General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default Danish Counter-boycott

In article .com>,
"aem" > wrote:

>
> Muslims believe it is wrong (the equivalent of blasphemy for
> Christians) to produce and display images of Muhammed. These were not
> only images, they were insulting cartoons of the person they believe
> stands closest to their God. It is expected, normal behavior for
> Muslims to take offence.
>
> Didn't the televangelists take offence at the (already cancelled) tv
> show that portrayed Jesus looking like a long-haired hippie?
>
> I think believers in all three of the monotheisms that came out of the
> desert are wrong, but it has been obvious for centuries that when you
> insult believers they get angry.


And the Muslims have every right to be angry, to write letters to the
editor and publisher of the newspaper, boycott the paper and publicize
the insult. They do not have the right to riot, beat Danish employees,
tear up and vandalize embassies, and kill. That is the difference
between the Christian response to the television show and the Muslim
response to cartoons.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 473
Default Danish Counter-boycott

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> No it isn't This is fundie started & fundie fueled. There is a long a
> beautiful history of images in Islam. Ever seen any Persian
> miniatures?


There is a big difference between the Shiite minority and the Sunni
majority view, and actually graven images, any image of human or animal
is prohibited. This is why there are so many beautiful geometrics and
mosaics from Muslim culture.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Danish Counter-boycott

In article >,
says...
>
> Which is fairly close to the level of reality of this thread...
>


Michel, you are increasingly defending the indefensible.

I see caricatures of the pope in a newspaper - does this mean that catholics
all over the world are beginning to burn down New Zealand embassies? Not on
your nelly.
Nor have the Mormons declared a Holy War because somebody took the **** out of
them.

Your argumentation sounds frightfully close to me to something like: We
shouldn't portray slaveholders in a bad light because it might hurt their
feelings. We shouldn't mention Nazi deathcamps because we might offend the
Nazis' political credo. Get real.

What we are seeing at the moment, across the Muslim world, and most likely
fanned by unsonscionable clerics and political agitators (to wit, the fake
drawings that are being circulated in Muslim countries) actually _confirms_
the perception the cartoonists captured on paper. No more, no less.

I can virtually guarantee that 99% of Islam doesn't give a shit wether X-
tianity is also a revealed religion or a pagan cult. With, maybe, the exception
of a few recluse scholars.

The bottom line a.f.a.i.c.s. is this: two tribes going "our tribe better than
your tribe" "We have big clubs" "We hit your women and children over the head
if you don't do as we say". (sorry, this is about as close to neanderthal speak
as I can get).
Usually I don't take sides in these conflicts, but in this case I know which
side I stand on. As a psychologist and social worker I have seen entirely too
much of how Muslim men, be they political refugees or be they immigrant
workers, behave towards their hosts and towards their own for me to have much
respect for that religion/culture. What decides me is not the theological fine
print (yeah, I have studied theology for 3 semesters, too) but the teenage girl
beaten to within an inch of her life because she wants another year of
schooling in a German highschool, or because she doesn't want an arranged
marriage with a 75 year old in Anatolia. Or outright stabbed to death by her
brothers because she allowed herself to be raped by one of their mates. Blah,
blah. Too much of that, entirely too much. Barbaric.

So somebody puts pen to paper to voice their opinion and here you come with
your 'revealed religion'. Sorry man, but that carries no more weight with me
than pastors who bless guns (remember, you shall not kill?!?) and Southern
Baptists who thank the Lord for the Nucular Bomb So We Can Show Those Reds.

The bloody lot of them should burn in Hell, unfortunately that's just a silly
concept to scare little children and the Hard of Thinking. And **** off the
politically correct with a brown ring somewhere around their neckline who can't
see what's going on around them because they have their head in the [not-sand].

regds, -Peter

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Ranee Mueller wrote:

> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.


And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.



  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,587
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Ranee Mueller wrote:
>
>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>> that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.

>
> And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
> riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
> that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.


It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.

OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammed...-of-blasphemy/

nb




  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default Danish Counter-boycott

notbob wrote:
> On 2006-02-07, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>>Ranee Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I believe there were 12. Only two could be seen as insulting, in
>>>that they portrayed Mohammed with a bomb and one with a sword.

>>
>>And to protest being portrayed with the violence of a sword and a bomb they
>>riot, kill, commit acts of arson and threaten to kidnap. It's not every group
>>that protests a stereotype by becoming a caricature of themselves.

>
>
> It's been claimed some extremist immams added three extra insulting
> cartoons to further incite the uncommitted.
>
> OBfood: breakfast of infidel cartoonists
> http://aarons.cc/2006/02/02/mohammed...-of-blasphemy/
>
> nb
>



Shouldn't these immams be stoned for blasphemy (drawing Mohammed with a
pig snout, etc) and bearing false witness by claiming that the Danes had
drawn/published them? I believe blasphemy and false witness of a
capital offense were both punishable by death under the Mosaic law, and
so probably also punishable by death under Islamic law.

Best regards,
Bob
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,205
Default Danish Counter-boycott

In article >,
(Curly Sue) wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:10:25 -0500, 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.

>
> Freedom of speech is a secular idol that we cherish and is often used,
> as in this case, to provoke.
>
> The media sources which printed and reprinted the cartoons knew what
> they were doing and where this would lead. These were not individual
> cartoons part of a daily series or political commentary. They were
> commissioned to challenge the religious proscription against
> representation of certain images. The paper got what they intended.
> If they had wanted to avoid anger and protests, they wouldn't have
> used such an in-your-face campaign to break the taboo.
>
> Of course all of us who believe in free speech can support the burning
> of the Danish flag and the angry marches as a freedom of speech
> actions. Those who condone the plowing down of a McDonald's in France
> can understand the passions behind destruction of embassy property.
> Those who boycott French cheeses and wines because of international
> disputes can understand the boycott of Danish products. These are the
> weapons that some people use to retaliate against those who offend
> them.
>
> The cartoonists and newspapers have made their point about artistic
> expression, freedom of speech, and the value of jerking some chains to
> get reactions and attention; the radical Muslims are making their
> point about being offended.
>
> The actors are following the script.


Sue, I couldn't agree more!

The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
editors knew it. I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
shop for some Danish products tonight though!

I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Stan Horwitz wrote:

> > The actors are following the script.

>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.


I don't doubt that they expected some Moslems to be offended. There are
about 100,000 Moslems there, and some of them may actually have seen the
cartoons in question. I don't think that they would have expected the furor
to that arose, or that it would become an issue across the entire Moslem
world.

> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan to
> shop for some Danish products tonight though!


Good for you. I bought a case of Tubourg beer. It is one of my favourites
anyway.


> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.


And I would suggest that Moslems spend more time trying to present a better
image to the West instead of using this issue to vent their frustration.




  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Stan Horwitz wrote:

>
> > The actors are following the script.

>
> Sue, I couldn't agree more!
>
> The reaction to those cartoons was predictable and the newspaper's
> editors knew it.


Yes, the editors should have expected some sort of reaction. It was the
editors who commissioned the cartoons. It was the editors who selected the
cartoons to run, and it was the editors' decision to run them.

The Danish people had nothing to do with it. The Danish government had
nothing to do with it. Regardless of whether or not they agree with the
sentiment of the cartoons, the depiction of the Prophet (not universally
accepted my Moslems as a violation of the Quran), or the image of Moslems as
violent, and goodness knows how they ever made that connection, they had no
say it in it. Never the less, it is a democratic society where there is
freedom of speech and freedom of the press.



>
> I am not condoning this violence, but I do plan toshop for some Danish
> products tonight though!


The way I see it is that we should be supporting one side or the other. If
we boycott Danish products, or even if we just stand by and allow them to be
bullied, we condone the violent and coercive forces of the radicals who have
hijacked Islam. I am not recommending counter protests or violence against
Moslems. I do not incensed enough to want to stoop to their level, but I
will do my utmost to counter their economic boycott. I am boycotting
Moslems. I am boycotting any stores that have removed Danish products. I am
going out of my way to buy Danish goods.

>
> I also suggest these newspapers spend more time reporting real news and
> less time trying to provoke their readers with comics.


I heard an interesting interview on CBC radio today. A Moslem who described
himself as a liberal thinker indicated that despite his secular views, found
the cartoons offensive. He did not think they warranted violent protests.
However, he pointed out that in Arab countries the governments must have
been involved in the demonstrations. They all have repressive governments,
and in countries like that you cannot get large a turnout and massive
participation without government consent. He suggested that the government
used the occasion to allow their people to vent their frustrations. There
are a lot of things to protest about over there. People are hopping mad,
and usually at their own government but powerless to do anything about that,
so they allow their attention to be directed at other things.


  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> I am very much aware of that, and at least one Middle Eastern
>> government has apologized. Many governments were pursuing a
>> diplomatic solution since the publication which obviously Denmark
>> ignored. Perhaps this could have been resolved amicably much
>> earlier and none of this would have come to pass.

>
> There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand
> that Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a
> bomb, since it would characterize them as being violent. But to
> me, to react to the offensiveness of the portrayal by starting
> riots that have lead to murder and arson??? I have to say that it
> doesn't do much for their argument that it is unfair to portray
> them as being violent.


So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill. How, pray
tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
invasion of Iraq. Putting things in perspective, I believe the
Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly ****ed at the West right
now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
diplomatically are only the latest straw.

And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
sovereignty. Of course that's actually funny, but obviously their
close association with the Bush administration in recent years has
caused them to disregard the sensitivities of others in emulation of
the Erstwhile Jet Pilot (copyright Michel Boucher 2006).

--

"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
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Michel Boucher wrote:

> > There is more than a little irony in all this. I can understand
> > that Moslems would be offended by an image of the prophet with a
> > bomb, since it would characterize them as being violent. But to
> > me, to react to the offensiveness of the portrayal by starting
> > riots that have lead to murder and arson??? I have to say that it
> > doesn't do much for their argument that it is unfair to portray
> > them as being violent.

>
> So, not everyone has the literary talent of Churchill.


It is more than a matter of level of articulation. It is a sad irony that
they have violent demonstrations to protest being betrayed as violent.


> How, pray
> tell, would you suggest they do react, if they want people to listen
> to them who are ignoring them? Obviously, once a mob has gone
> unruly, there is more violence than the events call for, but that was
> also the case with the much more deadly (and much less justifiable)
> invasion of Iraq.


How much of a role do you think their governments have had in these
protests. They aren't allowed to question things about their (state)
religion. They aren't allowed to protest against their government. If
they are protesting against something western or a foreign government, it
is a safe bet that their own government is actively involved.


> Putting things in perspective, I believe the
> Muslims have very good reasons to be majorly ****ed at the West right
> now (and we as a collectivity keep wondering why because it serves
> our interests to ignore their suffering), and that the cartoons and
> Denmark's unforgiveable lack of interest in resolving this
> diplomatically are only the latest straw.


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. It should be noted that the issue had
been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the newspaper
printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other countries ran the
cartoons. Then there are the stories about some imams having been
responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons for
distribution.

>
> And why are you defending the Danes? They are our enemies too,
> leaving bottles of akvavit on Hans Island in violation of Canadian
> sovereignty.


I have an affinity for Denmark because of what Danes have done for me and
my family. My father was shot down over Denmark during the war and a lot
of Danish citizens risked their lives to help him, and they would been
executed by the Germans if they had been caught. When my father died we
took his ashes over to Denmark to be interred alongside the graves of his
dead crew mates, and when people over there caught wind of our planes
they arranged special ceremonies and receptions. We were overwhelmed by
the hospitality shown by the Danish people. I have been there twice for
Liberation Day ceremonies and seen them demonstrate their gratitude to
the Allies who fought to free them.

They are freedom loving people. As far as this cartoon issue is
concerned, the Danish people did nothing wrong. Their big crime was to
uphold the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but
they ended up being victimized by the radical Moslems who are trying to
vent their hostility against the West. Given the option of siding with
freedom loving people like the Danes. who committed no wrong, or with the
religious fanatics, I prefer the Danes. I hate to see the Danes vilified
over such a trivial matter. I hate to see that sort of coercion against
an innocent people. So I will do my best to counter the boycott and urge
reasonable people everywhere to do the same.


> Of course that's actually funny, but obviously their
> close association with the Bush administration in recent years has
> caused them to disregard the sensitivities of others in emulation of
> the Erstwhile Jet Pilot (copyright Michel Boucher 2006).
>
> --
>
> "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


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> 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.

> It should be noted that the issue had
> been resolved to the satisfaction of Danish Moslems when the
> newspaper printed an apology a week ago. Newspapers in other
> countries ran the cartoons.


And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
literature.

> Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> for distribution.


I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
plausible.

--

"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
  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Michel Boucher wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Then there are the stories about some imams having been
>>responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
>>for distribution.

>
>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.
>


http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/...e-mohamed.html

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

Best regards,
Bob


  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,180
Default Danish Counter-boycott


Dave Smith wrote:
> Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong.


No, they didn't. But what I find ironic is how all the Fundies are
jumping on the "support the Danish" bandwagon, when, if it had been
their pweshus Jesus who was the center of attack, they'd all be
lamenting "We're soooooo persecuted!!!"

****ing hypocrites.

Seems like freedom of speech is alive and well until Jesus/Christianity
is involved.

-L.

  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

>> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk
>> being found in breach of the law forbidding representation of
>> living creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does
>> not seem plausible.
>>

>
> http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/...ophile-mohamed.
> html
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/


And that is conclusive...a blog...

--

"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
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default Danish Counter-boycott

-L. wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong.

>
>
> No, they didn't. But what I find ironic is how all the Fundies are
> jumping on the "support the Danish" bandwagon, when, if it had been
> their pweshus Jesus who was the center of attack, they'd all be
> lamenting "We're soooooo persecuted!!!"
>
> ****ing hypocrites.
>
> Seems like freedom of speech is alive and well until Jesus/Christianity
> is involved.
>
> -L.



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
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Michel Boucher wrote:

> zxcvbob > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>>I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk
>>>being found in breach of the law forbidding representation of
>>>living creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does
>>>not seem plausible.
>>>

>>
>>http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/...ophile-mohamed.
>>html
>>
>>http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

>
>
> 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)

The reports are widely distributed in the mainstream news. I linked to
the blogs becuase they show the actual original 12 pictures as they
appeared in the Danish paper, and the 3 additions being distributed to
incite the riots.

Bob
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:25:45 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>-L. wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong.

>>
>>
>> No, they didn't. But what I find ironic is how all the Fundies are
>> jumping on the "support the Danish" bandwagon, when, if it had been
>> their pweshus Jesus who was the center of attack, they'd all be
>> lamenting "We're soooooo persecuted!!!"
>>
>> ****ing hypocrites.
>>
>> Seems like freedom of speech is alive and well until Jesus/Christianity
>> is involved.
>>
>> -L.

>
>
>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



Note the date on the incident to be 6 or 7 years ago.

Boron
http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46555

"In Israel (snip) a Russian immigrant, Tatiana Soskin, drew a picture
of Mohammed as a pig writing the Koran. The picture was posted in the
West Bank city of Hebron in 1997. Soskin was tried, convicted and
served time in jail for the incident because it was judged that she
had intended to offend the Palestinians."




  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,587
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On 2006-02-07, zxcvbob > wrote:

> http://bibelen.blogspot.com/2006/01/...e-mohamed.html
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
>
> Best regards,
> Bob


Yes, I've seen these and pointed this out before. There can be no
doubt these riots are being purposely orchestrated by extremist muslim
elements, be they imams or just plain ol' terrorists. The fact these
riots are occurring a full three months after the fact makes it
obvious enough.

Here's another website that is intriguing:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/gallery.htm

It's somewhat extreme in the other direction, perhaps even
propagandist, but still provides food for thought. I dumped you at
the picture gallery for simple shock value, but I'm sure you can
separate the wheat from the chaff.

Here's another website I stumbled across, which I'll include for no
other reason than to add a little levity after the above grimness:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565

nb
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

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 seem to have indicated that they were not in a position to
punish the editors, to force them to retract the cartoons or to offer an
apology because Denmark is a free society with freedom of speech. That
should not be hard for westerners to understand, though it seems to be a
difficult concept for those living in Islamic countries.

The newspaper did issue an apology and it was accepted by the Danish
Moslems, and that happened before the riots erupted all over the place.

> And the publisher of France-Soir fired the editor who published them.
> At this point, it was no longer freedom of speech, it was hate
> literature.


I have seen them and I would disagree that they are hate literature.
Considering the stuff that comes from some Moslem sources, they would be
among the last to complain about hate literature. Perhaps their concern
over being portrayed with a sword and a bomb would be viewed more
sympathetically if they didn't respond with violent protests.


> > Then there are the stories about some imams having been
> > responsible for altering or making new and more offensive cartoons
> > for distribution.

>
> I suspect not. Probably a CNN canular. I doubt imams would risk being
> found in breach of the law forbidding representation of living
> creatures simply to get rise out of the crowd. That does not seem
> plausible.


Why not? They have made up a lot of other stuff over the years. One of the
reasons there are different sects of Islam is that some embrace
interpretations the others do not. They certainly feel free to spread lies
about Christians and Jews. According to today's reports, this all started
as some sort of Jewish conspiracy.


  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

"-L." wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Three cheers for Denmark. They did nothing wrong.

>
> No, they didn't. But what I find ironic is how all the Fundies are
> jumping on the "support the Danish" bandwagon, when, if it had been
> their pweshus Jesus who was the center of attack, they'd all be
> lamenting "We're soooooo persecuted!!!"
>
> ****ing hypocrites.
>
> Seems like freedom of speech is alive and well until Jesus/Christianity
> is involved.


WTF ?? What fundies are you talking about? I was the one who started the
thread. I am not a fundie. It is a secular issue for me.


  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,555
Default 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
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

>> 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


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

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.



  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

zxcvbob > wrote in
:

> 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


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Michel Boucher wrote:

> zxcvbob > wrote in
> :
>
> > 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.


  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:06:52 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>zxcvbob > wrote in
:
>
>>> 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


  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> zxcvbob > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > 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
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35,884
Default Danish Counter-boycott

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.

  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Boron Elgar > wrote in
:

> 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


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,234
Default Danish Counter-boycott


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 and the Prime Minister
is at


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

  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:28:24 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>zxcvbob > wrote in
:
>
>> 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

  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,251
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:21:26 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Boron Elgar > wrote in
:
>
>> 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

  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 516
Default Danish Counter-boycott

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:13:57 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Dave Smith > wrote in
:
>
>> 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!
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 440
Default Danish Counter-boycott

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> 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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Start a boycott? Dimitri General Cooking 132 26-01-2011 09:30 PM
Boycott Gettysburg Tom Mexican Cooking 0 08-08-2006 04:32 PM
Boycott Gettysburg Tom Winemaking 1 28-07-2006 02:45 AM
Boycott Gettysburg Tom Restaurants 0 27-07-2006 08:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"