Oh - happy to give you a resounding one. Don't forget the Russkies, if you want to make pretences of fairness.Originally Posted by Drosselmeier
Heh... even a pinko like me can't argue with you there.
Lookie here everyone! Dross and jmerv in agreement!
LOLLERSKATES.
Oops! I usually manage to catch any spelling/grammar errors in my posts before I post 'em, guess that one slipped through! God looks after his priests; at least they didn't die hungry!
Mossadeq- whats that mean? is it some OTF thing or an internet thing I've missed?
Anyway, I dont pretend to be any kind of well informed historian (if it aint in Wilkpedia, I dont know about it :rolleyes: !) but from a documentary I saw on the BBC a while back most Arabs blame Britain for the way we partitioned the mid east after WW1, they felt that they had been betrayed by the promises we made to them to get them to take on the Ottoman empire. But then most Imperial Empires have very little regard for the countries they are annexing, the peoples they are disrupting & displacing. Spain didn't when they entered central/southern America.
Suffice to say, muslims are angry at something & they want someone to pay!
The first entry in reply to Iran's request for Holocaust cartoons has been made by well known Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig. See here.
Oh, come on - he's in the Wiki, for cryin' out loud! Think Iran & the Shah.
The cartoons that \"offends\" muslims really aren\'t that bad. Not sure what the turban wearing fools are gripin about.
The world should be forced to watch South Park and have their religious leaders ***** about that.
Your link say's the submitted cartoon was a fake.
This is Dan Blather signing off
Whats the point of that when we can just listen to you gripe all day about something like this.Its pointless you know.Its like fighting a fight that has no sides nor will it ever because everyone wants to be correct about what they say instead of saying the truth.(End of comment)
I hate linking to newspapers. That's a different article to the one I linked to, published before Leunig said he didn't enter. The entry is a fake, the cartoons are not, they were supposed to be published in an Australian newspaper in 2002. Someone has entered, illegally, Leunig's cartoons on his behalf, without his permission.
What you, and most every other person that has offered comment on this subject, have failed to grasp is that ANY image of Mohammed is considered blasphemous. These cartoons therefore consitute something worse than blasphemy, especially some of the ones that have been circulating by the same artist, but unpublished by the Danish newspaper. Until relatively recently it was considered blasphemy to produce an image, in any medium, of any creature with a soul. This was reformed to be specifically about images of Mohammed, the only images that exist of the Prophet depict his face veiled (some of these originally showed his face but the veil was added later), iirc the prophets Jesus and Moses can also only be depicted with veiled faces but they do not hold the same position as Mohammed so it is regarded as a sin rather than a blasphemy to do so. This is why Mosques are filled with calligraphy rather than stained glass windows and statues. These cartoons are therefore offensive to Muslims in the same way that a cartoon of a pustulating, bloody, vagina tattooed with the letters U.S.A. and published in a national newspaper would be offensive to Americans. Not only is it taboo, and therefore offensive to begin with, it is taboo that directly implies other offending ideas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks