Danish Counter-boycott



Dave Smith wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>
>>However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
>>made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
>>government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
>>usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
>>obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
>>diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
>>outbreaks of this sort...usually.
>
>
> Pray tell, what sort of diplomatic solution was Denmark supposed to agree
> too. [?]


They were supposed to agree to roll over and die. That might have been
enough...

Best regards,
Bob
 
zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> And that is conclusive...a blog...
>
> You'll have to decide for yourself if it's conclusive. Don't
> dismiss it just because it is a blog. (Even FoxNews is right
> sometimes)

And this is substantiation for the allegation that Mullahs broke one of
the basic laws of Islam?

> The reports are widely distributed in the mainstream news.

So were reports of WMDs in Iraq and Saddam's baby killing factory.
It's easy to lie to people who are predisposed to accept it.

I have yet to find a plausible explanation for such behaviour on the
part of the mullahs, which is in direct breach of the laws of Islam.
It seems much more likely that these are *purported to have been*, and
any proof would most likely be suspect, but obviously not so much for
you. Danes, generally, do not like Muslims (and they may have some
reason as Muslims are loath to assimilate) which as I understand it
predates these events by a few decades. It wouldn't be surprising that
such a thing would have been put together to capitalize on this
inherent dislike.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> And this is substantiation for the allegation that Mullahs broke one of
> the basic laws of Islam?
>
> > The reports are widely distributed in the mainstream news.
>
> So were reports of WMDs in Iraq and Saddam's baby killing factory.
> It's easy to lie to people who are predisposed to accept it.
>
> I have yet to find a plausible explanation for such behaviour on the
> part of the mullahs, which is in direct breach of the laws of Islam.
> It seems much more likely that these are *purported to have been*, and
> any proof would most likely be suspect, but obviously not so much for
> you. Danes, generally, do not like Muslims (and they may have some
> reason as Muslims are loath to assimilate) which as I understand it
> predates these events by a few decades. It wouldn't be surprising that
> such a thing would have been put together to capitalize on this
> inherent dislike.

Hey, we can't blame it on the Danes. It was the Jews. Iranian leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has determined that this whole thing is a Jewish
plot that was hatched because of the Hama victory in the Palestinian
election.

I just couldn't see myself boycotting Danish beer, but I will have no
problem giving up Motzah.
 
Peter Huebner wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > I don't recall *any* riots or mobs in response to Chris Ofili's "The
> > Holy Virgin Mary", made from elephant dung, or Andres Serrano's "****
> > Christ" (crucifix in a glass of urine.)
> >
> > But don't let that stop you from making a gratuitous slap at Christians.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> Yes. Bob, but they were demonstrating outside movie theaters showing the Monty
> Python Gang's "The Life of Brian". Doh.

How many embassies were torched?
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> I don't recall *any* riots or mobs in response to Chris Ofili's "The
> Holy Virgin Mary", made from elephant dung, or Andres Serrano's "****
> Christ" (crucifix in a glass of urine.)
>
> But don't let that stop you from making a gratuitous slap at Christians.
>
> Bob
>

Yes. Bob, but they were demonstrating outside movie theaters showing the Monty
Python Gang's "The Life of Brian". Doh.

-Peter

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
 
Peter Huebner wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>>I don't recall *any* riots or mobs in response to Chris Ofili's "The
>>Holy Virgin Mary", made from elephant dung, or Andres Serrano's "****
>>Christ" (crucifix in a glass of urine.)
>>
>>But don't let that stop you from making a gratuitous slap at Christians.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>
>
> Yes. Bob, but they were demonstrating outside movie theaters showing the Monty
> Python Gang's "The Life of Brian". Doh.
>
> -Peter
>


I didn't know that, but it is certainly plausible. But here's the key:
Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously doubt it), how
widespread were they?

Best regards,
Bob
 
zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> But here's the
> key: Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously
> doubt it), how widespread were they?

Why are you so intent on bringing this back to violence, as though the
Western world has not caused violence to Islam time and time again? If
you tally up the violence to Islam by Westerners and the violence to
Westerners by Islam, I think you'll find they still have a lot of
wiggle room before the scales are even.

I think you have to ask yourself, who at this juncture, stands to
benefit the most from these series of events? Motive is everything and
some people's ship of state has recently sprung a leak.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > But here's the
> > key: Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously
> > doubt it), how widespread were they?
>
> Why are you so intent on bringing this back to violence, as though the
> Western world has not caused violence to Islam time and time again? If
> you tally up the violence to Islam by Westerners and the violence to
> Westerners by Islam, I think you'll find they still have a lot of
> wiggle room before the scales are even.

That is going to need some explaining. Are you going back to the Crusades
and the Spanish Inquisition? Some times you just have to get past the
things done in the past by people of 20 -100 generations past.

Every time you turn around there is a different excuse for middle east
anger. One day it is because of something that a western country did. The
next day you hear that it because western governments support Israel. Then
the next day you hear that it is because the US support the repressive
house of Saud in Saudi Arabia and the moderates are not allowed to protest.

There are all sorts of different excuses for violent reactions but they
usually boil down to disenfranchised people needing to vent some anger and
venting it only in the direction that their government allows.


> I think you have to ask yourself, who at this juncture, stands to
> benefit the most from these series of events? Motive is everything and
> some people's ship of state has recently sprung a leak.
>

I think what we need to ask ourselves is if we want to surrender our
personal rights and freedoms to the rantings of a bunch of fundamentalists,
the sort that would go on a violent rampage over some harmless drawings,
or are we prepared to offer out support to a government who has a record of
standing up for personal rights and freedoms.
 
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:06:52 -0600, Michel Boucher
<[email protected]> wrote:

>zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> And that is conclusive...a blog...
>>
>> You'll have to decide for yourself if it's conclusive. Don't
>> dismiss it just because it is a blog. (Even FoxNews is right
>> sometimes)
>
>And this is substantiation for the allegation that Mullahs broke one of
>the basic laws of Islam?

Do you want me to send you to any of several world-renown museums or
link to you dozens of cites that show Islamic art works with The
Prophet in them? Just how snowed are you anyway?

>I have yet to find a plausible explanation for such behaviour on the
>part of the mullahs, which is in direct breach of the laws of Islam.
>It seems much more likely that these are *purported to have been*, and
>any proof would most likely be suspect, but obviously not so much for
>you. Danes, generally, do not like Muslims (and they may have some
>reason as Muslims are loath to assimilate) which as I understand it
>predates these events by a few decades. It wouldn't be surprising that
>such a thing would have been put together to capitalize on this
>inherent dislike.


Yeah, well, BS. Someone has collected a few art works at the link
below, and frankly, they come much closer to idolatry, to which the
prohibition truly applies, than the Danish cartoons.

Face it....the application of Islamic law has, in this case, been
arbitrary, the focus not of religious indignation and abomination, and
the ruckus raised not in direct objection to the cartoons, but because
the encouraged rioting is bread and circuses to a often
poverty-stricken and downtrodden bunch of people in places such as
Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Gaza, Afghanistan, etc....If you keep them
rioting in the streets, they will be too busy to riot and overthrow
the government. If you keep them hating the Jews, they will not kill
each other as often. If you keep them hating the West, you can get
away with stealing foreign aid and not using it to bolster the
economy.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Boron
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > But here's the
>> > key: Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously
>> > doubt it), how widespread were they?
>>
>> Why are you so intent on bringing this back to violence, as
>> though the Western world has not caused violence to Islam time
>> and time again? If you tally up the violence to Islam by
>> Westerners and the violence to Westerners by Islam, I think
>> you'll find they still have a lot of wiggle room before the
>> scales are even.
>
> That is going to need some explaining. Are you going back to the
> Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Some times you just have to
> get past the things done in the past by people of 20 -100
> generations past.

I mean within my lifetime, so since the end of World War II.

> Every time you turn around there is a different excuse for middle
> east anger.

Maybe you, but I've always felt it was one reason. Total Western
disregard for Islamic sensitivities from the very beginning, going as
far as commiting or supporting acts of violence against sovereign
islamic states in breach of international treaties.

>> I think you have to ask yourself, who at this juncture, stands to
>> benefit the most from these series of events? Motive is
>> everything and some people's ship of state has recently sprung a
>> leak.
>
> I think what we need to ask ourselves is if we want to surrender
> our personal rights and freedoms to the rantings of a bunch of
> fundamentalists, the sort that would go on a violent rampage over
> some harmless drawings, or are we prepared to offer out support to
> a government who has a record of standing up for personal rights
> and freedoms.

I don't think there's any danger of the West becoming islamicized
before it gets well and truly cornholed by the religious right which
is among us. Again, who stands to benefit the most? Come on. It
ain't that hard.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> Maybe you, but I've always felt it was one reason. Total Western
> disregard for Islamic sensitivities from the very beginning, going as
> far as commiting or supporting acts of violence against sovereign
> islamic states in breach of international treaties.

That may be. I have little sympathy for fatwahs for blasphemy. That went
out for me 1,000 years ago. Nor do have any appreciation for honour
killings, female genital mutilation. I don't have a lot of respect for a
culture who value truth only when dealing with fellow believers, or one
whose courts will accept worked of a fellow Moslem over that of a non
Moslem simply because the person is a Moslem. I don't have lot of respect
for people who follow a religion blindly because they dare not question
it for fear of physical punishment and maybe even death.

I have never invaded an Islamic state. My country participated in the
liberation of Kuwait, along with several Islamic countries who accepted a
lot of money and made an appearance by who didn't actually fight. And we
have been involved in the fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.
 
Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Persians never abided by that and for some reason they were not held to
account. Why that is, I have no idea. It's like the Maronites, Roman
catholics whose priests are allowed to marry. A possible explanation
is that the art was developed before they were converted to Islam
andthey were allowed to continue, much like the Maronites. I'll look
into it.

Furthermore, nothing in that link is of traditional islamic origin.
And some of these images are even of Christian origin. Hardly a breach
of Islamic law.

Traditional Islamic paintings do not depict human form and therefore
these are obviously not traditional Islamic paintings.

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Dave Smith wrote:

> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong. The people
> have no control over the newspaper than published the
> offensive cartoons, and no one but a whacked Muslim would
> even take offence. The crime of the Danish government was to
> refuse to intervene because it is a matter of freedom of
> speech. As a result, the Muslims are revolting ....again,
> and calling for a boycott of Danish products.
>
> We owe it to our Danish friends and to ourselves to run a
> counter boycott. Maybe the Moslems will stop these silly
> protests if they backfire on them.
>
> If you have children, go out and get them a Lego set. If
> they already have on, by an expansions kit for it. Get some
> Danish Blue cheese or some Havarti. If you want some beer
> for the Super Bowl tomorrow, get some Tubourg or Faxe. If
> you are having wings with the beer, make some Blue Cheese
> dressing with Danish blue.


>From chi.general:

"First we can write our own Senators and President. President is at
www.whitehouse.gov Senators are easy to google.

[Canadians and others can do the same...]

The Danish Embassy is emailable at [email protected] and the Prime Minister
is at
[email protected]

In addition, there are multiple web sites with Danish Goods listed. Buy

Denmark!! A few sites are

http://www.danish.com/

http://www.danishshop.dk/

http://www.danish-deli-food.com/

http://www.scandinavianfoods.com/

The last one is in Chicago on Clark in Andersonville. Then there are
all the
Danish furniture stores!! And much of our ribs come from Denmark."

--
Best
Greg
 
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:28:24 -0600, Michel Boucher
<[email protected]> wrote:

>zxcvbob <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> But here's the
>> key: Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously
>> doubt it), how widespread were they?
>
>Why are you so intent on bringing this back to violence, as though the
>Western world has not caused violence to Islam time and time again? If
>you tally up the violence to Islam by Westerners and the violence to
>Westerners by Islam, I think you'll find they still have a lot of
>wiggle room before the scales are even.

Nah...the west has only had an advantage since the colonial era &
petrochems...and do you recall exactly when the Ottoman Empire fell?
Not too long ago, right? It took them awhile to shrink back towards
Turkey, but by golly, they had made it to Austria at some point. The
Bosnians are their descendents.

Though I am never one to claim that the colonial powers were deserving
of any praise, nor the puppets dangled by the US to meets its own
goals worthy of anything but scorn, Islam is quite capable of
mishandling itself and perpetuating its own horrors on its own people
as well as others of the same religion. Is the scale as large? Not
these days, but certainly history bears this out.

Do you think the Taliban were kindly to their own? How tolerant were
they of those who did not thik in lockstep? How about what goes on in
Darfur? How much did Yassir Arafat & his thugs steal from the
Palestinian people, how do the Saudi royals treat their citizens? Do
you like how sharia law treats women in Africa?

You are talking about disparate tribes and groups who have been
warring with each other for longer than history has been written. OUr
involvement there is just a ****-drop in the bucket of time. Doesn't
make it nicer, but try to understand history better.

EVERY political side in history has been capable of bloodthirsty hell
and given the opportunity, lets it run rampant on any and all in its
way.

>I think you have to ask yourself, who at this juncture, stands to
>benefit the most from these series of events? Motive is everything and
>some people's ship of state has recently sprung a leak.

Actually, it is Al Qaeda who will benefit. Dubya's invasion of Iraq
was music to their ears and the best recruitment poster possible, but
don't blame the West for ALL these troubles...they have been going on
over there a long, long, long time....before this, before partition in
1948, before WW I, way, way, way back.

Boron
 
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:21:26 -0600, Michel Boucher
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
>Persians never abided by that and for some reason they were not held to
>account. Why that is, I have no idea. It's like the Maronites, Roman
>catholics whose priests are allowed to marry. A possible explanation
>is that the art was developed before they were converted to Islam
>andthey were allowed to continue, much like the Maronites. I'll look
>into it.

Try looking at where the stuff came from, Goof. Not just Persia -
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey...
>
>Furthermore, nothing in that link is of traditional islamic origin.
>And some of these images are even of Christian origin. Hardly a breach
>of Islamic law.
>
>Traditional Islamic paintings do not depict human form and therefore
>these are obviously not traditional Islamic paintings.

You know nothing of art history. I have traveled all over the Middle
East looking at art. There are "exceptions" all over.

Boron
 
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:13:57 -0600, Michel Boucher
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> It wasn't Denmark that did it. It was the decision of the editors
>> of one newspaper in Denmark. The Danish government would not act
>> because it is a matter of freedom of speech.
>
>However it may appear, when a diplomatic request is made, it is rarely
>made to a newspaper. It usually goes to the government. The
>government CAN speak in the name of its citiens, or at least that is
>usually the case. Couching this as a freedom of speech issue does not
>obviate the fact that it was the Danish government who was asked
>diplomatically and refused. A diplomatic solution usually prevents
>outbreaks of this sort...usually.

That's what the diplomats are for- to take care of such sticky
situations. It's hard to believe that the Danes couldn't have come up
with suitable diplomatic mumbo-jumbo to diffuse the situation or at
least pretend that they have some appreciation for the sensibilities
of other people.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Maybe you, but I've always felt it was one reason. Total Western
>> disregard for Islamic sensitivities from the very beginning,
>> going as far as commiting or supporting acts of violence against
>> sovereign islamic states in breach of international treaties.
>
> I have never invaded an Islamic state. My country participated in
> the liberation of Kuwait, along with several Islamic countries who
> accepted a lot of money and made an appearance by who didn't
> actually fight. And we have been involved in the fight against
> terrorists in Afghanistan.

So again I ask. Who has the most to gain by all this?

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
Michel Boucher wrote:

> Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
> Persians never abided by that and for some reason they were not held to
> account. Why that is, I have no idea.

There are a lot of things that are hard to account for. That site shows
Persian images of Mohammed. Iran is Persia, and that is the country whose
leader is stirring this up with a new twist.... the Jewish plot.


> It's like the Maronites, Roman catholics whose priests are allowed to
> marry.

Another instance of a religion making up rules that have nothing to do with
their holy books. There is nothing in the bible about priests being
celibate. Priests and popes used to marry.

> A possible explanation
> is that the art was developed before they were converted to Islam
> andthey were allowed to continue, much like the Maronites. I'll look
> into it.
>
> Furthermore, nothing in that link is of traditional islamic origin.
> And some of these images are even of Christian origin. Hardly a breach
> of Islamic law.
>
> Traditional Islamic paintings do not depict human form and therefore
> these are obviously not traditional Islamic paintings.

There is a difference between what you find in the religious art and the
cultural art. There are things Christian artists painted that we not
displayed in churches just as there is art done by Moslems that is not
displayed in mosques.
 
Curly Sue wrote:

>
> That's what the diplomats are for- to take care of such sticky
> situations. It's hard to believe that the Danes couldn't have come up
> with suitable diplomatic mumbo-jumbo to diffuse the situation or at
> least pretend that they have some appreciation for the sensibilities
> of other people.
>

The situation in Denmark was diffused. The newspaper apologized. The Danish
Moslem community accepted the apology. It all blew up after that.
 
Speaking of "art", here's a joke to lighten the mood, eh?

A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while
they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each
child's work.

As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked
what the drawing was..

The girl replied, "I'm drawing God."

The teacher paused! and said, "But no one knows what God looks like."

Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl:
replied, "They will in a minute."

--

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why
the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Dom Helder Camara
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back