Man United NSR Politics thread

[Achtung]

Yeah, you can strive to understand "why" they want you dead, just don't let your guard down and forget that they want you dead.

Oh I agree, "speak softly and carry a big stick" and all. I just get sick of the "you're either with us or against us" and "they hate our freedom" mentality that implies that we represent everything good and pure in the universe and "they" (whoever that refers to, I'm not totally sure) are the incarnation of evil.

You have to fight the war differently long-term than you do short-term, is what I'm trying to say I guess.

[Sapphire]

Well, this conversation has moved past simply a cartoon and gone into why the Islamic people who are rioting over that cartoon harbor such ill will towards non-Mulsims and are so easily riled up to protest, riot, etc. Obviously, some here have already touched on the anti-Western world sentiment component as some of these people see us and our allies as part of the reasons they live in squalor, etc. Groups like the Taliban and Al Queda are no doubt behind the inciting of many of these incidents, and using the anti-US sentiment as gasoline for the fire.

The problem anybody trying to fight these Islamic extremists face, is that they are fighting Islamic extremists.I really don't understand your last statement--how are islamic extremists different from others except for their unusual power and influence right now?

I agree with your other points. Extremists are, by definition, a few people among the majority. So, I would think it's important to understand how and why they appeal to mainstream people in these countries, and how we can curb that and/or appeal to them ourselves.

[Motterman]

I really don't understand your last statement--how are islamic extremists different from others except for their unusual power and influence right now?

You're the one who said that Bush should have done a better job at reassuring "regular" Muslims that we aren't at war with them, and that we are targetting terrorist organizations. My point was that they (Al Queda, Taliban, etc.) are terrorist organizations, made up of Islamic extremists for the most part. It can't be easy to draw that line every day to people who only get their news from Al Jezeera.

[Motterman]

Oh I agree, "speak softly and carry a big stick" and all. I just get sick of the "you're either with us or against us" and "they hate our freedom" mentality that implies that we represent everything good and pure in the universe and "they" (whoever that refers to, I'm not totally sure) are the incarnation of evil.

You have to fight the war differently long-term than you do short-term, is what I'm trying to say I guess.

I agree with everything you just said.

[Sapphire]

You're the one who said that Bush should have done a better job at reassuring "regular" Muslims that we aren't at war with them, and that we are targetting terrorist organizations. My point was that they are terrorist organizations, made up of Islamic extremists for the most part. It can't be easy to draw that line every day to people who only get their news from Al Jezeera.Ok, I see and agree.

I was asking the question straightly, btw, I really didn't understand. :o Not trying to argue, for once, maybe. :)

[StrikerCW]

I see what you mean Saph (on the word use. :D) but I was saying that it had to come down to cultural perspective. ie what we accept as bad (rioting over something like this) is, apparently common practice for them I suppose.

Oh and it was Teddy "Bugbear" Roosevelt who said the stick quote. not that you all didn't know that. :D

[Motterman]

Oh and it was Teddy "Bugbear" Roosevelt who said the stick quote. not that you all didn't know that. :D

Yeah, and I wish that our leaders (former, current and future) would combine that one with the "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" quote as well.

[Motterman]

Ok, I see and agree.

I was asking the question straightly, btw, I really didn't understand. :o Not trying to argue, for once, maybe. :)

I didn't take it that way, as I wasn't trying to be confrontational either.

[yossarian]

Indeed, one could easily argue that the "middle east vs west" war goes back to the Punic Wars at least. Or further.

....or if you're factoring in the religious angle of middle east vs. west.....at least since the 1st Crusade.

[Achtung]

....or if you're factoring in the religious angle of middle east vs. west.....at least since the 1st Crusade.

What's a crusade?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile." --George Bush, 9/16/2001

Nice choice of words from Bush's speechwriters there. ;)

[Stud83]

The main problem here is insensitivity of a bunch of governments. How easy would it have been for Denmark's officials to apologize over the cartoon and publicly critisize the newspaper? And then, on top of that, news agencies all over the world picked up the story and started printing cartoon left and right all over the place. Freedom of speech should have its limitations, it's quite clear, and knowing the general attitude toward Western countries from Muslim countries, this whole thing was extremely provocative from the beginning. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in that kind of freedom of speech. I don't want to see caricatures on topics such as Holocaust, for example. You may argue that making fun of dead people is different from making of prophet - and I fully agree - but the bottom line is that both things should never be published in any newspaper and if it is published, the editor should right away apologize for it's comments.

Here is a somewhat similar story that happened over in Northwestern few days ago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602070235feb07,1,7168422.story?track=rss
See the difference? Professor expressed his right to free speech, denying Halacaust, and within days the University President addressed the issue, saying that the opinion was the professor's own "and in no way represent the views of the university, his reprehensible opinions on this issue are an embarrassment to Northwestern..." If that had hapenned in Denmark from the beginning, this would've been a non-story.

[littleman]

The main problem here is insensitivity of a bunch of governments. How easy would it have been for Denmark's officials to apologize over the cartoon and publicly critisize the newspaper? And then, on top of that, news agencies all over the world picked up the story and started printing cartoon left and right all over the place. Freedom of speech should have its limitations, it's quite clear, and knowing the general attitude toward Western countries from Muslim countries, this whole thing was extremely provocative from the beginning. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in that kind of freedom of speech. I don't want to see caricatures on topics such as Holocaust, for example. You may argue that making fun of dead people is different from making of prophet - and I fully agree - but the bottom line is that both things should never be published in any newspaper and if it is published, the editor should right away apologize for it's comments.

Here is a somewhat similar story that happened over in Northwestern few days ago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602070235feb07,1,7168422.story?track=rss
See the difference? Professor expressed his right to free speech, denying Halacaust, and within days the University President addressed the issue, saying that the opinion was the professor's own "and in no way represent the views of the university, his reprehensible opinions on this issue are an embarrassment to Northwestern..." If that had hapenned in Denmark from the beginning, this would've been a non-story.

It's not at all clear to me that freedom of speech has to have its limitations, at least, not in this case. The political implications are massive, it's an issue that we have to tread carefully around.

As for the Muslim anger, it has already been boiling for a VERY, VERY long time. Ever since the U.S. toyed around with the Middle-East, resentment has been on the rise towards America.. but the 9/11 incident and the international attitude towards Muslims and Arabs as a result of it, caused many young male (and passionate) Muslims to develop a "siege" mentality.

It should be noted that most street crimes (90%?) are committed by males in their late teens - late twenties; my professors have noted how males as a population are extremely criminogenic in their younger years but it tapers off towards 30 and after that they become almost level with their female counterparts.

Young muslim males are easily swayed by radical leaders, and they identify strongly with each other. It's really been on a boil, and they feel victimized. The cartoon is a very small piece of the larger picture; a sleeping angry giant.

[Stud83]

It's not at all clear to me that freedom of speech has to have its limitations, at least, not in this case. The political implications are massive, it's an issue that we have to tread carefully around.


But what was the purpose of showing that cartoon in the first place? It's basically saying "we are free to write and to draw whatever we want, regardless of how it may be perceived by millions of other people". You don't think there should be a limit? If a newspaper in USA starts making fun of African-Americans, depicting them as monkeys in cartoons, would you also defend them?

IIRC, in Germany if someone would try to publicly deny Holocaust or say an anti-semitic speech somewhere - it's considered a punishable offense and the person may easily end up in jail. I am not suggesting that the editors of the Danish newspaper should go to jail, but how difficult would it have been to apologize right away?

[yossarian]

The main problem here is insensitivity of a bunch of governments. How easy would it have been for Denmark's officials to apologize over the cartoon and publicly critisize the newspaper? And then, on top of that, news agencies all over the world picked up the story and started printing cartoon left and right all over the place. Freedom of speech should have its limitations, it's quite clear, and knowing the general attitude toward Western countries from Muslim countries, this whole thing was extremely provocative from the beginning. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in that kind of freedom of speech. I don't want to see caricatures on topics such as Holocaust, for example. You may argue that making fun of dead people is different from making of prophet - and I fully agree - but the bottom line is that both things should never be published in any newspaper and if it is published, the editor should right away apologize for it's comments.

Here is a somewhat similar story that happened over in Northwestern few days ago:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602070235feb07,1,7168422.story?track=rss
See the difference? Professor expressed his right to free speech, denying Halacaust, and within days the University President addressed the issue, saying that the opinion was the professor's own "and in no way represent the views of the university, his reprehensible opinions on this issue are an embarrassment to Northwestern..." If that had hapenned in Denmark from the beginning, this would've been a non-story.

Are you saying that the Danish government should've just apologized for the publications or that they should've stopped the publications?

The first scenario is not a free speech issue. The second one is.....at least if we're discussing free speech as it's understood in the American Constitutional context.

Similarly, the Northwestern story is not really about a free speech issue....and would not be even if they had fired the professor. Unless, Northwestern is an arm of the government.

[SirManchester]

One thing you missed Saph, is that these muslims have been without a central authority. I don't think religion is just a motivation force and has no relevance to the wars and conflict in the ME, because since the Crusades, up to this day, there are millions of people who still strongly believe in their religion and would actually die for it. Sure it's great propaganda but we can't dismiss the fact that they actually believe in this stuff.
Back to the central authority point, like the Vatican with Christianity, Muslims don't have that option, everyone goes to individual mosques and they get their infomation through pamphlets, word of mouth, some internet sites, sermons, etc...They are therefore forced to fend for themselves and express their faith through their conditions (put in all of Saph's points)

[Achtung]

Back to the central authority point, like the Vatican with Christianity, Muslims don't have that option, everyone goes to individual mosques and they get their infomation through pamphlets, word of mouth, some internet sites, sermons, etc...They are therefore forced to fend for themselves and express their faith through their conditions (put in all of Saph's points)

The Vatican is the authority for Catholicism, not all of Christianity. The rest of Christianity doesn't have a central authority either, meaning information comes from the same, mostly local sources.

[SirManchester]

Yea that's what I meant, Catholicism. I rarely distinguish the two to be honest.

[Achtung]

Similarly, the Northwestern story is not really about a free speech issue....and would not be even if they had fired the professor. Unless, Northwestern is an arm of the government.

Exactly. A government has no place criticizing the opinions of an individual newspaper (although sometimes, specific members of a government will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html?nav=rss_print/style)). In the case of the Northwestern professor, he was a staff member of the university, which meant that they had to clarify that his opinions did not represent those of the university.

Problem is, I wonder how many of these protestors think that the single cartoonist who did these drawings speaks for all the people of Denmark and/or Europe.

[Achtung]

Yea that's what I meant, Catholicism. I rarely distinguish the two to be honest.

The two terms are hardly interchangeable though. There are plenty of Catholics who believe that Protestant beliefs are inconsistent with teachings of the Bible. And vice versa.

[yossarian]

Yea that's what I meant, Catholicism. I rarely distinguish the two to be honest.

Interesting.....considering many would say there's a huge difference.