Peter Aitken wrote:

> Bottom line is that if Iran has a few nukes the US will think long and hard
> before invading. I'd much prefer they did not get them, but I can;t say I
> blame them for trying.

I was going to ask why the US would bother to attack Iran, but then I remembered
Iraq :-(

Dave Smith a écrit :

> > > You have tried very hard to counter any type of western rationale.
> >
> > I have tried to balance an otherwise out-of-control emotional reaction
> > from people who are, admit it, not in a position to actually resolve
> > the situation in their current state of excitement.
>
> Indeed. It is difficult to deal with people who are acting like raving
> lunatics, the unemployed and indoctrinated of a society that produces lots of
> those types.

And there are people like that everywhere, including this newsgroup,
who feel that ranting on and on about things they cannot change is the
right thing to do.

> > No, I said the law forbids it. And in many countries, you will not
> > find representations of human form in art. That is true.
>
> Yet, someone posted a link with examples of Islamic art, some of which were
> images of the prophet. It is my understanding that representing Allah is
> forbidden, but that there are different schools of thought on images of the
> Prophet.

So? You seem to make a big deal of this. The islamic law forbids it.
Traditional islamic art does NOT show representations of human form.
There are exceptions. Big hairy deal. That does not mean that
everyone breaks the law. And as I said, the exception proves the rule.

> > > That is an interesting view considering that the US was able to buy
> > > support from others Islamic countries in order to get Iran out of Kuwait
> > > in the Gulf War.
> >
> > I think you mean Iraq.
>
> Iraq

You wrote Iran. That was my comment, that you probably meant Iraq as I
don't recall Iran being in Kuwait.

Essentially, it boils down to this. We disagree. I will never support
outright acts of violence by militaristic régimes against impoverished
nations. Period.

However, as I pointed out above, I do recognize that violence happens
and although I don't support it, I think we need to understand its
origins, both on the side of the West and Islam, in this particular
case. Suggesting that we should inflict more injury on people who are
already severely destitute by any meaning of the word is not only
exacerbating the situation (in '60's speak, escalating) but it is also
naïve.

I have tried to engage you in an intelligent debate, but sometimes, as
now, you're just terribly opinionated. Could be the weather, could be
the new government (if that's it, I can understand, but I didn't vote
for them...you did :-) ). At any rate, I am withdrawing from this
discussion because (as happened before) we just go around in circles
where I propose something and you shoot it down without even taking the
time to think about it.
Enough.

alsandor wrote:

>
>
> So? You seem to make a big deal of this. The islamic law forbids it.
> Traditional islamic art does NOT show representations of human form.
> There are exceptions. Big hairy deal. That does not mean that
> everyone breaks the law. And as I said, the exception proves the rule.

Bug hairy deal. EXACTLY! That is what all this is about. Big Hairy Deal. Moslems
could look at the cartoons and comfort themselves in their belief that God would
exact revenge on the infidels who dared to draw his prophet.


> Essentially, it boils down to this. We disagree. I will never support
> outright acts of violence by militaristic régimes against impoverished
> nations. Period.

Nor will I support terrorist acts against soft targets, or the acts of random
groups.

> However, as I pointed out above, I do recognize that violence happens
> and although I don't support it, I think we need to understand its
> origins, both on the side of the West and Islam, in this particular
> case. Suggesting that we should inflict more injury on people who are
> already severely destitute by any meaning of the word is not only
> exacerbating the situation (in '60's speak, escalating) but it is also
> naïve.

But the impoverished inflicting violence on the culturally and economically
advanced is acceptable?


> I have tried to engage you in an intelligent debate, but sometimes, as
> now, you're just terribly opinionated.

Perhaps I am. I have difficulty accepting that it is a good idea to mutilate
women's genitals to prevent them from enjoying their sexuality. I have trouble
accepting that it is a crime to question what our twisted religious fanatics tell
us their god insists we do to please them. I have trouble accepting that it is only
a sin to lie to followers of one's own faith. I have trouble with the concept that
women who give up their virginity out of wedlock should be stoned but that if I
blow myself up for my religion I get to defile 72 virgins. Most of all, I fail to
accept that an appropriate response to an editorial cartoon that suggests that I
support violence is to go out and riot and commit arson and threaten murder and
kidnapping.

In article >,
says...
>
> So you think that rioting and buring down embassies, attacking people
> who are thought to be Danish citizens and beating them, and kidnapping
> are morally equivalent to non-violent protest?
>
> Regards,
> Ranee
>

Don't be disingenuous.

-P.


--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

In article > ,
Peter Huebner > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > So you think that rioting and buring down embassies, attacking people
> > who are thought to be Danish citizens and beating them, and kidnapping
> > are morally equivalent to non-violent protest?
>
> Don't be disingenuous.

You made the comparison first. I was clarifying. If you think that
somehow protesting a television show through letter writing is
comparable in any way to rioting, you are wrong.

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/

Peter Huebner wrote:

>
> > So you think that rioting and buring down embassies, attacking people
> > who are thought to be Danish citizens and beating them, and kidnapping
> > are morally equivalent to non-violent protest?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ranee
> >
>
> Don't be disingenuous.

New word for the day?
Better learn how to use it.


>
>
> -P.
>
> --
> =========================================
> firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

zxcvbob wrote:
> You are confusing theological fundamentalism with [religious or
> political] zealotry.
>
> Bob

In the US those of the the Religious Right are both fundamental in
their beliefs as well as religious and political zealots. You can't
separate the two. I subscribe to a number of Fundie websites and email
groups - almost every one of them brought the issue to attention in
some form or another. My point was, had it been their precious Jesus
negatively depicted with a cross up his ass, I suspect we wouldn't be
hearing all of this "support Denmark" bullshit.

-L.

"-L." wrote:

> In the US those of the the Religious Right are both fundamental in
> their beliefs as well as religious and political zealots. You can't
> separate the two. I subscribe to a number of Fundie websites and email
> groups - almost every one of them brought the issue to attention in
> some form or another. My point was, had it been their precious Jesus
> negatively depicted with a cross up his ass, I suspect we wouldn't be
> hearing all of this "support Denmark" bullshit.

I must be missing something here. I never saw cartoons of Jesus with a
cross up his ass. I also missed the violent protests and acts of arson and
violence resulting from them.

-L. wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>>You are confusing theological fundamentalism with [religious or
>>political] zealotry.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
> In the US those of the the Religious Right are both fundamental in
> their beliefs as well as religious and political zealots. You can't
> separate the two. I subscribe to a number of Fundie websites and email
> groups - almost every one of them brought the issue to attention in
> some form or another. My point was, had it been their precious Jesus
> negatively depicted with a cross up his ass, I suspect we wouldn't be
> hearing all of this "support Denmark" bullshit.
>
> -L.
>


You subscribe to a number of "Fundie" websites and email groups... You
don't think that's a little weird? <backing away slowly>

Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
> You subscribe to a number of "Fundie" websites and email groups... You
> don't think that's a little weird? <backing away slowly>
>
> Bob

Know thine enemy. I also subscribe to the Repugnican ones, too.

-L.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
alsandor wrote:

>
>
> So? You seem to make a big deal of this. The islamic law forbids it.
> Traditional islamic art does NOT show representations of human form.
> There are exceptions. Big hairy deal. That does not mean that
> everyone breaks the law. And as I said, the exception proves the rule.

Bug hairy deal. EXACTLY! That is what all this is about. Big Hairy Deal.
Moslems
could look at the cartoons and comfort themselves in their belief that God
would
exact revenge on the infidels who dared to draw his prophet.

The phrase "the exception proves the rule" is misunderstood and misused by
99% of people. It originated when the word "prove" meant to test or try
something. So it means that the exception tests the rule, not that the
exception shows that the rule is true - a silly notion in any event.


--
Peter Aitken


--
Peter Aitken