> Dana wrote:
> Please refrain from telling me what I believe
I'm telling you what you said - what you believe is as fuzzy as usual
- you're a moving target of convoluted logic and evasive arguments.
FYI - According to the AP, 19 people have been murdered this month due
to the riots and violence.
Gruss,
Please refrain from telling me what I believe. And before you demand that I
tell you then, I have done so. Several times. End of story; you can even have
the last word. If it makes you happy to believe I think such things I don't
suppose that I can stop you.
::shrug::
>GG wrote:
>> A
GG wrote:
> Apparently you are both confused on "Muslim
> opinion" (which is a stereotypical), and right vs. wrong.
>
Something else ironic about your fuzzy morals is that had a family
decided to pull the plug on their brain dead grandfather you'd be the
first to want the gov't to step in.
Yet he
> Dana wrote:
> it's linked in their minds.
>
> My perception of Muslim opinion - fwiw, I have no special expertise -
>
1.) Iraq has NOTHING to do with cartoon violence. Either you, Dana,
think that rioting, burning, and killing over cartoons is right or
wrong. As I've said, trying to introduce
:) Last week I was overly rigid because I was saying that neighborhoods don't
change their location ;)
Dana
>OK,
>
>Non-absolute.
>
>That's what it is about you Dana, you have no absolutes, no right and wrong,
>no black and white. Everything in your ethics and politics is grey area.
>
>What's w
You
have to know a lot about absolute values in order to do those jobs don't
you?
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:15 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Danish rot is about 'Free Speech&
The truth? About what? We are in Iraq. The stated reason has been discredited.
I don't think it's a crusade for most of the country, but is it for Bush? Who
knows? Is it a holy war for Muslims? Who knows?
Was the Danish newspaper trying to promote free speech? Who knows? Though the
filter of a
> it's linked in their minds. By the way, Gruss' post concerned burning, but
> not burning of bodies. I didn't go check it, but if a couple people were
> killed yesterday these are the first death I am aware of. Not that this
> excuses anything.
Protestors have been dying for a week now. Mostly
it's linked in their minds. By the way, Gruss' post concerned burning, but not
burning of bodies. I didn't go check it, but if a couple people were killed
yesterday these are the first death I am aware of. Not that this excuses
anything.
Actually, I have stated my own opinion several times, bu
Um, you haven't put forth another point of view...all you've tried to do
is point other people's views away from what they are discussing.
You asked "Are they burning bodies?" Gruss said "Yes", and pointed you to a
news story about it. You come back with Iraqhuh???
> ::shrug:: I don't e
Yes, based on polls done in western countries, based on polls done in Muslim
countries, based on actions. When I see a single Muslim march against the
specific targeting of Jewish children (or any children for that matter) by
terrorists then I'll move from most down to some but until then, most
I call em the Haj, does that count?
> -Original Message-
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:07 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Danish rot is about 'Free Speech' ?
>
> You confuse my explanation wi
That's right, it was "MOST Muslims have no problems murdering Jews."
oops ;\
Dana
>I accept as I never accused all Muslims of being murderous.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:197126
Archives: http://
> You confuse my explanation with my beliefs, I think. For the n+1 th time,
> I condone nothing -- I merely try to show that there is another point of
> view. You personally did not say towelhead, but it has been said, and
> here. You may think you only dehumanize murderers, but didn't you say t
You confuse my explanation with my beliefs, I think. For the n+1 th time, I
condone nothing -- I merely try to show that there is another point of view.
You personally did not say towelhead, but it has been said, and here. You may
think you only dehumanize murderers, but didn't you say that an e
pot. kettle. black.
> ::shrug:: I don't expect you to see other points of view.
>
>>> Dana wrote:
>>> ok. how many civilian casualties in Iraq?
>>>
>>
>>What's the price of tea of China? H? Mm Hm. That's what I thought.
>
>
Again, what does Iraq have to do with Pakistan? What does Iraq have to do
with cartoon riots? What does America's presence in Iraq have to do with the
murder of innocent Muslims by other Muslims? The answer to all 3 is nothing.
> ok. how many civilian casualties in Iraq?
>
>> > Dana wrote:
>> >
I see more money being spent on Iraq than is coming out of it. I'd like to
see official records of how much oil is actually coming out of Iraq at the
moment. If it is a really low amount, will it squash the comment that we
invaded Iraq for the oil. I doubt it.
(we could have invaded easier place
But NO ONE has said that Muslims aren't people. No one has even suggested
it. Well, no one other than you defending Muslims against those who are
saying that they are not people...but there's no one here that has said it.
Here I am talking about the murder of innocent Muslims by other Muslims
wh
Again, this is you saying it, not me. I have neither called anyone a
towelhead nor dehumanized anyone other than those who go out of their way to
murder innocents.
I see a bias here and I hate to say it but it's on your part. You only see
things from a point of the government, bush or whoever el
::shrug:: I don't expect you to see other points of view.
>> Dana wrote:
>> ok. how many civilian casualties in Iraq?
>>
>
>What's the price of tea of China? H? Mm Hm. That's what I thought.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoff
yeah, it might be technical. Not sure. There is a lot of conflation going on
here, just trying to cut down on it.
>True - though I think that's really a technical point and doesn't
>change the argument.
>
>-Cameron
>
>On 2/13/06, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >-Cameron
~~~
> Dana wrote:
> ok. how many civilian casualties in Iraq?
>
What's the price of tea of China? H? Mm Hm. That's what I thought.
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:197085
Archives: http://www.houseof
ok. how many civilian casualties in Iraq?
> > Dana wrote:
> > maybe the problem here is that I am not watching television news.
> Have they been burning
> > bodies or something?
>
> Yup.
>
> Feb 14th, 2006
>
> LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) - 15,000 rampaged through two cities Tuesday in
> Pakistan's w
> Dana wrote:
> maybe the problem here is that I am not watching television news. Have they
> been burning
> bodies or something?
Yup.
Feb 14th, 2006
LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) - 15,000 rampaged through two cities Tuesday in
Pakistan's worst violence against Prophet Muhammad caricatures,
burning bui
>
> Once again, I am merely pointing out that there is another point of view
> here, so let's leave aside my alleged "bias" and "blame." These are not my
> opinions. To answer your final question, though, perhaps they would still
> kill each other if we left. But it doesn't sound as though you w
Depends on how many of their fellow "insurgents" decided they needed to blow
up innocents in order to prove a point.
> yes. Over and over again.
>
> In other news, how many people died in Iraq today? Not that I know, or
> that you do either, which is the point.
>
>> BTW - I don't know where you'
> Dana wrote:
> Michael, I am saying that I don't believe a word I am told anymore
So you don't believe that 10s of thousands rioted over the cartoons?
You don't believe the Danish embassies were burned? You don't believe
that Germans were kidnapped?
Secondly, you think that there may have been
You don't think it dehumanizes people to call them towelheads and say that they
don't think like us? Do you really know that you are being told the truth?
As for crusade, look at the perceptions -
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C12%5Cstory_12-2-2006_pg4_4
It didn't help
it has everything to do with his post. I am saying that the Muslims are people,
and you are telling me that I'm condoning the muder of innocents. These are not
equivalent statements.
What I am trying to get across here is that the sentiments that have been
expressed here since the Danish carto
Wait a minute here. You're the only person here who said anything about
the third party being less than human. NO ONE has demonized anyone in the
news report that was posted nor any of the others. I demonized the murderers
as being murderers, not for their religion or anything else. Your rea
No, it's a clarification of mine. You said I was angry. I agreed.
Jerry said that I had a valid question concerning the lack of protests when
people are killed vs. when a picture is drawn. Your response was to expand
my being angry and say that maybe while *we're* angry at *them* (a new
position
Michael, I am saying that I don't believe a word I am told anymore, especially
when the jist of it is that a third party is less than human. I think I have
said many times already, but I will say it again:
I deplore the death, mutilation of ANYONE but most especially the murder of
innocent peop
is that supposed to be a summary of my position?
>1. I said I am angry. I'm not saying *we* are angry because on the whole
>*we*, i.e. most of the western world, has it's head in the sand and doesn't
>care what happens over 'there'.
>2. *They* kill their own because they are angry with us. *They
1. I said I am angry. I'm not saying *we* are angry because on the whole
*we*, i.e. most of the western world, has it's head in the sand and doesn't
care what happens over 'there'.
2. *They* kill their own because they are angry with us. *They* act like
total savages because they're angry with u
Dana, this is what pisses me off. Look at what you wrote. You didn't say
anything about the murderers other than to say that it's news because it
shows how unreasonable *they* are. That's apologetics to me. That's ignoring
the evil of what happened because you think that it's only being shown fo
so I think I will walk away now while we are still ahead that way ;) I just
think there are more productive things to be angry about.
> Could be. The difference? I have not killed anyone all week. Nor
> blown
> anything up. Nor kidnapped anyone, threatened anyone, nor advocated
> anyone being k
Could be. The difference? I have not killed anyone all week. Nor blown
anything up. Nor kidnapped anyone, threatened anyone, nor advocated
anyone being killed for something they said (it has been a slow week,
with the snowstorm and all).
On 2/13/06, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is it
is it possible that as we are angry about *them* they are angry about *us*?
It's so much easier to vilify someone who is not present. Safer, too, if that's
your point.
Dana
>I thikn Michael has a valid question about why there aren't ANY
>protests in all the places we have been seeing protests
I wasn't questioning your numbers, which seem specific enough, as much as your
perceptions. Yes, Google News is a great thing -- it's where I get my
information also. I still don't think I am getting the full story. I still
question whether Iraqi casualties are even reported. Because nobody care
Thank you but this information comes straight from newspapers more local to
the area (Google news is a great thing). I would not have said the numbers
without being sure. As for being very angry, you are correct. I'm angry at
the injustice of the world. I'm angry that people are so fast to defen
I thikn Michael has a valid question about why there aren't ANY
protests in all the places we have been seeing protests about the
cartoons about a man blowing up women and children?
Doesn't it seem a little odd?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C14%5Cstory_14-2-2006_pg7_9
Michael, I have great respect for your knowledge of the Middle East, which for
sure exceeds mine, but I do not know that you are right about this. I don't
know that you aren't but you are very angry and all I am saying is that these
are people.
?
Dana
>> In other news, how many people died i
> In other news, how many people died in Iraq today? Not that I know, or
> that you do either, which is the point.
How many Muslims in Iraq were blown up by other Muslims? One suicide bomb on
people waiting for their paychecks has 10 dead, 40 wounded, including
children. These numbers were upda
yes. Over and over again.
In other news, how many people died in Iraq today? Not that I know, or that you
do either, which is the point.
> BTW - I don't know where you're getting the "upset" vibe. I not, I'm
> just pointing out what I thought was obvious.
~~~
> Dana wrote:
> I will refrain from taking a character inventory of a culture I don't fully
> understand.
Well, that's where we're different. If a group burns down embassies
and kidnaps people in defense of their religion, but declines to riot
when a suicide bomber blows up children in the name
No, I don't think they are morally equivalent, and certainly don't mean to
insist that they are ;) Possibly I may sound that way though.
I just think that in a world where it is ok for the government to subsidize
billionaires, where groundwater pollution has been redefined to not include
oil,
Once again Dana you are insisting that the two actions are morally equivalent.
That the publication of the images was exactly as wrong as arson,
kidnapping, murder, bombings, threats.equating the two things as
I can't disagree more. One is MUCH more wrong than the other. They are
not even on the
Isn't public safety always a function of government? As for the rest of it, I
have enough to tend to in my own garden, so I will refrain from taking a
character inventory of a culture I don't fully understand. Or accept, mind you.
I just don't see why you are getting so upset over this. It's not
> Dana wrote:
> I find your analogy rather offensive, and not reflective of what I am saying.
>
There's no emotions, I'm just making the obvious point. You said,
"the government is not preventing anyone from being insulting, but
they should be prepared for the consequences if they engage in the
maybe the problem here is that I am not watching television news. Have they
been burning bodies or something? I don't understand your emotional response.
We certainly have a failure to communicate. I find your analogy rather
offensive, and not reflective of what I am saying.
I am saying that
True - though I think that's really a technical point and doesn't
change the argument.
-Cameron
On 2/13/06, dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> anti-gay group, not the KKK
>
> >Oh Snap! They did show up.
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Coretta+Scott+King+funeral+hate+groups
> Dana wrote:
> I don't
> think they were wise, nor, given what I am hearing, do I think that their
> motives
> were pure. I see hidden agendas on both sides, myself.
>
Why should any manner of expression of opinion be "unwise"? Isn't
that really saying that your society doesn't value free speec
yes, I know you think it's a free speech issue. As far as I know, there is no
law against what the newspaper did, so therefore they were entitled to do it. I
don't think they were wise, nor, given what I am hearing, do I think that their
motives were pure. I see hidden agendas on both sides, mys
>> Dana wrote:
>> Second of all, there is in fact, I am told, considerable xenophobia in
>> Denmark
>
>Overall this, to me, is a pure free speech issue. Gel has brought up
>points such as talking about Nazis in Germany.
>
>The thing there is that Nazis are criminals. The limit of free speech
>is
> Dana wrote:
> Second of all, there is in fact, I am told, considerable xenophobia in Denmark
Overall this, to me, is a pure free speech issue. Gel has brought up
points such as talking about Nazis in Germany.
The thing there is that Nazis are criminals. The limit of free speech
is where it in
anti-gay group, not the KKK
>Oh Snap! They did show up.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Coretta+Scott+King+funeral+hate+groups
>
>Does this mean that all of us offended by this should riot now?
>
>-Cameron
>
>On 2/10/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>--
>Cameron Ch
I'm still pretty sick of this topic, but I have a couple of comments:
First of all, I had not heard this story about the imam, and it sounds true and
explains a bit. So thanks for posting it.
Second of all, there is in fact, I am told, considerable xenophobia in Denmark,
and there have been la
-Community
Subject: Re: Danish rot is about 'Free Speech' ?
Oh Snap! They did show up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Coretta+Scott+King+funeral+hate+gro
ups
Does this mean that all of us offended by this should riot now?
-Cameron
On 2/10/06, Cameron Childress <[EM
It all but happened. The rabidly ant-gay, anti semite Fred Phelps and
his ilk picketed Correta Scott King's funeral.
larry
On 2/10/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Think about this in perspective, what do you think would have happ
This is not about free speech. Want to know why? Because this is a created
issue, not a free speech issue. These pictures were published in September
2005. They were republished in an Egyptian paper in October 2005 and THERE
WERE NO RIOTS!
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-e
Are you following the same story as the rest of us? The real xenophobes are
people in the Middle East who run TV programs accusing Jews of trying to take
over the world and killing gentile children to drink their blood. You know, the
same ones who sent a bunch of lunatics to ram planes into the
Oh Snap! They did show up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Coretta+Scott+King+funeral+hate+groups
Does this mean that all of us offended by this should riot now?
-Cameron
On 2/10/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Think
On 2/10/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think about this in perspective, what do you think would have happened if
> during the late Martin Luther King's wife funeral some reps from the local
> KKK arm showed up distributing pamphlets? Is that not free speech too?
Actually, in the above exam
> The press doing something stupid to sell papers? I don't believe it.
Running something that gets your editor fired and gets your papers boycotted
isn't necessarily in your best interest, even with the publicity it brings.
>
> Isn't that just par for the course? Whether it is Fox news running
>
The press doing something stupid to sell papers? I don't believe it.
Isn't that just par for the course? Whether it is Fox news running
images of these riots, or Al-Jezeera running images of a bombed mosque
in Iraq, or the 700 club showing images of gays at Disneyworld, this
is pretty standard far
What's not to buy?
I thought Bush's statement on the issue was dead on: "We feel that free
speech carries with it a certain level of responsibility. Including the
responsibility to be sensitive to people's religious beliefs" (paraphrase)
The reprinting of all those cartoons by the newspapers af
See, Gel.
I completely disagree with this entire diatribe.
Every paragraph has elements of truth, but twists the facts to make their point.
I don't buy it.
On 2/10/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "It's quite interesting reading the comments and opinions.
>
> However, many people, myself
"It's quite interesting reading the comments and opinions.
However, many people, myself included often fall victim to so called
conventional wisdom (it's the truth since everyone says it is).
"This is about free speech"
Despite what you have heard, this is not about free speech. This is not
becau
69 matches
Mail list logo
