Looking For Trouble

It was not ignored, ThinkAloud. Other bloggers wrote on it, and I made my comments. Just because you didn't catch the article doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned.

I didn't write on it because...I...don't...CARE! I did not read the Satanic Verses, don't care to either (I have a whole library full of books on my "to be read" list already). And you know what? If they hadn't called for Rushdie's execution, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

You seem to be validating the actions of the extremists who act against offenses against Islam. Odd that someone who enjoys the shield and shelter of free speech is so quick to remove it from other people (Rushdie) because it's offensive to some. Much of your writing is offensive to me, TA (as I would imagine much of mine is to you)...should it be banned? I should hope not. I would hope you would afford me the privilege of free speech even in disagreement, as I would you.

Does Rushdie deserve a knighthood? Not if I were king. But I'm not king, and it's not even my country, so I really don't have a say. But while he doesn't deserve a knighthood, IMEABO, neither does he deserve the villainization he receives by those who would justify the philosophical position of his enemies.

The article is realy isightful. There should be a single standard to evaluate religious and community matters particularly when the matter is highly critical. A writer may place an objective view about a religion rather than impartial comments/denigration. Crowining such acts is not appreciated and therefore I uphold the view expressed in this article.

Yeah, free speech is bad! We should execute people for writing religious opinions!

(rolls eyes)

Well he did win the Booker Prize, and also the "Booker of Bookers" (ie his award winning novel was judged to have been the best of all the award winners in the first 25 years of the award's existence). His Knighthood wasn't for the Satanic Verses, it was for his contributions to literature over his whole career.

You seem to be validating the actions of the extremists who act against offenses against Islam. Odd that someone who enjoys the shield and shelter of free speech is so quick to remove it from other people (Rushdie) because it's offensive to some.

Is that what I said Gid? I didnt care either when he wrote his book and rejected the idea of threatening him, what i objected to is the UK honoring him. He, or anyone for that matter, can write whatever they want. evaluating that writing is what supposed to be objective and unbiased. But to honor such a writer who offends so many people while his writings do not merit the honors is what makes the UK action stupid imo.

I say the UK action is stupid not to validate the extremists' actions but because it gives them ammunitions and confirms what they are saying. Still, that doesnt mean it is true it just gives them a false proof of what they are saying. The masses wont recognize that it is a false proof specially if it is combined with other offensive actions against Islam.

btw, you are right, others wrote about that. Sorry i didnt see that and i didnt check , for that i apologize.

his fame is the fault of those complaining about his fame, very much like the way 'Passion of the Christ' won notoriety when various Jewish groups decried it as anti-Semetic

Not true by any stretch of the imagination. The Book and the Movie were both a big hit when they were issued. the media made a big deal of both and they were discussed endlessly.

Your article suggests that if something bad happens because of it, we deserve it. You're free to think that way, and free to express it here. By the same token, I'm free to tell you I find your intellect lacking, and your sympathies misplaced.

your clouded understanding of what you read is really amazing. is that what i suggested? take a slow breath and read these two paragraphs. Here they are again:

Looking at the whole thing from here, it seems that our ally in the war on terror is undermining our efforts by giving our enemies more ammunition to flame the masses instead of supporting the moderate Muslim-majority

In any war, one would assume that we would support and encourage the moderates amongst our enemy who oppose the actions of the fanatics in order to undermine our enemy's base. But we are doing exactly the opposite as if we are looking for trouble and for more enemies

does that suggest what you say it does????????

and i am the one who is "intellectually lacking"? ok if you say so.

How 'bout this? ALLAH AND ALL WHO WORSHIP HIM CAN KISS MY FAT ASS

That is truly great intellect. Someone should give you a "Foolhood" for that.

Much of your writing is offensive to me, TA (as I would imagine much of mine is to you)...should it be banned? I should hope not. I would hope you would afford me the privilege of free speech even in disagreement, as I would you

we both may disagree on what we write, but i never felt that what you say offends me, i just disagree with you. I dont know what offended you (personally , that is) in what i wrote. But i can assure you it was never intentional to offend, even remotely, anyone. These are views on general issues and should not be taken personally. Taking general issues personally removes, in effect, the objectivity that i suppose is behind what we all write regarding those issues. personal writings are different of course.

Why in the world, you and LW, jumped to the conclusion that i objected to Rushdie's freedom to write what he wants? nothing in the post suggested that. The whole point was that in any war we should undermine the base of our enemy by denying them the support of their masses. to aggravate their people is not the way to do that, is it?. it doesnt matter what we think, what matters is what those masses think and we should deal with them accordingly. isnt that what Military PR in a war is all about?

There should be a single standard to evaluate religious and community matters

That is my point , besides there should be some thinking behind the official "evaluation". Governments' actions are critical particularly in a time of war.

And thanks for the compliment.

His Knighthood wasn't for the Satanic Verses, it was for his contributions to literature over his whole career.

And what are these contributions? .......

Is that what I said Gid? I

YOu did not state taht, you did imply that.  I agree totally with what Gideon said.  Why are you not up in arms over Agnes of God?  It sure as hell slams Catholics.

How about the Passion of Christ?  Maybe because no one decided to call for a death fatwa because of these?  It does make you sound as either an appologist for extremist, or one suffering from selective amnesia.

Cartoons?  Give me a break!  What about Piss Christ or Dung Mary?  How many death sentences were passed for those, much more tangible examples of disrespect, than some cartoons.

Why are you not up in arms over Agnes of God? It sure as hell slams Catholics.

How about the Passion of Christ?

I certainly got offended by these as well. other people's religion should be respected regardless of our own opinions. To insult and make fun of the Icons of others' beliefs is not something i condone at all. You can discuss and criticize any belief or religion in a respectful way. You dont have to be disagreeable to disagree.

YOu did not state taht, you did imply that.

He said that i seem to be validating the extremists actions. and that is in no way what i said or implied. what i said was we should not give our enemies ammunition to support the false claims of the terrorists.

I certainly got offended by these as well. other people's religion should be respected regardless of our own opinions.

But then you get into "what" is offensive.  And if you get right down to it, what is offensive to you, is not to me, and vice versa.  Starting down that slippery slope undermines the basis of the freedom of speech, and one I will not go down.  I did not like Agnes of God either, but I showed my displeasure by refusing to patronize it.  As much as I find the movie offensive, I will defend their right to air it as it is an issue of free speech.  And once we start blocking things we dont like, there is no end until we get to newspeak.

He said that i seem to be validating the extremists actions. and that is in no way what i said or implied. what i said was we should not give our enemies ammunition to support the false claims of the terrorists.

You just validated it.  You are blaming the messenger for the actions of the deranged.  I say that there is no ammunition as that is an excuse for them to use.  Once they have made sure that we can no longer express our opinions, why bother calling us free?  Someone else is controlling our thoughts and actions.

Ammunition would be when a Palestinian blows up a bus full of civilians.  That is reason to kill them before they do so again - ammunition (justification) for an action.

Saying "I hate Jews" is not ammunition.  It is an excuse.

You've suggested that ENGLAND, a soveriegn nation and our most faithful ally, has no right to honor authors they feel have made significant contributions to literature. That's even worse.

Did i say that England doesnt have that right? i said their action is not helping in the war of terror. Having the right to do something doesnt mean you use it even if it hurts your own cause. Is that difficult for you to understand?

Mr Rushdie would be an obscure little writer of little fame or notoriety had it not been for the original fatwa

the most prominent novelist of the late 20th century, both for his literary achievements and for the controversy surrounding them.

Does "Volume" counts as an achievement? your first opinion, and Gid's, was correct, now you say he is a great writer? how convenient. of course, controversy makes people famous. In a war, should we or our allies participate in that knowing that it would help our enemy? that is the point.

And if you get right down to it, what is offensive to you, is not to me, and vice versa

That is true. but shouldnt we consider how our enemy think and use that to our advantage? they didnt blame rushdie's writings on us, but for us to honor him offends their people, the people we want to get on our side. it dosnt matter what we think of their position, what matters is for us to use our actions in a way to undermine our enemies specially if that action is merely not offend the people we want to be on our side. how is that detracting from our freedom of actions and speech? In a war shouldnt you move in a way that helps you? or just go anywhere just because you can?

You dont consider offending the people who could be on our side ammunition to our enemy, but i do. that is not validating our enemy's actions. These people either on our side or on our enemy's side. they are not neutral. if we dont get them our enemy will. should we help our enemy get them?

if you think free expression equals 'ammunition.' Do you even know what it was, precisely, about The Satanic Verses that Muslims found so offensive? Offensive enough to advocate the murder of the author?

You still missing the point. i didnt object to him writing anything. I disgreed with it but i didnt say he did not have the right to do it. I objected to the UK honoring him knowing that this action would offend the people we are trying to get on our side and that is a time of war.

and why are you soooo concerned (obsessed?) about my intellect, my knowledge and and my understanding? thanks for your attention to my mental capacity. However, just discuss (if you wish) what i say not my mental state. You imagine and presuppose lots of things. It is more useful to keep discussions objective not personal.

I don't WANT anyone who would condone the murder of an author over a work of fiction 'on our side.'Most moderate Muslims were horrified when the fatwa was issued, and many actually admire Rushdie's work. THESE are the ones we want on our side.

finally you got the point. the moderate Muslims are offended when they see the UK honor someone who insulted their prophet. They did not agree with the Fatwa but the book offended the majority of them. these are facts you can see in their media and books.

I'll align myself with more civilized Muslims, thank you.

These are the same Muslims who are offended by the UK actions. Read what they, these same Muslims, say and you will understand what i am saying.

Use it to our advantage, yes. Let them dictate what we think and say, no. And that is what is happening here. His knighting (not even of this country) has nothing to do with GB's foreign policy or the way they conduct relations with other countries. Yet now their INTERNAL culture is being dictated to by a foreign body - be it the extremists or another nation. And while it would be "easier" to succumb to their dictates (easier in that we would not have to fear a crazed extremist blowing up a subway station), where does it stop? When they threaten to blow us up because we do not veil our women?

My compromise with Pakistan and other countries is this: If I go to yoru country and start quoting Satanic Verses - you can then throw me in jail or kill me - in your country. Not in mine.

these are the same Muslims who called for the death of the pope when he quoted someone else

these are also the same Muslims that called for the total destruction of Holland because of one cartoon in one newspaper.

these are also the same Muslims that called for the destruction of the French government for enforcing their laws.

These are the same Muslims who are offended by the UK actionsthese are the same Muslims who called for the death of the pope when he quoted someone elsethese are also the same Muslims that called for the total destruction of Holland because of one cartoon in one newspaper. these are also the same Muslims that called for the destruction of the French government for enforcing their laws.

you sure are confusing many people with each other. I am sure you can figure out the difference between them yourself. if you wanted to, that is. Foggy thinking blinded by bias does that, you know.

OK your right

the Muslims in england were upset about what england did

the Muslims in France were upset about the French enforcing their laws. the Muslims in France didn't protest for almost two months over law enforcement

the Muslims in Holland were upset about what the newspaper in Holland did. the Muslims in Holland didn't call for the total destruction of Holland

the Muslims in Rome did not call for the death of the pope.

but the Muslims in the middle east did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope.

some of the Muslims in America did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope.



THERE IS THAT BETTER WE WOULDN'T WANT TO UPSET THE MUSLIMS THEY MIGHT CALL FOR THE DEATH OF EVERYONE WHO USES THIS SITE.


by the way one of the Muslims calling for the death of the pope had been on fox with bill telling him how only the radical Muslims call for the death of anyone. she was one of the leading voices calling for the death of the pope.

Let them dictate what we think and say, no. And that is what is happening here. His knighting (not even of this country) has nothing to do with GB's foreign policy or the way they conduct relations with other countries

I agree, and i didnt say or imply anything that suggests that. However, his knighting has a lot to do with UK's foreign policy.

The question is not do we allow anyone to dictate anything to us or to our allies. The question is:

Is it a good idea to take an action that people we like to have on our side consider offensive even if we dont consider it that way especially if that action has no effect whatsoever on anything except it says something about what UK thinks about a certain person?

I think it hurts us, and what does it mean to the UK? nothing at all. So why do it? that is my point.

by the way one of the Muslims calling for the death of the pope had been on fox with bill telling him how only the radical Muslims call for the death of anyone. she was one of the leading voices calling for the death of the pope.

and today there was another Muslim as stupid as this one on CNN.

these are the ones we should deny the support of the masses in their areas. and that is my point. These fanatics play on the feelings of their people, we should not give them actions to support their propaganda especially if these actions are really not that important to do. in other words, why offend people we like to have on our side with something that doesnt mean much to us while it means a lot to the people there?

but the Muslims in the middle east did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope. some of the Muslims in America did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope

You should have inserted "some" at the begining as you did at the end. Then your statement would be true . and those "some" (not the majority) are the ones we should deny the support of the rest. the more we shrink the human base of those fanatics the successful we would be in our effort to eliminate them.