Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 41716
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41716 Activity:moderate
2/6     The cartoon controversy: the Saudi factor
        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
        \_ too bad he based this entire thing on bad dates from a single
           source.  but it isn't a bad theory overall.
        \_ cool article.  I've been saying all along that Saudi is problematic.
           if we are serious about curbing Islamic Extremist, we need to deal
           with them.   FYI, Aljazeera did a survey, something like 66,000
           out of 78,000 muslims said that official apology from the original
           Dannish newspaper is good enough.
           \_ This presumes two things:  (a) that there is something wrong
              with what the Danish paper did (maybe it was in questionable
              with what the Danish paper did (it was in very questionable
              taste and judgment, but that is different) and (b) that "islam"
              and the umma as such have some inherent right for their
              sensitivities to trump some of the core values and rights that
              lie at the heart of what we so cavalierly call "Western culture."
              Neither (a) nor (b) is the case.  As for Islamic extremism, one
              can only hope that pictures of people threatening to bomb
              embassies and kill paper editors over cartoons will bring what
              we keep being told is the "moderate majority" of muslims to
              their senses, and make them realize how truculent, thuggish and
              frankly, prone to infantile outbursts their co-religionists are.
              To be honest, I don't see anyone asking for an apology from
              anyone in the "islamic world" over the sort of acceptance you
              get towards pictures of people having their heads cut off because
              they are infidels, or over really vile anti-semitic shit that
              you get on a lot of islamic web pages.  Regarding what I see as
              western kow-towing to this sort of horseshit collective temper-
              tantrum, I've written a number of retailers that have removed
              Danish products from their shelves in many countries, explaining
              that they don't deserve my custom, for what little it's worth,
              and I hope others will do the same.  -John
              \_ What if some CEO of company, President of a country, or
                 university made some anti-semitic remarks, or remarks
                 offensive to feminists, and some members of said groups
                 decide to boycott products of the company, not visit the
                 country, etc., will you be against that?
              \_ The point of the article was that the Saudis deliberately
                 inflamed the issue, in order to distract attention from the
                 fuckup of the Hajj stampede.
                 \_ Yes, I know, I like the article.  I was mainly venting,
                    the whole thing is pretty disgusting.  As for boycotts,
                    go ahead; however, I find knuckling under to a fairly
                    barbaric condemnation of a society's fundamental values
                    (have you read what some of these signs say?) to be pretty
                    sad.  I think this is not one of those cases where you
                    can even claim there is a gray area.  -John
                    \_ a) It is not up to *YOU* to judge rather the cartoon
                        is offensive or not.  b) don't you get it?  they
                        are not attacking our value.  They are attacking our
                        100 years of imperial foreign policies of supporting
                        repressive regime, overthrown democratic governments,
                        carve out their homelands to server other Western
                        interest, etc.
                        \_ Are you saying there would be no outrage if the
                           cartoons were published by a newspaper from a
                           non-imperialist, non-supporting repressive regime,
                           etc., nation?
                        \_ I don't give a shit if the cartoon was offensive
                           or not.  They are not attacking "our" anything,
                           this is DENMARK we are talking about.  HELLOO?  It
                           is your and my right to even consider arguing about
                           this on a public (or any) forum.  And it's "serve
                           other interests".  -John
                        \_ Re-read and meditate, young padawan.  Cosmic truths
                           may suddenly become clear.  -John
                        \_ so Islam is a Religion Of Peace and we made them
                           beat their wives?  if only their wives had just
                           listened and done what they were told they wouldn't
                           have had to beat them.
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/2/22-3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53722 Activity:nil
2/20    Ok serious question, NOT political.  This is straight up procedural.
        Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
        So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
        knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
        \_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
           Saddam from financing terrorism.
	...

	...
2008/9/23-29 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:51270 Activity:moderate
9/22    "Pakistanis say suspected US drone shot down"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_drone
        One fewer friend, one more foe.
        \_ Isn't this what Obama said he'd do?
           \_ No, but why let facts get in the way.
           \_ Obama or Osama? Are we really supposed to belive that Obama said
	...
2008/8/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50864 Activity:nil
8/13    Wow, how does the kool-aid taste?
        http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/11/sitroom.01.html
         "My point is that a President Obama will have a good, strong
        dialogue-oriented relationship with Russia, where these kinds of
        situations would not occur."
        \_ Red-flavor or blue-flavor?
	...
2008/6/5-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50158 Activity:low
6/5     Rezko convicted of 16 counts of corruption
        http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/obama-saddened-by-rezko-verdict        Obama: "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew."  Now was Wright the pastor
        "he knew"  Who does this guy know?
         \_ Ahh, smell the desperation.  Is this really the best you have
            right now?
        \_ Ahh, smell the desperation.  Is this really the best you have right
	...
2008/3/20-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49511 Activity:nil
3/20    What a surprise, the press practically stopped covering Iraq the moment
        things were going well.
        http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQlZpvn28yAbvyg8AaAuiELvhINQD8VELQRO0
        \_ The article does not support your scathing indictment.
           \_ "It's possible to pinpoint the exact week that the switch turned
              off. The war averaged 30 minutes per week of coverage last year
	...
2008/2/8-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49096 Activity:moderate
2/8     i kind of liked Romney.  oh well.
        \_ I called him an idiot at first because of his "political act". But
           accepting that as part of politics, I certainly liked him much
           more than McCain. Romney has more real leadership experience, and
           McCain seems kind of unstable. And too war happy and egotistical.
        \_ I like Fred Thompson ... 's wife.
	...
2008/2/8-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49098 Activity:nil
2/8     American Woman in Saudi Arabia receives reality check
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329605,00.html
        \_ some things to notice:
           1) this is from fox news.  What do you think their angle is?
              \_ Your fox paranoia is amusing. It's not the only outlet
                 reporting it.
	...
Cache (6956 bytes)
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
Soj Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 11:01:49 AM PDT I had a friend over today who lives out of town and we switched on the traditional news media television and saw what most of you have probably seen - angry rioters protesting, burning flags and attacking various Danish embassies around the world. Despite the spectaculor footage and a bevy of experts "weighing in" on the issue, I did not one single mention of what's actually going on. And so therefore, by my duty as a citizen journalist, I will now share it with all of you. The issue has been framed by the traditional media as "Free Expression/Speech" in contrast with "Sensitivity to Religion". Do newspapers in democratic societies have the right to publish offensive images? Well that's something definitely worth debating, but it's overlooking an important step. Soj's diary :: :: * But before we explain that, it's time to address a few other issues. The first issue is whether or not it is inflammatory or offensive to Islam to depict the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) at all. Traditionally, the answer is the Qur'an (the Muslim equivalent to the Christian Bible) does not forbid it, it only forbids "idolatry", which would imply worshipping a statue or other representation of Mohammed (PBUH). The Hadith, which has no equivalent in Christianity but is equivalent to Judaism's Talmud, and is somewhat of a secondary literary source of the Muslim faith, prohibits any pictures or drawings of sacred figures, including Mohammed (PBUH). That being said, in practical terms, it occurs quite regularly. There are images similar to Orthodox Christian ikons that are commonplace in Shi'ite communities, especially in Iran. There are also Muslim works of art depicting Mohammed (PBUH) in Central Asia, and neither these nor those in Iran are considered inflammatory and neither are they censored. There are a number of depictions of Mohammed (PBUH), some in very unflattering situations, in Christian churches in Europe, especially Italy. The famous book/poem "Inferno" by Dante makes a very unflattering reference to Mohammed (PBUH) and there are several pieces of artwork depicting Dante's descriptions. There have been several derogatory or potentially inflammatory usages of Mohammed (PBUH) in American entertainment vehicles, perhaps the most famous being South Park. And last but not least, there is an actual sculpture of Mohammed (PBUH) on the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. The point I'm trying to make here is that Mohammed (PBUH) has been depicted, painted or made appearances in animated cartoons on many, many occasions and yet there's been no rioting, storming of embassies and CNN coverage. The question becomes, not why were the Danish cartoons offensive or inappropriate, but why is there such a strong reaction now? apologized publically for any offense they may have caused. And for 2 months, there was hardly a peep from any Muslim group outside a small protest in Denmark itself and somewhat larger protests in Pakistan. What CNN and the other traditional media failed to tell you is that the thousand gallons of fuel added to the fire of outrage came from none other than our old pals Saudi Arabia. Every able-bodied Muslim is obligated to make a pilgrimage once in their lifetime to Mecca, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. This pilgrimage can be done at any time of the year but most pilgrims arrive during the Muslim month known as Dhu al-Hijjah, which follows a lunar calendar that does not exactly match the western Gregorian calendar. The most recent Hajj occurred during the first half of January 2006, precisely when the "outrage" over the Danish cartoons began in earnest. There were a number of stampedes, called "tragedies" in the press, during the Hajj which killed several hundred pilgrims. I say "tragedies" in quotation marks because there have been similar "tragedies" during the Hajj and each time, the Saudi government promises to improve security and facilitation of movement to avoid these. Over 251 pilgrims were killed during the 2004 Hajj alone in the same area as the one that killed 350 pilgrims in 2006. These were not unavoidable accidents, they were the results of poor planning by the Saudi government. And while the deaths of these pilgrims was a mere blip on the traditional western media's radar, it was a huge story in the Muslim world. Most of the pilgrims who were killed came from poorer countries such as Pakistan, where the Hajj is a very big story. Even the most objective news stories were suddenly casting Saudi Arabia in a very bad light and they decided to do something about it. Their plan was to go on a major offensive against the Danish cartoons. The 350 pilgrims were killed on January 12 and soon after, Saudi newspapers (which are all controlled by the state) began running up to 4 articles per day condemning the Danish cartoons. The Saudi government asked for a formal apology from Denmark. When that was not forthcoming, they began calling for world-wide protests. After two weeks of this, the Libyans decided to close their embassy in Denmark. Then there was an attack on the Danish embassy in Indonesia. And that was followed by attacks on the embassies in Syria and then Lebanon. Many European papers, including the right-wing German Springer media group, fanned the flames by reprinting the cartoons. And now you have the situation we are in today, with lots of video footage of angry crowds and the storming of embassies and calls for boycotts of Danish and European products. Saudi Arabia's influence on the Sunni Muslim world is incalculable. The sermons from high-ranking Muslim clerics are read and studied by Muslims around the world, who in turn give sermons to their local congregations. While the Saudis do not have direct control of the world's Sunni flocks, their influence is similar somewhat to the Pope's pronouncements and the sermons that Catholic priests give to their flocks the following Sundays. Saudi Arabia also finances a number of Muslim "study centers", where all the literature and material is provided by the Saudi government, filled with hatred for Jews and other extremely racist material. For them to promote an idea based on religion, including "outrage" at some cartoons published months earlier, is standard operating procedure. Of course there is more than Saudi Arabia's hand at play here. The issue has metamorphed from religious outrage at a dozen cartoons to a clash of those who feel they are oppressed and downtrodded by the Christian world and those they consider their oppressors. That's why there was anti-Christian rioting in Lebanon, where the two religious groups have a long and tumultous co-existance. As I sat there watching CNN (International) with my friend today, I could not help but note the number of Saudi flags that the various rioters were waving in Lebanon and Syria. Look for yourself - they are green with a large expanse of Arabic writing in white above a sword.