or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately? - Page 6

post #201 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I think the fact that people are thinking "this will lead to war" exposes a disturbing vein within the popular consciousness right now.

What? The ability to rationally interpret reality?
post #202 of 328
Quote:
Again, as I have said so many times, its a means vs. goal consideration, where he is making a judgement whether the goal justify the means. He is ready to ridicule religious figures, not certain people and their actions. While I would have the opposite priorities of the paper you can´t say it is inconsistent.

Explain the consistency in portraying one religious leader as a terrorist with a bomb on his turban, and another as drinking beer. What's wrong with drinking alcohol in Christianity? Heck, I got served wine as 'the blood of Jesus' every freaking time I went to mass.

How is portraying Jesus as drinking beer, a perfectly legitimitate action in Christianity, consistent with portraying Muhammad as a terrorist murderer who has bombs on his turban? Last I heard, grabbing bombs and stuffing them in your turban was not an action Muhammad condoned (let alone the fact that bombs did not even exist in his time?).

So, if it's consistent, as you claim, wouldn't they need to push the boundaries of Jesus' ridicule a little further than a pint of beer? Not to come off as a defenders of embassy-burners or anything, as I'm as pissed off at their reaction as anyone else is, but you seem to think that there is consistency in ridiculing one type of leaders, while claiming it falls under freedom of speech, yet refrain from another (and a whole lot more insignificant) type of leaders, while claiming it is 'racist'.

If it's freedom of speech, how is it racist? And if it is racist, then where do you draw the border between what's racist and what's not?
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #203 of 328
Thread Starter 
You don´t know how the question was asked, do you? I read this as a difference between religious icons and living persons. The beer is just an example.

Let me give you another example. An a couple of decades ago a danish artist painted a naked Jesus with an erected penis at a train station actually commisioned by a local art group. Rose would have defended that had it happened today in the spirit of free speech.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #204 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So, if it's consistent, as you claim, wouldn't they need to push the boundaries of Jesus' ridicule a little further than a pint of beer? Not to come off as a defenders of embassy-burners or anything, as I'm as pissed off at their reaction as anyone else is, but you seem to think that there is consistency in ridiculing one type of leaders, while claiming it falls under freedom of speech, yet refrain from another (and a whole lot more insignificant) type of leaders, while claiming it is 'racist'.

Just this point: Rose is not saying that portraying Sharon killing a palestinian baby isn´t included in freedom of speech. He is only saying that he would not exercise that right.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #205 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
If you think that Bush could have predicted or organised this, then you have a much higher opinion of his competance than I do.

Note the

I think the current admin is up to plenty of fishy things, but not EVERY fishy thing in the world. And I would agree that Bush himself is just a mouthpiece in any case. Personally, I'd be surprised if he ever had an original idea of his own!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #206 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
You don´t know how the question was asked, do you? I read this as a difference between religious icons and living persons. The beer is just an example.

It was a very poor example then.

Quote:
Let me give you another example. An a couple of decades ago a danish artist painted a naked Jesus with an erected penis at a train station actually commisioned by a local art group. Rose would have defended that had it happened today in the spirit of free speech.

Would he have published that painting? From what he said (and as quoted by segovius) he wouldn't, because it's too offensive to the readers. It's an interesting point he's making, it seems, as he keeps diving 'readers' into two groups:
  • A. Those who would be offended by charicatures of Christ and Political figures
    B. Those who would not be offended by charicatures of Muhammad and other religious leaders

Quote:
Just this point: Rose is not saying that portraying Sharon killing a palestinian baby isn´t included in freedom of speech. He is only saying that he would not exercise that right.

I understand that, but it's interesting to conclude that Sharon killing a Palestinian baby is racist, yet on the other hand, Muhammad as a terrorist with a bomb on his turban is, obviously, not racist. Isn't the message on both of them the same? Murder, wether by hand (Sharon) or by bomb (Muhammad).

If so, then this kinda fits in with segovius' contention that it's all made on purpose, and not as some kind of test of 'freedom of speech'.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #207 of 328
Quote:
What? The ability to rationally interpret reality?

Is that what you call "if war comes then they deserved it"?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #208 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Is that what you call "if war comes then they deserved it"?

I guess I was thinking more in terms of the inevitability of war due to the high tensions, overreactions and inability or unwillingness of anyone to take a deep breath and slow down. Sorry...perhaps I picked up things out of sequence.
post #209 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I guess I was thinking more in terms of the inevitability of war due to the high tensions, overreactions and inability or unwillingness of anyone to take a deep breath and slow down. Sorry...perhaps I picked up things out of sequence.

I take it we can count on your voice to call for rationality and calmness when that time comes?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #210 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It was a very poor example then.

And perhaps thats what the journalist gave him...

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Would he have published that painting? From what he said (and as quoted by segovius) he wouldn't, because it's too offensive to the readers.

He would, had the goal justified it (Again from his valuation which I don´t agree with)

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I understand that, but it's interesting to conclude that Sharon killing a Palestinian baby is racist, yet on the other hand, Muhammad as a terrorist with a bomb on his turban is, obviously, not racist. Isn't the message on both of them the same? Murder, wether by hand (Sharon) or by bomb (Muhammad).

Thats your distinction, not his. His distinction is between religious icons and living things. You can agree or disagree with him if thats the important distinction (I disagree with him) but from his own logic its consistent

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
If so, then this kinda fits in with segovius' contention that it's all made on purpose, and not as some kind of test of 'freedom of speech'.

Thats black helicopter talk. See my bullets above.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #211 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
[B]And perhaps thats what the journalist gave him...

I highly doubt it.

Quote:
He would, had the goal justified it (Again from his valuation which I don´t agree with)

And what is this goal you speak of?

Quote:
Thats your distinction, not his. His distinction is between religious icons and living things. You can agree or disagree with him if thats the important distinction (I disagree with him) but from his own logic its consistent

Religious icons and living things... I must admit, I'm getting a little confused about this 'distinction' between religious icons and living things. Especially since a lot of living things are very much influenced and tend to follow the examples of those religious icons.

Quote:
Thats black helicopter talk. See my bullets above.

Your bullets contradict what he himself said (that he wouldn't publish cartoons deemed offensive to his 'readers' - he was talking about Jesus and later on about Sharon). I guess publishing cartoons deemed offensive is OK so long as his readers are not offended by them.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #212 of 328
This problem is multi-layered.

It looks to me, that Islam -- and I'm trying to be very fair here -- has 'issues' with honor and insults/slights at a clan or personal level. I think that they® see themselves not so much as members of a nation as they® do as members of a religion, and that these honor issues can get a bit prickly, whether it's absolutely personal or an insult to their® religion. Let's face it, in certain cultures there are no-nos that just aren't taken lightly. Not that people riot in the streets at the drop of a hat, but there are always the hardcore types that can get the ball rolling.

Enter 3 pretty foul cartoons presented by certain interested parties, and a ready-to-roll, well-oiled, and an orchestrated campaign to make sure cameras were rolling when the curiously large supplies of Danish flags were being burned, and I'd say we have something that needs to be called for what it is. A centuries-old and very effective way of moving an agenda -- with a suspicious proximity to the goings on in Iran.

Castro and Robespierre would be proud.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #213 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I take it we can count on your voice to call for rationality and calmness when that time comes?

I'd call for it now if my voice had any weight. I certainly don't advocate any of the overreaction I'm seeing now, if that's what you are implying.
post #214 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is where you fail to understand this whole issue. Bush is not Muhammad. He is not Jesus. He is, in terms of spiritual importance, a nobody. Mr. Inside-Outski. Drawing parallels between Bush and Muhammad would be OK if Bush ever became a Prophet, formed a new religion, had 1.5 billion followers and was revered to the point of being sacred and untouchable.

As it is, it's the same as comparing Jesus with, say, Hugo Chavez. Do some people draw cartoons of Chavez that are offensive to Venezuelans? Sure. Are all Venezuelans Castro-loving scumbags? No. But that shouldn't stop anyone from depicting Jesus as a terrorist with a bomb on his head.

Do you seriously believe that I would be offended and outraged if Jesus were portrayed like that? Here's a cartoon I'd like to see: Jesus throwing a firebomb into an abortion clinic. Or bombing the English in the name of a united Ireland. Or another example is the well-known Supply Side Jesus, which portrays Jesus refusing to treat leprosy and promoting the rich over the poor. Why would I like to see those? Because they criticize people who use my Christian tradition in a way that I disagree and a way that I believe goes against true Christianity. I want that point to be made, because I believe art and debate and criticism and lampooning are good for my culture.

I believe in liberal society. If you don't, well that's your choice. There are certainly lots of other political plans to choose from - authoritarianism, conservatism, traditionalism, etc. etc. But if you believe in a liberal society, you believe in free expression even if it offends those who aren't so liberal.
post #215 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Do you seriously believe that I would be offended and outraged if Jesus were portrayed like that?

Well, from talking to you, I know that you wouldn't be outraged if Jesus was portrayed like that. I'm not outraged about either, and as long as I'm concerned, they can continue doing that as much as they'd like. My primary concern is the freedom of speech argument used to justify (not that there's a need to do that) the cartoons, and how weak that argument is in this particular case.

From all the gathered information, or evidence if you will, the editor(s) of this newspaper did not approve of these cartoons to test the limits of free speech. And let me tell you why: had they actually wanted to do so, they would use something that would potentially provoke the *majority* of Danes, not the minority (i.e. Muslims). They would use some controversial image/person/character that had some relation with the Danes and/or was, in some way, historically if not ethnically/spiritually, a big part of the Danish nation or Danish history/culture.

Muhammad for the Danes is an outsider, a religious figure that is revered by a small minority of mostly immigrants in Denmark. Therefore, testing the limits of freedom of speech tolerated by the Danes while using an "outsider" character that has no significance in Danish culture/history seems kind of... odd to me. Certainly not very effective. So now the question is: did they use Muhammad because they thought he would be a controversial topic among many of the secular Danes, or did they intentionally choose Muhammad because they knew that they would make their point, however offending or in poor taste it may be?

I kind of think it's the latter. What do you think?

Quote:
I believe in liberal society. If you don't, well that's your choice. There are certainly lots of other political plans to choose from - authoritarianism, conservatism, traditionalism, etc. etc.

I like the way you're suggesting alternative political ideologies (not plans) to me, but you are forgetting that it's not me who's the topic here, it's these cartoons and their results (for lack of a better word).

Quote:
But if you believe in a liberal society, you believe in free expression even if it offends those who aren't so liberal.

That much is true. But I also believe that just because I can offend someone, that doesn't mean I should. Of course, the reactions were a bit too stupid and, in my opinion, totally unnecessary (at least the burning of embassies and threats - a simple peaceful protest would make their point) but just because they reacted in a bad manner, doesn't mean the original offence is OK, especially in light of newspapers' refusal to 'test the limits of freedom of speech' with other religious figures, and especially some political figures (not only Sharon).

But I guess they proved their point. No matter that there's chaos now.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #216 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I highly doubt it.

Look at the article. You have NO way of knowing. You can´t conclude NAYTHING from it.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #217 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
You have NO way of knowing.

It says right there in the article that it's not about Jesus drinking beer.

Quote:
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #218 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean

And what is this goal you speak of?

Excuse me? How should I know? But a good guess when the artist dies as an illustration of what kind of provocative art he produced.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Religious icons and living things... I must admit, I'm getting a little confused about this 'distinction' between religious icons and living things. Especially since a lot of living things are very much influenced and tend to follow the examples of those religious icons.

Gene, I really don´t know how to answer this. Are you confused about the distinction between religious icons (Jesus, Mohammad, God, Jahve, Thor, Allah, Shiva, etc) and living things (you, me, Bush, President Ahmadinejad, Sharon, Kofi Annan, etc)?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Your bullets contradict what he himself said (that he wouldn't publish cartoons deemed offensive to his 'readers' - he was talking about Jesus and later on about Sharon). I guess publishing cartoons deemed offensive is OK so long as his readers are not offended by them.

Again: Means and goal. If the goal justifies the means in the head of the editor he would. He would not publish it out of the blue. He didn´t publish the Mohammad cartoons out of the blue, he is of the opinion that the goal justifies the means. I don´t agree with this assessment. But it is consistent.
Remember not everything that is said in this case filter down into the international press.

Lets take it from the top: Seg say:

Quote:
My personal opinion is that this is part of the ramp-up to a conflict with Iran. Expect more provocations (or Muslim savages over-reacting, as you will) in the coming month.

You say:

Quote:
If so, then this kinda fits in with segovius' contention that it's all made on purpose, and not as some kind of test of 'freedom of speech'.

I am giving these reasons why seg is wrong. Please adress them all if you agree with Seg:

Quote:
1) If anything Shi´as would be the last one to react to these drawings. And we have extremely few strong Shi´a muslims here (most Iranians here are refugees from the revolution in Iran and they tend to be as much muslims as most danes are christians). There would be tons of better ways to provoke Iran than setting the entire muslim world on fire.

2) These drawings were published FIVE month ago and the paper did not do anything active to make this conflict international. You are seeing ghosts here, Seg.

3) The handling of the situation from the paper shows they were really NOT ready to handle an internationalisation of the conflict. This was for pure national reasons.

4) The Bush administration was at first very reluctant to side with Jyllands Posten or the danish government at first. Not until our embassy in Syria was burned (and the situation therefore suddenly played right into the Bush administration agenda) did they react. And every time, before and after the Syria incident, the original issue, the drawings, has been labelled as unacceptable by your admin.

5) The full quote is:

Quote:
But Rose acknowledges that even his liberalism has its limits. He said he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as "racist." He would, however, publish a cartoon poking fun at Moses or one of Jesus drinking a pint of beer.

"Muslims should be allowed to burn the Danish flag in a public square if that's within the boundaries of the law," he said. "Though I think this would be a strange signal to the Danish people who have hosted them."


Again, as I have said so many times, its a means vs. goal consideration, where he is making a judgement whether the goal justify the means. He is ready to ridicule religious figures, not certain people and their actions. While I would have the opposite priorities of the paper you can´t say it is inconsistent.

Why is all this important for me? Because it is important to be clear what the problem is. The problem is that in our society some people, of which a least one is the assistent editor of a large newspaper, has a fanatic value system, where they are putting liberal values like freedom of speech on such a high shelf that they are breaking any consideration for other values on the way up there. And in doing that also treading on another liberal value, the responsibility of the individual to make good judgements in his/hers freedom. This is not part of a ramp up to war on Iran or an attempt to affect international relations.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #219 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It says right there in the article that it's not about Jesus drinking beer.

1) Flemming Rose is not the editor of the sunday section. He is the editor of the daily cultural section. He didn´t reject that cartoon. another one did.

2) The rejection was made before Flemming Rose became editor. The paper have had a cultural-conservative leaning. Flemming Rose is liberal (liberals are mainly a right wing phenomen here), so it is no surprise he would make other judgements.

3) The rejection doesn´t say if they would use the cartoon, if there was an occasion (events in the world) where such a drawing would fit. Say if christian organisation wanted to ban "Life of Brian".
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #220 of 328
Thread Starter 
I need someone to proof-read this entry I will add to the Wikipedia article:

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former danish Minister for Foreign affairs (1982-1993), called the publication of the cartoons an "pubertarian demonstration" in October, when they were published.

On February 8, after editor Carsten Juste had declared had he known the consequences he would not have published the cartoons, Ellemann-Jensen encouraged Juste to resign. He declared "When you acknowledgethat to have made a fatal mistake, which so far have claimed six human lifes, you are not equal to your task (the danish phrase is: You are not your task mature enough. Is there a better phrase in english than "equal to your task"?)

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has been the Leader of the liberal party of Denmark, Venstre (1984-1998) and was succeded by the current Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #221 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
When you acknowledgethat to have made a fatal mistake, which so far have claimed six human lifes

He is not responsible for those human lives, any more than Ben and Jay-Lo are responsible for anyone who might have committed suicide when they broke up.

Crazy people do wierd stuff - anything might trigger them, it is like the butterfly effect.

In this case it is a whole society of crazy people.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #222 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
And Flemming Rose is secretly told to set it all into motion?

.

Sure, via a secret meeting with Rummy!
post #223 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
He is not responsible for those human lives, any more than Ben and Jay-Lo are responsible for anyone who might have committed suicide when they broke up.

Crazy people do wierd stuff - anything might trigger them, it is like the butterfly effect.

In this case it is a whole society of crazy people.

I am not discussing it, its a description. Its the grand father of the econoical-liberal movement, that both our government and Jyllands Posten are building their ideology upon. Its a major critisism from the center of their own ranks.

Someone proof-read it please.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #224 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mac on a Mac
Sure, via a secret meeting with Rummy!

That explains the unmarked CIA planes that has used our airports...
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #225 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I need someone to proof-read this entry I will add to the Wikipedia article:

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former danish Minister for Foreign affairs (1982-1993), called the publication of the cartoons an "pubertarian demonstration" in October, when they were published.

On February 8, after editor Carsten Juste had declared had he known the consequences he would not have published the cartoons, Ellemann-Jensen encouraged Juste to resign. He declared "When you acknowledgethat to have made a fatal mistake, which so far have claimed six human lifes, you are not equal to your task (the danish phrase is: You are not your task mature enough. Is there a better phrase in english than "equal to your task"?)

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has been the Leader of the liberal party of Denmark, Venstre (1984-1998) and was succeded by the current Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Here's my edit, but you should ask midwinter.

Quote:
Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former danish Minister for Foreign affairs (1982-1993), called the publication of the cartoons a "pubertarian demonstration" in October, when they were published.

On February 8, after editor Carsten Juste stated that he would not have published the cartoons if he had known the consequences, Ellemann-Jensen encouraged Juste to resign. Ellemann-Jensen said "when you acknowledge that you have made a fatal mistake, which so far has claimed six human lives, you are not equal to your task."

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has been the Leader of the liberal party of Denmark, Venstre (1984-1998) and was succeded by the current Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
post #226 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Here's my edit, but you should ask midwinter.

My edit:

"Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former danish Minister for Foreign affairs (1982-1993), called the publication of the cartoons a "pubertarian demonstration" when they were published in October.

On February 8, after editor Carsten Juste stated that he would not have published the cartoons if he had known the consequences, Ellemann-Jensen encouraged Juste to resign, saying "when you acknowledge that you have made a fatal mistake, which so far has claimed six human lives, you are not equal to your task."

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has been the Leader of the liberal party of Denmark, Venstre (1984-1998) and was succeded by the current Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #227 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
That explains the unmarked CIA planes that has used our airports...

post #228 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders Thats black helicopter talk. See my bullets above.

Claiming there were Bush bin Laden links was black helicopter talk.

Claiming in the days after 911 that Bush would invade Iraq was black helicopter talk.

Claiming that the WMD evidence was fabricated to take us to war was black helicopter talk.

To me placing any trust in the US administration on any topic whatsoever is Pink Elephant talk.

Meanwhile, the Iran circus rolls on.....

And more from Toady always there with a friendly echo and a big brown nose.

The world you used to live in is dead. You need to face that.

It's happening. Wake up.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #229 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Claiming there were Bush bin Laden links was black helicopter talk.

Claiming in the days after 911 that Bush would invade Iraq was black helicopter talk.

Claiming that the WMD evidence was fabricated to take us to war was black helicopter talk.

To me placing any trust in the US administration on any topic whatsoever is Pink Elephant talk.

No.

But placing a danish provins newspaper as the spearhead in the campaign for war against Iran is. Especially because it involves conspiring with muslim clerics to take the case to the middle east.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #230 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
My edit:

"Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former danish Minister for Foreign affairs (1982-1993), called the publication of the cartoons a "pubertarian demonstration" when they were published in October.

On February 8, after editor Carsten Juste stated that he would not have published the cartoons if he had known the consequences, Ellemann-Jensen encouraged Juste to resign, saying "when you acknowledge that you have made a fatal mistake, which so far has claimed six human lives, you are not equal to your task."

Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has been the Leader of the liberal party of Denmark, Venstre (1984-1998) and was succeded by the current Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen."

Damnit! I was going to use "saying" and then I decided not to! Do you give partial credit?
post #231 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
No.

But placing a danish provins newspaper as the spearhead in the campaign for war against Iran is. Especially because it involves conspiring with muslim clerics to take the case to the middle east.

It's just a part, a very small part. Europe needs to be brought into supporting it and that ain't gonna be easy.

It's the same build-up, has been for months. It just went from drip-drip to a bit more of a flow.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #232 of 328
Thread Starter 
a) If it hadn´t gone internationally. It would not have changed any danes view on invasion of Iran.

b) It went internationally, which would not have happened without the help of Sunni clergies, alienating most of the muslim world, including some very important export markeds and initially without likelyhood Iran would react.

You are concluding from the general case (where I agree with you. You just have to look how your administration reacted to this whole mess before and after the burning of the embassy in Syria) to the specific. You can´t do that.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #233 of 328
Thread Starter 
BWT I still need to know the exact translation of this:

Quote:
We deplore these statements and publications and urge Your Excellency´s government to take all those responsible to task under the law of the land in the interest of inter-faith harmony better integration and Denmark´s overall relations with Muslim world.

Are they asking for our prime to make sure that the paper is prosecuted or only within the limit of the law.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #234 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
It's just a part, a very small part. Europe needs to be brought into supporting it and that ain't gonna be easy.

It's the same build-up, has been for months. It just went from drip-drip to a bit more of a flow.

I think the opposite of your theory is probably closer to the truth: Islamists get more out of conflict with the infidels in the west than the US does. They whip up the crowd into anti-western sentiment and divert attention from problems at home.
post #235 of 328
I started reading a couple of blogs out of Egypt last year; they have weighed in on this Horse Hockey.

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.c...ott-egypt.html

http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/


....can't stop the signal.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #236 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
No.

But placing a danish provins newspaper as the spearhead in the campaign for war against Iran is. Especially because it involves conspiring with muslim clerics to take the case to the middle east.

According to this report in the conservative British Daily Telegraph newpaper:

The really offensive cartoons were *not* published in the Jyllands-Posten, but to Muslims all over the world, made to appear as if they were. The new cartoons (ie the offensive ones) appeared several months after the original one published in the Jyllands-Posten back in October 2005. This strikes one as being suspect.
Also, how did, without rhyme and reason, all those hundreds of Danish flags (!!!!) appear on the streets of Gaza City (!!!??) in front of the waiting world media (!!??) , in what was billed as "spontaneous Muslim rioting"? Yeah right! Gaza wasnt the only place in which Danish flags were suddenly made available in bulk to the the already angered masses.

The United States (or rather the Bush Administration/NeoCon axis, lets not confuse the two) have wanted war with Iran since before the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was priority #1, and now it looks as if Iran's turn will be coming sooner than anyone expected.
Parts of Europe, especially France proved to be a problem for Bush-Blair in its lead up to the Iraq war, and the current (obviously deliberate) fomenting of Muslim anger appears to be a ploy to push European public opinion against Muslims in general, and simultaneously garner support for a strike against Iran. (Similarly orchestrated stuff happened during the recent French riots last year)
Here we have the lead-up to MidEastWar v3.0. Suuport for the Afghanistan effort was little problem; the Taliban had been equated in the minds of the world as being one of the instigators of the 9-11 attacks. Iraq however was a different item altogether, arrogance on the part of the "endless war party" led to so many mistakes. To avoid the pitfalls of Iraq, this one is being orchestrated in a far more subtle fashion, despite the outspoken recent commentary by Frist, Rice, Rumsfeld, acting Israeli PM Olmert, and others in the EndlessWarParty ®
What form will it take? A ground invasion is out of the question, (lack of boots etc, Iran's large size) but air strikes will probably be launched out of neighboring Iraqi, Kuwaiti (and Israeli?) etc bases. What kind of weapons will be used in the attacks? Will this be the perfect opportunity for the DoD to test the new generation of "bunker buster" and other tactical weapons, both conventional and nuclear, in a more "monitorable" setting than the remote mountains of Afghanistan? Lets see what happens on March 28, or around May 4?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #237 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
According to this report in the conservative British Daily Telegraph newpaper:

The really offensive cartoons were *not* published in the Jyllands-Posten, but to Muslims all over the world, made to appear as if they were. The new cartoons (ie the offensive ones) appeared several months after the original one published in the Jyllands-Posten back in October 2005. This strikes one as being suspect.

Those drawings were sent to vocal muslims by racists probably long ago and were included BY MUSLIM CLERGIES!!!!! that toured the middle east with the cartoons in december.

Its important to keep the facts straight SJ.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #238 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo

Also, how did, without rhyme and reason, all those hundreds of Danish flags (!!!!) appear on the streets of Gaza City (!!!??) in front of the waiting world media (!!??) , in what was billed as "spontaneous Muslim rioting"? Yeah right! Gaza wasnt the only place in which Danish flags were suddenly made available in bulk to the the already angered masses.

I think I have seen perhaps three real danish flags being burned and about 50 homemade ones. Its not that hard to take a bed spread, a small amount of red paint and make a crude imitation.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #239 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo

Parts of Europe, especially France proved to be a problem for Bush-Blair in its lead up to the Iraq war, and the current (obviously deliberate) fomenting of Muslim anger appears to be a ploy to push European public opinion against Muslims in general, and simultaneously garner support for a strike against Iran. (Similarly orchestrated stuff happened during the recent French riots last year)

This would have been kept a national matter, where it probably would have made more people realise that we have a problem in how we communicate with the muslim minority, had it not been taken international, again, byMUSLIM CLERGIES. It was a possible, but not a very likely at all, outcome of the cartoons.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #240 of 328
There can be no doubt that the current US admin is capable of orchestrating such an event, that they would welcome the outcome and that such things have been done before in pretty much the same way.

Let's look at each of these but first dispose of the foremost target of ridicule: ie how Flemming Rose could conceivably be linked to Bush or the Bush agenda.

Actually it's simple: Rose has had extensive contacts with, and is a stated fan of, ultra right-wing racist Daniel Pipes - the creator of the 'Clash of Civilizations' meme. Here are some of Pipes' greatest hits:

Quote:
"Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

(National Review, 11/19/90)

"I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews."

(Convention of the American Jewish Congress, 10/21/2001)

The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be.

(Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001)

And PIpes was the man Bush chose to head the board of the US Institute of Peace (!!!!!) a State Department propaganda outfit which publishes opinions (more or less identical to Pipes) on 'peaceful solutions'.

Curiously, as we are talking of free speech, Pipes also runs Campus Watch a form of New inquisition which aims (and succeeds) in removing professors from their posts should their views on Israel not coincide with Pipes's own far-right extreme racist ones.

In fact Pipes was too extreme even for the current climate and Bush's attempt to shoehorn him onto the board was blocked - though he does perhaps better in his consultational capacity.

Incidentally, he is the son of Richard Pipes, the Straussian who was George H.W. Bush's right-hand man in the proto-Neocon 1976 Team B (see Power of Nightmares) which invented and disseminated eerily similar -and equally fictitious - scare stories about the Soviets.

Rose has met with Pipes several times. Here is one quote where he speaks approvingly of Pipes's ideas (remember, rose is the man who said he would refuse to print offensive cartoons of Sharon):

Quote:
"Pipes is surprised that there isn't greater alarm in Europe over the challenge that Islam represents thanks to falling rates of fertility and a weakened sense for its own history and culture."

(Flemming Rose, "The Threat from Islamism, Jyllands-Posten, October 29, 2004)

That is a racist statement. Just replace with any other racial minority.

So the co-operationwith the Neocons in this staged op should not be thought unlikely. they did not choose rose because of Denmark or the paper. they chose him because he was amenable, willing and is a supporter of their aims.

By the way, they have done all this before.

In the Vietnam era, the FBI created cartoon 'coloring books' that were allegedly from the Black Panthers and did a mass mailshot to white neighbourhoods.

These books showed white people as pigs (??) and stated that Blacks 'must attack and kill them'. Not surprisingly, white support for the black cause evaporated and in the ensuing clampdown, all restrictive measures were cheered through without opposition.

Colouring Book

But back to the riots, it seems that CNN had foreknowledge of the events.

Quote:
At 5:54 am ET Sunday morning, 1054 GMT, CNN International was airing over CNN proper in the US. At that time, a reporter named Anthony Mills reported that the United Nations knew in advance the Muslim cartoon riots were coming to Beirut. This after he said he wasn't sure whether the Danes had bothered with extra security for their embassy, which by the time of the report had been set ablaze.

Here were his exact remarks.:

"ANTHONY MILLS, CNN INTERNATIONAL: My understanding is, as well, that UN sources were reporting this morning that this was going to be a chaotic day, if you will... Or, certainly they were reporting --they were suggesting -- their workers shouldn't go to work today.

So they are capable of it. Why would we doubt? Surely there are people in the US admin who want to stir up just this kind of trouble. We know what they want - people don't generally deny this. They just refuse to believe they would actually do anything to get it.

And then when time after time, what they want just 'happens' to occur (time and time again) it is just 'coincidence'.

But to the purpose of all this: war with Iran. More war noises are increasing (and they will keep increasing - droning in to your head till you unquestioningly accept it as a reality in a way that you never would have even weeks before):

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says US must be prepared for military action.

A Russian parliamentary official says Iran attack inevitable and names the date.

So those weight in alongside Rice and Blair who have been similarly prepping the public.

Why now? Even if it is 'coincidence' again - why now when riots are raging? Why not tone down the war-drums for even a week?

Because they don't want to - it is all part of the plan.

And France has just republished the cartoons in another paper btw.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately?