View Full Version : Adding fuel to the fire
Looks like someone wants attention...negative attention that is.
http://news.yahoo.com/french-mag-publish-cartoons-prophet-mohammed-214916307--abc-news-topstories.html
1stindoor
09-19-2012, 06:20
Good on 'em.
Pretty sad that a French left-wing magazine has more balls then most western publications put together.
According to the article they have already been bombed for a prior insult to "the prophet."
ETA: Order is restored. The french government already plans to surrender 20 of their embassies to the offended
http://news.yahoo.com/french-mag-publish-cartoons-prophet-mohammed-214916307--abc-news-topstories.html
CPTAUSRET
09-19-2012, 08:01
We'll be in Paris about that time...
Barbarian
09-19-2012, 08:59
We'll be in Paris about that time...
I would seriously reconsider that trip.
CPTAUSRET
09-19-2012, 09:09
I would seriously reconsider that trip.
Understood...
Dozer523
09-19-2012, 09:24
I am reminded of the scene in Night at the Museum; Ben Stiler and the monkey are taking turns slapping each other. Teddy Roosevelt asks Stiler,
"Who has evolved?"
Apparantly "evolving" or accepting having "evolved" are not options in this case either. Islam does not have a way to move forward from the final words of the Prophet and the West can find no further tolerance and now deliberatly acts to provoke.
It is a sad situation.
........ Islam does not have a way to move forward from the final words of the Prophet and the West can find no further tolerance and now deliberatly acts to provoke.
It is a sad situation.
Does "the West" only provoke Islam or does the west as a whole provoke just about everything and anybody?
I think it is the west that has overall tolerance while it is Islam that has very little tolerance.
When is the next gay pride parade in Cairo?
I am reminded of the scene in Night at the Museum; Ben Stiler and the monkey are taking turns slapping each other. Teddy Roosevelt asks Stiler,
"Who has evolved?"
Apparantly "evolving" or accepting having "evolved" are not options in this case either. Islam does not have a way to move forward from the final words of the Prophet and the West can find no further tolerance and now deliberatly acts to provoke.
It is a sad situation.
QP Dozer, we provide the most tolerant society in existence. Here muslims can do what they want, as can flag burners, Christ pissers, Bible burners, gays, lesbians, tin foil hat wearers, survivalists and hoarders. Are you suggesting that it is somehow our responsibility to censor our own free speech in order to appease a specific group of people in other countries? If so, I assert that even IF we did that, they would hate us just as much and would simply find some other 'thing' to be offended about and use that as justification for murder. Furthermore, what does that say about us? If we censor ourselves in this regard, are we not admitting to the world that our belief in our own rights is secondary to not offending muslims?
When is the next gay pride parade in Cairo?
During the next embassy change of ambassador ceremony...
We'll be in Paris about that time...
Perhaps a visit to Normandy instead? The calvados should be flowing this time of year.
Dozer523
09-19-2012, 12:26
Does "the West" only provoke Islam or does the west as a whole provoke just about everything and anybody?
I think it is the west that has overall tolerance while it is Islam that has very little tolerance.
When is the next gay pride parade in Cairo? As a matter of public policy I don't think Westerners go about trying to provoke but, we do tolerate provocative behavior by individuals and we damn the cost.
This article sites evidence that there is a significant "tolerant" population within Islam. According to the author, violent protests erupted in only 9% of Islamic countries http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57513402/beyond-religion-getting-to-the-heart-of-the-violence/
" In fact, the majority of Muslim countries did remember the message of Islam, and in fact upheld the example of the Prophet. The reality is that only seven (Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia and Libya) out of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Countries experienced violence. That is only 9 percent. Not to mention the large Muslim populations in non-member states, such as the U.S., UK, and China, also responded with restraint.)
I think the data is escewed high since Iran is one of the erupted countries and they erupt any time they can at the US.
I will also state, although 91% is an A- in my Algebra class I probably would have deducted significantly if the grade was accompanied by fatalities.
As for the gay pride parade in Cairo, what do you care? Did you get a new dress? Ohhhh luv it! Just kidding., really.
Dozer523
09-19-2012, 12:55
QP Dozer, we provide the most tolerant society . . .
Are you suggesting that it is somehow our responsibility to censor our own free speech in order to appease a specific group of people in other countries?
If so, I assert that even IF we did that, they would hate us just as much and would simply find some other 'thing' to be offended about and use that as justification for murder. Furthermore, what does that say about us? If we censor ourselves in this regard, are we not admitting to the world that our belief in our own rights is secondary to not offending muslims?I am not suggesting, wait I am, no I don't think so . . . WELL! I don't beat my wife so I haven't stopped. (ie. When did you stop beating your wife?)
I am not suggesting we have a public, law-based policy of censorship. We HAVE Evolved! I am suggesting we as individuals take responsibility to censor ourselves; at least tell the truth, at least examine our motives especially if the motivation is merely to hurt someone else because here we can. The First Amendment arguement in this situation doesn't make it very far in a Principal's office and my Momma always said "Be nice or be quiet".
I'm not a big fan of appeasement but I'm on the side of politeness (especially if meanness gets people killed unnecessarily).
They might hate us less or the same or more. But, they would be in a less tenable moral position if -- as indiviuals -- we held to our morale fall-back position of "Do unto Others blah, blah, blah . . ." And as a society we might truely earn the High Road if we called hateful, mean, crap . . . well hateful mean crap instead of Sacred First Amendment Right.
Would someone misuse something to thier own ends. Tough one but . . I ll go with . . . abso-F-ing-lutely right they will. But then they are wrong. And, they don't have the "oh yeah?, well he . . . first" arguement.*
As to what do we "admit" I think all we admit is we are reasonable and responsible . . . that we have evolved.
*I swear to God nothing f's up my Solomon routine at home with the boys like that phrase
.......This article sites evidence that there is a significant "tolerant" population within Islam. According to the author, violent protests erupted in only 9% of Islamic countries http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-215_162-57513402/beyond-religion-getting-to-the-heart-of-the-violence/......................
9% Over this issue. Boko Haram was too busy knocking down Saint's tombs to drive to the nearest embassy and do some remodeling.
Dozer523
09-19-2012, 13:05
9% Over this issue. Boko Haram was too busy knocking down Saint's tombs to drive to the nearest embassy and do some remodeling. It's still an A- Boko can answer to the attendence lady.:D
PedOncoDoc
09-19-2012, 13:23
I'm not a big fan of appeasement but I'm on the side of politeness (especially if meanness gets people killed unnecessarily).
I have yet to see "meanness" in the form of a YouTube video, blog, or cartoon directly kill anyone. The choice to demonstrate that one is offended through killing others (in this instance, that had nothing to do with the video) is what leads to unnecessary killing.
While I don't agree with going out of your way to piss people off, response to being offended with lethal (or any other amount of) force (especially against uninvolved people) is completely inexcusible.
It seems pretty plain and simple to me...YMMV.
...words of the Prophet...
Anybody else ever wonder that none of those inspiring words were ever written by any of these so-called "prophets" but ex facto by their sham-wow infomercialized sales associates once they became shareholders in one form or another of these competing early 501(C)(3) organizations...
2012 and the narrative continues. Sad it is. :(
Richard :munchin
It's still an A- Boko can answer to the attendence lady.:D
9? Or maybe 13?
Depends on where a person draws the "violence" line.
Missing was Palestine (some consider it a state - the OIC does), Afghanistan, Lebanon - OK only a KFC, Sudan - was a three-fer on embassy attacks, Tunisia, Yemen and Nigeria (non-OIC).
Londonastan (non-OIC) only had a minor 200 protesters so we'll not count it.
Here is my litmus test...
...how many fatal riots erupted over the Piss Christ?
There was a metric fuck-ton of liberal tree huggers lining up to defend that ass-bag and his right to artistic freedom, as well as his first amendment rights. Where is that same crowd now?
The US of A sponsored that fine piece of art work (via a national endowment for the arts grant) and offensive religious art seemed not only acceptable it was even bought and paid for by our tax money.
Now all of the sudden we can't express our artistic freedoms without being accused of being accessories to global strife? Why was it ok for the NEA to pay a grant for some ass face to produce art, but now we need to act mortified that anyone would offend someones religious sensibilities? Offensive christian or Jewish art is ok but not when it comes to the religion of tolerance?
What would happen if that same artist took a picture called the "Piss Koran"?
Would the NEA give me a grant to produce some art?
I am certain I can offend someone on the taxpayers dime...
Like Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a-changin'"
Latest developments in protest of anti-Islam film
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROPHET_FILM_PROTEST_GLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-20-10-21-14
"GERMANY
The first protest in Germany against the anti-Islam film is due to take place Friday in Freiburg after Muslim groups, including Hezbollah, obtained a permit to march through the center of the town in southern Germany. Authorities expect about 800 people to attend. An anti-film demonstration is also scheduled to take place on Saturday in Karlsruhe, in southwest Germany.........."
Friday? Why Friday? Oh, yeah, right after Friday prayers.
Dozer523
09-20-2012, 09:12
Friday? Why Friday? Oh, yeah, right after Friday prayers. So they can car-pool. Bet it stays peaceful. Evolution may not be a lost art after all. Maybe it depends on the who and where not so much the why. Time will tell.
So they can car-pool. Bet it stays peaceful. Evolution may not be a lost art after all. Maybe it depends on the who and where not so much the why. Time will tell.
I have been thinking on this since last week. I do believe that radical Islam plays a HUGE role in what is going on. The Imam's are smart enough to know that their "flocks" will riot at the drop of a hat if the Imam tells them to, because either they don't know any better, refuse to think for themselves, can't think for themselves, etc... So the Imam's are being opportunists, gee imagin that:rolleyes:
With that being said, why aren't we seeing riots in India, which has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. Why aren't we seeing riots in Detroit, home of the largest Muslim population in the US? Why aren't we seeing riots in France, where the Islamists have been known to set whole neighborhoods on fire?
It can't just be only because of the religion, although I believe that plays a large majority role. So what is it about the Middle East that is so very different? This is where I think culture plays a role in what is going on as well.
What would the every day Palestinian do, if given the opportunity to be truly informed about their situation. In that I mean, the the US gives them hundreds of millions of dollars every year, yet they continue to live in the camps. Arafat's wife ran off with how many millions of the Palestinian's money after he died? Yet I bet the regular "Abdul" on the street doesn't know that. Would they react differently if they did know, or would they still blame the US and Israel for their plight in life? I believe that it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans for them. The US could find some way to bring Mohammed back from the dead, and we will still be the Evil Satan, in the eyes of the ME.
So I go back to, what is it about Arab and/or Persian culture that causes them to act they way they do? Is there any hope of ever effecting change in their culture, either from internal, or external forces? If we were to stop putting so much emphasis on the problem of the Religion of Peace :rolleyes: and more emphasis on culture, where would that lead us?
Badger52
09-20-2012, 12:20
In that I mean, the the US gives them hundreds of millions of dollars every year, yet they continue to live in the camps.Hamas is apparently getting a boatload of that pie; their black-marketeering ability is legendary (or at least written about on many fronts). Perhaps those in the camps should ask that question of those they voted in.
I wonder if in other non-ME countries there is less discontent because the host-state is more generous to the individual as a matter of their national policy.
The link to this entire article is towards the end. I added a few things to it...
OIC Opens Office in Brussels to Fight "Islamophobia" in Europe
by Soeren Kern
June 26, 2013 at 5:00 am
The OIC Secretary General appears to be laying the diplomatic groundwork to persuade non-elected bureaucrats at EU headquarters to enact hate-speech legislation that would limit by fiat what 500-million European citizens -- including democratically elected politicians -- can and cannot say about Islam. [Note: My comments – stobey's – are noted in brackets.]
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has officially inaugurated a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union (EU).
The primary objective of the OIC, headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by Islamic countries around the world, has long been to pressure Europe and the United States into passing laws that would ban "negative stereotyping of Islam."
The establishment of a permanent OIC presence in Brussels implies that the group intends to redouble its lobbying efforts aimed at outlawing all forms of "Islamophobia" (a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s) within the 27-member EU, where restrictions on free speech regarding Islam-related issues are already commonplace. [Actually, the idea for this term came from observing the success that the homosexual activists had when they coined – and forced into everyday usage – the term, “homophobia”. st]
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu opened the mission to the EU during a formal inauguration ceremony in Brussels on June 25; it was attended by diplomats, EU officials and dignitaries from Europe and across the Muslim world.
In his inaugural speech, Ihsanoglu declared, "There is a growing and developing interest at the highest level in the EU to cooperate with the OIC… I think our relations with the European Union on the different agenda items that we share will benefit all of us. There is a need for cooperation between the Muslim world and Europe, and the OIC, as a collective voice of the Muslim world which stands for modernization and moderation, will be the proper institution to deal with the EU." [Yeah, and if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell – cheap! st]
Ihsanoglu -- who recently said in an interview with Al Jazeera Television that his number one job is to combat the religious persecution of Muslims in the West -- added, "We need to seriously fight against Islamophobia to further strengthen ties between the Islamic world and Europe and to eradicate the unnecessary sensitivities." [What about the religious persecution of Christians – and others – in “Dar al Islam”? st]
Since the late 1990s, the OIC has been promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.
In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief."
(Incitement is to be defined by applying the "test of consequences" to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," it doesn't matter what someone actually says -- or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it's because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.¹)
(The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging “blasphemy” as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of "intolerance." Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of "respect and empathy and tolerance." One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet's name.²)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration) -- together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 -- is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
The OIC scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. By doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it was seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.
Refusing to be outdone by the Americans, the EU subsequently hosted an Istanbul Process conference at Wilton Park in London on December 3-5, 2012. The aim of the event was "to arrive at a common understanding of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on combating religious intolerance and the difference in emphasis with regard freedom of expression."
According to Ihsanoglu, the EU's offer to host the meeting, which gathered legal experts, NGOs, government representatives, academics, legislators and educators as well as OIC representatives, represented a "qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia."
The OIC has been especially annoyed over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.
According to Ihsanoglu, "The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than (sic) that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter 'defamation of religions' in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations."
Nevertheless, the OIC has been unable to garner sufficient support for an all-encompassing global blasphemy law within the framework of the UN, and Ihsanoglu announced in October 2012 that the OIC would change its strategy by appealing to individual nation-states to enact hate-speech laws concerning Islam.
The OIC has also stepped up efforts to criminalize the criticism of Islam on the basis of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multilateral treaty that forms part of the International Bill of Human Rights. [Yeah; and keep an eye on the back of the barn to watch as those so-called rights start to “evolve”, like they did in Animal Farm! st]
According to the OIC, Article 20 of ICCPR states that denigration of symbols or persons sacred to any religion is a criminal offense, and Ihsanoglu says the only problem is its lack of enforcement by signatory states.
On January 7-8, 2013, the OIC held a meeting of international legal and human rights experts in Istanbul with the stated aim of examining the legal options for "banning religious intolerance against Muslims." [Of course! So the Stealth Jihad can continue without alarming the target populations, until their demography and chutzpah tell them that the time to wage violent jihad is right. st]
Delivering the opening remarks, Ihsanoglu said: "This meeting of ours in Istanbul is a crucial milestone of a multifaceted, multisided, diplomatic and legal process against Islamophobia, and on the campaign initiated against Islam and its prophet."
Ihsanoglu added: "Since the first day I assumed office, we have been able to see the adoption of resolutions defending Islam and condemning the attacks against Islam at the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva."
In a clear sign that the OIC has no intention of abandoning UN Resolution 16/18, Ihsanoglu said, "The issue to be discussed today by the wise men is how '16/18' will be implemented. We will discuss the sanctions from the view of international law... what would happen when arrogant cartoons get drawn or a movie gets shot."
On January 22, 2013, Ihsanoglu told British government officials attending a "High Level Meeting on Intolerance" in London that Islamophobia is an issue of "utmost contemporary significance" and a matter of "vital concern." He encouraged the EU to brainstorm on building common ground on combating "intolerance and discrimination against Muslims."
Thus by establishing a permanent OIC presence in Brussels, Ihsanoglu appears to be laying the diplomatic groundwork to persuade non-elected bureaucrats at EU headquarters to enact pan-European hate speech legislation that would limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens -- including democratically elected politicians -- can and cannot say about Islam.
Speaking to Turkish media outlets on June 24 ahead of the opening ceremony in Brussels, Ihsanoglu warned the EU against allowing any speech that could be deemed hostile to Islam.
For example, Ihsanoglu urged the EU to ban the use of the term "Islamic terrorist" and replace it with the word "jihadist" instead. According to Ihsanoglu, "jihad does not necessarily mean killing the other" and he blamed Westerners for distorting the concept of jihad to mean "holy war." He said that Muslim scholars have repeatedly affirmed that the word jihad, which is mentioned in the Koran, simply means the "struggle" to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from society. [Hey Superglue, your “taqqiya” is showing! st]
Meanwhile, the OIC has been organizing "anti-Islamophobia symposia" across Europe. Entitled "Smearing Islam and Muslims in the Media," the first-of-its-kind event was held in Brussels on February 15-16, 2012, and was "aimed at establishing information mechanisms to face up to the slanderous campaigns against Islam in the media." [i.e. How do we silence the TRUTH? st]
Another OIC organ called the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IESCO) organized a seminar in Brussels on "how to deal with stereotypical images of Islam in European television programs."
The seminar was designed to help European journalists "identify characteristics of stereotypes about Islam in European television programs, highlight the dangers of defamation of religions, and clarify the distinction between freedom of expression and the right to cultural difference, the commitment to the Islamic cultural identity and the struggle against racism and hatred." [Don’t make me laugh! st]
According to Ihsanoglu, "The suggestion that Islam is the problem as it is claimed in the hateful discourse of Islamophobia is to negate Islam's sublime values of peace, compassion, and tolerance, and all the noble virtues that Islam has stood for throughout fourteen centuries of tolerant, brilliant and radiant civilization." [Any more of these stratospheric lies and I’m apt to throw up my dinner. st]
In her latest book, entitled "Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate," Islam scholar Bat Ye'or provides and in-depth examination of the EU's opaque relationship with the OIC, which she describes as a "would-be universal caliphate" that exercises significant power through the EU, the UN and other international organizations.
Ye'or describes an OIC strategy manual, "Strategy of Islamic Cultural Action in the West," in which the OIC asserts that "Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are part of the Islamic nation" and recommends "a series of steps to prevent the integration and assimilation of Muslims into European culture."
According to Ye'or, "The caliphate is alive and growing within Europe…It has advanced through the denial of dangers and the obfuscation of history. It has moved forward on gilded carpets in the corridors of dialogue, the network of the Alliances and partnerships, in the corruption of its leaders, intellectuals and NGOs, particularly at the United Nations."
During the 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo on February 6-7, 2013, OIC members unanimously elected Iyad bin Amin Madani to the post of OIC Secretary General. Madani's term will begin in January 2014 when Ihsanoglu's term expires.
This will be the first time that the OIC -- which describes itself as the "only and sole official representative of the Muslim world... the real spokesman of the Muslim world" -- will be headed by a Saudi, and observers believe that under Madani the OIC will become even more extreme. [Ya think? st]
Meanwhile, Ihsanoglu continues to admonish the EU that "Islam should be welcomed as a family member in Europe, not as a guest." He said the "exclusion of Islam means ignoring the influential role of Islamic civilization in the evolution of the Western civilization."
[Sure, the “influential role” of rape, pillage, torture and murder – and that for the last 1400 years. We’re onto you, Superglue – at least those of us who are not abysmally ignorant, or verily complicit in your Islamic Supremacist plans for “Dar al Harb”. Some of us may be hurt – or killed; but make no mistake: this is a war for the very survival of Western freedom and civilization. And it is a war we MUST win – or die trying. st]
“... The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army—Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect—We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth ...”
Those last words are from Gen. George Washington, his
General Orders to his troops – July 2, 1776
NEVER, SINCE HE FIRST SPOKE THEM, WERE HIS WORDS SO RELEVANT AS NOW – AT THIS TIME IN OUR HISTORY!
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3790/oic-brussels-islamophobia
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.
1: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/islamic_world_tells_clinton_defamation_of_islam_mu st_be_prevented_in_america.html#ixzz2XNhr59Rq
2: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/dec/12/opinion/la-oe-turley-blasphemy-20111210