(Thanks Jon for the picture)
We join our brethren in Palestine in humbly offering our blessing and congratulation to you leaders, followers, and supporters of the Hamas organization, your victory in the election in Palestine.
Read the letter
It would be interesting to sit down and talk with one of these guys.:)
Update:
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
Gwladys Fouché
Monday February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
the link
Nadia,
It looks like muslims might have a strong court case.
Let them try the law instead of violence.
Oh, PS —
Duh?
Charles,
I know that was opinion from the start.
Nadia, this article is new to me. There was a similar case a few years ago when someone painted a big outdoor picture on a wall showing Jesus hanging on his cross with an erect penis. Jyllands-Posten condemned the painting in strong words and demanded it to be removed. They succeded.
The same guy — Jens Jørgen Thorsen — also made a controversial film about the profane life of Jesus: The Return. It was condemned by the Vatican and many Christian organisations worldwide.
KB
I asked about it two days ago because I read it in Arabic.
Nadia,
“I know that was opinion from the start.”
Great! But do you understand that muslims all over the world are rejecting the rule of law and conducting/condoning violence? This is why many, many, many people think that the religion of tolerance and peace isn’t either, and why islamic forces are considered a threat to western civilization.
This cannot be denied any longer. This is the elephant in the room. If there are any muslim moderates, let them stand up and be counted.
LB said, “I asked about it two days ago because I read it in Arabic.”
Yes, I remember ;-) I missed the debate in the Danish papers — if there was any. I usually don’t read Jyllands-Posten and the like.
Charles said, “If there are any muslim moderates, let them stand up and be counted.”
There has been many peaceful demonstrations throughout the weekend in DK. Most of them arranged by moderate Muslims, but the media didn’t cover them — they don’t sell papers. Here’s an exception: Demonstrating for dialogue.
Despite the humorous tone, Marzouk said that he was concerned that Denmark was developing a reputation as a neo-Nazi, anti-Islamic country.
It looks to me like they got together to blame Denmark because so many Muslims are making asses of themselves…again; and are trying to get their point across by threatening everybody in reach.
This didn’t “get reported” because it was merely a milder form of what has been happening everywhere else.
These headlines from today are selling papers:
1) PM: Bush is now supporting us
2) Danish Air Force evacuating cartoon victims in the Middle East
3) New attacks on the embassy in Tehran
4) The riots now spreading to the Philippins
5) All charter flights to Muslim countries cancelled
Keld,
When Charles said “let them be counted”, I think he was looking for leading Muslims to condemn the Muslim stirring up “outrage” over the sort of “offense” that newpapers and magazines are guilty of all the time…in order to sell newspapers. What if every Christmas, when Time and Newsweek put out articles debunking the historicity of Jesus, conservative Christians took to the streets burning down…everything?
The Muslim leadership of Europe have taken a series of steps (the latest is the Anne Frank Nazi cartoon) that now requires that THEY be forgiven. Not the Danish media.
Latest about the fake Mohammad cartoons: Danish Imams Busted!
Yeah — what he said…
“Danish Imams Busted!”
This would be so funny if it had not already been so horrific.
I wonder if this revelation will turn the temperature among Muslims down a notch? I bet not.
Charles,
First there are million of Muslims who are protesting peacefully, second there are millions of Muslims who really don’t bother any longer. And third my suggestion to you is see to it that your administration and country stops rejecting International law and stop its wars, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Nadia,
“my suggestion to you is see to it that your administration and country stops rejecting International law and stop its wars, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
When you get rid of the autocratic/theocratic regimes who are intolerant and slaughter their people, etc., I will tell Bush to stop opposing them.
KB you wrote “There was a similar case a few years ago when someone painted a big outdoor picture on a wall showing Jesus hanging on his cross with an erect penis. Jyllands-Posten condemned the painting in strong words and demanded it to be removed. They succeded.”
KB what you wrote here and what Guardian wrote today makes it very clear that the claims of free-speech was all hoax. So what was their real mission?
Ha ha ha ha Bush supports these guys…
Where do you live Charles, where have you been? Didn’t you see the lovebirds; Bush and his fellow from Saudi Arabia kissing and holding hands.
Nadia, I think Jyllands-Posten’s claims of free speech, free expression, freedom of the press, etc. are ‘good enough’. The problem is that they seem to forget that such rights come with a responsibility. You cannot offend or insult other people (or religions) in the name of free speech without it having consequences.
I don’t know what the ‘real mission’ is, but Jyllands-Posten is known for having strong right-wing opinions, and they are certainly not in front when there is a reason to condemn intolerance and racism in the Danish society. That’s about all I can say.
freedom of the press, etc. are ‘good enough’. The problem is that they seem to forget that such rights come with a responsibility. You cannot offend or insult other people (or religions) in the name of free speech without it having consequences.
That depends. What sort of consequences? That people won’t like you? That people won’t buy your paper? That people might protest in front of your building. Of course!
That people will burn down embassies? Threaten your life? Threaten you with injury? Kill people from your country? Kill people from your continent? Kill people from the same side of the planet? Kill people who have the same religion as some people on your side of the planet?
If those are the consequences, then there is no free speech.
Nadia,
I’d like to see some mainstream Muslim leaders protesting the extremism of other Muslims. That’s what I call “moderate”.
Just because some other Muslims agree with what the extremists do but don’t have the balls to do it themselves…that’s not moderation.
CMAR, the consequences vary in different parts of the world.
In the West such problems are usually sorted out between the two parts in relatively calmness: either by offering an apology or by a court room verdict.
In other parts of the world it can get a little more exasperated — as we have just seen. If it’s a matter of honour, you might even get killed.
Keld,
Yes. But (get your mind around this, Keld) in other parts of the world, there is NOT FREE SPEECH.
Yet, this happened in Denmark, and the explosion occurred on another continent. As a matter of fact, the cartoonists have gone into hiding. Soooo it turns out that things cannot be sorted out in relative calmness anywhere if you share the planet with most Muslims. Suddenly we all live under Sharia law.
If free speech is not free, then it is not free.
Nadia,
“Didn’t you see the lovebirds; Bush and his fellow from Saudi Arabia kissing and holding hands.”
That’s the US trying to be tolerant and multicultural. But that has its limits. I suppose when the Saudi’s start gassing their people they will move up a few notches on the bad guy list. Its a pretty long list by the way.
Great argument though! The US shouldn’t oppose any dictators, even the worst, because we aren’t willing to invade every country simultaneously.
“If it’s a matter of honour, you might even get killed.”
Its a matter of a totalitarian ideology that people have been indoctrinated in since birth that allows no dissention in matters of dark ages dogma. This dogma trumps the rule of law — apparently. That is the issue.
CMAR said, “…in other parts of the world, there is NOT FREE SPEECH.”
I think there is freedom of expression all over the world — but with certain limits. In the US you can’t swear in the media or show a bare breast on tv, in Saudi Arabia you can’t openly criticise the government, in Danmark you don’t offend the queen (there is a special law about that), in Austria you can’t question holocaust, in Norway you can’t buy pornography, in Sweden you can’t buy a bottle of wine in a restaurant, and a lot of other cultural and national ‘specialities’.
We are living in a small world now — especially because of the internet — so we will probably see many clashes between different cultures in the future. I think we will also learn from each other and take the best from each culture and mix with our own. That’s why I like to travel — even to a totalitarian or Muslim country.
Regarding pic at top of thread —
I would love to see religious muslims in similar peaceful protest against the aggregious acts oftheir co-religionists.
Charles, “I would love to see religious muslims in similar peaceful protest against the aggregious acts oftheir co-religionists.”
I just saw that on the news this evening from the second largest town in DK. Thousands of people, most of them Muslims, carrying candles and torches in perfect harmony. A beautiful sight.
Just read an interesting article based on a book by Stanley Fish called “There Is No Such Thing As Free Speech – And It’s a Good Thing, Too”
The main point is, that free speech is the right to express what the majority finds true and good. It’s based on consensus and is therefore NOT free speech. It’s a politically agreed truth. You are ONLY to express what everyone agrees upon beforehand.
The main point is, that free speech is the right to express what the majority finds true and good. It’s based on consensus and is therefore NOT free speech.
You know who believes that about liberal society? The Khmer Rouge. Castro’s gang. The Taliban. The Shining Path.
Misguided thinking like that is what has debilitated Europe from defending itself. I despair for the Continent if your thinking is in the mainstream.
In a liberal society — for the most part — if one says something animous to the majority, he will suffer for it — particularly if his livelihood depends on public appeal. But he will not be locked up to otherwise prevented from speaking.
There are exceptions: When a liberal society has gone very bad in a particular direction it often erects barriers to prevent it from returning that way (white supremicism in the US, anti-Semitism in Europe, Ba’athism is Iraq), but, otherwise, free speech means the freedom to say what you want no matter how unpopular, with the concommitant right of others not to listen.
“I just saw that on the news this evening from the second largest town in DK. Thousands of people, most of them Muslims, carrying candles and torches in perfect harmony. A beautiful sight.”
Now we just need he other 1,299,990,000 to get the message and feel the love.
But its a start!
“that free speech is the right to express what the majority finds true and good.”
That gives me chills.
Some late night news:
1) NEWSWEEK’s interview with Jyllands-Posten’s editor, Flemming Rose: Igniting more than debate
2) Daily Times: Cartoons violated Danish law but went unpunished
3) Reporters Without Borders: Annual World Press Freedom Index
LadyBird — “(Thanks Jon for the picture)”
My pleasure. I’m glad you could find a space for it. I think it makes the important point that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
Charles — “I would love to see religious muslims in similar peaceful protest against the aggregious acts oftheir co-religionists.”
I’ll see what I can do. :-)
Charles — Here you go. A picture of Muslims protesting terrorism as requested. :-D
It’s no surprise that North Korea, Iran and China hits the bottom of the Annual World Press Freedom Index, but how come that the US only ranks 44?
Charles said, “That gives me chills.”
Maybe you prefer Orwell then: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”
I think it makes the important point that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
It is just a coincidence that two are found growing in the greatest abundance in the same gloomy valleys.
Incidentally — although the subtly (sarcasm) will be lost on most here, I think — Neturei Karta is not against the state of Israel because it thinks it is racist, or nazi, or has robbed Arabs of their precious desolate terrain. They are against a state of Israel because they consider the exile of Jewry to be God-ordained. As they say:
“This Zionist entity, that prefers to be identified as the “Jewish” State, is a direct rebellion against the Almight, who has expressly forbidden us, the Jewish people, from ending His decreed exile, by creating our own State. This fact is regardless of whether the selected country for making such a State is populated or desolate, and regardless of whether it is or it becomes the will of the indigenous people to help the Jews to form their State, or whether the State is forced upon such indigenous people.”
So there is simply NO fellowship between this group and the extreme anti-Semitism ingrained in much of Europe and certainly among the modern Ummah that is the foundation of their anti-Zionism.
There is one connection, however: NKI has congratulated Hamas because they expect that group to try to wipe the sinful, rebellious Jews in Israel off the map. Hamas’s other supporters and apologist want the same.
KB,
Yes, I think Orwell was closer to the mark.
If the sphere of permissible expression were limited to the generally accepted dogmas of any particular time/age in history, civilization would still be in the dark ages. Science, social progress, etc., would not exist.
Consider islam’s impact on the (previously flourishing and dominant) civilizations of the ME over the last 1400 years…
“how come that the US only ranks 44?”
They didn’t disclose (or I didn’t notice) their algorithm for indexing countries.
They claim Judy Miller going to jail to protect her source was the biggest factor. That’s unfortunate because the source apparently told her he didn’t need protecting. There was a big debate on that here in US (still ongoing). Should journalists protect identity of sources who potentially broke the law? I suppose it would depend on which law. The risk of course is that under very restrictive laws, it would definitely have a stifling effect. On the other hand, most liberal societies expect a person to be held accountable for their claims/actions. A ‘free’ society will judge under the rule of law. Its a good debate to have and not just brush under the rug.
Charles, “If the sphere of permissible expression were limited to the generally accepted dogmas of any particular time/age in history, civilization would still be in the dark ages.”
Yes, probably — or at least moving very slowly forward (or backward).
I think what Orwell meant, was some painful facts about what you use to believe in. Could be your religion, your country, your politicians, etc. I can imagine that it’s very painful to accept the fact that Roosevelt was behind Pearl Harbor, and that Bush lied the American people into the war on Iraq. It’s also painful for me to accept that many Danes were supporting the Nazis in WW2, and that Danish firms were producing weapons for the German Army.
That’s why free speech is so important. To expose the truth.
CMAR, there’s a more detailed version of the letter here: Congratulations and Well-Wishes to Hamas from Neturei Karta International, Diaspora.
“NKI has congratulated Hamas because they expect that group to try to wipe the sinful, rebellious Jews in Israel off the map. Hamas’s other supporters and apologist want the same.”
If you read the interview with Hamas you’ll see that wiping Israel off the map is no longer the policy of Hamas. They now settle for a one-state solution for both Israelis and Palestinians.
KB,
Well I am interested in the Roosevelt info. I have certainly heard the conspiracy theory, but it seems rather daft to sacrifice the pacific fleet when all that would have been necessary was to have a few bombs drop on US soil. The whole main battle fleet? Geeze. I’m sure Roosevelt knew the war was coming, and that Japan was going to strike US/allied interests throughout asia that we had no way to protect. We had already been fighting the Japanese in China for several years. Give me some links. It will make for interesting reading I’m sure…
Regarding Bush/Iraq intelligence, I would say you have your own agenda when calling Bush a liar. If WMD had been found, you would still consider the US as the bad guy. Looking at the info available at the time, enforcing UNSC disarmament requirements on a violent rogue dictator is not necessarily a bad thing. If Saddam had wanted to unambiguously disarm as required in 1991, he could have. Other countries have done it. It was the responsibility of the UNSC to verify this disarmament once and for all. Everyone loves this Ritter fellow now because he opposes the US invasion of Iraq. They ought to read his 9/98 testimony to the Senate regarding Saddam’s capabilities. His testimony was critical in influencing US policy.
Charles, the deception about Pearl Harbor have been known outside the US for at least 20 years, but I don’t think it’s officially confirmed by the US government. Some documents are still not released, others have been destroyed, but I’ve seen a copy of Roosevelt’s order to ‘stand down’ at your National Archive.
It also seems that the US media has kept a very low profile about this disgraceful issue. Here are a few links, and you can easily find more on the net:
Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction
Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor
December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning
The Skeleton in Uncle Sam’s Closet
The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor — Mother of All Conspiracies
Charles, my links to Pearl Harbor are in moderation, but LB will hopefully ‘accept’ them very soon ;-)
“If Saddam had wanted to unambiguously disarm as required in 1991, he could have.”
Saddam did disarm during the ‘90s, and the US/CIA very well knew that. However, Colin Powell managed to convince the UN of the opposite. He has later shamefully admitted it was a lie, and called it a ‘blunt’ on his career.
I actually checked the ‘mother of all conspiracies’ link.
Much of what was posted there does not necessarily support a conspiracy. But the volume and tone of information is very convincing if you want to believe it.
“Roosevelt’s order to ’stand down’ ”
Do you have any more details on this? How can I find this order?
KB,
“Saddam did disarm during the ’90s, and the US/CIA very well knew that.”
Are you fallaciously using hindsight? That’s what I thought…
“He has later shamefully admitted it was a lie, and called it a ‘blunt’ on his career.”
BS. Keld, don’t just come out and say crap like that (US gave shah nuclear weapons, etc.), its just stupid. Powell did call his presentation to UN a blunt on his career — but not because he lied. It was a blunt because he turned out to be incorrect after making such a public case.
Here is what happened:
1. Saddam defines himself as brutal oppressive dictator by his actions and aggression.
2. Saddam does not comply with disarmament requirements that were conditions of the cease fire in the war he started.
3. Years of back and forth with inspectors where he is caught lying on numerous occasions culminating in withdrawal of inspectors in 98. Ritter makes very sobering testimony to senate in 98 that Saddam has not disarmed, is deliberately blocking the process, and can reconstitute wmd programs with delivery systems in as little as 6 months.
4. 9/11 and US decides it will no longer fuck around with bullshit dictators playing the UN for fools.
Charles said, “Powell did call his presentation to UN a blunt on his career — but not because he lied. It was a blunt because he turned out to be incorrect after making such a public case.”
That’s just another way of admitting it. Powell, the US administration and the CIA knew very well that Saddam had no WMD. That’s a long known fact!
As I talked about ealier today: It can be very painful to admit that your president decieved you.
About Roosevelt’s order to ’stand down’ — I don’t have time to look for it today, but it’s probably within the links I provided.