|
Post by syriano on Feb 5, 2006 10:18:45 GMT -5
^^
of course no diplomats were injured because the attacks were carried on the weekend (closed)
the demonstration event was promoted as a peaceful demonstration (most of the masses), no violence was planned
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Feb 5, 2006 13:05:05 GMT -5
Notice here after the embassy burning in Lebanon, that the media is quick to blame pro-Syrian Hizbollah Shias for the attacks. Only problem with that is that all the demonstrators in beirut were obviously Sunnis. If anyone happens to see some footage from there, and an ignorant journalist claims the demonstrators were Shias, take this into consideration: Notice the green Sunni flags, like in this Hamas rally: As opposed to the yellow Shia flags, as in this Hizbollah rally: Furthermore, you can notice the clerics running around, who are obviously Sunni clerics. Here, a Sunni cleric, notice the tight, perfectly rounded turban: Shias on the other hand, have loose baggy turbans that slope back, like these: Furthermore, Shias usually wear black, just like the clerics in the footage form Lebanon didn't. And now to some worthless bickering: You're blaming me for not differentiating between Holocaust and Holocaust- denial? Come on. Of course, as it is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the picture is used in favour of Holocaust denial, and is an expression of Holocaust denial. A "counterfactual intepretation" can only be perceived in the same way as counterfactual history, but as i was talking about very recent events, i found it unimportant to mention history. Where was i "forgetting it"? I said we both used it, so i don't see your point. What i said: By italising your, i implied that mine was counterfactual too. Yes, but i find it hypocritical, and it weakens their defense, which went along the lines of "we can critisise any religious figure as much as we want, because we have the righ to."
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Feb 5, 2006 13:14:16 GMT -5
btw there is a Church next to the Danish embassy in Damascus and nobody did any harm to it
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 5, 2006 13:54:14 GMT -5
I'm not blaming you. I am emphasizing that I did not exchange them unwittingly. You're playing semantics. To see it, try to think about what it means when you say "Holocaust-denial is controversial" and pay attention to the implications of the word 'controversial'.
It's perfectly relevant. You're trying to establish a legitimate comparison based on the fact that, as you say, they are both controversial, in the meanwhile you're glossing over important intricacies and playing semantics. The main problem, as I said before, is that you presuppose that issues are inherently controversy. And your whole reason for bringing up the Holocaust is suspect. What point were you trying to make anyway?
What are you talking about?
counterfactual -- Running contrary to the facts.
counterfactual history -- is a form of history which attempts to answer "what if" questions. It seeks to explore history and historical processes from the point of view of extrapolating a position in which certain key historical events did not happen or had an outcome which was different to that which did in fact occur.
You don't see how an interpretation can run contrary to the facts? In fact, that was the only way to understand it.
"Counterfactual history" history is a concept whose label consists of two conjoined words - 'counterfactual' and 'history'. If you separate the two, then you're not using the right label
Again I emphasize that you seem to have a problem distinguishing words and the things they describe. You latch on to the word "counterfactual" in "counterfactual history" and think that they are one and the same. I really hope that that's the case, and it's not just you being obstinate.
Exactly! You tried to give substance to your claim by pointing out that my interpretation is counterfactual, when my goal was not to propose an alternative interpretation, but to show weakness in your analogy which relies on a far-fetched interpretation. That goal was accomplished, although I'm still waiting for your explicit acknowledgement.
What's hypocritical about that? They can. And it's their right to do so whenever they see fit. You know what "can" means? In fact, it's hypocritical of you to use such an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Funky Kong on Feb 5, 2006 14:17:02 GMT -5
Ahh, fer f*ck's sake, this is senseless ant-f*cking.
Is denial of the Holocaust not controversial?
It can, but it is obviously not what i meant. Will it cheer you up if i rephrase and say "hypothetical"?
It was nothing more than an alternative, and i don't agree with it. Both were "counterfactual interpretations", or should we say, hypothetical.
Yes, and again, it is hypocritical to defend the publication of these Muhammad drawings, when the news paper itself used the exact same arguments the critisicers of this publication have used, when they refused to publish similar drawings of Jesus.
It is their right, yes, but they acted hypocritically.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 5, 2006 14:45:36 GMT -5
You took what I said out of context. Go back and and read what led up to it.
You may have meant one thing and said something else. But that's not even the issue. The issue is that you refused to admit it and had the audacity to say: "It couldn't had been perceived in any other way" and dismissed my correction.
If you admitted that you said not what you meant, then I would not have a problem with it.
You've ignored what I've said. So I'll write it out again. You tried to give substance to your claim by pointing out that my interpretation is counterfactual, when my goal was not to propose an alternative interpretation, but to show weakness in your analogy which relies on a far-fetched interpretation. That goal was accomplished, although I'm still waiting for your explicit acknowledgement.
You're just repeating the same thing and not listening. They didn't act hypocritically. They said they can or have the right to publish pictures of any religious figures. Not printing pictures of Jesus does not contradict what they said. The word "can" does not denote obligation or commitment.
----------
And I notice you skipped over a few points/questions.
|
|
|
Post by ndrthl on Feb 5, 2006 16:31:12 GMT -5
The Arab European league manifesto: "After the lectures that Arabs and Muslims received from Europeans on Freedom of Speech and on Tolerance. And after that many European newspapers republished the Danish cartoons on the Prophet Mohammed. AEL decided to enter the cartoon business and to use our right to artistic expression. Just like the newspapers in Europe claim that they only want to defend the freedom of speech and do not desire to stigmatise Muslims,we also do stress that our cartoons are not meant as an offence to anybody and ought not to be taken as a statement against any group, community or historical fact. If it is the time to break Taboos and cross all the red lines, we certainly do not want to stay behind". The text is followed by one of their cartoons: img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arableaguecartoon0uj.jpgwww.arabeuropean.org/newsdetail.php?ID=94&PHPSESSID=c5f78752a2cd0b8929c060d8d4b48129
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 5, 2006 16:54:52 GMT -5
LMAO! They are actually way ahead.
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Feb 5, 2006 17:57:35 GMT -5
Good thing the pictures were printed in the West and not the East then.
Good question. Perhaps you should ask the Islamisk Trossamfund that.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Feb 5, 2006 18:05:14 GMT -5
There is something inherently wrong in the comparison with holocaust denial, moking of Islam and mocking of Jesus imo. Personally I'm for absoulte freedom of expression (comprehending holocaus deniers, Jesus mockers etc.), but this is off point.
We can not start from the pretence that any European country has the duty of being equidistant to all races, countries and religions of the world. This is absurd. The holocaust is part of our history. Jesus is probably the most important figure in western history. We just don't care for Islam, and rightly so. Muslims can have all the laws they want in their own countries, mock who they want and limit freedom of expression as they want. Same should go for us. Europe is not a free zone where anyone can come and have a say about how we do things.
|
|
|
Post by atlantis on Feb 5, 2006 18:08:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Feb 5, 2006 19:11:26 GMT -5
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run.
and
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather
|
|
|
Post by annienormanna on Feb 5, 2006 20:52:02 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684250.stmSome protesters threw stones at the security forces and burned Danish flags. A nearby church and other property in the neighbourhood were also attacked.
Muslim clerics had spoken out against the protests
Security officials said at least 18 people were injured, AP news agency reported. The government said several dozen Lebanese and Syrians had been arrested.
|
|
Amic
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by Amic on Feb 5, 2006 20:55:56 GMT -5
I do not see any hope for the muslim world.its over runned by extremists.
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Feb 5, 2006 23:30:35 GMT -5
There is something inherently wrong in the comparison with holocaust denial, moking of Islam and mocking of Jesus imo. Personally I'm for absoulte freedom of expression (comprehending holocaus deniers, Jesus mockers etc.), but this is off point. We can not start from the pretence that any European country has the duty of being equidistant to all races, countries and religions of the world. This is absurd. The holocaust is part of our history. Jesus is probably the most important figure in western history. We just don't care for Islam, and rightly so. Muslims can have all the laws they want in their own countries, mock who they want and limit freedom of expression as they want. Same should go for us. Europe is not a free zone where anyone can come and have a say about how we do things. see that's actually one of the major reasons why the muslim world got furious. it's not just the cartoons got published, but that the majority of the people agreed that there is nothing wrong in doing this. no need to reply, I know your stand on the issue
|
|