Denmark warns of new cartoon crisis with Muslims

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The irony is that "The Passion of the Christ" was banned in many/most moslem countries for exactly the same reasons as they are opposed to the cartoons. Something that the christian zealots (at least here) seem to have overlooked.

If they want to ban things like Passion of the Christ and these cartoons in their country, fine, thats their right. However, trying to force their laws and beliefs in other countries is not.

[Spiffor]

BTW, I think the Muslim bigots have been exceptionally adept at making people think with an "us vs them" mindset. Not only can we see it on 'Poly (where people are generally more educated and liberal than mainstream society), but I can see it in real life as well.

One has to admire these ****er's efficiency

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Donegeal
However, trying to force their laws and beliefs in other countries is not.

One of the official aims in the war in Iraq was to bring democracy there. That's also why the US and the EU officially supported revolutions in Ukraine or Georgia, and why the Byelorussian opposition gets financial support from the west.

Many countries in this world have a universal message that they wants to spread (France and the US are two notable examples in the west), and they have regularly used force to that effect.

Is it a good thing? I agree with you that it's not.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Donegeal


If they want to ban things like Passion of the Christ and these cartoons in their country, fine, thats their right. However, trying to force their laws and beliefs in other countries is not.

You miss the point. Moslem opposition to media portrayals of the prophets is not limited to Mohammed. Of course, the virulence of the opposition has been greater with Mohammed than Jesus but the fact remains. American media coverage of the situation overlooks this. IMO, it's indicative of why the USA will never understand the 'moslem' viewpoint and one reason why we will never have peace with them.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Spiffor
One of the official aims in the war in Iraq was to bring democracy there. That's also why the US and the EU officially supported revolutions in Ukraine or Georgia, and why the Byelorussian opposition gets financial support from the west.

Many countries in this world have a universal message that they wants to spread (France and the US are two notable examples in the west), and they have regularly used force to that effect.

Is it a good thing? I agree with you that it's not.

True. I was thinking this myself. There are many paralles, but that can be said of most conflicts; it really boils down to wether or not you agree that forcing a law/belief on someone is the right thing to do.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

One of the official aims in the war in Iraq was to bring democracy there. That's also why the US and the EU officially supported revolutions in Ukraine or Georgia, and why the Byelorussian opposition gets financial support from the west.

Many countries in this world have a universal message that they wants to spread (France and the US are two notable examples in the west), and they have regularly used force to that effect.

Is it a good thing? I agree with you that it's not.

A. The US and the EU did not officialy support revolution in Ukraine or Georgia. Small amounts of funds were disbursed to aid in things like voter registration. If thats "forcing ones views" it pales in contrast to say Saudi subsidies to madrassahs. But those subsidies are NOT whats at issue here, but rather attempts to prevent freedom of speech. After the elections in Ukraine, we maintained in public that the first elections were fraudulent. That was a simple statement of fact, not supporting a revolution. Is the whole system of election monitoring a revolutionary imposition of values?

B. In Iraq we did not impose western cultural values. We simply allowed the Iraqis to meet and write a constitution to their liking, and to vote on it, and on a new govt. That constitution includes a place for Islam that is NOT consistent with western culture, and that many in the west find troubling. The attempt to spread democracy to IRaq may well prove a failure, but the intent was not what you charecterize at as. Unless you think that a totalitarian dictatorship based on a mass mobilizaton political party is something intrinsic to middle eastern culture. Id say the regime we overthrew had deeper roots in mid-20th c Europe than it did in the political culture of the ME. If anything, people are now regretting its passing, because, it seems, the Baathists restrained the political culture of Iraq.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by SpencerH


You miss the point. Moslem opposition to media portrayals of the prophets is not limited to Mohammed. Of course, the virulence of the opposition has been greater with Mohammed than Jesus but the fact remains. American media coverage of the situation overlooks this. IMO, it's indicative of why the USA will never understand the 'moslem' viewpoint and one reason why we will never have peace with them.

I guess your right, whatever point your trying to make is completely missed by me. I re-read your post and my response is: So what? What difference does it make that they protest reresentaions of Jesus as well?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Az

the sooner genuine secular Islamic leaderships

oxymoron?

It was unthinkable for Christianity at one stage. I'm sure many of us have known secular Muslims.

[Az]

Many countries in this world have a universal message that they wants to spread (France and the US are two notable examples in the west), and they have regularly used force to that effect.

Is it a good thing? I agree with you that it's not.

It's a good thing when it's a good message and it's spread properly.

Would Nazi Germany be "ok" if it wasn't expansionistic?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


It was unthinkable for Christianity at one stage. I'm sure many of us have known secular Muslims.

I've certainly known some secular Jews.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Well, I think Spiffor has a point.

I believe that the rise of pan-Islamic interventionism mirrors the rise of interventionist policies in the West. Whether that intervention is 'hard' (bombing & invading countries, crashing planes into buildings) or soft (promoting opposition movements, shrill protests about cartoons), it is still interventionism.

[Az]

It was unthinkable for Christianity at one stage. I'm sure many of us have known secular Muslims.

I guess I know what you mean though I am not sure that this is the proper wording.

I've certainly known some secular Jews.

[Pekka]

This is what really happens. Islamists will look for ANY reason to attack Westerners in ALL fronts of life. This means, that they want to create a mess, they will hype things up, they will excite people and the masses. Islamists want to turn as much nations into nations of Islam as possible, and this means the model where there are no other leaders or competition.

This is to be done by any means necessary. By giving into these guys is only to give little and little until you realize that they don't want you, they want it all. THey want you to turn or die. So what, are you going to turn? That's the wrong question.

The wrong question is also how can we stop insulting muslims. The right question is, how can everyone understand each other enough so that we can live peacefully. This does not start from us giving up freedoms. Period.

I don't have any fantasies or need to insult this religion. I just don't see why I should draw a picture or whatever of their prophet. And I consider that since it's a big insult to many people in that world, I should just respect that and let it go. But I would defend anyones right to draw what ever the hell they want in here. This is the difference. I'm not here to insult people.

Let's not forget, these are people who are extending their orders from OTHER countries. Since when did we start taking orders from other countries, and religious leaders for that matter? And what do they offer in return? Nothing except '... or else'. That's not negotiating how we can respect each other more. That's threats and fighting words.

If you bend over on this issue, you will bend over little by little in the future as well. And like I said, I'm not here to say that insulting is cool, or that bad taste is great. I'm saying, it's a matter of opinion and choice.

Since when did we start combining the issues of respect and tolerance with groups with 0 tolerance? Since when did we start 'OK we'll be more considering' when the other side gives no such things for us?

I have no problem of respecting everyones beliefs. What I do have a problem is when people with beliefs starts to force their way of life with mine. I don't even care if I happen to agree with those ways. I do not recognize religion as legit political force, because it is by nature oppressive to others who are from different side.

So no. Because if we would argue that of course we need to respect this so far that we would take orders from this thing and basically go against our own freedom of speech, then we have to respect every other section as well. So when the BoomBastics come, the new religion, that forbids us from eating monkeys on Saturdays OR ELSE... I'm not saying I eat monkeys all day long, but if I want to eat a monkey, I'll eat one.

Or, if the religion of LatterDayFootWorshippers come and say we can't wear any shoes on Sunday.. because it insults them.. man.. screw the FootWorshippers. I'm wearing shoes. It is the FOOTWORSHIPPERS that must be also tolerant. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

Basically I detest anything that tries to force what I should do or stop doing. We have laws for what we can't do. That's it. It's perfectly fine, so we can ALL do our own things. not just one group does their thing and the rest of us.. well too bad!

Also I think this is quite relevant issue of freedom. This is not about cartoons. This is about domination. Even if most would find these cartoons etc to be of bad taste.. so what. But the real issue is, most who are against them in here are so because they are afraid of the consequences. that's fear, not respect.

It's a great test of our strength in our democracies and freedom of speech. Do you bend over in the gates of possible violence? Most would. But those people are pussies anyway who would sell anyone of us out for promised security from the mafia. Now ask yourself, are you truly secured? We don't buy security from the ones who threatens us. That's like giving your stuff to some big dude in your first day in prison. A bad f'ing idea.

And it's ridiculous because in this case we are the big dude. It's not like we'll be dominated.

EU is the biggest loser in this issue.

Also.. I heard they did some video, higly insulting video from right wing youth. Am I saying we should make these videos? No. I'm saying we deal with these like we always do. If there's something that can be prosecuted, we'll do that. But peopel outside our judicial system should basically stfu. It's not their problem. They don't own us. Correction, they don't own all of us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Well, I think Spiffor has a point.

I believe that the rise of pan-Islamic interventionism mirrors the rise of interventionist policies in the West. Whether that intervention is 'hard' (bombing & invading countries, crashing planes into buildings) or soft (promoting opposition movements, shrill protests about cartoons), it is still interventionism.

Yeah, if some cultures want to do blasphemous cartoons, they should let other cultures do ethnic cleansing. Everybodys culture is unique, ya know?

[Arrian]

That's a mischaracterization of his point, LotM.

-Arrian