Boycotting Denmark

[Surly]

For what it's worth... I have sympathy for those Muslims who raise this issue in a mature and civilised way. The pictures were offensive and blasphemous, if only to Islam, and more consideration should have been taken.

However, I lost alot of respect for the Islamic argument when they stormed the EU embassy... and if I want to be petty, the Danish flag features a cross, a sign of my faith, and burning it is both disrepectful and blasphemous to me.

Unfortunately, I of course forget that it is fine to say and do things offensive to me and the faith I follow... it is only blasphemous if it is against other religions...

Yes, I know that last comment was not mature... but quite frankly I don't care. Maybe Islam will learn from this that they are not the only faith in the world, and even if they think they are the only legitimate faith, many billions would disagree with them.

Anyway, you can start flaming me now... I am too cynical about the whole thing to really care anymore.

[Jos Elkink]

West, thanks for posting the article.

I would like to retract the thing I said about the Dutch blocking two Arab channels ... I think I was not full enough aware of what they were broadcasting, and calls for attacking people is probably a bit worse than just freedom of speech, something Sico convinced me of yesterday on the phone ....

[rklenseth]

Thoughts from the Boston Globe:

We are all Danes now

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.

The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children's book about Mohammed. No artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.

Most of the pictures are tame to the point of dullness, especially compared to the biting editorial cartoons that routinely appear in US and European newspapers. A few of them link Mohammed to Islamist terrorism -- one depicts him with a bomb in his turban, while a second shows him in Heaven, pleading with newly arrived suicide terrorists: ''Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!" Others focus on the threat to free speech: In one, a sweating artist sits at his drawing board, nervously sketching Mohammed, while glancing over his shoulder to make sure he's not being watched.

That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed -- riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings -- speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world. Freedom of the press, the marketplace of ideas, the right to skewer sacred cows: Militant Islam knows none of this. And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.

Here and there, some brave Muslim voices have cried out against the book-burners. The Jordanian newspaper Shihan published three of the cartoons. ''Muslims of the world, be reasonable," implored Shihan's editor, Jihad al-Momani, in an editorial. ''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?" But within hours Momani was out of a job, fired by the paper's owners after the Jordanian government threatened legal action.

He wasn't the only editor sacked last week. In Paris, Jacques LeFranc of the daily France Soir was also fired after running the Mohammed cartoons. The paper's owner, an Egyptian Copt named Raymond Lakah, issued a craven and Orwellian statement offering LeFranc's head as a gesture of ''respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual." But the France Soir staff defended their decision to publish the drawings in a stalwart editorial. ''The best way to fight against censorship is to prevent censorship from happening," they wrote. ''A fundamental principle guaranteeing democracy and secular society is under threat. To say nothing is to retreat."

Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.

Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.

That guy is absolutely right. And what I've been saying all along.

[SekoETC]

Yes, it's a very good text but if everyone starts requoting it, this convo is bound to get pretty long.

[Dee]

You still don't get it...

And you never will. You will never know how offensive that was. Seriously.

It's like taking a nude picture of your mother and publishing it in magazines, it's actually a lot more offensive than that.

I can't think of anything that might be offensive to you guys, because, really, nothing is offensive to you.

It's just this thing with Europeans and Americans that makes them just don't care about anything, not defending their beliefs. I think that this is what Jihad is all about.

I really tried to explain, but maybe my english is too poor for you to understand..

It's all about disrespect. And those muslims shouldn't have burnt the embassies, nor shouldn't they have threatened of war or terrorist attacks.

And the Danes shouldn't have published those cartoons. It's just wrong, so, so wrong.

[Stan]

I completely understand the offense you felt.

There is a difference between the Western culture and the Eastern culture though that should be understood by Eastern cultures when it comes to this type of thing.

The West does not limit this type of speech because anything said can be offensive to someone in the world. The Western world allows people to make fools of themselves if they need to in order to keep ideas flowing and imagination unlimited. The Western answer to things like this is simple: "If you don't like it don't read it...or watch it...or buy it..."

It is believed that a Free Market will solve the problem ultimately by having offensive companies go out of business if they cannot find enough people to listen to their words.

I advocate a nation or a people to excersize their right to not buy goods or services from anyone they want to stop buying from. If Muslims want to stop buying from Danes, so be it. If they want to stop buying from America, so be it. That freedom should exist side by side with freedom of expression.

In the case of a heresy I believe you should do whatever it takes to peacefully get an apology, retraction, etc. If the only way to get that retraction is through boycott, you should do it.

I am not personally offended by it because I'm Christian, but if you are you should do what you think is right. But you should also understand that people have the right to try to disuade you.

[formerly known as hf]

I unfortunately missed this thread - my two pence is gonna be coming in quite late...

First off, I think the cartoons are unjustifiable in their views and what they portray, and yes, they are blasphemous.

But, this comes down to a simple freedom of speech issue. People should be free to express the views that they have, as long as everyone else has the right to express their condemnation of those views.

Why should a cartoon like this not be allowed to be printed, but middle eastern parliamentary leaders (Palestinian and Iranian to name but two) can have their calls for the destruction of Israel published?
(Not that I am a supporter of Israel, by any means, but it seemed a pertinent comparison)

Why should the Denmark government apologise for the actions of its press?
That seems to me to be the most twisted thing about this, that people demand government apology. I really hope that the people asking that aren't so ignorant not to realise that there is such a thing as freedom of the press - that media is Europe is not under the control of the national government, by any means.

Why suddenly the burning of Danish flags?
(google for 'cartoon denmark islam' in google images - see if you can find the actual cartoon amongst the myriad burnings of the flag)
Since when did a solitary newspaper speak for the voice of a nation? Again, maybe the media is so stifled in the Middle East they they don't realise that there is such a thing as freedom of the press?

Why boycott Denmark for the misdemeanours of its press?
Again, it boils down to ignorance about the press - people don;t realise that the press has nothing to do with the nation as a whole - people hold those views in the UK, lots of them do, and in most nations (many more disagree however)

What I find more as disgusting as this cartoon is the sudden hatred for a whole nation, simply because of the printing in one of their newspapers - that's equally, if not more, shortsighted and ignorant as the cartoon itself. You cannot condem a whole nation for the opinion of the few

[formerly known as hf]

And the Danes shouldn't have published those cartoons. It's just wrong, so, so wrong.

The Danes didn't - a few of them did.

I'm sorry Dee, but I disagree with the boycott of Denmark. You cannot equate the opinion of a nation of people with the views of a newspaper article.
I understand you want to protest, and do so peacefully, but a boycott is hitting at the wrong target. There are plenty of (more) people in the UK, France, Germany, the rest of Europe and the US that think the same, if not worse. It would hardly make sense to boycott all those nations.

You are right, Dee, however, that it is difficult to think of something that would offend a whole nations, UK, US, etc.
This is due to the fact that not everyone is of the same religion, of the same political persuasion etc. There is so much diversity within a nation, that national identity is often secondary (if recognised at all).
You could publish something that attacks Christianity - but that's been done countless times. We are so used, no matter what opinion we hold, of having someone be disrespectful of that opinion, that we do not react so extremely to it. I am glad to have been brought up in a place where my values are constantly challenged and questioned.

Having you deep beliefs disrespected, challeneged and questioned - and then standing up to that challenge is a good thing, and make your beliefs stronger.
We should not live in a world where we cannot question the beliefs of others. Neither should we live in a world where we cannot speak up against those who are disrespecful to our beliefs.

There is a difficulty with the press - as it brings power to the voice it speaks. If you want your opinion heard, get it in the media.
Thankfully (almost) every other European media source has been even louder in their condemnation of this printing, and have given more space and time to the voices of those that protest against it (unfortuantely they've given the loudest voice to the wackos calling for terrorist actions)

The fate of the newspaper is a difficult question. Especially as (as far as I'm aware) it is a free publication - if it were a paid for publication, the answer is simple - let the readership decide.

Unfortuantely, I would be hypocritical to ask that free publications should be more neutral in the opinion they publish, as free publications have for a long time been the tool of grassroots mobilisation for opinions that I hold dear.

There's no easy answer - but I am sure the answer is not to hate all Danes and to boycott a nation.

[rklenseth]

I unfortunately missed this thread - my two pence is gonna be coming in quite late...

First off, I think the cartoons are unjustifiable in their views and what they portray, and yes, they are blasphemous.

But, this comes down to a simple freedom of speech issue. People should be free to express the views that they have, as long as everyone else has the right to express their condemnation of those views.

Why should a cartoon like this not be allowed to be printed, but middle eastern parliamentary leaders (Palestinian and Iranian to name but two) can have their calls for the destruction of Israel published?
(Not that I am a supporter of Israel, by any means, but it seemed a pertinent comparison)

Why should the Denmark government apologise for the actions of its press?
That seems to me to be the most twisted thing about this, that people demand government apology. I really hope that the people asking that aren't so ignorant not to realise that there is such a thing as freedom of the press - that media is Europe is not under the control of the national government, by any means.

Why suddenly the burning of Danish flags?
(google for 'cartoon denmark islam' in google images - see if you can find the actual cartoon amongst the myriad burnings of the flag)
Since when did a solitary newspaper speak for the voice of a nation? Again, maybe the media is so stifled in the Middle East they they don't realise that there is such a thing as freedom of the press?

Why boycott Denmark for the misdemeanours of its press?
Again, it boils down to ignorance about the press - people don;t realise that the press has nothing to do with the nation as a whole - people hold those views in the UK, lots of them do, and in most nations (many more disagree however)

What I find more as disgusting as this cartoon is the sudden hatred for a whole nation, simply because of the printing in one of their newspapers - that's equally, if not more, shortsighted and ignorant as the cartoon itself. You cannot condem a whole nation for the opinion of the few

That is correct. And that's the main problem I have with the boycott of Denmark is that it could hurt innocent people who have nothing to do with this cartoon and in the end if that be the case will just make things worse. Boycott the paper, write a letter to the editor of the paper, write a letter to other Denmark newspapers and ask people to boycott the other paper, etc...

Don't boycott an entire nation for the offenses of a few.

[KiNG KiLL]

Dee wrote

t's just this thing with Europeans and Americans that makes them just don't care about anything, not defending their beliefs.

Dee...


Now I can see why you want an entire nation (or the whole of Scandinavia) to suffer for one newspaper's publishings... you clearly think we "Europeans" don't care about anything or defend our beliefs, perhaps I missunderstood you, but that is actaully exactly what you said. Re-write it in another form, please.

Isn't the commitment of both Europeans and Americans to this thread proof that we do care and that we do denfd our beliefs, being the freedom to express yourself? You come awfully close to prejudice with your statements.

The difference is that you believe in things spiritually and culturally more than the average people in for example Sweden. But It's disrepcetful of you to assume that many americans and europeans don't share the same kind of spirituality you do, just in a different way. I am sure you are aware of the influence christianity has on america? And the world as whole?

I don't know if this thing being so offensive to you has gone to your head, becasue I honestly didn't believed it when I read your words... how could you possibly say those things? You can't blame anyone for clamping down on you or your beliefs when you so obviously do the same to us...

[Phalynx]

Personally I think this situation is kinda positive....

The cartoons, mortally offensive, but no one died...

Burning flags and empty building(s), but noone died....(least not yet)

We should take note and learn the lessons otherwise Bush's 'crusade' (or some right wing christian alternative) and an Islamic 'jihad' will one day clash with catastrophic consequences.

We are looking at, in their extreme and dogmatic forms, two mutually exclusive and opposite world views, that by their nature seek to eliminate each other. Add the oil and Israel and its a miracle all the sand in the middle east isn't already crimson....

[Cookie]

And you never will. You will never know how offensive that was. Seriously.

Maybe we should release a Muslim version of Monty Python's life of Brian and The Davinci Code. Going by the outrage this has caused we might even get to see, first hand, if Iran has any Nuclear weapons.

[Missy]

This whole thing makes me wonder what happened to objectivity. At least, when someone calls me a prick, I question myself how they might have come to believe that and then work on changing what has made them see me in this light. (Or is objectivity just a western thing? It wouldn't appear it these days. Everyone thinks they're gray but really they're one way or the other. Maybe even myself. I don't know..Anyway..) I wonder how many people who are boycotting/protesting the cartoons are also slapping the wrists of the people the cartoon was meant for? And if you have your own interpretation of the cartoon, is it the correct one? Or are you completely just offended by the fact that a newspaper, who I'll guess but wont go so far to say isn't muslim, so doesn't believe drawing Muhammed is wrong, has drawn muhammed? I can't hardly believe that the entire country went about to offend all muslims. I can hardly believe that even the newspaper had intentions to do that, regardless if they have/haven't apologised, but of course would not rule out the possibility. Small efforts, big changes.

[Is the editor of the paper really responsible for this? Perhaps he's responsible for allowing the piece in the paper, but maybe he was allowing the cartoonist to exercise their freedom of speech and should then, just the cartoonist be burned at the stake? And should he even really be burned at the stake? Maybe he's lost family to a terrorist bombing and is trying to seriously make a point? Maybe he's not. ] Maybe I'm missing who wrote this or who did that or what not.

I can see the point Seko made about a bunch of kids picking on one kid and when the kid fights back say "Look at him making a fuss because we picked," kind of thing. Yet at this current time in the world, people are looking for you to prove you can be the bigger better person. (Or at least a few countries are, even if they are doing so unfairly or not,) Yet there was an embassy burnt. You're in my opinion, not doing yourselves any favors no matter how offensive the cartoon might have been. (No matter how mean the western world is to you.) Maybe it's better to stand up for what you believe in, because then you can die with dignity some day? Or maybe you'll convince a few people who are objective enough to see the light, and know that not everyone boycotting is actually a terrorist that the cartoon was uncalled for. But could it not also be just as honourable a thing to be quiet?


Im expressing my so called freedom of speech here as I write this, but not without knowing that there are/can be consequences for everything or anything I say if it should fall upon ears of people who disagree. Also knowing that even while I may find this harmless that there are some who may not. I live in America, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. No matter how much I write, and no matter how much I desired to write it, there is someone who could have a differing opinon and make it not feel so free anymore.

One persons freedoms end where anothers begin! Where did the newspaper have the right to present this comic, but where do you get the right to protest it?



Anything anyone says, even if in defense of themselves can be dammaging to someone else. Maybe the problem isn't with free speech these days, but more with the fact that everyone has an opinion. (Yes I have one too. Unfortunately.)

In yet another light, why, when people say something can't they take responsibility for what they say? Why doesn't this person responsible for this comic in fact apologise for the fact people were offended? If he did, maybe he would say "I'm sorry that I offended people. I had a point to my comic," and then it wouldn't really be genuine, or would it? And if it was genuine, would the eastern world really forgive him??? Mm, feels to me lately, that the eastern world is just LOOKING for reasons to think we hate them and if they forgave this man responsible for the comic, at a later time this comic would still be thrown up in the comics/comics' country's face(s) I ain't saying that all the muslim population would do that, either. (just so we're clear.) But I've heard in this conversation already, that the backlash for this comic was to boycott the country's goods. Not that it isn't extreme for Americans or UK or anywhere else to do junk like that. ......etc etc etc etc. And not that there aren't people who unfairly give Muslims bad names or label them unfairly as well. Not that some people aren't just "LOOKING" for reasons to think Muslims hate them, too.

And anyway, here I sit where my fellow citizens boycotted French wine because France didn't support us in the way we wanted for a war.

Blah blah blah. Did I even make a point?


Edit: We live in a time where other people can define what you mean, for you, even if it's not what you really meant. Where there's a saying that "Actions speak louder than words."

/end rant

[Schme]

And I disagree with you. When I say we I mean humanity and I believe humanity are endowed with these rights. You do not believe in such things. That is obvious by your statements.

No, you did not mean humanity. You said "Too bad, we live in the free world, blah blah blah."

If there is a free world, than their must be an unfree world.

Like you said, you think Iran, China, and so on, are "unfree".

Don't lie and twist things around, guy. I'm no idiot.

So how are you going to force people do to what you want? Violence is the only way you can force people to truly do anything.

No shi.t.

How do you think the police keep order? Violence. How do you think murderers are stopped? Violence. What do you think you’re army is doing in it’s “War on Terror.”

War has violence, guy.

Heads have to roll. Everywhere. No good person likes it, but any sensible person can see it.

Let me see if I can bring what I’m saying down to a more simplistic level. By that I mean no offense, I’m just trying to get you to understand, as it seems you’ve missed what I’m saying.

When you went to school and acted up, the teacher dealt with you, no? They had to. “You’re disturbing the other children and they cannot learn with you distracting them.” Nobody questioned the teacher, and if they did, they didn’t stick around long. You didn’t put it too a vote. Nothing would have gotten done. A good teacher has to kick some ass. Decisive action that is unpleasant against you to safeguard the rest of the lesson for the majority of the children.

When an American police officer beats down on and hauls off a violent drunk, sure, the drunk won’t like it, but it’s for the good of everyone else.

When an army is fighting a war, the brass says “You guys do this and you guys do that, and you do it right and you do it now.” You do not put it too a vote. “Well, commander, it seems the boys have vetoed your position to hold our ground. Instead, me and Private Sammy are currently drafting a piece of legislation that would stipulate that we pull back immediately to be voted upon in the next assembly of officers, which is to be in several minutes. Furthermore, it seems that the majority of the soldiers would rather not risk conflict with General Dechennes’s voluntary militia, as they feel the hypothetical gains to be had by engagement are heavily outweighed by the gains of heading down to Florida to spend our checks.”

Any army wouldn’t work.

That’s how it’s got to be. You can see it every day.

An army cannot work like that. Someone who teaches cannot work like that. A business cannot work like that. A nation cannot work like that.

And you’re nation does not in fact work that way. That’s why it still exists. It’s cosmetic vote run exterior is all that you’re “democracy” is. It is kept from collapsing in on itself by various networks that cannot be touched by the precious democratic leadership, just as my own country is. They are the dictators en lieu of a central and united national leadership. And the “checks and balances” make certain that you’re “leaders” cannot touch them, and that they are all but free to run rampant and do whatever they feel like doing, hiring violent transients to enforce the law of the land, and hiring thieves and shameless opportunists to run the government.

Your national leadership is nothing more than placeholders, status seekers and the puppets of lobbyists.

Don’t tell me I’m lying, guy. Ever been to Florida? Ever been beaten up by a cop because he was bored?

Nobody can ever agree on anything. For anything to work, whatever that thing may be, people must be made to agree.

And it’s not only violence I’m talking about.

Let me give you an example. You have a monetary system in America (as do we and most of the world) based on exchanging tender that represents wealth.

Some people may disagree with this system, may think that it is not right.

But what could they possibly do about it?

I don't believe that entirely. There are good people in power but not many. That is why I support those that I believe are supporting what I believe is right.

True. There aren’t many good people in power. Most of the people in power are there either because they like it or are using it for their own ends. People seek power for themselves. Democracy facilitates this.

Would you say the current leaders of your country are concerned with the welfare of the people? Anything they do to help anybody is always just something to keep themselves from sinking, whether those people are the common American or their rich influential friends.

I say to he.ll with that.

So we are to simply be silent because what we might say might happen to offend someone? If we did that then we might at well as put the chains on now and begin praising some leader as the powerful God so that we don't offend them.

No. You’re to shut up when you’re being on idiot, simple as that.

Again, if a child is saying “Fuc.k! Fuck! Fuck!” at the top of his lungs in a school class just to cause disarray, he will be silenced, because that’s the only sensible thing to do.

The same goes for here. This idiocy is inciting people to violence, and not just Muslims. It’s gearing up the white supremists too, and putting people to white supremacy. Some bad shi.t is going to go down because of it.


When someone starts sending death threats to a person, nobody shouts freedom of speech. They lock them up.

It’s pretty easy concept to get. Children can understand it.

Aren't having all these seperate religions offensive to all these religions?

No. If you’re going to get all preachy on me, read the scripture first. If you believe that, you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

We equate Nazisms with this because that is the best example that we have in our era that everyone can understand. If I brought up Rome not many here could relate as much as they would with Nazi Germany.

You equate Nazism with this because the Nazi’s were your enemies. By calling someone a Nazi, you call them an enemy. This is done because it is simple.

Well guess what? The world is not a simple place. If you want to get it, you’ve got to think, and anybody can do it. It’s just that most people are to stubborn and lazy, and prefer simple black and white answers to everything.

You talk of you’re fear of blind ideology and adherence to things. You do exactly that. You’re belief in the holiness of American style vote systems is blind and beyond reason. You’re so indoctrinated that you cannot think clearly, cannot fathom that it is at all in any way flawed. That’s worse than what happened under Nazism. At least when things started to crumble, the German people saw the light. Not so with you.

America’s governance system is Nazism succeeded.

Don’t use that phrase alone. There is no wisdom in short one liners. You have to have the whole picture. If I’d just said that and nothing else, it wouldn’t mean anything.

Any act against people's freedom is a wrongful act in my eyes. Doesn't matter what type of government it is or claims to be.

See what I mean?

You’re American brand Freedom is good to you no matter how much harm comes of it. To criticize good old wholesome American freedom is not be done. Out of the question. You’re supreme unquestioned truth. I doubt that’s what was in mind when people we’re talking about how you should anelise everything to avoid tyranny.

Actually, I'm from the Catholic side.

Are you just saying that for our information, or do you mean something by it? I’m not trying to be mean and say that to say that was pointless. I’m glad to know. I just want to make sure I’m not missing out on anything you might have been trying to convey.

It depends on how that force is used.

That’s what I was saying. I’m glad you are being reasonable about this here at least, and seeing that you’re former claim that force equated evil.

If force is used to keep people free, or protect innocent people then force it right.

It should not be used to keep people free do to bad things to innocent people. Again, I say you should re-evaluate your values. Not because I said so. I’m nobody. Do it for your people for your people.

And if God does it then I believe God is wrong. And I don't agree with everything God does especially in the Old Testament.

If God cared and was listening to you, he’d never have gotten anything done.

It’s obvious he doesn’t care for your way of thinking, and I’m glad of it.

In your opinion.

No? Really? I never would have guessed.

Actually, from what you’ve said, it looks to me like that is your opinion too. Look at what you’re talking about and at what you said.

That is a literal definition yes but I am referring to slavery methaphorically.

No, you are trying to associate my beliefs with support for slavery and then pretending that that is not what you are doing.

Don’t twist things around and pretend you’re being metaphorical. Slavery means a certain thing, and when you use that word, it is understood to mean it’s meaning, no matter what you may be pretending you mean by it.

And if you think I am giving your ideas appalling examples that must be telling you something that I believe what you would do is appalling.

It’s telling me you’re rather ignorant. Either that or stubborn.

Out of curiosity, what is it that I would do?



And I do not believe in “forcing patriotism”, as you say. I believe is forcing morality, good and reason.

Patriotism is when someone is willing to make sacrifices for their country. You’re very right. Being forced to isn’t patriotic. But that really doesn’t matter. Patriotism and sense are two different things.

Hmmmm.....that seems rather low and I thought I was keeping it quite civil and not going into name calling.

That isn’t name calling. That’s what I believe. Hypocrite isn’t a name. Coward isn’t a name. I am just saying what I believe.

You’re not going to stoop to “my level”? You already have. All I’m saying is what I believe to be true. So are you. What you’ve said is no different.

Got a problem with my using American style freedom of speech? I’d have to say, what I’m touting is rather mild in comparison to some of the people you are defending. Not to mention infinitely more sensical.

Anyways, I believe Nazism is wrong.

I think we’ve established that everyone has.

[quote=”rklenseth”]
Now let me make something clear here; I would fight to the bitter end to defend their rights but I would also fight to the bitter end against their beliefs…….[/quote]

Allow me to explain why I see you to be a hypocrite.

You say that you believe that national leaders should be chosen by vote, and that it is a universal right for people to be able to do this.

If the people are the absolute moral authority, than if the people want a National Socialist government, than under what you claim you believe, that would be the supreme moral authority, because they’d have gotten the mandate of the supreme moral authority, the people.

You then say you would fight against the will of the people in the name of moral righteousness. That is backward thinking. Hypocrisy.

Mafia Salad and Schme

"hope the west now understands something about the arabs
/SCUBA

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.

Don’t go all politician on me.

When’s the last time the policy of “Deny,deny,deny” the obviously true made anybody look good? Don’t start that man, for your own sake.

Perhaps the reason you do not recognize yourself is because you are achieving enlightenment and insight as to who you are. Or perhaps you are in denial.

Ok, I know, what is your point? That there is no rasism but religionism againt muslims?

I think that that is rather obvious.

Also, religionism is not a word. I thought I might as well tell you while I’m awake.




You say you’re some sort of scholar. Well you aren’t much of one. I tell you again, go fourth and learn, my friend.

You’re in a shell. You tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about while you remain in ignorance.

Listen here.

Do you truly think that the majority of these poor men are well educated? If they we’re well educated, they’d have good jobs, live in nice homes and not be upset at their situation.

Further, you haven’t a clue what Islamism is about. Islamism is about destroying all other religions and bringing about the way of life stipulated by the holy scriptures.

Israel is only an example. Italy is just as important to Islamism ideology wise.

Also, Islamism is not about going back in time. That is bull. As a great author once said “There are no Muslims walking the streets of Jakarta muttering about the defeats brought by Genghis Khan over a thousand years ago.”.
The only educated Islamists are exploitationists, taking advantage of the lack of education and the dismal situation faced by the people they appeal to, just as black and native American nationalists did and do over here. They are taking advantage of the situation to further their own power and to fulfill their own delusions of what is right.



You say “Most terrorists are Muslims.” That is said out of ignorance. What you see is skewed by lies and being uneducated.

Now, to say that most of the people the United States is after and most of the people that they call terrorists are Muslims. That is true. But to say most terrorists are Muslims is disgusting and ignorant. Educate yourself.




I believe you when you say Sweden is not have so much problem like that. Sweden is have immigration proceedings that cost a great deal of money. Only rich people can get in. It’s not that uncommon.


But now you see what I’m saying here. You do not have these problem in your country, so do not be saying they do not exist. Take it from someone who knows. I know what’s up. Trust me.

If you’re not willing to do that, there’s nothing I can do for you.



If you’re a social worker dealing with such problems, you should see what I mean, then.



[quote=”Scuba”]
Have you ever been to these kind of areas? You talk as if you knew all about it. I think not![/quote]

Don’t tell me where and where I have not been. I know what’s up, guy. You were a social worker. At night you went home to your family in a place away from problems and crime. And a social worker. That pays more than minimum wage, my friend.

The people who live it can’t do that. That is there home. They live that every day and every minute of their life.

Perhaps it is hard to understand for you, as you’ve never lived in such a way. But don’t tell me how my life is.

[quote=”Scuba”]
You have totally missunderstod me.
[/quote]

I’m afraid that was rather misleading. By “you” I was meaning white non Muslim west Europe.

These here cartoons are being published in mainstream media newspapers read by the white non Muslim majorities.



[quote=”Scuba”]
Most not living tight together…
[/quote]

This is not true. Most Muslims in Western Europe live in ghettos. I just finished saying that. If you don’t believe me, see for yourself.

And Muslims are systematically oppressed by the supposed secular governments. For example, in France, Holland and Belgium, where women are told they cannot legally dress in the way that they feel is stipulated by scripture, and what they feel is modest, it’s the equivalent of telling white non muslim women that they must walk around in thongs in public or be punished for covering up to a dangerous degree.




As for all that things about how you do not mean to be saying that, well, see, I am glad you do not mean to be saying that. But that is what is being said. And you can see how it angers people, especially disillusioned young men with no direction in life and very little to lose.

I’m glad I was able to make a proper comparison to things that are important to you and things that are important to most Muslims of western Europe. It is very much make me glad that you understand. You see what I mean, of course. I don’t know you, or how old or young you are, but I can imagine that if I came up to you and your friends when you were a young men in your local hangout and told you that Swede.s were fucks, you likely be at the very least extremely tempted to beat me sensless.

Now imagine how you would feel if I wrote this in a national Swedish newspaper, and people said “Yes, yes, he’s got a point there, you know.” And reprinted it in other newspapers, and then told you that I should be allowed to say such things because of free speech, and if you tried to teach me a lesson the police would protect me. Very upsetting.

As for not offending anyone, I do not believe people should go very far out of there way not to be offensive. You cannot please everyone.

But one should be polite and reasonable.

[quote=”Scuba”]
This I agree!
[/quote]

Join the ranks of the enlightened, my friend!

A bit of effort and understand can save a great deal of lives.


I do hope I have not to badly insulted you. I had meant to too some degree, and I admit I am a very rude and impolite person, but hopefully you’re a forgiving person, for my sake. If not, I suppose it doesn’t matter. But I really don’t mean to be alienating people. In fact, I’m very glad we is got to be talking about his. Most of my friends are sick of what I have to say. Either that or are fuckin.g out of it. Anyhow.

However, I lost alot of respect for the Islamic argument when they stormed the....

There is no "Islamic argument" any more than there is a Christian argument.

Maybe Islam will learn from this that they are not the only faith in the world, and even if they think they are the only legitimate faith...

Because Islam is a tottaly united and centralized thing. Just like Christianity. Yeah.

Go join the Klan.

Anyway, you can start flaming me now... I am too cynical about the whole thing to really care anymore.

Nobody gives a damn.




It doesn’t really look to me like anyone else is even going to make the effort to understand. People are too lazy, stubborn, and have too much pride.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

A Dieux l’humanité.

[Schme]

While I'm up, the language filter's a real bi.tch too.