Danish embassy invaded

[Elok]

Okay, let me try to illustrate my point with a story. Hopefully you're still in a mood to listen.

Back in 2001, I was just starting at St. Mary's College. I was there on 9/11. While I was there, a friend told me about a party he attended about a month after the attacks.

He went with a friend. Now both of these people were very idealistic--pacifists, anarchists, communists, some crap like that. I thought they were nuts, but they were nice and friendly people. The difference between them was that my friend (we'll call him "Bob") had a definite sense of tact and restraint, whereas his companion at the party ("Fred") did not. Fred spoke up for justice bravely and clearly in all circumstances.

Also at that party was a very patriotic, very drunk U.S. Marine. This individual was, rather tastelessly, screaming that he was going to "go up to those ragheads, tear off their ****ing heads, and take a piss down their ****ing throats," or something to that effect. Fred was indignant at this, and he reproved the Marine. You can't judge a whole people by the actions of a few, violence won't undo what happened, and many other noble sentiments which I more or less agree with.

Bob agreed with these sentiments too, but he very quickly dragged Fred's ass out of that party before the argument could get too heated. His reasons? Examine the case:

-The Marine was extremely large and muscled, had probably been trained to kill with his bare hands, and at the moment had no freaking self-control whatsoever. He had no right to hit them for disagreeing with him, but he was not in a philosophical mood, or of a philosophical temperament even while sober. Had he turned violent, it probably would have taken several members of Public Safety with clubs and/or tasers to settle him.
-Fred and Bob were skinny philosopher-nerd types, in their moral rights to correct the man, but laughably incapable of standing up to the Marine should he choose to blow his fuse, which appeared imminent.
-Acting on the principles of "don't start crap you can't finish" and "don't make trouble at somebody else's party," not to mention the plain common sense of not looking for an ass-whooping, Bob dragged a protesting Fred out of the room.

I contest that, while the Marine was being a thug, Bob acted rightly in the situation (though perhaps he should have called Public Safety as well). I think similar logic applies here. No doubt our military is capable of eventually subduing attackers (or at least we'll assume as much for the sake of argument), and no doubt the rioters are wrong to flip out. However, it seems plain to me that the newspaper knew the cartoons might make trouble, they were of course aware that they had no power of their own to protect others should trouble be made, and they published the cartoons anyway, as a matter of principle. That was damnably stupid; they've apologized for it, but the fact remains that it was a stupid freaking thing to do, and I don't think they can be called innocent bystanders. That's all I'm saying.

[lord of the mark]

what we have are two fears.

Many muslims fear that the West aims to "deislamize" them, in one fashion or another. They dont want that to happen, and they dont make fine distinctions about whether the deislamizing happens by force, by word, or by temptation. They feel besieged. As indeed most traditional ways and religions feel besieged by the modern world. But they are different, cause Islam was a pretty dominant civilization not that long ago in their cultural memory, and such competitors as it had were NOT the West, which was markedly inferior.

many in the west OTOH, fear an Islamic attempt to eliminate their freedom. They feel besieged by immigrants, terrorists, and political and social pressures not to offend Islam.

These fears, both of which have some root justification, tend to play off and exacerbate each other.


I dont have an answer. I wouldnt go out of my way to offend ANYONE. But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea. In the current atmosphere I wouldnt even focus on blaming the papers in question. I still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom. On the other hand that effort hasnt been going so well the last few weeks and months. I dont think TRYING to deislamize the Islamic world will work. And I dont think withdrawing from the region, abandoning our friends and allies both within and on the borders of the Islamic world will work either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, let me try to illustrate my point with a story. Hopefully you're still in a mood to listen.

Back in 2001, I was just starting at St. Mary's College. I was there on 9/11. While I was there, a friend told me about a party he attended about a month after the attacks.

He went with a friend. Now both of these people were very idealistic--pacifists, anarchists, communists, some crap like that. I thought they were nuts, but they were nice and friendly people. The difference between them was that my friend (we'll call him "Bob") had a definite sense of tact and restraint, whereas his companion at the party ("Fred") did not. Fred spoke up for justice bravely and clearly in all circumstances.

Also at that party was a very patriotic, very drunk U.S. Marine. This individual was, rather tastelessly, screaming that he was going to "go up to those ragheads, tear off their ****ing heads, and take a piss down their ****ing throats," or something to that effect. Fred was indignant at this, and he reproved the Marine. You can't judge a whole people by the actions of a few, violence won't undo what happened, and many other noble sentiments which I more or less agree with.

Bob agreed with these sentiments too, but he very quickly dragged Fred's ass out of that party before the argument could get too heated. His reasons? Examine the case:

-The Marine was extremely large and muscled, had probably been trained to kill with his bare hands, and at the moment had no freaking self-control whatsoever. He had no right to hit them for disagreeing with him, but he was not in a philosophical mood, or of a philosophical temperament even while sober. Had he turned violent, it probably would have taken several members of Public Safety with clubs and/or tasers to settle him.
-Fred and Bob were skinny philosopher-nerd types, in their moral rights to correct the man, but laughably incapable of standing up to the Marine should he choose to blow his fuse, which appeared imminent.
-Acting on the principles of "don't start crap you can't finish" and "don't make trouble at somebody else's party," not to mention the plain common sense of not looking for an ass-whooping, Bob dragged a protesting Fred out of the room.

I contest that, while the Marine was being a thug, Bob acted rightly in the situation (though perhaps he should have called Public Safety as well). I think similar logic applies here. No doubt our military is capable of eventually subduing attackers (or at least we'll assume as much for the sake of argument), and no doubt the rioters are wrong to flip out. However, it seems plain to me that the newspaper knew the cartoons might make trouble, they were of course aware that they had no power of their own to protect others should trouble be made, and they published the cartoons anyway, as a matter of principle. That was damnably stupid; they've apologized for it, but the fact remains that it was a stupid freaking thing to do, and I don't think they can be called innocent bystanders. That's all I'm saying.

The Danish paper didnt hand out flyers with the cartoons on the streets of Cairo and Damascus, Gaza and Kabul. They published them in DENMARK. In a paper written in Danish, and with minimal circulation outside of Denmark. Its as if the your two friends had said their pacifist stuff to each other, in their home, and then some guest of theirs were to pass on the conversation to this Marine, who then threatens them if they come near him, etc, etc. Its one thing to be descrete in public - its another to have no place where you can speak freely.

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor

After having spent hours on French Muslim websites, I do think it is. My general impression is that the cartoons are seen as a major provocation that comes from a west that is so arrogant that it believes nothing can happen to it.

THAT ARROGANT WEST. HOW DARE YOU INFIDELS BELIEVE THAT WE WON'T GO TO WAR WITH YOU OVER A BUNCH OF CARTOONS?!! WHY I HAVE KILLED FOR FAR LESS THAN THIS! ME STRONG! ME BEND IRON RAIL WITH SMALL DIGIT AND BREAK LIKE TWIG.

[Spiffor]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what we have are two fears.

Many muslims fear that the West aims to "deislamize" them, in one fashion or another. They dont want that to happen, and they dont make fine distinctions about whether the deislamizing happens by force, by word, or by temptation. They feel besieged. As indeed most traditional ways and religions feel besieged by the modern world. But they are different, cause Islam was a pretty dominant civilization not that long ago in their cultural memory, and such competitors as it had were NOT the West, which was markedly inferior.

many in the west OTOH, fear an Islamic attempt to eliminate their freedom. They feel besieged by immigrants, terrorists, and political and social pressures not to offend Islam.

These fears, both of which have some root justification, tend to play off and exacerbate each other.


I dont have an answer. I wouldnt go out of my way to offend ANYONE. But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea. In the current atmosphere I wouldnt even focus on blaming the papers in question. I still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom. On the other hand that effort hasnt been going so well the last few weeks and months. I dont think TRYING to deislamize the Islamic world will work. And I dont think withdrawing from the region, abandoning our friends and allies both within and on the borders of the Islamic world will work either.

[Elok]

This is true. However, it seems very relevant to me that the majority of the cartoonists would only produce their drawings anonymously. The cartoons were meant to illustrate the immense ticklishness of the subject in question; the author couldn't find an illustrator for his children's book, they were so afraid of reprisal. They had to have been anticipating some unpleasant reaction.

The reaction they anticipated was evidently much, much smaller, but members of the press should know that what they do can have a surprisingly large impact. The year was 2005, not 1910. News travels fast, and to all kinds of people. And as we learned, there were plenty of local nuts willing to scream indignantly about it to their foreign friends, though they were powerless to do anything themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a sizable Muslim immigrant population in most West European countries?

[Az]

I dont have an answer. I wouldnt go out of my way to offend ANYONE. But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea. In the current atmosphere I wouldnt even focus on blaming the papers in question. I still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom. On the other hand that effort hasnt been going so well the last few weeks and months. I dont think TRYING to deislamize the Islamic world will work. And I dont think withdrawing from the region, abandoning our friends and allies both within and on the borders of the Islamic world will work either.

Dear god, what on earth are you trying to say by this?

But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea.

IS THAT EVEN ON THE ****ING TABLE?!!!!WTF?!

still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom.

And those forces are oh so very well connected to the vibe of the general muslim population...

The only place they are connected to a serious part of the population is in Iran. But our policy so far has been to placate the "Good Ayatollahs", as if that's not an oxymoron, the "reformists", instead of helping and throwing money on actual people who want a free Iran.

Well, gosh darn it, it seems that the current prez shows our policies have been spot on, no?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Az

I dont have an answer. I wouldnt go out of my way to offend ANYONE. But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea. In the current atmosphere I wouldnt even focus on blaming the papers in question. I still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom. On the other hand that effort hasnt been going so well the last few weeks and months. I dont think TRYING to deislamize the Islamic world will work. And I dont think withdrawing from the region, abandoning our friends and allies both within and on the borders of the Islamic world will work either.

"Dear god, what on earth are you trying to say by this?"

Im not sure what part is confusing you.

But I dont think reintroducing state censorship, blasphemy laws, into the West is a good idea.

IS THAT EVEN ON THE ****ING TABLE?!!!!WTF?!


Well there was a law proposed in Britain that some saw as being close to that. And I see several people here posting to blame the newspapers, with the strong implication of "if only that lousy right wing danish paper hadnt published,we wouldnt have this problem" I realize thats not the same as calling for censorship, but it edges in that direction. And of course some muslims ARE calling for censorship. They are blaming Denmark for ALLOWING the publication.

still think the only long term answer is to help those forces in the Islamic world that are building a newer Islamic civilization, one that accommodates freedom.

"And those forces are oh so very well connected to the vibe of the general muslim population...

The only place they are connected to a serious part of the population is in Iran. But our policy so far has been to placate the "Good Ayatollahs", as if that's not an oxymoron, the "reformists", instead of helping and throwing money on actual people who want a free Iran. "

We can discuss Iran elsewhere, I think you and I are closer to agreement. As for how things have been going in the rest of the muslim world, ive said its been a rough time lately. I dont see an alternative policy on the table though. You can hope to go turtle behind the security fence - for most in the west going turtle will mean abandoning YOU, among other things.

[Az]

This is true. However, it seems very relevant to me that the majority of the cartoonists would only produce their drawings anonymously. The cartoons were meant to illustrate the immense ticklishness of the subject in question; the author couldn't find an illustrator for his children's book, they were so afraid of reprisal. They had to have been anticipating some unpleasant reaction.

Question: say a woman is walking through, in revealing clothing, and I mean very revealing, in a neighboorhood that is well-known to be populated by misogynistic bastards. She knows that there have been attacks there, and generally knows what the nature of the people there - they believe they have the right to harass or even sexually assault a woman that dresses in such a manner - but when they choose not to, they look at such dress with disgust. ( Hypocricy in those matters is quite typical of some 'traditional' societies ).

To make a long story short, she's raped.


Who's to blame for the rape? Was the woman stupid? Was she to blame for it? Should she be reprimanded for walking the way she did?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az
[
Should she be reprimanded for walking the way she did?

By her parents yes (though this probably isnt the best moment). By those in society whose responsibility it is to assure safe streets, no. Absolutely not.

[Az]

Well there was a law proposed in Britain that some saw as being close to that. And I see several people here posting to blame the newspapers, with the strong implication of "if only that lousy right wing danish paper hadnt published,we wouldnt have this problem" I realize thats not the same as calling for censorship, but it edges in that direction. And of course some muslims ARE calling for censorship. They are blaming Denmark for ALLOWING the publication.

This wasn't directed at you really, this was directed at all sane non-muslim westerners, and all sane muslims. All people who think there should be some sort of censorship are either fundies, or have lost a couple of bolts. And if you don't think there should be censorship, you just don't like what those evil people at the paper did - fine - don't buy the fricking paper.

We can discuss Iran elsewhere, I think you and I are closer to agreement. As for how things have been going in the rest of the muslim world, ive said its been a rough time lately. I dont see an alternative policy on the table though. You can hope to go turtle behind the security fence - for most in the west going turtle will mean abandoning YOU, among other things.

And how on earth did the west help us lately in our struggle? Well you guys didn't effectively help the other side in the Sec. Council. Or didn't emargo us when some people wanted. I guess we can thank you for that

The only people really helping us are you, as in the americans, with the military budget assistance, and the Germans with their gift submarine. Thanks for that. But it's not crucial.

I can easily think of ways in which the west opposed us, or "tried to save us from ourselves", though. Well thanks for that, too.

[Az]

By her parents yes (though this probably isnt the best moment). By those in society whose responsibility it is to assure safe streets, no. Absolutely not.

Lets assume that she's not some sort of teenager, but an independent woman.

[Az]

Btw, I am reminded now that we had riots by christian arabs due to that "Last temptation of Christ" movie a couple of years ago.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

By her parents yes (though this probably isnt the best moment). By those in society whose responsibility it is to assure safe streets, no. Absolutely not.

Lets assume that she's not some sort of teenager, but an independent woman.

You think parents lose the right to reprimand when a child grows up?