Needless to say I submitted my own needlessly crass and offensive entry... Well, its the prinicpal of the matter isnt it? Your legally free to call my favourite relative or friend or me anything you want, but we must never draw Mohammed because YOU said so? I think not...
"So far, more than 200 images -- most of them certain to offend Muslims -- have been uploaded to the page, The Pakistani group Islamic Lawyers Forum made a request to Lahore's High Court, asking it to order the government to block the "blasphemous" site. The court agreed; soon after the verdict was read, The Associated Press reported that members of the lawyers group were seen chanting, "Down with Facebook!" outside the courtroom"
I am most proud to say that one of the 200 images is one of my own creation!
The thing is, dont these guys get it? Surely they can see that by bannign stuff they just make it more newsworthy? The membership of said group was 15,000 when i joined a few weeks back. 30,000 last week, and since i read this story its up to 85,000.
Really, dont they get it? Its sort of like using a machete on people to prove how tolerant you are isnt it?
Oh dear Matty thats it for you I'm afraid a Fatwa has been called upon your Infidel ass and a bus load of screaming Pakistani Jihadists are en-route to teach you the meaning of tollerance via the use of several blunt objects and BO that would make a dung beetle blush.
squilverine wrote:Oh dear Matty thats it for you I'm afraid a Fatwa has been called upon your Infidel ass and a bus load of screaming Pakistani Jihadists are en-route to teach you the meaning of tollerance via the use of several blunt objects and BO that would make a dung beetle blush.
Almost makes me wish I had a face book account!
Bring it on, i shall drag many of them screaming into oblivion with me! ;D
There are people on there literally threatening people with death for drawing Muhammed at all. It makes me want to draw him just to piss those people off.
Trouble is, you also offend all of the reasonable people asking me nicely not to draw Muhammed.
I see no particular reason to want to offend the reasonable people, so I figure I'll just ignore the whole thing.
There are people on there literally threatening people with death for drawing Muhammed at all. It makes me want to draw him just to piss those people off.
Suicidal tendencies!
Trouble is, you also offend all of the reasonable people asking me nicely not to draw Muhammed.
I see no particular reason to want to offend the reasonable people, so I figure I'll just ignore the whole thing.
On a more serious issue, why do people feel the need to mock the prophet? Now, this is not me trying to censor this kind of activity. As far as i'm concerned, nothing or nobody is above satire. But it seems to be a cheap shot, a band wagon that everyone is jumping on. For me, it's like beating Stephen Hawking in a wrestling match and bragging about it to your friends!
Is this really a case of people expressing enlightenment values, or are they missing the bigger picture. In the UK there are lots of laws passed that have stifled freedom of expression and I'm sure in the USA (I might be wrong) the patriot act has done something similar for values of freedom.
Any thoughts?
Fifty wrote:I do not see drawing Muhammed as mocking Muhammed himself, but as a way of mocking the idiots who make death threats in his name.
I mean, on a scale of sins, I'd put killing someone above drawing rude pictures.
Technically it's a mockery of anyone who practices Islam, though how they take the insult is up to them. The tone of the images is the issue though, and the vast majority of images sent and ones suggested here are designed to be insulting.
Seeing as the Uk has banned the images from the Swedish and oprior Dutch cartoonists to avoid upseting Islamics (the only European government to formally go this far), is there a chance some PC fethwit might try imposing Facebook = bad dogmas over here?
Im with Orlanth, well.. i feel a bit more strongly.
I am disgusted by my nation.
We were the only EU country to bow down over "The Jewel of Medina" and we constantly whimper and bend over backwards to assist in every way a disgustingly aggresive and militant Dogma.
The followers of Islam pose as a cringing minority that deserves and needs our help and protection, whilst simultenosuly attacking us from all sides, ranting and raving and threatning to cut peoples nuts off.
As far as i am concerned, we need to get the kid gloves off and stop letting these mother fethers make all the rules.
And im pleased as feth i contributed to Pakistans ridiculous over reaction. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword eh?
The followers of Islam pose as a cringing minority that deserves and needs our help and protection, whilst simultenosuly attacking us from all sides, ranting and raving and threatning to cut peoples nuts off.
One in seven people on the planet is muslim and the ones attacking you from all sides don't live in your country. Get your head straight.
As far as i am concerned, we need to get the kid gloves off and stop letting these mother fethers make all the rules.
Which rules?
And im pleased as feth i contributed to Pakistans ridiculous over reaction. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword eh?
Yeah you're really striking out at pakistan. I'm sure the loss of revenue for facebook and the clamping down of freedoms in pakistan is really teaching the wacky pakistani government a lesson.
Only if you're an insensitive jackass with no respect for the feelings or beliefs of others.
Yes, because not worrying about someone getting butthurt about some doodlings someone else does makes me an insensitive jackass definitely. Believing that a drawing someone else did somehow destroys your religion is so very reasonable.
Only if you're an insensitive jackass with no respect for the feelings or beliefs of others.
Yes, because not worrying about someone getting butthurt about some doodlings someone else does makes me an insensitive jackass definitely. Believing that a drawing someone else did somehow destroys your religion is so very reasonable.
Perhaps not, but that's irrelevant. Have several hundred million people drawing your mother doing very unladylike things and have it covered all over the internet and media then be chipper about it. It's a sacred law to islam that the prophet not be portrayed visually. It's not hard to understand and it's not a difficult thing to avoid doing. You have no reason to draw these pictures except to insult people in a personal way. You are going out of your way to insult one in seven people on the planet intentionally. That would logically make you a jackass, regardless of how silly you think their reaction could be.
The worst part is that you likely don't even know any muslims that would be insulted. To you it's a non-issue so you have very little understanding of the human face of this topic.
But the respect of a son for the sanctity of his mother is real, and empirical. No subjectivity is involved it is a fact of the universe as created by God.
ShumaGorath wrote:And im pleased as feth i contributed to Pakistans ridiculous over reaction. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword eh?
Yeah you're really striking out at pakistan. I'm sure the loss of revenue for facebook and the clamping down of freedoms in pakistan is really teaching the wacky pakistani government a lesson.
Do you read the things you type?
Shuma, you decide in your head what i mean when i type. Its not the same thing.
Do i honestly think that REVENUE has anything at all do with anything? Im merely pleased that Pakistan acted in such a way as it attracted so much more attention to the whole thing. I find their censorship repellant, again, this is proving a point for me.
Who the hell mentioned revenue or "teaching the government" a lesson?
I know you like to argue mate, but you cant just decide what i think about when i type and then have an argument based with me on it.
Now, back on topic, i know you think (correctly) that i am far too quick to judge Islam, ive admitted i am. Once again, no argument.
I just disagree with apologists like you, I think the problem is worse than people think in Europe, not better.
In the UK and Europe, all these self-righteous "friends of Palestine" constantly obsess about Israel and the Jews, but turn a blind eye to everything Hamas does.
They undermine those who want to see an enduring peace in the region and, worse still, they bolster and galvanise Hamas by creating the moral imperatives for its terrorism.
Muslim leaders in Britain have always allowed this to continue unabated, and yet all we hear is "its just a minority" and i honestly believe that is just not the case.
Those who claim to support and empathise with the Palestinians must recognise that it is the terrorists of Hamas who have so disastrously betrayed their own people. No matter what Islam apologists like you and the many of this forum say, there is a clear choice to Muslims, between Hamas, a terrorist group committed to destroying a sovereign state and its people, and Israel, the region's only democracy which is responding to that threat.
Im not great fan of Isreal, but it is laughable to suggest that "the overwhelming majority" of Muslims are nice peaceful people who condemn terrorism. I dont see them whinging about Hamas as often as i see them whinging about pretty much everything else.
Oh and sorry, what do you personally find disgusting about the UK? Im curious!
Those submitting pictures of Mohammed must be aware that we don't really have a freedom of speech anyways. As an example, the use of the N word. Sure I can use it, but to do so in a way as to deliberately insult or belittle someone is a hate crime.
Drawing Mohammed in this way is a hate crime. Just that 85,000 or so people are jumping on the bandwagon in an attempt to feel superior, because they can get away with it. But it is the same thing. Why not have the KKK host a facebook page? Why not Nazis? Why only do it to Muslims? Because they mind, a lot.
I just disagree with apologists like you, I think the problem is worse than people think in Europe, not better.
Yes, and I believe that you make the problem up to cover up for the fact that your economies are breaking and most of your countries have declining native populations.
Those who claim to support and empathise with the Palestinians must recognise that it is the terrorists of Hamas who have so disastrously betrayed their own people. No matter what Islam apologists like you and the many of this forum say, there is a clear choice to Muslims, between Hamas, a terrorist group committed to destroying a sovereign state and its people, and Israel, the region's only democracy which is responding to that threat.
This thread is about pakistan.
Oh and sorry, what do you personally find disgusting about the UK? Im curious!
Racial xenophobia and the constant and successful attempts at creating an unconstitutional nanny state.
Im not great fan of Isreal, but it is laughable to suggest that "the overwhelming majority" of Muslims are nice peaceful people who condemn terrorism. I dont see them whinging about Hamas as often as i see them whinging about pretty much everything else.
Magical. You also trick yourself into believing lots of other things so this isn't really surprising.
Those submitting pictures of Mohammed must be aware that we don't really have a freedom of speech anyways. As an example, the use of the N word. Sure I can use it, but to do so in a way as to deliberately insult or belittle someone is a hate crime.
No. No it's not. You don't know what the term hate crime implies.
So, if I kill a White dude, it's not the same as killing a Black Guy?
Yeah, that makes sense. I've never understood the concept of why "hate" crime is worse than normal crime.
It's not. Hate crimes are meant to reduce the prevalence of racially motivated crimes via harsher penalties. You punish the motivation, not the crime. It's a form of social engineering and it's somewhat successful (primarily in regards to homosexual hate crimes).
Vaer, im aware its a tad petty. But its funny too, and im happy to admit im somewhat petty and childish.
But seriously, check the group out, some of them are fething funny. I just think its hilarious that Muslims have such a lack of a sense of humour, so i mock them.. whats so screwed up about that?
This one for example.
=][= MODERATOR: Do not attach non-wargaming related images to Dakka =][=
Awesome picture, but I think the mods are gonna frown upon it....
I completely agree with matty on how overlooked this problem seems to be to you guys.
To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
Vaercathor wrote:mattyrm, I freely admit some are funny. So are rascist jokes.
They are the best jokes, like this excellent example!
An Englishman, Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman were captured while fighting in a far-off foreign land, and the leader of the captors said, 'We're going to line you up in front of a firing squad and shoot you all in turn. But first, you each can make a final wish.'
The Englishman responds, 'I'd like to hear "God Save The Queen" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, played by the London All Boys Choir. With Morris Dancers Dancing to the tune.'
The Irishman replies, 'I'd like to hear "Danny Boy" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, sung in the style of Daniel O'Donnell, with Riverdance dancers skipping gaily to the tune.'
The Welshman answers, 'I'd like to hear "Men Of Harlech" just one more time to remind me of the country, sung as if by the Treorchy Male Voice Choir.'
The Scotsman says quickly, 'I'd like to be shot first.'
I know your just trying to "needle" me mate, so ill not bother going into one about it.. but seriously.. think before you type eh?
I never said anything about my feelings concerning the u.s. You asked me about the UK and I answered. You use your muslim population as a crutch without actually paying attention to logic or statistics we use our latino population for the same. Remember the Arizona thread? I'm not needling, I'm telling you to check your head and work to fix your country like I do with mine.
Vaercathor wrote:Gwar, that's not a rascist joke. That's a race joke.
Fine, how about this then?
Englishman, an Irishman & a Scotsman in France are sentenced to death by guillotine.
The Englisman walks silently to the device and puts his head on the block. The executioner pulls the lever, but the blade doesn't fall. The governor says ' If this happens 3 times then by French law you walk free'. The lever is pulled twice more & still the blade doesn't fall so he was set free.
The same thing happens when the Scotsman had his head on the block & he was set free.
The Irishman is then dragged, kicking and screaming, "I'm not going near that thing until it is fixed!"
You know, without taking sides either way, matty did make me think for a minute there.
You have all the far right nutters screaming about the Islamic threat. And then you have all the liberalist newspapers featuring articles from 'Muslim leaders'who tell you that it's apparently only a minority who are nutters.
I assume that most of them aren't religious nutters, because I like to think that most people are pretty much like me:-average people going through life. But what if that's not the case? In assuming that the 'Islamic Threat' is a right wing fallacy, I'm blindly taking what the newspapers are telling me as gospel truth. It wasn't so long ago that the West was a bunch of religious nutters. Who's to say the socially, technologically, and economically more backward middle east and the religion it generally espouses isn't still like that?
I don't really know any muslims. For all I know 90% of those 1 in every 7 people wants me dead, and my mother to wear a veil. I wouldn't know. All I've done up to this point is assume that what the liberalist media tells me is true.
Hmmm. I guess what I'm saying is, everyone(in the media) says that it's a minority, but how do I know that? I mean, let's face it, the media tells lies and includes bias all the time.
Vaercathor wrote:mattyrm, I freely admit some are funny. So are rascist jokes.
They are the best jokes, like this excellent example!
An Englishman, Irishman, Welshman, Scotsman were captured while fighting in a far-off foreign land, and the leader of the captors said, 'We're going to line you up in front of a firing squad and shoot you all in turn. But first, you each can make a final wish.'
The Englishman responds, 'I'd like to hear "God Save The Queen" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, played by the London All Boys Choir. With Morris Dancers Dancing to the tune.'
The Irishman replies, 'I'd like to hear "Danny Boy" just one more time to remind me of the auld country, sung in the style of Daniel O'Donnell, with Riverdance dancers skipping gaily to the tune.'
The Welshman answers, 'I'd like to hear "Men Of Harlech" just one more time to remind me of the country, sung as if by the Treorchy Male Voice Choir.'
The Scotsman says quickly, 'I'd like to be shot first.'
As Gene Hunt, from the TV series Life On Mars, once said: "A hate crime murder! As opposed to one of those I-really-like-you-crimes!"
Back on topic. Once again, I ask - why mock the prophet? It's cheap, it's easy, and it's not clever. It distracts from the real issue i.e the fragile state of the freedom of speech laws in this country. In the UK, it's not that people are afraid of offending Muslims, it seems that people are afraid of offending ANYBODY for fear of being hauled in front of the beak (translation for US members: Judge).
It's why you get the comic/surreal/ironic situation of BNP members(translation for US members: an extreme right wing UK party) becoming free speech martyrs!
Soladrin wrote:To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
That sounds like a personal problem. If you guys were a little quicker you could have recruited some of the better minorities: the short ones who do math good and don't like getting politically involved. It's like picking teams in gym you guys should have been picking the Japanese kid who's the pitcher on the little league team but instead you felt bad and picked the weird Lebanese kid who's never played dodgeball. So now your team sucks and it's your own fault.
To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
Just how exactly are they doing that?
Well, the legit way, getting into politics and such. Rotterdam's new Mayor for example is Islamic.
The sad irony of all this is that the "Muslim world" was once the most scientifically advanced, tolerant and secular places on the planet, as opposed to the technologically repressed religiously controlled west.
This idea about an Islamic 'conspiracy' to take over Europe is nothing new. We've had Catholic conspiracies, Jewish conspiracies, Free mason conspiracies... the list goes on. I keep hearing the same old song
Yeah your right Shuma.. i just feel like we cant work to fix anything, i mean, im just an aging lower middle class fella.. what the hell difference can i make to the countries big issues? I prefer not to get dillusions of granduer and merely laugh and try an enjoy myself...
I admit im prone to being a tad rash.. but soldiers get taught to see things in black and white... ignore all that "grey" gak.
And yeah im glad you liked that Ketara, some of them make me smile.. and thats my point. If they smiled too.. then groups like this WOULDNT GET MADE.
You know.. like if your kids and you call a kid names and he responds, you carry on doing it. I just think Muslims really need to... massage their humour glands.
Soladrin wrote:To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
That sounds like a personal problem. If you guys were a little quicker you could have recruited some of the better minorities: the short ones who do math good and don't like getting politically involved. It's like picking teams in gym you guys should have been picking the Japanese kid who's the pitcher on the little league team but instead you felt bad and picked the weird Lebanese kid who's never played dodgeball. So now your team sucks and it's your own fault.
You got to be in it to win it, son.
Wait wait wait.... it's my personal fault they got in here? That's a good one. This ball started rolling before I was born, or of any age to be able to comprehend it.
Ketara wrote:
I suppose, what the right wing nutters do, which is a scary thought!
Makes you wonder which side is the brainwashed one though.....
Both of them are brainwashed. The vast majority of people that will state an opinion about the ideological demography of the Muslim world are unlikely to be doing anything beyond parroting the opinion of another, marginally more qualified individual. The fact that one brainwashed opinion might correspond with fact doesn't negate its original nature.
Still, if Muslims are a threat akin to what the right believes, the only solution is mass deportation, and the restriction of immigration to non-Muslims; which really just means getting rid of people who look scary, as it isn't hard to lie about your beliefs.
In the US the Freedom of Speech stopped being just that a long time before I was born.
I can't use racial slurs, can't hang up signs or billboards that might offend someone.
Sorry, 1st Amendment is on a slow decline and it's only worsened every year that the PC police are allowed to infringe upon my freedom to express and say what I want.
Soladrin wrote:To me the problem isn't that their slowly gaining on the native population, it's that that lots of them are actively working to turn us into an Islamic country. To bad those things go hand in hand...
That sounds like a personal problem. If you guys were a little quicker you could have recruited some of the better minorities: the short ones who do math good and don't like getting politically involved. It's like picking teams in gym you guys should have been picking the Japanese kid who's the pitcher on the little league team but instead you felt bad and picked the weird Lebanese kid who's never played dodgeball. So now your team sucks and it's your own fault. You got to be in it to win it, son.
Wait wait wait.... it's my personal fault they got in here? That's a good one. This ball started rolling before I was born, or of any age to be able to comprehend it.
To be frank I really think it is European's fault Muslims are trying to take over their society. By passing laws banning minarets and burqas you're actively encouraging Muslims to become politically involved in order to stop similar laws from being passed. If you don't want Muslims in charge, instead of picking at the peripheral problems, it would be simpler to stealthy disenfranchise Muslims entirely so they can't elect/pass their own officials or laws.
I know your just trying to "needle" me mate, so ill not bother going into one about it.. but seriously.. think before you type eh?
I never said anything about my feelings concerning the u.s. You asked me about the UK and I answered. You use your muslim population as a crutch without actually paying attention to logic or statistics we use our latino population for the same. Remember the Arizona thread? I'm not needling, I'm telling you to check your head and work to fix your country like I do with mine.
What exactly do you do to 'fix your country'?
I'm genuinely interested to find out what it is that gives you the right to consider yourself superior in this regard to a person who has been sent out to the Middle-east to fight islamic terrorists in their own back-yard several times, been shot at and seen his friends shot at, injured and killed? Because the person you are trading insults with, and whose country you are insulting has done just that. And I am grateful for him and others like him, whether British, American, Canadian, Australian or Dutch (hope I didn't leave anyone out!) - I believe they are risking their lives to keep my country safe. As I far as I can tell, all you've done to 'fix' your country is bitch about it (and mine, for that matter) on the internet.
Albatross wrote:And I am grateful for him and others like him, whether British, American, Canadian, Australian or Dutch (hope I didn't leave anyone out!)...
Gwar! wrote:And Scottish. They hate Brittan, remember? Calling a Scotsman a Brit is like calling a Canadian Uzbekistani.
Except by calling a Canadian Uzbekistani you have a slight chance of being correct, thanks to the kind of immigration we get around here!
As to the actual topic:
I am against drawing pictures of Muhammad. I get pretty cheesed when people make fun of my religion, and deliberately contradict some of the "do's and do-not's" of my faith right in front of my face. It's aggravating. I can see why Muslims, whether they be extremists or otherwise, would get angry at this display of mockery.
I know some Muslims, none of who practice to the extent of extremism. They're all relatively peaceful, and don't threaten to nuke my house because I don't belong to their faith, and my mother and sisters don't cover their faces with veils.
In general, most religious people of this type don't get offended if you don't follow their own beliefs and moral codes, and will leave you well enough alone. However, just like any reasonable person, they DO get angry when you attack their beliefs. I think there's a fine line here, and if you're going to be shoving an act of defiance into someone's face then you should be prepared for things like this.
This is quite a thread. My personal opinion regarding religion is that organized religion has led to the most problems in history.
I think drawing the prophet Muhammed is tasteless, but it is free speech. Thought police make it illegal. Freedom of speech isn't for nice speech, it's for the most vile and heinous speech. There is no right against being offended.
Nightwatch wrote:
I am against drawing pictures of Muhammad. I get pretty cheesed when people make fun of my religion, and deliberately contradict some of the "do's and do-not's" of my faith right in front of my face. It's aggravating. I can see why Muslims, whether they be extremists or otherwise, would get angry at this display of mockery.
I know some Muslims, none of who practice to the extent of extremism. They're all relatively peaceful, and don't threaten to nuke my house because I don't belong to their faith, and my mother and sisters don't cover their faces with veils.
In general, most religious people of this type don't get offended if you don't follow their own beliefs and moral codes, and will leave you well enough alone. However, just like any reasonable person, they DO get angry when you attack their beliefs. I think there's a fine line here, and if you're going to be shoving an act of defiance into someone's face then you should be prepared for things like this.
QFT.
Really all that group was about was trying to piss off a major islamic group. They suceeded. No shock there. Religous groups get offended when you make fun of them. This sort of behavior got Father Ted yanked after complaints by the Knights of Columbus in my province about 5-10 years ago...
Yay....
Offending a Christian = Christian gets mad
Offending a radical Muslim = *BOOM* headshot
Just what we need...
So sick and tired of hearing OMG THEY DREW YOUKNOWWHO!!!! KEELZ THEM!
Yeah...
Eternally sleepy,
Mr. Self Destruct
Stormrider wrote:This is quite a thread. My personal opinion regarding religion is that organized religion has led to the most problems in history.
I think drawing the prophet Muhammed is tasteless, but it is free speech. Thought police make it illegal. Freedom of speech isn't for nice speech, it's for the most vile and heinous speech. There is no right against being offended.
Religion is also the most worthwhile thing to be fighting wars about, all in all, though it could probably be better sorted out by a chat, some tea, and crumpets. And waffles for the Americans.
Stormrider wrote:This is quite a thread. My personal opinion regarding religion is that organized religion has led to the most problems in history.
I think drawing the prophet Muhammed is tasteless, but it is free speech. Thought police make it illegal. Freedom of speech isn't for nice speech, it's for the most vile and heinous speech. There is no right against being offended.
Religion is also the most worthwhile thing to be fighting wars about, all in all, though it could probably be better sorted out by a chat, some tea, and crumpets. And waffles for the Americans.
Mmmm.... waffles
In all reality though, the Original Qu'ran was written in a dead alphabet that the average Muslim can't read. So they rely on their Imam's to tell the truth, if the Imam is a radical, he lies about what is in the Qu'ran and makes his flock angry with the "Infidel", even though that is not what the book was written about. It preaches religious tolerance and the Five Pillars of Islam. Not binding women from head to toe and blowing yourself up for imaginary virgins in heaven. It's sad to see so many people in the world angry at people they don't even get the true story about.
So I should have clarified my post, Bastardised religion is one of the greatest tragedies of human history.
Stormrider wrote:It preaches religious tolerance and the Five Pillars of Islam.
The Five Pillars of Islam: yes.
Religious tolerance: sort of. It can be thought of in that way, but its far from cut and dry, and coming away with a message exclusively grounded in religious tolerance requires a good bit of cherry picking. However, the Qu'ran is certainly not unique in that regard.
Stormrider wrote:
Not binding women from head to toe and blowing yourself up for imaginary virgins in heaven.
Yeah, both of those require some judicious interpretive bias.
It's sad to see so many people in the world angry at people they don't even get the true story about.
There’s a whole world out there, full of fascinating and diverse people. Going out and meeting people with different views on the world can be really rewarding, if sometimes challenging experience.
One of the great things of the last fifty years is how easy it has become to go out and meet different people, to experience different world views. But, so many people don’t take that experience at all, instead they focus on stupid headbutting contests over completely trivial issues, like whether pictures that don’t do anything but offend people should be drawn or banned*.
We could be learning about each other and using that to expand our own world views, but instead we focus on this crap. Ultimately it’s all a bit sad.
Soladrin wrote:Well, the legit way, getting into politics and such. Rotterdam's new Mayor for example is Islamic.
Given his policies, is that really representative of Islam taking a position, or an Islamic dude coming into a position of power?
*The answer by the way, is that the pictures shouldn’t be banned because they don’t do anything but offend, but that almost all of them shouldn’t be drawn as they don’t do anything but offend. This is the only solution, but unfortunately it would require reasoned judgement and restraint from all parties.
sebster wrote:There’s a whole world out there, full of fascinating and diverse people. Going out and meeting people with different views on the world can be really rewarding, if sometimes challenging experience.
One of the great things of the last fifty years is how easy it has become to go out and meet different people, to experience different world views. But, so many people don’t take that experience at all, instead they focus on stupid headbutting contests over completely trivial issues, like whether pictures that don’t do anything but offend people should be drawn or banned*.
We could be learning about each other and using that to expand our own world views, but instead we focus on this crap. Ultimately it’s all a bit sad.
Soladrin wrote:Well, the legit way, getting into politics and such. Rotterdam's new Mayor for example is Islamic.
Given his policies, is that really representative of Islam taking a position, or an Islamic dude coming into a position of power?
*The answer by the way, is that the pictures shouldn’t be banned because they don’t do anything but offend, but that almost all of them shouldn’t be drawn as they don’t do anything but offend. This is the only solution, but unfortunately it would require reasoned judgement and restraint from all parties.
I can't but agree. There is so much crap in the media, all they do is report the negative news, if it is positive, they will just glace over it and go: "Eh, *insert disease here* has been cured, let's get the plane crash story ready".
In all reality though, the Original Qu'ran was written in a dead alphabet that the average Muslim can't read.
Some slight corrections here. The original Qu'ran was written in what is the basis today for Modern Standard Arabic, which any Arab with a grade school education should be able read. I'll admit that there's a lot of nuance to Arabic that could slip by your average reader, but still the same language. Translations are also available in most major languages, including Urdu, the national language of Pakistan.
Stormrider wrote: So they rely on their Imam's to tell the truth, if the Imam is a radical, he lies about what is in the Qu'ran and makes his flock angry with the "Infidel", even though that is not what the book was written about. It preaches religious tolerance and the Five Pillars of Islam.
Again, slight clarifications. The average Muslims outside of theocracies isn't any more religious than your average citizen elsewhere and certainly isn't a robot to be programmed by an imam. He's a citizen trying to make a life for his family in the best way he knows how, and the religious nuts getting the attention are few and far between. He touches his head to the ground five times a day because that's his culture more than out of any particular religious fervor.
More than likely the radical Imams aren't lying. Like every other religion there are some fuzzy parts to the Qu'ran, mostly stemming from the Doctrine of Abrogation. It says in the Qu'ran that the later verses are the correct ones and overrule anything written before, but it's not always easy to tell the more peaceful Meccan suras from the later and more judgmental Medinan ones. He's not lying, he's twisting the truth to suit what he wants to preach. Since it's hard to know exactly when some verses were written, who knows? He could be right.
Stormrider wrote:Bastardised religion is one of the greatest tragedies of human history.
Gwar! wrote:And Scottish. They hate Brittan, remember? Calling a Scotsman a Brit is like calling a Canadian Uzbekistani.
Where do you get that idea? The average Scot might likely find being called English offensive, though what a complement eh!
However they generally dont have problems being called British, excepting some SNP hardliners. Feth those, they are about as bigoted as the BNP.
I know your just trying to "needle" me mate, so ill not bother going into one about it.. but seriously.. think before you type eh?
I never said anything about my feelings concerning the u.s. You asked me about the UK and I answered. You use your muslim population as a crutch without actually paying attention to logic or statistics we use our latino population for the same. Remember the Arizona thread? I'm not needling, I'm telling you to check your head and work to fix your country like I do with mine.
What exactly do you do to 'fix your country'?
I'm genuinely interested to find out what it is that gives you the right to consider yourself superior in this regard to a person who has been sent out to the Middle-east to fight islamic terrorists in their own back-yard several times, been shot at and seen his friends shot at, injured and killed? Because the person you are trading insults with, and whose country you are insulting has done just that. And I am grateful for him and others like him, whether British, American, Canadian, Australian or Dutch (hope I didn't leave anyone out!) - I believe they are risking their lives to keep my country safe. As I far as I can tell, all you've done to 'fix' your country is bitch about it (and mine, for that matter) on the internet.
So please - examples?
Forgive the lateness in response, lappys in the shop. I can only post at work until I get it back (And that better be today). What do I do? Well I participate in local governance, I participate in local information campaigns, and I am a part of a few web groups based in information dissemination. Certainly nothing so glorious as marching around Iraq of Afghanistan fighting for my country, and I didn't claim my contribution to be as great as his. That said I don't think that being in the military and actively engaging the enemy in those areas makes on an expert on much of anything outside of how hot it is in magical arabia. Mattyrm has a rather harsh opinion of muslims in general if his opinions on this forum bare out to reality, and I've known more than enough vets (I lived a mile away from the largest naval air station in northeast america for 20 years) to understand that time in the conflict will cause people to lose perspective. I don't hold myself superior to mattyrm, but I do certainly think he's mistaken on a few issues and I'm not afraid to say so. I don't think being in the military makes him beyond the ability to hold an incorrect opinion and I don't think he thinks that either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Stop hijacking ym thread with this Scotland talk.. i already made one for that!
Yeah thats my point though Shuma, i admit i have a skewed viewpoint, and im not ashamed to say so! Thats why i let you guys pull me up.. its not like im not an agreeable fella is it? I fully admit ive got slight issues with Islamorage... at least i see its a problem eh? I entirely confess to seeing only the rights side on this issue.
Although.. common sense does tell me the issue really is worse than we think, and not better.. but i digress.
Regards our own contributions, i dont think military service is a big deal personally.. i already said i joined up for base reasons. I wanted to go to war not save the world, all im saying is.. Im a cynical man, and i think thats a smart viewpoint. Liberal types seem to dellude themselves into thinking that they make a difference, when they dont! IMHO
Think of it like this... Iraq. London saw some of the biggest marches and protests ever. The USA was the same, i was visiting my missus when i got home from my first Iraq tour in like.... i dunno.. went into Kuwait in January... invaded in March... i think i was over in LA about July?
Anyway, what difference did it make? Not a jot.
Im not knocking your attempts to "fix" the nation, im just saying that im pretty sure that your average Joe doesnt make a difference at all! We just like to kid ourselves into thinking we do!
Well.... lefty types do. Us cynical bitter veterans just drink too much and try to find things to amuse us in the press.
Taken from a ponti who knows people who wear green:
Regardless of why soldiers join up. When soldiers fight they dont fight for the polticians or the nation or the Queen, though that, in reverse order, that is where their loyalties are expected to lay. They fight for the comrade next to them.
Ultimately a soldier fights for his regiment, company and platoon, and as the commands get smaller and lower down the chain the bonds grow stronger.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah thats my point though Shuma, i admit i have a skewed viewpoint, and im not ashamed to say so! Thats why i let you guys pull me up.. its not like im not an agreeable fella is it? I fully admit ive got slight issues with Islamorage... at least i see its a problem eh? I entirely confess to seeing only the rights side on this issue.
I am a bigot!
But it's all good! I admit it! So we're cool, yeah? *cough* Islam taking over the world
Sorry, mattyrm and others, but you've lost me. Where exactly are we going with this argument?
Shuma was saying that rather than just getting into a rage about things i should "check my head and work to fix the country" and i was merely pointing out that i dont see what a normal person CAN do to fix the country. I dont think that waving placards or writing letters achieves anything at all.
And i was admitting i am slightly intolerant of Islam because i have admitted it numerous times, and i feel Shuma pointing that out is flogging a dead horse.
mattyrm wrote:Shuma was saying that rather than just getting into a rage about things i should "check my head and work to fix the country" and i was merely pointing out that i dont see what a normal person CAN do to fix the country. I dont think that waving placards or writing letters achieves anything at all.
But drawing pictures of Mohammed will?
And i was admitting i am slightly intolerant of Islam because i have admitted it numerous times, and i feel Shuma pointing that out is flogging a dead horse.
Well, the first step in getting over a problem Islam & cocaine!!! is admitting you have one. Good work.
Better and more open education can lead to greater intergraton in the next generations of muslims. I really, really object to "faith" schools. People need to be exposed to the prevailing culture in order to be able to participate and enhance it as an adult.
It would help to break up blocks of racial, social and religious groupings and distribute them around the country, both to expose them to the "majority" UK culture, and to expose UK culture to them. Immigration and settling should have been more carefully controlled right from the start - people should be spread around as much as possible, rather than congregating in certain areas. I know this is hard to do without seeming draconian - people like to live near people who share the same values etc as them. The problem comes when 2-3 generations down the line you have communities which are essentially cut off from the country in which they exist.
So, I say, stop faith schools, try to mix classrooms so there are children from different backgrounds, try to encourage people to move around into new areas and generally take the long view. People don't change overnight after all.
In a class of 25 we had 5 actual (super serial) Christians, 2 Muslims and a Sihk. The rest of us didn't give a flying feth one way or the other. Apart from a single 40 min religeous session and Chapel once a week, religeon never really played a part in this "faith" school.
Faith schools here can only have people of "their" faith as priority applicants, non-faith students can still apply but will be lower down the list for admission, though since Christians are generally only Christian in name, most Catholic/CoE schools etc are just full of every day students, rather than "religious" people.
We only have 11 public secotor Muslim faith schools in the UK, out of about 7,000 (of 20,000 total schools) - not a massive figure and certainly not as large as I was expecting.
However, of the 2,400 private schools, there are 118 Muslim faith schools, which is quite a lot (the largest segment by quite a way in the "not Christian" faith school section).
This doesn't count the make up of regular public and private schools around the country with some areas of the country having about a 90% muslim school intake - not reflective of the make up of the nation as a whole.
Guess there weren't a lot of kids to go around then, or the school was really lax on religeous discriminating... stuff. As to your point, the schools with 90% Muslim, are you talking public and private non-faith schools?
Yes I am. Because there are some areas (like Shelton in Stoke-on-Trent being an example I can think of off the top of my head) where the make up of the population is very heavily skewed towards muslims, the local public NON-faith schools have a very large muslim intake. Just like some areas of Birmingham or London.
The same can be said for areas with large numbers of black residents, where the schools will have almost no whites, or areas where there are almost exclusively white "christians", where there will be almost no racial or religious minorities in classrooms.
It comes down to my point earlier that immigration should have been more closely controlled, so as to spread immigrants out a bit so they could mix more easily into society (and indeed society could mix more easily into them).
If you were to force living areas based on colour/ethnicity or country of origin, meaning that Somali's can't live in close proximity or whatever, isn't that discriminatory?
Emperors Faithful wrote:If you were to force living areas based on colour/ethnicity or country of origin, meaning that Somali's can't live in close proximity or whatever, isn't that discriminatory?
Not really, I don't think.
Person x and their family come through immigration and are granted the right to settle in the UK (which means they have skills you want and have a job waiting for them with a UK company), you then just help them find a home around the location of their job which nicely mixes them into society, rather than letting them blob up as we have at the moment.
So at once we have a tighter system of immigration, and are seen to be helping people with finding a home etc.
Anyone attempting to live in the UK with more general skills and without a job waiting for them can be found a job anywhere in the country (or a selection of them) and an application can be made on their behalf (obviously with their permission). Once they then have a job, they can then be found a home in the same way as above.
I think it is a pretty fair system as it:
a) Ensures that everyone will be able to support themselves and/or family when they arrive
b) Have a home when they arrive
c) Are mixed into society early on - thus breaking down the barriers that form when you have 2 very different communities living within and in proximity to one another.
Why have i lost the moral high ground mate? I just think some of the drawings were funny as feth.. if muslims didnt have such a sense of humour faliure i wouldnt have contributed in the first place!
Emperors Faithful wrote:If you were to force living areas based on colour/ethnicity or country of origin, meaning that Somali's can't live in close proximity or whatever, isn't that discriminatory?
Not really, I don't think.
Person x and their family come through immigration and are granted the right to settle in the UK (which means they have skills you want and have a job waiting for them with a UK company), you then just help them find a home around the location of their job which nicely mixes them into society, rather than letting them blob up as we have at the moment.
No, the problem is, that is discriminating, demanding that people aren't allowed to mix with others who share a similar culture. In a sense you are *forcing* integration or westernisation upon them. This is a prcoess that should occur naturally with 2 and 3rd generation descendants of immigrants, rather than forced on those who initially arrive.
Before reading the other 3 pages, I want to give you my opinion.
If I'm not mistaken, this whole Draw-Mohammed-issue started with the last South Park episode, where Comedy Central censored THE WORD Mohammend out of after Matt and Trey once again made a brilliant commentary on cencorship in general.
Now, I'm not a big fan of Religion. At all. It took me a while to form my final opinion on the subject but this is where I am now.
I realizie that not every Muslim is an angry terrorist, but there is no reasons why the rule "don't make a picture of our Prophet" should apply to anyone who isn't a Muslim.
Now, taking part in such activites as the "everybody draw Mohammed Day", (which I forgot to take part in, but I would've if I rememeber it) may be intollerant to the religion in general. But not much more introllerant then muslims expecting non-muslims to follow their law. Not every christian is offended by me not going to church or (at least in theory) "worship" any other gods like, I dunno, Thor. And in the same way I can expect Muslims to not be offended if I drew a picture and called it Muhammed.
So don't see the EDM-Day as an offensive act towards Muslims. See it as taking a stand against the kind of people who would threaten the creators of a popular satirical TV-show with murder for doing what they do best.
Emperors Faithful wrote:No, the problem is, that is discriminating, demanding that people aren't allowed to mix with others who share a similar culture. In a sense you are *forcing* integration or westernisation upon them. This is a prcoess that should occur naturally with 2 and 3rd generation descendants of immigrants, rather than forced on those who initially arrive.
You see, I don't see it as discriminating, since it is not aimed at any particular group of people, but everyone who wishes to live in the UK. People who wish to enter the UK must abide by our laws. Is that discriminating, since we don't allow them to drive on the right hand side of the road as they would most likely do in their own country? Is it discriminating because we enforce our speed limits on them, and our fixed penalty notices if they break those speed limits, even if in their home country there are no speed limits?
And damn right we are forcing integration on people - that is not discrimination - it is common sense. The best way to create a harmonious existence is to get people to know and accept one another. As I have said several times, we are not just acclimatising the immigrant to the UK, we are acclimatising the UK to the immigrant. And the problem comes that in 2-3 generations time, we have children growing up who are not being exposed to the UK as a whole because they are in an almost completely self contained community which does not draw on UK mainstream society, due to the fact that there is such a large grouping of immigrants and immigrants families that they form their own cut off community within the UK.
If you are Somali, you are not allowed to live in a nieghborhood with other Somali's. How is that not discriminating? I'm not arguing whether or not the process would work, it's likely it would in the long term, but denying that such a policy is discriminatory is silly.
I had a post all written out here in reply to your post, however, I have deleted it as I don't think that we are going to convince one another.
As an Australian, I am sure you are aware that Australia has some of the strictist immigration laws in the world. Is it a bad thing that you are so committed to controlling who comes to live in your country? Is it right that you get to "discriminate" against so many people by turning away people who would be welcomed into many other countries?
I'm not going to get into anything more than that, as I am now straying to the territory that my initial reply was based on.
I don't think I can convey to you my exact thoughts on the matter, as my posts up until this point have been more or less off the top of my head, and the reasoning behind what I have been suggestion has not been thought out in depth. These are more kind of hypothetical thought experiments rather than serious suggestions. As I am sure you can tell, they are not indepth proposals
Emperors Faithful wrote:I went to a Catholic school.
In a class of 25 we had 5 actual (super serial) Christians, 2 Muslims and a Sihk. The rest of us didn't give a flying feth one way or the other. Apart from a single 40 min religeous session and Chapel once a week, religeon never really played a part in this "faith" school.
Catholic schools in Australia, owing to the strong Jesuit tradition of that Church, are places of learning first and foremost. This isn't the case for all religious schools. I think allowing minorities to teach what they want in their own private schools could raise some problems for integration in future years, and I'm not really sure what the solution is.
Anung Un Rama wrote:I realizie that not every Muslim is an angry terrorist, but there is no reasons why the rule "don't make a picture of our Prophet" should apply to anyone who isn't a Muslim.
Now, taking part in such activites as the "everybody draw Mohammed Day", (which I forgot to take part in, but I would've if I rememeber it) may be intollerant to the religion in general. But not much more introllerant then muslims expecting non-muslims to follow their law. Not every christian is offended by me not going to church or (at least in theory) "worship" any other gods like, I dunno, Thor. And in the same way I can expect Muslims to not be offended if I drew a picture and called it Muhammed.
So don't see the EDM-Day as an offensive act towards Muslims. See it as taking a stand against the kind of people who would threaten the creators of a popular satirical TV-show with murder for doing what they do best.
It needs to be pointed out that not every Muslim is offended by depictions of Mohammed. It’s a diverse religion and the prohibition on drawing Mohammed isn’t among all sects. There’s actually a significant number of historic works depicting Mohammed.
And no, they don’t have a right to tell us to not draw Mohammed. But people who don’t want to be jerks have an obligation to avoid offending people where there’s no reason to offend.
So don't see the EDM-Day as an offensive act towards Muslims.
You should. It's the entire point of it. It was the impetus for it's creation and its the exact reason it got popular.
But not much more introllerant then muslims expecting non-muslims to follow their law.
Oddly enough I can still use facebook.
Anung Un Rama wrote:I usually try to be a very tollerant person, but something about Religion in general just ticks me off.
So you try and fail on one of the most commonly held topics of discussion possible relating to a viewpoint of a large majority of the planet concerning whatever magic sky people they believe in. You should probably work on actually being a tolerant person rather than pointing out your failures and then trying to justify them.
I agree with you, but unlike Shuma i dont try to occupy the moral high ground. I admit i am intolerant of Islam due to 4 tours of the middle east. I also think that most people in life have some sort of bias towards something, and its easy for people to get all "holier than thou" on the internet.
Im aware i would be a nicer person if i wasnt slightly bigoted towards Muslims, but im not mentally strong enough to "turn the other cheek" like the supposed Jesus did. I tend to meet hatred with hatred and though I do my best to be polite to them when i encounter them, i do have a predisposed feeling that i tend to expect the worst from them.
Anung Un Rama wrote:I usually try to be a very tollerant person, but something about Religion in general just ticks me off.
So you try and fail on one of the most commonly held topics of discussion possible relating to a viewpoint of a large majority of the planet concerning whatever magic sky people they believe in. You should probably work on actually being a tolerant person rather than pointing out your failures and then trying to justify them.
You're probably right about that. It's just that events like this really makes me question what humanity has gained from Religion. I do realize that this is a very broad and sensitive topic and I'm only sratching the surface here but that is the point I am at the moment.
I agree with you, but unlike Shuma i dont try to occupy the moral high ground. I admit i am intolerant of Islam due to 4 tours of the middle east. I also think that most people in life have some sort of bias towards something, and its easy for people to get all "holier than thou" on the internet.
You all look like ants from the top of this ivory tower.
Anung Un Rama wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Anung Un Rama wrote:I usually try to be a very tollerant person, but something about Religion in general just ticks me off.
So you try and fail on one of the most commonly held topics of discussion possible relating to a viewpoint of a large majority of the planet concerning whatever magic sky people they believe in. You should probably work on actually being a tolerant person rather than pointing out your failures and then trying to justify them.
You're probably right about that. It's just that events like this really makes me question what humanity has gained from Religion. I do realize that this is a very broad and sensitive topic and I'm only sratching the surface here but that is the point I am at the moment.
Then I would suggest that you step back a bit from the topic at hand and review the fact that you are claiming that religion ticks you off. A societal factor that has existed for six thousand years in various forms angers you. You are blaming the magic sky castles when you should be looking for why those magic sky castles are being blamed, and for what reason their name is being invoked for causes you do not approve of. A religion is nothing without people and it's rare indeed for a country to do something for a religious purpose alone. In this case the west was en masse making fun of Islam, and in reaction to something it didn't entirely understand (pakistanis elder statesmen know the internet likely less than your grandfather) they reacted overly harshly. Lets not kid ourselves into believing that everyone draw muhammed day was anything but a mass organized insult against a major religion, instead it's important to look into the societal and economic factors that lend themselves to the overtly harsh and seemingly illogical response that insult caused.
Its important to consider religion to be a monolithic and implacable institution that reacts to daily life rather than guides it. Religious organizations are composed of people, not books, as are governments. Islam is no different than the free market or communism in the respect that it is a concept most often invoked incorrectly and with purpose.
mattyrm wrote: Im aware i would be a nicer person if i wasnt slightly bigoted towards Muslims, but im not mentally strong enough to "turn the other cheek" like the supposed Jesus did. I tend to meet hatred with hatred and though I do my best to be polite to them when i encounter them, i do have a predisposed feeling that i tend to expect the worst from them.
They weren't doing anything to you before you joined and contributed to that Facebook group. There was no cheek turning to be done. It was just you being an ass.
I am in two minds over the Facebook page. There are plus points and negative points to what is happening. I will adress some issues as I see them.
1. Highlighting the chaotic nature of the internet. A huge plus point, but very disturbing nonetheless. The internet is too carefree and chaotic, freedom without responsiblity leads to destruction as the society involved sinks toward the lowest common denominator. I find this controversy 'helpful' because it points out just how wrong things can get. Most societies need an element of order, while order itself causes problems not as many as a chaotic space. People are not mature enough to deal wirth excessive amounts of freedom, this after all is why we have such things as law and government to begin with.
2. Boot is on the other foot. In thie UK and elsewhereat least people can get away with shutting each other down just by pointing out what someone else is doing/saying wearing as 'offensive'. People seem to demand a right to take offense, and Islamics are really near the top of the list here. Offering no tolerence and demanding much. Frankly I must atmit an element of shaudenfreude that is atypical for me, I had to hold back, I was enjoying this a bit more than I ought to. I think Mattyrm supports this movement for exactly those reasons. I wont go this far, but I will say that I dont mind the object lesson.
3. This offends those who need not be offended. As per reason #2 above uncompromising militant Islam that makes demands of western culture to accomodate them but offer no compromise themselves. However what about the moderate moslems without this particular attitude problem, they too are offended, some might even be radicalised, at the very least they will grow a dimmer view of the west and our highly hypocritical values.
4. The targets also spread. Again given the chaotic nature of the internet the target of the group tends to spread. While the initial purpose of the group is plausible, make lampooning of Islam so widespread that it becomes difficult to single out anyone for punishment. I can see merit in that, but this is not necessarily what you get. Many pictures are offensive for the sake of being offensive. Many of the carttons can only be descrivbed as hate speech, something that many people seem to be against most of the time. Also the group is in danger of being hijacked by larger anti-relgious sentiments nothing to do with the purpose of the group. Of late the site contains a large number of images of other relgious figures including Jesus and Buddha, other use the group as a platform for atheism or worse atheist hate speech.
5. Cultural divides deepen. One of the recurring themse in the group is the implication that Mohammed was a paedophile. This at first glance seems plausible, as many images portray Mohammed had some severly underage wives. However the group fails to notice some important factors. Mohammed lived fourteen centuries ago, at that time marrying girls under the age of sixteen, the modern cut off for statutory rape in most western countries was normal. In fact to be unmarried at sixteen was unusual. I am all but certain each and every one of us comes from familes that in those days married older men to teenage girls, are we the spawn of paedophiles? No. Partly because this was normal, partyl because for important persons marriage was poltical and above all a means of security. So one of Mohammeds wives was only six, this at first value is even more unusual and 'proof' of paedophilia. What we so casually forget is that there was no welfare state in the sixth century, one way to secure a future for a young girl was to marry her off, often at a very early age. Even now this sort of things occurs and there are various stages of weddings, what we might call betrothals. Mohammed did nothing unusual, the unusal thing is for peole to now assume he slept with her at that age. Sorry no.
The end result is that a lot of ignorant arses are denegrating a religious leader from very long ago based upon our own very recently developed Western standards, what more evidence do Moslems need to say that they are more in cultural danger from us than we are from them. Here people from the 'west' pass judgement on an ancient culture according to our own very modern values rather than their own now or contemporary to the life of Mohammed. Are we niot telling them that we intend to rewrite thier culture according to our values? Are we not telling them that they should resist?
6. Poorly executed out angry backlashes. So now that many in the west have effectively declared a cultural war on Islam, some angry and offended Moslems are responding in kind. One of the new groups to open uses Holocaust denial as a counter. Are they Holocaust deniers, likely not but as Holocaust denial is illegal in a lot of western countries doing so is an act that is likely to put some backs up and untimately call for action from authorities in accordance with existing laws. The inital concept is quite clever, but like most viral campaignsd on the internet, call for an end to this group in accordiance with our laws and the Moselms have a good position to call fro protection of their prophet. However the group t is bodied by a multitude that do not see the subtlety of this move and are venting in no less an ignorant way as those who depict 'paedo bear' in a turban.
The end rsult more and more people get their backs up.
7. Other powderkegs. As more 'draw day' groups open up often as revenge from previous ones where will it lead. Atheists are largely tolerant of cartoons lampooing them, partly because there is little to actually lampoon, Christians also more or less mostly because the Bible teaches that this is to be expected, Jesus has always been ridiculed by his attackers since when he walked the earth. Now of course manty excations exist, but thast is due to the individual not the faith. Most Chrisitians are of the opinion that Jesus will have the last laugh, Islam and Judaism do not have a culture of this particular type of persecution, normally their history of peresecution involves a purely physical or ideological threat that in a round about way shows an element of rerspect to their faith as a 'dangerous threat' rather than something to be mocked. Thus both religions dont eactly know how to take it when their central leaders are blasphemed.
Buddhism and Hinduism is hard to mock because its outside most western perceptions, militant extremism from both religions exists, but it is relatively rare or at least we dont get to hear about it much. Also in the case of Hinduism especially there is a difficulty in pinning down someone to mock, the relgion has about 300 million gods and counting.
8. How about the US President? One way to force the issue that thankfully the Islamists havent cottoned onto is to point out that the US has its own protection laws, and Facebook is US based. It is illegal to call for the death or harm of a US president, yes wishing Obama dead can quite literally land you in jail despite any rights of free speech Americans might have and technically even if they did not actually mean to carry out any attack. So what happens if 'International Shoot Obama Day' is launched, does the US government force Facebook to remove the page and thus grant Moslems the opportunity to point out the hypocrasy. Or let the matter slide and thus break all manner of laws. Either way even highlighting this law exists is a way to show that even in the west and depite all the free speech comments made in defence of 'Draw Mohammed Day' we do not resally live under freedom of speech in its entirity. Many subjects are in fact still taboo or even outlawed.
it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
You are right however you might colloquially want to 'shoot' politicians without meaning to do so. In the US this is a crime regardless of level of intent. Besides many of the cartoons in the group are as offensive as that even when they do not directly call for anyones death. Some are calling for Islam to be destroyed, others so hateful that it is not unfair to question if it is safe for Moslems to be around those people.
This after all the concept behind our accusatory stance towards hate speech. Cross the line too far with racist commentary and you are lumped in with those who actively seek to do harm. Take the BNP and equivalent, only a small number would actually go out and hunt down minorities for a beating, but they all come under the same heading as violent racist scum if they say the same stuff and by and large most use the same or similar terminology.
Anyway the actual point remains that in western societies free speech is not an absolute, even in the US and countries with similar Constitutions. Trying to draw analogies is difficult but doable, the above is one of them. Some protection for relgious figures is a reasonable stance to take. Getting to the kernel of it I do beleive Mohammed should be off limits completely due to the culture of him not being imagable in Islam. Other religions without this doctrine should also not be lampooned in this way, but imagery is acceptible if not done in a disrespectful way. I have seen professional comic carttons of Jesus and Moses etc that offend noone, partly because we are not like that when noone is trying to offend, but would a newspaper depict Jesus having sex with a pig, no they would not. Would there be upset if someone did dio that, yes there likely would be. On aside here I am not usually offended by pretty much anything I see, but if I saw some of the carttons from that site in a newspaper I would be. A newspaper doing that much more so than an individual, because to me that is an indicator of moral decay. Individual comments are like online graffitti, you can chalk up a lot to ignorance and write it off as same. Its when people in the professional media cross the line that standards are threatened. However cartoons of priests monks etc that fine, although normal societal rules for any cartton should apply still, but in no greater way than regarding a polticians or celebrity.
We covered this topic elsewhere in religious discussion. Regarding when it is oveer the top for a theist to get upset, and for me the dividing line is lampoon the theist not the deity. Its one thing to say the/any deity doesnt exist, its another thing entirely to troll one.
Going back to the cartoons that caused this controversy. South Park crossed the line, but then South Park does, it has no discipline and mental skill to cross taboo lines its a cheap shock tactic to boost sales. Note what I said above about levels of offense, South Park can and does offend me, and not necessarily with imagery surrounding Jesus singled out. The entire culture of the show crosses the line in a dangerous way, because some lines cannot be crossed back and set the moral bar for televison progressively lower and lower. I hate to sound like Mary Whitehouse, but she had a point, this is a genuine trend. Gutter humour is both genuinely funny and easy to perform, anyone can get laughs with an offensive joke targeted at someone else, and lets admit it now the more offensive the joke the funnier it is a lot of the time. Its a force multiplier that gives mediocre shows an illusion of quality. Ask yourself why other contemporary shows such as the Simpsons lnever go that far, the answer is because they get quality elsewhere and do not need to. People in the media are gradually testing the lines harder and hader each time. The US has the same free spech rights it had thirty, fifty and a hundred years ago, but had South Park existed then what would have happened. I am in no doubt it would have been shut down at least temporarily one way or another.
Thus South Park is a poor example of professional media, however the Dutch cartoon which was actually banned in the UK to avoid causing offense was not. It showed someone, not necessarily Mohammed at the gates of heaven informing a growing queue of suicide bombers that heaven had run out of virgins. What did this lampoon? Allah? Not really. Mohammed? Perhaps so, but only if you take the unsupported mental leap to accuse the cartoonist of drawing Mohammed. Islam? Yes, but only the concept of the 72 virgins for martyrs and critically in relation of rewards for suicide bombings. Lampooning a relgious doctrine is usually acceptible, lampooning that doctrine doubly so. I remember many many cartoons in Punch with depictions of Jesus in a non offensive (to us) way that was more critical than the Dutch cartoon. Was there any anger? None I was aware of. Should there be? Certainly not. So should Moslems get angry at the Dutch cartoon? No for an accumulation of similar reasons. Should we tolerate their anger if they do? Not at all.
This is why at face value the Lets Draw Mohammed Day is valuable. That last dogma must be challenged, the trouble is we are going too far too fast.
Look us look at some cartton images now. I chose Jesus as the figure because being a Christian I can trust myself to judge whether I am crossing any lines regarding offense:
They all directly lampoon Jesus or Christian teachings in some way, to about the level of the controversial Swedish and Dutch cartoons, though such comments are hard to quantify. Here in the UK I cannot even legally post either of those two cartoons. Now if you do a search on Jesus cartoons you will notice people taking offense. What they are taking offense to are such issues as blasphemy which is now more or less restricted to showing a religious figurehead in a sexual act or as a member of an extremist political organisation. Also cartoons that lampoon as a means of proactive mocking denial of critical beliefs. For Christians this is normally restricted to the crucifixion and resurrection.
Had the above images been Mohammed or teaching of Mohammed things might be very different. This is the level of lampooning that we should be looking to protect under free speech, human decency and teaching Islam to tolerate our societal values. South Parks Mohammed in a pedo bear suit went way beyond the line, if Moselms got angry at that I wont get in their way and that attitude would not change a jot even if they never lampooned Jesus or any other relgious figure at all.
Orlanth wrote:Going back to the cartoons that caused this controversy. South Park crossed the line, but then South Park does, it has no discipline and mental skill to cross taboo lines its a cheap shock tactic to boost sales. Note what I said above about levels of offense, South Park can and does offend me, and not necessarily with imagery surrounding Jesus singled out. The entire culture of the show crosses the line in a dangerous way, because some lines cannot be crossed back and set the moral bar for televison progressively lower and lower.
I have to dissagree with you there. While its true that South Part sometimes relies too much on toilet humor the episode in question was a brilliant piece of satiere imho. 200 and 201 were all about cencorship. And the funny thing is, at no point were they showing Mohammed. At all. They did it way back in the 4th season I think.
You also have to consider that, iirc, there was only one radical website which voiced his opinion about the episode which in turn made Comedy Central cencor the second one.
Maybe you have a point when pointing out that other religions don't have such a background when it comes to them being ridiculed, but this is the 21st century, they should be sued to it by now.
ShumaGorath wrote:A religion is nothing without people and it's rare indeed for a country to do something for a religious purpose alone. In this case the west was en masse making fun of Islam, and in reaction to something it didn't entirely understand (pakistanis elder statesmen know the internet likely less than your grandfather) they reacted overly harshly.
That's the problem, isn't it? The internet is an important part of the lives of younger generations. If the pakistani eldar statesmen reacted the way they did because they don't know better, maybe someone should tell them that. As you said yourself: a Religion is nothing without its followers.
Footballers in pain as a third option? Professional ones?
You are not exactly making the choice difficult. I would love to see footballers 'suffer' a bit. £60K a week for playing four hours footie and acting like an orangutan the rest of the time. What do they know about suffering except hangovers and falling over their tartish WAGs.
Albatross wrote:I find South Park irretrievably crass. It's just not funny. In fact it's the nadir of American culture.
You are of course entitled to your own opinion. I enjoy South Park a lot for several reasons, but if you don't like I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
No, it's not famous, just from a comedy album of his I really like. Don't judge us please.
mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).
We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.
It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.
What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?
mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).
We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.
It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.
What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?
I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )
It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.
Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.
Orlanth wrote:IAs more 'draw day' groups open up often as revenge from previous ones where will it lead. Atheists are largely tolerant of cartoons lampooing them, partly because there is little to actually lampoon, Christians also more or less mostly because the Bible teaches that this is to be expected, Jesus has always been ridiculed by his attackers since when he walked the earth. Now of course manty excations exist, but thast is due to the individual not the faith. Most Chrisitians are of the opinion that Jesus will have the last laugh, Islam and Judaism do not have a culture of this particular type of persecution, normally their history of peresecution involves a purely physical or ideological threat that in a round about way shows an element of rerspect to their faith as a 'dangerous threat' rather than something to be mocked. Thus both religions dont eactly know how to take it when their central leaders are blasphemed.
Buddhism and Hinduism is hard to mock because its outside most western perceptions, militant extremism from both religions exists, but it is relatively rare or at least we dont get to hear about it much. Also in the case of Hinduism especially there is a difficulty in pinning down someone to mock, the relgion has about 300 million gods and counting.
Really good post, Orlanth, plenty of points well made. I don’t think Christianity is inherently more tolerant, though, through history it’s had its fair share of being hyper-sensitive to criticism. The tolerance we see now is largely a product of being part the Western secular world.
It’s also worth pointing out that the hyper-sensitivity of Islam is also not a historic constant. It’s certainly a feature right now, but over the course of history Islam really has no better or worse record of tolerance than any other faith.
I’m not suggesting Islam or any other faith managed a level of tolerance equivalent to what we see right now in Western society, but that’s because Western tolerance is a unique thing.
Oh, and just to point out again, the prohibition on drawing Mohammed is not universal to Islam. It’s a very diverse religion.
mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
There's a cultural tradition among Australian Aboriginals to never show the dead. This becomes an issue on television, particularly on current affairs shows, as there are lots of shows about dead Aboriginals (because they often commit suicide after being raped or abused in Aboriginal communities, or are killed in prison in mysterious circumstances... we have serious problems).
We respect that tradition, but also respect the need to bring the issue to public awareness. As a result before each show there's a short message saying that the following contains images of the dead, so if that offends you can look away now. In other situations, where there's no pressing need to show the dead we simply don't.
It's their cultural value, not shared by the majority of the Australian population, we don't and probably can't understand it, but we don't have to. We respect it, compromise to avoid any possibly avoidable offence, and get on with life.
What possible good comes from intentionally offending cultural taboos? Seriously, what good do you think you're going to achieve?
I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )
They still have a lot of serious problems in the present day. Petrol-sniffing is common in the outback communities and they're vastly outnumbered (I see more Africans than Aboriginies around here, although Tasmania's native population was massacred over a century ago).
Stormrider wrote:I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )
The issue is a lot more complex than my post. There's abuse, but there's also a whole lot of resources being dedicated to solving the problem, it's just that it's somewhat ineffectual. Going into any more detail would get the thread sidetracked really quickly.
It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.
Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.
And the right to be tasteless is something we need to protect. I think there's a lot of value in South Park, it's funny and makes some good points at times, but as this thread has shown other folk think it's simply crass. So I do recognise we need to protect speach and art against charges of tastelessness.
But there's still an obligation on the artist, to consider if there's really anything to gain other than to cause offence.
Stormrider wrote:I never knew that about the Aboriginies. I hate to hear they are still being abused in some way. (I am not pointing fingers BTW, it makes me sad is all )
The issue is a lot more complex than my post. There's abuse, but there's also a whole lot of resources being dedicated to solving the problem, it's just that it's somewhat ineffectual. Going into any more detail would get the thread sidetracked really quickly.
It would be akin to digging up an Ancient Indian burial ground here in the States. Just leave the dead alone.
Being tasteless is part of society, most people do it to be dicks.
And the right to be tasteless is something we need to protect. I think there's a lot of value in South Park, it's funny and makes some good points at times, but as this thread has shown other folk think it's simply crass. So I do recognise we need to protect speach and art against charges of tastelessness.
But there's still an obligation on the artist, to consider if there's really anything to gain other than to cause offence.
Yes, however heinous their speech, it's got to be protected. Free Speech or expression is utterly vital. However, they shouldn't expect a free pass from the public, ridicule and scorn are ways to coerce someone's language.
South Park is surprisingly intelligent (if you get past the potty humor of course) with the way they talk about issues, another show that does it the same way is the Boondocks.
mattyrm wrote:it was a long well thought out reply orlanth, but regards the last point, drawing a funny little cartoon is much different to 'internation shoot someone day' so i dont think it would be THAT hypocritical if the one regarding Obama was banned! Its not like i joined a group called 'lets all kill some Muslims' is it? The Whole point of the group is that some muslims overreact needlessly to silly cartoons, i mean, i think they would be justified for once if the group was as harsh as the one you suggested. :-)
Actually there is more on this issue. Because there is a form of 'death to Obama' group on You Tube, and it to has got its own petitions moving to ban it. The group title is very carefully labelled:
DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN.
Notice that it doesn't actually call for Obama's death directly, though it is refered to as a Pray for Obamas death site. apparently, though I have no idea how anyone knows this the site has been monitored by the Ohio branch of the Secret Service. Now as the site only calls for Obama to be prayed out of office, and no doubt my fellow Dakkatites of atheistic leanings will be swift to point out that will likely come to nothing. Nevertheless it is potentially an illegal site by US law. I suppose it depends on what people post inside. Then you have to ascertain if a page is culpable for its open contributory content.
In any case the page is very small, with lots of likers but few contributors, and is very likely a spoof. I am yet to figure out if it does even go as far as to pray for Obama's death, theologically it doesnt.
The oddity is the large number of pages protesting against it. often around the recurring theme that it is 'hate speech'.
So 'praying' for Obama to drop dead is Hate Speech but drawing pcitures indicated that Mohammed is into bestiality or paedophilia is Free Speech.......
Fixed.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:lol, people arguing about facebook in Pakistan.
sebster wrote:Oh, and just to point out again, the prohibition on drawing Mohammed is not universal to Islam. It’s a very diverse religion.
Wait. Do you mean other religions also prohibit the drawing of Mohammed or that Islam prohibits Non-Muslims to draw him
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, I'm having seconds thoughts here about the whole thing. Here are a few comments from different people on the Facebook page:
Eat that gak, mooselimbs.
you don't harm us by doing this, and no one ever truly wins by harming others...
What about wars? They are all about harming and one will be victorious.
No, no one wins a war.
Largest number of men standing in the end wins. Sally....you need to lose that way of thinking, or you will surely be beaten and raped like they do to their own women. As their numbers grow all over earth...it will be up to us to erradicate them before they try to take over our countries and our beautiful women.
sebster wrote:Oh, and just to point out again, the prohibition on drawing Mohammed is not universal to Islam. It’s a very diverse religion.
Wait. Do you mean other religions also prohibit the drawing of Mohammed or that Islam prohibits Non-Muslims to draw him
Only certain parts of Islam believe that it is wrong to draw him. There are a number of early works of art/etc which show him in full detail.
Regards this quote:
Largest number of men standing in the end wins. Sally....you need to lose that way of thinking, or you will surely be beaten and raped like they do to their own women. As their numbers grow all over earth...it will be up to us to erradicate them before they try to take over our countries and our beautiful women.
The stated aim of Islam in Malaysia while I and my parents were living there in the 80's was to breed enough votes to become a majority and so become the main power in the nation.
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
No, it's not famous, just from a comedy album of his I really like. Don't judge us please.
or we'll let the Argentinians sink your navy this time.
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
No, it's not famous, just from a comedy album of his I really like. Don't judge us please.
or we'll let the Argentinians sink your navy this time.
I feel like im 8 years old but what the hell...
I read a book about that and i heard that the US didnt allow us the usage of their radar anyway, so didnt you not assist the UK forces with regards to keeping its Navy afloat anyway?
But yeah, Frazz, your a pretty auld bloke, why such a purile retort? Is US foreign policy dictated by what Frazz decides and how Anglo American relations transpire on dakka?
Hey I am just responding to the slam against the USA. In the immortal words of Sean Connery. "If he puts one of your guys in the hospital, you put two of his in the morgue."
mattyrm wrote:
Is US foreign policy dictated by what Frazz decides and how Anglo American relations transpire on dakka?
It will be in Ze New Ahdah! Now is ze time for Firm Leadership! Now is ze Time for Frazzled!
gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.
I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.
Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?
This statement implies serious psychological issues.
I dont know shuma, ive seen people die in amusing ways, im sure youtube has a plethora of good ones, and frankly if i got killed by a maternally outraged gorilla i would be disapointed if people didnt grin a little bit!
gorgon wrote:Which suggests to me you don't actually watch South Park.
I've watched it. I've also watched a person die.
Wanna know which one filled me with more mirth?
This statement implies serious psychological issues.
I dont know shuma, ive seen people die in amusing ways, im sure youtube has a plethora of good ones, and frankly if i got killed by a maternally outraged gorilla i would be disapointed if people didnt grin a little bit!
I also don't enjoy horror movies. I guess I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to enjoying peoples deaths.
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
Says someone from a nation that counts Benny Hill among its comedy giants.
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
No, it's not famous, just from a comedy album of his I really like. Don't judge us please.
or we'll let the Argentinians sink your navy this time.
I feel like im 8 years old but what the hell...
I read a book about that and i heard that the US didnt allow us the usage of their radar anyway, so didnt you not assist the UK forces with regards to keeping its Navy afloat anyway?
But yeah, Frazz, your a pretty auld bloke, why such a purile retort? Is US foreign policy dictated by what Frazz decides and how Anglo American relations transpire on dakka?
OK lets be fair here. Much of the material help actually given was formally denied, we might not have got new radars for a number of reasons. fitting time being top of the list. ship radar has a large run in time, time that was not avaialbe. It also has to be compatible with our existing technology including anti-missile systems.
Reagan did a lot to help materially. He greased the wheels and cut a lot of red tape and made some phone calls. Some crates appeared 'overnight' containing Sidewinder 2. It was brand new tech and the USAF were only getting their first batches about this time. IIRC the missiles were also gifts as they were already allocated to USAF stores and simply redirected without a formal paper trail. We don't know whet else he did with material help but the Sidewinders being urgently redeployed got noticed, especially because layers and months of bureaucracy are bypassed in the process.
Personally I strongly suspect that satellite coverage was also available, but that a guess based only on the evidence that Washington had it, and Maggie could have asked for it, and all it would have taken to achieve was handing over a discrete envelope containing plotting data. A whole lot easier than redirecting missile supplies. The Vincente de Mayo daren't put to sea throughout the war and any surface vessel the Argies had was found suspeciously quickly. it was rumoured that the Vincente de Mayo was watched by an SIS undercover team, I remember the report in the press at the time. But I really think the team didn't exist, it was a way of saying 'we have American cameras overhead every few hours'. But I suspect we may never know for sure.
gorgon wrote:
Orlanth wrote:Thats counted as a famous quote? We have chavs that can do better. You must be really short of wit over there. Excepting Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce and Dorothy Parker.
Says someone from a nation that counts Benny Hill among its comedy giants.
WAA WAA BUMPA BUMPA WAA WAA BUMPA BUMPA...
Among being the operative world. Who have you got? Chris Rock, Martin Short and Will Ferrell
mattyrm wrote:Dads army, Red Dwarf, Monty Python, The Office, Blackadder and Fawlty Towers all totally sucked too.
Never heard of it, never thought it was funny, WINNER, U.S. version is (surprisingly) better, overrated, not Cleese's best work (see #3).
Frazzled wrote:All comedy is nation/culture specific.
Some things cross over, but this is often true. Might explain why someone would think that South Park is about vulgarity when it's actually social and cultural commentary in a wrapper of vulgarity. But I didn't think South Park wouldn't play in the UK. *shrug*
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hmm, better say something constructive quick...
In New Zealand this poster was banned.
Does that help your arguement, Orlanth?
Yeah back to that.
I have a theory as to why it was banned. Offence to Catholics possibly? I think its a good ad, but Mary is a very special in fact an overly special figure in some forms of Catholicism. Despite Biblical references to the sons of Mary, and references Jesus own brothers many Catholics insist Mary was a Virgin until death. This doctrine is not supported by the Vatican but is popular in some Catholic subcommunities, especially where there is a Hispanic community.
Either way to some Catholics this isn't a lampoon of Biblical figures but a form of blasphemy. Marianism is off the wall in regards to Christian teaching, but that is not for me to judge, to Marianist Catholics Mary is a semi-divine figure not just a religious figure and if there is a good chance Catholics will be offended the decision to pull the add was a fair one.
Blasphemy is an excuse for censorship if you can show the authorities that the image would cause distress. Some Catholics could claim that, and their claims are reasonable to some extent. Most forms of social censorship are due to 'potential to caused offense', whether secular other otherwise. We have that sort of censorship here in the Uk on those grounds but normally most heavily focused in other fields. That image would probably pass UK censorship, Christians normally have to lump it, but an add with a joke aimed at a gay couple in bed probably would not.
mattyrm wrote:
I read a book about that and i heard that the US didnt allow us the usage of their radar anyway, so didnt you not assist the UK forces with regards to keeping its Navy afloat anyway?
Yep.
mattyrm wrote:
But yeah, Frazz, your a pretty auld bloke, why such a purile retort? Is US foreign policy dictated by what Frazz decides and how Anglo American relations transpire on dakka?
Remember, any military victory is the direct result of US involvement. In fact, no one won a war before the Constitution was ratified.
)
BURN IN HELL