NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not even sure that the US has pissed off Muslims enough to cause an "international day of anger".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2023462,00.html

I guess we have some catching up to do.

pfft, you americans are part timers. The danes know how to hit them where it really hurts.


As is, the Dominion-Post newspaper (the main daily paper here in Wellington) is publishing one of the cartoons on saturday morning in support of free press. Exciting.

Ah, see, there are plenty of better ways to Piss people off without having to go to the expense of all that war thing.

Okay, let's see if I got this straight: The US invades Islamic land and kills hundreds of thousands of Muslims for no good reason and get some general spite.

Denmark publishes a crappy cartoon in a little-read newspaper and gets riots and an official hate day.

Go figure.

**Note: The above statement about the US is for the sole purpose of parodical comparison and should be used to start another pointless debate**

This has been silly from Day One, but now it's getting really, really silly.

What did the cartoon say about Mohammed? I never saw it.

pfft, you americans are part timers. The danes know how to hit them where it really hurts.


As is, the Dominion-Post newspaper (the main daily paper here in Wellington) is publishing one of the cartoons on saturday morning in support of free press. Exciting.
Are you serious? Shit.. I thought this would be a Sunday Star Times type job.

This has been silly from Day One, but now it's getting really, really silly.

What did the cartoon say about Mohammed? I never saw it.

Behold the horror!

http://www.welt.de/media/pic/000/315/31509v1.jpg

Are you cowering yet?

Are you cowering yet?
Hmmm...it is sorta offensive I guess. Kinda like Jesus with a suicide bomb strapped to him.

But then, I'd assume that most Christians would get over that. Islam has those rules about never making pictures of the prophet though.

I don't think it's particularly funny, and I can see why some people can get angry about it now. Maybe it wasn't really necessary to print it, cuz I really don't see the point.

Hmmm...it is sorta offensive I guess. Kinda like Jesus with a suicide bomb strapped to him.

But then, I'd assume that most Christians would get over that. Islam has those rules about never making pictures of the prophet though.

I don't think it's particularly funny, and I can see why some people can get angry about it now. Maybe it wasn't really necessary to print it, cuz I really don't see the point.
If you're a Muslim, fine. If you're not, guess what, the rules of Islam don't apply to you. :eek: :rolleyes: Christianity is strict on not saying anything against God's name (ie blasphemy), sullying His image in anyway and so on. People do it anyway. Christians have just learnt to get used to it.

If you're a Muslim, fine. If you're not, guess what, the rules of Islam don't apply to you. :eek: :rolleyes: Christianity is strict on not saying anything against God's name (ie blasphemy), sullying His image in anyway and so on. People do it anyway. Christians have just learnt to get used to it.

Yeah, i think the only reason there was such a huge response to this was that muslims from the middle east in general arent used to this type of thing. Christians have had a very long time to get used to get used to offensive images of jesus. They have protested against things in the past which figured jesus, but as I said they dont much anymore because they've got used to it.

Yeah, i think the only reason there was such a huge response to this was that muslims from the middle east in general arent used to this type of thing. Christians have had a very long time to get used to get used to offensive images of jesus. They have protested against things in the past which figured jesus, but as I said they dont much anymore because they've got used to it.
Or realised how useless and ineffective doing so is. Noone is going to suppress freedom of speech just because they find it offensive. Ignoring it is a far better response, as the cartoonists are set out both to arouse and to amuse. If they get no response, they will get bored.

Are you serious? Shit.. I thought this would be a Sunday Star Times type job.


The sunday star times will follow the dompost up with a fearmongoring piece about how we're all going to get blown up on monday because they printed the pics.

they are just being silly...

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/CagleJihad.gif

I'd like to say that in principle, I agree with those that think it's okay to be printed. Religious rules are just that, and since neither the newspaper, nor many of its readers, follow those rules, it is okay to be printed.

The point is whether it was really necessary for the newspaper to do so. I don't know the context of that picture (I don't think Mohammed was a terrorist, and as I said, I think it is offensive), but it must have been a pretty important point they wanted to convey if they felt they had to do it this way.

On this forum, you might call that flamebait otherwise.

Or realised how useless and ineffective doing so is. Noone is going to suppress freedom of speech just because they find it offensive. Ignoring it is a far better response, as the cartoonists are set out both to arouse and to amuse. If they get no response, they will get bored.

Yeah, well, thats kind of what i meant.

I'd like to say that in principle, I agree with those that think it's okay to be printed. Religious rules are just that, and since neither the newspaper, nor many of its readers, follow those rules, it is okay to be printed.

The point is whether it was really necessary for the newspaper to do so. I don't know the context of that picture (I don't think Mohammed was a terrorist, and as I said, I think it is offensive), but it must have been a pretty important point they wanted to convey if they felt they had to do it this way.

On this forum, you might call that flamebait otherwise.
The difference is the forum is private property. A country is, well, public property, and belongs to all its citizens.

In any case, I do question why other newspapers reprinted it.

I was actually very sympathetic toward the Muslim community over these cartoons when I thought the violent protests were confined to a few kooks. But as this 'Day of Anger' spreads, my sympathies are running very thin.

I'm finding myself hoping that these cartoons continue... on one condition: I'd actually like to see some genuinely funny ones. These that have been described or shown so far are really dumb. We need to get some decent cartoonists onto this job!

Whether it be Catholics, Pat Buchannan, Fred Phelps, Atheists or Muslims, very little pisses me off more than intolerance.

If you're a Muslim, fine. If you're not, guess what, the rules of Islam don't apply to you. :eek: :rolleyes: Christianity is strict on not saying anything against God's name (ie blasphemy), sullying His image in anyway and so on. People do it anyway. Christians have just learnt to get used to it.
sorry, but the muslims don't think that way.

Western diplomats from Denmark and Norway began pulling out of their missions in Gaza as gunmen searched hotels for Europeans from countries where newspapers had printed the pictures, declaring them legitimate targets.

you don't need to be muslim, you don't need to be working for the newspaper that printed the picture (tho looks like all European newspapers are printing that image.) you don't need to be in the field. the fact that you're from that country is enough.

(I'm glad I never posted in the NS Info thread.)
heck, for all we know, because the pic was posted several times here on NS, I wouldn't be surprised if someone was taking names of posters down to hunt out and.... well remove with extreme predijuce.

Ah, see, there are plenty of better ways to Piss people off without having to go to the expense of all that war thing.
Yeah ... right up to the point where they start blowing up your civilians. :rolleyes:

sorry, but the muslims don't think that way.

Well that's not our problem, now is it? Its time they learnt that the world is not going to silence itself because they act like little brats every time they see something they don't like.

I was actually very sympathetic toward the Muslim community over these cartoons when I thought the violent protests were confined to a few kooks. But as this 'Day of Anger' spreads, my sympathies are running very thin.

I'm finding myself hoping that these cartoons continue... on one condition: I'd actually like to see some genuinely funny ones. These that have been described or shown so far are really dumb. We need to get some decent cartoonists onto this job!

Whether it be Catholics, Pat Buchannan, Fred Phelps, Atheists or Muslims, very little pisses me off more than intolerance.for me, it's not intolerace, but fanaticsism.

I do question why other newspapers reprinted it.
Freedom of the press! Solidarity! Yeah!

I wouldn't be surprised if someone was taking names of posters down to hunt out and.... well remove with extreme predijuce.
Now now, don't get carried away.
As always, it's the radical minority who yells the loudest here, and I would think that most of those taking part in the protests are just angry because of the disrespect shown to their religion, but not as far as they would be commiting an even worse sin themselves.

EDIT: Indeed, I have my doubts whether Hamed Karzai will hunt me down in the next few weeks.

Freedom of the press! Solidarity! Yeah!
Cheap publicity and a boost in sales? :p

for me, it's not intolerace, but fanaticsism.

See, this is why people shouldn't worship together. It always leads to trouble. *nod*

Cheap publicity and a boost in sales? :p
Uh ... well, yeah, but that's not the "main thing!" :D

Uh ... well, yeah, but that's not the "main thing!" :D
It isn't? :eek:

It isn't? :eek:

If it was, they'd probably get some cartoonists to make some GOOD cartoons depicting Muhammed instead of reprinting those crappy ones. *nod*

If it was, they'd probably get some cartoonists to make some GOOD cartoons depicting Muhammed instead of reprinting those crappy ones. *nod*
Since when are tabloids interested in quality? :p

Oh great, we can't even tick people off right. We should've used their sensitivity regarding pictures of people earlier.

Now now, don't get carried away.
As always, it's the radical minority who yells the loudest here, and I would think that most of those taking part in the protests are just angry because of the disrespect shown to their religion, but not as far as they would be commiting an even worse sin themselves.

EDIT: Indeed, I have my doubts whether Hamed Karzai will hunt me down in the next few weeks.

Muslim fanatics rarely try to hunt down the individual actually responsible for a particular act. Sure, they issue fatwas, but they find it much easier to blow up a bar somewhere else, or a hotel, or a bus station, or an airplane full of people who had nothing to do with it.

Protesters in one country were overheard saying that they wanted to kill the Danish Ambassador, as though he had some ability to stop a paper from publishing something.

I expect more than a few cowardly acts of reprisal against people whose only fault was being where Muslim extremists could lay their hands on them.

Muslim fanatics rarely try to hunt down the individual actually responsible for a particular act. Sure, they issue fatwas, but they find it much easier to blow up a bar somewhere else, or a hotel, or a bus station, or an airplane full of people who had nothing to do with it.

Protesters in one country were overheard saying that they wanted to kill the Danish Ambassador, as though he had some ability to stop a paper from publishing something.

I expect more than a few cowardly acts of reprisal against people whose only fault was being where Muslim extremists could lay their hands on them.
Hey, they seem to think they have to make themselves heard. :rolleyes: They don't realise how loud and obnoxious they sound though.

PS: Protestors :p

See, this is why people shouldn't worship together. It always leads to trouble. *nod*
nothing wrong in worshipping together. that's where fellowship comes in.

but to blow someone up because of an editorial picture?

I would rather they ask "why do others see Muslims like that?"

then again, perhaps they do know the answer.

Hey, they seem to think they have to make themselves heard. :rolleyes: They don't realise how loud and obnoxious they sound though.

PS: Protestors :p

Maybe they're at war with us, and we haven't noticed yet.

Maybe they're at war with us, and we haven't noticed yet.
Oh, but aren't they the religion of "peace?" Please, the only such religion is Buddhism.

Oh, but aren't they the religion of "peace?" Please, the only such religion is Buddhism.

I think that the whole "wars and terrorism caused by Christianity" has slowed to a trickle. You know, abortion clinic bombings and such. The IRA and their opponents seem to have gotten tired of late.

And we haven't had a good Inquisition or witch burning in ages.

This whole world war thing would probably really be more entertaining if there weren't so many secular people on one side who were content to yawn so much.

I think that the whole "wars and terrorism caused by Christianity" has slowed to a trickle. You know, abortion clinic bombings and such. The IRA and their opponents seem to have gotten tired of late.

And we haven't had a good Inquisition or witch burning in ages.

This whole world war thing would probably really be more entertaining if there weren't so many secular people on one side who were content to yawn so much.
True. Then again, Christians are too busy tearing each other apart to care much about others nowadays.

So you want more action? :p

Protesters in one country were overheard saying that they wanted to kill the Danish Ambassador, as though he had some ability to stop a paper from publishing something.
That was in Indonesia though. Indonesia can be a little bit strange sometimes. But then, for some reason Iraq was considered more important.

I expect more than a few cowardly acts of reprisal against people whose only fault was being where Muslim extremists could lay their hands on them.
Probably. Things like throwing rocks and so on...I have my doubts whether anyone will actually now go to AQ if they hadn't wanted to before. You'd have to be pretty radical to take it that seriously.
There are not that many real radicals in Europe, and those that are these days are under surveillance anyway. People might write angry letters, and a few angry teens will smash a few windows, but I don't think this will usher in a new armageddon.

Well that's not our problem, now is it? Its time they learnt that the world is not going to silence itself because they act like little brats every time they see something they don't like.

Fuckin sigged.

The point is whether it was really necessary for the newspaper to do so. I don't know the context of that picture (I don't think Mohammed was a terrorist, and as I said, I think it is offensive), but it must have been a pretty important point they wanted to convey if they felt they had to do it this way.


Well according to our resident Dane, they were part of a debate in the newspaper over the nature of free speech in Europe in regards to (radical) Islam in the wake of the murder of Theo van Gogh.

Freedom of the press! Solidarity! Yeah!

If it was for those reasons why did it take so long for them to reprint the cartoons?

Bearing in ming they were originally published in September AFAIK.

If it was for those reasons why did it take so long for them to reprint the cartoons?

Bearing in ming they were originally published in September AFAIK.

Because no one went ape until recently.

I cant exactly protest against vile and evil actions of wahhabi's before they've even contemplated it.

Because no one went ape until recently.

I cant exactly protest against vile and evil actions of wahhabi's before they've even contemplated it.

Maybe my chronology is wrong, but weren't the protests in response to the reprinting?

Even if not, why did it take them so long to find out about them. To the best of my knowledge the Danes have a responably large Muslim population, I find it hard to believe it around 4 months for there to be a backlash. I mean, radical Muslims are hardly reknowned for their self control.

Maybe my chronology is wrong, but weren't the protests in response to the reprinting?

Even if not, why did it take them so long to find out about them. To the best of my knowledge the Danes have a responably large Muslim population, I find it hard to believe it around 4 months for there to be a backlash. I mean, radical Muslims are hardly reknowned for their self control.
Reasonably large...is it though? I think Denmark has one of the tiniest foreign communities in Europe. Its quite homogeneous ethnically.

Maybe they're at war with us, and we haven't noticed yet.

They are. Many are devoting time, money and resources to planning against us while we go about our normal day to day lives and talk about it. We'll get hit again; it will be another significant strike, it may affect more people than Sept 11 th did to.

I believe in free press, even when it is total crap, however, I think upon learning how imflammatory this issue would be, maybe a better choice would have been to tone it down a little-I'm not saying they should bow to threats, but why deliberately up the ante? Sure-its sensational-it will be a tremendous boost in sales and attention, but why create reasons to hate whan it isnt necessary?

I am total against any type of fanatacism, wether its muslim, white supremacists or whatever.
I also am against deliberately beating a beehive when its clear it will produce anger, violence and bad will on a large scale. France just learned a lesson in this a few months ago- they didnt control or correct the problem-its simply lost steam.
The next one may not.

Reasonably large...is it though? I think Denmark has one of the tiniest foreign communities in Europe. Its quite homogeneous ethnically.

When I saw reasonably large, I don't mean massive, But enough to form a distinct section of society. rather then the odd household.

I have been told 2% of Danes are Muslim (lets just ignore the ex-muslims for now), which in my mind is reasonably large.

:EDIT:
Wikipedia give 3% being Muslim (Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark))
The CIA says 2% (Clickly (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/da.html)_

When I saw reasonably large, I don't mean massive, But enough to form a distinct section of society. rather then the odd household.

I have been told 2% of Danes are Muslim (lets just ignore the ex-muslims for now), which in my mind is reasonably large.
Its considerable, but still rather tiny.

Why increase the ante?

Because it is time to establish just what the rules of the game are.

Bitch about the world order? Expect to get freaknastied.

Accept the world order? Expect to get protected by it.

Its considerable, but still rather tiny.

Never said otherwise.

What I don't understand is how the US can take various nations TO SCHOOL and kill people and blow things up...

and we don't get an international day of UPSET.

Denmark publishes a cartoon... a few months go by....

Muslims are upset, but only the kooks...

Then a few European news organizations publish the pics again....

Muslims around the world decide on an "international day of protest"!

Hmm... is the pen mightier than the sword, or just better at pissing people off?

well this just goes to show they care more about their religion than themselves. (Kind of fits in with the whole suicide bombing thing)

You know, I've never taken sides in the whole "Jeebus versus Abraham versus Mohammed" showdown (since I see them all as equally goofy), but I think I have to call this round in favor of the Christians...I mean, Christianity survived The Life Of Brian, but Islam can't take one freaking cartoon? If your Sky Daddy can't handle a bit of a comic roast then he's never going to make it in the Big Time.

I mean, Christianity survived The Life Of Brian, but Islam can't take one freaking cartoon?

Christianity has got a few a few centuries on Islam though.

Hardly surprising it is more mature.

Hmmm...it is sorta offensive I guess. Kinda like Jesus with a suicide bomb strapped to him.

But then, I'd assume that most Christians would get over that. Islam has those rules about never making pictures of the prophet though.

I don't think it's particularly funny, and I can see why some people can get angry about it now. Maybe it wasn't really necessary to print it, cuz I really don't see the point.



Greetings Neu Leonstein

To your info I might add that the drawings not were made to make fun af anybody, allthough that seems too be what you think.

They were made as a part of a freespeech discussion following the murder of Theo Van Something, in Holland, and related to the release of a book (in Denmark, about Islam) that nobody dared too illustrate in fear of their lives.

We in Denmark are not used too been threatened for debating ANY topic.
Therefore it was, for the newspaper, a relevant debate.

Please remember that in Denmark the goverment can´t in any way intervene nor decide what the papers write nor print. Thats simply the law!

We have blasphemy laws and anti racism laws and any case can be tried before a jugde, but nobody did that!!!

The tenet of free speech is funded deep in our society and protected by law, therefore evrything is up for discussion by everybody

I can see why some feel offended but tell me: What do you think the Danish people think when they see Muslims burning their flag and portraits of their primeminister, while yelling out that Islam will be the death of Denmark?

Wouldn´t that offend them too and if yes? is that OK

It seems like a thin red line here that some can cross and some can´t, thats not acceptable from my point of wiev

Greetings

We have blasphemy laws and anti racism laws and any case can be tried before a jugde, but nobody did that!!!

The tenet of free speech is funded deep in our society and protected by law, therefore evrything is up for discussion by everybody

Exactly. One of the things that makes Denmark special. The freedom of speech cannot be sacrificed merely because some people are offended by what others say. If they feel that they were wronged, as you said, there are courts to resort to.

Greetings Neu Leonstein

To your info I might add that the drawings not were made to make fun af anybody, allthough that seems too be what you think.

They were made as a part of a freespeech discussion following the murder of Theo Van Something, in Holland, and related to the release of a book (in Denmark, about Islam) that nobody dared too illustrate in fear of their lives.

We in Denmark are not used too been threatened for debating ANY topic.
Therefore it was, for the newspaper, a relevant debate.

Please remember that in Denmark the goverment can´t in any way intervene nor decide what the papers write nor print. Thats simply the law!

We have blasphemy laws and anti racism laws and any case can be tried before a jugde, but nobody did that!!!

The tenet of free speech is funded deep in our society and protected by law, therefore evrything is up for discussion by everybody

I can see why some feel offended but tell me: What do you think the Danish people think when they see Muslims burning their flag and portraits of their primeminister, while yelling out that Islam will be the death of Denmark?

Wouldn´t that offend them too and if yes? is that OK

It seems like a thin red line here that some can cross and some can´t, thats not acceptable from my point of wiev

Greetings
thank you. I was wondering about the context of the picture.

was the book an Anti Islam book or did it try to explore the myths/truths about islam?

and who or possibly why was theo van something killed?

as for the flag buring, while I do admit it is a form of free speech here in America, the burning of any flag... well just doesn't sit easy with me.

as for the flag buring, while I do admit it is a form of free speech here in America, the burning of any flag... well just doesn't sit easy with me.
Nor with me. Its a blatant disrespect of an entire nation and its people.

and who or possibly why was theo van something killed?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director))

Gives a fairly decent summing up of the thing.

Nor with me. Its a blatant disrespect of an entire nation and its people.

It was a challenge.
Challenges exist to be met.

*grumbles something about The War Of Jenkins Ear*

We don't want to fight
But, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
We've got the money, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director))

Gives a fairly decent summing up of the thing.
His death wasn't even warranted.

It was a challenge.
Challenges exist to be met.

*grumbles something about The War Of Jenkins Ear*

We don't want to fight
But, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
We've got the men,
We've got the money, too.
Hmm I wonder if that's not exactly what they want though...us to initiate the conflict so that again we can be blamed for it. Sometimes its better to ignore of that ilk.

His death wasn't even warranted.

I know, it was a great shame.



(Is there somewhere in the wiki that says otherwise which I failed to read?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director))

Gives a fairly decent summing up of the thing.
sad...

when will the Muslim world (or at least the extremists) realize that their actions only add fuel to the fire.

I know, it was a great shame.



(Is there somewhere in the wiki that says otherwise which I failed to read?)
No, I was simply stating it.

Hmm I wonder if that's not exactly what they want though...us to initiate the conflict so that again we can be blamed for it. Sometimes its better to ignore of that ilk.


Then again, we could just freaknasty them.

I have no idea how many Arabs you've met.... but they are as a category on one hand great bluffers - but lousy pokerplayers. When in doubt - play hardball.

The more they believe we actually would freaknasty them, the less likely they are to get troublesome.

We don't have to actually do anything but to make them believe we are frothing at the mouth and eager for a fight. Regardless of wether we are or not.

sad...

when will the Muslim world (or at least the extremists) realize that their actions only add fuel to the fire.

Not soon enough apparently

I think it is worth requoting the editor of a Jordinian paper that also ran the cartoons.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable. What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"



Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm


Doing a bit more reading it appear the editor, Jihad Momani lost his job over it. Which is a shame, though I suppose it could have been far worse.

Then again, we could just freaknasty them.

I have no idea how many Arabs you've met.... but they are as a category on one hand great bluffers - but lousy pokerplayers. When in doubt - play hardball.

The more they believe we actually would freaknasty them, the less likely they are to get troublesome.

We don't have to actually do anything but to make them believe we are frothing at the mouth and eager for a fight. Regardless of wether we are or not.
In other words, psychological warfare and intimidation. Fight fire with fire?

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm


Doing a bit more reading it appear the editor, Jihad Momani lost his job over it. Which is a shame, though I suppose it could have been far worse.
I find some of the comments on that article ridiculous. Like "How would Christians feel if it was done to Jesus Christ?" Well hello, its done on a routine basis. :rolleyes:

In other words, psychological warfare and intimidation. Fight fire with fire?

Quite so.
The alternatives are
A] to nuke the shit out of them.
B] to ignore them while they carry on.

A] Is that what you would really want?
and B] ends up in a giant and deadly game of 'Chicken'. Someone is bound to crash - perhaps even both cars.

I find some of the comments on that article ridiculous. Like "How would Christians feel if it was done to Jesus Christ?" Well hello, its done on a routine basis. :rolleyes:

Same here.

But I was just using the article as a source for a quote.

Really I should have used this page (http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060203-044331-9371r)

If only for the extra bit where he explains his reasons for publishing:

"so people know what they are protesting about ... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."

GO AMERICA!!! ITS THE BEST!!! :upyours: TO ANYONE WHO OPPOSES THEM!!!!!!!! w00oo00oo00oo!!!!!!!!!!!

Behold the horror!

http://www.welt.de/media/pic/000/315/31509v1.jpg

Are you cowering yet?
Theres more.
http://www.arcor.de/palb/thumbs_pub...albumID=3556411

EDIT: Hmm......apparently they are gone. Weird.

Quite so.
The alternatives are
A] to nuke the shit out of them.
B] to ignore them while they carry on.

A] Is that what you would really want?
and B] ends up in a giant and deadly game of 'Chicken'. Someone is bound to crash - perhaps even both cars.
Out of all the alternatives, its perhaps the most effective one then.

Same here.

But I was just using the article as a source for a quote.

Really I should have used this page (http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060203-044331-9371r)

If only for the extra bit where he explains his reasons for publishing:

"so people know what they are protesting about ... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen."
It just surprises me sometimes how the BBC editors will never post opposing views; they always seem to have this revoltingly PC aspect to them.

GO AMERICA!!! ITS THE BEST!!! :upyours: TO ANYONE WHO OPPOSES THEM!!!!!!!! w00oo00oo00oo!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent first post. Minimal use of smileys, advanced mastery of the text size button, and it's based on irrefutable logic.

Out of all the alternatives, its perhaps the most effective one then.


That has been my take since the first time I've had to meet the challenge of an arab. Chad, 1982. IMHO, no other approach one can think of can compete in efficency or effectiveness. Always be ready to outbluff them.


repeated:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Europa Maxima
In other words, psychological warfare and intimidation. Fight fire with fire?


Quite so.
The alternatives are
A] to nuke the shit out of them.
B] to ignore them while they carry on.

A] Is that what you would really want?
and B] ends up in a giant and deadly game of 'Chicken'. Someone is bound to crash - perhaps even both cars.

Excellent first post. Minimal use of smileys, advanced mastery of the text size button, and it's based on irrefutable logic.
Yes, its genius is in its very simplicity. A true masterpiece.

That has been my take since the first time I've had to meet the challenge of an arab. Chad, 1982. IMHO, no other approach one can think of can compete in efficency or effectiveness. Always be ready to outbluff them.


repeated:
You weren't in the army by any chance, were you? :p

You weren't in the army by any chance, were you? :p


17 years of service ;) all in all 3 different Armies too.

While it's blasphemy for a Muslim to depict Muhammad, it's not blasphemy for a non-muslim. If non-muslims are going to be threatened with violence for not obeying Muslim laws, then why don't the angry Muslims drop all pretenses and say that they want to convert people by force, and admit that they believe the part of the Koran that prohibits such behavior is invalid.

17 years of service ;) all in all 3 different Armies too.
Makes sense. :p Which ones? Anyway, I do agree with the psychological warfare tactic. Ignoring them is effective, but perhaps a little too risky.

While it's blasphemy for a Muslim to depict Muhammad, it's not blasphemy for a non-muslim. If non-muslims are going to be threatened with violence for not obeying Muslim laws, then why don't the angry Muslims drop all pretenses and say that they want to convert people by force, and admit that they believe the part of the Koran that prohibits such behavior is invalid.
Exactly. This has been my point all along.

While it's blasphemy for a Muslim to depict Muhammad, it's not blasphemy for a non-muslim. If non-muslims are going to be threatened with violence for not obeying Muslim laws, then why don't the angry Muslims drop all pretenses and say that they want to convert people by force, and admit that they believe the part of the Koran that prohibits such behavior is invalid.

Actually, in Islam, you're either a Muslim, or a dhimmi (non-Muslim).

Since the whole world to Muslims is supposed to be Dar al-Islam, we are supposed to respect their religion and never commit blasphemy (among other things).

Technically, since we are dhimmi, we are by default not entitled to the same amount of respect for our beliefs, customs, culture, etc. If any of it offends them, we're supposed to stop doing it.

Dhimmitude is probably the most offensive aspect of Islam.

Makes sense. :p Which ones? Anyway, I do agree with the psychological warfare tactic. Ignoring them is effective, but perhaps a little too risky.

I learned the basic trade in the French Foreign Legion. As a lowly private.
What I did afterwards is kinda private. They were all Western, though.

Ignoring is not effective. It ends up in the chicken game thing when the other feller gets frustrated ( if you don't do so first ) that he can't get a rise out of you, and decides to raise the stakes anyway. Perhaps trying if he cant just chuck a 'readied' grenade into your shirt or something. 'Chicken' games just don't work out as a sane tactic.

Actually, in Islam, you're either a Muslim, or a dhimmi (non-Muslim).

Since the whole world to Muslims is supposed to be Dar al-Islam, we are supposed to respect their religion and never commit blasphemy (among other things).

Technically, since we are dhimmi, we are by default not entitled to the same amount of respect for our beliefs, customs, culture, etc. If any of it offends them, we're supposed to stop doing it.

Dhimmitude is probably the most offensive aspect of Islam.
How extremely arrogant. Is this a core belief of Islam? And do they honestly expect people to passively put up with such nonsense?

How extremely arrogant. Is this a core belief of Islam? And do they honestly expect people to passively put up with such nonsense?
Apparently...

either that or die.

Ignoring is not effective. It ends up in the chicken game thing when the other feller gets frustrated ( if you don't do so first ) that he can't get a rise out of you, and decides to raise the stakes anyway. Perhaps trying if he cant just chuck a 'readied' grenade into your shirt or something. 'Chicken' games just don't work out as a sane tactic.
I think the West has realised this in any case; its moved from overt to covert warfare, and sidetracked ignoring as an option altogether.

How extremely arrogant. Is this a core belief of Islam? And do they honestly expect people to passively put up with such nonsense?


YES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmis for a rather 'sugarcoated' take on the topic.

Actually, in Islam, you're either a Muslim, or a dhimmi (non-Muslim).

Since the whole world to Muslims is supposed to be Dar al-Islam, we are supposed to respect their religion and never commit blasphemy (among other things).

Technically, since we are dhimmi, we are by default not entitled to the same amount of respect for our beliefs, customs, culture, etc. If any of it offends them, we're supposed to stop doing it.

Dhimmitude is probably the most offensive aspect of Islam.
Wait, if we live in Dar al Harb, rather than Dar al Islam (we haven't been conquered and don't live on Muslim land) are we still considered dhimmis?

Oh, and I agree that dhimmitude is the most offensive thing about Islam.

I think the West has realised this in any case; its moved from overt to covert warfare, and sidetracked ignoring as an option altogether.

Yep. Certainly took them long enough to figure it out.
On 912, I spent some time considering options, as a junior member of a thinktank-kind-of-thingie.
One thing we considered was Operation Nephilim.
A giant hoax to make the ME believe we were itching to start throwing nukes on Mecca during Hadj-season, while trying to keep that bogus-intention a badly kep secret.

YES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmis for a rather 'sugarcoated' take on the topic.
I had no idea. I thought the most offensive part was the "spread by fire and by steel" bit, which basically means converting "heathens" by force. This is, of course, supposed to be the religion of peace and tolerance? :rolleyes:

I'm not even sure that the US has pissed off Muslims enough to cause an "international day of anger".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2023462,00.html

I guess we have some catching up to do.

Religion can be quite pathetic at times.

So the Muslim world is more angry over a cartoon, depicting a person who may not have existed, than the U.S. who has pretty much confronted the entire region physically. *sigh*

Religion can be quite pathetic at times.

So the Muslim world is more angry over a cartoon, depicting a person who may not have existed, than the U.S. who has pretty much confronted the entire region physically. *sigh*
Well, he did exist...now whether or not he was a Prophet, that is another issue entirely.

I had no idea. I thought the most offensive part was the "spread by fire and by steel" bit, which basically means converting "heathens" by force. This is, of course, supposed to be the religion of peace and tolerance? :rolleyes:

Remember what I said about the shallow impact of religion on cultural practises?
It isn't, IMHO, a fault of their religion. The basic problem is the arabic cultural outlook that already was set in concrete before mohammed was even born.

Remember what I said about bluff?
You're either the motherfucker, or the motherfucked, in that part of the world.

A philosophy, religious or not, that actually IS about peace and tolerance doesn't get 1 billion followers.
Instead, it gets deplaced by less sugary philosophies.

Remember what I said about the shallow impact of religion on cultural practises?
It isn't, IMHO, a fault of their religion. The basic problem is the arabic cultural outlook that already was set in concrete before mohammed was even born.
Indeed. They were hungering for land and for power. The religion acted merely as the unifying factor, and some say it was even an artificial construct made to serve that purpose.

Wait, if we live in Dar al Harb, rather than Dar al Islam (we haven't been conquered and don't live on Muslim land) are we still considered dhimmis?

Oh, and I agree that dhimmitude is the most offensive thing about Islam.
It's the duty of every Muslim to make sure the whole world becomes Dar al-Islam. While not all subscribe to this, the whole aspect of dhimmitude creates the expectation.

If you live in a country where dhimmis are essentially non-humans, it colors your perception of the world.

Think back to the days when there was only the Catholic Church, and the Spanish arrived in the New World. To them, the heathens were non-human.

Made for a less than pleasant experience for the natives, who were forced to convert to Catholicism, were slaughtered when they resisted, were treated as inferiors, and had their culture and religion destroyed.

Okay, let's see if I got this straight: The US invades Islamic land and kills hundreds of thousands of Muslims for no good reason and get some general spite.

Denmark publishes a crappy cartoon in a little-read newspaper and gets riots and an official hate day.

Go figure.

**Note: The above statement about the US is for the sole purpose of parodical comparison and should be used to start another pointless debate**

...well, we did free them... that might be seen as a good reason.

Indeed. They were hungering for land and for power. The religion acted merely as the unifying factor, and some say it was even an artificial construct made to serve that purpose.

I've seen Arabs, today, living in a discarded tire.
If you think folks who live like that are interested in love, peace, and understanding... 'nuff said.

I never considered peaceful coexistence a viable option.

History has a term for the contact between 2 cultures.
That word is spelled: w a r.

It's the duty of every Muslim to make sure the whole world becomes Dar al-Islam. While not all subscribe to this, the whole aspect of dhimmitude creates the expectation.

If you live in a country where dhimmis are essentially non-humans, it colors your perception of the world.

Think back to the days when there was only the Catholic Church, and the Spanish arrived in the New World. To them, the heathens were non-human.

Made for a less than pleasant experience for the natives, who were forced to convert to Catholicism, were slaughtered when they resisted, were treated as inferiors, and had their culture and religion destroyed.
Except that Christianity never commanded them to do so. Nothing in the Bible says that one must be forced into the faith; to the contrary, one's right not to follow God is explicitly stated.

I wasn't aware of the aspect Dhimmitude. I am surprised they actually expect us to abide by this.

Religion can be quite pathetic at times.

So the Muslim world is more angry over a cartoon, depicting a person who may not have existed, than the U.S. who has pretty much confronted the entire region physically. *sigh*

depends on whom you're talking about... Probably most people who wanted freedom, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are happy.

those who held power (Taliban in Afg. and Ba'athists/militant Sunnis in Iraq) might not be happy. Somehow I can't feel sorry for despots.) aren't happy with us.

Well, he did exist...now whether or not he was a Prophet, that is another issue entirely.

It's still pretty silly to hold someone in such a high position that if anyone question or alter their image it is your responsibility to destroy them. Nice to see tolerance spreading throughout the world.

I've seen Arabs, today, living in a discarded tire.
If you think folks who live like that are interested in love, peace, and understanding... 'nuff said.

I never considered peaceful coexistence a viable option.

History has a term for the contact between 2 cultures.
That word is spelled: w a r.
The funny thing is their countries have the wealth to end such poverty; they just choose not to. So with such attitudes, its hard to see how a peaceful coexistence, at least right now, would be possible.

It's still pretty silly to hold someone in such a high position that if anyone question or alter their image it is your responsibility to destroy them. Nice to see tolerance spreading throughout the world.
Especially on their part.

Except that Christianity never commanded them to do so. Nothing in the Bible says that one must be forced into the faith; to the contrary, one's right not to follow God is explicitly stated.

I wasn't aware of the aspect Dhimmitude. I am surprised they actually expect us to abide by this.
No, but the attitude that non-Christians are "heathens" puts them into the sub-human realm.

The whole idea of "dhimmi" is to place every non-Muslim into the sub-human realm.

And we all remember how well subhumans fit into ovens.

The funny thing is their countries have the wealth to end such poverty; they just choose not to. So with such attitudes, its hard to see how a peaceful coexistence, at least right now, would be possible.

Is Bill Gates itching to share his wealth with a homeless person?
Neither is an oilsheikh in Kuwait.

We Westerners tend to be pretty peaceful... because we are sated.
We live in cultures where we worry about getting too much food.
They live in cultures where the trick is to get something to eat.

Add in their... cultural issues... and the rest is an exercise for the student.

No, but the attitude that non-Christians are "heathens" puts them into the sub-human realm.

The whole idea of "dhimmi" is to place every non-Muslim into the sub-human realm.

And we all remember how well subhumans fit into ovens.
Or stacked in piles, if the ovens aren't available. Is idea of Dhimmitude actually in the Qu'ran itself?

The cartoons really were in poor taste, but the Muslims really shouldn't take them so seriously. They have an image problem and that's just the way things are. The best way to deal with a bad image is to do things to turn it around, not contribute further to the image.

Is Bill Gates itching to share his wealth with a homeless person?
Neither is an oilsheikh in Kuwait.

We Westerners tend to be pretty peaceful... because we are sated.
We live in cultures where we worry about getting too much food.
They live in cultures where the trick is to get something to eat.

Add in their... cultural issues... and the rest is an exercise for the student.
Indeed. Yet they can hardly claim the excuse that such widespread poverty exists in their nations is due to any lack of natural resources or opportunities. If they created a proper free market system, they might well end it. Would they want to though?

I found the one with people being turned away from heaven because they were out of virgins funny.(sad I know).This paper is just looking to generate sales.They were about to go under.They have really suceeded.

Indeed. Yet they can hardly claim the excuse that such widespread poverty exists in their nations is due to any lack of natural resources or opportunities. If they created a proper free market system, they might well end it. Would they want to though?

*sceptical* Does the existence of a proper free market system ( of which I am a proponent ) mean the non-existence of poverty in the West?

Nope. Robbing your nearest neighbour ( me and my brother against my cousing, me and my cousin against the outsider ( rarib!) ) is so ingrained in their culture that it is a proverb. To them, a more valid way of alleviating poverty within their own countries.

Indeed. Yet they can hardly claim the excuse that such widespread poverty exists in their nations is due to any lack of natural resources or opportunities. If they created a proper free market system, they might well end it. Would they want to though?

Iraq might become a guinea pig... assuming the government that's been elected by the people (has a ring to it) allows for free-market upgrades.

*sceptical* Does the existence of a proper free market system ( of which I am a proponent ) mean the non-existence of poverty in the West?

Nope. Robbing your nearest neighbour ( me and my brother against my cousing, me and my cousin against the outsider ( rarib!) ) is so ingrained in their culture that it is a proverb. To them, a more valid way of alleviating poverty within their own countries.
There is relative poverty in the West though, rather than everyone being poor and some very few being massively wealthy. We have a very healthy middle class. Even if there are still poor people, at least the majority of the population isn't living in shacks.

I suppose then that its their culture that will have to change; I'm not awaiting miracles though.

Or stacked in piles, if the ovens aren't available. Is idea of Dhimmitude actually in the Qu'ran itself?

Here's an answer:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dhimmitude.htm

The whole system and idea engenders a terrible attitude.

Like the rules of Jihad, the rules of dhimmitude were elaborated from the Koran, the hadiths and the biographies on the Prophet. Those laws and their religious justification were taught throughout the Islamic Empires. Despite some differences in the four schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, there is a quasi unanimity in matters concerning the dhimmis. The fundamental rulings relevant to them were established quite early. We read of them extensively in Abu Yusuf (731-98), a follower of Abu Hanifa (d. 767) the founder of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. He expounded them in a treatise written for the caliph Harun al-Rashid (786-809). Their implementation over the dhimmi populations is mentioned by numerous Muslim jurists throughout the centuries.

Now we must remember also that for centuries the vanquished populations, mainly the Christians, formed the majorities in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Muslim Empires. Being the targets, along with the Jews, of dhimmitude regulations, Christian chroniclers have left many testimonies of their implementation from the earliest time and in different regions. Hence, the enunciation of the rules that one reads in abstract legal treaties are confirmed by Christian sources which depict their lethal consequences. They reveal their human concretization, adding a perceptive insight that complements the dry legal texts.

The sources on dhimmitude

The literature on Jihad by Muslim historians is quite extensive. It describes the conquest and the process of Islamization of Christian lands which integrate the rules of dhimmitude. Hence, the many sources on dhimmitude over the centuries comprise the Muslim legal and historic texts. Jurists from the later Middle Ages and after, usually list the successive ordinances of caliphs, which are usually referred to by Muslim historians and dhimmis sources.

Then there are the dhimmi sources, as I have mentioned, which are not uniform. Some are very meagre because of the disappearance of whole communities in some regions or at some periods, while some are more abundant.

And then there are the numerous testimonies, including diplomatic records, left by Europeans Christian and Jewish pilgrims, as well as travelers, merchants, consuls and other diplomats. These foreigners observed and described the discriminatory rules imposed on the dhimmis, and in general against infidels because they themselves had to conform to these rules. Not being aware of Islamic legislation, their testimonies are thus a valuable confirmation that the rules were enforced.

The characteristics of dhimmitude are manifold. They embrace the whole expression of life and rather than analyse each of them, which is impossible to do in a lecture, I shall instead examine if they belong to a permanent and homogeneous pattern in the dar al-Islam.

Characteristics of dhimmitude

The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of Jihad were "protected", providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority.

The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgression of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied.

The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel.

Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9

Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya.

The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law.

In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly established from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis.

Hmmm...it is sorta offensive I guess. Kinda like Jesus with a suicide bomb strapped to him.

But then, I'd assume that most Christians would get over that. Islam has those rules about never making pictures of the prophet though.
Christians would flood local papers with complaints and hold boycotts and be general sill asshats. Then again, that is the American extremist Christian, but knowing them, if the Danish did that, they would still flood them with letters to the editor and general complaints and hatemail.

Iraq might become a guinea pig... assuming the government that's been elected by the people (has a ring to it) allows for free-market upgrades.
We shall see. I think it might do well, if the government is truly committed to reform.

Here's an answer:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/dhimmitude.htm

The whole system and idea engenders a terrible attitude.
Thanks for the source.

Quite an appaling attitude at that.

depends on whom you're talking about... Probably most people who wanted freedom, in Afghanistan and Iraq, are happy.

those who held power (Taliban in Afg. and Ba'athists/militant Sunnis in Iraq) might not be happy. Somehow I can't feel sorry for despots.) aren't happy with us.

I don't know how people in Afghanistan and Iraq feel about us because I've never been there to talk to the people. I can trust the media as far as I can throw Michael Moore. But yes the general conception is that the only people who aren't happy are the "bad guys" and everyone else loves us. However, I get the feeling that the majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are apathetic and just want to live undisturbed by any means.

There is relative poverty in the West though, rather than everyone being poor and some very few being massively wealthy. We have a very healthy middle class. Even if there are still poor people, at least the majority of the population isn't living in shacks.

I suppose then that its their culture that will have to change; I'm not awaiting miracles though.


Cultures are patterns for living!
They don't really change until they no longer work, ie. that someone who lives according to that culture gets a very unpleasant life-expectancy.

The trouble with the west is that it's too tolerant for it's own good. Sometimes in order to beat these people we have to fight fire with fire. If the muslims in our countries fancy making a big thing out of insults towards their faith, then we need to make the reprisals against their community so fierce that they would be far too scared.

"Europe, you will pay. Demolitions on the way" WTF.....and people wonder why the Islamic religion is seen to be filled with murders and killers. They need to clean up their image.

I read a sensible qoute from a muslim journalist the other day. Something along these lines: "Which increases prejudice against muslims more; hostages getting their throats slit on air or these charicatures?" Ironically, his first name was Jihad.

Wait, if we live in Dar al Harb, rather than Dar al Islam (we haven't been conquered and don't live on Muslim land) are we still considered dhimmis?


You aren't a dhimmi yet.

A dhimmi is a non-muslim who lives under islamic rule. But a person can be in the state of dhimmi even while not living under islamic rule.

I read a sensible qoute from a muslim journalist the other day. Something along these lines: "Which increases prejudice against muslims more; hostages getting their throats slit on air or these charicatures?" Ironically, his first name was Jihad.

Yeah. Here in the US, I have met nothing but great Muslims. I'm a Tae Kwon Do instructor, and one of the other instructors I work with is Muslim. Great guy. Always trying to convert me, but great guy LOL :) Personally, I have no problems with normal muslims.

You aren't a dhimmi yet.

A dhimmi is a non-muslim who lives under islamic rule. But a person can be in the state of dhimmi even while not living under islamic rule.
What I was trying to point out was that while we may not think of ourselves as dhimmi, that is certainly the way most of them view us.

I read a sensible qoute from a muslim journalist the other day. Something along these lines: "Which increases prejudice against muslims more; hostages getting their throats slit on air or these charicatures?" Ironically, his first name was Jihad.

Not a journalist, an editor Jihad Momani.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable. What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

What I was trying to point out was that while we may not think of ourselves as dhimmi, that is certainly the way most of them view us.
Maybe you should ask Keruvalia. Because I have certainly never met a Muslim who thought of me or anyone else in that way.

Maybe you should ask Keruvalia. Because I have certainly never met a Muslim who thought of me or anyone else in that way.

I have met many who think that way.

Frankly, Keru is an outlier. He would get dissed as a blasphemer and accused of being a non-muslim easily in, say, the Deobandi school of the sub-continent.

I have met many who think that way.
I would think the differences between Muslims are just as great as they are between Christians, or maybe even moreso.

You can't point to any particular ruling by any particular religious scholar and then extrapolate to everyone, kind of like you can't judge all Christians by the opinion the pope has on condoms.

As I said, I've met many Muslims in Europe, my mother has been working with women who immigrated from various Muslim countries (mostly Egypt though) for as long as I can remember. I played with their kids, sometimes I went to their celebrations, I even took part in a Ramaddan meal once (although I was like seven or something).

I've come to the conclusion that the environment (economically and culturally) is much more important to a person's view on life and their tolerance than any particular religious denomination. It genuinely worries me that many (particularly in the US, or so is the drift I get on this website) don't seem to share my view. That's by the way also why they seem to think that Muslim immigration into Europe is some sort of a problem.

I've come to the conclusion that the environment (economically and culturally) is much more important to a person's view on life and their tolerance than any particular religious denomination. It genuinely worries me that many (particularly in the US, or so is the drift I get on this website) don't seem to share my view. That's by the way also why they seem to think that Muslim immigration into Europe is some sort of a problem.

Ever consider that religion, by definition, *is* a dominant part of a person's culture and cannot be seperated from it? The notion that religion does not effect a person's view on life and therefore his actions leaves me as bemused as the corresponding claim I've encountered in political discussions that ideology does not make a difference in the way politicians and activists will conduct themselves. Yeah, right! As if actions have nothing to do with thought and belief does not have a formative influence upon thought! Makes me wonder sometimes if these people just live from impulse to impulse without ever thinking. :rolleyes:

As for the Moslem immigration into Europe I would claim pragmatic observation is all it takes to form such a view. It isn't the immigration that's the problem but rather the lack of assimulation. Such assimulaton, in the form of setting aside the ways of the nation from which the immigrants came in favor of the country in which they now dwell, is a necessity or else these immigrants become a threat rather than an asset.

Do the Moslems in these pictures look assimulated to you? o_O

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

Do the Moslems in these pictures look assimulated to you? o_O

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10358364&postcount=594

You aren't a dhimmi yet.

A dhimmi is a non-muslim who lives under islamic rule. But a person can be in the state of dhimmi even while not living under islamic rule.
I never will be.

This whole Denmark thing is hilarious. It's as sad as the Amish. They're trying to resist change. Stop resisting change, man. Go muslims. It's the way Europe is fated.

I have met many who think that way.

Frankly, Keru is an outlier. He would get dissed as a blasphemer and accused of being a non-muslim easily in, say, the Deobandi school of the sub-continent.

You have to admit that they would see him as a blaspheming dhimmi, as long as he paid the tax.

How many of these threads will be spawned?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10358364&postcount=594

Leads to...

Wait a minute... something's not quite right:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060203BritishMuslims-ps.jpg
and
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/behead.jpg

Same picture, different poster. So which one is manipulated? Or are both?

Note this Little Green Footballs link and the words at the bottom of the photo.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19075_Peaceful_Religion_Watch&only

"(Pssst. It?s a Photoshop...)" would seem to indicate they were being sarcastic. The Malkin photo, OTOH, seems to come straight from Reuters since clicking on it brought me here.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060203/ids_photos_wl/r3443127481.jpg/print;_ylt=AmADtrTLezMGo47tO9P9cLeaK8MA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bXNtMmJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-

I would therefore call it genuine.

How many of these threads will be spawned?

As many as people choose to be interested in. :)

Next question? :p

I found the one with people being turned away from heaven because they were out of virgins funny.(sad I know).This paper is just looking to generate sales.They were about to go under.They have really suceeded.

I assume (yes, I know what they say about that :p) by that comment that you know nothing about JyllandsPosten. It's the largest daily newspaper in Denmark, have turned a profit each year for as far back as I can remember (it is owned by a foundation, so there is no pressure from stock owners to increase revenue) and have had a steady readership of 650000 for the past 4-5 years.

thank you. I was wondering about the context of the picture.

was the book an Anti Islam book or did it try to explore the myths/truths about islam?

According to the writer, Kåre Bluitgen, his intention was to write a book for children about Islam and Muhammed. The background is this: Denmark is a very securalized society where religion is something very personal. Most people, even deeply religious Christians, tend not to openly advertise their religion or lack thereof. Mr Bluitgen's two children attend a school were more than 50% of the students are Muslims. In order to help his children to better understand the religion and prophet that play such a large role in the life of their new classmates, he decided to write his book. According to himself he would describe Islam and Muhammed as the Muslims saw it/him and not engage in any sort of criticism or interpretation. Meaning if Muslim faith/tradition said Muhammed was 3 m tall, that's what Bluitgen's book would say too. He wanted pictures to go with the text, since he assumed it would increase the chance of children actually reading the book. When he contacted several artists they all refused citing fear of fanatic Muslims and physical violence (this was only a few months after a professor at Copenhagen University was beat up by 5 youngsters for reading a passage of the Quran as part of a class). It was this self-censorship Jyllands Posten reacted against.

From Mr Bluitgen's description I surmise the book would paint a rather positive picture of Islam. I've never read his book ( A) because I'm not a kid and B) because I'm not made of money :p) so I can't say for certain, neither do I know Bluitgen well enough to say anything about his previous work as a writer.