How is this okay? (Muslim Rioting)

[Elok]

Huh, nobody mentioned that moronic Neo-Con "Democracy Domino Effect" theory yet as a possible reason? You know, we make Iraq into a democracy, and then our ideals spread around the region like the clap in a whorehouse? I mean, sure, it's a stupid reason to go to war, but that doesn't mean Bush didn't believe it. Or maybe he was just "wagging the dog," as the saying goes. Or possibly he wanted to kill lots of American soldiers instead of lots of American civilians ("fighting terrorists overseas so we don't have to fight them here."). If there was a more tangible benefit that he expected from the affair, such as oil, we're yet to see any of it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
If there was a more tangible benefit that he expected from the affair, such as oil, we're yet to see any of it.

Oil companies made hand over fist last year...

[Imran Siddiqui]

And so did defense contractors, but I don't hear anyone saying Bush went to war for Boeing.

And, no, saying Bush had 'oil buddies' doesn't cut it, because if you think that Bush didn't have defense contractor friends, you are just deluding yourself.

And of course this all assumes that Bush was so cunning to realize a war against Iraq would disrupt oil supply enough (through insurrections) to allow oil companies to charge a Hell of a lot of money. It seemed that Bush, if anything, was surprised by such a response.

[KrazyHorse]

Stop capitalising "hell" when it's not actually referring to the mythological location.

[Elok]

He's watching curling; I'm afraid Hell is anything but mythical for him at the moment.

[Winston]

http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/IMAGES/Animaties%20Joep/100206_JOEP%20BERTRAMS_cartoonstrijd.swf

The first word that is displayed, "gevoelig", means sensitive.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Winston

http://www.novatv.nl/uploaded/IMAGES/Animaties%20Joep/100206_JOEP%20BERTRAMS_cartoonstrijd.swf

The first word that is displayed, "gevoelig", means sensitive.

excellent

[Zoid]

I read an interesting article in The Nation with cartoonists Joe Sacco (Palestine, Safe Area Gorazde) and Art Spiegelman (Maus) discussing free speech and cartooning. I mostly agree with Sacco. But to some extent also with Spiegelman.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060306/interview

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zoid
I read an interesting article in The Nation with cartoonists Joe Sacco (Palestine, Safe Area Gorazde) and Art Spiegelman (Maus) discussing free speech and cartooning. I mostly agree with Sacco. But to some extent also with Spiegelman.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060306/interview

Disagree. He has one point, and that is a pic says more than words can express, but besides that he doesn't make sense.

[Zoid]

It feels a bit cut off, maybe the web article is a shorter version of the printed one? But I think he made another good point when he discussed the limits of free speech.

[notyoueither]

Sacco comes off as ignorant and opinionated.

He doesn't have a grasp of the basic facts, yet he is calling others 'idiots'.

He would fit right in here.

[Zoid]

Very much so. But he´d probably be banned repeatedly for posting trollish cartoons...

[BlackCat]

I guess you mean this :

SACCO: All societies have their taboos. Are these editorial cartoonists going to rush to the defense of anti-Semitic cartoons? I doubt it, frankly. There are countries in the so-called West--Germany, Austria--where depiction of Nazi imagery is against the law, and even doing a Hitler salute--you could be imprisoned for something like that. It's a hot time on this planet, and tempers are going to flare, and people are going to get hurt with these sorts of things. Freedom of the press, or the idea that you can depict anything--we simply don't subscribe to that when it comes down to it. I mean, child porn is not allowed. There are certain barriers or borders we all sort of agree, or most of us agree, where you are taking things too far. I personally don't necessarily think that attacking a religion is taking it too far, or even working within the imagery of religion to attack it. But you have to judge each instance, and what it means.

While it is quite true that societies have their taboos, I just wonder what that has to do with the drawings. Last I took a look at denmark it wasn't a muslim country and therefore didn't had a taboo about depicting muhammed. Neither do we have a taboo about nazis - they are a legal party and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to get any kind of influence - when they raise their little ugly heads we send some senior citizens against them and they are finished. It's only when the leftwingers send their stormtroops out the nazis get what they want.

Comparting critizism of a religion to child porn is just obscene.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by notyoueither

He would fit right in here.

Maybe we should mail him a link to the site

[Zoid]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I guess you mean this :

While it is quite true that societies have their taboos, I just wonder what that has to do with the drawings. Last I took a look at denmark it wasn't a muslim country and therefore didn't had a taboo about depicting muhammed. Neither do we have a taboo about nazis - they are a legal party and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to get any kind of influence - when they raise their little ugly heads we send some senior citizens against them and they are finished. It's only when the leftwingers send their stormtroops out the nazis get what they want.

Comparting critizism of a religion to child porn is just obscene.

His point is, I guess, that while we in the west may get away with publishing anti-muslim cartoons. We´ll never do that with child porn or nazi stuff. And that the freedom of speech we hold so dear is only a freedom that we choose. Thus we decide what is freedom of speech and what is not. And we´re using it as a weapon against our enemies.