Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake up and smell freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board, perverting a religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian fantasies. Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...but when they get a taste they come unglued. Good for the Danes. *champagne cork goes pop*
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1139505122.702291.134870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> JT wrote:>> Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake up and smell>> freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board, perverting >> a>> religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian fantasies.>> Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...but when they get a taste they >> come>> unglued. Good for the Danes.>> *champagne cork goes pop*>
What about the Danes doing some anti-Semitic cartoons?>
Nah...Iran has had that covered for years. Why be derivative?
Paul Ilechko 9 February 2006 23:27:09 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:
It's the Danes that claim to revel in free expression, not the> Iranians. If the poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need> to wake up and smell the freedom, they have to have some> freedom to smell. The Danes can't say, "Hey, we slag> everybody" unless they run down the whole list -- Jews,> Gypsies, Africans, Chinese, women, homosexuals, anyone> with an identifiable religion, the handicapped, and so on. I> think they've got their work cut out for them.>
I haven't noticed any of the other groups that you list issuing fatwahs recently ... freedom of expression is not about the right to insult anyone, it's about the right to not be afraid to insult someone.
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1139515806.710323.228530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> JT wrote:>> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:1139505122.702291.134870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> > JT wrote:>> >> Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake up and smell>> >> freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board, >> >> perverting>> >> a>> >> religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian fantasies.>> >> Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...but when they get a taste they>> >> come>> >> unglued. Good for the Danes.>> >> *champagne cork goes pop*>> >
What about the Danes doing some anti-Semitic cartoons?>> >
Nah...Iran has had that covered for years. Why be derivative?>
It's the Danes that claim to revel in free expression, not the> Iranians. If the poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need> to wake up and smell the freedom, they have to have some> freedom to smell. The Danes can't say, "Hey, we slag> everybody" unless they run down the whole list -- Jews,> Gypsies, Africans, Chinese, women, homosexuals, anyone> with an identifiable religion, the handicapped, and so on. I> think they've got their work cut out for them.>
Who is to say they haven't lampooned all those groups? Not like we read the Danish rags. If so, those groups were not incited to pitch a fit. In America we have "South Park" which has literally skewered EVERY group you mentioned and nothing is on fire. Don't hear about it. Why? A certain cultural intelligence that allows opinions to co-exist. This is the best thing that could of happened to the Arab world. Their states are actually conducting the "2 minute hate" from Orwell's "1984". (If you never read it....do. It's awesome) Super spooky, inhuman stuff. Diverting misery and hate is a REALLY old tactic of self-preservation for the totalitarian state.
Dirk Helder 10 February 2006 00:17:03 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:12:02 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
JT wrote:>> Those poor crazy bastards in the Middle East need to wake up and smell>> freedom. They're just pawns on some totalitarians chess board,>> perverting a religion for the sake of their own sick, Orwellian>> fantasies. Make fun of the holocaust, burn flags...but when they get a>> taste they come unglued. Good for the Danes.>> *champagne cork goes pop*>
What about the Danes doing some anti-Semitic cartoons?
That would be interesting. Maybe a Julius Streicher retrospective: Der Stuermer Remembered
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 00:27:52 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:
You are not likely to see many _fatwas_ issued by Jews,> homosexuals, and so on because a _fatwa_ is a legal opinion> or decree issued by a Muslim cleric of a certain rank having> to do with religious law.
I would think that most people would realize I was clearly using the term in a generic sense.
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 00:29:15 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:
I am somewhat mystified by your second, or first-and-a-half> sentence. Freedom of expression is a political right which> applies to what people do, not what they feel. If you are a> timorous kind, or apply certain moral or religious standards> to your behavior, no power on earth can free you from being> afraid to insult other people. However, a liberal state will> generally not punish you for insulting others as long as you> do not violate copyright, patents, privacy, public order,> national security, etc. etc. etc. It has been said that Danes> have the right to insult anyone, hence I suggest they do so,> since the best defense of a right lies in its frequent and> resolute exercise. This is especially the case if the Danes> are going to pat themselves on the back about it as they> seem to be doing.>
They are patting themselves on the back for not being intimidated, not for insulting people.
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 01:44:49 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:> Paul Ilechko wrote:>
*Anarcissie* wrote:>>
I am somewhat mystified by your second, or first-and-a-half>>>sentence. Freedom of expression is a political right which>>>applies to what people do, not what they feel. If you are a>>>timorous kind, or apply certain moral or religious standards>>>to your behavior, no power on earth can free you from being>>>afraid to insult other people. However, a liberal state will>>>generally not punish you for insulting others as long as you>>>do not violate copyright, patents, privacy, public order,>>>national security, etc. etc. etc. It has been said that Danes>>>have the right to insult anyone, hence I suggest they do so,>>>since the best defense of a right lies in its frequent and>>>resolute exercise. This is especially the case if the Danes>>>are going to pat themselves on the back about it as they>>>seem to be doing.>>>
They are patting themselves on the back for not being intimidated, not>>for insulting people.>
For not being intimidated about what?>
Are you really this thick or is it a game you are playing?
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 01:46:32 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,> do not let such things go unremarked.
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
--"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote in message news:451v27F4ktdsU2@individual.net...> *Anarcissie* wrote:>
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>> do not let such things go unremarked.>
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.>
EXACTLY Paul. They should direct anger to those who profanely put the bomb in Mohammad's turban and not to those who point it out with a pencil.
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>> do not let such things go unremarked.
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not anti-Muslim?
"Alan Hope" <not.alan.hope@mail.com> wrote in message news:g5knu1pvkiqf062bb1m2hovgi7mr6kr6n5@4ax.com...> Paul Ilechko goes:>
*Anarcissie* wrote:>
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>>> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>>> do not let such things go unremarked.>
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.>
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not> anti-Muslim?>
-- > AH>
Cuz not all Muslims kill people in the name of God? Is hating the KKK anti-Christian?
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 02:46:33 [ permanent link ]
Alan Hope wrote:> Paul Ilechko goes:>
*Anarcissie* wrote:>
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>>>anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>>>do not let such things go unremarked. >
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.>
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not> anti-Muslim? >
It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you must therefore hate ?
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's turban, not the cartoonists. Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
"Alan Hope" <not.alan.hope@mail.com> wrote in message >news:g5knu1pvkiqf062bb1m2hovgi7mr6kr6n5@4ax.com...>> Paul Ilechko goes:>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>>>> anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>>>> do not let such things go unremarked.
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not>> anti-Muslim?
Cuz not all Muslims kill people in the name of God?
You what? That's precisely why it is anti-Muslim.
Is hating the KKK >anti-Christian?
What are you on about? Is the KKK the symbol par excellence of Christianity? Oh no wait, that would be Jesus.
Alan Hope wrote:>> Paul Ilechko goes:>>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>>>>anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>>>>do not let such things go unremarked.
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not>> anti-Muslim?
It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you >must therefore hate ?
It wasn't a cartoon, and there's an agenda in the use of that word in English-speaking media. It was a caricature. The cartoonists were asked to portray Mohammad "as they saw him" and one of them portrayed him as a bomber.
That's a pretty obvious smear, conflating Islam and terrorism, so that the caricature is offensive even if you leave blasphemy out of the equation.
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's >turban, not the cartoonists.
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 03:31:09 [ permanent link ]
*Anarcissie* wrote:> Paul Ilechko wrote:>
*Anarcissie* wrote:
For not being intimidated about what?>>>
Are you really this thick or is it a game you are playing?>
Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves> on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,> specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are> intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't> know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse> more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we> hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's> just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the> commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.>
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 03:34:40 [ permanent link ]
Alan Hope wrote:
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's >>turban, not the cartoonists. >
Now you're doing it.
What?>
Muhammad here is merely a symbol.>
You're not making sense.
Mohammed is a symbol of Islam. Putting the bomb on his turban is a symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent minority. Much in the way that Christianity in the USA has been usurped by a particularly obnoxious and vocal minority. Fortunately, they don't do all that much bombing so far.
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's >>>turban, not the cartoonists.
Now you're doing it.
What?
Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
Muhammad here is merely a symbol.
You're not making sense.
Mohammed is a symbol of Islam.
Not to Muslims.
Putting the bomb on his turban is a >symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent >minority.
Well, it hasn't been. That's a ludicrous claim.
Much in the way that Christianity in the USA has been usurped >by a particularly obnoxious and vocal minority.
Ask a Christian of your acquaintance about that claim.
Fortunately, they don't >do all that much bombing so far.
Tell that to the Muslims in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan (oops!)
Paul Ilechko 10 February 2006 03:54:33 [ permanent link ]
Alan Hope wrote:
Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3> billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be> terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists> put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
I very specifically said "jihadist", not "terrorist".
Mohammed is a symbol of Islam. >
Not to Muslims.
Moslems were not the audience for the Danish newspaper.
Putting the bomb on his turban is a >>symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent >>minority. >
Guilt by association. Conflating Islam with terrorism. There are 1.3>> billion Muslims in the world. A tiny tiny percentage will be>> terrorists. There are simply no grounds for claiming "the jihadists>> put the bomb in Mohammad's turban".
I very specifically said "jihadist", not "terrorist".
Is there some fine distinction you want me to be aware of?
Mohammed is a symbol of Islam.
Not to Muslims.
Moslems were not the audience for the Danish newspaper.
What makes you think that? There are Muslims in Denmark.
Putting the bomb on his turban is a >>>symbolic represtation of how Islam has been usurped by a violent >>>minority.
Well, it hasn't been. That's a ludicrous claim.
From a public relations perspective, it has.
Only as far as you're concerned. I've noticed no such usurpation.
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1139531644.322990.186830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Paul Ilechko wrote:>> Alan Hope wrote:>> > Paul Ilechko goes:>> >
*Anarcissie* wrote:>> >
I assume that the Danish newspapers have not been printing>> >>>anti-Semitic propaganda because many Jews, wisely in my opinion,>> >>>do not let such things go unremarked.>> >
This might be relevant if the cartoons had been anti-Moslem.>> >
One of them represents Mohammad as a terrorist. How is that not>> > anti-Muslim?>> >
It was a cartoon. Are you saying that everything you make fun of, you>> must therefore hate ?>>
As JT points out, it is the jihadists who put the bomb in Mohammad's>> turban, not the cartoonists. Muhammad here is merely a symbol.>
Right -- so if someone in Israel doesn't something> the Danish newspapers don't think is very nice, they'll> draw a picture of a guy with an enormous hooked nose,> blubbery lips, a top hat, a scraggly beard, a shabby> suit with a pot belly under it, Stars of David all over it,> and dollar bills falling out of the pockets, feeling up> little blonde girls and carrying an atomic bomb in his> back pocket. Have I hit all the bases? Anyway, if> anyone complains, they'll say, Oh, that's not _Jews_,> that's So and so, it's merely a symbol!>
I'm certainly not arguing that the Danish newspapers> shouldn't be free to do this. What I don't understand> is why people find the publication of racist garbage> _admirable_.>
Who says it's admirable? It should spark a dialogue not a tantrum. Islam is embroiled in a PR nightmare (as was pointed out) so they should solve their problems on a grass-roots level and stop their fringe from perverting their religion. Why is it everyone else's fault?
Priests in America were molesting boys. European papers pointed that out . Did Catholics burn down their embassies? No...they hunted down and disrobed the priests and overhauled the inner workings of the church. Muslims are outraged at the wrong people. Maybe they don't want to clean house because they want the terrorists to exist.
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote in message news:45256dF4dmnlU2@individual.net...> *Anarcissie* wrote:>> Paul Ilechko wrote:>>
*Anarcissie* wrote:>
For not being intimidated about what?>>>>
Are you really this thick or is it a game you are playing?>>
Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves>> on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,>> specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are>> intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't>> know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse>> more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we>> hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's>> just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the>> commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.>>
You don't have a clue, do you?>
It's all about hating Jews. They hate Jews so much they can't think straight. Look at that post....why don't you make fun of the Jews? What about the Jews? sheesh. It must suck to be so consumed with irrational hate. Ever thought about leaving the Jews out of this? Or better yet...in peace? Of course not.
Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves>>>on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,>>>specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are>>>intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't>>>know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse>>>more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we>>>hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's>>>just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the>>>commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
granted... and what does the burning and shooting amount to?... a version of "hot air and sanctimony" of a sort, i suppose... but somehow different, no?>>
You don't have a clue, do you?>
You will probably be happiest thinking so.>
let's say the danes did decide to go after "jews" in their quest for freedom of speech... what kind of cartoons might they come up with that are as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of their jewishness as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the name of the prophet? jewish mom pressures son to succeed in a profession? jahweh parts the red sea and settlers rush in, subsequently refusing to go? (already we're leaving jewishness per se and talking israeli or zionist "politics")...
a better target in the european context would be bush and co. and xtianity... bush landing on the deck of a carrier in a plane marked with the cross? god whispering in dubya's ear something to the effect of "get that saddam!" wearing a business suit and sporting a ________________ corporate logo on the pocket? i'm sure the archbishop of canterbury would start a crusade over that one...
You forgot Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Iran, and a few> other places. Not counting the assassination by rocket> in Yemen, and the fully supported acts of allies such> as Israel and Britain.
and you feel quite confident that danish political cartoonists have never satirized this american behaviour? why? cuz no american whackjobs have hit the streets burning copies of hamlet and pointedly refusing to eat danishes?
They don't have a leg to stand on when it comes >>to being offensive>
Two wrongs don't make a right.
right... generally constitutions and such do... what do you suggest, putting "except for those who might execrate muslim jihadists" as a rider to a constitutional guarantee of free speech?
So what do "the Muslims" do? There are about one billion of> them. I really doubt that they all do or think one thing. What> is wrong with a racist characterization of Muslims is exactly> what is wrong with a racist characterization of Jews. I am> surprised I have to explain this.
One also shouldn't have to explain the nature of a caricature, which is, by definition, unjust. I can't remember anyone here saying that it was a great idea to commission a bunch of anti-Islam drawings. It just seems rather bizarre to defend yourself against the accusation that you're a bomb-thrower by throwing bombs.
*Anarcissie* wrote:> >>>>For not being intimidated about what?
Paul Ilechko wrote:> >>>Are you really this thick or is it a game you are playing?
*Anarcissie* wrote:> >> Okay, I'll answer, since you're shy. They are patting themselves> >> on the back for not being intimidated about insulting people,> >> specifically Muslims. However, we don't know if they are> >> intimidated about insulting Jews, Africans, and so on. We won't> >> know unless they print more cartoons parceling out the abuse> >> more or less equally. They may say, "We're not prejudiced, we> >> hate everybody," but that title has to be _earned_. Otherwise it's> >> just hot air and sanctimony, which is what most of the> >> commentary on this foofarrah amounts to.
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net>: > > You don't have a clue, do you?
"JT" <noreplies@pleez.net>:> It's all about hating Jews. They hate Jews so much they can't think > straight. Look at that post....why don't you make fun of the Jews? What > about the Jews? sheesh. It must suck to be so consumed with irrational hate. > Ever thought about leaving the Jews out of this? Or better yet...in peace? > Of course not.
It seems like a relevant question to me. I suspect that the Danish newspaper would _not_ published racist caricatures of Jews, although I could be wrong. So what's the difference?
Bruce McGuffin 10 February 2006 21:46:58 [ permanent link ]
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> writes:
there is this interesting difference, and when I point it out, there> is a good deal of waving and dancing, which is amusing in> its sad way, but no engagement of the issue so far that I> have seen. Oh, someone did say that Jews were nicer than> Muslims -- they aspired to be dentists instead of suicide> bombers -- but that didn't seem to go anywhere.
That didn't go anywhere because as soon as it came up you started doing the "I'm too stupid to argue with" act, responding to perfectly reasonable statements with irrelevencies and non-sequetors.
The relative danger of insulting Muslims and others is the nub of the issue. If I published a cartoon today painting right wing Jewish groups as a bunch of violent idiots (which is what the most egregious of the Danish cartoons did), I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to go into hiding for my own safety. Yet at least one news account claimed some of the Danish cartoonists were in hiding. Don't forget the original impetous for these cartoons was the difficulty of finding an illustrator for a childrens book on Mohamid, because artists were afraid of reprisals from Muslem fundamentalists if they drew pictures of him.
And to argue that laws allowing free speech means people have free speech is to ignore a century of history. It doesn't matter what the law says, if extra-judicial punishment squads exist to prevent free speech.
So what do "the Muslims" do? There are about one billion of>>>them. I really doubt that they all do or think one thing. What>>>is wrong with a racist characterization of Muslims is exactly>>>what is wrong with a racist characterization of Jews. I am>>>surprised I have to explain this.>>
One also shouldn't have to explain the nature of a caricature, which is,>>by definition, unjust. I can't remember anyone here saying that it was a>>great idea to commission a bunch of anti-Islam drawings. It just seems>>rather bizarre to defend yourself against the accusation that you're a>>bomb-thrower by throwing bombs.>
Well, it is. I haven't been considering Muslim strategies here.> It is the smug self-congratulation and sanctimony of Western> man that piques my interest, especially when it is trotted out> in support of racist offal.
Okay, so point me to a contribution to these threads where some western man congratulates himself in support of racist offal, and we can talk.
All I know about the Muslim side> of this ugly nonsense is what is reported in the Western media,> reports which I assume with reason to be somewhat less than> absolutely veracious. But anyway, is that what all the Muslims> do, throw bombs? Goodness, it must be noisy in, uh, where-> ever they live.
I happily assume that most of them react to the drawing like reasonable people. It seems that what we are discussing are, in fact, the news. It can't be the thing-in-itself, right?
Oh and one last fact: There is evidence that some of the cartoons that were>exhibited in Egypt were NOT from Jyllans Posten. But you knew that.
Yes, I knew that. There's quite clearly been manipulation of the issue by the two Danish imams, which explains the long delay between publication (and the low-key local reaction) and the worldwide riots we're seeing now.
However there's no doubt in my mind that at least two of the caricatures that were published by Jyllands Posten were on the face of it offensive to Muslims as a whole -- and I'm ignoring the debatable issue of depiction of the Prophet. The drawings I'll refer to as Turban and Dagger (you'll know which ones they are) have really no justification at all. Those who have reflexively republished the caricatures are insisting on the issue of free speech for a not very good reason. I'm as virulent a proponent of free speech as anyone, but to my mind the principle is not there for stupid pointless expressions like that. Those drawings are offensive merely for the sake of offence. The position seems to be: we do it because we can, so suck it up, Abdul.
I haven't been considering Muslim strategies here. It is the smug> self-congratulation and sanctimony of Western man that piques my> interest, especially when it is trotted out in support of racist> offal.
Smug self-congratulation is necessary in times of war. Some have criticized the European defense on strategic grounds: that the Europeans are choosing the wrong battle, fighting over some stupid cartoons when more important battles need to be fought. But I see it as mobilization, the first stage in the war. The purpose of the cartoons and of their defense by the West is not to engage the enemy, but to mobilize the troops. I support the Western reaction, silly and sanctimonious as it is, on those grounds.
Okay, so point me to a contribution to these threads where some> western man congratulates himself in support of racist offal, and we> can talk.
There's been lots of sanctimonious support in the various media for the publication of the cartoons. No, I don't have a URL, but check out the usual suspects.
I happily assume that most of them react to the drawing like> reasonable people.
Most of them probably don't, for your definition of "reasonable". Any data on how many Muslims support or sympathize with the demonstrators? How many think the European governments should outlaw such blasphemy against Islam?
It seems that what we are discussing are, in fact, the news. It> can't be the thing-in-itself, right?
Echoes of the old liberal "extremists on both sides" spiel. Say it ain't so, Silke.
let's say the danes did decide to go after "jews" in their quest for> freedom of speech... what kind of cartoons might they come up with> that are as relevant to what jews tend to do in the name of their> jewishness as the cartoons are to what muslims tend to do in the> name of the prophet? jewish mom pressures son to succeed in a> profession? jahweh parts the red sea and settlers rush in,> subsequently refusing to go? (already we're leaving jewishness per> se and talking israeli or zionist "politics")...
How about: Jewish pressure groups suppress media criticism of Jews? I'm sure somebody could come up with some cartoons about that.
There's been lots of sanctimonious support in the various media> > for the publication of the cartoons. No, I don't have a URL, but> > check out the usual suspects.>
Sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law is more or less okay with me,> if we count sanctimonies.
I meant support for actually publishing them, not for the right to publish them.
The hypocrisy is in -- to take an example at random -- German "sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law", specifically the law that censors Holocaust Denial. It's the (secular) Christians who are the hypocrites, not the Muslims. The Muslims don't pretend to be liberal, the Christians do.
Most of them probably don't, for your definition of "reasonable".> > Any data on how many Muslims support or sympathize with the> > demonstrators? How many think the European governments should> > outlaw such blasphemy against Islam?>
As if we needed more reasons against majority rule.
Depends who We is. If We is France or Israel, yeah, one-man-one-vote is a domestic problem that's only going to get a lot worse, demographically. But if We is the US, what's the big problem with Muslim democracy? Just listen to peaceniks like Pat Buchanan: get out of the Middle East, be respectful of Islam without undermining friendly secular dictatorships, so that in the unfortunate event of democratic rule in the Middle East, you can just sit back and let all the democratic-terrorist Muslims bomb the Europeans and the Israelis instead of Americans.
It's America First, circa 1940. I think it would work. America, unlike Western Europe and Israel, is blessed with the option of sitting out the war.
The hypocrisy is in -- to take an example at random -- German> > "sanctimony in the cause of rule-of-law", specifically the law> > that censors Holocaust Denial. It's the (secular) Christians who> > are the hypocrites, not the Muslims. The Muslims don't pretend to> > be liberal, the Christians do.>
Besides the point, since the cartoons weren't published in an> Islamic country.
They were published in countries with lots of Muslims. Way too many Muslims, in fact. Well, except for Jordan.
Do "the Muslims" commonly pretend to (have the right to) control the> Western press?
From what I see, lots of Muslims in Europe are demanding that their governments censor stuff like this.
And what's hypocritical about adhering to specific laws passed> through the usual channels? Germany, to stick with your example,> doesn't have the quasi-religious rhetoric re free speech the US has;> not that there isn't any country that doesn't restrict some forms of> speech. The question is whether the laws protect this specific form> of speech in Europe, and it seems that it does. "The law is the law"> isn't hypocrisy, it's shorthand of a well-established philosophical> principle.
I thought the German defense was based on the liberal idea of a free press (no government control) -- implying that was a good thing -- and not on "Well, it's the law, we can't stop them, our hands are tied". I admit I could be wrong though, I don't remember the exact statement.
Either way, it's hypocritical. The law in Germany says that if you publish certain factual assertions about mid-20th-century history, you go to jail. Blaspheming the Prophet could certainly be added to the list of legally verboten topics; where there's a will -- and Will is a German specialty -- there's a way. Not in time for the Danish cartoons, but in time to prevent the next blasphemy against Islam. Even if you are right and Germans did plead "rule of law", that doesn't cut it as an excuse when used by lawmakers.
I think the Jewish response to anti-semitic media has been far> smarter than you acknowledge.
Oh, I think it's been extremely smart! Hypocritical and self-deceived, but very, very smart.
The "reaction to blasphemy" is, I think, pure crock. Do you believe> it?
Yeah, I believe it, that most of the demonstrators were reacting primarily against the blasphemy, given a historical background of European offenses against Islam. It's also obvious that the people were being manipulated. I don't know the strategy of the people pulling the strings.
To truly understand a war however it is necessary to have some> understanding of both sides, and while I think I have some grasp of> the Western side, I find the Muslim side fairly mysterious. I lack> the confidence so many of you so vigorously exhibit.
Well, confidence is an important rhetorical tool. I don't pretend to understand Muslims, though I don't see anything mysterious about them either. On the question of motivations, I usually take people at their word unless there's some specific reason not to. The fact is that Muslims (like most people) seem pretty forthcoming about what pisses them off, which would make life a lot easier for the USA, if its leaders were willing to listen.
Bruce McGuffin <mcguffin@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>
No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.>
If I understand correctly, there are many paintings of the prophet in> the muslem world, among the shi'ites and in Turkey, for example.> Sunni Muslems may not approve, but they aren't burning down the> Turkish embassy, and most aren't attacking Shi'ites, forcing me to> conclude that however much they talk of blasphemy, that isn't what> really has them so pissed off.
I wasn't talking about some theoretical "true Islam". The cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, and that's what counts. As I said in another post, the whole show was obviously manipulated, but that doesn't take away from the sincerity of the demonstrators.
The Other wrote:> > smw <smwei@ameritech.net> writes:> >
Are you with Fish on this matter?> > I don't know what Stanley Fish said about this.>
In essence, it's to the credit of strong believers to believe> something strongly, and to the discredit of liberals to not believe> anything very much or certainly not enough to go bombing for.
I read something like that in his exchange with Richard Neuhaus in _First Things_. Must have been about five years ago. But I thought Fish was saying something else. He takes the side of fundamentalist Christians against liberals not because the former believe strongly, but because of how they justify their beliefs and actions, or rather how they do not justify them: they don't appeal to liberal lies such as open-mindedness, free marketplace of ideas, objectivity, disinterestedness, etc.
Anyway, my answer is, No, I'm not with Stanley Fish on this. I don't worship faith, and unlike Fish, I do appreciate those liberal lies.
Bruce McGuffin 15 February 2006 19:44:15 [ permanent link ]
The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:
Bruce McGuffin <mcguffin@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:>
The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:> >
No, the Danish cartoons blasphemed the Prophet.> >
If I understand correctly, there are many paintings of the prophet in> > the muslem world, among the shi'ites and in Turkey, for example.> > Sunni Muslems may not approve, but they aren't burning down the> > Turkish embassy, and most aren't attacking Shi'ites, forcing me to> > conclude that however much they talk of blasphemy, that isn't what> > really has them so pissed off.>
I wasn't talking about some theoretical "true Islam". The cartoons> were perceived as blasphemous, and that's what counts. As I said in> another post, the whole show was obviously manipulated, but that> doesn't take away from the sincerity of the demonstrators.
And I'm saying that whoever did it couldn't have whipped the demonstrators up about "Western Blasphemy" unless there were more going on than pictures of Mohammed. Suppose the pictures had been complementary of Islam and Mohammed? Would we be seeing the same reaction?
Bruce McGuffin 15 February 2006 20:02:05 [ permanent link ]
The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> writes:>
To truly understand a war however it is necessary to have some> > understanding of both sides, and while I think I have some grasp of> > the Western side, I find the Muslim side fairly mysterious. I lack> > the confidence so many of you so vigorously exhibit.>
Well, confidence is an important rhetorical tool. I don't pretend to> understand Muslims, though I don't see anything mysterious about them> either. On the question of motivations, I usually take people at> their word unless there's some specific reason not to. The fact is> that Muslims (like most people) seem pretty forthcoming about what> pisses them off, which would make life a lot easier for the USA, if> its leaders were willing to listen.
Apparently one of the things Muslems want is for the US to stop harvesting organs in Iraq for transplants in Isreal:
Think of it as the equivalent of `Apocalypse Now' showing Vietnamese children with their arms chopped off because they were vaccinated. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@yahoo.com> writes:
1. If you don't read Arabic and other languages in which>Islam is most at home, and must depend on the Western>media for reports as to what is going on, do take them with>a grain of salt. I have been shocked at the difference>between what is published in Latin American media and>what is published in the U.S. about the same matters.
This is not only true of Latin America and Arabic-speaking countries: I understand that the Israeli press routinely publishes views which would be denounced as `anti-Semitic' in the US, because they criticize Israeli crimes. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Bruce McGuffin <mcguffin@edinburgh.ll.mit.edu> writes:
And I'm saying that whoever did it couldn't have whipped the> demonstrators up about "Western Blasphemy" unless there were more> going on than pictures of Mohammed.
Agreed. As I said somewhere, this all occurred against a historical background of (perceived) Western attacks on Islam. But if the pictures hadn't featured Mohammed, if they'd just shown some evil Muslim terrorists, there would not have been this reaction.
Suppose the pictures had been complementary of Islam and Mohammed? > Would we be seeing the same reaction?
Quite possibly. Remember how it started: Editors of a children's book were looking for someone to draw some pictures of Mohammed, but illustrators were too scared to take the job. Then the newspaper stepped in with the cartoon thing, some imams or whatever added some pictures of their own in order to spice it up, etc. So if the original fears about the children's book were well-founded, then yeah, these things could have happened the same if the pictures had been positive.
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:>
This is not only true of Latin America and Arabic-speaking>> countries: I understand that the Israeli press routinely publishes>> views which would be denounced as `anti-Semitic' in the US,>
That's true. Chomsky and Said used to point it out all the time, and>they were right.>
On the other hand, the US is more factually accurate on Israel, less>egregiously distorted, than the British and other European presses.
I doubt that. Maybe you could give us some examples.
because they criticize Israeli crimes.
Uh, I think it may be a little more nuanced than that.
Hit me with a nuance. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:> >
On the other hand, the US is more factually accurate on Israel,> >less egregiously distorted, than the British and other European> >presses.>
I doubt that. Maybe you could give us some examples.
How about the Jenin Killing Fields of '02? Remember all the hundreds, perhaps thousands of bodies of civilians decomposing in mass graves? The US media on the other hand got it pretty much right. Apparently the "stench of death" was powerful enough to reach all the way to the Guardian offices in Manchester, but not all the way across the ocean.
I could go look up other examples (Google "fisk"), but the coverage of the Jenin Massacre is a good indication of the overall difference.
because they criticize Israeli crimes.>
Uh, I think it may be a little more nuanced than that.>
Hit me with a nuance.
Critics of Israel's alleged crimes are often called anti-Semitic not because they criticize Israel, but because their criticism is disproportionate: they consistently ignore or downplay much more serious crimes committed by other states. I don't think those double standards are due to anti-Semitism, but it's a common accusation in America.
John W. Kennedy 20 February 2006 05:40:01 [ permanent link ]
Pies de Arcilla wrote:> Running Amuk wrote:>> liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing>> of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker>> end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in>
Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.
According to Speer, Dresden actually lengthened the war.
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Running Amuk 20 February 2006 20:56:04 [ permanent link ]
"Pies de Arcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140395000.513777.242220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
Running Amuk wrote:> > liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the
razing> > of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker> > end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating
Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.>
Pie! I have never hocked on your phallus. Heaven forbid even the opportunity!!! Bwah!
"Sy Grass" <jpdm45@hotmail.com> wrote:> "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message> news:9_9Kf.1724$4q3.337@fe12.lga...> >> Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of> >> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.>
A post hoc fallacy built on the rational power of a 'maybe' is not worth> the pixels it's printed on.>
According to Speer, Dresden actually lengthened the war.>
The opinion of one former Nazi war criminal is duly noted, but in view of> the larger considerations at hand, it's irrelevant in either case.
Hardly. Speer actually INCREASED Nazi war materiel production as the war ground on and as Allied bombing devastated more and more of the Reich's production capability. It was only when they ran out of raw materials that production plummeted. But he also predicted that and when it would occur. He was a Nazi, sure, but he was a production genius and one for which no modern nation has an equal. He was also the only Nazi who actually served his full prison term (Hess died in prison); all the others got early-outs (one way or another!). Speer was an organizational genius, Nazi or not. To dismiss his contributions as "irrelevant" because he was a Nazi war criminal demonstrates a dismal ignorance of the causes, reasons, and eventual outcomes of one of the most pivotal events of the Twentieth Century, and an even more pitiful understanding of who we are today--globally--and why.
If Speer had been an Israeli, Israel would be the pre-eminent military power in today's world.
Lucky for all of us that he was imprisoned for twenty years. Considering his production record, we really should have hanged him as soon as possible.
John W. Kennedy 21 February 2006 20:25:36 [ permanent link ]
Pies de Arcilla wrote:> John W. Kennedy wrote:>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>> Running Amuk wrote:>>>> liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing>>>> of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker>>>> end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in>>> Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of>>> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.>> According to Speer, Dresden actually lengthened the war.>
I am shocked, shocked, that some Nazi faulted the Allied prosecution of> the war. Goebbels didn't think much of the bombing of Dresden either.>
The odd thing is, Speer has been quoted in support of the effectiveness> of firebombing _Hamburg_, so what's the difference between Hamburg and> Dresden?
Because it gave a desperately needed respite to German war production, which was on the point of collapsing when Allied bombing suddenly transferred to a new and pointless target.
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy 22 February 2006 00:45:26 [ permanent link ]
Pies de Arcilla wrote:> John W. Kennedy wrote:>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>> John W. Kennedy wrote:>>>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>>>> Running Amuk wrote:>>>>>> liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing>>>>>> of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker>>>>>> end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in>>>>> Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of>>>>> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.>>>> According to Speer, Dresden actually lengthened the war.>>> I am shocked, shocked, that some Nazi faulted the Allied prosecution of>>> the war. Goebbels didn't think much of the bombing of Dresden either.>>>
The odd thing is, Speer has been quoted in support of the effectiveness>>> of firebombing _Hamburg_, so what's the difference between Hamburg and>>> Dresden?>> Because it gave a desperately needed respite to German war production,>> which was on the point of collapsing when Allied bombing suddenly>> transferred to a new and pointless target.>
I don't know why you think it was pointless or a respite.
Because the one man who knew best says so.
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy 22 February 2006 05:11:07 [ permanent link ]
Pies de Arcilla wrote:> John W. Kennedy wrote:>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>> John W. Kennedy wrote:>>>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>>>> John W. Kennedy wrote:>>>>>> Pies de Arcilla wrote:>>>>>>> Running Amuk wrote:>>>>>>>> liberals on this newsgroup (misc.writing). While it stands that the razing>>>>>>>> of Dresden and the flattening of Hiroshima, et al, resulted in the quicker>>>>>>>> end of WWII, the very idea that Israel should retaliate by exterminating in>>>>>>> Or maybe bombing civilians had no particular effect on the progress of>>>>>>> the war, and you are committing a post hoc fallacy.>>>>>> According to Speer, Dresden actually lengthened the war.>>>>> I am shocked, shocked, that some Nazi faulted the Allied prosecution of>>>>> the war. Goebbels didn't think much of the bombing of Dresden either.>>>>>
The odd thing is, Speer has been quoted in support of the effectiveness>>>>> of firebombing _Hamburg_, so what's the difference between Hamburg and>>>>> Dresden?>>>> Because it gave a desperately needed respite to German war production,>>>> which was on the point of collapsing when Allied bombing suddenly>>>> transferred to a new and pointless target.>>> I don't know why you think it was pointless or a respite.>> Because the one man who knew best says so.>
If he really did say it was pointless, he was wrong; you snipped the> reason why--the Allies wanted to stop the Germans from shifting> resources to the eastern front. They wanted to disrupt evacuation from> the east and troops moving from the west.>
It doesn't make any sense to say it was a respite for the war> production in Dresden, either. They were bombing it!
According to Speer, the entire German production economy was within a few days days of absolute collapse when it was rescued by the Dresden bombing.
-- John W. Kennedy "But now is a new thing which is very old-- that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer, which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake." -- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
I doubt that. Maybe you could give us some examples.
How about the Jenin Killing Fields of '02? Remember all the>hundreds, perhaps thousands of bodies of civilians decomposing in>mass graves? The US media on the other hand got it pretty much>right. Apparently the "stench of death" was powerful enough to reach>all the way to the Guardian offices in Manchester, but not all the>way across the ocean.
So you're taking the Guardian as representative of all of the British press?
I could go look up other examples (Google "fisk"), but the coverage>of the Jenin Massacre is a good indication of the overall difference.
No, it's not.
Hit me with a nuance.
Critics of Israel's alleged crimes are often called anti-Semitic not>because they criticize Israel, but because their criticism is>disproportionate: they consistently ignore or downplay much more>serious crimes committed by other states. I don't think those double>standards are due to anti-Semitism, but it's a common accusation in>America.
Again, some examples. If you want to be convincing, it would help if they came from the Daily Telegraph or Le Monde. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, "Michael Zeleny" <larvatus@gmail.com> writes:>M J Carley wrote:>> In the referenced article, "Michael Zeleny" <larvatus@gmail.com> writes:
A likely story. Fred Rexer is something of a Jesus figure to his>>> congenitally civilian friends. The man who kills for our sins.
What has Rexer to do with a letter to Milius?>
Milius hired Rexer for credibility. I would not take a Hollywood player>at his word, except when he is speaking as an official proxy of the man>known for his dedication to the execution of American foreign policy>with extreme prejudice.
If he's not to be trusted, he's not to be trusted.
Not this one. But I don't believe that he lied to Milius.>
There is at least one other possibility.>
I am sorry about your want of experience with honorable men.
You know Milius is honourable? -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, "Michael Zeleny" <larvatus@gmail.com> writes:>M J Carley wrote:
Milius hired Rexer for credibility. I would not take a Hollywood player>>> at his word, except when he is speaking as an official proxy of the man>>> known for his dedication to the execution of American foreign policy>>> with extreme prejudice.>
If he's not to be trusted, he's not to be trusted.
Everyone is to be trusted to serve his self-interest. Giving the lie>to Fred Rexer is in no one's self-interest. The rest is commentary.
So you're depending on circumstantial evidence.
I am sorry about your want of experience with honorable men.>
You know Milius is honourable?>
I know that Rexer is.
Which is still missing the point. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, "Sy Grass" <jpdm45@hotmail.com> writes:
"M J Carley" <ensmjc@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message >news:Iv6owq.KuC.B.midge@bath.ac.uk...
You know Milius is honourable?>>>
I know that Rexer is.>>
Which is still missing the point.>
No, not at all. But what exactly is your point? Looks to me like it's this: >you're just envious of somebody who happens to know somebody of some certain >consequence--whereas you don't.
My point is that it has been claimed that Fred Rexer `experienced' the incident of children having their arms chopped off for being innoculated. It turned out that even though Michael Zeleny believes Fred Rexer to be honourable, he has not heard this from Fred Rexer directly. So it could be that, even if Fred Rexer is truthful (and we don't what it is he is claimed to have said), the report of his comments is not accurate. This leaves us with no solid claim, let alone evidence, for what is supposed to have happened.
And here's another point: hyper-competitive envy-driven characters>like you are a dime a dozen in this world, you're always out there>trying to get your teeth into the cuffs of people who are going>somewhere, while the only thing you're good for is slowing your>betters down in that way.
I've never been called `hyper-competitive' before. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
How about the Jenin Killing Fields of '02? Remember all the> >hundreds, perhaps thousands of bodies of civilians decomposing in> >mass graves? The US media on the other hand got it pretty much> >right. Apparently the "stench of death" was powerful enough to> >reach all the way to the Guardian offices in Manchester, but not> >all the way across the ocean.>
So you're taking the Guardian as representative of all of the> British press?
Representative of a big part of it, yeah: the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, the Times. Crude agitprop, in contrast to the basically accurate American and Israeli reporting.
Hit me with a nuance.>
Critics of Israel's alleged crimes are often called anti-Semitic> >not because they criticize Israel, but because their criticism is> >disproportionate: they consistently ignore or downplay much more> >serious crimes committed by other states. I don't think those> >double standards are due to anti-Semitism, but it's a common> >accusation in America.>
Again, some examples. If you want to be convincing, it would help if> they came from the Daily Telegraph or Le Monde.
I won't give examples, because I don't want to be convincing. If you don't believe that there's a double standard, a disproportionality, in the criticism of Israel, or that many Americans attribute that double standard to anti-Semitism, you're welcome to your beliefs. Enjoy.
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
So you're taking the Guardian as representative of all of the>> British press?
Representative of a big part of it, yeah: the Guardian, the>Independent, the BBC, the Times. Crude agitprop, in contrast to the>basically accurate American and Israeli reporting.
The Guardian is representative of the Guardian. It is not representative of the Times, the Telegraph (the biggest selling `quality'), or the Mail. It is certainly not representative of the Sun, Mirror, et al.
Again, some examples. If you want to be convincing, it would help if>> they came from the Daily Telegraph or Le Monde.
I won't give examples, because I don't want to be convincing.
A curious admission.
If you don't believe that there's a double standard, a>disproportionality, in the criticism of Israel, or that many>Americans attribute that double standard to anti-Semitism, you're>welcome to your beliefs. Enjoy.
There is a double standard: Israeli violence (far greater than Palestinian) is to be understood as motivated by rational motives. Many Americans do believe that criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism but that is usually not true. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:> >ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:>
So you're taking the Guardian as representative of all of the> >> British press?>
Representative of a big part of it, yeah: the Guardian, the> >Independent, the BBC, the Times. Crude agitprop, in contrast to> >the basically accurate American and Israeli reporting.>
If you don't believe that there's a double standard, a> >disproportionality, in the criticism of Israel, or that many> >Americans attribute that double standard to anti-Semitism, you're> >welcome to your beliefs. Enjoy.>
There is a double standard: Israeli violence (far greater than> Palestinian)
Heh heh, that one again.
is to be understood as motivated by rational motives.
Agreed about the rational motives -- in the American press. To be pedantic I'd call that a bias, not a double standard, but it does go against the Palestinians. The European press enjoys presenting Israeli violence as uncaused and irrational, though. The good news for Israel is that it doesn't matter what Europeans think. It's calming to reflect upon that fact.
Reporting in America (probably in Europe too) is simultaneously biased against both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. I don't know why no one can admit that. Actually of course I do know why.
Many Americans do believe that criticism of Israel is motivated by> anti-Semitism but that is usually not true.
No, many Americans believe that *DISPROPORTIONATE* criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Agreed that it's usually not true.
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:>
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:
The Guardian is representative of the Guardian.
If the Guardian is representative of the Guardian, then in the context>of the Great Jenin Genocide of '02 it's also representative of the>Independent, the BBC, the Times, and, yes, even the Daily Telegraph.>Outrageous lies, gaudy clichés, crude agitprop -- that's entertainment!
That is the only example you can find.
There is a double standard: Israeli violence (far greater than>> Palestinian)
Heh heh, that one again.
True, nonetheless.
is to be understood as motivated by rational motives.
Agreed about the rational motives -- in the American press. To be>pedantic I'd call that a bias, not a double standard, but it does go>against the Palestinians. The European press enjoys presenting>Israeli violence as uncaused and irrational, though. The good news>for Israel is that it doesn't matter what Europeans think. It's>calming to reflect upon that fact.
The European press (which European press?) doesn't universally hold that view.
Reporting in America (probably in Europe too) is simultaneously>biased against both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. I don't>know why no one can admit that. Actually of course I do know why.
Simultaneously biassed against both sides?
No, many Americans believe that *DISPROPORTIONATE* criticism of>Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Agreed that it's usually not>true.
Who decides what's disproportionate? -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Oh, come on. If I give you another one, you'll say, "Those are the only two examples you can find".
Just go to the CAMERA website and you'll find plenty more. The Jenin coverage is just the most egregious example. Hey, I thought of a good comparison: compare coverage by American and European CNN.
Hey r.a.b., anybody read Stephanie Gutmann's _The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy_? Comments? Worth reading?
No, many Americans believe that *DISPROPORTIONATE* criticism of> >Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Agreed that it's usually not> >true.>
Who decides what's disproportionate?
Indeed, and who decides who decides? Deep, deep questions those. Yes, indeed.
In the referenced article, The Other <other@other.invalid> writes:>ensmjc@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) writes:
That is the only example you can find.
Oh, come on. If I give you another one, you'll say, "Those are the>only two examples you can find".
Just go to the CAMERA website and you'll find plenty more. The Jenin>coverage is just the most egregious example. Hey, I thought of a>good comparison: compare coverage by American and European CNN.
I have. It's the usual whitewash saying, for example, that Ariel Sharon was not responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. -- Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici. Home page: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
