The Iran Thread

[JLBats]

Well I'm sure you live in "western society.

When have you said that?? I don't remember that at all!! All any of you do is critcize your own country and pretty much insinuate that we deserve to be hit.


Regardless, you accused me specifically of attacking the country I live in, which is just vapid sensationalism regardless of whether I live in the United States or not:down:rolleyes:

It was a generic insult, which felt like you picked it from a rolodex, because it was completely and utterly disconnected from reality.

[Darthphere]

Regardless, you accused me specifically of attacking the country I live in, which is just vapid sensationalism regardless of whether I live in the United States or not:down:rolleyes:

It was a generic insult, which felt like you picked it from a rolodex, because it was completely and utterly disconnected from reality.


Well you do live in what they call "Earth" dont you?:o

[celldog]

Regardless, you accused me specifically of attacking the country I live in, which is just vapid sensationalism regardless of whether I live in the United States or not:down:rolleyes:

It was a generic insult, which felt like you picked it from a rolodex, because it was completely and utterly disconnected from reality.


Well, you're a big boy. I'm sure you can take a "generic" insult or two. :)

[Addendum]

Well, you're a big boy. I'm sure you can take a "generic" insult or two. :)
Your "insults" are from O'Reilly's desk, so it's just drivel that results in laughter

[JLBats]

Well, you're a big boy. I'm sure you can take a "generic" insult or two. :)

Clearly you made the insult not actually knowing where I'm from or how I debate, nor do you know my views, since I generally argue from hypothetical positions on the Hype. It was an absolutely worthless insult and you should be embarrassed that you threw it out:down

[Maxwell Smart]

You know what, celldog? I've come up with a nickname for you- The Big Giant Head.

[sinewave]

http://www.dailyraider.com/comics/liefeldcap/cover.jpg

[Mr Sparkle]

not rob liefeld!!!!!!!

[sinewave]

I figured I'd find a pic by the most absurd artist to draw him to fit in with celldog's absurd views.

[Mr Sparkle]

I figured I'd find a pic by the most absurd artist to draw him to fit in with celldog's absurd views.

*shudders* liefeld certainly is absurd.
was he the one in the Levi's adds back inthe 90's?:(

[sinewave]

*shudders* liefeld certainly is absurd.
was he the one in the Levi's adds back inthe 90's?:(

:confused: no idea...

[Addendum]

*shudders* liefeld certainly is absurd.
was he the one in the Levi's adds back inthe 90's?:(
Yup. Button your fly. :( :down

[JokerNick]

you think this is bad. go look at south africa..... the aids epidemic... the country leaders there acuatly condone grown men with aids, raping infant girls, as a way to treat aids....... that's something we have to stop...

[sinewave]

you think this is bad. go look at south africa..... the aids epidemic... the country leaders there acuatly condone grown men with aids, raping infant girls, as a way to treat aids....... that's something we have to stop...

yeah, africa is really messed up right now. they need a lot of help.

[JokerNick]

yeah, africa is really messed up right now. they need a lot of help.

yeah they do... medication is not allowed into the country, and this raping of little girls is happening all over... most girls are permenetly damaged.. if not killed........ and you can't really put all the blame on the men doing this, yes, it is sick and demented.. but religous leaders are telling them to commit these acts, telling them this is the only way they will be cured.... and the polotical leaders actually say this is alright for them to do... so sad.....

[sinewave]

yeah they do... medication is not allowed into the country, and this raping of little girls is happening all over... most girls are permenetly damaged.. if not killed........ and you can't really put all the blame on the men doing this, yes, it is sick and demented.. but religous leaders are telling them to commit these acts, telling them this is the only way they will be cured.... and the polotical leaders actually say this is alright for them to do... so sad.....

the aids epidemic over there is is beyond scary. not to mention the lack of food and the corruption within the local governments. that whole issue in zimbabwe where mugabe basically had his henchmen go on a rape and pillage spree last year was unbelievable.

[Super_Ludacris]

yeah, africa is really messed up right now. they need a lot of help.


Biggest understatement since " I think that cross is gonna chaff Jesus..."

[celldog]

I figured I'd find a pic by the most absurd artist to draw him to fit in with celldog's absurd views.



You guys are funny. Really. Pitiful, too. All of you have pretty much side- stepped the Muslim woman's article concerning her own people. Your whole position is just consistenting of insults towards me (which I readily expect).

But you really don't have any answers to her retorts against her fellow Muslims do you? Oh ...I forgot. One of you guys said she was...."dumb". :up: That was a brilliant contribution to this discussion. LOL


Is it because she is saying the same things that conservatives have been saying forever?? and because she agrees with conservatives, you dismiss her?

[Darthphere]

As long as people like celldog exist.....

http://images.newsarama.com/dcnew/Nov06/dcu_nov/USFREE_Cv5_solicit.jpg

[sinewave]

You want someone to come out and say they agree with that woman's stance on the Muslim religion, cell? Fine, the Muslim religion is f**ked, just like most organized religions. I don't pretend to understand any of them, nor do I respect any religion that advocates violence or the mistreatment of women. There, ya happy now?

[celldog]

As long as people like celldog exist.....

http://images.newsarama.com/dcnew/Nov06/dcu_nov/USFREE_Cv5_solicit.jpg

That's so deep........ LOL

[raybia]

via NYTimes:
Op-Ed Contributor
Muslim Myopia
By IRSHAD MANJI
Published: August 16, 2006


If Islamists cared about changing Iraq policy, they would not have bothered to abduct two journalists from France — probably the most antiwar, anti-Bush nation in the West. Even overt solidarity with Iraqi suffering did not prevent Margaret Hassan, who ran a world-renowned relief agency in Baghdad, from being executed by insurgents.

Good point.

Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the "official" Muslim fury against that genocide?

Agreed.

Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too.

Agreed.

This means reminding them that in Pakistan, Sunnis hunt down *****es every day; that in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims as well as Jews; that in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture and murder Muslim activists promoting democracy; and, above all, that civil wars have become hallmarks of the Islamic world.

Muslim figureheads will not dare be so honest. They would sooner replicate the very sins for which they castigate the Bush and Blair governments — namely, switching rationales and pretending integrity.

In the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, Iqbal Sacranie, then the head of the influential Muslim Council of Britain, insisted that economic discrimination lay at the root of Islamist radicalism in his country. When it came to light that some of the suspects enjoyed middle-class upbringings, university educations, jobs and cars, Mr. Sacranie found a new culprit: foreign policy. In so doing, he boarded the groupthink express steered by Muslim elites.

The good news is that ordinary people of faith are capable of self-criticism. Two months ago, 65 percent of British Muslims polled believed that their communities should increase efforts to integrate. The same poll also produced troubling results: 13 percent lionized the July 7 terrorists, and 16 percent sympathized. Still, these figures total 29 percent — less than half the number who sought to belong more fully to British society.

Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam's better angels. That duty — and glory — goes to Muslims.
...

Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University, is the author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith.

from Wikipedia:

Manji has been a critic of orthodox Islam, especially the treatment of women by some Muslims.

I'm not a critic of Othodox Islam, but rather a critic of many Muslim governments and leaders and clerics. The problem is that they are not following the proper understand of Al-Islam.


She does not wear a headscarf or chador whereas many traditional Muslim women do observe the hijab.

The headscarf is only required during prayer. Many Islamic scholars incorrectly teach that its required at all times in public.

She has criticized the Palestinian leadership and the opinions of some Muslims about Israel.

Rightfully so.

In March 2006 a letter she co-signed entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with eleven other individuals (most notably Salman Rushdie) was published in response to violent protests in the Islamic world surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

She questions historical interpretations of the Qur'an and advocates the concept of ijtihad, "the Muslim tradition of independent thinking".

Bravo for her for speaking out.

I feel the same and too advocate the concept of ijtihad for the closing of this concept in the 10th century is what has led to the degenerative status of the worldwide Muslim community.

Where are the rest like this woman???

No doubt the Muslim world is completely screwed up, with no thanks to Britian and the rest of the west.

To reform itself, the Muslim world has to unlearn most of what it knows about Al-Islam and go back to an individual study the Quran and the life example of Mohammed the Prophet in order to learn the proper understanding of the religion.

Good article.

[Darthphere]

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[raybia]

You want someone to come out and say they agree with that woman's stance on the Muslim religion, cell? Fine, the Muslim religion is f**ked, just like most organized religions. I don't pretend to understand any of them, nor do I respect any religion that advocates violence or the mistreatment of women. There, ya happy now?

Al-Islam is not F'**ked as you put it, but certainly the understanding of it by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike are.

Al-Islam does advocate self-defense but doesn't advocate violence for the stake of violence nor the mistreatment of women regardless of many instances against Muslim women.

Plus, religion is not a prerequite for violence and mistreatment of women or of anyone else anyway. You don't have to look no further than the U.S. for violence and mistreatment of women.

[raybia]

I wouldn't expect you to understand.


Please elaborate.

[Darthphere]

Please elaborate.


I wasnt talking to you.

[DBella]

Question: What is the proper term to describe a follower of Islam, Islamic or Muslim? Or it doesn't really matter?

[raybia]

I wasnt talking to you.

My mistake.

[raybia]

Question: What is the proper term to describe a follower of Islam, Islamic or Muslim? Or it doesn't really matter?

The proper term is Muslim.

[DBella]

The proper term is Muslim.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think the title sounds quite right.

[sinewave]

Al-Islam is not F'**ked as you put it, but certainly the understanding of it by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike are.

Al-Islam does advocate self-defense but doesn't advocate violence for the stake of violence nor the mistreatment of women regardless of many instances against Muslim women.

Plus, religion is not a prerequite for violence and mistreatment of women or of anyone else anyway. You don't have to look no further than the U.S. for violence and mistreatment of women.

sure, all religions were intended to be a peaceful way to worship their corresponding deity, but a lot of the followers of those religions pervert the meanings behind their teachings and end up giving their religion of choice a bad name. if you want to know what i think, i'd rather the idea of gods and religion never existed as i believe that mankind, as a whole, just isn't intelligent enough to deal with them the way they may have been intended at their inception. i was just trying to humor celldog so he would stop his endless, "muslims are evil/christians are teh ****e" schtick. sorry if i insulted your specific religion, but just know that i'm an equal opportunity hater of all organized religions.

[St. of Sinners]

The problem is that many religions, because they were created flawed by simple minded individuals searching for meaning, have this "absolute good vs. absolute evil" shtick inherent in their being. This black and white ideal endows followers with a very real, very cliched "holier than thou" attitude. Fighting over God is like fighting over pixie dust.

[raybia]

sure, all religions were intended to be a peaceful way to worship their corresponding deity, but a lot of the followers of those religions pervert the meanings behind their teachings and end up giving their religion of choice a bad name.

Agree. However I refuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because at least with my religion, the pure teachings are still attainable.


if you want to know what i think, i'd rather the idea of gods and religion never existed as i believe that mankind, as a whole, just isn't intelligent enough to deal with them the way they may have been intended at their inception.

Well just like a child isn't ready to handle adulthood until it learning the lessons of that life gives and experience the growth and development needed, humanity is still evolving in spite of how it appears.

Its not perfect by any means but mankind continues to take baby steps forward toward becoming a civilized people. For those who believe in G-d, he is guiding us towards our envitable destiny and hidden potential.

i was just trying to humor celldog so he would stop his endless, "muslims are evil/christians are teh ****e" schtick. sorry if i insulted your specific religion, but just know that i'm an equal opportunity hater of all organized religions.

I understand what you were attempting with celldog.

I too hate the current state of organized religion. It has been corrupted and has regressed. Its in dire need of reform and that reform is at hand.

But I also believe that G-d is above all organized religions and that is who my allegience is towards and I try to be respectful towards all sincere G-d conscious and fearing people and value all human life regardless of their belief system.

These are trying times. We must have faith in something much greater than our situations will see us through.

[The Question]

No doubt the Muslim world is completely screwed up, with no thanks to Britian and the rest of the west.

To reform itself, the Muslim world has to unlearn most of what it knows about Al-Islam and go back to an individual study the Quran and the life example of Mohammed the Prophet in order to learn the proper understanding of the religion.

Good article.

The main problems with the Middle East were not caused by it's religion, but by it's politics. Religion just got screwed up along with everything else. The Middle East used to be a beautiful and prosperous region. Especiall Baghdad. Being in the middle of all of the trading routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa, a crap load of travelers and money flowed through there. However, the trouble started after the Ottoman empire took over. Now, the Ottoman's did a good job for a while, but once the empire fell, the region fell into chaos with it. Britian stepped in and took over, but all they did was rape the region for it's natural resources and treasures and then just left everyone to rot and die. This left room for more extreme, criminal factions such as Saddam's regime to take over and basically start nation wide crime sindicates thinly veiled behind the mask of demorcacy. The best way to build the Middle East up again is not through war, but through buisness. Building fancy hotels and resturaunts and airports in the Middle East would encourage the travel through the regaions that made them wealthy in the first place, and would cause the economy to boom.

[celldog]

August 16, 2006
Italy: Murdered Pakistani woman's father sought
Eurabia Alert from AKI, with thanks to S.:

Rome, 14 August (AKI) - Italian police investigating the suspected 'honour killing' of a 20-year-old Pakistani woman are looking for her father and two other male relatives - a brother-in-law and an uncle - in connection with the murder. The body of the woman, Hina Saleem, was found buried in the garden of her parents' home in Sarezzo, near the northern Italian city of Brescia on Saturday. Her throat had been slit.
The woman's disappearance was reported by her Italian boyfriend, a 33-year carpenter, identified as Giuseppe in news reports.

The couple began their relationship a year ago against the wishes of Saleem's father Muhammad, against whom Hina had pressed violent abuse charges in the past, only to withdraw them later, and who according to reports had promised her in marriage to a cousin in Pakistan. In March Hina went to live with Giuseppe and began working at a local pizzeria.

While she preferred to wear Western-style clothes most of the time - she was wearing jeans when her body was found - she would cover her hair as a "sign of respect" when visiting the family home, neighbours said.

Investigators believe that Hina's mother Bushra - who the neighbours often tried to defend her daughter from her father's rage - may have left for Pakistan a few week ago taking her younger children with her.

In his wife's absence, police suspect the 56-year-old Muhammad, together with the other male relatives decided to murder Hina after she refused one last request for her to leave Italy and to accept the arranged marriage in Pakistan.

On Saturday police found Muhammad's car abandoned on the side of a road near Sarezzo, but have thus far failed to locate him or the other two men.


Posted by Robert at August 16, 2006 01:06 PM | Print this entry

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
Arezzo, Sarezzo, Shmarezzo. As long as he kills his daughter. For what? For walking out with an Infidel.

How can they connect, what can they possibly bring, what loyalty can they possibly offer, what are they doing, to Italy?

Posted by: Hugh at August 16, 2006 01:32 PM
This is happening all over Europe. The oafs want to live here, but prevent their children from befriending infidels. God forbid should one of the girls date a European boy! That, as we too often see, is a sin punishable by death. For BOTH of them!

The boys are allowed to have sex with all the infidel girls (they call us whores) they want, provided there are no children and no marriages.
Example: The young Lebanese boy of 16 who was ashamed for getting his 15 year old "pig" German girlfriend pregnant and then attempted to kill the unborn child by kicking her repeatedly in the stomach and beating her, forcing her to jump off a wall 3 meters down to safety. Only an emergency C-section could save her and the premature baby.
As the judge handed down the verdict (3 years in a youth correctional facility) his mother cried and he stood up and started ranting, screaming at the judge and everyone in the courtroom in ARABIC! Cursing them for punishing him.
For him kicking the girl in order to kill that baby was NORMAL. The German judges always take that into consideration and give them light sentences.
(Wasn't his fault, it's just his islamic culture)

This is the kind of people we have invited to come in, live off us like parasites, murder us and impose their islamic laws on us.

Posted by: americaningermany at August 16, 2006 01:50 PM
Please do not use the English word 'honor/honour' to describe the perverse motivation for this despicable aspect of muslim 'culture'. It is a complete perversion of the meaning of the word. If there is an English transliteration of the arabic, fine, but this is so divorced from the meaning of the word honor that it offends the sensibilities.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 16, 2006 02:01 PM
How about "dishonour" or "shame"?

It's murder.

Killings make it sound like the perpetrators didn't even know the victims, or maybe they just slaughtered an animal.

Posted by: americaningermany at August 16, 2006 02:13 PM
The boys are allowed to have sex with all the infidel girls (they call us whores) they want, provided there are no children and no marriages.
Posted by: americaningermany at August 16, 2006 01:50 PM

Sorry if this sounds like nit-picking, but muslim males, in addition to being given the freedom to engage in as much sex as they desire with infidel girls, are also actually encouraged to marry infidel girls and create a litter of children... provided that they make sure that their poor unsuspecting wives and children are fully converted to Islam!


Posted by: Razdan at August 16, 2006 02:30 PM
I have three daughters and I just cannot comprehend this at all .

How can a "father" do this to his child????

If their "religon" demands thay do this against their own child how can we expect our own children to be safe in the future with the growing muslum population around the world.

They put Islam ahead of EVERYTHING including their own children!!!

The world needs to face up to this!!!

Islam must be ELIMINATED from this planet for our own selfdefence.




Posted by: old-dude at August 16, 2006 02:45 PM
That's not nitpicking. It doesn't really surprise me, it would go along with breeding out the enemy.

I have heard though that many muslims don't like the mixed marriage thing, but if the infidel converts they surely tolerate it.

Posted by: americaningermany at August 16, 2006 02:46 PM
This is the practice of a cult founded by psychopath, and whose many perversions are revered as model behavior.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 16, 2006 03:26 PM
"The German judges always take that into consideration and give them light sentence (Wasn't his fault, it's just his islamic culture)."

Muslims actively recruit in prison and prison officials give these Muslims every possible accommodation. These Islamic murderers know that after they get out, they will be welcomed by the Muslim community as heroes. So perhaps we should start recruiting the most violent hate-filled non-Muslim prisoners to do justice to these Muslim killers. In the US it's called "shanking" i.e. killing an inmate with an improvised weapon. If we cut down on the chances that they'll ever get out alive, that might be a small deterent to their violence.

Another tactic is for all of us to make a vow that if we're ever on a jury and the accused killed a Muslim, we will NEVER vote to convict. And if the accused is a Muslim, we will always vote to convict no matter what the circumstances. This may not be justice but it will send a very effective message that Muslim men are not welcome in the West and are safer staying in their own countries.




Posted by: Provoslavni at August 16, 2006 03:37 PM
If I am on a jury, I will vow never to convict an infidel for a crime committed against a muslim, nor will I ever not convict a muslim of a crime he may or may not commit against an infidel.

[Fenrir]

Uhh, celldog. What exactly is your point of posting that article and those comments? Do you agree with them? I don't know much about why many of the posters in this thread don't seem to like you but I am most definitely interested in a concise (and preferably uncensored) summary of your opinions on the topic. You seem like a bold person with particularly strong convictions who doesn't have a problem with running against the tide, so hopefully you'll be as uncompromising in expressing your viewpoint as I expect you to be.

Oh and please, don't overlook answering these questions (inspired the comments you posted) as well :

- Do you believe Islam should be wiped off the face of the planet for the sake of self-defence?

- Do the above views of the Islamic faith mirror your own?

- Do you think the above atrocity committed by the inividual, in your opinion, reflects the code of conduct of all those subscribe to the Islamic faith?

- Do you have a particularly strong affiliation with any religious or anti-religious group due to which people might accuse you of slant or bias?

[Mr Sparkle]

for my next post, I will cut and paste every verse of the bible.


celldog + ctrl + V = greatness!!!

[Fenrir]

for my next post, I will cut and paste every verse of the bible.


celldog + ctrl + V = greatness!!!

Why? Is celldog a Christian?

[Mr Sparkle]

Why? Is celldog a Christian?

No, celldog is a freaking nut, that likes to cut and paste way too much, and seldom if ever really writes his own views on anything.

go back to the begining of the thread and you'll see that possibly he didn't even read the article and just...kind of scanned for words like "Islam"and phrases like "speak out against"and "violent fundamentalists"I swear it's like he suscribes to a newsletter or something.

"hate Islam, but don't really know what it is? join our mailing list...we'll supply you with fuel for your blind hatred daily, direct to your inbox!!!!"

[Alpha and Omega]

I was under the impression that he derived his information from news promos during his channel surfing sessions.

Channels 123, 45, 89, 206: Espn - "in other news, Hockey's recent strike," 224, 249: TNT Movie: Last Man Standing - "I'll kill you. Mark my words" , 259, 273: Cnn - "In recent news, the dissention in the middle east has taken a turn for the. . . [changed the channel yet again]

*five minutes later*

Celldog: (thinks to self) Hmmm, I'll make a thread about how middle east strikes are threatening and how the people of Islam run around saying, "I'll kill you."

Thread Title Generalization: Watch out for Islam! Their strikes are dangerous. Mark my words!! :rolleyes:

[celldog]

"Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the "official" Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too."

Don't try to deflect your points towards me to avoid what this lady is saying.
Why don't you respond to the above statement she made.

[raybia]

"Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the "official" Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too."

Don't try to deflect your points towards me to avoid what this lady is saying.
Why don't you respond to the above statement she made.


Ok.

Many people in Muslim populated third world countries are clearly very ignorant, backward in their culture, with governments and leaders who are oppressive towards their own people.

[Darthphere]

Celldog represents everything thats wrong with America, and I thank him for that.

[raybia]

HOUSTON -- A 64-year-old woman robbed, beaten and tortured in her home hopes to help track down her attackers by sharing her story of survival, KPRC Local 2 reported Monday.

The woman, who did not want to be identified, was attacked one week after she underwent surgery to remove a tumor.

Despite her weakened state, she fought back when the robbers broke into her home near FM 1960 and Lake Houston last Monday.


"Of course I was fighting. I was fighting as hard as I could. I was trying to get away," she said.

The ordeal started with a knock on the door. When the victim cracked open the door, a man and woman forced their way inside.

"He grabbed me around the neck and started choking me and strangling me. And he put something over my mouth," she said.

Within minutes, she was handcuffed and duct-taped. The couple then demanded money and jewelry.

"They said they had been watching me a while. For what? I don't know. I work. I come home," the woman said.

At times during the attack, the woman said she thought she might not survive.

"I was screaming. I was pleading for my life," she said.

During the attack, she was shocked repeatedly with a taser gun, punched, kicked and her pinky toe was nearly severed.

An hour into the attack, the victim remembered that her alarm system has a portable panic button. As soon as her attackers moved away from her, she hit it.

"I guess God was with me. I just grabbed the lamp and I pushed it," she said. "And he (saw) me. And he knew immediately. (He said,) 'Oh my God. What have you done?' I said, 'I called -- the police are coming,'" she said.

Her attackers panicked and took off. Police and a neighbor arrived five minutes later.

Police said they have a few leads, including a possible former employee of the woman as a suspect.

The victim is staying at a hotel because she is too scared to live at home

[raybia]

ENFIELD, N.H. -- Four teenagers will face criminal charges for setting off a series of pipe bomb explosions in two states.

Police said the teens left almost a dozen bombs in South Royalton, Vt., and Lebanon, Canaan and Enfield, N.H., over the course of four days.

Elizabeth Smith of Enfield said her home shook on Friday night as one of the explosives detonated. "It sounded like a bomb went off. We didn't know what had happened," said Smith.

It wasn't until the next day that she discovered fragments of a mailbox on her property that belonged to a neighbor from up the road.

Smith said she also heard a second explosion in the distance on Friday night. It turned out that was a toilet exploding at the Enfield public beach.

Police said the teens hit a porta-potty in South Royalton, along with a pay phone at a law school. Stop signs and mailboxes were blown up in the New Hampshire towns.

The break in the investigation came on Saturday night when police in Enfield pulled over a car with a broken taillight. Inside, police said they found two teenagers and a canister of gun powder.

Officers took the teens' names and ran a search of them on MySpace.com. The search turned up more evidence.

"They had a blog on there where they were talking about what they had done," said Enfield Police Chief Richard Crate.

The blog led police to search three homes where they turned up more evidence against four teens; two are from Enfield and two are from Orange.

Police said the teens will be charged with felony crimes later this week.
Copyright 2006 by WMUR. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed


Twenty-five-year old Sean Hamill was arrested Sunday after police found a woman’s body in a trash bin near Hamill’s home.

According to court documents, Hamill told detectives he had met the woman in an alley behind Jimmy Z’s, a local bar in Everett three weeks ago.

Hamill and the woman went to Hamill’s apartment in the 2600 block of Rockefeller Avenue, where Hamill said the woman demanded drugs and threatened to rob and kill him.

Hamill told police he then picked up his 26-ounce framing hammer and struck the woman in the head three times.

Hamill said he noticed the woman was still breathing and he did not want to see her suffer, so her moved her body into the kitchen where he proceeded to slit her throat with a 6 inch paring knife.

According to court documents, Hamill said he then went to bed and took care of the woman’s body the next day.

Hamill kept the woman’s body in his bedroom closet for three weeks before moving her to a nearby trash bin near his apartment Sunday morning.

Another woman called 911 Sunday morning and said that Hamill had called asking for her help in disposing the body.

A judge set Hamill’s bail at $500,000.

Girlfriend beaten in sex-aid row

Colliver said he had taken drugs prior to the assault
A man who broke his girlfriend's leg as a punishment for failing to buy him a sex aid has been jailed.
Darren Colliver, 30, attacked Louise Franklin when she told him the online payment had not gone through.

Inner London Crown Court heard how he poured shampoo in her eyes and mouth and smashed a drawer on her legs.

Colliver, of Peckham, south-east London, was jailed for three years and four months after admitting a string of violent offences from 2003 to 2005.

Colliver admitted charges of grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, harassment, common assault and criminal damage.

She speaks of having to uproot her life and has lost her job. Her world has been turned upside down

Judge Nicholas Philpot

The court heard how Ms Franklin, fearing the worst, had not gone home the night the transaction failed.

In an attempt to make amends the following day, she bought Colliver his favourite cake but he flew into a violent rage.

During the onslaught he threw her to the floor, breaking her leg and hospitalising her for two weeks.

When visiting her in hospital Colliver moved the controls on her electric bed to inflict more pain.

Restraining order

Jailing Colliver on Tuesday judge Nicholas Philpot told him he had shown an "entrenched pattern of criminality".

He said: "She has a limp and scarring to the leg. She speaks of having to uproot her life and has lost her job. Her world has been turned upside down.

"I'm clear that there is a significant risk of serious harm to the public of further offences of grievous bodily harm."

Colliver was banned from contacting Ms Franklin and her parents for 10 years. He was also banned from going within 500 metres of where she works and lives.

He told the court he was "not himself" during the attack because he had been smoking drugs and was suffering from severe depression.

[raybia]

A year later, Katrina survivors give government low marks
By Gwen Glazer and Jane Roh, NationalJournal.com


On the eve of the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, the storm's survivors are giving all levels of government low marks for their performance.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents polled by Gallup/USA Today gave the federal government a thumbs down, while 66 percent were disappointed in the state government and 59 percent had a negative assessment of their city government's performance.


Nineteen percent of respondents said reconstruction was the most difficult thing they have personally had to deal with since the Aug. 29, 2005, storm that devastated the city of New Orleans and large swaths of coastal Louisiana and Mississippi.


The 602 adults polled also participated in Gallup/USA Today's post-Katrina survey last year, which included 1,510 respondents drawn from a Red Cross database. Because all respondents contacted the Red Cross for aid, the survey cannot be read as representative of all area residents affected by the storm -- and all the respondents were reachable by telephone, so the sample does not include Katrina's numerous refugees. Still, Gallup says in its analysis, the poll provides "important insights into how at least some of the victims of this major disaster are faring today."


Katrina's psychological trauma, epitomized in images of the corpses outside the Superdome and the impoverished Lower 9th Ward residents stranded on rooftops, is also a major issue for survivors. Respondents last year said they were frightened more than anything else following the storm. This year, emotional health was the second most commonly cited problem, tied at 8 percent with financial strains and "getting our lives back on track."


Respondents also said they had at least some trouble sleeping (45 percent), feelings of anxiety (54 percent) and feelings of depression (48 percent). A much smaller number, 34 percent, reported marital or family difficulties; only 11 percent said they have had to seek counseling.


As for their homes and communities, respondents felt fairly confident that life would go back to normal. While just 16 percent said that everything was completely back on track, 56 percent said that life would eventually return to a pre-Katrina state of affairs. The billions of dollars in property damage hit respondents fairly hard: Twenty-five percent said they lost everything, 24 percent recorded substantial financial losses and 38 percent said they suffered some losses.


Despite -- or perhaps because of -- the horrors of the storm and outrage over the government's seeming inaction afterward, the kindness of strangers has benefited many survivors. Seventy percent said that they had been helped by a person, business or organization, and only 25 percent said they had felt victimized by some entity. Of those being helped, four out of five received aid from a charitable organization, while about two-thirds got help from the federal government.

Moscow market blast 'may have been hate crime'

The Russian capital’s top prosecutor today said that a bomb blast at a Moscow market that killed 10 people was most likely a hate crime, the Interfax news agency reported.

The Monday morning blast hit the Cherkizovsky market, where a large number of traders gather from Asia or the Caucasus regions – both ethnic groups have been victims of a growing wave of hate crimes in Russia.

Two suspects have been detained and reports say they are believed to be members of extremist organisations.


The dead have not been identified, but Russian news agencies reported that preliminary information showed five were Chinese and one was Vietnamese.

Moscow Prosecutor Yuri Syomin said belief the attack was motivated by hatred for ethnic minorities “is one of the theories and now is the dominant one”, Interfax reported.

[raybia]

My response to these articles that I posted?

Many people in multi-cultured first world countries are clearly very ignorant, backward in their culture, with governments and leaders who are oppressive towards their own people.

[Super_Ludacris]

Damn Celldog getting ass kicked by Rabiya

[jaguarr]

Damn Celldog getting ass kicked by Rabiya

Repeatedly.

jag

[celldog]

My response to these articles that I posted?

Many people in multi-cultured first world countries are clearly very ignorant, backward in their culture, with governments and leaders who are oppressive towards their own people.


I find you very amusing. Thanks for rolling out stats on things that won't ever reach out to effect other countries. Crimes happen all of the time. You won't see Katrina victims strapping bombs to themselves because of their plight. Nor will the incidents in those other clippings result in world-wide violence against other countries. That was this woman's whole point! But you, like others want to try and play a "moral equivalency" card to justify Islamic atrocities against the west. Now you excuse Isamic laws that okay the abuse against other Muslims and try to equate that to a inept rescue system?? LOL At least this government has tried to make things right and they tried to save lives, in the process. You cannot compare the two. At least this government gave millions to victims (who then turned around and blew their money on porn and other necessities) :mad: .

This woman is trying to tell hr own people to stop the madness! Stop trying to kill other nations! Stop the needless blood shed. There is no excuse for it.

[Darthphere]

Celldog misses the point once again.

[jaguarr]

Celldog misses the point once again.

Repeatedly.

jag

[celldog]

Celldog misses the point once again.

There was no point to "be" missed. In my opinion.

[jaguarr]

There was no point to "be" missed. In my opinion.

Are you agreeing with him or just trying to illustrate his statement for him. :huh:

jag

[Darthphere]

Are you agreeing with him or just trying to illustrate his statement for him. :huh:

jag


Both.

[Mr Sparkle]

I find you very amusing. Thanks for rolling out stats on things that won't ever reach out to effect other countries. Crimes happen all of the time. You won't see Katrina victims strapping bombs to themselves because of their plight. Nor will the incidents in those other clippings result in world-wide violence against other countries. That was this woman's whole point! But you, like others want to try and play a "moral equivalency" card to justify Islamic atrocities against the west. Now you excuse Isamic laws that okay the abuse against other Muslims and try to equate that to a inept rescue system?? LOL At least this government has tried to make things right and they tried to save lives, in the process. You cannot compare the two. At least this government gave millions to victims (who then turned around and blew their money on porn and other necessities) :mad: .

This woman is trying to tell hr own people to stop the madness! Stop trying to kill other nations! Stop the needless blood shed. There is no excuse for it.

Look everyone, Celldog thinks porn is a necessity:)

[Addendum]

Well, he is christian

[lazur]

There was no point to "be" missed. In my opinion.

Celldog, the reasoning on this board is quite simple:

Rule #1 - Everything is America's and/or George Bush's fault, period.

Rule #2 - Should any fact or opinion present itself which demonstrates, even logically, that everything is not America's and/or George Bush's fault, then see Rule #1.

[maxwell's demon]

actually that's your reasoning of the reasoning on this board.:o

[Mr Sparkle]

Celldog, the reasoning on this board is quite simple:

Rule #1 - Everything is America's and/or George Bush's fault, period.

Rule #2 - Should any fact or opinion present itself which demonstrates, even logically, that everything is not America's and/or George Bush's fault, then see Rule #1.

:confused: but this thread is not about America, and or George Bush.:confused:


:confused::confused:

:confused:


:)

:confused:

[maxwell's demon]

:confused:

:confused:


:ninja:

[celldog]

Look everyone, Celldog thinks porn is a necessity:)


Sarcasm.

But I guess you don't know about all the money the U.S. gov't gave evacuees that got blown on porn and alcohol and other frivolous crap. Naaaaaahh....they didn't by food clothing or shelter......they wasted it.

[celldog]

Celldog, the reasoning on this board is quite simple:

Rule #1 - Everything is America's and/or George Bush's fault, period.

Rule #2 - Should any fact or opinion present itself which demonstrates, even logically, that everything is not America's and/or George Bush's fault, then see Rule #1.

LOL

[maxwell's demon]

LOL ...

[jaguarr]

Sarcasm.

But I guess you don't know about all the money the U.S. gov't gave evacuees that got blown on porn and alcohol and other frivolous crap. Naaaaaahh....they didn't by food clothing or shelter......they wasted it.

And that has exactly what to do with Islam or this woman's commentary? :huh:

jag

[celldog]

Celldog, the reasoning on this board is quite simple:

Rule #1 - Everything is America's and/or George Bush's fault, period.

Rule #2 - Should any fact or opinion present itself which demonstrates, even logically, that everything is not America's and/or George Bush's fault, then see Rule #1.


OR....
when you point out the evil of other governments or dictatorships, the U.S. is "equally" as vile. So they pull Katrina outta their behinds.

[celldog]

And that has exactly what to do with Islam or this woman's commentary? :huh:

jag


Ohh.....so now you're ready to respond to her points?? Now you care??? You've dodged them thus far!

[celldog]

And that has exactly what to do with Islam or this woman's commentary? :huh:

jag

Discuss this:

Manji has been a critic of orthodox Islam, especially the treatment of women by some Muslims. She does not wear a headscarf or chador whereas many traditional Muslim women do observe the hijab. She has criticized the Palestinian leadership and the opinions of some Muslims about Israel.

In March 2006 a letter she co-signed entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with eleven other individuals (most notably Salman Rushdie) was published in response to violent protests in the Islamic world surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

She questions historical interpretations of the Qur'an and advocates the concept of ijtihad, "the Muslim tradition of independent thinking".


You want to discuss those tid bits?? Why is there a fear of independent thought in those countries?

[Mr Sparkle]

Ohh.....so now you're ready to respond to her points?? Now you care??? You've dodged them thus far!

Uh, Celldog? Hi...how goes it?
I kind of answered your post with points on the first page. you can go back and look at them if you wish.

we'll wait here on this page for you.







be swift.

[jaguarr]

Ohh.....so now you're ready to respond to her points?? Now you care??? You've dodged them thus far!

Actually, you have yet to respond to Mr. Sparkle's comments, which are readily similar to my own on the subject. So why don't you respond to his posts, Captain Confrontation? :)

jag

[Alpha and Omega]

Step by step analysis of idiotic lunacy:

And I quote:

1) "You won't see Katrina victims strapping bombs to themselves because of their plight."

Um, you won't see peaceful Muslims or members of the nation of Islam doing that either. (MOST ARE PEACEFUL IN CASE YOU WERE UNAWARE OR TOO IGNORANT TO REALIZE THAT.) You blame so many for the actions of fractional militant seperatists. :down :confused: And I do not think that this woman was blaming an entire demographic in any way; imo, she was alluding to the lack of understanding between many in Islam/Western World.

But you, like others want to try and play a "moral equivalency" card to justify Islamic atrocities against the west. Now you excuse Isamic laws that okay the abuse against other Muslims and try to equate that to a inept rescue system??

Actually, I'd say that most of the posters have a strange habit of playing 'humane equivalency' w/ issues such as these. STOP saying that the religious faith of muslims is responsible for western atrocities. It's not the faith; if it were, every muslim would be bound by sacrificial duty to "terrorize." Does that happen? No, it doesn't. Why? It's a PEACEFUL religion celldog. What part about fractional militant seperatists don't you get?

At least this government has tried to make things right and they tried to save lives, in the process.
*sigh*

Statements like these only reveal even more that you're incapable of discerning between innocent people, unwavering militants, and the 'at times' seedy agenda of this country. [Every country{yes even Western world ones} has agendas] I would agree that certain members w/in the governmental administration may have honorable intentions, but I think that they're overshadowed by other issues at times.

You cannot compare the two.

Actually, it's very easy to compare the two.
Common factors: majority involved had basic or minute education training (not everyone, but a lot throughout those several states}
Rampit crime as a result of the lack of law and order.
Governmental inefficiency.

Raybia made excellent points. You attack Muslims and their faith as a whole, but you're quick to neglect what happens in your own backyard.

At least this government gave millions to victims (who then turned around and blew their money on porn and other necessities)

Riiiiiiiiigggght? I guess the billions that were confiscated by opportunists [non-Katrina victims] who
A) vacationed w/ the money
B) bought vehicles
C) put the money in foreign accounts
D) scammed county neighbors through donation schemes

blew their money. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if you're aware, but a lot of those victims never received money, and some only received the minimum, because of this kind of fraud.

What does THIS government do? Try to track down the thieves? Nope. They cut off 95% of the financial resources to people who needed it the most, and have yet to initiate a search for the money. It's only the taxpayers, so it doesn't matter.:up:

This woman is trying to tell hr own people to stop the madness! Stop trying to kill other nations! Stop the needless blood shed. There is no excuse for it.

And this is admirable but futile. She knows just as well as any of us that the small fraction of militants will never stop using their tactics. She's appealing to people who are not associated w/ those groups in an attempt to keep promoting the peace of the Islamic faith.

Celldawg, it seems as if you just read an article, disregard the meaning, and use it as fodder to say what you already had in mind.:o

[Mr Sparkle]

Dood , it took you a minute to respond to Jaguarr.....


Celldog?


you there buddy?

[jaguarr]

Dood , it took you a minute to respond to Jaguarr.....


Celldog?


you there buddy?

He'll pop up again after the thread's had a few more posts, asking some other question or attacking someone else, hoping that we'll have forgot that he still owes us a response to your excellent points (which saved me a lot of typing). Then he'll have to respond to A&O's awesome post above, which I'm sure he'll avoid as well. Either that, or he'll just run over to Coming Soon where he posts as "Fighting American" and espouses the same crapola with less resistance.

jag

[Super_Ludacris]

lol@ "Celldawg"

[Fenrir]

Discuss this:

Manji has been a critic of orthodox Islam, especially the treatment of women by some Muslims. She does not wear a headscarf or chador whereas many traditional Muslim women do observe the hijab. She has criticized the Palestinian leadership and the opinions of some Muslims about Israel.

Keyword: "some Muslims". You know, like there are "some" Christians like the KKK. Is that enough to chew and spit on Christianity? Oh and how is her opinion on the Palestenian leadership more valid than that of those who disagree with her? Is it just because it reflects yours as well?

Oh and why is there such an grave objection to Muslim women wearing headscarves? I've spoken to many Muslim girls who voluntarily cover their heads, not because their fathers, brothers or husbands threatened them to.

In March 2006 a letter she co-signed entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with eleven other individuals (most notably Salman Rushdie) was published in response to violent protests in the Islamic world surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Salman Rushdie isn't exactly a friend of Islam. From what I've read, there's barely any sect of Islam that he has NOT pissed off. And her association with him speaks volumes about which side she is on.

You want to discuss those tid bits?? Why is there a fear of independent thought in those countries?

If they are merely living under the context of their religious views, then what is the problem? No seriously, you think Muslims are some kind of blood-thirsty, war-mongering, wife-beating, infidel-killing jihadists? Did you ever even meet one in real-life? Gross and ill-informed generalizations is what you seem to be feeding on. I've known more than a couple of Muslim people from the Middle East over the years and they are a pretty decent lot, nothing like you seem to be presenting them as in here.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I hate all religions.
It's always weird when I see people defending Islam.
Saudi Arabia is supposedly a friendly nation.
They have "morality police" and the news told the story of a textile manufacturing place there where a fire started. Can't remember the exact number, but it was in the teens......a bunch of women died, were burned alive.

Why?
Because in their panic, fleeing from the fire, they didn't wrap up sufficiently and the morality police were standing at the door, beating any shamefully unadorned women back inside, so their horrible flesh wouldn't be seen on the street!:eek:

This is not an urban legend, it was world news.

Did everyone forget about the 7 children that were trampled to death in the mad, rabid riots over a f***ing cartoon?

Islam is not a "peaceful religion". I won't bore you all again with the very explicit calls to extreme violence for followers of Allah found in the Quran.

What it is (and this true of all religions) is that all religions call for radical changes in and regimentation of lifestyle and the majority of people just aren't actually willing to fully give themselves over in obedience.
So they end up observing a "watered-down" version of their religion of choice or environmental brain-washing. The peaceful Muslims we all know, only follow the parts that they deem "doable" just like with all the Christians I know and encounter here.

[Fenrir]

What it is (and this true of all religions) is that all religions call for radical changes in and regimentation of lifestyle and the majority of people just aren't actually willing to fully give themselves over in obedience.

I hear Buddha cries echoing in the distance. :(

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I hear Buddha cries echoing in the distance. :(I'll send over the Beastie Boys with some hot cocoa to rub his belly.:(

[Fenrir]

I'll send over the Beastie Boys with some hot cocoa to rub his belly.:(

Buddha love you long time. :up:

[jaguarr]

Buddha love you long time. :up:

Ohhh, he so hoah-nee!

jag

[Alpha and Omega]

I hate all religions.
It's always weird when I see people defending Islam.
I think most people defend its right to exist just like any other religion.

Did everyone forget about the 7 children that were trampled to death in the mad, rabid riots over a f***ing cartoon?
What did that cartoon symbolize?

7 children died and that is regrettable/inexcusable, but that never would've happened if the news group who printed those stories had not issued them. These were seasoned journalists who were well aware of the possible implications concerning what negative reaction may result as a backlash.

Fortunately for them, they got to retreat to their cushy dwellings while other people died for what they created. They used what: Freedom of speech/press as their defense. Unfortunately, that law is often used to promote unnecessary claims/slander, as in that case.

Islam is not a "peaceful religion". I won't bore you all again with the very explicit calls to extreme violence for followers of Allah found in the Quran.
Every religion has a history of bloodshed in its past. At the very core, religion is probably the main catalyst for the blood spilled on the earth.

Contemporary Islam IS peaceful as shown by the majority who chose a life of peace. You, just like celldog, base your interpretation on the actions of militant seperatists.

You speak of Allah and the Quran? That was a different time period and you know it. Would Catholics as a whole promote the crusades in this modern world we live in?

What it is (and this true of all religions) is that all religions call for radical changes in and regimentation of lifestyle and the majority of people just aren't actually willing to fully give themselves over in obedience.
So they end up observing a "watered-down" version of their religion of choice or environmental brain-washing.
I would agree w/ this in the sense that religion strips the user of any "completely free" thinking in favor of a guide-oriented way of life.

Imperfect people following seemingly perfect religions is just a recipe for failure. This gives alleged credence to people who don't follow a religion, but see the missteps of the hypocrites who try and inevitably fail.

The peaceful Muslims we all know, only follow the parts that they deem "doable" just like with all the Christians I know and encounter here.
You can't say "the peaceful Muslims we all know," when speaking of all.

Ex: Louis Farrakhan. Is he a muslim? (I wouldn't agree w/ that) - yet he claims to be one, so if he says it, it must be true.

I've befriended several muslims, and I've seen some that practice their belief to the letter of their interpretation. I've seen others who have a more americanized (do as you please) view, and they do what they want.

It's not my place to say: 'Hey, you're a fraud! even if I think that, which I don't.'

Judging people, religion, areas is an impossibility because you will find any reason to bark if you look hard enough. Imperfection assures you of that.

Still, I do agree w/ you that religion in general is the cause of many bad things(most, in fact). It's varying ideals manipulate people and spread dissention. [up until maybe 10, 20 years ago: it was the driving factor for most people's thought processes]

Now, we're seeing a 'cooling off' period as a result of what religion's been responsible for. My main point is that you can't single out Islam as the cause for terrorism like Celldog seems to believe. Even if members w/in the religion are doing these types of things, the blame does not fall on the whole group.


Ex: Catholics, Baptist, Seventh Day, Mormon, etc. . . all have issues w/ child molestation, people of that faith who commit murder, steal, lie, etc. . ., but you don't hear anyone volleying to overturn those religions because of the actions of people w/in them. <not judging them like I'm perfect, but I'm just saying>

Personally, I'm under the impression that the UN is striving for peace at all costs, and religion will eventually be banned in an attempt to strive for this. I doubt this measure will really work, but I see it as a plausible one. (every time the UN makes some peace measure, only more violence follows, so it will fail just like all of their other ones: religious difference has a lot to do w/ the failure of their resolutions, and the miscommunication between people.)-(At our very core, some train of ideal - be it religious or otherwise - regulates our thought process and grants us perception.)

Like I said before, my point of criticism was for celldog's inability to come in w/ a reasonable thought process, and a search for a credible solution. He used this article to further his own ideas and many posters [jag, sparkle, raybia, myself, one or two others I think?] called him on the transperency of his questionable views.


This is the part where you do your 'Distant Drums' thing. :p :)

[Wilhelm-Scream]

7 children died and that is regrettable/inexcusable, but that never would've happened if the news group who printed those stories had not issued them. These were seasoned journalists who were well aware of the possible implications concerning what negative reaction may result as a backlash.I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but when I hear this it reminds me of when people think the rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing a short skirt or acting flirtatious.

Fortunately for them, they got to retreat to their cushy dwellings while other people died for what they created.No. The people were not killed by a cartoon. They were killed by the feet and weight of raving protesters.

Also I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending celldog. I'm saying, there was a reason that Salman Rushdie was in hiding for years and that all of these horrible things are happening.
Though I think it's pretty evident that the real motivation for all the violence is economic and political, it can't be denied that it's being justified with religion and that horrifies and disgusts me.

[Mr Sparkle]

I think most people defend its right to exist just like any other religion.

pretty much, my contention is that ALL religions are nutty. singling out ( no relation to "ingling" which is the bizarre practice of decapitating the woman after sex) one is hypocritical.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I ingled a girl out once.

[Fenrir]

Though I think it's pretty evident that the real motivation for all the violence is economic and political, it can't be denied that it's being justified with religion and that horrifies and disgusts me.

Then you're implying that religion is being used for political and economic gains? Doesn't that free the religion itself from blame because it's teachings are manipulated and misrepresented to a support a particular agenda? In my estimation, just about any noble creed can be twisted by radicals and fundamentals to suit their purpose. Heck, even the history of a pacifist faith like Buddhism isn't clean from the blood and violence.

[Alpha and Omega]

I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but when I hear this it reminds me of when people think the rape victim was "asking for it" by wearing a short skirt or acting flirtatious.

No. The people were not killed by a cartoon. They were killed by the feet and weight of raving protesters.

I can understand your comparison, but those journalists were indirectly responsible. They were the cause, because they knowingly printed that story. Do you think that they were ignorant as to how revered of a figure Muhammad was or how he's viewed as a prophet in his religion? No.

They may not have directly killed those children, but they shoulder some of the blame. <they initiated the conflict><they didn't physically trample over those kids, but why were the disruptors rioting?>

I wouldn't condone that kind of thing personally, but I do not live in that part of the world, and I have not been raised to fully understand their thinking/logical wavelength assumption/comprehension ratio.

I don't want you to think that I make excuses for rapists etc. . . :down :(
{Sidepoint: Oddly enough, one of my friend's parents' made the claim that a young female friend of mine was just 'asking for it' when she was raped. I no longer have that individual as a friend; why? after his pop made that statement, the father was picking himself off of the ground, and my buddy sided w/ daddy.:confused: <definitely not the way I should've handled it, but it was in the moment of anger out of concern/outrage/indignation at the tragedy that was made light of by this mysoginistic idiot.> Again, I'm not perfect, but I'm intensely loyal to the few genuine friends whom I have.}

That same burst of anger could be likened to what many of that respective faith felt when the cartoons were printed. Maybe they believed that some things are too sacred to make a mockery out of; maybe it cut as deep for them as the aforementioned idiotic statement did for me. (the one by my former friend's pop) I dunno. I don't fully understand the culture; I only try to identify w/ it just like any other.

Also I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending celldog. I'm saying, there was a reason that Salman Rushdie was in hiding for years and that all of these horrible things are happening.
Duly noted.:up:

Though I think it's pretty evident that the real motivation for all the violence is economic and political, it can't be denied that it's being justified with religion and that horrifies and disgusts me.

I agree.

Three parts: The Political, Religious, and Materially Economic avenues are used sort of as a tri-conglomeration to control most of what occurs on this planet.

There's nothing anyone can do to stop that.

[raybia]

I hate all religions.


That's a surprise. We couldn't tell. But I'm sure that will not effect your objectivity about Al-Islam. Maybe its time to deal with it and move on. Don't you know hate consumes you?

It's always weird when I see people defending Islam.

Not when its taken into consideration that you HATE it. What you see is people defending Al-Islam. Your hatred and criticism is misplaced as Islamic dogma is the problem as well as in Christianity and Judaism.


Saudi Arabia is supposedly a friendly nation.

Are you kidding? They are a friendly nation...towards the U.S. Government and the Bush Adminstration. But they aren't friendly to the American people, but then again, neither is the Bush Adminstration.

And of course we all know that most Muslims are Arab and the Muslim world is controlled by the Saudis. :rolleyes:

(Note -- The following was saracasm as most Muslims are non-Arab with only 18% from the Arab world.

Also the Saudi brand of Islam is Wahabism http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~optics/archives/000010.html which teaches that Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others. Very fanatically and against the correct teachings of the Qur'an and the life example of Mohammed the prophet.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Saudi Arabia is not the ideological center of the Muslim world in a way that the Vatican is to the Catholic world. In other words, it does not represent the Muslim world.


Also

They have "morality police" and the news told the story of a textile manufacturing place there where a fire started. Can't remember the exact number, but it was in the teens......a bunch of women died, were burned alive.

Why?
Because in their panic, fleeing from the fire, they didn't wrap up sufficiently and the morality police were standing at the door, beating any shamefully unadorned women back inside, so their horrible flesh wouldn't be seen on the street!:eek:

See above. Wahabism, not Al-Islam. I am a critic of Saudi Arabia as much as you are and agree that it is in need of dire reform but its curious how the U.S. Government will speak out against the human right violations in somewhere like China but turn a blind eye to the conditions in Saudi Arabia. Very curious.

However maybe we should place even more importance in reforming America as this is where we reside and certainly is not remotely close in being an utopian society and free from criticism.

Also I'm not going to forsake the true practice of Islam merely because of the existence of sects who have manipulated the teaching of the Qur'an and the life example of Muhammed. You know, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

This is not an urban legend, it was world news.

Did everyone forget about the 7 children that were trampled to death in the mad, rabid riots over a f***ing cartoon?

Islam is not a "peaceful religion". I won't bore you all again with the very explicit calls to extreme violence for followers of Allah found in the Quran.

Funny your charge of Islam coming from a person who doesn't exhibit the qualities of a peaceful person and is hostilte, intolerant, and disrespectful against those who are of the Islamic faith and of religion in general. How hypocritical of you.

Please don't continue to bore us because you merely demonstrate your ignorance of the Qur'an and your hostilty towards Al-Islam and Muslims. You have zero credibility for an analysis of the religion by you to be take seriously.


What it is (and this true of all religions) is that all religions call for radical changes in and regimentation of lifestyle and the majority of people just aren't actually willing to fully give themselves over in obedience.

Nice way to use religion as the scapegoat. These are qualities of people in positions of control and authority that have perverted religion to suit their agenda. If it wasn't religion it would be something else that they would use to control the masses. Islam and Christian understood correctly empowers the indivdual to be a free thinker and become leaders as well as a followers as long as we are aware and agree to the direction we are being led.

So they end up observing a "watered-down" version of their religion of choice or environmental brain-washing.

I agree with this, but not all people in the world is subject to the "watered-down version of religion. There are people who observe the true teaching of their religion if only a minority.

The peaceful Muslims we all know, only follow the parts that they deem "doable" just like with all the Christians I know and encounter here.

Any sincere peaceful G-d conscious Muslim is going to strive to follow the complete teachings of G-d to the best of their intellectual, spiritual, and moral abilities. Al-Islam isn't some buffet where Muslims pick and choose what parts we obey G-d on and those that we disobey... but unfortunately many do.

[raybia]

I think most people defend its right to exist just like any other religion.


What did that cartoon symbolize?

7 children died and that is regrettable/inexcusable, but that never would've happened if the news group who printed those stories had not issued them. These were seasoned journalists who were well aware of the possible implications concerning what negative reaction may result as a backlash.

Fortunately for them, they got to retreat to their cushy dwellings while other people died for what they created. They used what: Freedom of speech/press as their defense. Unfortunately, that law is often used to promote unnecessary claims/slander, as in that case.


Every religion has a history of bloodshed in its past. At the very core, religion is probably the main catalyst for the blood spilled on the earth.

Contemporary Islam IS peaceful as shown by the majority who chose a life of peace. You, just like celldog, base your interpretation on the actions of militant seperatists.

You speak of Allah and the Quran? That was a different time period and you know it. Would Catholics as a whole promote the crusades in this modern world we live in?


I would agree w/ this in the sense that religion strips the user of any "completely free" thinking in favor of a guide-oriented way of life.

Imperfect people following seemingly perfect religions is just a recipe for failure. This gives alleged credence to people who don't follow a religion, but see the missteps of the hypocrites who try and inevitably fail.


You can't say "the peaceful Muslims we all know," when speaking of all.

Ex: Louis Farrakhan. Is he a muslim? (I wouldn't agree w/ that) - yet he claims to be one, so if he says it, it must be true.

I've befriended several muslims, and I've seen some that practice their belief to the letter of their interpretation. I've seen others who have a more americanized (do as you please) view, and they do what they want.

It's not my place to say: 'Hey, you're a fraud! even if I think that, which I don't.'

Judging people, religion, areas is an impossibility because you will find any reason to bark if you look hard enough. Imperfection assures you of that.

Still, I do agree w/ you that religion in general is the cause of many bad things(most, in fact). It's varying ideals manipulate people and spread dissention. [up until maybe 10, 20 years ago: it was the driving factor for most people's thought processes]

Now, we're seeing a 'cooling off' period as a result of what religion's been responsible for. My main point is that you can't single out Islam as the cause for terrorism like Celldog seems to believe. Even if members w/in the religion are doing these types of things, the blame does not fall on the whole group.


Ex: Catholics, Baptist, Seventh Day, Mormon, etc. . . all have issues w/ child molestation, people of that faith who commit murder, steal, lie, etc. . ., but you don't hear anyone volleying to overturn those religions because of the actions of people w/in them. <not judging them like I'm perfect, but I'm just saying>

Personally, I'm under the impression that the UN is striving for peace at all costs, and religion will eventually be banned in an attempt to strive for this. I doubt this measure will really work, but I see it as a plausible one. (every time the UN makes some peace measure, only more violence follows, so it will fail just like all of their other ones: religious difference has a lot to do w/ the failure of their resolutions, and the miscommunication between people.)-(At our very core, some train of ideal - be it religious or otherwise - regulates our thought process and grants us perception.)

Like I said before, my point of criticism was for celldog's inability to come in w/ a reasonable thought process, and a search for a credible solution. He used this article to further his own ideas and many posters [jag, sparkle, raybia, myself, one or two others I think?] called him on the transperency of his questionable views.


This is the part where you do your 'Distant Drums' thing. :p :)

Simply excellent rebuttal!

[The Question]

Saudi Arabia is supposedly a friendly nation.

No one here said that (at least not to my knowledge). :confused:

So they end up observing a "watered-down" version of their religion of choice or environmental brain-washing. The peaceful Muslims we all know, only follow the parts that they deem "doable" just like with all the Christians I know and encounter here.

Okay, this I don't get. It's either that they're totally irational fundamentalists who follow every word of their religion as fact, which most people realize is completely insane, or they actually understand their religion as mostly being metaphore and are actually good human beings, and you say they're not really faithful. That's absolute crap. Nowhere in the bible or any other holy book I know of does it say that every word of it is the direct word of god and is to be taken literally. Most of the holy books were written by hundreds of different people over several centuries, and many verses are written metaphorically. The Bible, Qur'an, and all the other holy texts are up for interpretation. It's not that people don't have real faith. It's that the texts mean different thing to different people.

[Mr Sparkle]

woah, Celldog never came back to answer, I guess he hasnb't found the right 15 page article to copy and paste.

[Darthphere]

woah, Celldog never came back to answer, I guess he hasnb't found the right 15 page article to copy and paste.


Hes going through the Stormfront archives as we speak.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Funny your charge of Islam coming from a person who doesn't exhibit the qualities of a peaceful person and is hostilte, intolerant, and disrespectful against those who are of the Islamic faith and of religion in general. How hypocritical of you.No. I'm talking about physical violence.
I have never so much as punched a guy in the face, let alone chanted "God is Great" while sawing a poor man's head off.
I have Z.E.R.O. problems with people who SPEAK with hostility or disrespect.
In fact my seriously-held beliefs are openly mocked here literally every, single day.
I'm talking about the people who stabbed a film director in the heart because of a movie he made, the people who offered money to have Salman Rushdie murdered, the people who killed people because of a f***ing CARTOON, stuff like that.

[Mr Sparkle]

Hes going through the Stormfront archives as we speak.

I was under the impression he was black:confused:

[The Question]

No. I'm talking about physical violence.
I have never so much as punched a guy in the face, let alone chanted "God is Great" while sawing a poor man's head off.
I have Z.E.R.O. problems with people who SPEAK with hostility or disrespect.
In fact my seriously-held beliefs are openly mocked here literally every, single day.
I'm talking about the people who stabbed a film director in the heart because of a movie he made, the people who offered money to have Salman Rushdie murdered, the people who killed people because of a f***ing CARTOON, stuff like that.


That dosn't show that there's something inherently wrong with Islam. That shows that there's something inherently wrong with those particular people.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I was under the impression he was black:confused:No, that's "Celldawg".

[jaguarr]

woah, Celldog never came back to answer, I guess he hasnb't found the right 15 page article to copy and paste.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/captainobvious.jpg

jag

[Darthphere]

I was under the impression he was black:confused:


He is, but that doesnt change anything.

[Addendum]

What did that cartoon symbolize?

7 children died and that is regrettable/inexcusable, but that never would've happened if the news group who printed those stories had not issued them. These were seasoned journalists who were well aware of the possible implications concerning what negative reaction may result as a backlash.

Fortunately for them, they got to retreat to their cushy dwellings while other people died for what they created. They used what: Freedom of speech/press as their defense. Unfortunately, that law is often used to promote unnecessary claims/slander, as in that case.
But to a person who doesn't believe, mohammed is as real as the tooth fairy. Essentially, fiction.

So to prove that slander took place, you'd have to convince a non-believer that what you believe is truth. Burden of proof is on you.

[The Question]

Mohammed was a real person.

[Mr Sparkle]

No, that's "Celldawg".

4 realz yo?

that is whack!

[Addendum]

But a profit... I mean prophet?

[The Question]

Maybe. Who knows? Either way, he did exist.

[Addendum]

Then let him file the slander charges

[The Question]

He can't. Last I heard, he was kind of corpsified.

[Addendum]

So the slander charge is meaningless

[raybia]

No. I'm talking about physical violence.
I have never so much as punched a guy in the face, let alone chanted "God is Great" while sawing a poor man's head off.

Are telling me that physical violence wouldn't exist if it wasn't for religion?

That nobody who wasn't a follower of some type of religion never punched a guy in the face?

That the only way someone has gotten their head sawed off was some Muslim guy chanting G-D'S name while he did it?

That groups of people with differences other than religion would not teach, advocate, and threaten violence if it wasn't for the existence of religion?


I have Z.E.R.O. problems with people who SPEAK with hostility or disrespect.

Good for you if that doesn't bother you but on SHH its not tolerated. (Well in policy but apparently its ok in practice.) I do have many problems with people like that.

In fact my seriously-held beliefs are openly mocked here literally every, single day.

Well, that doesn't make it right, especially in a Community forum like this one where there are rules.
Nobody should be free to persecute anyone else without consquences. Its also hard to have any empathy for you when you participate in it as well.

I'm talking about the people who stabbed a film director in the heart because of a movie he made, the people who offered money to have Salman Rushdie murdered, the people who killed people because of a f***ing CARTOON, stuff like that.

What makes you think that I and many other G-d conscience people don't have a problem with those things as well.

I'm a Muslim so that makes me and all 1.3 billion of us spawns of Satan?

I'm sorry that you have the wrong idea about Al-Islam and that you are convinced that the Qur'an instructs all of us to kill non-Muslims and oppression Muslim, have 20 wifes and will receive 70 virgins for blowing ourselves up.

You seem to be on the same end of the spectrum as the same sick fanatics and extremism.

You come to the same interpretation of this twisted Islamic dogma and rhetoric teachings the same as them but the only difference is that you just don't accepted it as the truth. But thats more your problem then mine.

Consider for a moment that it may be that many of those who become fanatics and extremists and who agree with and/or turn to terrorism as a solution for what ails them, has less to do with Al-Islam and more to do with nationalism, imperialism, culturism, persecution, socio/economic situation, educational level along with a twisted religious dogma as a foundation that gives them warped moral justification to commit such atrocities. These things are a perfert recipe for the situations and the mind-set that you see in the third-world societies of the Middle East.

You don't see the majoirity of Muslim-Americans sharing such views and taking part in such actions and behavior.

So I resent being lumped with fanatics just because that claim the follow the same religion as I do for they do so in name only.

I have studied and continue to study the Qur'an and learn the Arabic as to properly learn and understand the Qur'an teachings rather than rely on some scholar's interpretation. And nothing that I have learned so far supports the beliefs of those fanantics nor of the charges by Islamiophobic individuals like yourself as Islam being a religion of violence and terror.


I know there is nothing I can say to change your feelings of hate nor your impression of Al-Islam but I would ask to please stop the hatemongering towards Muslims and Al-Islam as you admit yourself that you hate religion.

People like that only help to spread an unwarranted fear among non-Muslim Americans and creates an environment of danger for the majority of us Muslim-Americans are Law-abiding citizens who are very concern about the well-being of how country and the plight of innocent human life everywhere.

[raybia]

But to a person who doesn't believe, mohammed is as real as the tooth fairy. Essentially, fiction.

So to prove that slander took place, you'd have to convince a non-believer that what you believe is truth. Burden of proof is on you.

Mohammed was a historical real person along with DNA proof of his existence. There is absolutely no debate among western scholars that he wasn't real along with historical evidence of his accomplishments.

Those who believe that he was fictional are merely willfully ignorant.

[Alpha and Omega]

But to a person who doesn't believe, mohammed is as real as the tooth fairy. Essentially, fiction.

So to prove that slander took place, you'd have to convince a non-believer that what you believe is truth. Burden of proof is on you.

Really? Most western-world journalists and civilized nations in general are aware of how serious the prophet Muhammad is taken in his religion. No burden of proof is necessary when we each know how revered he is to the Islamic faith.

I'm not bashing a journalists right to fair enterprise, but I am thinking about the level of person who would knowingly instigate such a thing. If you think that those writers were 'blind' to the possible implications, think again.:down

These were people who had covered stories on the religion, its general influence on the area, and how it correlated to their dealings w/ other societies. Part of being a journalist (well, at least a credible one or so I thought, was OBJECTIVITY) is keeping your reputation for giving people FACTUAL information (NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT), and allowing the viewer to reason for themselves. How can you call yourself a journalist when you're making light of your profession, the stories you're supposed to take seriously, and the other people (co-workers/colleagues who weren't involved) who are associated w/ you? Printing that was a dumb thing to do because the repercussions are very complex w/ any action/reaction esp. one of a highly volatile nature such as the aforementioned.

Were those journalists religious? What did they personally revere or hold dear to their own person? What if that was being slandered, threatened, or attacked in a light-hearted way? I'm sure they would form some kind of rebuttal. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be as primitive or as violent, but that goes w/ what I priorly stated about the mindset of certain demographics in the Middle East. I don't think it would be an understatement to claim that a lot of people (globally period) may be just as uneducated as poor individuals in the 'Dark Ages' before the Renaissance. Perhaps the view of non-violent conflict resolution isn't as prevalent in every place under the sun. Just my opinion though.

Unfortunately, most media outlets influence the news w/ underlying hints, manipulation of visual imagery, sensationalism, and subtle insinuations. Sadly, I've noticed that the multi-millenium old chinese theory about the art of war is mentally applied by a lot modern broadcasters in their delivery of news, the technique in appealing to the viewer as a seemingly objective reasoner, and allowing planted information to take root and flourish.

[raybia]

Really? Most western-world journalists and civilized nations in general are aware of how serious the prophet Muhammad is taken in his religion. No burden of proof is necessary when we each know how revered he is to the Islamic faith.

I'm not bashing a journalists right to fair enterprise, but I am thinking about the level of person who would knowingly instigate such a thing. If you think that those writers were 'blind' to the possible implications, think again.:down

These were people who had covered stories on the religion, its general influence on the area, and how it correlated to their dealings w/ other societies. Part of being a journalist (well, at least a credible one or so I thought, was OBJECTIVITY) is keeping your reputation for giving people FACTUAL information (NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT), and allowing the viewer to reason for themselves. How can you call yourself a journalist when you're making light of your profession, the stories you're supposed to take seriously, and the other people (co-workers/colleagues who weren't involved) who are associated w/ you? Printing that was a dumb thing to do because the repercussions are very complex w/ any action/reaction esp. one of a highly volatile nature such as the aforementioned.

Were those journalists religious? What did they personally revere or hold dear to their own person? What if that was being slandered, threatened, or attacked in a light-hearted way? I'm sure they would form some kind of rebuttal. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be as primitive or as violent, but that goes w/ what I priorly stated about the mindset of certain demographics in the Middle East. I don't think it would be an understatement to claim that a lot of people (globally period) may be just as uneducated as poor individuals in the 'Dark Ages' before the Renaissance. Perhaps the view of non-violent conflict resolution isn't as prevalent in every place under the sun. Just my opinion though.

Unfortunately, most media outlets influence the news w/ underlying hints, manipulation of visual imagery, sensationalism, and subtle insinuations. Sadly, I've noticed that the multi-millenium old chinese theory about the art of war is mentally applied by a lot modern broadcasters in their delivery of news, the technique in appealing to the viewer as a seemingly objective reasoner, and allowing planted information to take root and flourish.


Wow! Excellent commentary. :up:

[Addendum]

Since it was a political cartoon in the editorial section, facts are superfluous.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Really? Most western-world journalists and civilized nations in general are aware of how serious the prophet Muhammad is taken in his religion. No burden of proof is necessary when we each know how revered he is to the Islamic faith.EVERYone in America knows how much Jesus is revered, not as a prophet, but as God himself in human form, or to non-trinitarians, the Son of God.
But when the dude made "Piss-Christ" or Kevin smith makes "Dogma", etc.
You don't hear of any church-sponsored death threats or children being trampled to death in protest mobs.:o

[Alpha and Omega]

Mohammed was a historical real person along with DNA proof of his existence. There is absolutely no debate among western scholars that he wasn't real along with historical evidence of his accomplishments.

Those who believe that he was fictional are merely willfully ignorant.

Then again too, like you said, he was historical.

People who don't want to believe something never will; they've already decided not to listen to what has been spoken or heard.

W/ Muhammad, just like any other debated historical figure (Ceasars, Egyptian Pharaohs, Alexander, Darius, etc. . . . ), there's a certain amount of proof to allude to their existences, but 'proof beyond the shadow of a doubt' is impossible, because they've returned to the ground.

I can say "I don't believe in Muhammad, another historical figure, Jesus, God, etc. . . . or I can say that I believe in them"

It doesn't make it true or false, since there's no possible way to prove (beyond the shadow of self-perceived doubt) or disprove(beyond the shadow of self-perceived doubt) these things as a person.

It's kind of likened to the great point Steven(or Stephen sp?) Colbert made on his show concerning Wikipedia.

When you write history, you can basically say what you want, and it's apparently true. People may deny this at first under the claim that it's only an internet fad, but no no. History is manipulated and always told by the nation or dominating power in charge.

Proof is debatable just like viewpoint, interpretation, etc. . . .

It's why there are literally hundreds of religions, volumes of philosophies, endless ideals to pursue, and paths to follow even though excessive study is arguably wearisome to a person, or so I've heard.

Since it was a political cartoon in the editorial section, facts are superfluous.
From your seemingly 'educated' point of view.

Sadly, perhaps some of the protesters were not as familiar w/ Western customs, and the conceptuality of "political jesting for sport."

Did you even read what I put about the mindset of an uneducated person(uneducated in Western customs or philosophy), and how lack of formal knowledge affects action/reaction?

[maxwell's demon]

Really? Most western-world journalists and civilized nations in general are aware of how serious the prophet Muhammad is taken in his religion. No burden of proof is necessary when we each know how revered he is to the Islamic faith.

I'm not bashing a journalists right to fair enterprise, but I am thinking about the level of person who would knowingly instigate such a thing. If you think that those writers were 'blind' to the possible implications, think again.:down

These were people who had covered stories on the religion, its general influence on the area, and how it correlated to their dealings w/ other societies. Part of being a journalist (well, at least a credible one or so I thought, was OBJECTIVITY) is keeping your reputation for giving people FACTUAL information (NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT), and allowing the viewer to reason for themselves. How can you call yourself a journalist when you're making light of your profession, the stories you're supposed to take seriously, and the other people (co-workers/colleagues who weren't involved) who are associated w/ you? Printing that was a dumb thing to do because the repercussions are very complex w/ any action/reaction esp. one of a highly volatile nature such as the aforementioned.

Were those journalists religious? What did they personally revere or hold dear to their own person? What if that was being slandered, threatened, or attacked in a light-hearted way? I'm sure they would form some kind of rebuttal. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily be as primitive or as violent, but that goes w/ what I priorly stated about the mindset of certain demographics in the Middle East. I don't think it would be an understatement to claim that a lot of people (globally period) may be just as uneducated as poor individuals in the 'Dark Ages' before the Renaissance. Perhaps the view of non-violent conflict resolution isn't as prevalent in every place under the sun. Just my opinion though.

Unfortunately, most media outlets influence the news w/ underlying hints, manipulation of visual imagery, sensationalism, and subtle insinuations. Sadly, I've noticed that the multi-millenium old chinese theory about the art of war is mentally applied by a lot modern broadcasters in their delivery of news, the technique in appealing to the viewer as a seemingly objective reasoner, and allowing planted information to take root and flourish.

there's really alot to what you're saying, A&O.

To back off a step from the bigger issues and just think about the sort of simple "textural"(contextual) sensation you get when you heard the name of God, or G-d, or any deity or revered entity. What is that? that little ambient feeling? just at the word "god"?

Daisy and i talked a bit about the messianic overtones of the current leader of Iran, which i compared to those of our own GWB.
But even i can see the difference between the two, even if i can't explain it.

I don't know precisely what i'm trying to say, but i guess its this. When i hear God evoked in other cultures, it "hits" me. makes an imapct. sometimes its a sort of scarey one.
And yet when i hear people from my own cultures evoke God, even when its scarey fundamentalists, its isn't "quite" so scarey because its the same "God" i understand. The one i grew up with.


Anyhow, it's just interesting to me how these simple slight differences, the initial "senses", can snowball into these Huge cultural divides.

And how it can cause some to belittle another's "god" because it feels different to them, and so on.

[Addendum]

Since I'm not from Denmark, I didn't really care about the cartoon controversy. Even more so since I don't bother with god-claims

[Alpha and Omega]

EVERYone in America knows how much Jesus is revered, not as a prophet, but as God himself in human form, or to non-trinitarians, the Son of God.
But when the dude made "Piss-Christ" or Kevin smith makes "Dogma", etc.
You don't hear of any church-sponsored death threats or children being trampled to death in protest mobs.:o

[Lex Luthor] YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE BIG PICTURE HERE!!! [/Lex Luthor]

. . . .

"Wait for it."

People in America(well most civil ones don't) do not violently protest. That is correct. Why not?

Custom Wilhelm. At an early age, most of us are taught to use non-violent conflict resolution as an alternative to physical armament. Correct?

Still, a lot of us may at times kick somebody's ***, get ours' kicked, or witness these things, but that's a part of life.

W/ a different part of the world and a different mindset, you must take every single personal interpretation out of the equation and understand how they think, respond, process. It's the only way to truly understand someone who is a stark contrast from self.

Believe me, I understand what you and Addendum are trying to say, and I also agree that there is no excuse for inadvertently killing children, but I also can see how my background and the way I was raised has brought me to this conclusion. The background, life experiences, and general way of life is different for many in the Middle East, so they react differently. (especially to religious affairs; there's a greater religious influence in the middle east than in this country right now, and it still steers people's ideas)

That's my point; if someone is making fun of my views, or calling me names, I'd let it go; someone taught me to do that. This religious joke may have seemed harmless to the people who ran w/ the story, but it wasn't viewed w/ the same respect as the people who revered the man.

A difference in respect level caused this, and it's just sad that journalism is deteriorating to the point where it's "cool or funny" to demean what other people appreciate.

I don't care what people do in their own homes (rascist, bias, etc. . .), but the public forum is a little different, wouldn't you say?

[maxwell's demon]

so basically you're saying us americans are pussies, right?:huh:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'd say, yeah, violence is the "local custom" in some parts of the world. Great, if that's how they wanna roll.

But obviously, the Danish custom allows for satirical looks at sacred cows.
If an Iranian cartoonist drew that, and they went bonkers, okay. But these freaks want to dictate what the rest of the WORLD can and can't do, as in the case of Salman Rushdie.

F*** that.

[Addendum]

Were the cartoons printed in the business section? Or the sports section? Or how about the world, national, or local news section? They were printed solely in the OPINION section, where the editorial writers give their OPINION, and where editorial cartoonists express their OPINION through their artwork. However, the viewpoints expressed by those individuals DO NOT mean that the paper shares those same views. They merely publish them. Some Muslim newspapers have their own editorial section, with their own editorial cartoonists who do the same damn thing.

But why should a person who doesn't believe what you believe or respect, feel the same way about what you believe or respect it?

I don't believe in any god-claim, but if one chooses to believe in one, fine. I'm under no obligation to hold it sacred or "treat that god-claim with respect".

Those who protested cartoons can't grasp the fact that people don't have the same beliefs or respect the same things.

[maxwell's demon]

One of my best Friend's works for a Danish company and has gotten to know the Danes and their culture pretty well over the past 6 years.
His take on the cartoon fiasco? The Danes sort of deserved what they got, because they're insular and racially insensitive.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't believe in any god-claim, but if one chooses to believe in one, fine. I'm under no obligation to hold it sacred or "treat that god-claim with respect".

Those who protested cartoons can't grasp the fact that people don't have the same beliefs or respect the same things.That double standard is exactly what pisses me off. We are expected to walk on egg shells and be "respectful" of their ways, but they are never, never expected to respect the fact that we have different ways.

It's always going to create resentment when only one side of a conflict is incessantly expected to "be the bigger man" and do all the turning of the cheek and compromising.

[maxwell's demon]

i think, though, maybe we're missing how it might be viewed to them. Its more than just religion. Its the way that religion influences a culture, combined with art and economics, etc.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

i think, though, maybe they're missing how it might be viewed by us. Its more than just blasphemy. Its the way that freedom of speech is an integral part of culture, combined with art and economics, etc.

[Alpha and Omega]

there's really alot to what you're saying, A&O.

And yet when i hear people from my own cultures evoke God, even when its scarey fundamentalists, its isn't "quite" so scarey because its the same "God" i understand. The one i grew up with.

Anyhow, it's just interesting to me how these simple slight differences, the initial "senses", can snowball into these Huge cultural divides.

And how it can cause some to belittle another's "god" because it feels different to them, and so on.

Understanding is the key to familiarity, so you'd obviously feel more comfort w/ things that you expressly know - over things that you've less association w/.

It is interesting to see these type of things snowball, but the root of why they do is lack of basic reasoning. A heartfelt introspective of any situation can improve the outcome; I don't care how "emo" or "unpopular" that sounds. It works.

Belittling other people's beliefs, ideals, etc. . . is pretty common. We're all probably guilty of some type or form of this, though not in this extreme nature.

I guess one thing that I didn't mention earlier is that it also alluded to the journalists' lack of forethought. Each editor, paper conglomerate, etc. . . all preview their stories and decide whether or not they'll use them based on forethought. In this case, it just seemed like a lack of it.

so basically you're saying americans are pussies, right?:huh:
:down :( Our top-5 crime rate among western world countries would beg to differ. :p

I'd say, yeah, violence is the "local custom" in some parts of the world. Great, if that's how they wanna roll.

But obviously, the Danish custom allows for satirical looks at sacred cows.
If an Iranian cartoonist drew that, and they went bonkers, okay. But these freaks want to dictate what the rest of the WORLD can and can't do, as in the case of Salman Rushdie.

F*** that.

You and I understand that, but do they?

His take on the cartoon fiasco? The Danes sort of deserved what they got, because they're insular and racially insensitive.

There lies something that I made a subtle allusion to, but didn't say, since I'm not in the habit of playing the 'blame game' / 'you're a rascist' thing. I just don't care personally. There's nothing I can do about it, but like Maxwell's friend mentioned, racial tension is an issue in that area.

Those who protested cartoons can't grasp the fact that people don't have the same beliefs or respect the same things.

Part of the miscommunication is due to that; westerners(civilized culture) have been raised to project views, opinions, and differing ideas. A lot of other people in different places haven't. It's not your responsibility or anyone elses to "respect" their culture, but in the pursuit of peace, it would be nice if a lot of people did a lot of things.

It won't happen because a lot of people (maybe even myself included) have these 'elitist' like concepts of our normalcy superceding other peoples.

[Addendum]

People have a right to live and believe whatever the **** they want. If someone's opinion of what you believe in has such an effect on you that you blow **** up, then your faith is pretty damned weak

[maxwell's demon]

i think, though, maybe they're missing how it might be viewed by us. Its more than just blasphemy. Its the way that freedom of speech is an integral part of culture, combined with art and economics, etc.
right, but what im saying is....its hard to step outside of our culture and see how it might be viewed by someone from another. Its hard to consider how deeply influenced we are by two millenia of Christianity, for good or for ill.
Even atheists, agnostics, and anything else-ists.
We've all got large parts of it so ingrained in us that we can't accept that it might be viewed as "wrong" by someone else.

We see ourselves as "turning the other cheek" and being better bigger men in these small conflicts. We accuse Muslims of being smaller men because they threaten violence.
And yet we don't bat an eyelash at the thousands we slaughter. So how, really, are we better mannered? Ironically, i'd wager a lot of muslims, (in their governments and militaries) are better "christians" than those in ours.


if our "good manners" are responsible for ending more muslim lives, and their "violent protests and threats" actually end in LESS overall bloodshed of Europeans and/or Americans, then really, who's "turning the other cheek"?

[musclesforsupes]

Come on many famous people are islamic

Judith Light
Urkel
Megalon
Sea Monster
Balki
Wilhelm
Brandon Routh
Godzilla
Randor
Falcor
Old Whore's

[Kurosawa]

EVERYone in America knows how much Jesus is revered, not as a prophet, but as God himself in human form, or to non-trinitarians, the Son of God.
But when the dude made "Piss-Christ" or Kevin smith makes "Dogma", etc.
You don't hear of any church-sponsored death threats or children being trampled to death in protest mobs.:o

Exactly. That's where the Islamic world needs to grow up.

If you truly believe in God and truly believe in his power, then you should just be able to ignore that kind of stuff.

I still wonder if the world wouldn't be better if all the fanatics woke up tomorrow and discovered they were athiests. Or gay.

[Alpha and Omega]

People have a right to live and believe whatever the **** they want. That doesn't mean if someone believes that a rock in the African rain-forest is a gift from a deity they may believe, that I have to respect a damned rock.

No it doesn't. People from different cultures believe in a lot of ideas that are perceived in a lot of ways.

You don't have to respect a rock, another inanimate object, a life-like one such as an animal, or a capably reasoning one such as a human/their point of view.

Hell, people are so seemingly 'bad***' nowadays, they usually don't even respect themselves.

Cheers man.:up: Do what you want. It's your life.:)

Another interesting thing to mull over Addendum: the last part of your sig says 'do unto others.'

Maybe the paper in Denmark should've followed that advice.

[Daisy]

A&O,

you realize the political satire... even in pictorial form... is not at all uncommon in the Arab and Islamic world. To say that the rioting that happened as a result of that picture was because of some sort of cutural difference those in the Arab world don't have a concept of that form of satire is rather disingenuous.

They do... they use it themselves.

How offensive do you think it is to have Ariel Sharon depicted wearing a Swastika to Jews? This is from an Egyptian magazine:

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoons/7-13-02-Al-Ahram-Al-Arabi_400.jpg

[Fenrir]

That double standard is exactly what pisses me off. We are expected to walk on egg shells and be "respectful" of their ways, but they are never, never expected to respect the fact that we have different ways.


You're right, but in doing so (i.e, both sides realizing that we have different ways), out of mutual understanding, shouldn't things that are sensitive or in some ways, even provocative, be left out of the question? I mean, it's not exactly an obligation on our part to make mock or ridicule (or in this case, also unnecessarily demonize) the religious beliefs of others now, is it?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Come on many famous people are islamic

Judith Light
Urkel
Megalon
Sea Monster
Balki
Wilhelm
Brandon Routh
Godzilla
Randor
Falcor
Old Whore'sWell I'd convert for Judith LIGHT!:eek:
rOwr!

[maxwell's demon]

Come on many famous people are islamic

Judith Light
Urkel
Megalon
Sea Monster
Balki
Wilhelm
Brandon Routh
Godzilla
Randor
Falcor
Old Whore's

your wisdom will save the world some day:)

[Fenrir]

A&O,

you realize the political satire... even in pictorial form... is not at all uncommon in the Arab and Islamic world. To say that the rioting that happened as a result of that picture was because of some sort of cutural difference those in the Arab world don't have a concept of that form of satire is rather disingenuous.

They do... they use it themselves.

How offensive do you think it is to have Ariel Sharon depicted wearing a Swastika to Jews? This is from an Egyptian magazine:

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoons/7-13-02-Al-Ahram-Al-Arabi_400.jpg

Unless Ariel Sharon has some sort of religious significance to the Jews, I'm not sure how exactly this is relevant.

[maxwell's demon]

Well I'd convert for Judith LIGHT!:eek:
rOwr!

http://a40.g.akamai.net/7/40/2718/72167b056294a7/www.lifetimetv.com/images/shows/ip/portraits/ip_bio2_jlight.jpg

I'm riding on the back of Falcor to YOU, Wilhelm!

[maxwell's demon]

Unless Ariel Sharon has some sort of religious significance to the Jews, I'm not sure how exactly this is relevant.


good point.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm riding on the back of Falcor to YOU, Wilhelm!
hahaha, romantic, erotic, culturally sensitive

[Addendum]

Come on many famous people are islamic


Urkel

http://www.paulscheer.com/uploaded_images/Picture%207%20Urkel-778919.jpg

[maxwell's demon]

:cmad: profiling.

[Alpha and Omega]

A&O,

you realize the political satire... even in pictorial form... is not at all uncommon in the Arab and Islamic world. To say that the rioting that happened as a result of that picture was because of some sort of cutural difference those in the Arab world don't have a concept of that form of satire is rather disingenuous.

They do... they use it themselves.

How offensive do you think it is to have Ariel Sharon depicted wearing a Swastika to Jews? This is from an Egyptian magazine:

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoons/7-13-02-Al-Ahram-Al-Arabi_400.jpg

I'm fully aware that certain 'EDUCATED' ones do these types of things.

And no, it's not disingenuous to claim that a lot of uneducated people do not understand the effects or repercussion of political satire. (I'm not saying that all Islamic people in middle eastern countries are uneducated, but you'd have to agree that throngs of masses are Daisy.)

Don't misinterpret this as me defending one or taking sides over the other. I think that the article you posted is just as unnecessarily offensive.

When I said that the paper made a mistake imo, did I say that Denmark made a mistake? No. I said that the paper alone did.

I wasn't blaming an entire section for the actions of a few; I was just saying that forethought could have avoided this unnecessary violence.

Some people who are religiously affiliated w/ Islam do this type of thing, but do I blame the religion as a whole? Nope (just like I didn't go on a tangent about how Denmark was to blame for the paper's comments)

I took the side of the issue that was presented and addressed that w/ arguable objectivity. I'm sorry if it doesn't seem that way.

And to address your satire comments. Our interpretation of Satire IS different. You're fully aware of how in-grained the hatred in the middle east is.

We can see the senseless nature of it, but can some of these individuals even realize that they're biased? Can some in this country, or anywhere in the world? If we've been raised to think that way, how do we know for sure, if we don't really see the harm? If we're not educated to analyze things like this, or we're instructed to ignore it in certain cases (say, the intense hatred of an alleged blood enemy), you can see where it's differs between our seemingly civilized pov, and other's seemingly civilized pov.

I wasn't grouping a large faction together and claiming that they ALL didn't understand the meaning of satire or its common useful practice to highlight flaws w/in us all. I'm just wondering if the people who rioted fully understood the purpose of satire as well as you or I.

edit - sorry, when I respond fast, grammatical errors galore: :O

[Addendum]

My mom used to watch the Profiler.

[Fenrir]

good point.

You know I'm always right.

Well, I've only just arrived but you can be damn sure you'll be agreeing with me more in the future. :mad::up:

[Kurosawa]

Unless Ariel Sharon has some sort of religious significance to the Jews, I'm not sure how exactly this is relevant.

I'm pretty sure any Jew and indeed any decent human being should be disgusted by that picture, even though Sharon himself is guilty of quite a few pretty nasty offenses.

Do you think a picture depicting say, Jesse Jackson as a Klansman wouldn't offend people? Not that he's done anything as bad as Sharon's worst, or anything bad at all, mind you.

I mean, it's a Jew depicted as a Nazi. How is that NOT offensive?

[maxwell's demon]

You know I'm always right.

Well, I've only just arrived but you can be damn sure you'll be agreeing with me more in the future. :mad::up:
I will, Fenrir, I will.:mad::up:

[Daisy]

I'm fully aware that certain 'EDUCATED' ones do these types of things.

And no, it's not disingenuous to claim that a lot of uneducated people do not understand the effects or repercussion of political satire. (I'm not saying that all Islamic people in middle eastern countries are uneducated, but you'd have to agree that throngs of masses are Daisy.)

Don't misinterpret this as me defending one or taking sides over the other. I think that the article you posted is just as unnecessarily offensive.

When I said that the paper made a mistake imo, did I say that Denmark made a mistake? No. I said that the paper alone did.

I wasn't blaming an entire section for the actions of a few; I was just saying that forethought could have avoided this unnecessary violence.

Some people who are religiously affiliated w/ Islam do this type of thing, but do I blame the religion as a whole? Nope (just like I didn't go on a tangent about how Denmark was to blame for the paper's comments)

I took the side of the issue that was presented and addressed that w/ arguable objectivity. I'm sorry if it doesn't seem that way.

And to address your satire comments. Our interpretation of Satire IS different. You're fully aware of how in-grained the hatred in the middle east is.

We can see the senseless nature of it, but can some of these individuals even realize that they're biased? Can some in this country, or anywhere in the world? If we've been raised to think that way, how do we know for sure, if we don't really see the harm? If we're not educated to analyze things like this, or we're instructed to ignore it in certain cases (say, the intense hatred of an alleged blood enemy), you can see where it's differs between our seemingly civilized pov, and other's seemingly civilized pov.

I wasn't grouping a large faction together and claiming that they ALL didn't understand the meaning of satire or its common useful practice to highlight flaws w/in us all. I'm just wondering if the people who rioted fully understood the purpose of satire as well as you or I.

edit - sorry, when I respond fast, grammatical errors galore: :O

Where did these 'uneducated' people who don't understand satire get ahold of the pictures then? Clearly they're not reading the Danish press on a regular basis. And how did they know that the bearded guy in them was even supposed to depict Muhammad?

[maxwell's demon]

Just to reiterate:
if our "good manners" are responsible for ending more muslim lives, and their "violent protests and threats" actually end in LESS overall bloodshed of Europeans and/or Americans, then really, who's "turning the other cheek"?

I think the interesting thing is that it seems, to me at least, our culture is more chiefly concerned with aesthetics. Language, culture, etc.

As such we're more democratic in our approach to issues like the Danish cartoons, because they're just "words" and or "pictures" to us.

But we fail to see, or acknowledge, how that emphasis on Aesthetics and Culture can distract us from the actual life or death struggles that go on in the world daily. We see little connection between cultural commentary and cultural action, but other cultures, perhaps, do.

[celldog]

Dutch police detain 12 passengers from flight escorted back to Amsterdam
Updated 8/23/2006 3:48 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this


AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — Dutch F-16s escorted a Northwest Airlines flight bound for India back to an airport here Wednesday after the pilot radioed for help, and police arrested 12 passengers who had aroused suspicions, authorities said.
Police spokesman Rob Staenacker said he could not disclose their nationalities or the nature of the suspicions against them, only that "12 people have been arrested." An American passenger, who identified herself only as Alpa, told AP Television News she saw about a dozen people taken off the plane in handcuffs.

While Flight NO0042 was over German airspace shortly after takeoff, the pilot radioed for permission to return to Schiphol Airport and asked for an escort of jet fighters because some of the passengers were acting suspiciously, the Defense Ministry said.

"A number of them behaved, in the opinion of the crew, in a suspicious manner," said the ministry. "As a result, the captain asked to return to Schiphol."

A U.S. government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, said crewmembers and air marshals observed the passengers trying to use cellphones and passing them among themselves while the airliner was taking off.

"It was behavior that average passengers wouldn't do," the official said.

The DC-10 was escorted back to Schiphol by two F-16s scrambled from a northern military airfield, the Defense Ministry said. Routine security measures were swiftly put into place.

The plane was carrying 149 passengers, when it turned around after crossing the German border. A Northwest DC-10 has a normal seating capacity of 273.

The Dutch National Terrorism Coordinator's Office was informed, but said there was no reason to raise the national threat level, spokeswoman Judith Sluiter said.

The flight was canceled until Thursday, and the passengers were put up in hotels, Northwest said.

"It is the same as it was before — light threat," said Sluiter.

Like airports around the world, Schiphol raised the level of security two weeks ago when British police announced they had uncovered a plot to blow up several U.S.-bound commercial jetliners, but Kuypers said threat levels had returned to normal.

Several alerts have been sounded since the terrorism plot was outlined in London. On Friday, a British plane made an emergency landing in southern Italy after a bomb scare, and the U.S. Air Force scrambled jets to escort a United Airlines flight from London to Washington as it was diverted to Boston.

Wednesday's security alert was the first at Amsterdam's international airport since September, when a British Airways flight returned in similar circumstances. It turned out to be a false alarm.


WHY DIDN'T THEY DISCLOSE THEIR NATIONALITIES??

Who want's to put money on what these people will be when the info is released???

[maxwell's demon]

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS SPEAK IN BOLD TYPE :huh:

[Daisy]

good point.

To not see the analogy is being a little obtuse. It's a matter of degree of offensiveness. How is the depiction of a Jew who is emblematic of the whole group (the leader of Israel) as a Nazi any less offensive than depicting Mohammad as a terrorist? Both are using an emblematic figure to paint the whole group with a broad stroke.

[JLBats]

WHY DIDN'T THEY DISCLOSE THEIR NATIONALITIES??

Who want's to put money on what these people will be when the info is released???


And you point is?

[Fenrir]

I'm pretty sure any Jew and indeed any decent human being should be disgusted by that picture, even though Sharon himself is guilty of quite a few pretty nasty offenses.

Do you think a picture depicting say, Jesse Jackson as a Klansman wouldn't offend people? Not that he's done anything as bad as Sharon's worst, or anything bad at all, mind you.

I mean, it's a Jew depicted as a Nazi. How is that NOT offensive?

Like I said, unless Ariel Sharon has some religious significance to the Jews like Muhammad does to the Muslims, it's not an appropriate example.

[Mr Sparkle]

Blah Blah Blah Bold Type!!!! Blah blah blah.

smaller text copied and pasted from some article having nothing to do with the post I was supossed to adress, in an obvious attempt to divert attention from the very fact I was supossed to answer and I couldn't




BOLD TYPE AGAIN, THIS TIME IN ALL CAPS WITH A LOT OF EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!!

:down:o

[maxwell's demon]

To not see the analogy is being a little obtuse. It's a matter of degree of offensiveness. How is the depiction of a Jew who is emblematic of the whole group (the leader of Israel) as a Nazi any less offensive than depicting Mohammad as a terrorist? Both are using an emblematic figure to paint the whole group with a broad stroke.

i'd take issue with the obtuse line, Daisy. There's a HUUUUGE difference between a HUMAN who made an AWFUL mistake misterpreting a religion or a religious directive and what have you, and a DEITY-the CENTER of their entire religion.
A historical figure comes and goes, and can be judged in different lights over time. But A Historical RELIGIOUS figure? The Central Figure in a whole Faith? thats a whole nother ball of wax, isn't it?
If anything It's a little obtuse of you not to see that.

But... you have gone to prove me point that aesthetics are more important to us than actualities.

we're hapless cases:csad:

let's be friends:O

[Fenrir]

To not see the analogy is being a little obtuse. It's a matter of degree of offensiveness. How is the depiction of a Jew who is emblematic of the whole group (the leader of Israel) as a Nazi any less offensive than depicting Mohammad as a terrorist? Both are using an emblematic figure to paint the whole group with a broad stroke.

That's flawed logic and you know it. Many Jews disagree and disapprove of Ariel Sharon (even the entire Israeli government), I've even known some who loathe him. Many of them are orthodox Jews. Sharon is not universally revered in Judaism like Muhammad is in Islam.

[Daisy]

WHY DIDN'T THEY DISCLOSE THEIR NATIONALITIES??

Who want's to put money on what these people will be when the info is released???


Well, I fly Northwest all the time.

My guess is that it's a bunch of Swedes... well, in truth Swedish-Americans. They're always doing dumb stuff. Big dumb Swedes. :whatever:

[maxwell's demon]

http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/swedish_chef.gif

i vont'a tell ya vere im frum!

[celldog]

Well, I fly Northwest all the time.

My guess is that it's a bunch of Swedes... well, in truth Swedish-Americans. They're always doing dumb stuff. Big dumb Swedes. :whatever:


Suuuuuuuurre.....we'll see. Swedes... LOL

[Daisy]

That's flawed logic and you know it. Many Jews disagree and disapprove of Ariel Sharon (even the entire Israeli government), I've even known some who loathe him. Sharon is not universally revered in Judaism like Muhammad is in Islam.

No, it's not flawed logic. You're viewing it from a Western view of Sharon.

Who else would Arabs use as an easily recognizable emblematic figure to represent Jews... and depict the nature of Jews?

God? Uh... nope.
Abaraham? I don't think so.
Issac? Probably not.
Maimonides? Not sure how recognizable he'd be.

Hmmm... how about the current leader of the Jewish state? Now [i]there's an idea.

[Alpha and Omega]

But we fail to see, or acknowledge, how that emphasis on Aesthetics and Culture can distract us from the actual life or death struggles that go on in the world daily. We see little connection between cultural commentary and cultural action, but other cultures, perhaps, do.

You said what I couldn't in one post.:( :up:

Where did these 'uneducated' people who don't understand satire get ahold of the pictures then? Clearly they're not reading the Danish press on a regular basis. And how did they know that the bearded guy in them was even supposed to depict Muhammad?

Seriously, I'm not sure how these things are circulated, if it's intentionally done by people who hate the Islamic faith in order to rile members up, or if those type of articles are capitalized on by militants in the fervent attempt to rally more to their respective cause.

When I say uneducated, I don't necessarily mean lacking the basic skills of reading and writing, though sadly, many in the world are illiterate. What if they can read, but lack proper discernment/understanding/accurate knowledge/wisdom? What if that ineptitude is steered in a hateful direction or if they thought the worst?

How did they know that the bearded buy was supposed to depict Muhammad?
I'm pretty sure that there's a small percentage of Muslims living in Denmark. I remember seeing a brief MSNBC piece w/ Brian William's highlighting how more and more(people of the Islamic faith) were moving to Denmark and Holland, and that an internal backlash against the spread of their customs was brewing. Many patriotic citizens of Denmark did not want their children going to school or learning any customs of Islam. That's their right, but unfortunately, people also made unnecessary statements and bickered. (on both sides)

The same thing was/is happening in Holland I believe, and that threw me for a loop, because the Dutch are known as some of the most liberal people. How did they handle this? Did they make a practice of demeaning others?[I'm in no way, shape, or form implying that Denmark does that either, but I've seen BBC reports that allude to this; take it as you will.] No. They used the law to enforce stricter citizenship laws. Now, citizens must learn the language and the entire history to their standard, before they are granted permanent residence. (not necessarily how some would handle it, but it's a non-violent solution w/ good use of forethought.)

There's a certain way to handle things, and maybe my view of that differs from a lot of other peoples. So many views are thrown at us, so who am I to say that mine's better? I'm just posting my take.:)
______________________________________
This issue is bigger than the cartoon imo, though that cartoon is arguably the impetus; what does that statement represent? Yes, the cartoon is offensive to people of that faith. Why do that(make it) in the first place? What was the motive? Just a joke? Do your homework on the area first, and see if you agree.

[Daisy]

i'd take issue with the obtuse line, Daisy. There's a HUUUUGE difference between a HUMAN who made an AWFUL mistake misterpreting a religion or a religious directive and what have you, and a DEITY-the CENTER of their entire religion.
A historical figure comes and goes, and can be judged in different lights over time. But A Historical RELIGIOUS figure? The Central Figure in a whole Faith? thats a whole nother ball of wax, isn't it?
If anything It's a little obtuse of you not to see that.

But... you have gone to prove me point that aesthetics are more important to us than actualities.

we're hapless cases:csad:

let's be friends:O

Excpet that Muhammad isn't the 'central figure' of the faith... Allah is.

Muhammad isn't supposed to be worshipped. Only Allah is.
Respected, sure, but afterall, he's just a man. A virtuous man... to be sure... one to be emulated... but not a deity. Just a man... same as any one of us.

[maxwell's demon]

ok. so he's the jesus to our big poppa god. he's not just a man, from the Muslim friends i've talked to.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Maimonides?There you go, trotting out your book-smarts again.

[Fenrir]

No, it's not flawed logic. You're viewing it from a Western view of Sharon.

Who else would Arabs use as an easily recognizable emblematic figure to represent Jews... and depict the nature of Jews?

God? Uh... nope.
Abaraham? I don't think so.
Issac? Probably not.
Maimonides? Not sure how recognizable he'd be.

Hmmm... how about the current leader of the Jewish state? Now [i]there's an idea.

But isn't there a possibility that the political satire is aimed at the STATE OF ISRAEL rather than the Jewish faith? Just like how you can insult the political leader of a Muslim country like say...the King of Saudi Arabia and Parvez Musharaf of Pakistan and not mock the Islamic faith. Besides, I fail to see how Ariel Sharon is a proper representative of the Jewish people when a lot of them (particularly orthodox Jews) agree he should be put on trial for war crimes?

[Daisy]

If those type of articles are capitalized on by militants in the fervent attempt to rally more to their respective cause.
I believe you're on the right track here.

I'm pretty sure that there's a small percentage of Muslims living in Denmark. I remember seeing a brief MSNBC piece w/ Brian William's highlighting how more and more(people of the Islamic faith) were moving to Denmark and Holland, and that an internal backlash against the spread of their customs was brewing. Many patriotic citizens did of Denmark did not want their children going to school or learning any customs of Islam. That's their right, but unfortunately, people also made unnecessary statements and bickered. (on both sides)

The same thing was/is happening in Holland I believe, and that threw me for a loop, because the Dutch are known as some of the most liberal people. How did they handle this? Did they make a practice of demeaning others? No. They used the law to enforce stricter citizenship laws. Now, citizens must learn the language and the entire history to their standard, before they are granted permanent residence. (not necessarily how some would handle it, but it's a non-violent solution w/ good use of forethought.)

There's a certain way to handle things, and maybe my view of that differs from a lot of other peoples. So many views are thrown at us, so who am I to say that mine's better? I'm just posting my take.:)

But the violent protests weren't in Denmark (not saying there weren't protests, but they weren't violent). It wasn't it Denmark or Holland where children were trampled.

My point is that to blame the journalists is over-simplified. They published it for their specific audience. Don't you think those who 'orchestrated' (and yes, I do mean orchestrated) the protests (who know how violent they become) bear at least some of the burden? And perhaps even more than the journalists as the protest instigators are using their own people (regardless of the danger to those people) as propaganda tools.

______________________________________
This issue is bigger than the cartoon imo, though that cartoon is arguably the impetus; what does that statement represent? Yes, the cartoon is offensive to people of that faith. Why do that(make it) in the first place? What was the motive? Just a joke? Do your homework on the area first, and see if you agree.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the Middle East or Denmark. The Middle East I know a lot about... Denmark, not so much, although I am aware there are a lot of immigration-related problems in a number of European countries.

[maxwell's demon]

There you go, trotting out your book-smarts again.
or Wiki-quicks:o

[Fenrir]

Excpet that Muhammad isn't the 'central figure' of the faith... Allah is.

Muhammad isn't supposed to be worshipped. Only Allah is.
Respected, sure, but afterall, he's just a man. A virtuous man... to be sure... one to be emulated... but not a deity. Just a man... same as any one of us.

Even so, he IS universally revered by Muslims, because he was not just a man, to them he was the last prophet and they call him "Messenger of God". Do the Jewish people think the same of Sharon?

[Daisy]

or Wiki-quicks:o

Nope.

Muslim, Jew, Christian

I knows my early Medieval Spanish ****!

[Daisy]

But isn't there a possibility that the political satire is aimed at the STATE OF ISRAEL rather than the Jewish faith? Just like how you can insult the political leader of a Muslim country like say...the King of Saudi Arabia and Parvez Musharaf of Pakistan and not mock the Islamic faith. Besides, I fail to see how Ariel Sharon is a proper representative of the Jewish people when a lot of them (particularly orthodox Jews) agree he should be put on trial for war crimes?

Just because you fail to see something doesn't mean it's not a valid interpretation.

[maxwell's demon]

Nope.

Muslim, Jew, Christian

I knows my early Medieval Spanish ****!

i know. i'm just jealous:(





(i shouldn't have been drawing so many cartoons in my notebooks during history classes:csad:)

[Wilhelm-Scream]

(i shouldn't have been drawing so many cartoons in my notebooks during history classes:csad:)Heh, my Mom b****ed me out 'cause she saw my French notes laying open on the couch once and there were a few notes and a huge, detailed drawing of a minotaur taking up most of the page. Lol

( and some really bad Dadaist poetry too :csad: )

[maxwell's demon]

Just because you fail to see something doesn't mean it's not a valid interpretation.


and just because you see something where others failed dosn't mean its valid either. i mean...whats "valid" really? who's to say?

All this talk is taking us away from the central issue, isn't it? OR....is that precisely what this issue boils down to?

hmmnnn.......:ninja:

[Fenrir]

Just because you fail to see something doesn't mean it's not a valid interpretation.

Please elaborate.

[Daisy]

i know. i'm just jealous:(





(i shouldn't have been drawing so many cartoons in my notebooks during history classes:csad:)

I just didn't have any artistic ability... so I didn't have much of a choice. :(

[Mr Sparkle]

Just because you fail to see something doesn't mean it's not a valid interpretation.

so, to reiterate.
Ariel Sharon is meant to represent the state of Israel and not the Jews?

[Fenrir]

and just because you see something where others failed dosn't mean its valid either. i mean...whats "valid" really? who's to say?

All this talk is taking us away from the central issue, isn't it? OR....is that precisely what this issue boils down to?

hmmnnn.......:ninja:


She still has to reply why and how exactly is my "interpretation" invalid. Oh and Daisy, I really want to see your rebuttal to this post. (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9925935&postcount=216)

[Mr Sparkle]

Heh, my Mom b****ed me out 'cause she saw my French notes laying open on the couch once and there were a few notes and a huge, detailed drawing of a minotaur taking up most of the page. Lol

( and some really bad Dadaist poetry too :csad: )

do you own a van, are there wizards or dragons on the side of this van?

[Daisy]

Please elaborate.

I already explained the interpreation to you. Simply because you don't like it (which is what you're actually saying by "I fail to see") doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid interpretation... particularly when we're talking about something as subjective as a political cartoon.

Perhaps you should take a differnt tack. Try answering the question I asked?

Who, if not the leader of Israel, who would you use as an easily-recognizable, emblematic figure to represent "Jews" in a political cartoon?

[Alpha and Omega]

I believe you're on the right track here.
I don't know if I am or not, but it's a distinct possibility. We've already seen that the majority of militants are unreasonable w/ outsiders, and esp. people of their own faith, and that they'll use various strategems to benefit themselves. (technically, gov'ts do also, but that's a topic of a different nature.):o

But the violent protests weren't in Denmark (not saying there weren't protests, but they weren't violent). It wasn't it Denmark or Holland where children were trampled.

I know, but you asked how word may have gotten back to other areas. Family communicates (immigrant relatives in one of those countries may have correspondence w/ their former home), and that theory was simple conjecture on my part. Perhaps the international media outlets or one in particular brought attention to the story and caused an uproar.

My point is that to blame the journalists is over-simplified.
They are the catalyst in a sense. As an educated person/mod of the Hype, would you deliberately do something to cause an affront to another hypester? No? Why not? Forethought.

They published it for their specific audience. Don't you think those who 'orchestrated' (and yes, I do mean orchestrated) the protests (who know how violent they become) bear at least some of the burden? And perhaps even more than the journalists as the protest instigators are using their own people (regardless of the danger to those people) as propaganda tools.
Yes, I do think that they bear a burden. I was mentioning where it started and what came of it. No start, no continuance, no finale. It does seem a bit trivial, but how could we argue against something that never occurred?

Maybe instigators are using their own people as propaganda tools. That's sad if they are; if you knew that this was happening and you also were aware of how running a story would seem, would you still print it? I'm not sure if I would. Perhaps someone else would see no harm in that. Differences of opinion I guess.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the Middle East or Denmark. The Middle East I know a lot about... Denmark, not so much, although I am aware there are a lot of immigration-related problems in a number of European countries.
I was referring to the situations in Denmark and Holland w/ immigration.

Although, the statement could serve w/ application to the Middle East. You seem to agree w/ the notion that militant insurgents are purposely planting this material to enrage people. It wouldn't surprise, but I just think that they (if militants are doing this) don't need any assistance from Westerners/W-World civilzations. This kind of humor is the exact fuel they need, if your claim is true, so why do it?

[Darren Daring]

I already explained the interpreation to you. Simply because you don't like it (which is what you're actually saying by "I fail to see") doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid interpretation... particularly when we're talking about something as subjective as a political cartoon.

Perhaps you should take a differnt tack. Try answering the question I asked?

Who, if not the leader of Israel, who would you use as an easily-recognizable, emblematic figure to represent "Jews" in a political cartoon?

Woody Allen?

[Fenrir]

Who, if not the leader of Israel, who would you use as an easily-recognizable, emblematic figure to represent "Jews" in a political cartoon?

Why and how exactly did you come to the conclusion that it was meant to insult the Jews instead of just Israel? Last I checked Ariel Sharon was a representative of the STATE OF ISRAEL and not Judaism. I'm pretty sure many orthodox Jews would find the very notion as offensive to their religious beliefs.

[maxwell's demon]

I already explained the interpreation to you. Simply because you don't like it (which is what you're actually saying by "I fail to see") doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid interpretation... particularly when we're talking about something as subjective as a political cartoon.

Perhaps you should take a differnt tack. Try answering the question I asked?

Who, if not the leader of Israel, who would you use as an easily-recognizable, emblematic figure to represent "Jews" in a political cartoon?

i dunno, Moses?

But now let me ask you Daisy, why does it have to be taken as a given that there is such a figure? What if the two don't have perfect analogies? What if this whole thing snowballed precisely because WE do not understand what mohammed means to MUSLIMS? maybe?

[Daisy]

She still has to reply why and how exactly is my "interpretation" invalid. Oh and Daisy, I really want to see your rebuttal to this post. (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9925935&postcount=216)

I never said yours was invalid. I said that another interpretation would be that Sharon was meant to represent "Jews". And that might be a more likely mindset from an Arab point-of-view, because the leader of Israel made for a quick and recognizable way to represent 'Jews'. And representing Jews as Nazis (using an emblematic Jew) was just as offensive as representing Muslims as terrorists (using an emblematic Muslim).

You're the one looking something highly subjective... a political cartoon... and insisting that there's one 'right' interpretation, not me.

[Mr Sparkle]

Who, if not the leader of Israel, who would you use as an easily-recognizable, emblematic figure to represent "Jews" in a political cartoon?

they usually exagerate jewish traits.

[maxwell's demon]

You're the one looking something highly subjective... a political cartoon... and insisting that there's one 'right' interpretation, not me.
but there are analogies, Daisy, as you have been repeatedly trying illuminate, which intimates that yes, some could have an underlying logic and could thus be objectively viewed as more "right" than others.

[Alpha and Omega]

and just because you see something where others failed dosn't mean its valid either. i mean...whats "valid" really? who's to say?

All this talk is taking us away from the central issue, isn't it? OR....is that precisely what this issue boils down to?

hmmnnn.......:ninja:

Good point. This is what keeps politicians who tickle people's ears in office. :o

If you can talk, you can take, and if you can take, you've already won because someone let you advance.:)



Oh yeah, as a good rule of thumb for any person wanting to hold a public office: Never say Yes or No directly. Dodge, evade, and elude w/ the grace of *Gene Kelley or Fred Estaire.





Ex: What do you think about today's outlooks on global warming Mr. Senator?


Sen stooge/tool: Who me? Well, before I answer that, let me just say that I love nature; there's something innately genuine about it. It takes me back to a time long ago. I'm there right now and I'm Just *"Singin' in the Rain." That's my point sir. We should all enjoy the nature that we have.




Hint: If you can do this, you can go play talkie-talk for the good people of Phillip Morris, and help them keep making huge profits.:up: :)





I'm sorry that I sidetracked the thread, but it was just another Celldog anomaly, soOoOo, please forgive me. :csad:

[Daisy]

i dunno, Moses?

But now let me ask you Daisy, why does it have to be taken as a given that there is such a figure? What if the two don't have perfect analogies? What if this whole thing snowballed precisely because WE do not understand what mohammed means to MUSLIMS? maybe?

Maybe Moses... but those old-man prophets get hard to tell apart. ;)


I don't think it's that we don't understand what Muhammad means to Muslims, but I do think you're right that they don't have perfect analogies.

That is exactly why we're having this debate. It's pretty easy to realize Muhammad is THE emblematic figure of Islam and if you associate something with Muhammad, then you're associating it with all Islam... all Musims. The same is true of Jesus with Christianity. There really isn't such a figure for Jews. Moses sort of works, but not in the same way. That's why I'm saying that it's possible that using Sharon was an attempt to do the same thing on the part of Muslims.

Beyond that... realize that some Muslims applaud those the West calls terrorists... so that begs the question... "Why should they be offended about him being depicted as such by someone in the West?" No Jews applaud the Nazis, so having any Jews (whether all Jews or just Israelis) represented as Nazis is unquestionably offensive, is it not?

[Kurosawa]

The cartoon is meant to represent both. Incredibly racist depiction of Jews are common in Islamic newspapers. In fact, I posted this link in another thread not long ago:

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm

Absolutely sickening.

The Sharon cartoon is not AS offensive as the Mohammed cartoons in a sense, but what was the MOST offensive thing about that whole debacle was the insane overreaction and the death threats that came from fanatics after it. As was said before, you didn't hear death threats over "Piss Christ".

[maxwell's demon]

edit- double post

[Daisy]

but there are analogies, Daisy, as you have been repeatedly trying illuminate, which intimates that yes, some could have an underlying logic and could thus be objectively viewed as more "right" than others.

More 'right' to whom?

I'm not saying, and have never once said, that Sharon couldn't represent Israel. I'm saying that he could represent something more.

Simply because he's not a religious figure, does not make it an invalid analogy.

If you want to look at it another way, the holocaust itself is a topic that is as revered (in a mermorial way, not praising) and 'sacred' to most Jews as the Prophet is to most Muslims. It's not something to be be made light of or trivialized.

[maxwell's demon]

precisely.

and as to your previous post:
true- which is why i said "what's "valid" anyhow?"

how far can we take that question? Is it possible to at least entertain the notion that a suicide bomber (or, ahem "homicide bombers") might have some valid reason for doing what he did? How are his actions, which yes, might end in the loss of innocent life, any different from those of a military bomber who kills 50 innocent people due to "collateral damage".

Ahh...the wonderful muther****in *****ass evil magic of "language".:cmad:

Anyhow, How far can we extend the notion of 'validity'? and where might it get us once we've done so?

[Fenrir]

I never said yours was invalid. I said that another interpretation would be that Sharon was meant to represent "Jews". And that might be a more likely mindset from an Arab point-of-view, because the leader of Israel made for a quick and recognizable way to represent 'Jews'. And representing Jews as Nazis (using an emblematic Jew) was just as offensive as representing Muslims as terrorists (using an emblematic Muslim).

See the problem here is that you fail to take into considering the vast difference between a POLITICAL LEADER and a RELIGIOUS LEADER. Again, many Jews will seemingly take offense to the fact that you refer to Ariel Sharon as an "emblematic Jew" when they consider many of his actions to be contradictory to the teachings of Judaism. Taking Ariel Sharon as a representative of Jews holds almost as much weight as taking "the custodian of the two holy mosques i.e, king of Saudi Arabia" as that of the Muslims - none whatsoever.

You're the one looking something highly subjective... a political cartoon... and insisting that there's one 'right' interpretation, not me.

Even so, I find the reasoning behind YOUR interpretation to be dubious, weak and highly inconvincing to be "valid".

[jaguarr]

Even so, I find the reasoning behind YOUR interpretation to be dubious, weak and highly inconvincing to be "valid".


But you have yet to make a convincing argument as to WHY her reasoning is any of those things. You've mostly just stated opinion rather than actual analysis to this point. :huh:

jag

[celldog]

UK tourists stage mutiny over Asian passengers
By Anthony Barnes
Published: 20 August 2006
A holiday jet was grounded by worried passengers who staged a "mutiny" over fears that fellow travellers were acting suspiciously in the wake of the alleged terror plot to bring down planes.

The flight, from Malaga to Manchester, was delayed for three hours as police escorted the two Asian passengers from the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320, then conducted a security sweep of the plane. The men unnerved others waiting for the flight when they were overheard speaking in what was thought to be Arabic.

Article Length: 266 words (approx.)

A holiday jet was grounded by worried passengers who staged a "mutiny" over fears that fellow travellers were acting suspiciously in the wake of the alleged terror plot to bring down planes.

The flight, from Malaga to Manchester, was delayed for three hours as police escorted the two Asian passengers from the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320, then conducted a security sweep of the plane. The men unnerved others waiting for the flight when they were overheard speaking in what was thought to be Arabic.Article Length: 266 words (approx.)


You think people are getting tired of this crap??

[jaguarr]

You think people are getting tired of this crap??

Yes, we are. Please stop posting it. Thanks. :up:

jag

[JLBats]

UK tourists stage mutiny over Asian passengers
By Anthony Barnes
Published: 20 August 2006
A holiday jet was grounded by worried passengers who staged a "mutiny" over fears that fellow travellers were acting suspiciously in the wake of the alleged terror plot to bring down planes.

The flight, from Malaga to Manchester, was delayed for three hours as police escorted the two Asian passengers from the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320, then conducted a security sweep of the plane. The men unnerved others waiting for the flight when they were overheard speaking in what was thought to be Arabic.

Article Length: 266 words (approx.)

A holiday jet was grounded by worried passengers who staged a "mutiny" over fears that fellow travellers were acting suspiciously in the wake of the alleged terror plot to bring down planes.

The flight, from Malaga to Manchester, was delayed for three hours as police escorted the two Asian passengers from the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320, then conducted a security sweep of the plane. The men unnerved others waiting for the flight when they were overheard speaking in what was thought to be Arabic.Article Length: 266 words (approx.)


You think people are getting tired of this crap??

I think they've been urged to xenophobia and racism by a sensationalised media, if that's what you mean.

In fact, I think that news story is already a thread, called "Ugh, talk about racism" or something.

[celldog]

How about this sweetheart!?? :up: :)

19/08/2006 - 3:18:04 PM

Radical Muslim to address Islamic convention
A radical Muslim who has said he is prepared to be a suicide bomber is to speak at an Islamic convention in Manchester, England this weekend.

Dr Azzam Tamimi is a guest at tomorrow’s ExpoIslamia convention, which is expected to attract around 10,000 visitors.

The local Jewish community expressed dismay at the speakers invited to the day-long event at the Manchester Evening News arena.

Dr Tamimi, 51, from Palestine, is a self-described Hamas sympathiser and adviser to the group, a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.

In a BBC interview he has said “martyrdom means giving, sacrificing yourself for a noble cause”.

Asked if he would become a suicide bomber, he replied: “I am prepared, of course. If I have the opportunity I would do it. If I can go to Palestine and sacrifice myself I would do it. Why not?

“You see sacrificing myself for Palestine is a noble cause. It is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.”

Other speakers include Zakir Naik, 40, an Indian doctor, who has reportedly expressed views saying it is blasphemous for Muslims to wish Christians Happy Christmas as it acknowledges Jesus as a son of God.

Dr Naik is also scheduled to speak at an event in Cardiff’s St David’s Hall today. It has provoked calls from at least one MP for the event to be cancelled.

A third speaker is former Sunday Express journalist Yvonne Ridley, a Muslim convert, who has upset Jewish groups recently with her comments on Israel.


Louis Rapaport, president of the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester, said today: “It is certainly not anything that I or my community would want to be associated with. We are greatly suspicious of what their motives are. We have good relations with the Muslim community here. This is not going to lead to harmony.”

It is the fifth time the ExpoIslamia Convention has been held in the UK, organised by the Islamic Forum Europe and UK Muslim youth organisations.

The convention includes a day-long series of events including speakers and discussions.

Organisers claim it is a multi-faith event with other religious groups invited to attend – but Jewish community leaders have not been invited, and other faiths groups say they have not heard of the event.

A spokeswoman for the Manchester Inter-Faith Forum said: “We appear not to have been invited.”

Ahmed Khabir, spokesman for ExpoIslamia said individual views held or professed in the past were nothing to do with the event, and speakers would not stray into extremist subjects.

He added: “They are here to talk about specific issues. These are not our views or our principles. If they start to talk about these things we will take them off the platform.”

Asked about suicide bombing, Dr Tamimi said today: “That is history. I have not decided what I am going to say. It is a free country. Are we in a dictatorship now? Let the government prosecute me.”



Would the UK be violating his rights if they kicked him out right now??:)

[Fenrir]

But you have yet to make a convincing argument as to WHY her reasoning is any of those things. You've mostly just stated opinion rather than actual analysis to this point. :huh:

jag

I don't think it "opinion" that Ariel Sharon is nothing to the Jews when compared to what Muhammad is to Muslims. I don't think it's "opinion" that a political leader is incredibly less significant to who is considered as the final Prophet of God who was considered to be a [B]holy and revered[/I] political, historical AND religious leader. I don't think it's "opinion" that many orthodox Jews do not support the Israeli government and would take offense to Ariel Sharon being called a representative of their faith.

Isn't that good enough? Or am I missing something? :confused:

[jaguarr]

I don't think it "opinion" that Ariel Sharon is nothing to the Jews when compared to what Muhammad is to Muslims. I don't think it's "opinion" that a political leader is incredibly less significant to who is considered as the final Prophet of God who was considered to be a political, historical AND religious leader. I don't think it's "opinion" that many orthodox Jews do not support the Israeli government and would take offense to Ariel Sharon being called a representative of their faith.

Isn't that good enough? Or am I missing something? :confused:

The actual relevance, whatever that may really be, doesn't invalidate the symbolic relevance and point of the political cartoon, though, does it? The intention is still the same, much like the Dutch representations of Mohammed in their political cartoons. They're very similar instances in their intentions and tactics.

jag

[jaguarr]

How about this sweetheart!?? :up: :)


Pretty much all you do is cut and paste all day long. Am I right?

jag

[Fenrir]

The actual relevance, whatever that may really be, doesn't invalidate the symbolic relevance and point of the political cartoon, though, does it? The intention is still the same, much like the Dutch representations of Mohammed in their political cartoons. They're very similar instances in their intentions and tactics.

jag

How did you guys come to the conclusion that political cartoon was to insult the Jews and not just Israel? :confused:

[jaguarr]

How did you guys come to the conclusion that political cartoon was to insult the Jews and not just Israel? :confused:

It's meant to insult both, ultimately.

jag

[Fenrir]

It's meant to insult both, ultimately.

jag

Again how exactly when many orthodox Jews do not support the state of Israel and agree that Ariel Sharon should be put on trial for war crimes?

That's like saying someone calling my step-father a diseased drunkard is insulting to the name of my family even though many of my family members agree he is one. :confused:

[celldog]

Pretty much all you do is cut and paste all day long. Am I right?

jag

And all you do is polish your rose-colored glasses. :)

[Alpha and Omega]

You think people are getting tired of this crap??

Um, I would reason that many people are tired of your inability or refusal to make a reply to 'those that are taunting you.'

I don't even know why you're still posting these articles w/out linking them to your claim about Islam as a whole.

No person here has said that dangerous militant groups do not exist. No one has claimed that many aggregations feed and thrive off of the terror exhibited towards their enemies, and maybe even their own people. Nobody's rejecting the ostensible displays of terrorism in the Middle East, and their boomerang effect into other parts of the world.

Many are questioning your lack of 'connecting the dots;' they're those seemingly insignificant bits of info that allow others to simply react like this: 'oh. ok. I get it. . . or, yes, I understand what he's saying, but I don't agree.'

Your confrontations are one-sided and appear to be duels between you and logic.:confused: Every one else just sits back and stares at the screen where you're posting in lamentation over the lost bandwidth of your clueless approach to topical speech.

Your posting information w/out stating how it originally supports your thread is kind of pointless. (we're not mindreaders and I try not to assume)
It's as pointless as me posting this:
http://www.internet4classrooms.com/ppaddition_sample.gif

Yet, somehow, this COPY AND PASTE is more justified than your intrusions in your own thread.

At least 1 + 2 = 3.:o

Logic is a beautiful thing, yet it eludes me.:(

[Mr Sparkle]

Blah Blah Blah Bold Type!!!! Blah blah blah.

smaller text copied and pasted from some article having nothing to do with the post I was supossed to adress, in an obvious attempt to divert attention from the very fact I was supossed to answer and I couldn't




BOLD TYPE AGAIN, THIS TIME IN ALL CAPS WITH A LOT OF EXCLAMATION POINTS !!!!!

:(:down:(

[jaguarr]

Again how exactly when many orthodox Jews do not support the state of Israel and agree that Ariel Sharon should be put on trial for war crimes?

Because to the Muslim Extremists who made the political cartoon, all Jews are pretty much the same and Israel is the focal point of their religion. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, really, but what the perception and intent of the creator of the cartoon was. It's propaganda to support their cause and beliefs. Of course it's not going to be accurate when compared with reality.

jag

[Fenrir]

Because to the Muslim Extremists who made the political cartoon, all Jews are pretty much the same and Israel is the focal point of their religion. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, really, but what the perception and intent of the creator of the cartoon was. It's propaganda to support their cause and beliefs. Of course it's not going to be accurate when compared with reality.

jag

And that's exactly why the comparison is irrelevant. See the Ariel Sharon cartoon is definitely not going to offend all Jews, but the Muhammad cartoon is most definitely going to incite anger from EVERYONE in the Muslim world. Oh and isn't that cartoon from a Middle Eastern newspaper? Are all of those run by Muslim Extremists? :confused:

[JLBats]

Um, I would reason that many people are tired of your inability or refusal to make a reply to 'those that are taunting you.'

I don't even know why you're still posting these articles w/out linking them to your claim about Islam as a whole.

No person here has said that dangerous militant groups do not exist. No one has claimed that many aggregations feed and thrive off of the terror exhibited towards their enemies, and maybe even their own people. Nobody's rejecting the ostensible displays of terrorism in the Middle East, and their boomerang effect into other parts of the world.

Many are questioning your lack of 'connecting the dots;' they're those seemingly insignificant bits of info that allow others to simply react like this: 'oh. ok. I get it. . . or, yes, I understand what he's saying, but I don't agree.'

Your confrontations are one-sided and appear to be duels between you and logic.:confused: Every one else just sits back and stares at the screen where you're posting in lamentation over the lost bandwidth of your clueless approach to topical speech.

Your posting information w/out stating how it originally supports your thread is kind of pointless. (we're not mindreaders and I try not to assume)
It's as pointless as me posting this:
http://www.internet4classrooms.com/ppaddition_sample.gif

Yet, somehow, this COPY AND PASTE is more justified than your intrusions in your own thread.

At least 1 + 2 = 3.:o

Logic is a beautiful thing, yet it eludes me.:(

He once accused me of constantly attacking my own country... despite the fact that I always argue from a hypothetical standpoint on here, and the little snag that I don't even live in the US.

He's a rabid dog. Fact and context mean nothing. Show him your throat for any reason, no matter how innocent, and he strikes, feral and stupid. He should be embarrassed by some of the comments he makes:down

[St. of Sinners]

How about a cartoon of Muhammad and Jesus performing an abortion?

[Fenrir]

How about a cartoon of Muhammad and Jesus performing an abortion?

That's a recipe for World War 3. :(

[jaguarr]

And that's exactly why the comparison is irrelevant. See the Ariel Sharon cartoon is definitely not going to offend all Jews, but the Muhammad cartoon is most definitely going to incite anger from EVERYONE in the Muslim world. Oh and isn't that cartoon from a Middle Eastern newspaper? Are all of those run by Muslim Extremists? :confused:

It's not meant to offend all jews. It's meant to rally people in their readership to their cause. And it's certainly a cartoon from a Muslim extremist, going by the content, IMHO, anyway.

jag

[TrailerCues]

The Bush administration says a proposal by Iran for nuclear negotiations falls short of U.N. demands that it cease uranium enrichment, and the U.S. began plotting unspecified "next moves" with other governments.

At the same time, Iran contended it had offered "positive and clear signals" to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program.


Efforts by the U.S. and other nations could lead to U.N. sanctions against Iran unless it reverses course and agrees to a verifiable halt to enrichment activities that can be central to making nuclear weapons.


France took a firm and quick stand on Iran's proposal. Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said the Iranians must suspend uranium enrichment if they want to return to negotiations.


However, Russia's foreign ministry, evidently ambivalent, said it would continue to seek a negotiated solution. And China appealed for dialogue, urging "constructive measures" by Iran and patience from the United States and its allies.


The State Department, in a terse statement Wednesday, acknowledged that Iran considered its proposal to be a serious one. "We will review it," the statement said in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture to a government it regularly denounces as a sponsor of terror.


But the statement went on to say that Iran's response to a joint offer of U.S, and European trade and other benefits if the enrichment program was halted "falls short of the conditions set by the Security Council" _ full and verifiable suspension of all uranium-enrichment activity.


"We are consulting closely, including with other members of the Security Council, on next steps," it said. The United Nations has set a deadline of next Thursday for a formal reply by Tehran.


President George W. Bush met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the White House and then discussed Iran's proposal in a telephone call with



U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The call was initiated by Annan, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.


The administration has cautioned Iran that it will seek sanctions in the Security Council if Tehran does not step enriching uranium.
Administration officials have refrained from outlining what punishment they might have in mind. It could include economic or political penalties, perhaps international curbs on trade.


Rice, meanwhile, telephoned Javier Solana, the senior European Union diplomat who oversees exchanges with Iran. No account of their conversation, nor of her meeting with the president, was provided.
By not rejecting Iran's proposal outright, the administration indicated there may be a basis for dealing with long-held concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, an allegation the Iranians deny.




"The diplomats are continuing to look at it," Perino said. "We're working with our allies."


The Iranians' offer, which they portrayed as a major advance, appeared to be aimed at least in part at dividing the Security Council members with vetoes - the U.S., Britain and France on one side and Russia and China on the other.


Analyst Ilan Berman, vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, said sanctions can work because Iran's economy is vulnerable on several levels.
"But the U.N. approach is going to be tailored to be palatable to the Russians and the Chinese," he said.


"The problem is we are facing diminishing options, and military action has to figure in there somewhere if all else fails," Berman said.
Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the Bush administration may seek restrictions on providing Iran with dual-use technology - material that could be put to military use.
Clawson, in an interview, said that could give the United States and its allies leverage to pressure companies not to trade with Iran.


Iran met its self-imposed deadline Tuesday for responding to the U.S.-European offer, which includes the possibility of U.S. help for civilian nuclear programs - but only if Iran stops uranium enrichment.


On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee issued a report that concluded Iran was a strategic threat and a country focused on developing nuclear weapons capability. It also linked Iran to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups.


"Iran's support of radical Islamists with weapons and money demonstrates in real terms the danger it poses to America and our allies," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. He said Iran "will not be satisfied until it poses a threat to the entire world."


The report also said there are gaps in the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to keep up with developments in Iran's nuclear program and suggested hiring more intelligence agents who speak Farsi.


Separately, Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office, said at the Pentagon it was "irrefutable" that Iran was training and equipping many of the *****e insurgents and other extremists in Iraq as part of an effort to destabilize the Iraqi government.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/us-says-iran-nuclear-proposal-falls/20060823151009990006

[Asteroid-Man]

W/Evah. Bush is gonna attack and when he does, CHina and Russia will defend and if they attack Russia, Cuba will get envolved then Palestein will help, and france, and germany. Honestly Iran's diplomats are retards for tempting bush and bush is a retard for responding to it. I say we just send all the world's politicians into a room and let them duke it out. see who'll win instead of sending thousands of young men and women out to die or be killed.

EDIT: US has a bunch of countries on there side to but I don't want to be pointing out the obvious

[celldog]

W/Evah. Bush is gonna attack and when he does, CHina and Russia will defend and if they attack Russia, Cuba will get envolved then Palestein will help, and france, and germany. Honestly Iran's diplomats are retards for tempting bush and bush is a retard for responding to it. I say we just send all the world's politicians into a room and let them duke it out. see who'll win instead of sending thousands of young men and women out to die or be killed.

EDIT: US has a bunch of countries on there side to but I don't want to be pointing out the obvious


Other than that what's your solution?

[Topdawg]

WWIII is coming, i know it!

[TheSumOfGod]

Oh noes! :eek: :rolleyes:

[TrailerCues]

Iran's hard-line president on Saturday inaugurated a heavy-water production plant, a facility the West fears will be used to develop a nuclear bomb, as Tehran remained defiant ahead of a U.N. deadline that could lead to sanctions. The U.N. has called on Tehran to stop the separate process of uranium enrichment -- which also can be used to create nuclear weapons -- by Thursday or face economic and political sanctions.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran

[St. of Sinners]

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Queda!!! Run for your lives! No, wait, I've got a better idea, just give us the authority to invade them and we'll make everything better. High Five!!!

[hippie_hunter]

It's like Iran is asking for sanctions and a military invasion by the United States. Do they think that just because the American military is spread thin that they actually have a chance against us?

[HellOnEarth]

Iran has weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Queda!!! Run for your lives! No, wait, I've got a better idea, just give us the authority to invade them and we'll make everything better. High Five!!!

[Fenrir]

Let's not even start talking about the "defying U.N" crap. Israel's been doing it for decades now. The U.S did it when Bush Jr. gave everyone the proverbial middle finger and decide to invade Iraq. If the American administration does as little as even hint about "Iran defying the U.N" then they're the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of this planet. :down:

[hippie_hunter]

Let's not even start talking about the "defying U.N" crap. Israel's been doing it for decades now. The U.S did it when Bush Jr. gave everyone the proverbial middle finger and decide to invade Iraq. If the American administration does as little as even hint about "Iran defying the U.N" then they're the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of this planet. :down:

The UN has become useless these days sadly because of the Big Five and nations defying it

[Fenrir]

The UN has become useless these days sadly

Of course. Fact of the matter is that the U.N has become a dummy corporation the veto-power nations use to push their own agendas. It will be better if the U.N just stop acting as a mediator in armed conflicts and simply do what they do best - welfare activities.

[Gamma Ray]

When is the war?

[Tangled Web]

I'd like to see Iran try to attack us with their Flinstone nuclear weapons.

[Fenrir]

I think people are way too paranoid these days. No, even if they have a nuclear weapon, Iran is not going to use it on anybody. It'll just give them the best bargaining chip by making them the most powerful and quite possibly, the most influential force in the region.

Say what you want about Ahmedinajad and his doomsday politics, but I don't believe any political leader (yes, even pseudo-crazy ones) is stupid enough to be willing to compromise his country's international standing by using a nuclear weapon. That's a recipe for self-destruction and will avail him nothing. Ahmedinajad talks big, but even he doesn't have the guts to order a nuclear strike out of fear of the consequences that might entail. All that tough-talk is just a manipulative tool for him to gather support in his own country.

[hippie_hunter]

Of course. Fact of the matter is that the U.N has become a dummy corporation the veto-power nations use to push their own agendas. It will be better if the U.N just stop acting as a mediator in armed conflicts and simply do what they do best - welfare activities.

You're absolutely right

[hippie_hunter]

I think people are way too paranoid these days. No, even if they have a nuclear weapon, Iran is not going to use it on anybody. It'll just give them the best bargaining chip by making them the most powerful and quite possibly, the most influential force in the region.

Say what you want about Ahmedinajad and his doomsday politics, but I don't believe any political leader (yes, even pseudo-crazy ones) is stupid enough to be willing to compromise his country's international standing by using a nuclear weapon. That's a recipe for self-destruction and will avail him nothing. Ahmedinajad talks big, but even he doesn't have the guts to order a nuclear strike out of fear of the consequences that might entail. All that tough-talk is just a manipulative tool for him to gather support in his own country.

Using one himself. I agree with you. However, I wouldn't put it past him to give one to say Hezbollah

[Fenrir]

Using one himself. I agree with you. However, I wouldn't put it past him to give one to say Hezbollah.

Even Hezbollah is not as dumb to nuke someone so close to their own borders. Save for a bare few fanatics, no political leader on the face of this Earth (yes, even Hezbollah's) is gutsy enough to attack his enemy knowing full and well the reprisals for such an act is going to be suicidal for them.

[GoldenAgeHero]

does'nt the US have nuclear reactors?

[War Lord]

Even Hezbollah is not as dumb to nuke someone so close to their own borders. Save for a bare few fanatics, no political leader on the face of this Earth (yes, even Hezbollah's) is gutsy enough to attack his enemy knowing full and well the reprisals for such an act is going to be suicidal for them.

If you honestly believe that by making the earth inhabitable that will cause the Messiah to come, as the Iranian leader has clearly shown that he believes this, there isn't anything holding him back because he doesn't care about what happens to the Iranian people. He's been known to say that he's prepared to sacrifice the Iranians to bring the 12th Imam.

[War Lord]

does'nt the US have nuclear reactors?

And your point?

[Fenrir]

If you honestly believe that by making the earth inhabitable that will cause the Messiah to come, as the Iranian leader has clearly shown that he believes this, there isn't anything holding him back because he doesn't care about what happens to the Iranian people. He's been known to say that he's prepared to sacrifice the Iranians to bring the 12th Imam.

Like I said, that's just a buncha baloney to sound tough and gather support of his fellow fanatical countrymen. Truth is a lot of Iranians themselves don't believe in that crap anymore. Besides, from what I've seen of Middle Eastern politics, self-preservation is high on the priority list of many countries in the region, including Iran.

[War Lord]

Like I said, that's just a buncha baloney to sound tough and gather support of his fellow fanatical countrymen. Truth is a lot of Iranians themselves don't believe in that crap anymore. Besides, from what I've seen of Middle Eastern politics, self-preservation is high on the priority list of many countries in the region, including Iran.

The average Iranian, yes. I've read that less than 5% of Iranians even go regularly to the mosque. But they aren't the ones who control things unfortunately.

[GoldenAgeHero]

And your point?

it seems that the US seems to be the only country that should have one.

[War Lord]

it seems that the US seems to be the only country that should have one.

Several countries have at least one. Britain, US, France, Israel, China, Japan, one or two South American countries, Australia, Canada, Ukraine, etc. None are on the list as using their nuclear reactors for the sole purpose of creating weapons for offensive reasons, but as defensive ones.

Iran wants nuclear power for the sole reason of being able to go on the offensive and putting it's will across the Middle East and perhaps wiping out Israel.

[Fenrir]

The average Iranian, yes. I've read that less than 5% of Iranians even go regularly to the mosque. But they aren't the ones who control things unfortunately.

But they are the ones who'll kick Ahmedinajad out of power if they learn that he'll be taking them on a one-way trip to hell. I won't be surprised to see some kind of civil uprising take place in the country sometime in the (perhaps very near) future. And like I said, no political leader alive right now has it in himself to resort to an unprovoked nuclear strike, including Iran's. 12th Imam or not, a nuclear attack on Israel is going to result in the complete annihilation of his own country and Ahmedinajad knows this better than most.

[War Lord]

But they are the ones who'll kick Ahmedinajad out of power if they learn that he'll be taking them on a one-way trip to hell. And like I said, no political leader alive right now has it in himself to resort to an unprovoked nuclear strike, including Iran's. 12th Imam or not, a nuclear attack on Israel is going to result in the complete annihilation of his own country and Ahmedinajad knows this better than most.

And Ahmedinajad doesn't care about the fate of the Iranian people, he only cares about trying to create conditions to bring back the 12th Imam. He believes that it's necessary for the end of the world to make that happen, so he has a lot of incentive to make that happen.

Since Iran is not a democracy and are under the thumb of the ruling class, the average Iranian doesn't have a say otherwise they probably would have put the boots to the government long ago.

[Fenrir]

And Ahmedinajad doesn't care about the fate of the Iranian people, he only cares about trying to create conditions to bring back the 12th Imam. He believes that it's necessary for the end of the world to make that happen, so he has a lot of incentive to make that happen.

Since Iran is not a democracy and are under the thumb of the ruling class, the average Iranian doesn't have a say otherwise they probably would have put the boots to the government long ago.

Either way, I believe all that is just being overly paranoid. I find it hard to accept the fact that someone in such an influential position in the government would disregard the political ramifications of attempting a nuclear strike in pursuit of some religious pipedream. Ahmedinajad is a politician and he talks like a politician.

[War Lord]

Either way, I believe all that is just being overly paranoid. I find it hard to accept the fact that someone in such an influential position in the government would disregard the political ramifications of attempting a nuclear strike in pursuit of some religious pipedream. Ahmedinajad is a politician and he talks like a politician.

Just like Hitler or Stalin.

[Fenrir]

Just like Hitler or Stalin.

OK now you're giving him a little too much credit. :down::O

[War Lord]

OK now you're giving him a little too much credit. :down::O

Neither did anybody take them with any seriousness until they did their deeds.

I honestly don't think you can exaggerate the horribleness potential that Ahmedinajad wants to visit on the world.

[Fenrir]

Edit

[Fenrir]

Neither did anybody take them with any seriousness until they did their deeds.

I honestly don't think you can exaggerate the horribleness potential that Ahmedinajad wants to visit on the world.

"Iran is not a threat to anybody, not even to the Zionist regime" - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-26T105051Z_01_BLA618392_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml)

:dry:

[St. of Sinners]

U.S. May Curb Iran
If the U.N. Security Council won't penalize Tehran for its nuclear program, the White House may forge an alliance to do so.
By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer

August 26, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — With increasing signs that several fellow Security Council members may stall a United States push to penalize Iran for its nuclear enrichment program, Bush administration officials have indicated that they are prepared to form an independent coalition to freeze Iranian assets and restrict trade.

The strategy, analysts say, reflects not only long-standing U.S. frustration with the Security Council's inaction on Iran, but also the current weakness of Washington's position because of its controversial role in a series of conflicts in the Middle East, most recently in Lebanon.

Despite assurances from Russia and China in July that they would support initial sanctions against Iran if it failed to suspend aspects of its nuclear program, Russia seemed to backtrack this week after Tehran agreed to continue talks, but refused to halt enrichment. A Security Council resolution gives the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to stop uranium enrichment, which could provide fuel to produce electricity or possibly atomic weapons, or face penalties.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said Friday that as long as Iran was willing to negotiate, it was "premature" to punish the country and perhaps permanently isolate it.

"I do not know cases in international practice or the whole of the previous experience when sanctions reached their goals or were efficient," Ivanov said.

"Apart from this, I do not think that the issue is so urgent that the U.N. Security Council or the group of six countries" — the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — "should consider the introduction of sanctions. In any case Russia continues to advocate a political and diplomatic solution to the problem."

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Iran's response was "not satisfactory" but France wanted to avoid a new conflict that could lead to "a clash of civilizations."

"But the worst thing would be to escalate into a confrontation with Iran on the one hand — and the Muslim world with Iran — and the West," he said on French radio. "That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid."

U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in an interview late this week that the United States planned to introduce a resolution imposing penalties such as a travel ban and asset freeze for key Iranian leaders soon after the Aug. 31 deadline, and seemed optimistic that China and Russia would agree to it once they saw the text. "Everybody's been on board," he said.

But in case Russia and China do not accept it, the U.S. is working a parallel diplomatic track outside the U.N., Bolton said.

Under U.S. terrorism laws, Washington could ramp up its own sanctions, including financial constraints on Tehran and interception of missile and nuclear materials en route to Iran, Bolton said, and the U.S. is encouraging other countries to follow suit. "You don't need Security Council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he said.

The U.S. has had broad restrictions on almost all trade with Iran since 1987. Exceptions include the import of dried fruits and nuts, caviar and carpets. In addition, U.S. companies can obtain licenses to do limited trade in agriculture and medicine. The United States also initiated the Proliferation Security Initiative, involving a coalition of countries that have agreed to intercept shipments of materials to Iran that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.

"We will continue to enhance PSI to cut off flows of materials and technology that are useful to Iran's ballistic missile program and nuclear programs," Bolton said. "We will be constraining financial transactions under existing terrorism laws."

He said Washington was focusing on European and Japanese banks to restrict business with Iran, because most of Tehran's transactions are done in U.S. dollars, euros, British pounds and yen. "There aren't a lot of opportunities to sell in other currencies," he said.

Bolton and U.S. Treasury officials refused to provide details on which countries might be interested, citing the "sensitivity" of the talks.

But Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said they had already seen results, including Union Bank of Switzerland cutting off relationships with Iran.

"We're seeing more financial institutions around the world looking at the actions and messages emanating out of Iran — from their nuclear ambitions to state sponsorship of Hezbollah — and asking themselves, 'do we really want to be Iran's banker?' " she said in an e-mail.

Though U.S. officials said pursuing parallel paths is "common sense" and highlights what they consider to be the inefficiency of the Security Council, some analysts said the move would underline Washington's inability to win over the council and the lack of options against a newly emboldened Iran.

"When you start doing things that would be better with the Security Council's endorsement, does it show weakness or strength?" said George Perkovich, the director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iran could argue that 'the U.S. couldn't even get the Security Council backing, and so we are winning.' "

Perkovich said even traditional U.S. allies were fatigued by dealing with so many conflicts and didn't want to add Iran to a list that includes Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

"There is a general reluctance to follow the U.S. lead," he said. "Our negotiating power is diminished, which is regrettable."

Russia and China have specifically objected to the use of a U.N. charter measure known as Chapter 7 that would open the door to military action or sanctions. But Bolton said that a resolution on North Korea passed unanimously in July might create a new template for dealing with those concerns.

That resolution instituted a ban on supplying technology and goods related to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, and got around China's and Russia's doubts about Chapter 7 with other legally binding language that would prevent an Iraq-style invasion.

"There are some aspects of the North Korea resolution that will be useful," Bolton said. "A lot of this is just going to have be played out."

Times staff writer David Holley in Moscow contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times

[Mr Sparkle]

will it call it the "coallition of the wiling" again? cuz that would be hilarious

[celldog]

Well??
Iran is targeting us, right??

[Mr Sparkle]

Well??
Iran is targeting us, right??


really? I thought they said that their program WASN'T a threat, guess I missed the reposrt where they said that they where going to target the US regardless of international consequences.

really, I did miss that.

[St. of Sinners]

Well??
Iran is targeting us, right?? What?:confused:

[Mr. Thing]

Well??
Iran is targeting us, right??

...:confused:

[JLBats]

Well??
Iran is targeting us, right??

What the hell?:confused: