Salman Rushdie - Outrage.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:58 PM

BTW, my mother belonged to an evangelical, charismatic Presbytarian church during her fundamentalist years, no more a 'cult' than any other Christian denomination.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:56 PM

Christian fundamentalists don't believe there is anything one could do to hasten Armaggedon.

Some do. My mother was a fundamentalist in her later years. She very much believed that there were certain things that needed to be done, politically, in order to create the conditions that would bring about armageddon, and her voting patterns reflected that belief. I have other relatives who believe this way also. And I've heard plenty of fundamentalists preaching along these lines on Christian radio as well.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:17 PM

Guest,JTT--
I not only read your statements once, but three times; I stand by my critique that you morph 'Christian fundamentalist' into 'American' in your posts to John Hardly.
Also, I know of no creditable, unbiased source that asserts that American troops have killed 100,000 Iraqis (a non-sequitur at any rate in discussing Mr. Rushdie.) The vast majority Iraqi casualties are Iraqi/Iraqi. If you care to, please provide the basis for your numbers actually killed by Americans.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 04:10 PM

Christian fundamentalists don't believe there is anything one could do to hasten Armaggedon. I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamenmtalist college. I attended fundamentalist seminary classes. I NEVER ONCE heard anyone talk of even the remotest possiblity that ANYTHING man EVER did would hasten Armaggedon or the second coming of Jesus.

I consistantly heard it taught that the end times would come "as a thief in the night", and "of that hour knoweth no man".

If there was talk about end times being near, it was always in the context of where we MIGHT be on the prophetic timeline. It was NOT speculated as though there was anything we could do about it -- other than prepare our hearts and be living the kind of lives we'd want to living when caught by surprise by Jesus' return.

The first time I heard anyone even claim this of fundamentalism (that we were out to hasten the end times) was here on mudcat and by Bill Moyers who extrapolated the beliefs of a christian-related cult over the whole of fundamentalism in order to rile up his viewer to his anti-christian sentiment.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 03:01 PM

Well, I respect your right to resist portions of what I have said, but I nevertheless respectfully disagree with most of your 23 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM post, robomatic (may I call you robomatic?).

Human culture is not stamped out, it develops, ages, (hopefully) matures


In order for the point I am taking you to be making to be valid (ie: that Islam has not passed through a reformation, and that the Muslim religion develops at the same rate everywhere in the world at the same time), you would have to accept the premise that Islamic 'culture' is the same everywhere in the world. It is not. Muslims have the culture of their religion, but that is only one aspect of the 'culture' in which they function. Other aspects are the local cultures of the various localities in which they live, as well as the experiences they and their predecessors had while getting to the point where they are now. Each of these cultural elements plays a role in how the religion is practiced. Even in the separatist religions, such as the Amish religion, the prevailing culture of the surrounding communities has an influence. My Amish landlord (back in the 1980s) had a telephone and drove a gasoline powered tractor with rubber tires.

Also, time is not really the major determining factor in the progress toward enlightenment of any religion or culture. The Hindu religion is very, very old, and yet it's more fundamentalist elements are no more enlightened than the most fundamentalist of Muslims.

It really isn't possible to measure the progress toward enlightenment of all members of any group as large and as dispersed as Muslims are by the same yardstick. And that is regardless of what you think they are taught with regard to how literally they are to interpret the Quran. Islam, as it is practiced in the US, does have many levels of fundamentalism/enlightenment, but Muslims in the US frequently have about the same level of fundamentalism as the Christian denomination in which I was raised (which is to say, extremely liberal). Although you will tend to see a greater amount of fundamentalism in the parts of the country with more recent emigrant populations.

The reasons that I have seen given for this difference between the Muslims who emigrated to the US and the Muslims emigrating to many European countries is that the families of US Muslims often emigrated here more than two generations ago, and because they came from more highly educated and more prosperous families than the majority of those who emigrated to European countries.

This created a different experience for those who came here. They have not felt disenfranchised (until fairly recently), they were able to blend in fairly easily into the local culture, they did not experience any significant amounts of financial hardship or deprivation. This is not the case for large numbers of Muslims emigrants to Europe. As a result, these Muslims tend to practice a very liberal form of Islam that is no less enlightened than the liberal form of Christianity in which I grew up.

Plus, there is also Islam as practiced by African Americans who converted to Islam, which is a fairly liberal form of Islam.

You can't measure the developoment of a religion like Islam by only one yardstick. There is too much variation in the way it is practiced in different parts of the world and in different societies.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:38 PM

It was wrong to issue a fatwah and it was wrong to make Rushdie a knight.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Basically, the Brits are saying that the enemy of Islam is their hero in a very public way.

The Brits can do what they want but it certainly isn't a step toward peace.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:35 PM

Perhaps my point was too complex. Let me open it out:

a) There are Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists

b) Both Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists want to suppress the ideas of those who disagree with them

c) Muslim fundamentalists do this according to the mores of their society (by jihad) where Christian fundamentalists do it according to the mores of theirs (by suppression of opposing thought - actually, the Muslim fundamentalists do this too)

d) Unconnected with any arguments about Muslim versus Christian fundamentalists, I make the point that Americans have killed more human beings in their war against fundamentalist Islam (100,000 or so in Iraq, a few tens of thousands in Afghanisatan, I think) than Islamic fundamentalists have killed in their wars against the west (2,000 or so in the World Trade Center buildings and the planes that attacked them, I'm not sure how many in the Spanish and English train bombings, but probably only (only!) a few dozen.

I don't have any particular liking for *either* side. As far as I'm concerned I'd like both American killers and Islamic killers to keep well away from me and mine and do their quarrelling far from us.

I suspect that the basis of this - like the basis of the first and second world wars - is profit, when all of the excuses are stripped away.

Might I make the point that 99% of the time when someone says to someone else "But you've changed your argument", it's because they haven't listened.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Arram
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:10 PM

I think it was a mistake to give him a Knighthood. It was an insult to many including myself. Britain is becoming a Muslim country, sadly few are willing to accept this.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:54 PM


That's just not true, Mr. O'Matic. There are branches of Islam that haven't gone through their enlightenment phase, and those that have. Sufism, being a good example of one that has. And of course Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity. The more fundamentalist of the Islamic sects are arguably more strict and backward than the more fundamentalist of the Christian sects, but you can't really boil all of Islam down into such a broad, sweeping generalization. It's just not that monolithic.
The term "the Islamic community" isn't really a valid term. There are many, many different Islamic communities which all have different degrees of enlightenment/fundamentalism.

Carol, you can call me Robo- Sufism is a pretty small though important percentage of "The Islamic Community". This is a valid term, it merely means Muslims as taken as a whole. Muslims themselves consider it a very important term, they call it "Umma". Kind of one big family of faith. It can be erroneous to treat it as monolithic, which I think is your point, which stated this way is correct. But the history of Islam is, as I said, somewhat less lengthy than the history of Christianity by 600 years. Human culture is not stamped out, it develops, ages, (hopefully) matures. And the Koran is not the Torah or the New Testament, and it is 'marketed' as complete and perfect. This means that the majority of the Umma are taught to believe, and in fact believe that "that's it", even when a considerable portion of Muslims can't read Arabic and don't really know what's in the Koran.

So while partially agreeing with you I am resisting your argument that "Islam as practiced by most Muslims in the US is no less enlightened than Christianity." I maintain my argument that a great deal of what we are facing is a disjunction in time. No less an institution than the BBC broadcast a couple of learned Englishmen last night on "Politics UK" One of 'em was a Lord and the other was Christopher Hitchens. They were speaking English English so I don't know which was which but one of them said very nearly what I"ve been saying for years, only he said that Islam had not yet had a Reformation. I'm still trying to find out if I can find the thing as a BBC Podcast.

Christianity has been enlightened in my estimation for about a generation now. I sure hope Islam doesn't take another 600 years to catch up.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:36 PM

Although I should probably mention that for many fundamentalist Christians, Armageddon is a very important part of their belief system. And many of them support foreign policies that involve killing a lot of Muslims in order to hasten Armageddon. So in that sense, there are quite a few fundamentalist Christians who are no less blood-thirsty than the most fundamentalist of Muslims. They just are content to let others do their killing for them.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:23 PM

The FUNDAMENTALS are different -- hence, those that adhere to them are different.

The fundamentals aren't all that different if you include the Old Testament in your definition of fundamentalist Christianity. And most fundamentalist Christians do put a pretty big emphasis on the Old Testament.

And of course, Christianity has gone through phases in which it was far more blood-thirsty than Islam is today, even in its most fundamentalist manifestations. The differences in fundamentalisms arise from other factors, not from the fundamentals themselves.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,undertheradar
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 11:40 AM

Worth mentioning. While radical Islamists cry for Rushdie's blood, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion remains a bestseller in the Middle East, officially endorsed by political leaders. That is the antisemitic pamphlet written by the Tsar of Russia's secret police to plant the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

It has been proved totally frauduelent.

See Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Contemporary_usage_and_popularity

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 10:33 AM

Guest,JTT--You have changed your argument today in answer to John Hardly. First you say that Islamic fundamentalists are the same Christian fundamentalists [a statement that I disagree with in today's environment] and in your next post you assert that Americans have killed more than Islamists, by which I guess you mean that Americans are Christian fundamentalists who kill authors with whom they disagree, or stone women who drive or dress immodestly, or blow up religious shrines or buildings of those who disagree doctrinally with them. Which century are you referring to? Certainly not this one.
I have not, I admit, read Rushdie's works...any of them...but I don't need to to know it is wrong to seek his death because of his writings, no matter how much they might offend. You should know that too.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 09:11 AM

What I said was that fundamentalists behave according to the norm of their own society. American violence and Pakistani violence are different. (But Americans have killed more than Islamists, so far.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:46 AM

No, fundamentalist Christians do not wish to "kill" people who don't believe as they do. No, on fundamentalist is not the same as another. The FUNDAMENTALS are different -- hence, those that adhere to them are different.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:22 AM

I'm with McGrath et al: knighthoods are very political. Do the British offer knighthoods to the citizens of any other foreign country than Ireland, by the way? They've been making various Irish luminaries - media magnate Tony O'Reilly, do-gooder ex-songsters Bono and Bob Geldof, etc - knights. The only one with the honour to refuse the honour is Seamus Heaney.

So conferring a knighthood on Salman Rushdie, while leaving many superb English, Scottish and Welsh writers un-knighted seems a most political act to me. But I'm a simple soul.

I actually enjoyed The Satanic Verses, which I bought indignantly the day the fatwa was declared; I remember sitting in the mezzanine of Bewley's reading it, glared at by a woman in a hijab.

The writing was fine - kind of Joycean - and it was full of heartwarming stories, unlike his earlier book, Shame, which was just spiteful.

The central section about Mohammed in the desert, inspired by the angel Gabriel and tempted by Satan, was kind of boring - and it's this section that enrages fundamentalist Muslims.

And I think that if we're to think of 'fundamentalist Muslims', we must remember that they are little different from fundamentalist Christians: these are people who do not want others to think differently from them; and depending on the accepted mores of their own particular society, they will shun those who do, or deprive them of work, or kill them.

Anyway, before more discussion of the knighthood and the fatwa, may I suggest that everyone go out and buy The Satanic Verses (or borrow it from the library) and read it. That might give a better basis for discussion.

My own copy seems to have fallen victim to one of my periodic fatwas when my books are banished en masse to the thrift shops, or possibly to some passing borower, alas. I'd like to read it again.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 03:21 PM

from the Washington Post

Knighthood for a Literary Lion

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 22, 2007; Page A19

Later in this column, I'm going to defend Britain's decision to award a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie, despite a sharp official complaint from the Pakistani government and bitter protests elsewhere in the Muslim world. But first, a story and some shameless name-dropping.

One day in 1993, when I was The Post's bureau chief in London, I got a phone call from a journalism acquaintance I barely knew, inviting me and my wife to dinner. I accepted, then almost immediately started thinking of reasons to back out -- I had other things to do, I needed a break from socializing, who was this guy anyway. A few days later, I called back with some lame excuse.

"No, you don't understand, you have to come," he said.

I persisted.

"No, you want to come. Trust me." Before I could say anything in response, he went on: "Listen, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but Salman Rushdie is going to be there."

That changed everything. At the time, Rushdie was in deepest hiding, under threat of assassination. His novel " The Satanic Verses," published five years earlier, had been deemed unforgivably blasphemous to Islam; Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had issued a fatwa sentencing Rushdie to death. I was being offered the chance to meet a man who stayed in the shadows.

It turned out that the host lived just a couple of blocks from our house in Hampstead, a high-toned and expensive neighborhood. (We used to see Trudie Styler, better known as Mrs. Sting, at the neighborhood grocery store.) This was back when newspapers were flush and no one paid close attention to the details of foreign correspondents' expense accounts. Now you'd need a receipt for an order of fish and chips.

Anyway, on the appointed evening we strolled over and rang the bell. Two beefy men in ill-fitting suits lounged attentively in the living room. We were led through the house to a patio, where, at a table set for an alfresco supper, we found a London newspaper columnist of my acquaintance and his wife; our host (who did something for the BBC) and hostess (also BBC, I think); a wan and ethereal woman who was introduced as a poet and intellectual; and, in a merry mood, the most wanted man in the world.

Salman Rushdie was clever and charming. He showed patience and uncommon good humor as we grilled him on his nomadic existence, which basically entailed moving from borrowed house to borrowed flat to borrowed cottage, always with a security detail in tow, never staying anywhere too long. Every journey of any length required cloak-and-dagger intrigue of the kind you might find in, say, a John le Carré novel.

We hit on only two sore subjects. One was that despite fulsome expressions of solidarity from governments and other institutions throughout the West, there was only one airline that would allow Rushdie to fly on its planes. (He wouldn't tell us, even off the record, the airline's name.) The other source of bitterness was that while most British writers had been clear in support of his right to free speech, a few, he believed, had temporized.

He considered the prime offender to be none other than le Carré, whose real name is David Cornwell and who also happened to be a neighbor of ours -- his city house, as opposed to the country house where he spent most of his time, was just across the way, and we had met him socially. So there we were, torn between literary lions.

Le Carré's position, as he later explained in a published letter, was that "like any decent person" he of course deplored Rushdie's persecution but that he also believed "there is no law in life or nature that says great religions may be insulted with impunity."

Leaving aside an earlier feud between the two authors over a book review, le Carré makes a reasonable point about gratuitous insult. It's basically the same point I made about those Danish cartoons that ridiculed the prophet Muhammad in a stunt whose only purpose was provocation.

The bard of espionage was wrong about Rushdie, though. "The Satanic Verses" is a true work of literature, meant to illuminate, not defile. I don't happen to think it is Rushdie's best novel. But " Midnight's Children," published in 1980, is a flat-out masterpiece. Even had he never set down another word, the queen would be right to say: Arise, Sir Salman.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: heric
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 12:51 PM

Excerpt from Bloomberg:

. . . Rushdie has since left Britain to live in New York with his fourth wife, Padma Lakshmi, host of a TV reality show, ``Top Chef.''

Honor or Epitaph?

All of which makes his honoring by a country he forsook perplexing, even to admirers. Other oddities aside, he is the first of his literary generation to be honored -- ahead of Martin Amis, Ian McEwan and Julian Barnes who are producing work of high quality well into their middle years. Was it not so much an honor as an epitaph?

The arts and media committee that advises the honors panel is chaired by the investment banker Jacob Rothschild and peopled by the impeccably great and good -- Jenny Abramsky, head of BBC Radio; former editor of the Independent, Andreas Whittam Smith; novelist Ben Okri; theater critic John Gross and two senior civil servants.

My understanding is that the committee was looking to honor a writer. When Rushdie's name came up, no-one could object for fear of endorsing censorship. Rushdie was contacted and pronounced himself ``thrilled and humbled.'' There was no intention to offend, no extensive consultations.

It seems the world and its rowdy sensitivities never got onto the Whitehall agenda. Sir Salman will arise because nobody looked out of the window.

(Norman Lebrecht is a critic for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 08:48 AM

more from the article:

"Sudan is China's largest overseas oil project. China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister. Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war. A cease-fire is in effect and a peace agreement is expected to be signed by year-end. But the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region rages on, as government-backed Arab militias push African tribes off their land.

China in October signed a $70 billion oil deal with Iran, and the evolving ties between those two countries could complicate U.S. efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically or pressure it to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons. China is also pursuing oil in Angola.

In the case of Sudan, Africa's largest country, China is in a lucrative partnership that delivers billions of dollars in investment, oil revenue and weapons -- as well as diplomatic protection -- to a government accused by the United States of genocide in Darfur and cited by human rights groups for systematically massacring civilians and chasing them off ancestral lands to clear oil-producing areas. The country once gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and is listed by Washington as a state supporter of terrorism. U.S. companies are prohibited from investing there."

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:36 AM

Hey, maybe if we're really quiet and don't do anything to provoke them they'll leave us alone. After all, they're reasonable people aren't they?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 09:21 PM

1. My comments were in quotes because I was quoting from the article I had previously mentioned. I figured most here would not bother to read anything that might conflict with their pre-set notions of what was going on.

2. Are YOU revising history and ignoring the creation of Transjordan as an Arab Moslem Homeland from over 75% of the Mandate Palestine land? Were you aware that Jews were prohibited from settling there?

Are YOU ignoring the greater number ( 820,000 vs 640,000) of Arab Jews who were driven from THEIR homes, and resettled, mostly in Israel?

Can you tell me why Jordan did not settle the Arab Moslem refugees in the West Bank, when from 1948 to 1967 Jordan had comntrol of it, and removed almost all the Jews who were living there?

Can you tell me how many Jews are now living in the Arab Moslem Palestinian Homeland ( Jordan)?

Can you tell me how many Arab Moslems are now living in Israel?

Can you tell me why you feel that Arab Moslems should be treated by Jews any differently than Jews were and are treated by Arab Moslems?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 08:30 PM

Most of us try to simplify the Darfur conflict into something we can understand. I admit that my partial acceptance of beardedbruce's comments is over-simplistic because Darfur is a complicated region.
It must be admitted that Darfurian black Muslims are being entrapped and many are now in the same situation as the Black non-Muslim population. Rule from the north is being escalated to a point of totality. Money from Asia (China, Malaysia, India) is strengthening the Sudanese government, but the desire for control would be the driving force regardless of the outside finances.

The following article explains something of the history, make-up and complexities of the Darfur problem:
http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/hornofafrica/dewaal/
Contemporary Conflicts

Ouside of division of Sudan I see no resolution in sight and I doubt that effective support for division can be garnered.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 07:34 PM

What are you on about, Bruce? Are you revising history here? Are you denying that thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homelands in 1948 to make room for the state of Israel?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 05:59 PM

No, beardedbruce is entirely wrong about the conflict.


"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.


This is a very misleading synopsis. Certainly all of these groups are involved, but hardly in the way that the Western media is representing them.

All of the people being genocided in Darfur are Muslims. The rebels are mostly Christians, but they are participating in the genocide against the Muslim farmers themselves (for their own selfish reasons). The rebels are not being genocided in Darfur. The farmers are being genocided in Darfur (the farmers are not the same people as the rebels). The "Black African" rebels and the "Arabs" are committing genocide upon the African Muslim indigenous farmers. They are doing it for control of oil and control of oil profits. The rebels are backed by Western governments, and the "Arabs" are backed by China. In that sense, the conflict is a proxy war between China and the West. The conflict in Darfur did exist in a very small way prior to oil becoming a part of the equation, over land, but it was mostly in the form of small raids, and the scope of death and destruction in that region didn't begin to take on tragic proportions until oil became a factor.

The conflict in the rest of Sudan involves various groups (not all of them the same ones as in Darfur), in different ways.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 05:25 PM

China, Malaysia and India are dominant in Dafur oil exploration. Canadian companies have sold out, and the U. S. has been barred by their government since 1997. A few European companies maintain small interests.

beardedbruce is essentially correct about the conflict; Islamic Arabs and Blacks (Sunni 70%) on one side, and black Christian (5%) and indigenous native (mostly Nilotic) religious groups (25%) on the other. The conflict will persist with or without outside intervention unless the latter is massive.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:39 PM

"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.

"The reason why it has not been resolved is because of China.

"The Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the Security Council so 250 000 people die in Darfur." "

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:36 PM

China is backing the "Arabs" (Arabic speaking Africans, "Arab" in the same sense that Morrocans are French), and the West is backing the rebels, and ALL of them are committing genocide on the farmers, who don't have a voice with either the "Arabs" or the rebels.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:35 PM

re Sudan- Please show me how the US is involved, other than in attempts to get the UN to do something.

re:"Palestinians kicked out of their homeland " I did not know anyone had invaded Jordan recently. Or do you mean the JEWISH Palestinians who were driven out of the West Bank when Jordan occupied it?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:30 PM

Try reading my posts, beardedbruce. I did say that China is contributing. But as I said, we are responsible for what our OWN governments are doing first. And our own government is up to its little eyeballs in complicity in the situation in Sudan.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:30 PM

from the article:

"Ultimately, it may be peace that presents the Chinese firm with its greatest challenge. Under the terms of an agreement still being negotiated, oil contracts are supposed to remain secure. But three commanders of the southern Sudan rebel group said in interviews that the SPLA will seek to punish China once the rebels gain a formal decision-making role in the government.

The stakes could be considerable: Peace would allow the world's major energy companies to enter Sudan's oil patch. Moreover, roughly two-fifths of all known reserves -- oil worth more than $16 billion -- are now in rebel-controlled territory, according to the study by PFC, the strategic analysis group.

"The suffering of the people is on the hands of the Chinese," said commander Deng Awou. "The agreements for the Chinese company may be terminated." "

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM

Quote beardedbruce:
"The obvious bigotry of demanding a double standard ( We have to change what we do because they might not like it, but they do not ever have to change what they do, regardless of our opinions, because it is their culture) has still not been addressed."

Millions of Muslims have had to change what they do because of us. Palestinians kicked out of their homeland to accommodate the state of Israel. Those left in Gaza and the West Bank forced to give up farming because the land was stolen or cut off from them by illegal occupiers whom we bankroll and arm to the teeth in spite of UN resolutions. Millions of innocent Iraqi civilians with their lives ruined, family members slaughtered and homes destroyed as a result of an invasion predicated on a lie. And you can go a long way back if you like. Ruthless exploitation of Iranian oil by the Brits. Even the foundation of Iraq was a balls-up of major proportions. And so on ad nauseam. Oh yes, we have made an awful lot of Muslims change what they do. Mostly it has been to our benefit and to their impoverishment.   Or are you basing your argument on half-understood nonsense picked up from the Daily Mail about Sharia law?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:29 PM

There have been virtually no Muslims that have decried the issue of fatwah on Rushdie, probably due to reprisals by the more extremist groups.

Frank, it really surprises me to see you say this. Nothing could farther from the truth. The fact that you believe this is a testament to the efforts of the Western media to paint all Muslims in a bad light.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:28 PM

China Invests Heavily In Sudan's Oil Industry
Beijing Supplies Arms Used on Villagers

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A01

LEAL, Sudan -- On this parched and dusty African plain, China's largest energy company is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. Chinese laborers based in a camp of prefabricated sheds work the wells and lay highways across the flats to make way for heavy machinery.

Only seven miles south, the rebel army that controls much of southern Sudan marches troops through this sun-baked town of mud huts. For years, the rebels have attacked oil installations, seeking to deprive the Sudan government of the wherewithal to pursue a civil war that has killed more than 2 million people and displaced 4 million from their homes over the past two decades. But the Chinese laborers are protected: They work under the vigilant gaze of Sudanese government troops armed largely with Chinese-made weapons -- a partnership of the world's fastest-growing oil consumer with a pariah state accused of fostering genocide in its western Darfur region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21143-2004Dec22?language=printer


Try looking at the facts and not deciding what is going on by your own desires.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:26 PM

"in Sudan, the West hypocritically points the finger at "Arabs" for genocide of the farmers, all the while assisting the rebels in their own slaughter of the farmers, because the West has the same objective as the "Arabs", ie: get the farmers off their land and take the oil."




'China wants Sudan's oil'
10/04/2006 20:19 - (SA)   

Athens - Anti-poverty campaigner and Live 8 organiser Sir Bob Geldof has accused China of responsibility for the continuing civil war in Sudan's Darfur region.

On Monday the Irish rock star, nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for organising last year's Live 8 benefit concerts, said China was protecting the Sudanese government because it provides 6% of China's oil.

Geldof said: "I was in Darfur 20 years ago and people were killing each other then.

"It's an ancient battle between nomadic people and settled people, between Arab Africans and black Africans, between Islam and Christians.

"The reason why it has not been resolved is because of China.

"The Chinese protect the Khartoum government, who are killers, and they will not allow a vote in the Security Council so 250 000 people die in Darfur."

There are no official figures for the death toll in the Sudanese war.

The conflict is estimated to have claimed more than 180 000 lives since 2003 and driven millions from their homes.

Geldof was speaking in Athens, Greece, where he was presented with a humanitarian award from the Greek branch of Doctors of the World.

The 54-year-old also said Africa received "too little attention" compared to places like Iraq.

Geldof said: "Everbody is aware of Iraq. Iraq is a nightmare and many people will die before it's over. But it will pass."

Today's greatest political problem, Geldof said, was the "continuing economic decline of a continent that is 13 kilometres from Europe.""

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:26 PM

Beardedbruce, the West got rid of the Ottoman Empire for their own selfish purposes (to control the resources of the Middle East), not out of concern for the wellbeing of the people of the region. The Ottomans may not have been very nice people, but what the West has done since they fell has done far more harm to the region than anything the Ottomans did to it. And Europe had no right to partition any part of the Middle East for any reason.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:21 PM

And I"m not calling China the West. I'm calling the West the West. China contributes to a lot of problems, but that doesn't negate the responsibility that Western governments have for creating and/or contributing to the problems you listed. And since you and I live in Western countries, it's pretty hypocritical for us to point the finger at China if we don't first take responsibility for what our own governments do in our names.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM

And, looking at history, perhaps the fault for the "Westerm Imperialism" in the Middle East has SOMETHING to do with the Ottoman Empire, its actions from the 16th to the 20th century, and its being involved on the losing side in the conflict known as WW I. ALL of the nations in the middle east were broken out of that empire, with all but Turkey being distributed to European powers for disposition.

And in 1923 the bulk of the Mandate of Palestine was split off by the British to form the Arab MOSLEM Palestinian homeland, where NO Jews were permitted to settle. ( In violation of the San Remos treaty that Turkey, as heir to the Ottoman Empire, agreed to.)

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:19 PM

The problem is this. Religious moderates are often in collusion with fundamentalists. The fatwah against Rushdie is a case in point. There have been virtually no Muslims that have decried the issue of fatwah on Rushdie, probably due to reprisals by the more extremist groups.

The idea that the British govenment made Rushdie a Knight to bait Muslims is specious.
Fundamentalist Muslims will cry injury at the slightest disagreement by anyone toward their fanaticism. In this way, it is the same attitude as we see toward atheists by fundamentalist Christian believers in the US. Or hard liner Jewish politicians if anyone criticizes Israel.

It's all the same repression.

Salmon Rushdie is a sensible and rational man of letters and has a literary reputation throughout the world. Why shouldn't he be honored instead of being castigated by an association with the Blair administration? This might be the only thing that Blair did right if he did it at all.

Whenever anyone who criticizes fanaticism or dogma is diminished by those who are fearful or religious zealots, the world is left worse for it.

Fortunately, we have not got to the point yet in the US where people are put to death for disagreement with religious or political policy. That could change if we're not careful to express our unhappiness with repression by religion or political demoguogery.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM

No, it's NOT ok to not do anything about those problems. We should definitely do something about those problems. What we should do is we should STOP creating them and STOP making them worse.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:57 PM

so it is ok to not do anything about those problems, because YOU have decided we contributed to them?

And I would not call China "the West". They might resent it, and there are a LOT more chinese than there are Moslems...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:49 PM

Care to look at the numbers of civilians killed by the US et al vs the number killed by the Iraqis and foreign "resistance" fighters?

They have us beat by a factor of 4 or 5.


All of them are dead as a direct result of the forgeign policy of the US and the UK.


And YOU seem to think that we should not do anything about that- just let them die, like in Cambodia, Bosnia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan... Can't do anything that might get them upset- as long as they are only killing other inferior natives we should not get involved or risk any far more valuable Western lives- After all, WE are worth far more than any of them are in the scheme of things...

In most of these cases it was Western imperialism that set up the conditions that lead to the people being killed. In Cambodia, it was US bombing of that country that destroyed its civil infrastructure, leading to the rise of Pol Pot. In Rwanda, it was Belgium pitting one ethnic group against the other as a part of the enforcement of its colonialist agendas (and killing obscene numbers of Hutus in the process), in Sudan, the West hypocritically points the finger at "Arabs" for genocide of the farmers, all the while assisting the rebels in their own slaughter of the farmers, because the West has the same objective as the "Arabs", ie: get the farmers off their land and take the oil. Western imperialism is responsible for, or at the very least has contributed to the vast majority of the situations you have listed, beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:39 PM

Giving an "honour" to an author is not "something we do", analogous to how people should dress or eat or drink. It is something that a government did as part of its public relations programme, which is what the honours system is basically all about. The over the top reaction to it is nothing to do with any effort to change the way of life of non-Moslems in those kinds of ways.

I think that the comment quoted by Wolfgang is probably quite correct - this is being picked up and used by confrontational extremists as a way of causing dissension and division. But that tactic only works because the award is inevitably seen by any Moslems as a hostile gesture.

It was insensitive and highly unwise for that very reason. It was an own goal.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:36 PM

"killing obscene numbers of civilians "?

Care to look at the numbers of civilians killed by the US et al vs the number killed by the Iraqis and foreign "resistance" fighters?

They have us beat by a factor of 4 or 5.


And YOU seem to think that we should not do anything about that- just let them die, like in Cambodia, Bosnia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan... Can't do anything that might get them upset- as long as they are only killing other inferior natives we should not get involved or risk any far more valuable Western lives- After all, WE are worth far more than any of them are in the scheme of things...

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:29 PM

The double standard is the West going into Muslim countries and doing pretty much whatever it wants to in those countries (utterly destroying some of them and killing obscene numbers of civilians in the process, as well as destroying their economies, their ancient cultural heritage, their civil infrastructures, stealing their natural resources, and destroying pretty much everything they have or ever had) and then getting all righteously indignant and morally superior when it suffers a backlash from this hideous foreign policy.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:15 PM

The obvious bigotry of demanding a double standard ( We have to change what we do because they might not like it, but they do not ever have to change what they do, regardless of our opinions, because it is their culture) has still not been addressed.

If the Islamic nations are to be allowed to change OUR actions, because of what THEY feel, and we are not supposed to demand that they change theirs to accomodate OUR feelings, then they are obviously NOT equal to us- You are treating them as non-responsible children, and that seems to me, IMHO, to be bigotry. The so- superior
Western culture accommadating the desires of the poor natives: Can't expect THAT kind of people to be able to act civilized, you know, old boy.

As for moderates vs extremists, the numbers of people demonstrating against the knighthood, especially compared to the number demonstrating against the actions in Darfur ( none) give a pretty good idea of what the "average" Moslem in those countries either feels or is forced to pretend to feel about the problems. But the words and actions OF THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS is clearly stated by their OWN spokesmen and support (or control) of those demonstrations.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:03 PM

But it is the timeing that fits into the Islamists agenda

Precisely. And the West just keeps on doing all the heavy lifting for the extremists, providing them with endless opportunities for recruitment.

The answer is for the West to stop pursuing it's imperialist agendas in the Middle East (and stop the slaughter of civilians in its pursuit of those agendas). That's the only thing that will take the air out of the extremists' methods. Every single other thing that the West does simply assists the extremists in their efforts, and makes their job a lot easier.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 03:00 PM

"Sailing off into the wild blue yonder and making up stuff like 282RA [...]is a bit silly. There are real things to worry about, no need for fantasies and exaggeration."

Hmmm. I don't agree. He/She's not using some illogical device -- he's merely asking a person to imagine how far up or down the scale you'd be willing to allow a culture, separate from one's own, to dictate how they must live their life.

Simili, metaphor, analogy, allegory bother you that much, huh? Isn't "Sailing off into the wild blue yonder" exactly the same thing your asking others to stop?

Unless someone is clearly using logical fallacy to make a point, isn't it better to argue a point rather than tell someone else how they're not doing it right?

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 02:46 PM

Yassin Musharbash (in his own words an "Arab Christian", a Palestinian living in Germany) in DER SPIEGEL (my translation):

The Islamist mob has looked for a replacement for the Danish caricatures from last year and has found it in the award of the knighthood to Rushdie. Normally, a card carrying Islamist should be as indifferent as he can be towards an honour given by an infidel head of state to an infidel writer. But it is the timeing that fits into the Islamists agenda: The memories of the caricature crisis fade, but the principled outrage about the West needs new outlets. And Rushdie always works...

The orchestrated outrage is completely inacceptable. What comes next? A congress of neurophysiologists is targeted for one of the speakers dares to repeat the well known speculation that Muhammed might have received his messages during epileptic fits? Historical critical research about the origins of the Islam is targeted for some of the results run counter some teachings of the religion? Religious thoughts and teachings are just as amenable to critique as any other theories about the world are.

Prinipiis obsta.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 02:19 PM

Sailing off into the wild blue yonder and making up stuff like 282RA and "GUEST,undertheradar" is a bit silly. There are real things to worry about, no need for fantasies and exaggeration.

Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 02:07 PM

Is Salman Rushdie just good at pissing off Muslims, or should he be taken serious as a writer?