Muslims march over cartoons of the Prophet

Post Reply New Topic

do you know, i really wasn't going to bother replying, but, as i am a complete pedant, i cannot let certain things slip.

how frightfully ignorant of me. must be because i use the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which has four definitions... sorry, "quaternary".


excuse "for", i'm afraid.


not so, again - if you re-read the quotation, you will see that it is, in fact, an indictment of such behaviour, and a re-iteration of why such behaviour as presented on this thread was inappropriate.


apologies (whichever definition you wish to apply), but i don't understand the reference to "policy". could you please explain?


you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. and, as you either infer or say outright, this is entirely your interpretation of things. my interpretation is that i have failed to clear the air only as far as you are concerned. others seem happy to continue the debate.

Next time give the Moslems something to think about. Draw the cartoons of the Prophet on the sidewalk with chalk. Then they can quite literally march over cartoons of the Prophet.

No, I haven't.



I wouldn't presume to, and I'm sorry that what I said raised your ire. (Really--I'm not attempting sarcasm.) I made an effort to word my concerns in deliberately soft terms so that it was clear I was expressing my opinion rather than trying to declare facts.

I said it "sure sounds like an excuse of Happeh's behavior..." etc. Rather than saying "it was an excuse..." etc. But I can see that that was misunderstood, or not adequately expressed by me.



I see the trouble now: my intent was never to criticize ANYBODY personally. That was why I said I disagreed with the public handling and the policy. For me to say aught against either you or vetivert personally would be judgemental and wrong. I meant to be strong and persuasive, but not personal in any way.

But I won't try to explain this away. You clearly felt personally attacked, and for that, I am sorry.

Also, I'm sorry that you felt patronized. My attempts at being impersonal came across as condescending.

Oh, and I disagree with you: I think both you and vetivert ARE perfect just how you are all the time. I personally have a strong belief in a Supreme Power, and I think he knew just what he was doing with each and every one of us.

I think there has been a misunderstanding: I really meant to explain myself, not to poke fun at your ignorance. I'm sorry you took it in that light.



Please don't take this in any other than an explanatory light, but I did a bit of research on this. My usage above is absolutely correct:

"Excuse of" means a pardon with respect to.

Thus
"Pleading so wisely in excuse of it." (Shakespeare)
"It hath the excuse of youth." (Shakespeare)
"That is the excuse of the day."

"Excuse for" means a poor substitute in place of, among other things:

"He is a mangy excuse for a dog."
"He offered an excuse for his absence."

So if I would have said, "sounds like an excuse for Happeh's behavior to me," rather than what I did say, it would have meant that "it sounds like [duncvis made] a poor substitute for Happeh's behavior," which would not have made any sense.

What I said conveyed my meaning: "sounds like a pardon with respect to Happeh's behavior to me."

Please don't take this in an offensive or condescending way. I just wanted to be clear.



I see how the quotation was an indictment of inappropriate behavior, but it seemed to be an indictment of the wrongs against Happeh, not the wrongs perpetrated by him. That was what confused me.



Thank you for respecting my right to an opinion. It certainly is my interpretation. I wouldn't presume to speak fo anyone other than myself as to clearing the air. As I explained to duncvis, I never meant to personally condemn either of you, nor to make a statement of fact beyond one man's opinion.

I was critical of the way the policy had been exercised, because I felt that the matter should have been either completely dropped, or that Happeh should have apologized to certain people (not necessarily me) for having written hurtful and damaging statements, for the good of the discussions generally. Instead, I interpreted that excuses were being offered for his transgressions based on his prior injuries with no admission of wrongdoing on his part.

That seemed wrong, not because I wanted him punished but for the precedent it set. I spoke my mind regarding the policy and execution, not the personalities involved. I bear no ire toward you, duncvis or Happeh.

But I offer no excuses for any hurt you may have felt, intended or not. I am sorry you took my impersonal argument as a reflection on your person. Such was never meant.

apology accepted, groovydruid - thank you.

Happeh,
Can you formulate and articulate a logical argument with sources to back it up, or can you only scream "racist" and try to turn us in to a bunch of wannabe thought police with no law enforcement power? If that's all you can do, then you ought to be very entertaining in future debates.

An update on this story:

From the Brussels Journal via Dhimmiwatch:

Last edited by Klytus on 17 Jan 2006, 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

i found the cartoons

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoo ... osten.html

I agree with much of what you are saying here...Chrisitianity split from Judaism, and Islam, more or less split from Christianity. The Council of Nicea that started a downhill trend by creating a one belief Christian Creed. People in the Middle Eastern and African parts of the Byzantium Empire believed in a different view of Jesus. The Council decided there was only one view, and persecuted the southern factions of thier religion. This led to a bloodless rise of Islam, which allowed those that hung onto to Christianity, greater tolerence. The Coptics, as they were known, believed in a more literal use of lingo, and that Jesus was God.
At least one of the later Emperors tried to resolve the dispute, but the Church over ruled him, regarding church authority. Thus, many christians in the coptic lands, offered little or no resistence to muslim invasion. Some even welcomed them, as the muslims, treated them better than the christian empire. Many were killed by the christians before the muslims arrived. All three religions believe in many of the same things, use the same texts as part of their holy book, believe in many of the same prophets. So, yes, they are very similar, not sure if they are the exact same, they do have some differences.

Hebrews, or jewish people do have an early history of terrorism, but it was focused mostly on the Roman army during their occupation. They carried knives hidden under cloaks and stabbed soldiers and officers. Much like the 11th century Islamic extremist terrorists, which is the forefather of modern terrorists, and like today, their real motivation is not religion, but money and power, like it was then.

We should tolerate many things, but should there not be some logical limits? Like is it not wrong to beat a homeless man to death, like was in the news recently, just for fun, and then air it?

I like this basic explanation best of how things should be:

"The freedom to do what you wish, so long as it does not impede upon the rights of others"

Of course, many things can in fact impede. one has to be careful. Smoking gives pleasure to some, but impedes upon the right to clean and fresh air for others. Killing maybe fun for some people and even neccessary at times (which would be tolerable), but it impedes upon the right of the victim to live and die at their own will or natural life. Same with loud music, but headphones, would be a very good attempt at resolving the impedence. These are just a few examples, but this is also the basis of our own freedoms in the US.

P.S. I could add, and this is true for me at least how personally see it, that anything within those wants, that is not, unhealthy, immoral, or illegal.

Koranic passage:

"Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, capture and besiege them and prepare
for them every kind of ambush." (9:5)

Biblical passages:

Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13:34)

This can't be real, can it?

Yes, it is. I've checked.
And there's plenty more where that came from.

World governments should just ban religion and give people a free Gameboy to keep them occupied. The world would be a safer place.

Indeed.
Well, we'd want them to give Mortal Kombat a miss. We don't want people going round ripping each other's spines out.
People should stick with Tetris, and stay away from bridges lest they feel tempted to drop a funny shaped brick off one.

I dont understand this. Muslims dont want Mohammad's likeness to be used because it leads to idolitry. Isnt the act of being so paranoid over how someone percieves your phrophet and threatening them with their lives a form of idolitry unto itself? You dont see Christians burning flags of Islamic nations because they dont believe Jesus is their savior!

The Norwegian newspaper who published these cartoons, is a very small Christian extremist newspaper.
You could say that they did this as a product of Christian fundamentalist and nationalism, these Christian extremists have a "either you leave Norway, or you convert to Christianity" attidude against Muslims.
This is a very small group of Christian fundamentalists who are much rediculed in the mainly secular Norwegain media, wich has shown a lot of economical fraud in Christian fundamentalist Churches.
Norwegains are mainly either secular non-practising Christians or Atheists, a product of the pretty corrupt National Church of Norway. We are probably (finally) getting a split between church and state wich can make membership in the Church plunge.