[quote=“spook”]
The message seems to be the same, that we should hate each other and embrace intolerance and that domination, death and destruction are the only hope we have.[/quote]
Spook, the Muslims have been mass-murdering non-Muslims a hell of a lot longer than there has been either an Israel or United States.
And on that note, here’s a t-shirt you might like.
[quote=“spook”]The Palestinian people clearly knew what they were doing when they chose Hamas. They were siding with extremists, just as the people of Israel did a few years ago when they put the Likud firmly in power in response to the Intifada. Just as the people of Iran did last summer when they put the religious extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power and just as the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt recently did when they voted the Muslim Brotherhood in. Likewise in the U.S. when the American people chose the neoconservatives – or whatever they preferred to be called – puttng them into power to preserve them from Islamic extremism.
People everywhere on both sides of this conflict are deliberately and consciously heeding the siren call of extremists in their midst that hate, religious intolerance, death and destruction are the answers to their fears and feelings of victimhood.
In turn, these false prophets mock as weakness and capitulation the one thing which could save us – our traditional values of faith, hope, love, charity, justice and mercy – and no one seems to notice that from year to year the fruits of their false doctrines are an ever downward spiraling into chaos, destruction and polarization.
So it goes.[/quote]
It’s amazing to me that you honestly believe there is a moral equivalence between Likud and Hamas, and the Republican party and the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you see such ludicrous equivalency in everything? If a little clique of nine year old boy eggs your house, is that just about the same as the Mafia torturing and raping your entire family and burning down your house?
The Muslim Brotherhood wants to create an Islamofascist dictatorship and rule by the brutal strictures of the Sharia, complete with public whippings for the smallest of offenses, bodily mutilation for thieves, and the execution of blasphemers, apostates, adulterers, and gays. Women will have no rights, non-Muslims will be treated like animals, and absolutely no criticism of the state will be tolerated. President Bush wants to spread liberal democracy throughout the world. Do you really believe there’s any comparison?
[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]The Palestinian people clearly knew what they were doing when they chose Hamas. They were siding with extremists, just as the people of Israel did a few years ago when they put the Likud firmly in power in response to the Intifada. Just as the people of Iran did last summer when they put the religious extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power and just as the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt recently did when they voted the Muslim Brotherhood in. Likewise in the U.S. when the American people chose the neoconservatives – or whatever they preferred to be called – puttng them into power to preserve them from Islamic extremism.
People everywhere on both sides of this conflict are deliberately and consciously heeding the siren call of extremists in their midst that hate, religious intolerance, death and destruction are the answers to their fears and feelings of victimhood.
In turn, these false prophets mock as weakness and capitulation the one thing which could save us – our traditional values of faith, hope, love, charity, justice and mercy – and no one seems to notice that from year to year the fruits of their false doctrines are an ever downward spiraling into chaos, destruction and polarization.
So it goes.[/quote]
It’s amazing to me that you honestly believe there is a moral equivalence between Likud and Hamas, and the Republican party and the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you see such ludicrous equivalency in everything? If a little clique of nine year old boy eggs your house, is that just about the same as the Mafia torturing and raping your entire family and burning down your house?
The Muslim Brotherhood wants to create an Islamofascist dictatorship and rule by the brutal strictures of the Sharia, complete with public whippings for the smallest of offenses, bodily mutilation for thieves, and the execution of blasphemers, apostates, adulterers, and gays. Women will have no rights, non-Muslims will be treated like animals, and absolutely no criticism of the state will be tolerated. President Bush wants to spread liberal democracy throughout the world. Do you really believe there’s any comparison?[/quote]
There’s no doubt our extremists aren’t in the same league by a long shot as their extremists but hate is hate, intolerance is intolerance and the number of innocent Arabs and Muslims who have died at our hands in the last four years probably equals or exceeds the number of innocent Americans and Europeans who have died at the hands of Islamic extremists.
So, no, I’m not impressed by the argument that, relatively speaking, our hate and intolerance mongers aren’t as vicious by a long shot as their hate and intolerance mongers because that’s a trivial distinction in the context of looking for a solution.
[quote=“Namahottie”]
One thing missing from this discussion is the anti-East sentiment being expressed in our own countries.
Or do people believe that an invasion of a country under false pretenses isn’t senseless violence. Now this arguement is boiling down to semantics.[/quote]
The matter before us concerns a radical fringe group committing acts of violence and intimidation (supposedly, though I don’t buy it, because of some cartoons published a year ago). In the latest waves of violence, Property from American interests, Norwegian interests and even Korean interests were attacked. So, Koreans need to examine their “anti East sentiment?” I find it ironic that, when the highest level of intolerence is being displayed in opposition to our way of life, some would still imply it’s really our intolerence that caused it all.
I don’t believe this debate is about semantics. We are debating one of the most important issues in our world today. If it starts to bother you, simply take a break from the action. I don’t think your call to shut down the discussion is a very fair thing to do to the rest of us who feel this thread has value. Just say no to that kind of authoritarian censorship.
Not wanting tio hoiok in on ya there Namahottie, but:
Salman Rushdie did just that. Sadly the Japanese translator of his work was murdered and an Italian translator is lucky to be alive. Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are still itching for Rushdie’s head.
This isn’t about race or ethnicity, it is very much about what sort of culture you want to live in. I personally prefer to live in a society where writers, artists and all people are free to express their ideaswithout fearing a fatwa.
HG
[quote=“Jaboney”]Toasty, I agree, the forumosan discourse is healthy, if not always enlightening.* Which is why I opted not to honour a request to shut down the previous thread.
I’m interested in the international situation; I have been paying attention, and it’s a clusterbuck.
Regardless of who is responsible, what are the options for avoiding further deterioration? ‘Preventing things from getting worse’ isn’t sexy, but it’s worthwhile and maybe manageable.
*Please, don’t flippantly, or heatedly accuse one another of racism, intolerance, ect… No flamage, svp.
[/quote]
I’m something of a pessimist on this issue. I doubt there’s much that can be done on our part as the problem isn’t really ours. The cartoons–published long ago-- are being used by those with other agendas to stir up trouble and discontent for their own purposes. I honestly don’t think it has much to do with the stated complaints (although there are many who are peacefully stating their opposition to the cartoons-- as the new Canadian PM mentioned) in the minds of the extremists. I think those who have as their goal the establishment of theocracies (or those countries who already have this type of government and want to see it spread) are behind the unrest. Anti-west sentiment creates more support for their cause. People with legitmate complaints are being taken along for a ride.
[quote=“tempogain”]
exactly, and the ironic thing is that the western press largely IS censoring itself to satisfy concerns. I guess the moslem world won’t be happy unless every media outlet and citizen of the west toes their line. personally I find such an attitude an intolerable insult to our cherished western (not American namahottie) value of freedom of speech. embassy burning anyone?[/quote]
[quote=“namahottie”]
I don’t know if you are questioning my patriotism or criticizing my lack of it. But I strongly suggest you clarify what you meant. [/quote]
I certainly will Namahottie.
i had posted this:
[quote=“tempogain”]
our way is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, who’s telling who their way is better or correct? [/quote]
to which you replied
[quote]
Our way between the Pacific and the Atlantic as far as I’m concerned. What the Danes choose to do is their thing. But it seems as if our talking to God(which one would that be? )President seems to think that our constitution fits one and all. [/quote]
thus my comment. nothing to do with a lack of patriotism!
And I’m in agreement with you, but there are reasonable limits placed on free speech, even in the US, which probably enjoys the greatest degree of free speech protections.
Part and parcel of freedom of expression is the freedom to be offensive–classic J.S. Mill, I know–but should rights indiscriminately trump responsibilities? Indiscriminately, I think not, but largely and usually, yes.
It’s funny, I have little patience with most of today’s “poison pens”, and yet “political satire”, and political cartoons are a couple of my favorite genres.
Sliding just a little bit away from this particular case for a moment, and for my own enlightenment, what do you think of the following three cases:
The Western Standard reprints the Danish cartoons, apparently to make a statement about the timidity of the Canadian press on freedom of expression issues.
The Western Standard prints derogatory comments about the wife of the Alberta premier.
[quote=“CBC”]The comments were part of a column in the Western Standard magazine by writer Ric Dolphin. He suggested Colleen Klein wields too much influence over Premier Ralph Klein and his office.
He then goes on to quote an unnamed source who said, “Once she [Colleen] stops being the premier’s wife, she goes back to being just another Indian.”
Klein’s wife is M
That’s a difference between you and me jaboney. I thought they ALL have social relevance and deserved a good mocking.
I think it’s a crock of crapola that cartoonies smacking violent muslim jerks need a disclaimer stating, “If you’re NOT a violent muslim jerk, these cartoonies are not aimed at you.”
blah
jdsecular
We must all be foolish at times
It is one of the conditions of liberty.
–Walt Whitman
[quote=“Jaboney”]
Klein’s wife is M
Ralph makes off-the-cuff comments all the time, and pretty often, they’re pretty stupid. But I’m yet to see him duck and run from the fall out. I don’t like his politics, but he’s a stand-up guy who takes responsibility for his sometimes foolish statements and that, I respect.
There are times and places in which being anonymous is not just comfortable or convenient, but necessary and important. Saying, “Ralph’s wife exercises far too much power for an elected, unaccountable person,” might well be one of those instances. Saying, “Colleen is ‘just another Indian’,” isn’t; here, it’s a convenient dodge for cowardice and bigotry.
Again, rights and responsibility. Push the fishing buddy to stand behind that comment–or refuse to run it–and I might applaud the mag for publishing it. It’s not about PCitude, or journalistic courage. As it stands, it’s a cheap shot from the dark that deserves squat.
*Ralph’s the one who came up with “Drive-by-smear”, can’t wait to see how he’ll label this one.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
Much of the previous thread dealt with tolerance or the lack thereof.
I’m hoping that someone can start this one off with a few ideas for resolving (or moderating) current, simmering hostilities without assuming the complete capitulation of any camp.
Takers?[/quote]
go back to what started the current hostilities, which is that one or two of the thousands of newspapers in the west published some cartoons which moslems found offensive, which eventually led to a violent and pretty clearly politically motivated reaction.
i would be hard pressed to think of any ideas for resolving such a situation that do not involve a capitulation on the principles of press and speech freedom.
As a married man I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with Ralph’s fishing buddy on this one.
On the other hand, I’m going to have to side with the Muslims in that I wouldn’t want that getting out.
Here’s another one. Publish or bury to avoid trouble and embarrassment? What’s the verdict?
"The US has said images broadcast on Australian TV showing the apparent abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers should not have been released.
A US defence department official said the images could “further inflame and cause unnecessary violence”."
[quote=“spook”]As a married man I’m afraid I’m going to have to side with Ralph’s fishing buddy on this one.
On the other hand, I’m going to have to side with the Muslims in that I wouldn’t want that getting out.
Here’s another one. Publish or bury to avoid trouble and embarrassment? What’s the verdict?
"The US has said images broadcast on Australian TV showing the apparent abuse of Iraqi detainees by US soldiers should not have been released.
a US defence department official said the images could “further inflame and cause unnecessary violence”."[/quote]
I’m assuming that the legal principle that the DoD is thinking of here is that the release of those images would lead to a clear and present danger to US national security. That’s what they would probably argue in a US court. I don’t really agree, though. There are no military secrets there to protect. Instead, we see more images of US prison guards breaking the law.
from a practical viewpoint they should have done their best to get all images associated with this out as soon as possible, and absorb it all in one fell blow. did they really think they could keep a lid on it forever? as jive says there’s no compelling reason for doing so.
What’s reasonable? Who decides? It’s pretty simple, you either have free speech or you don’t.
Funny how the people most vocal in their support of Islam and condemnation of the cartoons prefer not to live in Islamic societies, isn’t it? Some might even say they’re hypocrites.
But I wouldn’t say that. 
Comrade, given the “you don’t have a right to cry, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre” proviso, would you conclude that you do not have a right to free speech?
Good questions. I’ll try to give better than poor answers. (No guarantees.)
What’s reasonable?
Adherence to an ideal is good, but to such a point that other, equally weighted, ideals are sacrificed? To such a point that blood, not ideals, is (needlessly?) sacrificed?
Who decides?
No harm, no foul. Where there’s harm, well, then who’s making the sacrifices? Whose ideals, whose blood, for whose rights? I may decide to defend, unto death, your right to say something with which I whole-heartedly disagree, but you’ve no right to draft me into that particular battle. I may go to war in order to openly disagree with you; I’m not going to go to war just to watch you make an ass of yourself on the corner of Main St. (But if you sell tickets, I may show up.)
Good thing I offered no guarantees: the best answers I have, off the top of my head, are questions. If words matter, and responsibillity matters, then, no, I don’t think it’s simple.
Here’s another, off the top of my head: reasonable is what mature, courageous, well-intentioned people will say to one another under conditions of equality. (Questioning the influence of the premier’s wife, equality doesn’t apply; but doing so by labeling her “just another Indian/ Asian/ whatever” fails to meet the requirements of maturity and good-intentions.)
Doesn’t mean you can’t, or shouldn’t make an ass of yourself or have a good time. Revels matter; and have their place, purpose (keeps the powerful from getting a swollen head), and consequences. If someone wants to stand up and in Congress and moon the president during the State of the Union address, that’s cool. But he shouldn’t do it while wearing a paper bag over his head, nor expect to remain anonymous–that’d be unreasonable.
After Jihad, then what?
Well, we can’t control what happens on the other side, but we can work on improving our own thinking and behavior. Perhaps we could begin by learning more about the other side, and learning how to be more sensitive to their culture. Here’s a start: