appeasement

Subject: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 09:37 PM

I've just got in after a gig and chacked the news. Apparantly muslims can demonstrate on British streets carrying placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam" and "Massacre those who insult Islam" and no policeman will arrest them. Jack Straw apologises for cartoons. Either I've suddenly turned into a racist bigot, or this is exactly the sort of appeasement that led to the rise of Hitler. There is no way I could march through London with a placard saying "Behead all Jews/Blacks/ Asians/ Thatcher lovers/ Singer/songwriters or whatever, with out being immediately arrested.
What the hell is going on here?
I'm baffled, worried to hell, and feeling leaderless.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 09:40 PM

And I'm sure the BNP have gathered a few thousand more votes. Will somebody get a grip or we're in serious trouble.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 09:44 PM

Sorry, long drive, it's late. this should be B.S.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 01:06 AM

Those towelheads are out of control. Off with their heads!

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:50 AM

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!!

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:44 AM

I may be a guest but I'm no troll. I'm a deeply troubled believer in the great big melting pot theory of race relations which i've worked for and sung about for a very long time. I feel now that these relations are spiralling out of control and are nothing to do with race but everything to do with creed, which I never expected to become the issue. Surely we have to debate what is going on? As a history student in my youth I can see the same social conditions beeing created that led to the rise of the Nazi party and the foul BNP are positioned to take advantage of the polarisation we are seeing. It's no good being opposed to their beliefs and then sitting back and allowing these conditions to flourish, that will only encourage more of the poor white (and not so poor from what I'm hearing round about me) to take the position that the BNP espouse. The more extreme the muslim demonstrations become, the more extreme will be the backlash against them. History is something we should learn from and not repeat, but surely I'm not alone in being deeply troubled by what is going on? Serious social repercussions will follow if some leadership is not shown soon.
Where do we go from here?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:30 AM

I am also a great believer in multiracial society etc, and I also believe in largely monoglot cultures making allowances (within limits - clitorectomies excepted!) for incoming minorities, but it bothers me to see a crowd of demonstrators with banners as cited above being tolerated, but the police threatening to arrest one lone person who stopped his van to oppose the demonstrations.

It also bothers me to see Jack Straw apologising for cartoons that were legal where first printed and where reprinted but which have not yet (I think) been printed here.

This, I fear, is what leads to the likes of Nick Griffin celebrating his acquittals.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:43 AM

Thank you Richard, as you say the pictures of Griffin with his victory sign was just as troubling.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Tootler
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:37 PM

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Tootler
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 02:38 PM

Sorry, hit the wrong button :-(

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:22 PM

Where does it say we have a right to insult other people?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:05 PM

kendall, your right to freedom of speech/expression allows you to say what you want on any subject. If anyone listening to you, or reading what you have said, or looking at what you have drawn takes offence, then that is a matter for them, they do not, however, have anyright at all to tell you what you may, or may not say, write or draw.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:11 PM

Tell that to the "christian"[sic] fundamentalists currently infesting the U.S., T. & when they comply, get back to us.

Or the U.S. Gov't telling folks what they can and cannot read, ditto.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:11 PM

Anyone who starts a thread like this without using some kind of identifying label has to be assumed to be a troll.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:28 PM

You can't control what people say, you can only control your response to it.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:34 PM

I have no particluar objection to the cartoons, or to a lot of people's reactions to them. The first post on this thread, though, is a clear incitement to raise the tempeeature of debate. personally, I would have thought we were all better advised to cool it down.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:08 PM

Could someone explain why my deciding not to be identified makes me a troll, and could you explain what a troll is? If I manufactured some spurious alias would that make a difference? Is the problem that you consider me to be some kind of fifth columnist?
As I said I have sung and campaigned for a multi-cultural and integrated Britain for many years, and now I am having serious problems with what is going on in the world and in Britain, as are others who have shared my hopes. My parents generation fought racial genocide and bigotry and handed us a better world. At the moment religion seems to be screwing it up on both sides of the divide. I'm beginning to lose faith in the good sense of the British people and I can see the fundamental and confrontational attitudes being taken leading to the rise of the extreme Right, a nightmare I've dreaded for most of my life.
I'm not trying to raise the temperature, I'm asking for a reasoned response to what is, in my opinion, inflamatory and illegal demonstrations clearly against the law of the land, being allowed to continue without police action.
I remember well the beginnings of this when the Sikh community in Birmingham were allowed to close a Theatre production through threats against the safety of the audience and the theatre building. As a musical forum we are surely concerned more than most with freedom of speech, and though I don't condone the puerile cartoons, I am deeply conccerned that placards such as the ones I quoted can be freely carried on the streets of London.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:19 PM

Well, I haven't seen the cartoons but have heard a description of them and, sure, folks have a right to print them but...

... printing them sho nuff is like pouring gas on an what is allready a well fueled fire...

I mean, if want an endless war between right winged fundamentalist Christians, who for the most part are not right winged fundamentalist Chriatians but a bunch of kids trying to egt outtta Podunk, and the Isalmic world then cartoon such as these will ceratinly help to keeping the endless war going...

Bottom line, classless and tasteless...

That's one problem with free speech...

Bobert

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Peace
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:21 PM

"Could someone explain why my deciding not to be identified makes me a troll, and could you explain what a troll is? If I manufactured some spurious alias would that make a difference? Is the problem that you consider me to be some kind of fifth columnist?"

Hvae you forgot your name?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:02 PM

"Towel Heads"

Recently I received a warning about the use of this
politically incorrect term.

Please try to pay attention.

We have been informed that the Islamic terrorists do not
like to be called "Towel Heads" since the item they wear on their heads is actually a small folded sheet.

Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as
"little sheet heads."

Thank you for your support on this delicate matter.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:14 PM

Well, hey, 'bout 90% of guys in the South and MidWest could just be called "ball-caps"... I think if a few folks of Isalmic faith were to do this, it would piss off about 90% of 90%...

It depersonalizes people...

It is equivalent to the many terms that we Americans find distastefull...

"What, can't you friggin' camel jockeys take a joke?" (spit)

"No, Bubba ball-cap. Can you?"

If this thread was jokingly calling black folks niggars then maybe some folks wouldn't be so quick to make a joke out of it...

Like I said, classless and tasteless...

Bobert

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:35 PM

Teribus, you may not yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. No one has the right to say or do anything they wish with no regard for its impact on others.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:13 PM

Inciting a riot is illegal.

Isn't it obvious that our disrespect for Muslims and other groups of people around the world is why they hate us? Does anyone with an IQ over 60 believe that it's our freedom they hate?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:17 PM

Does your son have the right to tell you to piss off?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:31 PM

How is it that these racists get into a position to be published???

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 11:47 PM

Satire is one of the pillars of free speech. It has been used since classical times to tweak the noses of the powerful and expose hypocrisy in all its disguises. We must be very careful in considering the question whether it should be suppressed.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:30 AM

One newspaper cartoon does not speak for the entire western world. Tolerance and Cultural differences aside, these Muslims would do well to remember that in our culture we use dark humour and do not supress freedom of speech. But according to them we are infidels and not worthy of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Oh, and music is wrong too, that should be banned it upsets them so much.

Fuck appeasement, they need to get laid more often and join the 21st century. Tolerance is not something I see when thousands of them are threatening death to all the west because a Danish newspaper showed a cartoon that they consider offensive.Their intolerance and violence is more offensive to me than any cartoon depicting Allah....I have never danced in the street, nor seen anyone in the west celebrating any arabs death; but thousands of them danced and celebrated when the two towers fell. No compassion or empathy shown for the thousands of innocent lives lost (many not even from the target country) I dont see much compassion and empathy there at all. To see a mother on television encouraging her children to strap on explosives and go and kill non combatants is a good indication that we are wasting our time trying appeasement.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 07:49 AM

Ebbie - 04 Feb 06 - 09:35 PM

"Teribus, you may not yell Fire! in a crowded theatre. No one has the right to say or do anything they wish with no regard for its impact on others."

Actually Ebbie you are wrong. It only becomes an offence to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre IF there is no fire and it can be conclusively proved that you shouted "Fire" knowing that no fire existed. The automatic defence in law to such an accusation/charge would be, "But I thought I could smell smoke, I thought something was burning." Impossible to disprove, resonable doubt kicks in resulting in dismissal of all charges, you can quite rightly claim you were acting as a responsible citizen. Applied as you seem to think it does nobody would raise a warning for fear of prosecution - ridiculous.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:29 AM

"Our culture", "violence", "intolerance", Dave???

Seems those of Islamic Faith could be saying the same thing about thier perceptions of our society...

BTW, do you feel and compassion for the tens upon thousands of "innocent lives" that the Bush/Blair invasion has brought in Iraq???

(But, Bobert, Saddam gased his own people...)

Well, yeah, he did... With our gas and *afterwards* was rewarded with goodies from Don Rumsfeld for being such a good team player... Plus does that make us any less violent when we drop over 30,000 bombs over Iraq, killing tens upon thousands of completely innocent people...

(But, Bobert, Saddam was getting ready to attack the United Sates with his WMD's, wasn't he???)

Ahhhhh, sheeesh....

And the beat goes on...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:42 AM

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Now, that's from our own Bible. They feel the same way about depictions of Mohammed. What the hell is the difference?

Furthermore, just because you can say or do something is no reason to say or do it. Civilization is getting less and less civilized as the years pass.
There is no way I would say something hurtful to anyone if I knew it would be a problem, but then, I was brought up in a more civilized time. Maybe that's why I like most Canadians.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 02:21 PM

You're right, kendall. The fact that the Danish publisher comissioned these cartoons, is deliberately mean and hurtful.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 02:28 PM

Children tend to run their mouths without being aware of the fall out, so we can forgive them, but these people who demand the right to disrespect, piss off and otherwise invalidate others should know better. GROW UP!

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 02:28 PM

But are you saying that because of the hurt which we all agree has been caused, people should be allowed to parade through London demanding beheadings, massacres and repeats of 9/11. A cartoon can offend, but it cannot kill!

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: michaelr
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 04:03 PM

It seems reasonable to me that if a certain group of immigrants finds Western values so intolerable, they should refrain from coming to live here.

And I say again: Satire is one of the pillars of free speech. It has been used since classical times to tweak the noses of the powerful and expose hypocrisy in all its disguises. We must be very careful in considering the question whether it should be suppressed.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 04:52 PM

Satire is one thing - Deliberately creating discord by comissioning work that you know will offend is agitation. These are precarious times and the publishers should have used some common sense. You can't make cartoons depicting long-nosed Jews as money-lenders or Afro-Americans that look like Sambos or pimps without creating a backlash. Why should you be able to depict Muslims as killers and expect Muslims to keep quiet?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 05:03 PM

Certain Muslims are killers because they are Muslims. Most are not killers. This furore is about depicting their Prophet in print. Muslim newspapers by the way regularly publish racist cartoons featuring Jews.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 05:13 PM

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Now, that's from our own Bible. They feel the same way about depictions of Mohammed. What the hell is the difference?<(i> (Kendall)

That we would laugh out loud if any Christian would quote that line when demanding that God should not be depicted in a cartoon.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 07:15 PM

Bobert, where were you and others of your ilk when Saddam gassed the Kurds? The UN did nothing then, and did nothing usefull for years. While I do not agree with the reasons Bush stated for invading Iraq, I do believe it was 100% justified... it just should have been done the first time round and I am on record as having stated that many years ago....Perhaps this modern clusterfuck would have been avoided altogether.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 07:29 PM

Where were you when Saddam gassed the Kurds, Dave? Your blame is over-simplified and mis-directed. Try doing a little more reading and you might be able to see why the this 'modern clusterfuck' has been created by the U.S.A. The Kurds haven't been helped by anyone except maybe Iran.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/kurds/cron.html

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:08 PM

Actually dianavan I was instructing a diverse Middle East group of military officers in establishing Air Sea Search and Rescue Services in the region. You?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:17 AM

Then you agree with the timeline and my comments regarding the lack of help the Kurds received from the U.S.? I guess you know that and
you also know that nobody really cares about the Kurds. Would you agree that Iran is the only country that ever came to their defense? I think we should give credit where credit is due.

So what was the U.S. doing when Iraq gassed the Kurds and the Iranians? What did Turkey do?

You were "instructing a diverse Middle East group of military officers in establishing Air Sea Search and Rescue Services in the region?" Were any of them Kurds? I didn't think so. Were any of them Iranians? Probably not. Just which regions did these military officers come from?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:38 AM

There are fools who will make offensive or even violent protest at any instance of irreverence to one of their cherished icons. There are even bigger fools who instigate the offence in the first place--although I cannot believe that their lack of sense runs to ignorance of what the certain consequence of their idiocy will lead to. Sensible human beings rightly condemn both the initial offence and the result, no matter from which entrenched interest either may emanate.
   Those who would actively approve of the initial offence --particularly delivered for no other purpose other than deliberate provocation, and purportedly in the name of "freedom"---are suffering , at Least, from a serious lack of judgement. They may emphatically disapprove of the reaction such offence; that IS a free
choice. What, in this case they are NOT entitled to claim [if they have half an ounce of gumption] is to express surprise at the reaction to the exercise of "press freedom" indulged in this case.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 05:33 AM

dianavan, There were Iraqi's involved I have no idea if any of them were Kurds I didn't ask them.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 08:54 AM

...people marching through the streets demanding beheadings etc. From what I've seen in England, the cops could get off their asses and throw these whackos into the gaol. If the jails won't hold them, kick them out of the country!

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 09:59 AM

People make threats they have no intention of carrying out. I do not think for one minute that the vast majority of those Moslems portrayed on TV as wishing to kill westerners would ever do so. It is all playground stuff. Billy has pulled his tongue out at Bob and Bob has said he will break Billy's arm. We are all the kids stood round watching chanting 'fight; fight; fight...'

Unfortunately we do not seem to have a teacher to go and break them up. Perhaps we just all need to grow up instead? And I DO include myself in that!

Having said all that it does seem that while the Danish press have broken no laws apart from the ones of good taste the demonstrators are quite happy to flaunt the laws of the lands in which they live. Double standards from governments? Surely not...;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:15 AM

As Holmes went on to put it: "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition." Censorship is thus a kind of social instinct. As caring and responsible citizens of society, especially good and decent citizens of a good and decent society, we are likely to want many results with all our hearts. We want security, we want freedom from fear, we want order, civility, racial and religious tolerance, we want the well-being of our children. We want these things with all our hearts, and when others express opinions that seem to threaten these aspirations, who can blame us for being tempted to express our wishes in law and sweep away the opposition? It is perfectly logical. And that is what, at bottom, freedom of speech is all about.

Over the course of roughly the last 50 years the U.S. Supreme Court has set our nation on a remarkable experiment, often construing the First Amendment in a manner that strenuously defies the natural and logical impulse to censor. In scores of decisions, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment in a manner that to most of the world seems positively radical. Those decisions are numerous and cover a vast and various terrain, but consider some highlights. Americans have the right to:


Desecrate the national flag as a symbol of protest.
Burn the cross as an expression of racial bigotry and hatred.
Espouse the violent overthrow of the government as long as it is mere abstract advocacy and not an immediate incitement to violence.
Traffic in sexually explicit erotica as long as it does not meet a rigorous definition of "hard core" obscenity.
Defame public officials and public figures with falsehoods provided they are not published with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Disseminate information invading personal privacy if the revelation is deemed "newsworthy."
Engage in countless other forms of expression that would be outlawed in many nations but are regarded as constitutionally protected here.

Such First Amendment decisions reject the impulse to censor; they are therefore striking as legal doctrines. Perhaps more striking, however, is that these decisions have gained widespread currency within American culture as a whole. The Supreme Court is not alone in its commitment to the free-speech project. While undoubtedly any one decision will often be controversial with the public, which may be deeply divided on topics such as flag-burning or sex on the Internet, on balance what is extraordinary about the evolution of freedom of speech in America over the last 50 years is that it has taken such a strong hold on the American consciousness, a hold that seems to cut across party labels such as "Democrat" or "Republican" or ideological labels such as "liberal" or "conservative." On the Supreme Court itself, for example, justices with hardy conservative credentials such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas have often been as committed to expansive protection for freedom of speech as justices famous for their liberal views, such as William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall. Appointees of Republican presidents, such as Anthony Kennedy or David Souter, have been as stalwart as appointees of Democratic presidents, such as Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in their articulation of strong free-speech doctrines. So too, in the political arena, views on free-speech issues often do not track along traditional party lines or classic ideological divisions.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/overview.aspx

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:39 AM

"Finally, in 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

WHAT DOES "PROTECTED SPEECH" INCLUDE?
First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- and that is unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?
The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected."

http://www.aclu.org//freespeech/gen/11178pub19970102.html

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:17 AM

Its a real hoot to see these neo-con right-wingers mewl on about the First Ammendment and at the same tme call anyone who protests the war in Iraq or the other atrocities perpetrated by the BuShite Junta as "traitors" and "enemies" and applaud Cindy Sheehan being muzzled and arrested.

Guess they're about as bright as Dumbya.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Pied Piper
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

These "demonstrators" clearly broke the Law and should be arrested and charged.

PP

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 10:23 PM

This isn't as much about 1st Amendment rights as it is common sense...

This cartoon is equivalent to Bush sayin' "Bring it on..."

If it is the intent of the western world to have a holy war it is doing everything in its power to deliver one...

Purdy stupid....

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 12:28 AM

Exactly, bobert! There's enough blame here for everyone involved in this fiasco. Would it have happened if the publisher had not commissioned twelve offensive cartoons aimed at Muslims?

Think about it.

Somebody should teach the publisher about cause and effect.

Isn't that a universal law?

These riots have nothing to do with common sense and all to do with deliberate provocation.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 09:08 AM

Cartoon from the GUARDIAN

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 09:58 AM

I'm not sure that I've seen 'all' the cartoons. The ones I've seen are rather mild, even by Islamic standards. I think there is an attempt to flex political muscle and in fact induce terrorism by other means. Or it could be simple mass idiocy. Mass idiocy runs a gamut through all cultures and histories. One might think that the causes which drove men women and children to participate in certain Crusades, mass demonstrations, rock concerts, and football tournaments were little more intelligent than a handful of perceptive cartoons.

Compare to the Nigerian riots during the Miss World competition alleged to have been instigated due to a rather innocent remark from a webzine:
Miss World Moved To London

Since then, the country has instituted Sharia law to be imposed on Muslim residents, but not Christian:
Nigeria

Mark Twain, in "Huckleberry Finn", incorporated an episode wherein a town drunk lambastes a serious member of the community, who tolerates the taunts and threats to a certain extent, then shoots the fellow dead. The community, which has amused itself at standing by and watching the events, takes umbrage and decides to lynch the shooter. They surround his house but he comes out on his porch with a shotgun and tells 'em what a bunch of cowards they are, and chases them away. This is a powerful insight into the nature of humanity and while we may look at the current events of the day as an indictment of a particular culture and faith, we are only assuming the temporary position of the monkeys in the cage which are laughing at the other monkeys until the situation is reversed.

As to this thread, it's less incendiary than many I've seen in Mudcat, but I have little respect for people posing as GUEST s dropping in to drop their little bombs and moving on. At the very least they should assume an ID to distinguish themselves from other 'GUEST's, refrain from initiating threads, and resist the attempt to defend themselves from the charge of 'cowardice' while still hiding under the fig-leaf of 'GUEST'.

I am also trying to remember the phrase: "The world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel" Or is it: "comedy to those that feel and a tragedy to those that think?" Seems to me it can be true either way.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 09:59 AM

Greg F.

"Its a real hoot to see these neo-con right-wingers mewl on about the First Ammendment and at the same tme call anyone who protests the war in Iraq or the other atrocities perpetrated by the BuShite Junta as "traitors" and "enemies" and applaud Cindy Sheehan being muzzled and arrested.




I am offended by your unbased allagation that I have called anyone who protests the war in Iraq or the other atrocities perpetrated by what you call the BuShite Junta as "traitors" and "enemies" and applauded Cindy Sheehan being muzzled and arrested.




I think far more highly of the Bill of Rights than I do of your bigoted, unsupported slander. I expect a public apology at once.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 10:31 AM

Robomatic,

you have seen all of the cartoons in the Danish newspaper if you follow the link provided in another thread:

click

But you have not seen all of the cartoons shown to the protesters by those who want to incite hatred of the West. In the wake of the cartoon controversy Danish Muslims have been sent (anonymously mostly) hatefilled cartoons like for instance Mohammed depicted with a swine snout or a praying bent over Muslim mounted by a dog. These cartoons too can be found on the web but I see no need to link to them. No newspaper has published these additional cartoons and I hope none ever would.

Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam (interview with AYAAN HIRSI ALI)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 04:23 PM

I didn't get the point of the first cartoon in the link, that of a bearded (Mohammed) walking with a beast of burden.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 12:29 PM

The behavior of the Islamic rioters is easier to understand than it is to ignore.
A) In the Muslim World, pictorial representations of human beings and animals are considered taboo, being an attempt by Man to replicate the sacred creation of Allah.
B)Such a representation of Mohammed is prohibited in the first place, but an image of the prophet which also is seen to denigrate him is doubly taboo. In the Muslim world, there is a much blurrier line between the representation of the Thing and the Thing itself.
C)All such representations are prohibited in Islamic Countries, countries where government and Islamic beliefs are inextricably intertwined. Violators would be subject to the harshest of punishments.
D)Western cartoons, though outside the specific Islamic Culture, still trigger the same reaction to violation of the taboo. With no tradition of satiric cartooning, freedom of the press, or separation of church and state, many Muslims wish to treat the transgressors as they would in their home cultures...with the harshest of punishments.

Bobert says "This cartoon is equivalent to Bush sayin' 'Bring it on...'"

I disagree. Such pictorial commentary is a deep tradition in much of the western world, and the ability to criticize religion, religious teachings, and religious icons, lies at the heart of the healthy tolerance for dissent and questioning that is vital to our way of life. While scurrilous negative commentary is an abuse of our tradition, the abdication of our rights of criticism in face of violent threat is destructive to it.
While understanding the motives for such violent extortion, we cannot yield to it. The aquiesence to censorship imposed by a religious fundamentalist culture poses a greater threat to our way of life than any attack on the Trade Center.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 01:01 PM

"Hypocrisy of the cultural left. Dozens of American newspapers, including The Post, have stated that they won't reprint the cartoons because, in the words of one self-righteous editorial, they prefer to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." Fair enough -- but is this always true? An excellent domestic parallel is the fracas that followed the 1989 publication of "Piss Christ," a photograph of Christ on a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. That picture -- a work of art that received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts -- led to congressional denunciations, protests and letter-writing campaigns.
At the time, many U.S. newspapers that refused last week to publish the Danish cartoons -- the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe (but apparently not The Post) -- did publish "Piss Christ." The photographer, Andres Serrano, enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame, even appearing in a New York Times fashion spread. The picture was exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art and elsewhere. The moral: While we are nervous about gratuitously offending believers in distant, underdeveloped countries, we don't mind gratuitously offending believers at home."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701253.html

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 01:03 PM

"Two common apologist arguments beg rebuttal. One of them compares printing inflammatory cartoons to crying "fire" in a crowded theater, implying that one shouldn't express things certain to offend others. Never mind that all political commentary would cease by such a standard, but the reason crying "fire" is forbidden is practical. People panic and stampede when they hear it, and it is false. It is imperative to cry "fire" when there really is a fire. It is also imperative to cry foul when cartoonists face death threats for doodling.
An inapt comparison
The other argument, also based on a logical fallacy, is that the Danish cartoons are comparable to racist caricatures of Jews in Nazi Germany and blacks in the segregationist South. The Boston Globe, which saw fit in the past to defend "Piss Christ" (a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine) as well as a depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in feces as worthy of government subsidy, made such a case recently.
There are at least two reasons why The Globe's comparison is bogus: gas chambers and lynchings. Both the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan were officially sanctioned enforcers of immoral social orders that used caricature to further degrade and dehumanize beleaguered minorities they ultimately murdered.
There is no equivalence between organized murder on behalf of a malignant social system and a half-dozen nerdy artists, speaking only for themselves, lampooning a fanatical religious sect whose members, by the way, specifically advance the delightful goal of exterminating millions of "infidels."
The correct comparison, in fact, for Nazi and Klan terrorists are their brothers under the hoods — the jihadists who issued a death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie, who beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl and businessman Nick Berg, and who kidnapped an innocent American female journalist and showed videos of her sobbing and terrified among armed men holding guns to her head.
These are the fascist thugs, not the artists who draw cartoons in the service of democracy and truth. And those who out of a misguided sense of cultural sensitivity and niceness try to justify Muslim outrage over a cartoon are, frankly, lending aid and comfort to the enemies of civilization."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-07-faith-speech-shame_x.htm

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 01:03 PM

I don't know what the UN was doing while Saddam was gassing the Kurds, but I know what we were doing,we were supporting the bastard. As I recall, Raygun was president at the time.
Conflict is good for business.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 02:22 PM

I would think that the distinction between responsible journalism and groundbreaking efforts in the world of artistic creations would be obvious.

There is no question who the hooligans are in your shallow comparisons, BB, but a number of newspapers declined to publish the cartoons (because they were an affront to an ethnic or religous group) and instead reported the facts of the case by text description, sufficient to relay the information of the matter without promulgating the images in question. This is just responsible journalism. There is no reason for an editorial against porno, for example, to include color photos of sexual organs and images from some porno site, is there?

Resorting to violence is an obscene dramatization no matter who does it.

In fact the first wide-spread promulgation of those cartoons was done by leaders of the Muslim community in Denmark, who added (according to an NPR radio story) other images which were even more offensive and had not been published in ANY newspaper. None of the kafluffle seems to be aimed at them for this dissemination of sacrilege, so it seems clear their purpose was to stir up enmity.

Regardless, there is no reason for a newspaper not to practice consideration and avoid offense if can do so consistent with the truth.

A

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 02:38 PM

LEJ,

pictorial representations of animals and humans are not forbidden "in the Muslim World". Perhaps in one small fraction of that 'World' that is true. What Ian Paisley thinks is also not the thinking of "The Christian World". Muslims take photographs as we do. Muslim websites are full of drawings of humans and animals.

There are many representations of Mohammend in the "Muslim World" though some of them avoid depicting his face. In historic times he has even been portrayed on coins.

The "harshest of punishments" are dealt out in some countries of the Muslim world, in others it does not really matter so much. Like "The West" it is a quite motley world with a variety of opionions. You'll find Muslims claiming to bee insulted and I've read interviews with some thinking that their brethren are "over the top".

If Pat Robertson feels insulted there's still the chance that the majority of the Christians shrug their shoulders or even laugh.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 02:59 PM

Any reports of offended Muslims rioting, or demonstrating in Denmark? Norway? France? - Any flags being burnt in any of those countries ( It is possible French demonstrators might find it a bit hard to purchase matches after their recent spree of a few weeks ago) Damn right there's not, any possible explanation why Laban had to travel half way round the world to stir up this furore?

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

Amos,

"your shallow comparisons"

If you look at my posts, you might notice they are from articles published in newspapers, as editorials. YOU should be familiar with this type of thing...

And the point was the very same newspapers so considerate of Muslim opinion had no such concern over their own readers sensibilities- Thus, an example of appeasement.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 04:18 PM

Wolfgang,

The following excerpts from Andrew Wheatcroft's study of misconceptions and conflicts between Christian, Jewish, and Muslim cultures,Infidels...

"...unlike the Christian realm, in the Muslim world recognizable human images (and those of animals) played no part in religious art. If, exceptionally, the Prophet Mohammed or one of his successors were depicted for any reason, their faces were almost always veiled and 'invisible'".

"...nowhere in the Ottoman domains was there anything similar to the slow percolation of the printed image into a largely pre-literate society that took place in the West. In the 'well-protected domain'of the Ottomans, until the mid-nineteenth century, in the cities and towns there were no religious pictures, few portaits or cartoons, and in fact a paucity of secular images of any sort. In the countryside, among the poor and illiterate, there were none at all."

"For many Muslims, a visual image made by a human hand was something completely abstract and unknown. A picture was simply a category of evil like the devil himself. It was irreligious, an innovation, to be shunned and avoided."

"Some Sultans from Mehmed the Conqueror onward both commissioned books full of images and amassed other illustrated books from a variety of sources. They were all stored with other treasures for the private use of the Sultan in the Inner Treasury.."

"Images with a human face or an animal form played, at most, a marginal part in the formation of Muslim culture. To the majority of Muslims, beyond the small groups of urban sophisticates, images were imcomprehensible."

"It was not until after the development of photography in the nineteenth century that human and animal images entered the Muslim domain more generally..it was argued that creating a photograph was not a human act, but God's light acting upon an emulsion."

It is my contention that the Muslim world's distrust and discomfort with the nature of pictorial images has deep roots within the culture. The essence of communication in that culture is embodied in the spoken word, with the written word the second most reliable form, particularly as it concerns religious matters. I also believe that this distrusting tendency, when joined with a sense of the conjunction of law and belief, encourages behavior that is repressive and contrary to the concepts of free speech and free press and freedom from religion that is fundamental to Danish, Austrian, and American society.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:58 PM

"While I do not agree with the reasons Bush stated for invading Iraq, I do believe it was 100% justified... it just should have been done the first time round and I am on record as having stated that many years ago....Perhaps this modern clusterfuck would have been avoided altogether."

Dave, the reasoning in your argument is somewhat faulty, insofar as you state that the invasion was 100% justified.

If I may suggest an analogy in explanation, as follows.

If somebody points a gun at you and you believe he is about to shoot you, you may claim that you have the right to draw your gun and shoot him. This claim would most likely be accepted as fair.

If you do nothing, and he walks away, you certainly could not justify following him and shooting him at some later time.

You are right that the job should have been completed the first time when Saddam was the aggressor, but that cannot be a justification for invading Iraq years later.

Don T.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: kendall
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 09:33 PM

So, screw them, we do as we please, so let's just keep stirring the turd.

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 01:44 AM

Gosh, Dunno what they were thinking when they set up this really great museum of Islamic art in Ireland which is full of images of all sorts of creatures, human beings included.

Plus, if one takes the trouble to view Islamic websites, one will find a lot of political cartoons making very definite and unattractive assertions, and there are Islamic movies and television shows, quite a lot really, many of them doing things such as asserting and illustrating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

But mustn't hurt their feelings...

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 08:12 AM

69

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Pied Piper
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 08:41 AM

On the positive side here in the UK a lot of decent moderate Muslims have come out in strong opposition to the behaviour of this minority of their faith and are getting a higher profile in the media as a result.
I think most of you know my position on religion but that doesn't stop me being friendly with religious people or working with them at a community level to improve the local environment for all.

In hope

PP

Subject: RE: appeasement
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

LEJ,

thanks for the interesting quotes. Yes, I think it has more to do with tradition than with religious prescriptions. As far as I know nowhere in the Koran anything about pictures being forbidden is mentioned. The only mention I am aware of is in the collection of hadith, a number of things that Mohammed is believed to have said or done. Since the hadith were collected only many years after Mohammed's death the probability of them being corrupted by lapse of memory is quite high, but that's another problem.

In one of the hadith it is stated that God will ask at the day of judgement painters of living beings (humans and animals) to make their paintings get life. And those who fail to do that will be bound for Hell. Of course, there are always zealots in religions who do not trust God (imagine he may show mercy in such cases) to wait for him to do the punishment. So they take the punishment out of his hands and deal it out on earth, just in case God forgets about Mohammed's hadith.

I have to correct what I had said about a coin showing Mohammed's head. It was an early Kalif, but not the prophet.

Wolfgang