The Danish Cartoon - pretext to war?? !!??

Nuttzz

Prepare your pitchforks and burning torches for the march on the Iranian embassy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1704174,00.html

A bestselling Iranian newspaper, Hamshari, announced it was retaliating by holding a competition to find the best images satirising the Holocaust. The move mirrors the exercise of the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, whose publication of 12 images of Muhammad in September sparked the row.

ShayHT

Freedom of speech?

The paper refused to print cartoons of Jesus cause it might cause offense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...703501,00.html

(Not that that justifies the OTT reaction, but does make the whole freedom of speech thing seem irrelevant)

fly_agaric

The Corinthian - you are right about the Holocaust sacred cow.

but...

There's a big difference between questioning the figures on the holocaust or calling the zionists and their friends on their usage of it as a political stick to beat people over the head with and (1) denying it ever happened at all or (2) rípping the piss out of it (Will the few survivors left and their kids will be laughing along too?)

Is there not also a difference between using freedom of expression to wilfully deny the truth or make a mockery of a tragedy and using it to criticise (or even insult) religious beliefs?

Anyway, lets see the cartoonists make some insensitive jibes about the death toll courtesy of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war right after they have a little satirical swipe at the Mullahs.

Essey

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s not entirely true. Be it illegal or simply taboo, it is actually a no-no to question or revise any detail of the accepted detail of the Holocaust.

An example that comes to mind was during recent TV coverage of a ceremony marking the liberation of Auschwitz where a commentator pointed out that “six million Jews and five or six million of other groups died” in the Holocaust. Had the same commentator suggested “five or six million Jews” then he would have quite likely lost his job, and in some European countries would have been arrested too.

Of course, you might say (have said) that the weight of historical evidence is firmly behind the orthodox interpretation of the period, but that’s not terribly difficult when no other evidence is allowed. And we’re not even talking about Holocaust denial here, but those who may wish to challenge only some of the official facts. Actually, to even criticise the industry that has built around it (not even the Holocaust itself) will get you in trouble, even if you’re both Jewish and your parents are Holocaust survivors.

So don’t kid yourself that our approach to the Holocaust is any less irrational than Islam’s approach to Mohammad.

So, say you’re a Muslim and the president of Iran comes out and says that the Holocaust never happened. There’s international uproar - even the UN condemns it. Then, shortly thereafter, you see your Prophet not only depicted (which is pretty taboo) but grossly insulted too. But what really takes the biscuit is that this time the West throws up it’s arms and pleads “Free Speech” - even the UN calls it that and asks you to take a chill pill.

Would you think:

1. Ahh, sure, it’s only a bit of satirical fun, or
2. what a bunch or hypocritical racist-sectarian bastards.

The correct answer is of course b. If you picked a, then you are actually criminally stupid.

Of course, this does not condone the present riots, but it does explain them. And it probably also explains this too.

I'm not sure I understand where your coming from - You issued a link to Norman Finkelstein suggesting that he some how "got in trouble" because of his views/interpretations surrounding the Holocaust. I'm not sure where there was "trouble" - Mr. Finkelstein has written serval books on the topic and continues to be interviewed in the media. He has never been arrested, beheaded, nor his home stormed in the dead of night. If indeed he has suffered - with the exceptions of his feeling being hurt - please indicate - I was never aware. When the President of Iran indicates that the Holocaust "never happened" this is a fallacious statement. He isn't issuing an opinion - but rather trying to sell a fact. There have been numerous eye-witness accounts (Jewish, non-Jewish, and even Nazi) that the Holocaust did in fact take place - not to meantion film footage. Mr. Ahmadinjad isn't point out a particular episode or series of episode but rather he is disparaging the entire event. Regardless of the number of people, their race, creed, hair color - the Holocaust was catastrophic moment in history - which if taught with intellectual responsiability - can lead to lessons being learnt - by all. When the West throws up its arms and cries "Free Speech" - I believe they mean it! I've stated in previous post why I feel Free speech is esential to a civilized and frankly I feel that enough of people have died beacuse of a cartoon - when the UN suggests a chill pill - I would also sugest and nice cold beer, kick back and watch South Park. They would be better rounded for it.:cool:

The Corinthian

Essey wrote:

I'm not sure I understand where your coming from - You issued a link to Norman Finkelstein suggesting that he some how "got in trouble" because of his views/interpretations surrounding the Holocaust. I'm not sure where there was "trouble" - Mr. Finkelstein has written serval books on the topic and continues to be interviewed in the media. He has never been arrested, beheaded, nor his home stormed in the dead of night. If indeed he has suffered - with the exceptions of his feeling being hurt - please indicate - I was never aware.

Personally when an organisation such as the Anti-Defamation League brands you a "Holocaust denier" and accuses you of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda, I’d consider it trouble. The ADL is not some fringe group, but a highly respected and influential international organization.

Of course I wasn’t suggesting that he was arrested, beheaded, had his home stormed in the dead of night, but demonstrating the level to which the entire subject has become so taboo to question that someone of his background cannot even criticise the industry surrounding it - let alone the historical facts.

When the President of Iran indicates that the Holocaust "never happened" this is a fallacious statement. He isn't issuing an opinion - but rather trying to sell a fact.

This is where you don’t see the parallel. From an Islamic viewpoint portraying Mohammad as a terrorist is trying to sell another fact. You may disagree with the reasoning used by Islam, but then again they don’t think much yours either.

There have been numerous eye-witness accounts (Jewish, non-Jewish, and even Nazi) that the Holocaust did in fact take place - not to meantion film footage. Mr. Ahmadinjad isn't point out a particular episode or series of episode but rather he is disparaging the entire event. Regardless of the number of people, their race, creed, hair color - the Holocaust was catastrophic moment in history - which if taught with intellectual responsiability - can lead to lessons being learnt - by all.

And from an Islamic point of view all evidence that cannot be examined or contradicted. After all, we’re apparently not actually allowed (by law or by social taboo) to do so - so why should he believe it?

“Of course it’s all true, there’s plenty of evidence.”

“Can I examine that evidence?”

“Of course not, how dare you??!!”

When the West throws up its arms and cries "Free Speech" - I believe they mean it!

Of course it does - in this case, and it is probably this double standard that has largely inflamed Islamic public opinion.

I've stated in previous post why I feel Free speech is esential to a civilized and frankly I feel that enough of people have died beacuse of a cartoon - when the UN suggests a chill pill - I would also sugest and nice cold beer, kick back and watch South Park. They would be better rounded for it.:cool:

That’s sweet, but if you learn nothing from why they could be so offended, it’ll just happen again. Only a matter of time.

Essey

The Corinthian wrote:

Personally when an organisation such as the Anti-Defamation League brands you a "Holocaust denier" and accuses you of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda, I’d consider it trouble. The ADL is not some fringe group, but a highly respected and influential international organization.

Of course I wasn’t suggesting that he was arrested, beheaded, had his home stormed in the dead of night, but demonstrating the level to which the entire subject has become so taboo to question that someone of his background cannot even criticise the industry surrounding it - let alone the historical facts.

This is where you don’t see the parallel. From an Islamic viewpoint portraying Mohammad as a terrorist is trying to sell another fact. You may disagree with the reasoning used by Islam, but then again they don’t think much yours either.

And from an Islamic point of view all evidence that cannot be examined or contradicted. After all, we’re apparently not actually allowed (by law or by social taboo) to do so - so why should he believe it?

“Of course it’s all true, there’s plenty of evidence.”

“Can I examine that evidence?”

“Of course not, how dare you??!!”

Of course it does - in this case, and it is probably this double standard that has largely inflamed Islamic public opinion.

That’s sweet, but if you learn nothing from why they could be so offended, it’ll just happen again. Only a matter of time.

When the ADL criticize your opinions its because it has a right to - just as Mr Finkelstien had a right to voice his opinions. If they had gone to Court and his book was banned from being published - will that would be another story. Mr. Finkelstein has profited from his criticism - don't feel bad for him.

I'm not sure I do see the parallel .... Some people might confuse the linking of Mohammed with "terrorism" through the notion of jihad which they themselves have perpetrated - if this would be true then I do disagree with the reasoning used by Islamic fundamentalists - and frankly they are welcome to disagree with me.

Who said that evidence cant be examined?? As far as examining evidence - did Mr. Ahmadinjad produce any?

Double Standard?? Has Islamic public opinion been muzzled? They sure burn enough of flags and storm plenty of embassies... does any of that not qualify for free of expression?

I know why they are offended - and I agree with them. As a practicing Christian I'm offended with the way people characterize my religious beliefs but I respect those view points even if some people don't respect mine - however, I certainly don't support the behavior of that which I've been witnessing for the past few days.

Captain Trips

The Corinthian wrote:

So, say you’re a Muslim and the president of Iran comes out and says that the Holocaust never happened. There’s international uproar - even the UN condemns it. Then, shortly thereafter, you see your Prophet not only depicted (which is pretty taboo) but grossly insulted too. But what really takes the biscuit is that this time the West throws up it’s arms and pleads “Free Speech” - even the UN calls it that and asks you to take a chill pill.

This is absolutely at the core of the matter. If we are defending one international incident by going for the Freedom of Speech banner, why is Ernst Zundel in jail in Austria?

Unless Freedom of Speech is only Freedom As Long As You Agree With Us Speech, and that is the mixed message sent to, of all places, Iran since the Holocaust comments by the president, so basically we are saying no you can't say that, but WE can say THIS.

The Corinthian

Essey wrote:

Who said that evidence cant be examined??

Give me any example where it has been socially acceptable to challenge what would be considered as the accepted historical account of the Holocaust?

Hell, even discussing this I feel I have to point out that I’m in no way denying the Holocaust, because there’s always the danger that some Muppet here will decide that I’m a Holocaust denier.

Double Standard?? Has Islamic public opinion been muzzled? They sure burn enough of flags and storm plenty of embassies... does any of that not qualify for free of expression?

You’re not really getting it, are you? You can’t get sanctimonious about something you think is serious and then tell others to chill out when something they think is serious is attacked.

Just because you feel justified about what you think is serious is irrelevant. They feel the same thing about their thing. And from their perspective, you’re a hypocrite.

Added to the Iraq conflict, their own ailing economies and gods know what other Machiavellian games their various leaders are playing at and it’s not terribly surprising that the whole thing blew up like this.

Doesn’t justify it, but it does go some way to explain it.

the_syco

Nuttzz wrote:

Prepare your pitchforks and burning torches for the march on the Iranian embassy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1704174,00.html

A bestselling Iranian newspaper, Hamshari, announced it was retaliating by holding a competition to find the best images satirising the Holocaust. The move mirrors the exercise of the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, whose publication of 12 images of Muhammad in September sparked the row.

It'll be even more funnier when most people (from the West) either laugh at the cartoon's, or just not give a sh|t about them.

Essey

The Corinthian wrote:

Give me any example where it has been socially acceptable to challenge what would be considered as the accepted historical account of the Holocaust?

Hell, even discussing this I feel I have to point out that I’m in no way denying the Holocaust, because there’s always the danger that some Muppet here will decide that I’m a Holocaust denier.

You’re not really getting it, are you? You can’t get sanctimonious about something you think is serious and then tell others to chill out when something they think is serious is attacked.

Just because you feel justified about what you think is serious is irrelevant. They feel the same thing about their thing. And from their perspective, you’re a hypocrite.

Added to the Iraq conflict, their own ailing economies and gods know what other Machiavellian games their various leaders are playing at and it’s not terribly surprising that the whole thing blew up like this.

Doesn’t justify it, but it does go some way to explain it.

If you have some evidence questioning the Holocaust by all means... Mr. Finkelstein believes he had and wrote at least 3 books on it - and I'm sure there is no Muppet here that would think badly of you if you have responsible arguments (or even logic) to back up your theories - I certainly wouldn't!

I'm not questioning whether Muslims should think of this situation as serious! I'm merely pointing out that at least 6 people have died over this - a little chilling out period might possibly be in order - again I point out - I'm not against them expressing their feelings - its the level at which they are behaving that is quite disturbing and frankly abnormal. By supporting this behavior, even through silence, Muslims are only going to be held responsible for the continuing and worsening situation that now exits between East & West. Its time to stop crying on the bench and get out and play the game. A little Muslim responsiblity would go a long way 'bout now.

Freddie59

the_syco wrote:

It'll be even more funnier when most people (from the West) either laugh at the cartoon's, or just not give a sh|t about them.

Exactly - I don't think you'd see an Iranian version of Fr. Ted somehow! That's what separates us from them - a sense of humour. We all laugh at religious jokes (I'm sure God even enjoys them - he gave us the sense of humour in the first place).:)

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

That's what separates us from them

I think you should consider going back to After Hours, really.

Freddie59

The Corinthian wrote:

Give me any example where it has been socially acceptable to challenge what would be considered as the accepted historical account of the Holocaust?

I suppose I am one of those muppets you mention - by your account. Why would you even want to question it? Six million men, women, and children eradicated with less dignity and respect which you would pay to an animal.

What YOU don't seem to get is that these Muslim fanatics are no different to Hitler - they just have a different way of doing things. I suppose one thing you have to begrudgingly give the German troops - they fought like men in the war (apart from the SS and Gestapo) - not cowards.

Frederico

Freddie59 wrote:

I suppose I am one of those muppets you mention - by your account. Why would you even want to question it? Six million men, women, and children eradicated with less dignity and respect which you would pay to an animal.

What YOU don't seem to get is that these Muslim fanatics are no different to Hitler - they just have a different way of doing things. I suppose one thing you have to begrudgingly give the German troops - they fought like men in the war (apart from the SS and Gestapo) - not cowards.

I think some muslim fanatics are as brave as they come.. the Russians found out in Chechnya and Afghanistan, Americans are finding out in Iraq. The logic behind what they are fighting for is the problem.

The Corinthian

Essey wrote:

If you have some evidence questioning the Holocaust by all means... Mr. Finkelstein believes he had and wrote at least 3 books on it - and I'm sure there is no Muppet here that would think badly of you if you have responsible arguments (or even logic) to back up your theories - I certainly wouldn't!

Finkelstein hasn’t questioned the Holocaust; he questioned the use of the Holocaust as money-spinner and as a means of political justification. However, I’m not discussing the Holocaust - indeed, I’ve no interest in it - outside of pointing to it as an example of where the West is happy to have a sacred cow that cannot be questioned.

On which point, you’ve yet to give me any example where it has been socially acceptable to challenge what would be considered as the accepted historical account of the Holocaust, as I asked.

I'm not questioning whether Muslims should think of this situation as serious! I'm merely pointing out that at least 6 people have died over this - a little chilling out period might possibly be in order - again I point out - I'm not against them expressing their feelings - its the level at which they are behaving that is quite disturbing and frankly abnormal.

No one disagrees with you here that it was an overreaction, or at least I don’t. All I’ve done is offer a reason for why they’re doing it. And, TBH, they do have a point about the double standards. This may not excuse them, but it would be foolish for us to simply assume that we’re more enlightened then them either.

By supporting this behavior, even through silence, Muslims are only going to be held responsible for the continuing and worsening situation that now exits between East & West. Its time to stop crying on the bench and get out and play the game. A little Muslim responsiblity would go a long way 'bout now.

Of course that’s the West’s view, but the opposing view is that we continuously adopt double standards with regard to Islam. We claim to want democracy in Iraq, but are happy to ignore the lack of it in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; we don’t want to see the proliferation of nuclear arms in nations like Iran, but are happy to turn a blind eye to Israel’s arsenal; and now we will hold up certain things to be ideological sacred cows (such as the Holocaust), but when Islam wants to do something similar we cry ‘free speech’.

I’d be pretty pissed off if I was a Muslim, and the cartoons are just the last straw, as it were.

Freddie59 wrote:

I suppose I am one of those muppets you mention - by your account. Why would you even want to question it? Six million men, women, and children eradicated with less dignity and respect which you would pay to an animal.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

What YOU don't seem to get is that these Muslim fanatics are no different to Hitler - they just have a different way of doing things.

You might want to work on that analogy a little.

I suppose one thing you have to begrudgingly give the German troops - they fought like men in the war (apart from the SS and Gestapo) - not cowards.

Hmmm... I see...

bug

I thought about all this and what I came up with was a mixture of politics and humanities.

there are a few things to consider as i see it,
Culture Differences combined with religious fundamentalism and/or strength of personal belief.
Mob reaction. Disadvantaged masses and the manipulation of same, politics in particular at point in time.


Of course I see it from a western viewpoint, spoilt, materialist, with no oppressors, Im a comfortable little EU baby. (for the current centuary anyways)

I dont see it as black and white. I agree that the images are insulting and deeply hurting to muslims.
Debating freedom of speech is irrelevant IMO on this matter. Our so called freedom of speech hasnt been getting us very far in recent years in western society as far as our governments, but thats another matter for disscution on another thread. Who knows some day... we might have a riot about it if anyone can get away from their 32" LCD screens to be bothered.

The issue at hand is the mockery of something so close to to an individual that if you arent religiously inclined, you cant understand it. No stop with the comebacks already...you cant. Logic cant combat Religions. Its like trying to ask someone with aspergers syndrome to explain emotions in depth. (from what I know of the matter)

Religion is emotive. Trying to logically disect it and present it in the same way as politics is somewhat difficult.
Throw politics, a frenzied media looking for WWIII, fundamentalistics taking advantage of the masses of underprivaledged in on top of that and mob psyche (which we are all guilty of, by our human nature, dependant on our circumstances) and you have a boiling pot, waiting to spill blood.

During famine times in Irealnd when the English were our oppressor, our isolated nation would have tarred and feathered the local who ridiculed Jesus. Pictorially represented or other.There would have been perhaps uproar.

You are now looking at this on a global scale, except everyone is much cleverer, the media is involved, and the masses in our western civalisation dont care as much about religion because we have to pay the bank,mortgage, downpayment off that bloody credit card..insert whatever here.

The cultural time differences are as far apart as if Doctor Who had hopped into the tardus between two civialisations.

Anyhow aside from all that considering western opinions at the present time regarding Islamic fundamentalism due to recent cartoons and their results. What better time to invade Iran? Eh?

dathi1

During famine times in Irealnd when the English were our oppressor, our isolated nation would have tarred and feathered the local who ridiculed Jesus.

there was always the local anti religious guy in the village. They never got death fatwa's.
I expect more grovelling to the jihadist minority by introducing more Blarite type incitement laws here. The neo Liberals are learing a hard lesson...there again they'll never learn.

fly_agaric

The Corinthian wrote:

we don’t want to see the proliferation of nuclear arms in nations like Iran, but are happy to turn a blind eye to Israel’s arsenal

Will you really not be bothered by the likes of Iran having nukes and ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe to put them on? I'd be worried by Israel as it is but why does that mean it is then okay for another militaristic religious state that hates alot of its neighbours to get nukes? Becuase Israel has them and we must be consistent? That's a madman's logic. Anything (short of a war IMO) that can be done to stop Iran devolping these weapons should be tried.

As I said earlier in this thread, the spread of technology, information and expertise means that it is inevitable that many muslim countries will acquire ICBMs, nukes, nasty biological weapons if they badly want to posess them. There will be nothing the US or anyone else can do to stop them really.

Are they going to be responsible with them? On the evidence of this cartoon bullshít I can't be too confident.

The Corinthian

fly_agaric wrote:

Will you really not be bothered by the likes of Iran having nukes and ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe to put them on?

Where did I suggest that? I was highlighting double standards, not suggesting that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons.

The perceived double standard comes from the fact that the West, specifically the US, was willing to invade Iraq on the basis of dodgy evidence of its nuclear development programme, is now pushing for sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear development programme, yet officially does not officially acknowledge that Israel already has nuclear weapons, let alone is developing them.

I'd be worried by Israel as it is but why does that mean it is then okay for another militaristic religious state that hates alot of its neighbours to get nukes? Becuase Israel has them and we must be consistent? That's a madman's logic.

How about that it’s not OK for either Iran or Israel to have them?

Are they going to be responsible with them? On the evidence of this cartoon bullshít I can't be too confident.

It’s arguable that anyone is going to be responsible with such weapons. I certainly wouldn’t trust Iran with nuclear weapons, but then again I wouldn’t trust Netanyahu (if he becomes Israeli PM again) with them either.

Essey

The Corinthian wrote:

Finkelstein hasn’t questioned the Holocaust; he questioned the use of the Holocaust as money-spinner and as a means of political justification. However, I’m not discussing the Holocaust - indeed, I’ve no interest in it - outside of pointing to it as an example of where the West is happy to have a sacred cow that cannot be questioned.

On which point, you’ve yet to give me any example where it has been socially acceptable to challenge what would be considered as the accepted historical account of the Holocaust, as I asked.

No one disagrees with you here that it was an overreaction, or at least I don’t. All I’ve done is offer a reason for why they’re doing it. And, TBH, they do have a point about the double standards. This may not excuse them, but it would be foolish for us to simply assume that we’re more enlightened then them either.

Of course that’s the West’s view, but the opposing view is that we continuously adopt double standards with regard to Islam. We claim to want democracy in Iraq, but are happy to ignore the lack of it in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; we don’t want to see the proliferation of nuclear arms in nations like Iran, but are happy to turn a blind eye to Israel’s arsenal; and now we will hold up certain things to be ideological sacred cows (such as the Holocaust), but when Islam wants to do something similar we cry ‘free speech’.

I’d be pretty pissed off if I was a Muslim, and the cartoons are just the last straw, as it were.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

You might want to work on that analogy a little.

Hmmm... I see...

Sacred Cow??? What sacred cow - Mr. Finkelstien has profited from his position - and that is my position. You can say/write and opine on topics that are somewhat off center - and receive criticism for this - but never-the-less you can opine upon them. To find any legitimate author who will academically deny the Holocaust would be difficult due to the fact that they would then have to defend this view in face of overwhelming factual evidence. However, if you care to pick up any pamphlet from the KKK or Stormfront organizations - you'll find a wealth of reading. As far as writing about controversial Holocaust topic - I would offer you Daniel Goldhagens' "Hilters Willing Executioners" - happy reading..

This double standards noise is becoming tiresome. If these were Christian or Jewish groups they would have been told to grow up eons ago. Why should those of us in the West - or anywhere - who do not believe that Muhammad is the ultimate prophet adhere to Muslim devotion of him. That doesn't mean that we should disrespect others or their ideology - but that also doesn't mean that Muslim issues, discussion, or interpretation should have a hand off policy here in the West. If in an Islamic county - don't draw Muhammad - if in a western country - respect our values of free speech. Peaceful protest is acceptable - violence is not. And poverty or repression can not be acceptable excuses for this behavior.

If the ME truly wants to get out from under the repression of radical Imans they would be better off embracing democracy. Hamas is a much better alternative. At least they called for peaceful protests and more secular governments will probably be more willing to work with each other and others. As far as Iran - judging from their reactions over a few cartoons (as offensive as you might deem them) - does anyone feel really comfortable about them acquiring nukes? Scary!

fly_agaric

The Corinthian wrote:

Where did I suggest that? I was highlighting double standards, not suggesting that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons.

Sorry, I know you are trying to see the other side here. The only real way to remove the double standard would seem to be to say Iran can have whatever it wants rather than criticising or punishing Israel and Iran equally. Israel already has the nukes, and you'll notice how rapidly the outrage, anger, and threats seems to stop after a country tests a weapon (India and Pakistan - now the US's bestest "friends").

The Corinthian

Essey wrote:

Sacred Cow??? What sacred cow - Mr. Finkelstien has profited from his position - and that is my position.

In your previous post you demonstrated that you don’t actually know his position.

You can say/write and opine on topics that are somewhat off center - and receive criticism for this - but never-the-less you can opine upon them. To find any legitimate author who will academically deny the Holocaust would be difficult due to the fact that they would then have to defend this view in face of overwhelming factual evidence. However, if you care to pick up any pamphlet from the KKK or Stormfront organizations - you'll find a wealth of reading. As far as writing about controversial Holocaust topic - I would offer you Daniel Goldhagens' "Hilters Willing Executioners" - happy reading..

Essentially the kernel of your argument is that “I’m sure you could argue against it, but you wouldn’t because you would be wrong and only Nazis do anyhow”.

Congratulations, you’ve just described a ‘sacred cow’ - a person, institution, idea or ideology that is immune (usually unreasonably so) from criticism or opposition.

This double standards noise is becoming tiresome.

‘Tiresome’ is not a rebuttal, it is a lack thereof.

If these were Christian or Jewish groups they would have been told to grow up eons ago.

Christian perhaps as it would have been other Christians doing so and, frankly, Christianity is not that big a thing amongst the majority of Christians anymore. Twenty or thirty years ago, as has already been mentioned in this thread, the story was already different and such images would be banned or worse.

If it were Jewish groups, then I’m not so sure. Chances are the equivalent images that would have to be specifically Jewish would probably be branded as anti-Semitic. I reckon Mel Brookes would still get away with it though.

Why should those of us in the West - or anywhere - who do not believe that Muhammad is the ultimate prophet adhere to Muslim devotion of him.

Why should they believe in the Holocaust then?

As to your predictable response of “because it’s factually backed up by evidence”, then why is any debate, examination or opposition so discouraged or even vilified? Which I suppose would bring us back to your above point that no one (other than Nazis and the KKK) would because it’s right. And around we go in your circular argument.

That doesn't mean that we should disrespect others or their ideology - but that also doesn't mean that Muslim issues, discussion, or interpretation should have a hand off policy here in the West.

I’d agree, but as I said, I don’t think that in itself is the issue.

And poverty or repression can not be acceptable excuses for this behavior.

We’re not, or at least I’m not, discussing excuses. We’re discussing reasons. There’s a difference. The perceived double standard is an important reason, IMO, and it’s a valid reason - but it does not excuse, condone or otherwise justify the reaction.

If the ME truly wants to get out from under the repression of radical Imans they would be better off embracing democracy.

If you really want to see an improvement in the Middle East, you might try to understand things from their perspective first before recommending a magic cure, like democracy.

Essey

The Corinthian wrote:

In your previous post you demonstrated that you don’t actually know his position.

Essentially the kernel of your argument is that “I’m sure you could argue against it, but you wouldn’t because you would be wrong and only Nazis do anyhow”.

Congratulations, you’ve just described a ‘sacred cow’ - a person, institution, idea or ideology that is immune (usually unreasonably so) from criticism or opposition.

‘Tiresome’ is not a rebuttal, it is a lack thereof.

Christian perhaps as it would have been other Christians doing so and, frankly, Christianity is not that big a thing amongst the majority of Christians anymore. Twenty or thirty years ago, as has already been mentioned in this thread, the story was already different and such images would be banned or worse.

If it were Jewish groups, then I’m not so sure. Chances are the equivalent images that would have to be specifically Jewish would probably be branded as anti-Semitic. I reckon Mel Brookes would still get away with it though.

Why should they believe in the Holocaust then?

As to your predictable response of “because it’s factually backed up by evidence”, then why is any debate, examination or opposition so discouraged or even vilified? Which I suppose would bring us back to your above point that no one (other than Nazis and the KKK) would because it’s right. And around we go in your circular argument.

I’d agree, but as I said, I don’t think that in itself is the issue.

We’re not, or at least I’m not, discussing excuses. We’re discussing reasons. There’s a difference. The perceived double standard is an important reason, IMO, and it’s a valid reason - but it does not excuse, condone or otherwise justify the reaction.

If you really want to see an improvement in the Middle East, you might try to understand things from their perspective first before recommending a magic cure, like democracy.

In my first post I demonstrated that I was aware of Mr. Finkelstiens work: "You issued a link to Norman Finkelstein suggesting that he some how "got in trouble" because of his views/interpretations surrounding the Holocaust."

I'm afraid you lost the "kernel" of my argument. To ague academically against the Holocaust is difficult due to the overwhelming factual evidence that supports it - however, you can if you want to! as Stormfronts have done in the past. - There in lies my sacred "kernel".

"Tiresome wasn't a "rebuttal" merely a commentary.

As far a Christianity not being a "big thing" - speak for yourself. As far as Jewish groups - I guess you need to ask the Israelis.

"Why should we believe in the Holocaust" - is pretty stupid statement - sorry it just is and sometimes you just have to call them. And it is factually back up by evidence - could that evidence be tainted, stretched - sure - but anybody who has attained an education higher that fourth class is aware of the Holocaust - and frankly this conversation is becoming tiresome (commentary).

Have a Great Day.

Gegerty

Pretext to war? No I think its just a good excuse to go out and riot and burn down embassies and try to kill innocent people and threaten and terrorise people. "Don't say boo or we'll fu(king kill you" Thats the message I get from this. Scumbags. If they had white skin and wore doc martens and bomber jackets there'd be some serious head cracking going on. But no, they wear turbins so shush be careful what you say.

What makes Muslims so special? Why should I listen to what they have to say? Why should I give a toss about their religion? Why should I show them respect? Why should a give a damn about a cartoon that in now way sparks even the slightest urge to laugh, cry, snigger, jeer or make me want to give a toss about anything related to the muslim world?

The Corinthian

Essey wrote:

In my first post I demonstrated that I was aware of Mr. Finkelstiens work: "You issued a link to Norman Finkelstein suggesting that he some how "got in trouble" because of his views/interpretations surrounding the Holocaust."

And then went on to say that he believed he had evidence that questions the veracity of Holocaust, which, in fact, he has never claimed. So no, you don’t actually know his position. You may feel that he’s made money from what he’s written, but you don’t actually seem to know what that is.

I'm afraid you lost the "kernel" of my argument. To ague academically against the Holocaust is difficult due to the overwhelming factual evidence that supports it - however, you can if you want to! as Stormfronts have done in the past. - There in lies my sacred "kernel".

Back to the circular “I’m sure you could argue against it, but you wouldn’t because you would be wrong and only Nazis do anyhow”, I see.

The flaw in your response is not that I am demonstrating whether the Holocaust is true or not, but that debate on it is discouraged by being either trivialized or even vilified. Which you’ve just done, BTW.

"Tiresome wasn't a "rebuttal" merely a commentary.

Looked more like an ‘out’.

As far a Christianity not being a "big thing" - speak for yourself.

Simple fact. Religion in the West - Europe in particular - has been in decline for decades.

As far as Jewish groups - I guess you need to ask the Israelis.

Why? Last time I checked there’s a difference between the Jewish faith and the state of Israel.

"Why should we believe in the Holocaust" - is pretty stupid statement - sorry it just is and sometimes you just have to call them. And it is factually back up by evidence - could that evidence be tainted, stretched - sure - but anybody who has attained an education higher that fourth class is aware of the Holocaust - and frankly this conversation is becoming tiresome (commentary).

Round and round we go...

If you do actually have a rational argument feel free to share.

Have a Great Day.

I shall, thank you.

Catsmokinpot

i think if i was going to print an article like that i would have generalised the whole situation, and posted up a cartoon of a pedophile priest screwing little children, or a missionary priest going and talking desparate hungry people in to believing jesus/god for salvation from thier sins, instead of just trying to feed and clothe them first.... and draw a cartoon of buddha with a pussy coming out of his head, and then talked about peoples attitude to beliefs in general. i think if they did that the situation would have been diffused just as soon as it started

but they didnt....

and sure if someone put a picture of a pedo-priest screwing little kids in a newspaper i dont think catholics would take to that too kindly.... :rolleyes:

that whole buddy christ and cool pope is a stupid excuse they arent saying that christians are terrorists and the pope is going to bomb us, these pictures are, we can sit here and say that they do not insight hatred and these arent offencive but they are, and not everyone will say they are only pictures some will say, look at those terrorist muslims, its in the news papers it must be true!

in fairness im all for free speech but, i believe a line should be drawn, those pictures were inflamatory, especially with the situation in the middle east at the moment. those pictures paint a whole religion with the same brush of which 1% are actually fundamentalist terrorists.

Freddie59

rsynnott wrote:

I think you should consider going back to After Hours, really.

Very childish.

Vangelis

Sand wrote:

I did. And you called them primitive monkeys actually, not imbecillic, though hardly wholesome either way. And whilst freedom of speech might allow you to say what you want, incitment to hatred is a limiting factor on that freedom. And calling people primitive monkeys goes beyond valid criticism, wink or no wink.

So does:
1) "Death over Norway"
2) "Europe is a disobedient whore-daughter who's betrayed her father(Allah)"

I could quote more recent claims by Muslims.

I think this thread needs some more substance now. The situation keeps developing so I'll post links to newsarticles in the close future. To feed the fire.

Frederico

Gegerty wrote:

Pretext to war? No I think its just a good excuse to go out and riot and burn down embassies and try to kill innocent people and threaten and terrorise people. "Don't say boo or we'll fu(king kill you" Thats the message I get from this. Scumbags. If they had white skin and wore doc martens and bomber jackets there'd be some serious head cracking going on. But no, they wear turbins so shush be careful what you say.

What makes Muslims so special? Why should I listen to what they have to say? Why should I give a toss about their religion? Why should I show them respect? Why should a give a damn about a cartoon that in now way sparks even the slightest urge to laugh, cry, snigger, jeer or make me want to give a toss about anything related to the muslim world?

Its so easy to be angry and right wing.. yeah I think someone should gawd damn fly a few 747's into their mudhuts and see how they like it huh!! Its just some damn cartoon.. and now what like 11 innocent people have died and some buildings were burnt down, it just enrages me so much more than the genocide in Darfur!!

the_syco

If Isreal didn't allow the US to stay in its back yard, I doubt the US would be too happy about the Isreali's having nukes, tbh.

=-=

Question: didn't Hitler hire Muslims near the end of WW2? Sure, they weren't white, but they did believe in one God, and fought well, etc. I remember seeing black and white video's of the SS (or German Army) training Middle Eastern folks.

=-=

TBH, I agree with some muslim dude, when he said that after the Train bombings being done in Allah's name, he wasn't surprised when the cartoons came out.

In the "name of Allah", people have killed lots of other people, so when the Muslims try to say that their religon is one of peace, they are ignored. When the Muslims burn down embassy's, flags, and kill people, for saying that Islam is a violent religon... they will be seen. They are shooting themselves in both feet, tbh.