For your consideration: Submission

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 13, 2006 06:40
VIEWED: 1378
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

FLETCH2

Monday, February 13, 2006 6:12 AM

Well it's an interesting theory. In the Soviet case I think people picking it appart from the inside was the only way it could have happened without a war. I quite like how that turned out.

I'm generally against meddling but you have to ask what happens when someone meddles with you, do you have a right to meddle back?

Case in point this Danish cartoon issue. Even allowing for the fact that it was probably not a smart thing to publish it the fact remains that it was drawn by a none Muslim in a none Muslim country. What Muslims there were there were refugees accepted into Denmark as an act of kindness. What happens in Denmark should be Denmark's business and theirs alone. If Danish Muslims want to complain, they have that option in a free society, but it's not really anyone outside the country's affair. All this violence, threats of bombs and hostage taking _is_ an attempt to coerse and meddle in Denmark's culture by imposing Muslim law on a none Muslim country. The fact that this is done by a rabble in the street and not at the sharp point of a cruise missle is down to the lack of missles and not the intent. I'm pretty sure if they had a means of striking Denmark directly some nut would.

It is not a question of them not meddling with us if we dont meddle with them.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, February 13, 2006 6:40 AM

Quote:
Well it's an interesting theory. In the Soviet case I think people picking it appart from the inside was the only way it could have happened without a war. I quite like how that turned out.

I really agree.

Quote:
I'm generally against meddling but you have to ask what happens when someone meddles with you, do you have a right to meddle back?

This is a classic legal theory question, and the classic answer is you can meddle in their affairs only to the extent that it interferes in their ability to meddle in yours. That's just a stock answer, I haven't thought it through. I suspect that there is some leeway there, but logically it should not extend to telling them how to treat their women, or how they should worship Allah.

Quote:
Case in point this Danish cartoon issue. Even allowing for the fact that it was probably not a smart thing to publish it the fact remains that it was drawn by a none Muslim in a none Muslim country.

I assume you mean non. There are plenty of muslims in Denmark, and sure, this was undoubtedly not crafted by one of them. On the otherhand, it's no offence to mid east muslims by a non-muslim, it was carried there by muslims, it was printed for danes by danes as part of danish society, in which some muslims are willing participants, but they knew getting in that it was danish society, and not friendly territory.

If a gay jiggalo is in my town seducing young boys, it's an affront to my town, where people actually wouldn't take kindly to it. But if he is doing it in Brazil, we might disapprove, but it's really no offense to us, directly. If we take it as such, we are really distorting the idea of our individual rights, and de facto rewriting those rights to say "we rule the world." In this case the muslims in question who are rioting had to have the information transported to them by other mulsims, who do not only not rule the world, they don't rule denmark.

Quote:
What Muslims there were there were refugees accepted into Denmark as an act of kindness. What happens in Denmark should be Denmark's business and theirs alone. If Danish Muslims want to complain, they have that option in a free society, but it's not really anyone outside the country's affair.

Whoa. I think I just said this. We're actually on the same page here.

Quote:
All this violence, threats of bombs and hostage taking _is_ an attempt to coerse and meddle in Denmark's culture by imposing Muslim law on a none Muslim country. The fact that this is done by a rabble in the street and not at the sharp point of a cruise missle is down to the lack of missles and not the intent. I'm pretty sure if they had a means of striking Denmark directly some nut would.

Lol, and also true.

Quote:
It is not a question of them not meddling with us if we dont meddle with them.

But, again, to what extent. The logical first step is someone took the cartoons out of denmark and passed them around along with propaganda about the Danes being evil, to incite violence against the state of Denmark, which resulted in acts of violence against Danish embassies, which are technically speaking, part of the state of Denmark, thereby making it an act of treason, since the initiators of the series of events were residents of Denmark.

The key point here is that I mean the muslims who passed around the cartoons and propoganda about evil Danes, as these were the people who wanted to induce violence against Denmark, where they happened to live. The cartoonists were not attempting to insight violence against Denmark, it was an unintentional consequence of their actions.

So, the muslims in question should be tried for treason, and then the rest of the muslims can see that this is how this situation unravels, and then can have the option of leaving Denmark, a place where muslim fiats are unlikely to be bowed to, and where attacking Denmark is frowned upon. If Muslims choose to stay and follow the rules of Denmark and not set fire to cars, then so be it.

PREV PAGE 1 2