Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Collateral Damage

From the Brussels Journal:

Tonight the BBC admitted that it has misinformed the international community by telling the world that one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons was a depiction of a pigsnouted Muhammad. The BBC website says:

Twelve cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten. None showed the Prophet with the face of a pig. Yet such a portrayal has circulated in the Middle East (The BBC was caught out and for a time showed film of this in Gaza without realizing it was not one of the 12).

This picture, a fuzzy grey photocopy, can now be traced back (suspicion having been confirmed by an admission) to a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders who went to the Middle East in November to publicise the cartoons. The visit was organised by Abu Laban, a leading Muslim figure in Denmark.

Comments

What was that about limits proposed on free speech arising out of a duty not to inflame the Muslim street? Under what category of inflammation does attributing a pig-snouted depiction of Mohammed to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons fall, when that cartoon was never published by the newspaper, and as anyone from the BBC might have known by simply obtaining a copy of the cartoons? The blogs have been known this for a long time and more's the shame.

The BBC site adds the offending picture was taken from a "pig-squealing" competition.

(Update: A reader has e-mailed to say that the original of the "pig" picture was from a "pig-squealing" competition held in France every summer. Some character dressed up like a pig. See the link to the neandernews.com site on the right for the details.

Ekstra Bladet has also published a letter taken by the delegation on its mission. This gives the delegation's account of how the cartoons originated and what the reaction to them was. But it also mentions other pictures, which it said were "much more offending." These presumably included the "pig" picture, whose origin is now known.)

Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely and seem to have made no attempt to counter some of the arguments in the pamphlet or to distinguish between the various portrayals.

This is going to rank right up there with the fake Koran-flushing story which got people killed in Afghanistan. No one has a right to expect perfection from the media. Like intelligence agencies, which they resemble in some respects, the media sometimes gets things wrong. But I'd argue that some publications have a dangerous tendency to believe stories like "right-wing Danish publication portrays Mohammed as pig" because they want to believe it. This phenomenon is called bias and bias is dangerous not because it predisposes one to a wrong set of opinions but to the wrong set of facts.

Ironically, if the BBC had published the cartoons it would inevitably have discovered that the pig picture was not part of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon set. But instead of presenting the dry facts it substituted hearsay and for days the world was inflamed over a set of images described only at second-hand; wrongly described at that and imagining the worst about what were actually a very mild set of drawings. This violent debate occurred precisely because organizations like the BBC, whose job it was to present the facts, failed signally in their duty. Instead they went through the mummery of piously refusing the show the images "out of respect for Islam" when in fact they were actually, though perhaps unintentionally, contributing to the obscurantism surrounding the whole affair. That is the kindest interpretation I can put on the matter.

116 Comments:

Blogger 'Thought & Humor' said...

It's a sad day for freedom...

2/07/2006 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger orlandoslug said...

Amen,
keep shining the light; eventually the masses in the Middle East swallowing all the conspiracies spewing forth from Al Jazeera may, just may, take pause and think for a fleeting moment, what if it ain't so?

2/07/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger ledger said...

I hate to say it Wretched, but the BBC is heavily influenced by Islamic personnel. It's not stretch to the imagination to surmise they may have been a willing accomplice in this affair. Shades of the CBS fake but accurate fraud?

2/07/2006 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

The BBC is complicit in the destructuction of the Danish, Norwegian and Austrian embassies.

Oh, sorry. I was thinking like them for a minute....I think I'm OK now.

2/07/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

The BBC is never liable because they are always and forever 'well meaning'.


The truth is that they are accountable to nobody. They became too dangerous for any British government to confront in the 1940's, and have been a law unto themselves ever since.

2/07/2006 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/07/2006 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger Ghost of a flea said...

It has been alarming, if not terribly surprising, the number of people prepared to believe anything they are told by their fascist governments, state-controlled media and state-payrolled religious leaders. I am certain much was the same of everyday people in Japan in the 1930s. It is more alarming that BBC staffers, presumably some of the most expensively educated people in the world, should be no more curious investigate the facts they are being paid to report.

2/07/2006 07:44:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Wretchard, at first I thought "collateral damage" referred to destruction resulting from the furor caused by the dissemination of this (and similar) misinformation. But now I'm not so sure the real damage isn't (though not exclusively) to the reputation of the BBC.

2/07/2006 07:47:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

It's not just the Muslim street rising up:

The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.

2/07/2006 07:56:00 PM  
Blogger Taumarunui said...

Animated GIF of pig-face available here:

http://www.asininity.com/comments/P2605_0_1_0/

Pretty obvious fake, huh?

2/07/2006 08:03:00 PM  
Blogger Cobalt Blue said...

What is really shameful is that the twelve cartoons have been available to anyone with an internet connection. The BBC had to be pretty blithe about the whole thing to get it wrong.

The reluctance by media outlets to republish the cartoons throughout the west has enabled this blithe state of ignorance. Publish and be damned, I say. You're damned either way.

2/07/2006 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger J. Peden said...

I hear this bias quite frequently on hourly ABC News radio broadcasts, which often claim that the majority of Americans don't support the Iraq war. Sometimes it is merely stated as known fact. But the classic case occurred when Ann Compton droned out this same conclusion ["now when a majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq"] and was followed immediately by the report of a poll which found instead that 58% of those polled favored us staying in Iraq until the "job was done".

The poll had also reported that about 80% found the U.S. military deaths "troubling" and about 65% agreed that Iraq was a "quagmire". Do these reporters not understand words and numbers, or are they ruled only by their biases? Whatever, it's a disgrace, to say the least.

2/07/2006 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Millions of good people have dreamt of and looked forward longingly to the Return of Christ, and now that He's come, His followers choose to honor Him by NOT publishing pictures of Him, and NOT allowing Him to be depicted in film or art.

And they courteously discuss this position, rather than scream, whine, decapitate or demonstrate!

After all, He WAS the Glory of God...

2/07/2006 08:57:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

ledger writes: I hate to say it Wretched, but the BBC is heavily influenced by Islamic personnel. It's not stretch to the imagination to surmise they may have been a willing accomplice in this affair. Shades of the CBS fake but accurate fraud?


BBC site guilty of 'cringeing'
By Hugh Davies

The BBC said last night that it would review a religious website after being accused by a former head of the corporation of an "evident cultural cringe" in a section on Islam.

Will Wyatt, the chief executive for three years until 1999, examined the site on religion and ethics and found that it was "written as fact" that Mohammed met an angel.

The site states: "One night in 610 he was meditating in a cave on the mountain when he was visited by the angel Jibreel who ordered him to 'recite'... words which he came to understand were words of God."

The site, seemingly written by a devout Muslim, stated without reservation that Mohammed was "generally accepted as the true, final prophet of God".

Mr Wyatt, an atheist, said that he had no axe to grind, and was struck by how much more different - "and accurate" - the BBC's description of Christianity was, where the birth of Jesus was mentioned as being "believed by Christians" and that Jesus "claimed" that he spoke with the authority of God.

A BBC spokesman said: "We will have a look at the wording on the site."
.
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
via LGF



BBC News is the English service of Aljazeera. There's an incestuous relationship between these organizations: both staffed with the same operatives, both openly flouting the same pro Jihadi bias.

2/07/2006 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger Jonathan said...

From the lack of "outrage," I suppose only Muslim leaders are allowed to create and disseminate depictions of Muhammad... for the purpose of inciting outrage?

2/07/2006 09:04:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I don’t think it’s subversion so much as a relativist view of the world where facts and truth can get in the way of their objectives and are thus seen as unhelpful.

We have been teaching this crap for 40 years, we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

2/07/2006 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Bat One said...

Over at Powerline, John Hideraker has identified the "pig-faced cartoon" and an altered photo of one Jacques Barot, a contestant in a French pig-calling contest.

If there are not some seriously loud voices raised by moderate Muslims, and soon, this will quickly gather sufficient momentum to become what we all should dread most, an all-out conflagration between Western civiliization and Islam.

Faster, please, indeed.

2/07/2006 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger Triton'sPolarTiger said...

"But I'd argue that some publications have a dangerous tendency to believe stories like "right-wing Danish publication portrays Mohammed as pig" because they want to believe it. This phenomenon is called bias and bias is dangerous not because it predisposes one to a wrong set of opinions but to the wrong set of facts."

Slightly OT, but a perfect example of this is Helen Thomas' questions at White House press briefings. It doesn't matter what answer/facts the poor press secretary gives in response. Her mindset is leftist moonbat, and the facts in her world include "the truth" that conservatives are lying spawn of satan, the worst of the election-stealing law breaking worst, and they must be removed from power by just about any means necessary to save the republic from turning into an abortion limiting, church-going, self-reliant, troop-supporting, individual liberty guaranteeing, freedom-protecting entity full of overbreeding, unfit for enlightment neandertals.

Her arrogant and obnoxious superiority complex is repugnant to the point I have to restrain myself from spitting on the tv screen whenever her dishevelled mug pops up.

I feel the same way about most of the mainstream media, especially the BBC.

2/07/2006 09:54:00 PM  
Blogger Annoy Mouse said...

Media has found its purpose in bringing down supposed oppressive regimes like Nixon’s during Watergate. I recall reading Daniel Ellsberg’s memoirs. I had long believed Ellsberg was a traitorous son of a b*tch, so I looked forward to his autobiographical explanation as to why he did what he did. Although I learned to respect Ellsberg at one level, retired Marine Lieutenant who carried a Swiss K submachine gun while ‘researching’ the conflict, he never was very vocal about the war until the exact second it became Nixon’s war. Suddenly, he became an activist who would sell his country out to the New York Times. He was a traitor and a partisan hack. We lost the War on Terror the moment that man walked.

Now every hack of that era sees that the only noble purpose in life is to bring down the U.S. government. It is no coincidence that this is the very purpose of the Islamists.

The Western Media has found its purpose in creating conspiracies. The Middle Eastern citizen has found its purpose in life in consuming them.

2/07/2006 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Nobody is immune from the bias problem. When 12 of the West Virginia miners were reported "found alive", I believed it (though I didn't post it) because I wanted it to be true. However if I thought lives would be at stake in repeating a story I'd generally be more careful. So I can understand how bias works but in this case it is a little hard to excuse.

2/07/2006 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

EURSOC asks: Has the BBC converted to Islam?

.
.
the BBC notes that "Jesus Christ believed and taught that he was Son of God", that "Jesus claimed that he spoke with the authority of God " and that accounts of His resurrection were "put about by his believers."

Nowhere does the BBC use the tradition honorific capitalisation of pronouns referring to Christ, as we did above. The broadcaster uses plain old "his" and "he" rather than stuffy, god-bothering "His" and "He." Why indulge the idiosyncrasies of a few religious nuts?

Why indeed - until you click on the BBC's Islam page.

This time, the BBC doesn't talk about Mohammed, or even The Prophet Mohammad, as numerous UK media outlets have taken to calling the founder of Islam since the Cartoon War began. The BBC gives him his full title: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Indeed, every time the Prophet is mentioned in the BBC's supposedly neutral text, his name is followed with the abbreviation "(pbuh)" - as if, as Wyatt notes, "the corporation itself were Muslim."

There's no "Muslims believe" or "it was reported" in this section. Instead, the Beeb claims that "Allah is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent... Allah has always existed and will always exist" and so on. Doubtless true, and it continues into the BBC's Life of Muhammad section too, where angelic visitations and the people's realisation that "God had chosen him as his messenger " are reported as fact.

Why these double standards? If the BBC is to indulge religions, should it not indulge all religions equally? Or if the corporation claims to have an objective and historical approach to religions, why not apply the same scepticism it applies to Christianity to Islam?

Or is Wyatt right - and the BBC has converted to Islam?
.
.
www.eursoc.com

2/07/2006 10:11:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

ABC Bias? Nothing new, and not worth beating them up.

The real test will be whether Denmark expells Abu Laban back to the Dar al Islam.

ADE

2/07/2006 10:15:00 PM  
Blogger the mad fiddler said...

Every time I watch the BBC I observe some further instance of a BBC presenter displaying egregious anti-US or Anti-Western Bias.

They do occasionally get in an occasional bit of actual responsible reporting, but that seems to be more frequently the exception that proves the rule.

We have entered (I believe sometime about the first decade after World War II) The New Dark Age.

2/07/2006 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"But I'd argue that some publications have a dangerous tendency to believe stories like "right-wing Danish publication portrays Mohammed as pig" because they want to believe it."
---
So they do no due diligence.
When they want to believe something that will hurt GWB, our Military, and often Our Country, they will leave no stone unturned looking for facts, rumors, hearsay, annonymous sources, our country's enemys, and etc.

2/07/2006 10:26:00 PM  
Blogger Triton'sPolarTiger said...

"If there are not some seriously loud voices raised by moderate Muslims, and soon, this will quickly gather sufficient momentum to become what we all should dread most, an all-out conflagration between Western civiliization and Islam."

Actually, from my perspective, an all-out conflagration is welcome from a certain viewpoint - they're already at war with Western civilization - at least at that point (conflagration), we might be comforted to find that we're finally onboard for the fight, rather than just dealing with Saddam, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, while otherwise fiddling away the need to deal with Iran before the price to do so skyrockets to horrific heights (nukes).

The Leftists in this country and elsewhere are so busy throwing marbles under GWBush's feet, because(supposedly, among other things) they deplore dead innocents in wartime, that there is a real chance that they may hamstring the administration suficiently to allow Iran to complete it's first fission device.

Then, as now, the situation will require military confrontation to resolve... only the circumstances facing us and the world will be so much more dreadful. Talk about dead innocents...

How many lives would have been saved had the great powers of the 1930s dealt decisively with Hitler when he "annexed" his first new German province?

We're standing at the edge of a golden opportunity... we (the Left in particular) are utter fools if we fail to take full advantage of it.

2/07/2006 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger dave bones said...

Britains media, including the most inflamatory right wing papers on the planet didn't publish the pictures because Britain is proud of its multiculturalism and wants to keep moderate muslims on board.

The govt and media are complicit in this.

Britain didn't burn like Fnace did because the people the media and the government are complicit in a respect for each others values.

The BBC are complicit in most of this.

2/07/2006 10:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

How many lives would have been saved if Iran had been held to account in 1979, when the Fatwa was issued on Rushdie, when Stetham was murdered, on and on, and now there are those that still think further appeasement and apology is in order.

2/07/2006 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

dave bones,

That's right. Just don't get them riled up and you'll be OK. The problem is that offense is often in the eye of the beholder. But if you can eliminate every possible source of affront then perhaps peace is still possible. But maybe the right word is sufferance. Not Britain's sufferance, but Islam's.

2/07/2006 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

"..wants to keep moderate muslims on board.."

Why?

2/07/2006 10:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

You think you're so smart, Mika, how do you know it doesn't stand for Putzs be Upon Him?

2/07/2006 10:39:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Doug,

I'm going to have your fingers chopped off for trying to upset my political constituency.

2/07/2006 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Letter to The Times:

Sir, As a practising criminal barrister I have been involved with the prosecution of many incidents of public disorder. In my experience the Metropolitan Police are not usually slow to intervene where the law has been broken; indeed the very suggestion that the Territorial Support Group are shy of making arrests is laughable.

Nonetheless, we have seen the spectacle of the police standing by while demonstrators outside the Danish Embassy — many clearly identifiable — were allowed to carry placards bearing slogans that obviously breached existing criminal law. The conclusion that one cannot help reaching from this and other incidents is that there is a reluctance among the police actually to tackle Muslim extremism.

Inevitably, the failure by the police to act will encourage the extremists in the belief that they can get away with breaching the criminal law. Before the World Trade Centre bombings the impression given by the police was that such extremism would be tolerated as long as the fruit was exported. We now know, since the London Tube bombings, that if it is allowed to flourish it will strike us just as much as those abroad.

The police can no longer claim ignorance of where jihadism is leading; they should enforce the law, rather than giving the extremists the clear impression that another set of rules applies to them.

- THOMAS WILKINS

2/07/2006 11:04:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

French court turns down legal attempt to ban Cartoons.
here.

Burn, baby, burn?

ADE

2/07/2006 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

There are bunch of sites which argue quite reasonably, that the Iranians or the Syrians -- somebody at least -- is orchestrating the cartoon campaign. I'll grant that there are parties trying to orchestrate it. Whether they can control it is open to debate. A lot of newspapers in the West have to defend their editorial independence, even from Islam, for business reasons. They've invested a lot in carving out a domain. Anybody knows that once a newspaper is bought the first thing the editors ask for is editorial independence. Control over content is the source of editorial power; once gone they have nothing.

For that reason even anti-American and completely leftist news agencies must have felt a shiver of fear at what the Islamists were trying to do. It was a naked power grab. Ironically, if the Islamists had succeeded the censorship would have differentially hit the majors in the way the Gomery gag order hit the Canadian press. It drove a tidal wave of traffic to sites like Captain's Quarters, which at once point was taking something like 60,000 hits per hour.

So while Islamists may have been trying to game the system I don't think it worked out as planned.

2/07/2006 11:23:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

It shows how far removed Washington is from free sources of information that they don't hire someone to keep up with the blogs so that they could be more proactive with the truth about things like the fake Pigs Head Toon.

2/07/2006 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger For Freedom said...

Heil Mohammed! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!
Heil Mohammed! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!

So the islamic nazis work the same way as the old nazis - Surprise!

Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

Heil Mohammed! Seig Heil!

Only now the BBC, unlike in 1939, is infiltrated and toothless.

Leads one to wonder what other institutions, venues, corporations and assets have been infiltrated by islamic nazis or their vanguards ?

2/08/2006 12:44:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

For Freedom,

Interesting question you've posed there. The BBC, as tool of the British Government, was in fact complicit in the rise of Hitler. In the late 1930s both Winston Churchill and Lloyd George (who had been British PM during WWI) were banned from speaking on the BBC because they might upset Hitler. Candidates to the Cabinet were vetted for their acceptability to Herr Hitler. They did not want to rile him. Later, when Churchill was finally allowed to speak, the BBC sent someone to interview him. The BBC man happened to be Guy Burgess, later famous as one of the Soviet spies. George Orwell modeled the Ministry of Truth in 1984 on the BBC. If anything the BBC has improved since. One hopes.

But there are other interesting comparisons: for example, the Spanish Civil War and the cartoon crisis may be analogues. It was the Spanish Civil War which finally weakened the pacifist movement because Hitler finally struck at something the Communists cared enough about to fight for. The Spanish Civil war was the moment the socialists began to snap out of their dream. And it came about accidentally, partly because Stalin decided to fight Franco and partly from reports filtering back about what Nazis really were. It was the tipping point.

Maybe the cartoon crisis will be that moment -- or the start of that moment. Despite September 11 the liberals aren't yet convinced that the Islamists have come for them. Come especially for them. If Maureen Dowd thought clearly she would be scared out of her wits, scared for her life, and not of BushChimpHitler. For many liberals the WTC, the Pentagon and the Whitehouse were guilty symbols of the Man's power. So they weren't too upset, symbolically speaking, at their destruction. That's why the attack on Denmark's got them stumped. Liberal Denmark, small European nation, generous to Muslim countries, attacked. Why is it being attacked? So they construct lamer and lamer arguments to justify the BushChimpHitler fantasy. Maybe Jylands-Posten was a right wing plot. But now it turns out the Imams cooked up the really inflammatory images. It was a Reichstag Burning alright, but the liberals got the cast of characters completely wrong. One almost pities the liberals in their desperate twists to find some way to avoid recognizing the obvious. And none so blind as they who will not see.

2/08/2006 01:35:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

The Churchill Centre has a long article about the period when the BBC, under John Reith, did everything it could to suppress negative stories about Adolph Hitler:


As the years passed, Reith continued to block Churchill’s access to the BBC whenever he could. ... Since admiration for Hitler was Reith’s blind spot, he was contemptuous of Churchill’s early rallying cry urging Britain to prepare itself to meet the coming assault by the Nazis on free countries. His diaries express his approval of Germany. He was positive the Nazis "would clean things up."


Reith, like many sophisticates of the time, were convinced that Hitler would become a moderate once he warmed to his office. Rather like Hamas is regarded today. After the Nazis smashed France and Britain was at the edge of defeat, Reith was unrelenting.


Reith’s rage at Churchill’s premiership bordered on apoplexy. "Heaven help us" was his verdict on learning that Churchill would also be Defence Minister. It was "awful" that Churchill would be empowered to have direct dealings with the chiefs of staff.


You have to use Brecht's parodies of aristocratic arrogance to characterize arrogance at this level.


And even in Atlantis of the legend
The night the seas rushed in,
The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.

2/08/2006 02:13:00 AM  
Blogger Zeno said...

BBC lied, people died? ;-)

2/08/2006 03:03:00 AM  
Blogger Zeno said...

And there's also this beautiful example of cognitiv dissonance in their news site:

“They want to test our feelings,” protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.

“They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers,” he said.

Well, I guess we know the answer now.

2/08/2006 03:05:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"That's why the attack on Denmark's got them stumped. Liberal Denmark, small European nation, generous to Muslim countries, attacked."

Au Contraire:
Not so small as you think, and if Bubba and Algore are right, Greenland will rise to farm again within the decade!

"Denmark is a beautiful country. And it's not as small as most people think.
In fact, with 2,220,000 square km, it's larger than Mexico and almost as big as India.
Of course, 98% of its territory is Greenland, but still...
"
ht - "Sonia Belle"

2/08/2006 03:57:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

The editorial staff of a small publication called the New York Press walked out after management refused to let the staff run the Danish cartoons in an issue dedicated to them.

Even at the height of the Inquisition, there was no power on earth that could require a Nihil obstat or Imprimatur from Scandinavia to Manhattan. There is one now, at least one which many newspapers implicitly recognize. As Will Durant said, "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

All that puffery about the fearlessness, nobility and integrity of the Press. Kinda disappointing.

2/08/2006 04:06:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

If World War II was an online Real Time Strategy game

If World War Two had been an online Real Time Strategy game, the chat room traffic would have gone something like this.

*Hitler[AoE] has joined the game.*
*Eisenhower has joined the game.*
*paTTon has joined the game.*
*Churchill has joined the game.*
*benny-tow has joined the game.*
*T0J0 has joined the game.*
*Roosevelt has joined the game.*
*Stalin has joined the game.*
*deGaulle has joined the game.*
Roosevelt: hey sup
T0J0: y0
Stalin: hi
Churchill: hi
Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0JO: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]; sure whatever
Stalin: cool
deGaulle: **** Hitler rushed some1 help
Hitler[AoE]: lol byebye frenchy
Roosevelt: i dont got **** to help, sry
Churchill: wtf the luftwaffle is attacking me
Roosevelt: get antiair guns
Churchill: i cant afford them
benny-tow: u n00bs know what team talk is?
paTTon: stfu
Roosevelt: o yah hit the navajo button guys
deGaulle: eisenhower ur worthless come help me quick
Eisenhower: i cant do **** til rosevelt gives me an army
paTTon: yah hurry the fock up
Churchill: d00d im gettin pounded
deGaulle: this is fockin weak u guys suck
*deGaulle has left the game.*
...it goes on, of course.

---
http://sonia-belle.blogspot.com/2006/02/if-world-war-ii-was-online-real-time.html

2/08/2006 04:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wretchard,
There is another growing problem with another valuable News Source:

The old Belmont Club Site:

The comments are growing obese (1000 posts) thanks to spam.
Would hate to lose all those links.
If a backup is available would it be possible to republish at a new URL?

If not, can you turn off comment posting and still have them available?

2/08/2006 04:16:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

I've basically hidden the comments on the old site until such time as some long term solution can be found. Thanks for the heads up.

2/08/2006 04:23:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"All that puffery about the fearlessness, nobility and integrity of the Press. Kinda disappointing. "
---
Making the rise of alternative sources all that much more critical.
...and getting the ear of Washington to tune into free Intel.

2/08/2006 04:23:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Today's WSJ OpinionJournal features an article by a Muslim author who presents historical evidence that displaying images of Mohammed is not prohibited by canonical Islam. The author lays responsibility for the Cartoon Crisis at the feet of the Muslim Brotherhood, which he describes as a political and not a religious organization.

That's all very well and good, and perhaps the author is academically on solid ground, but I am starting to react to these apologetic "good Islam-bad Islam" pieces with some visceral contempt for the author and his subject. The Muslim Brotherhood is indeed a political organization (if you accept mass murder as a political act), as are Hamas and Hezbullah, but should we just ignore the underlying identity relationship that makes these groups possible?

I think we've had about enough of playing the turtle to the Islamic scorpion.

2/08/2006 04:38:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Peter Boston: The old "war with Islam" and "all of Islam" "response" does get old, doesn't it?
I recommend everyone read or listen to the audio at radioblogger.com of Medved, Prager, Carter and Hewitt:

Joe Carter: Yeah, I'm surprised by how many people just assume that we're actually at war with Islam,...

Medved
People say all the time well Islam, it's just one of the great monotheistic religions like Christianity, like Judaism. It's not. It's different. This kind of reaction would never occur, has never occurred in the last several hundred years when people have insulted, sometimes gratuitously, Christianity or Judaism.
...
...but the whole idea that you have some right, that it is somehow appropriate to, and will actually cause glory for your religion for you to be attacking Embassies and killing people and burning flags and rioting over some cartoons that you will never see, except they were put in your world by provocateurs, cartoons from Northern Europe. That is a unique perspective with Islam, and shows that it has really become for many, many Muslims, unfortunately, a death cult, not a religion of life.

Prager
The West believes that human beings are free to insult other people. And if we didn't believe that, we would not have what is called democracy.
Hence, you do not have any Islamic democracy.
There are, I think, sixty or so countries that have Islamic Muslim majorities, according to Freedom House. Only one is a democracy. Excuse me, only one is rated free. That's the way they rate them. It's Mali, as it happens.

I have nothing to say about Islam. I have a lot to say about the state of Muslim civilization today.
Irshad Manji, a lesbian Muslim in Canada, writes nothing mocking about Islam, and travels everywhere on Earth with a personal bodyguard, because of the death threats from Muslims. You don't need cartoons to be targeted for death.

Hewitt (dumbest comment of the day - except almost EVERYTHING Joe Carter had to say)
"we're radicalizing Islam."


Joe Carter
That's very disturbing that people actually believe that this is...that we're at war with Islam, because the Muslim extremists that are making it this way.

Prager
You know who the most radicalized Muslims in the world are? The ones living in the West, who see the West at its best. So they are radicalized by everything that we do, apparently.

HH: That's an interesting...Joe Carter?

JC: I don't think the cartoonists radicalized the Muslims.
I think our support of them in our showing that we're siding with them rather than the offended is what's radicalized them.
Oh yah, right on, dOOd!

HH: Now that's...that's a fine response. I don't disagree with that. But that's not calling all of Islam on the carpet for the acts of the radicals, Dennis, is it?

DP: Nobody has called all of Islam on the carpet for anything.

HH: You may not have, but...

DP: The greatest disgrace to Islam is not the cartoons in a Danish paper. It's the great number of Muslims who murder in the name of Allah.

2/08/2006 05:14:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Nothin from Nothin Leaves Nothin...
She said this before,
Here she goes again!

Ms. Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, did not dispute that argument. But, pointing to the Democratic strategy in defeating Mr. Bush's Social Security proposal last year, she said there was no rush.

"People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " she said, arguing that the Democrats had in fact accomplished precisely that this year.
"I feel very confident about where we are."
(Nowhere Land)
Missed Opportunities

2/08/2006 06:10:00 AM  
Blogger Don Cox said...

"The BBC is never liable because they are always and forever 'well meaning'.The truth is that they are accountable to nobody. They became too dangerous for any British government to confront in the 1940's, and have been a law unto themselves ever since."____As they should be. Whether you agree with the BBC's policies or not, it is important that it should be independent of the Government. It is not a State Radio/TV Station.

2/08/2006 06:22:00 AM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Don Cox,

The BBC is thoroughly infiltrated with hostile foreign agents. The same people that worked for the BBC work for Aljazeera. The BBC might be independent of the British government, but it is not independent of government. Its editorial bias is that of Aljazeera. British tax payers are forced to pay for this tool of foreign subversion. Why should that be?

2/08/2006 07:21:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Wretchard,

Your comments about the Spanish Civil War intrigued me.

I had a teacher at Yale, where I majored in Molecular Biology and Biophysics, named Clement Markert. He was famous for having discovered LDH allozymes (then called "isozymes").

He was an old time radical. As a sophomore in college, he had gone to Spain to fight the fascists, and in his last years he was honored by being made, along with other survivors of the so-called Abraham Lincoln Brigade, an honorary citizen of Spain.

http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/112596/vets112596.html



I was Clement's good friend till he died, just a few months before 9/11. As with so many others, the events of 9/11 utterly changed me and my political outlook; I have always wondered what Clement Markert would have thought.

Jamie Irons

2/08/2006 07:25:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

EVERYONE YOU'RE MISSING A MAJOR POINT!!!

"That's why the attack on Denmark's got them stumped. Liberal Denmark, small European nation, generous to Muslim countries, attacked."


More than generous those companies that are now being BOYCOTTED by the Arabs are the VERY SAME Companies that AGREED TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL in order to SELL to the arabs....

The Palestinians are ransacking the UN international observer force in hebron yesterday, forcing 60 UN personal to escape to the ROOF, (then to the zionist entity that they hate so much)

No my friends, the chickens have come home to roost, if you sleep with dogs you get fleas, if you boycott israel trying to please 12th century madmen, your next on the list...

best medicine? ALL advanced medicines should be sold at 10 times fair market value to ANY opec member

2/08/2006 07:25:00 AM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

Not long before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the B.B.C. had aired a programme about "Israel's secret weapons" claiming that Israel is as bad if not worse than Saddam's Iraq. In it, they showed a Ghazawi doctor "testifying" that Israel had used poison gaz in the Gaza strip (as Saddam did in Kurdistan), which is one of the rumours common in the area (along with "Israel inoculates AIDS" and "Israel gives aphrosdisiac chewing-gum to good Muslim girls", etc.); yet this rumour was given here as fact.

What's unusual is that it now admits some of its reporting may not have been entirely accurate. That in itself is news.

As for the corporation's present treatment of the three Middle-Eastern monotheisms here are the headings of its own three pages on these matters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/index.shtml

"Judaism is around 3500 years old. Jews believe that there is only one God and that the Jewish People were specially chosen to receive God's guidance. Find out more."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/

"Christianity is the world's biggest religion, with about 2.1 billion followers worldwide. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/index.shtml

"Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those who follow Islam are called Muslims. Muslims believe that there is only one God. The Arabic word for God is Allah."

2/08/2006 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger Peter said...

Well, I don't have any big-brained answers. I am however getting awfully tired of Isalm being at war with me and me not being allowed to do anything about it.
Actually, I do have an answer. How about every time these Muslim yahoos start screeching about "Death To America" (or anybody else) we kill them?
I vote to encourage the Izzies to burn 'Palestine' down to bedrock as a first step.
I'm tired of messing with them, I have children to protect. Just kill them until the rest of them settle down.

2/08/2006 07:33:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Nobody is immune from the bias problem. When 12 of the West Virginia miners were reported "found alive", I believed it (though I didn't post it) because I wanted it to be true.

Wretchard, I think we've come to an interesting place when "wanting" a major media report to be true somehow passes as bias.

2/08/2006 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Ed talking hoarse made some interesting observations:

.
.
I searched the BBC's site today for 'Muhammad', and something struck me. Every single return referred to him as "the Prophet Muhammad". Really, I didn't know the Beeb were so religious. To call Muhammad 'the Prophet' is a tacit endorsement of Islam's claims. It is analogous to the pious term 'the Lord Jesus Christ', which you will not find the BBC using (In case anyone thinks this is just to distinguish that Mohammad from all the others, I would point out that Jesus is a first-name too in countries like Spain; an interesting quirk for a post-Islamic state).


Now I have no problem with secularism, as long as it's even-handed- but in the BBC's case, quite obviously it isn't. The BBC might respond that the West is far less religious, so it's an appropriate distinction in their address. That's not a good response though. In the UK, for example, 70 percent or so regard themselves as CoE, so that the difference can be better seen in terms of tolerance. Many people I've known who've termed themselves Christians have enjoyed Monty Python's Life of Brian, for instance.


Now, I would have no problem with the BBC saying that it wasn't their business to enforce western tolerance as a lodestone for its coverage, taking a moralistic liberal tone as a standard from which to judge all events, but that's exactly what they do on many issues that concern certain groups and countries- it's one of the staple inspirations for this blog. They often fly in the face, for example, of US sensitivities, and Israeli sensitivities, and white people's sensitivities, and western conservative sensibilities etc etc. One could point out that the majority of Africans are Christians, and often passionate ones, but this somehow doesn't seem to weigh in the BBC's balance.


Well, one could respond that there are dominant sensitivities in need of challenging (ha ha- western conservativsm 'dominant'!), but really, in Iran Muslim sensibilities are thoroughly dominant, and in Saudi, and in Indonesia, and in these countries such sensibilities are often enforced through great injustices- the banning of christianity, the imprisonment of converts, and so on. And the BBC styles itself as a world broadcaster, spends taxpayer's money in this cause (yes, the licence fee was recently designated 'a tax'), and therefore has a responsibility, at least, to be 'world impartial'.
.
.
http://edtalkinghoarse.blogspot.com

2/08/2006 07:44:00 AM  
Blogger enscout said...

don cox said: "As they should be. Whether you agree with the BBC's policies or not, it is important that it should be independent of the Government. It is not a State Radio/TV Station."

Spoken like a true socialist bureaucrat.

I agree that it should be independant of the government but IT'S NOT! It's another government funded, publically sponsered organization that's filled with self righteous indignation about being beholden to anybody. At the same time feels it can spew its vitriol about anybody that doesn't fit their model.

Spare me!

2/08/2006 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger BigLeeH said...

Don Cox,

Whether you agree with the BBC's policies or not, it is important that it should be independent of the Government. It is not a State Radio/TV Station.

Hmmmm. Not a State entity, you say? According to the annual report of the BBC their revinues for last year were £3.8 billion (that's £3.8 thousand million for British readers) and of those only about 800 million came from commercial activities. The rest came from user fees (collected from all owners of TVs in the UK) and from government grants. In modern western societies accountability is generally tied to funding so it is difficult to say that the Beeb is not a creature of the British government. To be sure, it is not always linked to the ruling party or the current administration, but it is very much associated with-, and tied to the faction which oversees its support.

2/08/2006 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger For Freedom said...

1939:
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!

2006:
Ein Ummah, Ein Welt, Ein Islam!

Heil Mohammed! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!
Heil Mohammed! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!

2/08/2006 08:19:00 AM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Immanuel Goldstein,

"The Arabic word for God is Allah"

Is that true?
Is Allah the Arab equivalent for the Hebrew Hellohim? (Get it? Hell or Him)


Note: The word Elohim is a plural formed from the singular feminine A-l-h, Eloh. In Hebrew, 'im usually denotes the plural masculine, but here it is added to a feminine name, turning it masculine plural!

2/08/2006 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger Das said...

Here in Seattle the daily papers and weekly alternate press - it is constant dogpile on Bush, the military, conservatives. And now a refusal to print the cartoons. The refusal to print the cartoons is an assumption that Muslims living in Seattle are radical and will react with riots and terror. But how do our press lords know of this reaction beforehand? They are so busy protecting local Muslims - and themselves from what goes on in the world that we operate in as void.

Also there is a kind of patronising "our Muslims" aspect to this shielding the community from the cartoons.

As it is, the daily papers are running stories from the wire services which gives it a quaint far-off quality - the funny-little-people-doing-inexplicable -things angle. Pathetic and blind Seattle. As if they can't wait for it to die down so they can go back to Bush bashing

2/08/2006 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Das (at 8:39 a.m.)

What you write applies a fortiori to our situation here in the Bay Area.

But isn't there always a price to be paid for shielding oneself from reality?

When I was a resident in psychiatry at UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute, I had a psychoanalytic instructor who said, "Reality sucks...But it's the only game in town."

Jamie Irons

2/08/2006 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Publish the cartoons.

Let people see just how offensive they are.

My guess is most sane people will react by thinking: WTF? This is what all the fuss is about?

But then, that would require an effort on the part of the mass media to provide what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story".

And for some that is the truly upsetting part.

2/08/2006 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger Knucklehead said...

What the BBC has revealed here, in addition to the bias, is who they turn to as sources.

Had they turned to the Danish newspaper as a source they would have received copies of the papers in which the cartoons were printed. Instead they turned to their sources in the Islamic community who handed them the whole riot package.

Either it never dawned on them, or they just don't care, what it meant when their Islamic handlers said, "Sure, we can provide the blasphemous cartoons. Here, we've been printing up these packets by the thousands. Help yourself. Take as many as you need."

2/08/2006 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger al fin said...

Increasingly, the term "multicultural" can be accurately used to mean "having no brains." In that sense, the BBC is thoroughly multicultural.

2/08/2006 09:41:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Perhaps the time has come to immanentize the eschaton (been waiting to actually use that in a sentence). Freedom of the press is pretty meaningless when the authors have to go into hiding to practice it. Freedom of religion is pretty meaningless when a particular religion determines that it has an absolute right to kill or enslave anybody that doesn't buy into it.

I'm not buying any of it anymore. Islam is an ugly, pernicious, totalitarian ideology that as presently contituted has no place in the civilized world. If anybody wants to apologize, rationalize or soften the ugliness be my guest. I'll have none of it. Change it, confine it, or destroy it.

2/08/2006 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Knucklehead said...

PeterBoston,

You neglected to add, "And do it soon!" Time is running out.

2/08/2006 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

The cartoons are themselves a legitimate news story. For the free press folks who yell and scream that the "public has a right to know" the locations of CIA interrogation centers but does not have the right to see (and form their own opinion about) the cartoons that are being used as a justification for murder and mayhem - a pox on their hypocritical selves.

2/08/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger enscout said...

peterboston:

Well said and I heartily agree.

It should be evident to anyone who has been paying attention that the behavior of the Muslim community doesn't square with a "great religion".

Either said religion has been hijacked and needs to be mended from within or, if it is practiced as intended by its founders, there is something fundamentally wrong with it - it is false.

I thinks anyone studying the Koran would quickly realize that it's author was a earthly political leader who posed as a holy man. In short he is the prototype "false prophet" many had warned about.

I beleive Mohammed's adherants are acting, and have acted throughout their time on earth, largely just as he prescibed and, indeed, as he acted.

2/08/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger enscout said...

prescribed

2/08/2006 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger CERDIP said...

(doug)
>>You think you're so smart, Mika, how do you know it doesn't stand for Putzs be Upon Him?

Huh. I was starting to think maybe it meant "Place Bomb Under Hood".

2/08/2006 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger wilburn13 said...

Is not Mohammed an historical figure? If the premise is accepted that this individual existed on the planet in human form, regardless of his prophesies and subsequent religious following, does it not follow that he is officially in the public domain and therefore subject to depiction? Indeed, "putting a face to the name" which, as we have learned, is not blasphemous in Islam, moves his doctrine from the ethereal to the human. And it is the humanization of Mohammed that poses the biggest problem to the jihadi fundamentalists: the vile tenets of the “religion” (pedophilia fantasies, female repression, intolerance, wanton infidel beheadings, etc.) were merely indiscretions of a bad man, perpetuated by bad men, rather than an edict from the heavens. The Imams know that wholesale submission and threat sustain their power and following. Fortunately, they don’t yet realize that defensive, kneejerk outrage to cartoons just insults the moderate Islamic masses.

2/08/2006 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger exhelodrvr said...

This is going to fizzle out because of the general unwillingness of the press to publish the cartoons, and to accurately portray the protests/riots that are resulting.

2/08/2006 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/08/2006 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

That is their most powerful weapon, ex-helo, pretend it's not happening, ie censorship.
The left has been practicing that in this country since before I was born.
Now the MSM and the Democrat party are one, and the Media are a worldwide conspiracy.

2/08/2006 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Pork said,
"best medicine?
ALL advanced medicines should be sold at 10 times fair market value to ANY opec member
"
---
Better yet:
Porkies Special Blend for the OPEC Piggies.
Since only the Rich Pigs get the Bennies,
None Would Dare Call it Genocide.

2/08/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger wretchard said...

Jamie Irons,

The fates of the International Brigade volunteers in the Spanish Civil War has been a storied and tragic one. Many of the most hard core sought safety in Russia, nearly all to die in the purges. The luckier ones stayed in the West. Orwell, for example, returned to England to work for the BBC and go on to his novels. In fiction their fates were no less diverse. The most famous fictional Spanish Civil War veteran is of course, Rick Blaine. We will never know if he met Ilsa again. The second most famous is Robert Jordan. We know what happened to him. We can only hope Maria went on to "see Barcelona for the both of them".

2/08/2006 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

mika. said... 8:33 AM

"Is that true?
Is Allah the Arab equivalent for the Hebrew"

Yes, it's also how the word "god" is written in Arabic-language Christian bibles. We also commonly used it for "god" in Judaeo-Arabic vernaculars.

According to my volume of Even-Shushan, "Eloha" (Aleph-Lamed-Heh) is masculine.
Yet, the spelling being identical to "Elah" in Ctiv hhasser (minimal script) suggests it may not have always been thus.

P.S. I am told that the book "Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache" published under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg, is quite a good read, I haven't read it myself as my German has gotten quite rusty these recent years.
So I am waiting for the movie adaptation on DVD, in Aramaic with Russian over-dubbing.

2/08/2006 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/08/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

Addendum:
The origin of the Arabic word "Allah" is perhaps the Aramaic word "Alaha".

2/08/2006 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

I would like to use my Stupid Question quota for the week:
Has anyone heard anyone BUT Islamic Whack Jobs comment on the religious aspects of the Cartoon Crisis?

Over at opinionjournal.com Amir Taheri has an article today saying that this is all nuts - there is not an Islamic prohibition against either depicitions of the Prophet or religious-themed humor.
If is this the case why do we not hear all sorts of Muslims, from venerated clerics to Joe, the guy who owns the corner hotdog stand, speaking up and saying "Don't listen to those idiots who are upset about those cartoons. I can assure you that we mainstream Muslims don't. They have less than no credibility with us."

Of course, this is a common problem with Islam. And why is that? Fear? The MSM?

2/08/2006 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

RWE said... 12:31 PM
"I would like to use my Stupid Question quota for the week…

Amir Taheri has an article today saying that this is all nuts - there is not an Islamic prohibition against either depicitions of the Prophet or religious-themed humor."

Of course Mr. Taheri is right. Not only is there no Muslim prohibition to draw or paint Muhammad, it's quite a common staple of Islamic art.

Nakkaş Osman
"The prophet Muhammad at the Qaabah"
1595
Topkapı Museum, Istanbul.
http://www.tuerkenbeute.de/window/illustration/S31B-5Me00il4_02_de.php

As for religious-themed humour one has to look no further than all those old stories about the half-wise/half-foolish Johha, a.k.a. Mullah Nasruddin.

Here's one, at random:
There was this mosque which invited Johha to a conference on the subject: "The nature of Allah beyond that which can be seen", more as a polite gesture than out of respect for Johha's learning.
And after many other scholars had given their lectures, there came Johha's turn.
Not having prepared anything precise, he improvised:
"Allah is… an aubergine" (he happened to have brought one in his lunchbox).

"Blasphemy, sacrilege!" cried the faithful, yet Johha proceeded with his lecture: "We have heard from all those learned friends, telling of what they have not seen of the nature of Allah, yet can anybody deny that Allah's nature is manifested in all things, notably this aubergine?"
Given the lack of any answer, Johha concluded: "Therefore, Allah is indeed an aubergine."

2/08/2006 01:12:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Immanuel,

One thing for sure, Elohim is NOT the plural of El, but rather the plural of Eloah. And both Eloha and Elah sound as feminine, to my Hebrew ear -- Eloha sounding much like Elona or Ellana.

It's interesting that in Matthew 27:46, El, a masculine singular, is used.

Jesus cried, saying ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI? My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

2/08/2006 01:13:00 PM  
Blogger 5050noline said...

Further re the Beeb:

They consistently refer to the Muslim month of Ramadan as 'The Holy Month of Ramadan', rather than Ramadan. We all understand what Ramadan is and what goes on during that time, but not that many of us consider it 'Holy'.

I think it is a sort of elitist 'hint' that we should all get on board the multi-culti bandwagon.

Hogwash.

And I am a Compulsory Licence Fee Contributor, who just happens not to be a Muslim.

2/08/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Immanuel Goldstein, 1:12 PM

Alahahaha

2/08/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I thought I had heard it all.
The stuff posted here on the
BBC is far beyond what I had imagined.
Orwell has been spun.
And that's no pun.

2/08/2006 01:28:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Doug, 1:37 PM

Pun intended?

2/08/2006 01:36:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allah is a Mohammedan Plant

2/08/2006 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

mika., 1:13 PM

"One thing for sure, Elohim is NOT the plural of El, but rather the plural of Eloah."
Certainly.

"And both Eloha and Elah sound as feminine, to my Hebrew ear -- Eloha sounding much like Elona or Ellana."
It does sond feminin, and ends with a Heh, yet it's not a silent-suffix Heh as in "Ishah" or "Elah", but a voweled Heh (w/patahh) which is quite rare for a masculin noun (more common for a masculin adjective such as "gavoha"). So, while Eloha is definitely masculin in this day and age, it might not have always been that.


doug, 1:24 PM

Aloha

2/08/2006 01:40:00 PM  
Blogger Immanuel Goldstein said...

Actually it's quite rare for Hebrew nouns to end with a voweled Heh altogether.

2/08/2006 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allah says to those living in Infidel Houses of Glass,
Judge Not!


The Sydney Riot of 1879 was one of the earliest riots at an international cricket match.

It occurred at the Association Ground, Moore Park, now known as the Sydney Cricket Ground.
The game was between a touring English team captained by Lord Harris and the New South Wales Cricket Association led by Dave Gregory.
The riot was sparked off by a controversial umpiring decision, when Australian star batsman Billy Murdoch was controversially given out by umpire George Coulthard.
It was alleged that betting men in the New South Wales pavilion encouraged Gregory to make a stand and disrupt the game.
The immediate aftermath of the riot saw the England team cancel the remaining games due to be played in Sydney.
The riot led to a breakdown of goodwill that threatened the immediate future of England-Australia cricket tours.

2/08/2006 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Ya, Ich bin ein Pineapple.
Alohahha is Yiddish for?

2/08/2006 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Actually it's quite rare for Hebrew nouns to end with a voweled Heh altogether. "
---
Unless uttered by a Gentile Instapundit.

2/08/2006 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

A Stand Up Pineapple?

2/08/2006 01:59:00 PM  
Blogger Voltimand said...

Muslims take offense at . . . what Muslims choose to take offense at.

I learned from living with PC types during their influx into the academy during the last quarter century that speech codes and sexual harassment regulations were based on the assumption that if someone finds something you say offensive, then it "is" offensive. Solution? Try not to offend someone.

It's all very well to talk about the principles of free speech, but missing in the chain of analysis on these "pictures of 'Mohammad'" that is taught by the "Taking-Offense Game": "taking offense is an act of the will."

This may sound obvious, but the fact of the matter is that the whole leftist movement to transform someone's words into a violation of whatever-norms-you-like is predicated on the assumption that "words" are no different from "acts," with the resultant notion (e.g.,) in Critical Race Theory in the American law schools of "assaultive speech."

That's right: you "assault" someone with your speech just like you might assault them with a club or hatchet.

Missing here, I would suggest, is an important distinction: between (1) being offended, and (2)taking offense. You might walk into a room with a bad smell, and "be offended" because you don't like the smell. But you don't necessarily "take offense." You might "take offense," however, if you decided (note element of free will and and free choice here)that some person was consciously responsible for creating the smell, and so you might go to that someone and say that you are "offended" and would she please get her ass in gear and get rid of it.

My point is that "taking offense" deals with interpretations of intentions, while "being offended" is simply finding yourself reacting negatively.

What has the muslims exercised--those who choose to be exercised--by these cartoons is that they recognize that their religion (like everyone else's) can be made fun of. The difference between everyone else and muslims is that muslims are strikingly infantile in their level of maturity. They lack a sense of humor because it takes a certain amount of maturity to have a sense of humor.

Like all the "victims" of "hate speech" in academe, they can't tell the difference between "being offended" and "taking offense," which means in practical terms that whenever someone makes them "feel bad" they lash out.

That makes them, BTW, total slaves of the rest of the cartoon-loving world. Think about it: as a muslim you find yourself the perfect textbook case in a behaviorist psychology handbook. Like Pavlov's dog with the bell, muslims are with much of what happens in the rest of the world. The bell rings, the dog salivates. Someone says something negative about Islam, they mindlessly take to the streets.

2/08/2006 01:59:00 PM  
Blogger rasqual said...

In case no one heard it, NPR nailed a great interview again this morning, this time with Ahmed Abu Laban (some may remember when NPR nailed the president of Sony's BMG group, eliciting his infamous rootkit quote). Give it a listen at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195798

Steve asked the big question: when the prophet is depicted as violent, do ya think it's a great idea to protest that by being violent?

2/08/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger Mətušélaḥ said...

Doug, 1:57 PM

See post @ 1:36 PM

2/08/2006 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Steve asked the big question: when the prophet is depicted as violent, do ya think it's a great idea to protest that by being violent? "
---
That is indeed the
Deep Question to be asked re
the Cartoon Riots.
---
Thanks for the link.

2/08/2006 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Are Mohammedans Non Normies?

2/08/2006 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger rasqual said...

Voltimand:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9305/articles/martin.html

I've posted before, but it's so darned germane whenever the PC police start their semiotically violent riots. ;-)

2/08/2006 02:27:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Hate speech laws and similar organizational regulations have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with controlling the Conversation. Words create beliefs and beliefs are the basis of political power.

2/08/2006 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

In response to the Danish cartoon riots, the Boston Globe editorialized that “As with the current consensus against publishing racist or violence-inciting material, newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance.”

The popular blogging law professor Eugene Volokh promptly went back through various prominent blasphemies against Christianity over the last few years and discovered—what a surprise!—that the Globe had somehow never managed to summon the least condemnation of the blasphemers in the name of that ultimate Enlightenment value, tolerance.

That’s not to say the Globe—which is really just a stand-in for an entire American mind-set—didn’t feel the need for tolerance back when Andres Serrano was pissing on Christ and the Brooklyn Museum was touting the Virgin Mary done in feces. But it always ran in the other direction: Those offended must learn they live in an enlightened world where they are required to swallow their hurt in the name of tolerating those with whom they disagree.

2/08/2006 03:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

First Things

2/08/2006 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger Voltimand said...

PeterBoston said...

"Words create beliefs and beliefs are the basis of political power."

Things aren't that semiotically simple. The above chain of causality is, methinks, a little more "deterministic" than is the case. I would say that "words" offer versions of the real world, including human interactions, that one may or may not treat critrically, and accept or not accordingly. Otherwise, we're back to a B. F. Skinnerian theory of language as just another form of conditioned response. The assumption lying behind both muslim reactions and speech codes is precisely Skinnerian in foundation: you get "hit" with words ("assaultive speech") the same way you get hit with a thrown rock, and your reaction is identical--and unresistably conditioned--in both cases.

Having dealt with literary fictions most of my adult professional life, I am perhaps more attuned to the fundamental fictionality of all word uses, including the communication codes of the hard sciences, and therefore their requiring a critical reception in all cases. As Sir Francis Bacon said at the dawn of western science, words are not things (i.e., the physical universe) thought things may cause the creation of words.

2/08/2006 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

And here I thought the ultimate Enlightenment value was Truth.

Silly me.

2/08/2006 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger Aristides said...

I thought this exchange between Nixon and Mao was interesting (via Gaddis's Cold War):

Mao: "I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think--not like the leftists, who say one thing and mean another."

Nixon agreed: "Those on the right can do what those on the left talk about."

2/08/2006 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Mika 1:36
How Dare You Ask?
(This is Hard Work)

2/08/2006 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"thought things may cause the creation of words"
---
And, of course, the reverse is true.

2/08/2006 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/08/2006 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

What if Muhammed had Egg Planted on his Face?

2/08/2006 11:09:00 PM  
Blogger 2164th said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/09/2006 02:10:00 AM  
Blogger 2164th said...

Lets not be too tough on the press and not forget It was George Bush, with his post-911 White House Ramadan party, who pronounced Islam, a peaceful religion hijacked by radicals. Let's be clear. If we are to bring reason to the forefront , we better start with Truth. There is no Episcopalian or Lutheran or Calvinist terror problem. Hassidic Jews and Baptists are not murdering innocents on commuter trains to further Bible studies. The Amish are not strapping on body bombs. There is an Islamic problem. A big one. Forget the polite equivalency argument. Islam has to be given incentives and penalties to deal with Islamic terrorism.

2/09/2006 02:52:00 AM  
Blogger pst314 said...

"When the Mullah says he is the Master Faith,
We'll jihad! jihad! right in the mullah's face"
(apologies to Spike Jones)

2/09/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Blogger Skeej said...

Brilliant again, Wretchard.

2/09/2006 11:41:00 AM  
Blogger maharal said...

dear,
read about Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry & Mindanao haw to stop it ...

2/13/2006 02:21:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger