Page 3 of 5
Posted: 06 Feb 2006, 17:45
by EvilBastard
Has anyone seen these cartoons and thought that they weren't particularly clever or humorous? They don't stand up against "If..." or Doonesbury - it strikes me that the cartoonist in question found a way of getting his work to a wider audience by means of cooking up a storm in a teacup.
I'm tempted to suggest to the people rioting that if they don't like the cartoons, then don't buy the paper. A boycott of the publication, hurting its bottom line, is the surest way to get the cartoonist fired, and makes much more sense than burning buildings. Of course, there are those who go out of their way to find things to be offended about, but there's no pleasing some people.
Posted: 06 Feb 2006, 19:43
by boudicca
markfiend wrote:
I was under the impression that the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire (AKA the
Byzantine Empire) which only fell in 1453 (see
here) -- to Muslim invaders incidentally -- was where most of the knowledge and culture of Classical Rome was preserved during Europe's Dark Ages...
Were you by any chance watching that Boris Johnson programme last night?
Posted: 06 Feb 2006, 19:54
by Obviousman
markfiend wrote:Obviousman wrote:Another thing we should not forget is while we were in the Middle Ages, burning up anything which wasn't Christian like tons of ancient greek scriptures, the Muslims were translating these books, learning from it, etc. They might just be in their Middle Ages now (which also makes sense year-wise), and therefore we should indeed at least keep to valuable things like science, arts, freedom of speech. I guess this would bring them back to Renaissance sooner as we did, especially with all our modern means of communication.
I was under the impression that the (Christian) Eastern Roman Empire (AKA the
Byzantine Empire) which only fell in 1453 (see
here) -- to Muslim invaders incidentally -- was where most of the knowledge and culture of Classical Rome was preserved during Europe's Dark Ages... at least until the (Christian) Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, burning many libraries and looting many treasures.
History lessons aside, if a faith can be seriously threatened by a few cartoons, then it can't be very strong...
In regard to Muslim anti-Jewish propaganda:
clicky and
clicky (Argumentum ad wikipedion?
)
Hmm, I'll be checking it out with my historic friends
But I must say you're right if a cartoon can stirr so much emotions and frighten people to loose their faith
I still think we should give a good look on the leaders, if they've not just lost control over something they thought to be an easy way out of internal problems.
(wikipedia seems to be down so can't check it out
)
Posted: 06 Feb 2006, 19:57
by Izzy HaveMercy
Obviousman wrote:
(wikipedia seems to be down so can't check it out
)
Maybe it runs/ran on a Danish server...
IZ.
Posted: 06 Feb 2006, 20:00
by Obviousman
Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Obviousman wrote:
(wikipedia seems to be down so can't check it out
)
Maybe it runs/ran on a Danish server...
IZ.
Hum
Might be obvious but a bit slow tonight myself
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 11:19
by markfiend
boudicca wrote:Were you by any chance watching that Boris Johnson programme last night?
I might have been...
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 16:19
by Obviousman
Alright, here's what my sources say on the Muslim vs. Byzantine Empire matter
:
Both were important. However he'd rather emphasise the Muslims' influence. More specifically of the Abbasid caliphate (capital Baghdad - early Middle Ages) and later on the South Spanish knowlegde centres like Cordoba and Granada. The Byzantines were discussing irrelevant theological affairs a bit too much, like 'did the Holy Spirit come from the Father or from the Father
and the Son'.
Still, when Constantinople's end neared - as the Turks came closer - many learned Byzantines moved to Italy and probably at least some scriptures joined them to Italy. And thus most historians would say the Muslims rather than the Byzantines according to him.
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 17:53
by mik
Running, ducking, laughing.
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 18:27
by Quiff Boy
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 18:35
by aims
Jerry Springer: The Opera, surely?
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 20:50
by eastmidswhizzkid
Posted: 07 Feb 2006, 21:57
by boudicca
Quiff's the Messiah alright.
Whether he denies it or not...
re:
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 03:16
by Ocean Moves
"Anders Fogh Rasmussen said extremists seeking "a clash of cultures" were exploiting the dispute over the images"
..That's it in a nutshell as far as I'm concerned.
And not just over this "issue", but in the actions of extremists
and militants the world over.
They deserve no milage or paper column space IMO until they
are prepared to listen to reasonable debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4690338.stm
Re: re:
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 06:00
by dead stars
Ocean Moves wrote:"Anders Fogh Rasmussen said extremists seeking "a clash of cultures" were exploiting the dispute over the images"
..That's it in a nutshell as far as I'm concerned.
I've read better than that. Like the explanation of "why now":
Next article can be found
here:
February 03, 2006
If There’s Hell Below, Is This Where We Shall All be Spending Xmas?
The rapidly escalating war of Mohammed’s turban may yet serve to establish the reverse of Karl Marx’s famous adage that history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
Despite the ferocity of the current posturing of outraged Muslims throughout the world over the continued unrepentance of a Danish newspaper for having last September published irreverent cartoons of Mohammed, the true significance of the current rumpus seems to have eluded the world’s media. This is that it presages a far worse coming conflagration.
At best, what it heralds is full-scale conventional war in the Middle East, with much spillover in Europe and America in terms of Islamist terror bombings there. At worst, we await a full-scale nuclear Armageddon.
What makes me inclined to make such a rosy prognostication?
Well, consider the following penumbra of events that surround the current rumpus.
First, there is the curious delay between the first appearance of the cartoons when they provoked only modest local disturbance in Denmark by comparison with the global fury they are currently provoking.
What has changed in the meantime to account for the escalation in the scale and intensity of the reaction?
Two things have occurred. The first of these is more directly connected with the cartoons than the second, but in reality, it is but an epi-phenomenon of the second. The second event, although, superficially, only remotely connected with the cartoons, is the real reason they appear to have provoked such a belated escalation of outrage. It also holds the key to why the current rumpus presages something far, far worse.
The first event was a tour of the Middle East last December undertaken by a group of Danish imams to publicise the cartoons. With them, however, they reportedly took, not only the offending cartoons originally published but several other far more offensive ones that, apparently, they had themselves been responsible for producing. In other words, the outrage over the cartoons has been deliberately engineered by a fabrication of the grounds for it.
But who wanted or caused the heat to become so turned up and why at that this particular moment?
The clue to the answers to this second question lies in a second event almost certain to occur to today, if it has not already happened by the time this blog gets posted. This is the likely decision today in Vienna by the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its programme of nuclear research. If that decision should occur, when the UN Security Council gets round to considering what form of sanctions to impose on Iran, guess to whom chairmanship of the Council will have passed. You’ve got it... plucky little Denmark.
Suddenly, the pieces fall into shape. The rumpus suddenly escalated, complete with fabricated offensive cartoons, to so enflame Muslim opinion that Denmark could be intimidated directly through a threatened Muslim boycott of its goods, or indirectly by the EU fearful of a wider boycott, into voting in favour of Iran.
Whatever the Security Council eventually may decide over sanctions against Iran, it is unlikely to deter that country from continuing to develop the technology needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, Prospect of its acquisition of them is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, as well as, sooner or later, oblige Israel or the US to make some pre-emptive strike against it to prevent its programme from reaching completion.
At best, such a strike will succeed, but not without precipitating a conventional war in the Middle East the repercussions of which will not escape Europe in the form of suicide bombings. At worst, pre-emption will fail, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, and, with a President of that country as gung-ho as its current one, we all receive tickets for a one-way trip to oblivion.
It is not a thrilling prospect for sure. But that is all the more reason why the West needs to remain strong, united, and resolved to resist the challenge of militant Islam. If Europe has recently been made more so than it has been of late, it has to thank for that, paradoxically, the malicious militancy of the mullahs and imams whose fabrication of the grounds of the current crisis has given the West a second wake-up call to the true scale and nature of the current danger that it faces to which all too many Europeans failed to have become alerted by the first wake-up call given on September 11th.
This is the first blog I have written for Civitas about which I hope and pray that the analysis of current events offered in it is completely wrong. As the author of a book published in 1987 which to an often incredulous audience at the time bid, as its title put it, ‘A Farewell to Marx’, and who subsequently predicted in another later book a tragedy like the London suicide bombings, I am truly deeply fearful that I am not.
Posted by David Conway at February 3, 2006 12:54 PM
Makes you think, doesn't it? I don't think this has anything to do with free speech anymore, only that this a manouvre by radicals to instigate people against Europe and European interests around the world, and spread terror, what they are obviously suceeding. I think the cautious reactions from western governments are diplomatic attempts to avoid a war. Not that a bunch of cartoons would cause a war, but's its escalating just might.
Re: re:
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 11:46
by Obviousman
dead stars wrote:Not that a bunch of cartoons would cause a war, ...
Actually yesterday I heard it once did
It appears to be some war in the 1600s (not quite sure if it was the First or the Second Dutch war), when the king of France, England and some looney German bishops started a war against holland because of some cartoons...
I hope people are more intelligent these days
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 12:10
by markfiend
It is about free speech and it is about refusing to back down to bullies. So Islamic law forbids the depiction of the Prophet? So what? I'm not a Muslim so why should I give a toss what Islamic law says?
I'm sick of this idea that we must "respect" people's religious beliefs. Why? They sure as hell don't respect mine.
In fact it could well be argued that the views of Abu Hamza and similar extremists have plenty of support in The Qu'ran:
The Qu'ran wrote:2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them [...] Such is the reward of disbelievers.
3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah [...] promise them a painful doom.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.
8:15 O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.
9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
I could go on...
(Sourced from
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran)
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 13:33
by Big Si
markfiend wrote:In fact it could well be argued that the views of Abu Hamza and similar extremists have plenty of support in The Qu'ran:
The Qu'ran wrote:2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them [...] Such is the reward of disbelievers.
3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah [...] promise them a painful doom.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.
8:15 O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.
9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
I could go on...
(Sourced from
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran)
Sounds like some quotes from this guy -
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 13:51
by Obviousman
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 14:14
by canon docre
Thing is the current riots actually find their origin in a profound discontentment with the corrupt regimes of these mobs. During the past 20 years they didnt manage to keep up with the western standards and cant even secure the most modest demands of the population. This anger is channelled by the extremist agitators towards another target outside the islamic community. Which is us. Sadly. This explains why the governements of these countries are acting quite reluctant when it comes to set an end to the riots. They're happy that it's not their asses which burn.
P.S. I read somewhere that not many people of the rioting mob ever actually saw the cartoons. Which speaks for itself.
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 14:55
by markfiend
Did anyone else see the guy holding a placard that said "Behead those who say Islam is violent" ?
Clicky
Matthew Paris speaks sense on this:
Clicky
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 16:21
by straylight
Very good article that, thanks markfiend.
The religious fear mockery much more than rational debate because they always use 'it says here' arguments to get out of debate, but that just won't work for mockery. If their god/prophet/whatever won't stand for such behaviour, but here we are doing it, what's the logical conclusion?
The way I see it, when someone is offended they may of course protest, write strongly worded letters to whoever they like and organise boycotts, however random. And they may have a reasonable expectation of not being awoken by the 3 am knock and never being seen again. The price for being able to express their views is that others can do so too. And they might not always agree. But any special pleading for religious as opposed to say political belief just doesn't make sense.
I wouldn't go out of the way to offend anyone for the sake of it, but nor will I censor my opinions of this or that religion based on the perceived volatility or touchiness of its adherents. That would be just as insulting as random abuse.
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 20:31
by mugabe
Denmark's domestic policy is overtly xenophobic, and they're also part of the Western occupying power on Arab territory. With this in mind, publishing cartoons depicting the prophet as a terrorist, for no apparent reason other than to provoke muslims, and then refer to freedom of speech is pretty ludicrous.
Resorting to violence in order to vent the discontent with the publication is, of course, worse. However, one must keep in mind that there are forces in both camps using the situation for their own purposes, and that the voice of reason doesn't usually sell any single copies.
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/ has a levelheaded view on the events from an Arab perspective.
markfiend wrote:I'm sick of this idea that we must "respect" people's religious beliefs. Why?
Because "we" must respect other people, period. As do they, of course.
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 20:59
by lazarus corporation
mugabe wrote:markfiend wrote:I'm sick of this idea that we must "respect" people's religious beliefs. Why?
Because "we" must respect other people, period. As do they, of course.
I think the problem with saying that "you must 'respect' people's religious beliefs" is that most common religious belief systems in the West state that people not-of-that-faith...
- will be deservingly subject to eternal torture in some mythical dimension after death (indicating a lack of respect for different beliefs/values/ethics)
- must be converted (indicating a lack of respect for different beliefs/values/ethics)
Nit-pickers might notice I'm picking on christians here, mainly because I know more about that religion than any other, but I'm reasonably certain that Islam runs along the same lines.
So people (particularly athiests) are naturally less-than-chuffed to be told to respect other people's religious beliefs when those same religious beliefs state that they must accept the orthodoxy or be eternally tortured.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that most common religious belief systems intrinsically encourage and teach a lack of respect for the beliefs of others. That's fine by me, but they then can't demand that I respect their beliefs.
Posted: 08 Feb 2006, 23:46
by canon docre
mugabe wrote:Denmark's domestic policy is overtly xenophobic, and they're also part of the Western occupying power on Arab territory. With this in mind, publishing cartoons depicting the prophet as a terrorist, for no apparent reason other than to provoke muslims, and then refer to freedom of speech is pretty ludicrous.
Thats the same false argument a lot of the agitators use. The magazine in question is not state-owned. The state of Denmark (however xenophobic it might be) has nothing to do with publishing these cartoons. Therefore the danish governement justifiably refused to apologise.
Of course this is very hard to understand by people who dont know what an independent press or freedom of speech is. But you?
Posted: 09 Feb 2006, 09:16
by euphoria
canon docre wrote:
Thats the same false argument a lot of the agitators use. The magazine in question is not state-owned. The state of Denmark (however xenophobic it might be) has nothing to do with publishing these cartoons. Therefore the danish governement justifiably refused to apologise.
Of course this is very hard to understand by people who dont know what an independent press or freedom of speech is. But you?
I'm not an expert on this, but is "freedom of speech" the whole thruth? Most, if not all, countries have (correct me if I'm wrong) laws against "ethnical bashing". I don't know what the correct term is. These pictures could be seen (well they have and are, by some people) as "arab-bashing" even if they merely were meant to be caricatures of Muhammed. Not that I think they were meant to be merely that, given the political leaning of Jyllandsposten.
Then I'm fully with you on what you wrote above - this conflict was most of all fuelled by disliked governments in the arab world who at last found a chance to blame someone else for what they have failed in (which is everything). I'm even prepared to go further than them "allowing" the embassy attacks - it wouldn't surprise me the least if they brought people in by bus from the poorest areas of the country...i.e. the people who suffer most from their own government. Very cynical but also very logical.