Saudi Arabia - Denmark, a love story?

[Marshmallowman]

Its not as black and white as some people would have you believe

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18223507-2,00.html

[schmosef]

Its not as black and white as some people would have you believe

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18223507-2,00.html

What's not as "black and white"?

[schmosef]

Jyllands-Posten stands tough!

This is a translation from an editorial published on February 21st:

source: We wouldn’t take your money if you paid us to do so!

EDITORIAL: No "support", Please

FOOD FAIR in Dubai: A man with a tight smile announces that Arla in no way "supports" any cartoons in Jyllands-Posten.

What cartoons in Jyllands-Posten have to do with a food fair in Dubai can only be explained by the gallopping lunacy of the times, but for now that is not our focus.

A different kind of weird is: what does the man mean by "support"? The statement, coming as it does from Arla, can only be about money. The matter at hand, we must deduce, is that Arla was thinking of sending us a check made out to some amount, but has now decided not to.

Thank you. To be blunt, it would be deeply insulting for us to receive any such "support" from Arla. We still have to consider our dignity.

And that is not for sale. We do not crawl for oriental dictators and we wouldn’t dream of boycotting the democratic state of Israel in order to please some bloodthirsty dictatorship out of medieval times.

But Arla has no such scruples. It is more profitable to kowtow to dictatorships than to stand up for democracy.

Danish history has seen other examples of grubbing merchants who haven’t let democratic principles or even ordinary decency stand in the way of profits.

While the man from Arla is in Dubai talking about his lack of "support" for the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten, the thugs of the dictators are busy desecrating national symbols and burning down embassies.

Arla doesn’t seem to mind.

Known madmen invade our TV sets, shrilly promising slavery to Danes, demanding that the Danish cartoonists be handed over to suffer torture and eventual death.

Arla becomes silent.

Moslems act as madmen over a cartoonist who - to their astonishment - portrayed the prophet with a bomb in his turban. Certainly not the most unnatural thought, considering the deeds that have been done in his name.

Arla is silent.

Plundering hordes scream that Islam is the Religion of Peace. Some of us say they have a funny way of showing it.

Arla stays silent.

We wouldn’t be as primitive as to suggest that Arla be boycotted.

But we are astonished.

[schmosef]

good column by Christopher Hitchens

Stand up for Denmark!
Why are we not defending our ally?

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006, at 12:29 PM ET

Put the case that we knew of a highly paranoid religious cult organization with a secretive leader. Now put the case that this cult, if criticized in the press, would take immediate revenge by kidnapping a child. Put the case that, if the secretive leader were also to be lampooned, two further children would be killed at random. Would the press be guilty of "self-censorship" if it declined to publish anything that would inflame the said cult? Well, yes it would be guilty, but very few people would insist on the full exertion of the First Amendment right. However, the consequences for the cult and its leader would be severe as well. All civilized people would regard it as hateful and dangerous, and steps would be taken to circumscribe its influence, and to ensure that no precedent was set.

The incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! A small democratic country with an open society, a system of confessional pluralism, and a free press has been subjected to a fantastic, incredible, organized campaign of lies and hatred and violence, extending to one of the gravest imaginable breaches of international law and civility: the violation of diplomatic immunity. And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings.

You wish to say that it was instead a small newspaper in Copenhagen that lit the trail? What abject masochism and nonsense. It was the arrogant Danish mullahs who patiently hawked those cartoons around the world (yes, don't worry, they are allowed to exhibit them as much as they like) until they finally provoked a vicious response against the economy and society of their host country. For good measure, they included a cartoon that had never been published in Denmark or anywhere else. It showed the Prophet Mohammed as a pig, and may or may not have been sent to a Danish mullah by an anonymous ill-wisher. The hypocrisy here is shameful, nauseating, unpardonable. The original proscription against any portrayal of the prophet—not that this appears to be absolute—was superficially praiseworthy because it was intended as a safeguard against idolatry and the worship of images. But now see how this principle is negated. A rumor of a cartoon in a faraway country is enough to turn the very name Mohammed into a fetish-object and an excuse for barbaric conduct. As I write this, the death toll is well over 30 and—guess what?—a mullah in Pakistan has offered $1 million and a car as a bribe for the murder of "the cartoonist." This incitement will go unpunished and most probably unrebuked.

Could things become any more sordid and cynical? By all means. In a mindless attempt at a tu quoque, various Islamist groups and regimes have dug deep into their sense of wit and irony and proposed a trade-off. You make fun of "our" prophet and we will deny "your" Holocaust. Even if there were any equivalence, and Jewish mobs were now engaged in trashing Muslim shops and embassies, it would feel degrading even to engage with such a low and cheap stunt. I suppose that one should be grateful that the Shoah is only to be denied rather than, as in some Islamist propaganda, enthusiastically affirmed and set out as a model for emulation. But only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The memory of the Third Reich is very vivid in Europe precisely because a racist German regime also succeeded in slaughtering millions of non-Jews, including countless Germans, under the demented pretext of extirpating a nonexistent Jewish conspiracy. As it happens, I am one of the few people to have publicly defended David Irving's right to publish, and I think it outrageous that he is in prison in Austria for expressing his opinions. But my attachment to free speech is at least absolute and consistent. Those who incite murder and arson, or who silkily justify it, are incapable of rising above the childish glee that culminates in the assertion that two wrongs make a right.

The silky ones may be more of a problem in the long term than the flagrantly vicious and crazy ones. Within a short while—this is a warning—the shady term "Islamophobia" is going to be smuggled through our customs. Anyone accused of it will be politely but firmly instructed to shut up, and to forfeit the constitutional right to criticize religion. By definition, anyone accused in this way will also be implicitly guilty. Thus the "soft" censorship will triumph, not from any merit in its argument, but from its association with the "hard" censorship that we have seen being imposed over the past weeks. A report ($$) in the New York Times of Feb. 13 was as carefully neutral as could be but nonetheless conveyed the sense of menace. "American Muslim leaders," we were told, are more canny. They have "managed to build effective organizations and achieve greater integration, acceptance and economic success than their brethren in Europe have. They portray the cartoons as a part of a wave of global Islamophobia and have encouraged Muslim groups in Europe to use the same term." In other words, they are leveraging worldwide Islamic violence to drop a discreet message into the American discourse.

You may have noticed the recurrence of the term "One point two billion Muslims." A few years ago, I became used to the charge that in defending Salman Rushdie, say, I had "offended a billion Muslims." Evidently, the number has gone up since I first heard this ridiculous complaint. But observe the implied threat. There is not just safety in numbers, but danger in numbers. How many Danes or Jews or freethinkers are there? You can see what the "spokesmen" are insinuating by this tactic of mass psychology and mobbishness.

And not without immediate success, either. The preposterous person of Karen Hughes is quoted in the same New York Times article, under her risible title of "Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy." She tittered outside the store she was happily giving away: "The voices of Muslim Americans have more credibility in the Muslim world frankly than my voice as a government official, because they can speak the language of their faith and can share their experience of practicing their faith freely in the West, and they can help explain why the cartoons are so offensive." Well, let's concede that almost any voice in any world has more credibility on any subject than this braying Bush-crony ignoramus, but is the State Department now saying that we shall be represented in the Muslim world only by Muslims? I think we need a debate on that, and also a vote. Meanwhile, not a dollar of Wahhabi money should be allowed to be spent on opening madrasahs in this country, or in distributing fundamentalist revisions of the Quran in our prison system. Not until, at the very least, churches and synagogues and free-thought libraries are permitted in every country whose ambassador has bullied the Danes. If we have to accept this sickly babble about "respect," we must at least demand that it is fully reciprocal.

And there remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame. Surely here is a case that can be taken up by those who worry that America is too casual and arrogant with its allies. I feel terrible that I have taken so long to get around to this, but I wonder if anyone might feel like joining me in gathering outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, in a quiet and composed manner, to affirm some elementary friendship. Those who like the idea might contact me at christopher.hitchens@yahoo.com, and those who live in other cities with Danish consulates might wish to initiate a stand for decency on their own account.

[KvHagedorn]

That's no surprise when spineless PC cowards run things.. just look at who's running our ports now.. I'm beginning to think GWB and his administration are traitors.

[schmosef]

Zionists and Neo-cons fingerprints found!

WHO WAS BEHIND THE "DANISH" CARTOONS?

The mainstream media coverage of the anti-Islamic racist cartoons ignores the fact that the publication of the images was a "calculated offense" commissioned by a Zionist "Danish" colleague of the Zionist neo-con ideologue Daniel Pipes and was meant to incite violence and promote the Zionist "clash of civilizations" between Muslims and Christians.

I can't be bother to quote the entire article. Click the link if you want to read it.

Just rest assured that it's the juus who are responsible and that the honourable Muslims around the world are once again absolved of any malfeasance, justified as it obviously is/was/always will be.

I don't have a rolleyes emoticon that would satisfy this occasion. Bleh!

edit: Pipes has already posted a refutation of the allegation that he had anything to do with the publishing of the cartoons but anyone who really needs to see that to believe that he wasn't involved needs to take a time out for some honest introspection.

[Jammrock]

What the hell is a "neo-con?" And why do Muslims called Jews "Zionists?"

[GT98]

What the hell is a "neo-con?" And why do Muslims called Jews "Zionists?"

Neocon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...(United_States)

zionist

This one is a bit murky though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

[schmosef]

What the hell is a "neo-con?" And why do Muslims called Jews "Zionists?"

I don't know what a "neo-con" is (or why it seems to be a bad thing by default) but the term "Zionist" is used because they can't bring themselves to use the word "Israeli" as they don't want to recognize Israel as a "fact on the ground".

Also, by not referencing the Jewish religion directly they can worm their way into saying that they're not antisemetic, they're anti-Zionist.

Earlier in the thread llc tried to point out that all the hate groups are indeed "anti-Zionist" not "anti-Jew" and I'd refuted that and pointed out how their righteous claim to "anti-Zionisism" is just a thinly veiled cover for hatred of all things Jewish in nature; the religion, the culture, the history, the people, and the Nation.

[schmosef]

Neocon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons...(United_States)

zionist

This one is a bit murky though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

From the wiki on Zionism:

In some cases, the label "Zionist" is also used improperly as a euphemism for Jews in general by those wishing to white-wash anti-Semitism (as in the Polish anti-Zionist campaign).

That's what's happening in the article I posted a link to and generally what happens whenever "Zionism" is referenced in pro-Islamic media.

[Dr Mordrid]

Short definition of "neocon" (neo-conservative):

Teddy Roosevelt style conservatism vs. the "limosine paleo-politics" fostered by the east/west coast intelligentsia...both Democratic and Republican.

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

Short definition of "neocon" (neo-conservative):

Teddy Roosevelt style conservatism.

Dr. Mordrid

I know that it's short for neo-conservative.

I'm not sure what "Teddy Roosevelt style" means though.

I don't think that the people who use neo-con as an expletive do either.

It's just something that they've latched onto because there's some sort of public consensus floating around that to be a neo-con is bad.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that it's a bad thing. But I can see that the media tends to use it to imply that neo-con people are somehow suspect.

[Dr Mordrid]

TR was at once progressive in many ways and very "in your face" internationally.

Foreign policy: "speak softly and carry a big stick", which he was not afraid to use.

Socially: created the national parks, sponsored anti-trust laws etc. etc.

Family: 5th cousin of FDR

Considered one of the greatest Presidents and first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Only President to win the Congressional Medal of Honor. An avid boxer and practiced Judo. First President to invite a black man to dinner at the White House. First to appoint a Jewish cabinet secratary.

Most neo-cons are supportive of TR style policies. In fact many are former liberals or middle road Democrats who have "seen the light" in terms of foreign policy and the failures of the welfare/nanny state, therefore becoming "persona non grata" in the increasingly ultra-left Democrat party of today.

Examples of "neocons" who stayed in the Dem party would be people like former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, the late Sen. Scoop Jackson and others of their ilk. Even the widely respected (in both parties) Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY (sadly deceased) had many neocon instincts.

Earlier form: "Reagan Democrats".

Dr. Mordrid

[GT98]

Doc,

When I hear the term Neo-con...its normally normally to describe who makes up the current administration, more or less the misconception that that GWB is a Bible thumper and a Republican in name only (Republicans are "supposed" to be smaller government, business friendly), where as they spending is just as bad as Democrats.

The Wikipedia definition is pretty good, since its states at the end that there really isnt a hard and fast definition of what one is...

[schmosef]

Daily Tar Heel Now Targeted for Cartoon Jihad

From LGF:

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel is now embroiled in a Krazy Kartoon Kontroversy of their own, after publishing an original cartoon showing a politically correct, balanced and non-violent Mohammed denouncing both Denmark and Islamic protesters: Cartoon for February 9 - Opinion.


The Muslim Students Association is seething.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — The Muslim Students Association at the University of North Carolina on Friday asked the campus’ student newspaper to apologize for publishing an original cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

“The intention of bigotry was clear,” the association wrote in a letter to The Daily Tar Heel. “One must question the DTH’s ethics in advancing a widely protested issue to cause a riot of their own. The MSA not only found this cartoon derogatory but is also shocked at the editor’s allowance of its publication — one that incites hate in the current political and social context.”

So, am I way off base here? The apologists for the Muslim realtion to the cartoons say that the anger is over the defamation of Mo. This cartoon doesn't defame Mo at all. So what's wrong with it? I understand that it's taboo for Muslims to depict Mo but why should non Muslims to bound to Muslim tenants?