lecturer who during a lecture in Copenhagen recited
from the Koran. He did not do so for the purpose of mocking it. But it was
enough for some young thugs. They lured him into a car and beat the crap
out of him, because they thought it wrong for a non-Muslim to recite from
the Koran. They haven't been found and prosecuted yet.
Then one Kaare Bluitgen, who is also not a Muslim, began writing a book
about the prophet Mohammad and early Islam. He wanted an illustrator to do
some illustrations for the book, but found none who dared. Islamic
tradition prohibits drawings of the prophet; at least the oval of his face
must be left blank. If you see an Islamic drawing of Mohammad and his
followers you can always see which one is the prophet. It is the one with a
white oval where the other figures have faces. All the illustrators that
Bluitgen approached appeared to be frightened of being attacked by thugs if
they did such drawings as he wanted. He has since published his book, with
illustrations - by an artist who remains anonymous.
Then the newspaper Jyllandsposten decided to defend freedom of expression
by having twelve artists make drawings of the prophet Mohammad and publish
them. Some, though not all, of these drawings turned out to be explicitly
insulting. They were intended as a challenge, apparently not against Islam
as such, but against that subset of Muslims who would use violence to impose
their religion on all.
This method was in my opinion unjust and ill-advised, because instead of
challenging the thugs alone they hit all Muslims. It's like striking at an
enemy stronghold by carpet bombing. At least they should have refrained
from doing the drawings that were deliberately insulting, such as Mohammad
with a bomb in his turban.
Since then there has been error on both sides, it seems to me. On our
side the government at first seemed to shrug off the whole issue. It is
true that even if the Prime Minister had wanted to punish the newspaper he
does not have the authority to do so. But it was an error not to explain
this carefully, it seems, to people who are steeped in a political tradition
where the authorities *can* determine what newsmedia write. When several
ambassadors from Muslim countries sought a meeting with the PM over this, he
refused. A lot of foreign Muslims seem to think that since the PM allowed
the newspaper to publish the drawings, or at least has since refrained from
sending the newspaper editor to jail, he must be endorsing the drawings.
And now there are extremists who send SMS chain letters around to organize a
Koran burning on the Town Hall Square in Copenhagen. This surely is like
trying to put out a fire in a pot of oil by throwing a pail of water on it.
I think that they are *insulted* because the Danish flag was burnt in
Gaza...
On the other side there is a huge overreaction. It's as if our navy had
launched a cruise missile attack on a Saudi army base and residential block,
or secret agents had placed roadside bombs at the pilgrimage in Mekka. Also
there have been misrepresentations of what the newspaper actually published.
None of the twelve pictures showed Mohammad with a pig's snout and ears, yet
that picture has been used to inflame the anger further.
It's not enough for some people to be horrendously insulted, they wish to
be abominably horrendously colossally insulted ---
Muslims in Denmark, who of course understand these local issues far
better than the billion other Muslims around the world, are also offended by
these drawings. But to many of them it seems that the drawings were only
the last offense so far, in a society which they feel is hostile to them.
Also there is much dissension among Danish Muslims. Some loud imams brought
the news of these drawings to the various countries in North Africa and the
Middle East, claiming among other things to represent pretty much all Danish
Muslims. But a lot of Muslims in this country object to being represented
by these people. And now it seems that the strong reaction around the
Islamic world has taken those imams by unpleasant surprise, and they are
backpaddling. Trouble is, this case has taken on its own life now, like
Doctor Frankenstein who couldn't control his monster.
Jon Lennart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215343 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 13:45 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
>
> How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
> considered to be some sort of torture?
Perhaps you should do some research, rather than flagrantly
demonstrating your ignorance.
> Oe sleep deprivation or playing
> Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the point).
> If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another story.
>
Yep, that is another story.
Also these are other stories
- agents of your government who tortured folks to death
- agents of your government rendered a chap to egypt to be tortured out
of sight of any international bodies, took him to Gitmo and then 18
months later decided he had no case to answer
- at the behest of your heroes D Rumsfeld, D Cheney et al, a large
group of Iraqi scientists were held in prison for an extensive period
and subjected to harsh 'interrogations' on account of the fact that
they DIDN'T work on fanciful Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently
they mut have been lying, after all, a Jordanian criminal told us
differently..
- The village that was completely destroyed on account of the fact that
Powell identified it in his presentation as a site for making WMD - it
was a village Colin! A village! D'OH! You just gotta laugh. Unless of
course your family has just been killed and your worldly possessions
blown to bits.
- That pesky chap who was arrested by the Taliban on suspicion of a
plot to kill Osama Bin Laden, and then rescued FROM A TALIBAN GAOL by
US forces, exported to Gitmo, where he languished until someone figured
out, hey! Maybe he's not the guy we're after!
- The Uighers (ethnic chinese muslims from the Xinjiang region) who
were caught by some Pakistani bounty hunters, sold to some passing US
troops (there's a souvenir for you), were consequently exported to
Gitmo, where they languished for several years until someone relaised
that owing to the fact that they were chinese and had had nothing to do
with the taliban - had never been into a region controlled by the
taliban, that perhaps they weren't members of the taliban. The US
government is currently trying to export them back to China, where,
owing to their profile and their ethnicity, and the fact that they
escaped from China, they will most likely be killed straightaway (or if
not, directly after). Not that that is Donalds or Richards problem of
course.
- The odd 20000 or so Iraqis who were, and are, being killed by US
troops because Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz thought it a good idea to
invade their country for reasons they have yet to explain.
Of course, making folks dead for economic gain, associating with
criminals, promoting terrorism, and torture aren't nearly as offensive
as a man who takes a wizz in the corner of a building.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215346 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 15:50 |
|
Raven wrote:
> Surely the evil which leaves your lips pollutes you far
> worse than the evil which enters your ears.
Beautiful, Raven! And very true, of course. But it's what you said,
it's easy not to feel threatened if you're safe already. I don't know
the details - I saw one of those pictures, which was pretty funny
("Stop! We're running out of virgins!") - but to purposely give
offense is always stupid.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215348 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 18:21 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138797899.997366.13610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>> How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
>> considered to be some sort of torture?
>
> Perhaps you should do some research, rather than flagrantly
> demonstrating your ignorance.
Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the people in
the Towers deserved what they got.
>
>
>> Oe sleep deprivation or playing
>> Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the
>> point).
>> If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another story.
>>
> Yep, that is another story.
> Also these are other stories
> - agents of your government who tortured folks to death
> - agents of your government rendered a chap to egypt to be tortured out
> of sight of any international bodies, took him to Gitmo and then 18
> months later decided he had no case to answer
> - at the behest of your heroes D Rumsfeld, D Cheney et al, a large
> group of Iraqi scientists were held in prison for an extensive period
> and subjected to harsh 'interrogations' on account of the fact that
> they DIDN'T work on fanciful Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently
> they mut have been lying, after all, a Jordanian criminal told us
> differently..
>
> - The village that was completely destroyed on account of the fact that
> Powell identified it in his presentation as a site for making WMD - it
> was a village Colin! A village! D'OH! You just gotta laugh. Unless of
> course your family has just been killed and your worldly possessions
> blown to bits.
>
> - That pesky chap who was arrested by the Taliban on suspicion of a
> plot to kill Osama Bin Laden, and then rescued FROM A TALIBAN GAOL by
> US forces, exported to Gitmo, where he languished until someone figured
> out, hey! Maybe he's not the guy we're after!
>
> - The Uighers (ethnic chinese muslims from the Xinjiang region) who
> were caught by some Pakistani bounty hunters, sold to some passing US
> troops (there's a souvenir for you), were consequently exported to
> Gitmo, where they languished for several years until someone relaised
> that owing to the fact that they were chinese and had had nothing to do
> with the taliban - had never been into a region controlled by the
> taliban, that perhaps they weren't members of the taliban. The US
> government is currently trying to export them back to China, where,
> owing to their profile and their ethnicity, and the fact that they
> escaped from China, they will most likely be killed straightaway (or if
> not, directly after). Not that that is Donalds or Richards problem of
> course.
>
> - The odd 20000 or so Iraqis who were, and are, being killed by US
> troops because Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz thought it a good idea to
> invade their country for reasons they have yet to explain.
>
> Of course, making folks dead for economic gain, associating with
> criminals, promoting terrorism, and torture aren't nearly as offensive
> as a man who takes a wizz in the corner of a building.
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215367 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 21:55 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138797899.997366.13610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > BaJoRi wrote:
> >>
> >> How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
> >> considered to be some sort of torture?
> >
> > Perhaps you should do some research, rather than flagrantly
> > demonstrating your ignorance.
>
>
> Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the people in
> the Towers deserved what they got.
>
Relevance of these absurd allegations?
> >
> >
> >> Oe sleep deprivation or playing
> >> Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the
> >> point).
> >> If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another story.
> >>
> > Yep, that is another story.
> > Also these are other stories
> > - agents of your government who tortured folks to death
> > - agents of your government rendered a chap to egypt to be tortured out
> > of sight of any international bodies, took him to Gitmo and then 18
> > months later decided he had no case to answer
> > - at the behest of your heroes D Rumsfeld, D Cheney et al, a large
> > group of Iraqi scientists were held in prison for an extensive period
> > and subjected to harsh 'interrogations' on account of the fact that
> > they DIDN'T work on fanciful Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently
> > they mut have been lying, after all, a Jordanian criminal told us
> > differently..
> >
> > - The village that was completely destroyed on account of the fact that
> > Powell identified it in his presentation as a site for making WMD - it
> > was a village Colin! A village! D'OH! You just gotta laugh. Unless of
> > course your family has just been killed and your worldly possessions
> > blown to bits.
> >
> > - That pesky chap who was arrested by the Taliban on suspicion of a
> > plot to kill Osama Bin Laden, and then rescued FROM A TALIBAN GAOL by
> > US forces, exported to Gitmo, where he languished until someone figured
> > out, hey! Maybe he's not the guy we're after!
> >
> > - The Uighers (ethnic chinese muslims from the Xinjiang region) who
> > were caught by some Pakistani bounty hunters, sold to some passing US
> > troops (there's a souvenir for you), were consequently exported to
> > Gitmo, where they languished for several years until someone relaised
> > that owing to the fact that they were chinese and had had nothing to do
> > with the taliban - had never been into a region controlled by the
> > taliban, that perhaps they weren't members of the taliban. The US
> > government is currently trying to export them back to China, where,
> > owing to their profile and their ethnicity, and the fact that they
> > escaped from China, they will most likely be killed straightaway (or if
> > not, directly after). Not that that is Donalds or Richards problem of
> > course.
> >
> > - The odd 20000 or so Iraqis who were, and are, being killed by US
> > troops because Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz thought it a good idea to
> > invade their country for reasons they have yet to explain.
> >
> > Of course, making folks dead for economic gain, associating with
> > criminals, promoting terrorism, and torture aren't nearly as offensive
> > as a man who takes a wizz in the corner of a building.
> >
Since you chose not to address the actual material on hand that I
assume you agree with me.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215368 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 22:29 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138827312.380041.157880 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138797899.997366.13610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > BaJoRi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How is the disrespect of a book, whether it actually occured or not,
>> >> considered to be some sort of torture?
>> >
>> > Perhaps you should do some research, rather than flagrantly
>> > demonstrating your ignorance.
>>
>>
>> Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the people
>> in
>> the Towers deserved what they got.
>>
>
> Relevance of these absurd allegations?
I always admire how you can bald0faced lie and try to push off the truth
like that....not allegations...truth, as other people recognized, including
Softrat (although that is something you would rather forget)
By the by, I am not in any way denying the outragesou stupidity of a few
individuals, or the poor chain of authority that allowed to to happen,
unlike you and certain terrorists.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Oe sleep deprivation or playing
>> >> Briney Spears too loud (well, that one is borderline but you get the
>> >> point).
>> >> If an idiot puts electrodes on someones testicles, that's another
>> >> story.
>> >>
>> > Yep, that is another story.
>> > Also these are other stories
>> > - agents of your government who tortured folks to death
>> > - agents of your government rendered a chap to egypt to be tortured out
>> > of sight of any international bodies, took him to Gitmo and then 18
>> > months later decided he had no case to answer
>> > - at the behest of your heroes D Rumsfeld, D Cheney et al, a large
>> > group of Iraqi scientists were held in prison for an extensive period
>> > and subjected to harsh 'interrogations' on account of the fact that
>> > they DIDN'T work on fanciful Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently
>> > they mut have been lying, after all, a Jordanian criminal told us
>> > differently..
>> >
>> > - The village that was completely destroyed on account of the fact that
>> > Powell identified it in his presentation as a site for making WMD - it
>> > was a village Colin! A village! D'OH! You just gotta laugh. Unless of
>> > course your family has just been killed and your worldly possessions
>> > blown to bits.
>> >
>> > - That pesky chap who was arrested by the Taliban on suspicion of a
>> > plot to kill Osama Bin Laden, and then rescued FROM A TALIBAN GAOL by
>> > US forces, exported to Gitmo, where he languished until someone figured
>> > out, hey! Maybe he's not the guy we're after!
>> >
>> > - The Uighers (ethnic chinese muslims from the Xinjiang region) who
>> > were caught by some Pakistani bounty hunters, sold to some passing US
>> > troops (there's a souvenir for you), were consequently exported to
>> > Gitmo, where they languished for several years until someone relaised
>> > that owing to the fact that they were chinese and had had nothing to do
>> > with the taliban - had never been into a region controlled by the
>> > taliban, that perhaps they weren't members of the taliban. The US
>> > government is currently trying to export them back to China, where,
>> > owing to their profile and their ethnicity, and the fact that they
>> > escaped from China, they will most likely be killed straightaway (or if
>> > not, directly after). Not that that is Donalds or Richards problem of
>> > course.
>> >
>> > - The odd 20000 or so Iraqis who were, and are, being killed by US
>> > troops because Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz thought it a good idea to
>> > invade their country for reasons they have yet to explain.
>> >
>> > Of course, making folks dead for economic gain, associating with
>> > criminals, promoting terrorism, and torture aren't nearly as offensive
>> > as a man who takes a wizz in the corner of a building.
>> >
>
> Since you chose not to address the actual material on hand that I
> assume you agree with me.
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215376 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 09:37 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the people
> >> in
> >> the Towers deserved what they got.
> >>
> >
> > Relevance of these absurd allegations?
>
>
>
> I always admire how you can bald0faced lie and try to push off the truth
> like that....not allegations...truth,
That being the case then, you'll have no trouble at all producing
citations to support these 2 allegations. Which you will now proceed to
produce to demonstrate your case, or else face the embarassment of
being proven wrong, once again, and another 6 months in the doghouse.
>
> By the by, I am not in any way denying the outragesou stupidity of a few
> individuals, or the poor chain of authority that allowed to to happen,
> unlike you and certain terrorists.
I've made it clear that I condemn these acts of terror (eg gitmo, the
torturing of suspects, the invasion of Iraq) and the chain of command
that commanded them (Rumsfeld/Cheney). Outrageously stupid it might be,
it is also wrong. What is not clear at this point is whether YOU
recognise that these actions by
Rumsfeld/Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/Ashcroft, in addtion to being
stupid on purely pragmatic terms, were also ethically wrong.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215378 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 15:49 |
|
Raven wrote:
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:43DF2535.9895842E [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>
> > Raven wrote:
>
> > [worries about Imams]
>
> > Lookit.
>
> > ALl of these guys are unelectedm unappointed successes.
>
> > They appoint themselves, as I understand the Muslim religion.
>
> > I may be wrong on this and welcome correction if I am.
>
> I believe that you are correct.
<snip sensible and sensitive comment>
Natch.
:-)
In relation to the drawings I think the people who drew them were fools.
A religion that bans representations of a prophet has a lot of issues.
A decent understanding of remote sending and focussing in basic magic.
But a lot of issues.
They're not ready for pictures of the prophet themselves yet, never mind
people taking the piss using pictures.
As for people quoting the Koran and being attacked, that's a prime
example of using even the words of the book [not what the words exhort
you to do] as a reason for extraordinary behaviour.
Personally I'm getting a little tired of this priestly nonsense about "us
and them".
M.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215382 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:56 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138869476.258891.253480 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the
>> >> people
>> >> in
>> >> the Towers deserved what they got.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Relevance of these absurd allegations?
>>
>>
>>
>> I always admire how you can bald0faced lie and try to push off the truth
>> like that....not allegations...truth,
>
> That being the case then, you'll have no trouble at all producing
> citations to support these 2 allegations. Which you will now proceed to
> produce to demonstrate your case, or else face the embarassment of
> being proven wrong, once again, and another 6 months in the doghouse.
>
>
>
>>
>> By the by, I am not in any way denying the outragesou stupidity of a few
>> individuals, or the poor chain of authority that allowed to to happen,
>> unlike you and certain terrorists.
>
Please, you do this every couple of months: you deny things you put forth
just a few months earlier, and even people like the Softrat took you to task
for trying to justify the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, just as you
always tried to do with Arafuck. Some things never change: you are still one
of the most intellectually gutless people in existence.
> I've made it clear that I condemn these acts of terror (eg gitmo, the
> torturing of suspects, the invasion of Iraq) and the chain of command
> that commanded them (Rumsfeld/Cheney). Outrageously stupid it might be,
> it is also wrong. What is not clear at this point is whether YOU
> recognise that these actions by
> Rumsfeld/Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/Ashcroft, in addtion to being
> stupid on purely pragmatic terms, were also ethically wrong.
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215387 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 21:12 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
>
> Please, you do this every couple of months: you deny things you put forth
> just a few months earlier, and even people like the Softrat took you to task
> for trying to justify the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, just as you
> always tried to do with Arafuck. Some things never change: you are still one
> of the most intellectually gutless people in existence.
>
We aren't actually interested in listening to fanciful tirades on your
part. If I wanted a squeaking noise, I'd get a mouse and put it in one
of those little wheel things. You claimed that I support(ed) Yasser
Arafat and also that I supported the terrorists behind 9/11. So let's
see the citation. Bring forth the quote. Show us the money.
>
> > I've made it clear that I condemn these acts of terror (eg gitmo, the
> > torturing of suspects, the invasion of Iraq) and the chain of command
> > that commanded them (Rumsfeld/Cheney). Outrageously stupid it might be,
> > it is also wrong. What is not clear at this point is whether YOU
> > recognise that these actions by
> > Rumsfeld/Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/Ashcroft, in addtion to being
> > stupid on purely pragmatic terms, were also ethically wrong.
> >
No answer on your part. You seemed enthusiastic to discuss the evils of
terrorism before. What happened?
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215394 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:17 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138911164.938178.178120 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>> Please, you do this every couple of months: you deny things you put forth
>> just a few months earlier, and even people like the Softrat took you to
>> task
>> for trying to justify the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, just as you
>> always tried to do with Arafuck. Some things never change: you are still
>> one
>> of the most intellectually gutless people in existence.
>>
>
> We aren't actually interested in listening to fanciful tirades on your
> part. If I wanted a squeaking noise, I'd get a mouse and put it in one
> of those little wheel things. You claimed that I support(ed) Yasser
> Arafat and also that I supported the terrorists behind 9/11. So let's
> see the citation. Bring forth the quote. Show us the money.
>
>
well, ignoring facts and truth is your specialty, so go for it. In case you
had forgotten, or ignored, I wasn't the only one that took you to task for
your last bit on the subject. But what should be expected from a mental
midget such as yourself.
>>
>> > I've made it clear that I condemn these acts of terror (eg gitmo, the
>> > torturing of suspects, the invasion of Iraq) and the chain of command
>> > that commanded them (Rumsfeld/Cheney). Outrageously stupid it might be,
>> > it is also wrong. What is not clear at this point is whether YOU
>> > recognise that these actions by
>> > Rumsfeld/Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/Ashcroft, in addtion to being
>> > stupid on purely pragmatic terms, were also ethically wrong.
>> >
>
> No answer on your part. You seemed enthusiastic to discuss the evils of
> terrorism before. What happened?
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215395 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:51 |
|
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43E21BF6.29BE9D5A [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> In relation to the drawings I think the people who drew them were fools.
But bloody well within their rights, in our country.
> A religion that bans representations of a prophet has a lot of issues.
It has allowed them before.
> They're not ready for pictures of the prophet themselves yet, never mind
> people taking the piss using pictures.
It is tradition among us.
There are two principles at issue here. One is freedom of expression,
the other is respect for religion. We value the former highly. Those who
march in the streets against the drawings and boycott our products, and
especially those who threaten violence and death to us, value the latter so
highly that they are offended by any mockery of their faith. Perhaps they
don't understand that we are capable of taking the piss on someone without
despising him, like when the Danish PM is repeatedly depicted as a caveman
with a club. Possibly Anders Fogh just smiles when he sees such a drawing
of himself, unless he thinks, oh, not *again*, can't we have some innovation
here? Or perhaps they don't care what the intention is, but are offended by
the pictures regardless.
But these two principles are clashing: yes to freedom of speech versus no
to making fun of the prophet. Which one shall prevail? Well, the drawings
were made for and published by a Danish newspaper, distributing its copies
in Denmark. So of course our preferred principle must prevail over theirs.
It's our country, innit? Yet a lot of Muslims in foreign countries are not
content with expressing regret that these drawings were published, o no:
they demand that apologies be given along with guarantees that we will never
do such a thing again. They are trying to command us in our own country.
This is as absurd as if we would boycott Arab businesses in anger that
they will *not* agree to taking the piss on Muhammad within the borders of
*their* countries. It certainly makes my middle finger itch.
Two generations ago another foreign power came and commanded us in our
own countries. They had rather more success at that, for a while. Within
easy walk from my house stands a memorial stone to some young freedom
fighers who died in the fight against these oppressors. They were executed
on that spot, and the stone was raised to commemorate them after the war. I
sometimes walk up to that stone, hat in hand.
On this issue which, admittedly, is of rather less gravity than WWII, I
will not surrender. I would not myself have made those drawings, but I
certainly accept the right of that newspaper to do so. Similarly, if I were
to become a public figure and they made funny drawings of me, I would accept
their right to it.
> Personally I'm getting a little tired of this priestly nonsense about "us
> and them".
And personally I'm tired of people defining morality as how one behaves,
when properly speaking it is about how one treats others. And since a man's
words are his own until another chooses to accept them, those drawings fall
in the first category, by my definition. Just as I never consented to
receive the words of that imam who called my mother and almost all other
women in this country agents of the devil for wearing their hair uncovered
in public, and hence I was not offended by them.
Jon Lennnart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215396 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 01:22 |
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:51:21 -0500, Raven
<jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:43E21BF6.29BE9D5A [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>
>> In relation to the drawings I think the people who drew them were fools.
>
> But bloody well within their rights, in our country.
>
>> A religion that bans representations of a prophet has a lot of issues.
>
> It has allowed them before.
>
>> They're not ready for pictures of the prophet themselves yet, never mind
>> people taking the piss using pictures.
>
> It is tradition among us.
>
> There are two principles at issue here. One is freedom of expression,
> the other is respect for religion. We value the former highly. Those
> who
> march in the streets against the drawings and boycott our products, and
> especially those who threaten violence and death to us, value the latter
> so
> highly that they are offended by any mockery of their faith. Perhaps
Well the Muslims don't understand how editorial cartoons work. They
reflect what is in peoples minds, good or bad. There is nothing repectful
or "elevated" about them.
Why would they overreact? Maybe because Muhammad occupies the same status
as an elderly matron in the family, and therefore any insult to him is
really below the belt. Its one thing to say that "your kids are punks and
gangsters", it may even be true, but to say "you are a gangster because
your mother used to f*** gangsters", is a whole different level. Nobody
accepts an insult to their mother, and even if you did that to the most
rabid gangster then even that would be out of line. Muhammad was not the
"father" of the community as much as its grandmother. The popular
reverence people have for him is not because of his military prowess or
macho posturing, but because he was a simple, perfect man, who was said to
be more beautiful than the full moon itself) and he was distinguished for
his manners. His image is of a man who used to cry for his nation at
night. He loved his people, and they loved him too.
Muslims have more respect for Muhammad than they do for themselves--which
is why they don't stand up for their own rights, but they will do anything
they can for Muhammads sake. So to tie his image to disgusting images is
a big deal for Muslims.
One more way to think about it: the only thing in western society which
resembles Islam is "Science." Most people won't settle down on any other
system of belief except the one which Newton and Descartes believed in.
> Jon Lennnart Beck.
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215400 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 13:02 |
|
BaJoRi squeaked:
> >
> >
>
> well, ignoring facts and truth is your specialty, so go for it. In case you
> had forgotten, or ignored, I wasn't the only one that took you to task for
> your last bit on the subject. But what should be expected from a mental
> midget such as yourself.
>
>
As previously menmtioned, we aren't actually interested in listening to
fanciful tirades on your part. If I wanted a squeaking noise, I'd get a
mouse and put it in one of those little wheel things. You claimed that
I support(ed) Yasser Arafat and also that I supported the terrorists
behind 9/11.
Clearly, you must have something other than ridiculous allegation to
present to us - let's see it. Let's see the citations.
Sam.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215401 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 13:29 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138968128.102820.242890 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi squeaked:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> well, ignoring facts and truth is your specialty, so go for it. In case
>> you
>> had forgotten, or ignored, I wasn't the only one that took you to task
>> for
>> your last bit on the subject. But what should be expected from a mental
>> midget such as yourself.
>>
>>
>
> As previously menmtioned, we aren't actually interested in listening to
> fanciful tirades on your part.
It is interesting to note that you believe the truths pointed out by others
is "fanciful tirades", meanwhile you expressing support for Arafuck and the
that the victims of 9-11 sopmehow deserved it is thoughtful debate, up until
the poiunt you would want people to forget that you have made such claims,
then you ignore your own words. How is that?
If I wanted a squeaking noise, I'd get a
> mouse and put it in one of those little wheel things. You claimed that
> I support(ed) Yasser Arafat and also that I supported the terrorists
> behind 9/11.
> Clearly, you must have something other than ridiculous allegation to
> present to us - let's see it. Let's see the citations.
>
> Sam.
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215402 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 13:53 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
>
> It is interesting to note that you believe the truths pointed out by others
> is "fanciful tirades", meanwhile you expressing support for Arafuck and the
> that the victims of 9-11 sopmehow deserved it is thoughtful debate, up until
> the poiunt you would want people to forget that you have made such claims,
> then you ignore your own words. How is that?
Pretty pathetic actually.
You seem to have slipped into complete incoherence. No amount of
dodging and weaving will spare you the requirement of reinforcing your
allegations with evidence: You claimed (and have now claimed again,
mind you) that I expresed support for Yasser Arafat and the terrorists
behind 9-11.
Where is your evidence for these allegations?
It looks like you've been caught in a lie yet AGAIN Baron! Everytime
you dodge the question, everytime you make the allegations but refuse
to present even a shred of evidence for these fantasies that you
squeal, your credibility slips further into the doldrums. You're on a
path of self destruction. No doubt you'll soon slip into the night, yet
again.
Sam.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215409 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 18:36 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138971231.539397.199860 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting to note that you believe the truths pointed out by
>> others
>> is "fanciful tirades", meanwhile you expressing support for Arafuck and
>> the
>> that the victims of 9-11 sopmehow deserved it is thoughtful debate, up
>> until
>> the poiunt you would want people to forget that you have made such
>> claims,
>> then you ignore your own words. How is that?
>
> Pretty pathetic actually.
>
> You seem to have slipped into complete incoherence. No amount of
> dodging and weaving will spare you the requirement of reinforcing your
> allegations with evidence: You claimed (and have now claimed again,
> mind you) that I expresed support for Yasser Arafat and the terrorists
> behind 9-11.
>
> Where is your evidence for these allegations?
As always, you wait 4 or 5 months after you make a statement to deny them,
which is fairly typical of you and your mental dwarfism. But you will always
know that at least one person remembers you for the terrorist loving ass you
are.
>
> It looks like you've been caught in a lie yet AGAIN Baron! Everytime
> you dodge the question, everytime you make the allegations but refuse
> to present even a shred of evidence for these fantasies that you
> squeal, your credibility slips further into the doldrums. You're on a
> path of self destruction. No doubt you'll soon slip into the night, yet
> again.
>
> Sam.
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215412 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 23:06 |
|
"Hashemon Urtasman" <none [at] none.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:op.s4dfcaak5es67b [at] sarwar...
> Nobody accepts an insult to their mother, and even if you did that to the
> most rabid gangster then even that would be out of line.
Well, as I mentioned there was a man who insulted *my* mother, in a
blanket statement against all women who don't cover their hair in public.
Of course this man, though a Muslim, also insulted a large number of Muslim
women, including several female politicians who have taken their stands
against the drawings.
But, judging by the definition of "accept", I accepted that insult. I
accepted it in that I didn't round up some good friends whose mothers had
also been insulted and go with them and string that imam up by his beard. I
simply think the less of him, and have let it go at that.
As I mentioned, my opinion is that a man is polluted far worse by the
filth that leaves his lips than by the filth that enters his ears. And if I
were to point my finger at you, three of my fingers would be pointing back
at me. Hold your hand in a pointing position and you will know this. Thus
I find it difficult to comprehend that people are insulted by the drawings
of Mohammed or any other thing expressed by a bunch of strangers in a
faraway country on the Eurasian fringes. The flag of my country was trodden
on and burned. This didn't make *me* angry. They have the same right to it
as we have to make such drawings.
Jon Lennart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215413 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 23:26 |
|
In article <j5cDf.7566$0f1.6179 [at] news.get2net.dk>,
Raven <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
>"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:drhfji$cm4$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
>> Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad walked into a bar one day...
> Considering the brouhaha, mounting like a tsunami over the last few days,
>over twelve drawings of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper some time
>ago, perhaps you should walk carefully. Get youself a great big stick, at
>least, *before* finishing that joke.
> An imam in Denmark denounced during a Friday sermon all women who appear
>in public with their hair uncovered as "agents of the Devil". This caused a
>far lesser, more local and shorter-lived uproar. Nor was it seen as an
>insult, but more as a worrisome attempt at oppression.
> 99% of all the women in the country, including the Queen Margrethe and
>the princesses Mary and Alexandra, called "agents of the Devil"? That's an
>insult for you, if taken at face value and if we can be bothered to take
>notice. Responding in anger to undeserved insults is rather self-defeating,
>isn't it?
I don't actually have an ending to the joke. The poster I responded
to was objecting to any fictionalization of the lives of religions
figures (in particular the idea that Aslan in the Narnia books was
intended by Lewis to be Jesus himself, and not merely a Christ
figure), and that line just popped into my head as a maximally
egregious example of such fictionalization. I was going to use it
to make a point about previous arguments, but then I decided it
worked better standing by itself.
That said, the situation in Europe is certainly disturbing. What
I find especially disturbing is the reluctance of European elites,
even today, to say openly what should by now be obvious to everyone:
that is was a ghastly mistake to allow large scale immigration of
Muslims into Europe, and that such immigration must be ended as
soon and as completely as possible.
I have my own ideas about why this is such a difficult thing for
Europeans to say. I think that Europe was so traumatized by WWII
and the Holocaust that its elites came to feel that there was no
higher virtue than demonstrating that you were not like Hitler.
If Hitler was a nationalist, who wanted to see his own people
colonize other countries and displace those peoples, then a virtuous
post-WWII European must be an anti-nationalist, who is unconcerned
when foreigners from vastly different cultures colonize his own
country and displace his own people.
I'm thinking in particular of an uncomfortable conversation I once
had with a very cultured professor from Italy, who displayed an
ostentatious lack of concern over the prospect that, if immigration
and demographic trends continued without change, ethnic Italians
could become a minority in Italy within this century. I wasn't
even sure if this was true, if such radical change could really
happen so fast, but it didn't matter to the professor, who went to
some lengths to make it absolutely clear that he didn't care one
way or the other, that as far as he was concerned people are just
people, and that if a hundred years from now Italy is mostly Arab
and African, well so what? He was clearly showing off, and was
very pleased with himself. I, OTOH, was just flummoxed. If a man
truly doesn't care about such things, what is there to say? His
grandchildren may have to live under Sharia law, but hey!, at least
he isn't a bigot, and isn't that the important thing?
If, as I suspect, this sort of attitude is common among people of
the good professor's class, then it would go a long way towards
explaining why Europe is having such trouble confronting the threat
of Islamization. OTOH, maybe I am just full of shit. Maybe the
"threat" is wildly overblown, and the only real threat comes from
fear-mongers like myself. I'm not a European, so I have little
first hand knowledge of the situation, and I am particularly
interested in what any Europeans reading this have to say about
the matter, and my analysis of it.
--
John Brock
jbrock [at] panix.com
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215415 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 01:15 |
|
John Brock wrote:
> Maybe the
> "threat" is wildly overblown, and the only real threat comes from
> fear-mongers like myself.
It's hard to maintain that after the van Gogh murder, the Paris riots,
and now these cartoon freak-outs. Plus the various sermons like the one
in Norway that Western women who are raped asked for it by the way they
dress. It really doesn't look to me like a healthy assimilation is
happening. But noticing any of these things or mentioning them publicly
is considered horribly racist and right-wing.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215417 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 01:57 |
|
Flame of the West wrote:
But noticing any of these things or mentioning them publicly
> is considered horribly racist and right-wing.
Can't you make even one post without these moronic
red herring arguments any more??
Morgil
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215418 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 03:43 |
|
BaJoRi wrote:
> As always, you wait 4 or 5 months after you make a statement to deny them,
> which is fairly typical of you and your mental dwarfism.
If I made these statements 4 or 5 months ago, then you would have no
trouble finding the citation. Yet you seem reluctant to do anything
other than embarass yourself by making ridiculous claims.
> But you will always
> know that at least one person remembers you for the terrorist loving ass you
> are.
>
Well, it must be said that you're a guy that likes to make some
grandiose claims yet you seem reluctant to back them up with any real
evidence. For example:
- your claim that I wanted to dig up the corpse of Yasser Arafat and
engage in sex with it
- Your claim that I engaged in sex with Yasser Arafats donkey
- Your claim that I supported Hamas
- Your claim that I approved of a man having sex with a 9 year old girl
- Your claim that the massacre of palestinians by terrorists at Deir
Yassin (1944) never occurred, and reports that it did were a massive
Anglo - Red Cross - Isreali - Palestinian Conspiracy
- Your claim that Nelson Mandela was a murderer
What do you imagine that the thinking public in this forum thinks of
claims like this? What do you imagine your refusal to post any evidence
for your current claims (that I supported Yasser Arafat, that I
supported the terrorists behind 9-11) says about the veracity of those
claims?
I can tell you what it tells me - you're an idiot. You were idiotic to
imagine I would lbe insulted by anything you claim. You were idiotic to
imagine that you could simply repost the same tired old crap and nobody
would remember what happened last time, when you ran like a mangy cur.
Or the time before - when you ran likely a mangy cur. Or the time
before - when you ran like a mangy cur.
Sam.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215419 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 05:32 |
|
"Flame of the West" <FotW [at] NOSPAMsolinas.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:_8edndEkmeOzb37enZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> It's hard to maintain that after the van Gogh murder, the Paris riots,
> and now these cartoon freak-outs. Plus the various sermons like the one
> in Norway that Western women who are raped asked for it by the way they
> dress. It really doesn't look to me like a healthy assimilation is
> happening. But noticing any of these things or mentioning them publicly
> is considered horribly racist and right-wing.
It is considered thus by some. Others, with jackboot and goosestep
minds, will applaud you as a great white patriot for saying it. They will
hope to have found in you another ally in their struggle to cleanse the
country of Muslims so that they can return to their regular pastime of
cleansing it of Jews and Blacks. And the two sides mutually encourage each
other's follies.
But there has to be a balance. Theo van Gogh did not deserve to be
murdered, but he was as insulting towards Muslims as some Muslims are to us
Europeans and our values. He frequently referred to Muslims as
"goat-shaggers", and had two dogs named "Allah" and "Akbar". And the Danish
fringe politician Mogens Glistrup, who consistently referred to Muslims as
"Mohammedans" and accused every one of them of being part of a master plan
to conquer the world, suggested auctioning off Muslim immigrants to South
America. Those countries which would accept the smallest sum from us should
have them, I think it was, but I may misremember that point. There will be
loud bigots in any culture. And also murderous swine. Mohammed Bouyeri,
who murdered van Gogh, is one. The "laser rifle killer" in Sweden, who
targeted randomly chosen Muslims, another.
And the murderous swine are badly hurting their own respective sides.
Without the van Gogh murder, Muslims in the Netherlands would be under less
suspicion and enmity. Without the laser rifle shootings, there would be a
lesser motive for appeasement in Sweden.
It seems to me that the problem is a too polarized debate, and here I am
speaking of the European side. Some want to roll over and play dead before
the Muslims, like well-trained dogs. And some treat Muslims with suspicion
and hatred. Both deal with Muslims like abstract symbols springing from
their own fantasies and fears. Neither treat Muslims like human beings,
with equal rights and equal duties.
Jon Lennart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215420 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 05:49 |
|
"John Brock" <jbrock [at] panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ds0la7$fuo$1 [at] reader2.panix.com...
> That said, the situation in Europe is certainly disturbing. What
> I find especially disturbing is the reluctance of European elites,
> even today, to say openly what should by now be obvious to everyone:
> that is was a ghastly mistake to allow large scale immigration of
> Muslims into Europe, and that such immigration must be ended as
> soon and as completely as possible.
I don't think the problem is the immigration of Muslims to Europe.
European Muslims are not all anal about these things, and even if we could
lump them all together in a "them" group at loggerheads with "us", the
"them" folks are still far weaker than we.
The problem is if we oppress ourselves to accomodate their values,
elevating them above ours, out of politesse, or fear of riots in the
streets, or from fear of losing profits in doing business with Muslim
countries. Or if, conversely, we become like a secular version of the
current Saudi political system. You know, the folks who forbid any public
expression of religion other than Islam in their country, yet cheerfully
fund mosques in many non-Muslim countries. And who were the first country
in the resurgence of this conflict to demand that their choices prevail over
ours when the two clash even in our own countries.
In the face of antisemitism in Prussia in the late nineteenth century, a
Prussian politician whose name I have forgotten said "equal rights, equal
duties" for Jews. This is how we the majority population should treat the
Muslim citizens of our countries. We should stand up for our rights, but
not stand upon the Muslims. There seems now to be both people who back off
in appeasement, neglecting equal duties for Muslims, and people who are
overly harsh to Muslims, neglecting equal rights. Muslims in Europe have
been burdened both with fools and with oppressors.
As for the drawings of the prophet, we should not apologize for them. We
should carefully explain the context in which they were made and published,
and within this explanation make it clear that the newspaper desired to
challenge only a small number of thugs and not the prophet and the entirety
of Muslims. We can publish old satirical drawings of our own politicians
and other things important in our countries in illustration of our
explanation, to tell how we can satirize over things without necessarily
intending mockery and hatred. If Muslims abroad then choose to disbelieve
the newspaper's stated motive, thinking the newspaper spokesmen liars, then
that is their lookout. Or if they understand the newspaper's motives and
the motives of the rest of us for supporting the newspaper's right to
publish those pictures, and if they *still* demand that we make a special
dispensation in their particular case, then let's agree to disagree - but we
will still do our will in our own countries, and defend ourselves from
aggression if any occurs.
> I have my own ideas about why this is such a difficult thing for
> Europeans to say. I think that Europe was so traumatized by WWII
> and the Holocaust that its elites came to feel that there was no
> higher virtue than demonstrating that you were not like Hitler.
> If Hitler was a nationalist, who wanted to see his own people
> colonize other countries and displace those peoples, then a virtuous
> post-WWII European must be an anti-nationalist, who is unconcerned
> when foreigners from vastly different cultures colonize his own
> country and displace his own people.
WWII is a great trauma. Like slavery and massacres like Sand Creek in
the USA, the Holocaust is seen, justly in my opinion, as the greatest shame
in recent European history. Though the Gulag must also not be neglected,
more distant geographically from Western Europe though it be.
Though I can see the point of those who ask why the Palestinians should
pay for our shame before the Jews.
A problem is that a lot of loud Muslims seem to think that especially in
their interaction with Christian Europe they have ever been the victims, we
ever the aggressors and evildoers. We have been aggressors and evildoers,
but so have they. North Africa and the Near East, which are now Muslim
lands, were once Christian lands for the most part. Did they all convert
freely and peacefully? And a million European and North American Christians
died in slavery in North Africa over three centuries, as horribly as the
Blacks who were enslaved both by us and by the Muslims.
Some loud Muslims see keenly the splinter in our eye. It is there and it
is big. They neglect the beam in their own, or so it seems to me. Though
whether this is because of some issue within modern Islam or just the result
of most Muslims living under repressive regimes is beyond my understanding.
[...]
> If, as I suspect, this sort of attitude is common among people of
> the good professor's class, then it would go a long way towards
> explaining why Europe is having such trouble confronting the threat
> of Islamization. OTOH, maybe I am just full of shit. Maybe the
> "threat" is wildly overblown, and the only real threat comes from
> fear-mongers like myself. I'm not a European, so I have little
> first hand knowledge of the situation, and I am particularly
> interested in what any Europeans reading this have to say about
> the matter, and my analysis of it.
There was a report in Denmark about a school in Sweden where a female
pupil was sent home for wearing a Swedish flag on her shirt. Likewise the
Swedish national anthem was banned on that school. This was because the
flag and that song might offend immigrant or second-generation pupils.
I think there is a bit of holier-than-thou posturing. And this is of
course as dangerous to us as it is indeed insulting, in its own way, to the
immigrants. Are they to be treated as beasts, who have no reason and are
incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and of rational debate? You
don't reason with a dog. You train it. Or else permit it to train you.
But Muslims aren't dogs.
But oh well, since I am also not God I can likewise err.
Jon Lennart Beck.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215422 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 10:43 |
|
Raven schreef:
> Insults have gone both ways, both before and after these drawings. Such
> as the recent flag burnings. Incidentally, both the Danish and Norwegian
> flags have a cross motif, to indicate the Christian religions of our
> countries.
I know the flags, but I never knew it meant that, interesting!
> Thus, burning these flags is to a degree also burning crosses,
> or so I saw it opined recently. A desecration of Christianity. But what
> with the flag burnings and the threats against Denmark and Norway and, for
> some obscure reason, Sweden
Yesterday on TV I saw a Dutch flag being torn apart as well! I was
quite shocked by the purposely wiping of many angry feet on the Danish
flag because of a phenomenon which is quite 'normal' here (NL) as well:
'insulting' one another through cartoons.
> one should think that the original insult has
> been paid for. We insulted them, and for four months now, and especially
> for the last week, they have reciprocated strongly. But they still want an
> apology. Some want us to crawl before them before they are satisfied. And
> while a large number of Muslims appear to be against the very violent
> responses from other Muslims, I have yet to see one in the media mention the
> insults that have gone the other way. Perhaps those Muslims have just not
> been reported by the journos.
>
Or maybe they are not to keen on openly expressing their opinions. Some
of my fellow Muslim workers sometimes express their discontent with
Muslim violence, but I've seen them looking over their shoulders to
check if they cannot be heard - I think by their fellow Muslims.
> Then the newspaper Jyllandsposten decided to defend freedom of expression
> by having twelve artists make drawings of the prophet Mohammad and publish
> them. Some, though not all, of these drawings turned out to be explicitly
> insulting.
Are the twelve artists now in hiding? Protected by the police? And the
editor of the paper
and the PM? We have 2 politicians who are under permanent police
protection. One who opposes the admittance of Turkey to the EU and one,
a woman, a former Muslim herself, who strongly criticises Islam and was
a friend of Theo van Gogh. They have both received death threats
repeatedly.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215423 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 10:50 |
|
Raven schreef:
> Two generations ago another foreign power came and commanded us in our
> own countries. They had rather more success at that, for a while. Within
> easy walk from my house stands a memorial stone to some young freedom
> fighers who died in the fight against these oppressors. They were executed
> on that spot, and the stone was raised to commemorate them after the war. I
> sometimes walk up to that stone, hat in hand.
That's it: people have *died* for our right to express our opinion, so
we cannot give it up so easily.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215424 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 10:57 |
|
Hashemon Urtasman schreef:
> Well the Muslims don't understand how editorial cartoons work. They
> reflect what is in peoples minds, good or bad. There is nothing repectful
> or "elevated" about them.
>
(snip)
>
> Muslims have more respect for Muhammad than they do for themselves--which
> is why they don't stand up for their own rights, but they will do anything
> they can for Muhammads sake. So to tie his image to disgusting images is
> a big deal for Muslims.
Thank you. Yesterday an Imam said that what happened with the cartoons
was worse than a personal insult, and without your helpful explanation
I would not have known what he was talking about.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215425 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 11:08 |
|
John Brock schreef:
(snip rabt)
> I have my own ideas about why this is such a difficult thing for
> Europeans to say. I think that Europe was so traumatized by WWII
> and the Holocaust that its elites came to feel that there was no
> higher virtue than demonstrating that you were not like Hitler.
> If Hitler was a nationalist, who wanted to see his own people
> colonize other countries and displace those peoples, then a virtuous
> post-WWII European must be an anti-nationalist, who is unconcerned
> when foreigners from vastly different cultures colonize his own
> country and displace his own people.
>
WWII yes, and a past of slave-trade and colonisation.
> I'm thinking in particular of an uncomfortable conversation I once
> had with a very cultured professor from Italy, who displayed an
> ostentatious lack of concern over the prospect that, if immigration
> and demographic trends continued without change, ethnic Italians
> could become a minority in Italy within this century. I wasn't
> even sure if this was true, if such radical change could really
> happen so fast, but it didn't matter to the professor, who went to
> some lengths to make it absolutely clear that he didn't care one
> way or the other, that as far as he was concerned people are just
> people, and that if a hundred years from now Italy is mostly Arab
> and African, well so what?
That is the politically correct attitude here as well, but hopes are
that a majority of Muslims will 'westernise'.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215426 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 11:19 |
|
Raven schreef:
>
> There was a report in Denmark about a school in Sweden where a female
> pupil was sent home for wearing a Swedish flag on her shirt. (snip)
A pupil here has been ordered by his school to remove the Dutch flag
from his bag, because it was considered a 'provocation' towards
Maroccon pupils.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215427 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 11:29 |
|
Flame of the West schreef:
> John Brock wrote:
> > Maybe the
> > "threat" is wildly overblown, and the only real threat comes from
> > fear-mongers like myself.
>
> It's hard to maintain that after the van Gogh murder, the Paris riots,
> and now these cartoon freak-outs. Plus the various sermons like the one
> in Norway that Western women who are raped asked for it by the way they
> dress. It really doesn't look to me like a healthy assimilation is
> happening. But noticing any of these things or mentioning them publicly
> is considered horribly racist and right-wing.
I have noticed that life has become easier and safer for me when I wrap
myself up in many long skirts in my neighbourhood where the vast
majority consists of Muslims, and when I go out at night by myself
-which is considered weird enough- I also wrap up my head. Some of my
friends from the relative safety of their white suburbs say I should
not do this and make a stand - but I have decided to go with the flow.
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215428 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 13:13 |
|
Henriette wrote:
> Raven schreef:
>> There was a report in Denmark about a school in Sweden where
>> a female pupil was sent home for wearing a Swedish flag on her
>> shirt. (snip)
> A pupil here has been ordered by his school to remove the Dutch
> flag from his bag, because it was considered a 'provocation'
> towards Maroccon pupils.
In defence of the school, it probably was. How did flags ever become
so hateful?
T.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Insults and religions; was: Humans in Narnia [message #215430 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 14:23 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138869476.258891.253480 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> BaJoRi wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Go back to pretending that Arafat wasn't a terrorist, and that the
>> >> people
>> >> in
>> >> the Towers deserved what they got.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Relevance of these absurd allegations?
>>
>>
>>
>> I always admire how you can bald0faced lie and try to push off the truth
>> like that....not allegations...truth,
>
> That being the case then, you'll have no trouble at all producing
> citations to support these 2 allegations. Which you will now proceed to
> produce to demonstrate your case, or else face the embarassment of
> being proven wrong, once again, and another 6 months in the doghouse.
>
>
>
>>
>> By the by, I am not in any way denying the outragesou stupidity of a few
>> individuals, or the poor chain of authority that allowed to to happen,
>> unlike you and certain terrorists.
>
> I've made it clear that I condemn these acts of terror (eg gitmo, the
> torturing of suspects, the invasion of Iraq) and the chain of command
> that commanded them (Rumsfeld/Cheney). Outrageously stupid it might be,
> it is also wrong. What is not clear at this point is whether YOU
> recognise that these actions by
> Rumsfeld/Perle/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Bush/Ashcroft, in addtion to being
> stupid on purely pragmatic terms, were also ethically wrong.
>
We seem to go through this every few months. You deny the truth, I provide
the evidence, and you then deny it was provided. No more dog and pony show.
Have the guts to stand by your previous utterances for a change, instead of
wallowing in mental dwarfism. I am sure that I am not the only one here that
remembers the softrat also taking you to task for your mentions on how the
9-11 victims somehow deserved their fate.
As for Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc., I have said on more than one occasion that
they have bungled the enrite Iraq aftermath, and continue to do so. But it
seems clear that unless someone is either appluading terrorists, or backing
said government officials 100%, you couldn't care less about what is
actually being put forward, as long as you have your fantasy world in which
to disapear and dream dreams of jihad.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 00:42:19 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,36660 Sekunden |
