Let's have that third World War, shall we?Follow

HAs anyone found a reprint of the original "offensive" caricture?

Oh yeah, forgot to add them.

Bomb for turban.

Something about burkas.

Haven't been able to find all 12 of them, but those two apparently hit the Muslims hard.

Oh and Bodhi I know what you're saying, but there really are two types of, uhm, Middle-eastern ethnical origin (?) in Denmark. There are those who have small kiosks and pizza shops. They're usually well integrated into the society and they have a steady income. Then there are the asylumites (the other ones). They came to the country to get away from decapitation, which is fine, but the second the government starts paying their bills because they can't work, they go back to their old country on holiday and bring a new wife and twelve kids back. They'll be living off of our taxes because the man never gets a job and the woman has to go home and watch the kids. Said kids aren't really watched so they walk about in the streets, harassing the common citizen. The four most wanted youth criminals in the country are of another ethnical origin.

But it doesn't stop there. They've forced through a declaration that ensures all school meals will be made from halal meat. So because of these people the local kids have to eat meat from animals who were religiously butchered by a rather inhumane act if you ask me.

The country is the Danes' country first and foremost, yet these people come here and demand us to change our way of eating, believing and even change our laws. And when we do all of this they still call us racists because one newspaper posts pictures of their prophet.

I've about had it up to here with the ungrateful bastids. They can come here and live if they want, but they damn well follow our laws. And if they don't like the country, they should leave.

Rant off.

Edited, Wed Feb 1 13:33:47 2006 by Mazra

Hats off to the limp-spined Danish editor for backpeddling:



Juste proves, once again, one of the oldest laws about geopolitics. All authority derives from force and the willingness to use it. Offended Muslims scream and bluster and threaten to do harm -- and rather than hold his ground or stand up for his freedoms, this editor backs right down. "You threatened us and we're scared of you, so now we're sorry for having done anything. Please don't hurt us."

Roll over and show that belly, Juste. That's sure to make your enemies go away.


Cowardice. It's what's for dinner.

Theres a sick part of me that's more than ready for that.

.. and while you're at it, stop watching reruns of The Postman and Mad Max / Beyond Thunderdome. :)




No, no, a thousand times no!

The matter is trivial. It is minor and cannot possibly justify the threats of violence that are coming out of the Muslim community. If you back down when threatened, if you kowtow when their threat has no earthly justification, you are sending the clear message that violence works.

If the Muslim community wants something, they can threaten violence and get their way. It doesn't matter how minor or how stupidly trivial that thing might be -- they weren't stopped here, and aren't likely to be stopped in the future. After all, if you don't do what they want, they might hurt some people.


There is a logical fallacy at work here. Do you see it? The fallacy is in blaming the victim.

A Dutch newspaper publishes an editorial cartoon. Muslims get angry. Muslims decide the best option here is to riot and do murder. For the purposes of this example, let's say the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade storms an embassy, and instead of leaving peacefully, they shoot fifteen people.

The Dutch newspaper is not responsible.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade would be culpable for their actions. They would be rioters and murderers. They would be committing an act of terror in response to whatever it is motivated them that day.


We need to stop the endless show of weakness. Do as you please, and if they get angry, tell them to fu[/b]ck off - just like you would anybody else. And if they threaten violence, tell 'em to fu[b]ck off some more. And if they do violence, hunt them down, capture them, and punish them appropriately for the crimes they have committed.

Appeasement is never a correct option.



Try to remember this in coming months. There will be many cases where showing weakness will result in future complications. Allow me to illustrate one of these:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11133834/


Reduce the diplomatic language and re-evaluate:

If America attempts to reduce it's dependance on foreign oil, it will hurt OPEC economically. OPEC doesn't want that to happen. So, if America moves on with reducing consumption and pursuing alternative fuels, there will be consequences. $10 a gallon gasoline, anyone?

This is a prelude to another threat -- an economic one. OPEC likes our money and will act if we dare to take our cash off the table. They won't just punish the US, no; they'll raise prices across the board so that we can't buy oil on the cheap from a third party supplier. That in turn will make us look bad to all the other countries that are paying ever-higher costs at the pump.

You know, at the risk of Godwinning this thread, the Germans had a term for this kind of act: sippenhaft. It translates literally as `kinship detention`. If you didn't do something they wanted, they would imprison your family members. It was a way to keep people in line. It exploits the "blame the victim" fallacy to the utmost; after all, little Susie, you wouldn't be in prison if only your father had collaborated...

Not just raise the prices, but use the added income from the high prices to fund terrorist acts against us. The next time we're threatened by Islamic extremeists, I'd like Bush to hold a press conference, look right in the camera and say "Bring it on, mine's bigger." and then walk off.

so you interested in camping out for a couple years perhaps?

or setting broken bones without a doctor?

losing your-or another person's-life defending things that are easily and readily obtained right now, just because of dwindling supplies and no manufacturing available?

I think if there's war against north america, it's not going to be bomb attacks and junk, it's going ******* nuclear. war can't exist like it used to, and no one can outpower the US when it comes to raw military strength. So it'll be Hollywood style dastardly villains with nukes or poisons.

I wonder if you really think that a war will help us evolve:
"nothing would promote man's evolution like a good World War."

I'd be more inclined to say something like "nothing else would eventually teach our descendents the stupidity and futility of war and hate like a good ol' World War...after the fallout"



[/i]I gotta respond to Wingchild now:

Couple things. Muslim community? my man, it's not the Muslim community uttering threats, it's extremists.

Yes these things are trivial and can end up becoming obscene conflagrations. But you propose not backing down to threats of violence just on the principle that if you give an inch they'll take a foot.
I don't get that because so far that's how I've seen America digging themselves deeper into messes. Tired cliches like "discretion is the better part of valor" spring to mind in answer to the pissing contest you propose.

Backing down decreases tension, especially on an unnecessarily contentious issue like this. People are saying that this is all especially ludicrous because there are numerous instances where Muslims have defaced christian and jewish imagery. Shouldn't Christians then...um...I dunno, turn the other cheek?

No matter what, the posturing that's been suggested isn't necessary and is just inflammatory. The cartoons were pretty funny but yeah, offensive to practicing Muslims. Things are already tense, why push it further? Show of weakness? how about a show of maturity? "Do as you please, and if they get angry, tell them to **** off-just like you would anybody else." makes me chuckle because surely you realize that there's a very large section of the world that don't behave like spoiled children.
And you promote punishment after the fact, not prevention...how very astute. Thanks for progressing your country further down a global road of mediocrity.
and finally: "Appeasement is never a correct option."
.....just read it over again. Never? Screams ******' weird childhood to me, man.


[i]Edited, Thu Feb 2 18:00:59 2006 by Shtinkle

I see evolution more as a progression, not just a "blow it up and start again" concept.

my alternate version was just a different translation of the 'evolution' comment anyways, so yeah it was the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

There seem to be an awful lot of them, given the number of incidents that have occured in the last seventy-two hours. One of the things that always bothered me the most is that the Muslim community appears to have no interest in removing these extremists from play. Instead they are given shelter, support, and free reign to issue political statements on behalf of the populace.

If you let madmen speak for you, is it any wonder that the rest of the world considers you mad also?




I would argue that they do. When Jews and Christians throughout America and Europe watch Muslim demonstrators burn flags or religious iconography on the nightly news, they don't typically storm the nearest Libyan embassy and threaten to do murder.

The point on Jews may be a wasted one, though; `turn the other cheek` is a New Testament saying, as I recall.

The point is also of no particular merit to me, given that I am not Christian. My irritation has no religious basis at all. I dislike when people act like utter savages and I detest people who back down from their principals because they fear the consequences of having them.



Indeed. It seems to be everywhere but the Muslim nations, at the moment. I half-heartedly hope some Danes get together to burn a Qu'ran in a public square, and that it gets televised all over the Middle East. I am sure we could have a lively discussion about who's overreacting more when extremists begin murdering people in response.



I find it improper to punish people for acts that have not yet occured. And in cases like this, civilization itself should have been sufficient prevention. Catering to the bizarre whims of insane children is not.



That makes me chuckle, because you obviously have a deficiency in your education. I recommend that you study history. :)

My lord Moe that reply is so Wed, Feb 1st 10:44 AM 2006 CST.

Words are not necessary, hold me /huggles!

You know I will pull up an anti-abortion website right where they send death threats to doctors and post pics and addresses just so I can point out the whole in your post and have this turn into a nuh'uh thread.