Monday, 6 February 2006 Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons quote [ "It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust" ] There goes the neighborhood.... [humour] [by samejima@8:56pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

ebrawer said @ 8:58pm GMT on 6th Feb I love how they fucking managed to get Israel into this.

Dioxin said @ 9:00pm GMT on 6th Feb They're trying to go for the nads. It's not like madpride's Jesus pictures is going to get anyone to burn down the Iranian embassy.

jaxtraw said @ 9:04pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2 Underrated] I doubt anyone will burn down an Iranian embassy. This is just a stupid stunt. The difference is, there are zillions of muslims all over the place who want to impose an islamic theocracy on the world, whereas there aren't any jews trying to do the same.

incpenners said @ 9:15pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:5 Funny] What do you call Hollywood, man? It's a fucking joke folks, relax

SkitsoDragon said @ 9:24pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-1 WTF] I'd like to burn down the Iranian Embassy.. Who's with me? And while we're at it, lets take care of Iraq's Embassy too... Fucking Hamas.

Betty said @ 9:49pm GMT on 6th Feb what's hamas got to do with Iraq.

cz85 said @ 11:18pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:3 Insightful] That is really the intelligence of the people who burn down embassies in protest. He just happened to speak english.

ar656 said @ 8:21am GMT on 7th Feb It should be noted the whole irony of all this. Iran is the trailblazer in this business of violence against foreign embassies. They started the whole trend in 1979 (I think). They were ahead of their time. And yet, I haven't read any report of any damage to any embassy in Teheran lately. Not a single report. While people were burning embassies and getting killed all the whole Muslim countries, no reports of incidents in Iran. Luis

maryyugo said @ 11:52am GMT on 7th Feb i think they should build embassies out of cardboard. they don't really have a useful function anyway and that way, they'd be cheap and easy to rebuild after a burndown.

Dioxin said @ 9:24pm GMT on 6th Feb Like I said, they're trying. Iran isn't going to provoke any kind of reaction from the west if they stick with religion.

jaxtraw said @ 9:37pm GMT on 6th Feb Their real problem is they can't take the piss out of either christianity or judaism, since islam is based on both of them. Like, we'll do rude pictures of Jesus, shit, he's a prophet, how about Moses then? Oh, shit. Etc... Strange sects, christinaity and islam both. They steal somebody else's national God, then hate the people they stole him from. Very odd.

Pablio said @ 10:05pm GMT on 6th Feb Kind of like stealing somebody else's national land, then hating the people they stole it from. Very odd. Or stealing somebody else national historical artifacts, then hating the people they stole it from. Very, very odd.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:06pm GMT on 6th Feb Don't some Palestinians pretend they're descended from the Canaanites?

Naruki said @ 10:19pm GMT on 6th Feb Don't some Christians pretend they are rational human beings? Sure, and some of them actually are. So what?

SlyDuck said @ 11:01pm GMT on 6th Feb Don't people that preach tolerance and enlightenment actually practice it from time to time? Sure, Christians can be annoying, but...

Naruki said @ 11:18pm GMT on 6th Feb I tolerate most everything, but I draw the line at willful stupidity. Sadly, damn near anything can be a sign of willful stupidity. Still, none of this answers the question: so what?

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 11:19pm GMT on 6th Feb So what? You didn't really make a point. You said Christians pretend to be rational, and that some of them are. That means that some of them aren't pretending. Palestinians can't be Canaanites, ergo they're pretending.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 11:20pm GMT on 6th Feb Unless you meant some Palestinians were Canaanites, which doesn't make sense.

f00m@nB@r said @ 2:38am GMT on 7th Feb you ought to be used to that, by now.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 2:42am GMT on 7th Feb Used to what? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to me, it just doesn't make sense. You can't be part of a group that was wiped out.

jaxtraw said @ 7:44am GMT on 7th Feb What makes you think they were wiped out? The modern Lebanese are descended from the Philistines, by the way.

writerguy_iu said @ 10:56am GMT on 7th Feb What book do you get your history from? Oh, wait... right... that one...

ebrawer said @ 11:01pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2 Informative] Just out of interest.

ar656 said @ 8:27am GMT on 7th Feb Oh, no! Next time you are going to tell us that Aryan also has meaning only as a reference to languages. Luis

todde said @ 11:46am GMT on 7th Feb A British wag who didn't much like us Hebrews once wrote: "How odd of G-d To choose the Jews" the reply: "But odder still are those who choose A Jewish G-d but hate the Jews."

foobar said @ 9:29pm GMT on 6th Feb I don't think it really matters to the people who lived where Israel is today that they aren't going any *further* with their theocracy.

housewares said @ 10:22pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:4 Funny] Yeah. The real threat is Iran burning down their own embassy I kid, I kid

captainstubing said @ 7:46am GMT on 7th Feb Although it would be an odd Jewish person who wanted to impose an Islamic theocracy.

samejima said @ 9:05pm GMT on 6th Feb yeah but will the holocaust be the jewish equivalent of mohammed with a bomb for a turban?

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:08pm GMT on 6th Feb Yeah, 'cos 11,000,000 systematic murders in a civilized country is just as laughable as some guy in the desert starting yet another monotheistic religion.

jaxtraw said @ 9:20pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:5 Insightful] Yes. I think the Iranians have really drawn a good parallel here. The Danes took the piss out of muslims for being murderers... so they're taking the piss out of jews for being murdered. Yes, that makes sense. Yes.

serenity said @ 10:05pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] Many people in the Middle East feel that the Israelis are the murderes with respect to their treatment of the Palestinians, and that Israel uses the Holocaust as a public relations tool to justify their actions today. The real issue here is whether or not it is illegal (actually socially acceptable) to print something that is a total slap in the face to a group of people. I think it's a great parallel and I think any major Western newspaper that prints anything that comes up in this Iranian contest will essentially commit suicide. I think most of this is common sense and people know it. In the United States today, it's not OK to bash blacks or Jews. The preliminary evidence suggests that bashing Muslims is probably OK, but we'll see.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:11pm GMT on 6th Feb To be honest, all the bad things Israel has done amount to a hill of beans in comparison to the Holocaust. I'm not excusing Israel's actions, I'm just saying one is far worse than the other.

pempek said @ 11:08pm GMT on 6th Feb good, good, boychick!

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 11:11pm GMT on 6th Feb ...my comment makes me a transsexual?

pempek said @ 11:48pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny] yes. i mean no. damn goyim to yiddish dictionary. s/b 'boychek' aww fuck it..

ar656 said @ 8:34am GMT on 7th Feb But, it was not Muslims, Arabs, or Palestinians who sent 6 million Jews, and 5 million others to extermiantion camps. Were White, European Christians who did that. And, as a consolation prize they gave the surviving relatives of those murdered land they stole from Palestinians. In any case. the nazis were stupid. If they wanted to kill all the Jews, they should have sent them to your city and force them to walk. At the rate pedestrians are killed there, in 20 years there would have been none left. Luis

jaxtraw said @ 9:10am GMT on 7th Feb And, as a consolation prize they gave the surviving relatives of those murdered land they stole from Palestinians. There has never been a Palestinian state, nation or people. "Palestine" was just a generic term for a runty bit of land which various people at various times have lived on, which has been incorporated into various empires at various times. The "Palestinians" are descended in the main from very recent settlers, settled there from other nations as an attempt to counter the growing jewish presence in the last century. The last people prior to the jews who owned that land was my people, the British Empire, the last in a long list of empires who administrated it. As such, when it was decided to give it to the jews as a homeland, it wasn't being stolen from anyone. It had been won in a war from the Ottomans (the Ottomans unwisely sided with the Germans in WWI) and then it was made into Israel. There was never any nation of Palestine to steal it from. The jews didn't have any particular inherent right to it, but neither did anybody else.

ar656 said @ 9:22am GMT on 7th Feb There has never been a Londonian state, nation or people. So, the UK government could have, very well, given London to the Jews, and it was up to Londoners to fend for themselves. They could have been absorbed by the rest of England, and Wales and Scotland. Curiosly enough, they did not give London, Berlin, or Vienna to the Jews. Luis

jaxtraw said @ 9:39am GMT on 7th Feb Well, if the Ottoman empire had conquered Britain, yes, they could have given it to anybody they damned well liked. But they didn't. As to Brtain giving London to the jews- the jews didn't want London. London also has a long cultural continuity as the capital of England/Britain. Palestine doesn't have a long cultural continuity, period. Your mistaken belief is that "Palestine" was a recognisable entity that suddenly the Jews appeared from nowhere and took it off its inhabitants. Until the issue of Zionism came up, it hardly had any inhabitants, and those that were there were a mixture of all sorts of people, including jews. As I said, the jews didn't have any particular rights to it, but neither did anybody else, whereas in the case of London there has at any given point been a large indigenous population who would have to be displaced to give it to the jews. If it wasn't for the deep-seated Arab hatred of the jews, there'd be no issue about Israel. It's a tiny runty little bit of land of no particular value. They only started shifting arab settlers in because they didn't want the jews to have it, on principle, and for purely ethnic/racist reasons. Remember, none of the nations in that area have any particular claim to be there. Jordan, for instance, was just another area of the British mandate- the trans-jordan. Israel has at least as much right to exist as Jordan does.

ar656 said @ 9:52am GMT on 7th Feb The myth of Palestine being a desert, a "land without people" that could be given to "a people without land" contradicts history. If that was the case, then one cannot understand why the Jewish settlers had to massacre the locals in order to get established. http://www.ap-agenda.org/schulter/01_03.htm http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/massacres/3.htm http://www.deiryassin.org/mas.html http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/destroyed_villages1948/index.htm And, of course, none of those nations (including Jordan and Saudi Arabia) did exist as countries or even homogenous entities before WWII. They were all invented by Great Britain. And Great Britain, left a mess behind. Which was not the first time they did. Luis

jaxtraw said @ 9:57am GMT on 7th Feb It's not a myth. As I said, by 1948 there were quite a lot of non-jews there, a majority in fact, but they were mainly recent settlers, not "palestinians" with a long history of living in "palestine". They were settled there specifically to counter the migration of jews to the area.

ar656 said @ 10:29am GMT on 7th Feb So you are saying that most of the people living in Palestine in 1945 were not Palestinians? Do you have any reference to that? Because after having read outrageous claims of car accidents by another Israeli sympathizer one becomes a bit skeptic. Luis

jaxtraw said @ 10:34am GMT on 7th Feb I'm not an "Israeli sympathiser". I'm not in favour of either side in this. I'm just pointing out that the majority of people living in Palestine, both muslim and jewish, were recent settlers rather than "palestinians", which would imply some kind of cultural continuity. Nobody's going to get anywhere until they fling away their preferences and myths and imaginary histories and starts looking at the reality of the situation. The whole concept of some kind of Palestinian nation or people is simply a fiction.

jaxtraw said @ 10:45am GMT on 7th Feb Or to put it another way, the only rational workable definition of "palestinian" is "somebody who lives in the area called palestine". As such there are some palestinians who call themselves Jews, but they are just as palestinian as those arabic speakers who live there. So when we talk of a "Palestinian state" we talk a nonsense, because there already is a palestinian state. It's called Israel.

ar656 said @ 11:03am GMT on 7th Feb With the problem that any goy living in the UK who converts to Judaism can go and live in the Palestinian state called Israel, but a non Jew who was born and raised in Palestine cannot live in the Palestinian state called Israel. He cannot live in the land his ancestors had worked for generations. I guess this sound to a nice solution to Europeans, but Palestinians have the right to not be impressed. Luis

dravenjoke said @ 10:59am GMT on 7th Feb do you live to write about Palestine, and to give regards to everyone?

ar656 said @ 11:32am GMT on 7th Feb I haven't given regards to anyone latley, after having been admonished by the SE crowd. Since I am the kind that succumbs easily to peer pressure, I decide to stop that practice. Luis

maryyugo said @ 11:58am GMT on 7th Feb "The real issue here is whether or not it is illegal (actually socially acceptable) to print something that is a total slap in the face to a group of people." oh jeez, congratulations. you just missed the whole point of free speech. all sort of things which are socially unacceptable are entirely legal in a free society. that's what the whole "freedom of speech and of the press" thing is about.

ar656 said @ 12:11pm GMT on 7th Feb One can also argue that the more socially unacceptable things you can do without fear of being punished is a good indication of how free the society is. And of course there have to be limits. The question is how far you can go before reaching the limit. Also important is when, and why you set those limits. Luis

todde said @ 1:53pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] Freedom of speech only really makes sense for controversial or offensive things. There's no need to defend things that nobody objects to. It's the unpopular, the socially unacceptable and the politically unreliable who need the protection of the law.

madrevelations said @ 10:15pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-5 Flamebait]

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:17pm GMT on 6th Feb The Jesus with the bomb was funny, that one just sucks.

unga-bunga said @ 11:46pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-1] Big fucking deal. The real horror is that Americans pay taxes for Israel.

AmericanTaxes4IsraelWelfare said @ 11:52pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-2] + Insightful

samejima said @ 9:03pm GMT on 6th Feb I'm scratching my head too!! I thought that the drawing was from denmark. Probably was a Jewish cartoonist right? All this at the time that the Israelis are looking for a reason to bomb the Iranian nuclear machinery. We really do want to just kill eachother don't we?

todde said @ 9:10pm GMT on 6th Feb The cartoonists were Danes, and I didn't notice any particularly Jewish sounding names among them. The paper is a fairly right-wing one, so Jews probably aren't terribly welcome. You're reaching, samejima.

samejima said @ 9:14pm GMT on 6th Feb ok, then again Roberto Benigni didn't get into a lot of trouble when he did life is beautiful, who knows this contest might come up with next year's best foreign film!!

JabberWokky said @ 10:51pm GMT on 6th Feb I love how they fucking managed to get Israel into this. I don't think they think of it that way. They believe that the United States and much of Western Europe is Jew controlled... this is a strike "back" at Europe (which is, of course, Jewish). It's the same mentality that the United States had for the latter half of the 1900s: the entire world was either happy democracies or evil communists. Anything else was lumped in one way or the other. Now it's all good Islamic nations or evil Jewish puppet nations.

ar656 said @ 11:55am GMT on 7th Feb I do not think that the USA is Jew controlled, and even less I think that of Europe. The USA is being directed by the Christian fundamentalists who have a stake in Israel. It is not the Jewish lobby, but the Christian lobby the main supporter of Israel. Luis

graham said @ 9:03pm GMT on 6th Feb Take that, Jews! Fucking retards...the lot of 'em.

graham said @ 9:03pm GMT on 6th Feb fucking no edit button... "lot of 'em" = everybody involved in this cartoon shit...not the jews.

SkitsoDragon said @ 9:22pm GMT on 6th Feb Agreed. If only they would just nuke Iran and kill the fuckers that were protesting in Europe.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:41pm GMT on 6th Feb If only solving the world's problems were that easy. Every bomb you drop will leave furious survivors with nothing left to lose.

Dioxin said @ 9:58pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2 Interesting] Every [nuclear] bomb you drop will leave furious survivors with nothing left to lose. Bombs can solve all our problems. Criminals harassing your neighbourhood? Bomb. Tech support pissing you off? Bomb. Babies stole your dingo? Bomb. Iran has all the oil? Bomb. It works for everything.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:00pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:3 Funny] Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Dioxin said @ 12:06am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:3 Funny] I'm all out, but that'll be solved as soon as I bomb the distributer.

ragazze said @ 10:24pm GMT on 6th Feb I think one of the problems is that Iran is developing problem solving technology.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:26pm GMT on 6th Feb We got enough to destroy civilization many times over, let's see them beat that!

Dioxin said @ 12:05am GMT on 7th Feb You know the solution? Bomb.

felix said @ 9:43pm GMT on 6th Feb you're an anti-dentite!

mattblue said @ 10:25pm GMT on 6th Feb +1 Seinfeld

felix said @ 10:55pm GMT on 6th Feb no soup for you!

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 11:15pm GMT on 6th Feb +1 sort of connected to the Holocaust

felix said @ 11:25pm GMT on 6th Feb you either! you both fail at se!

assbastard said @ 5:08am GMT on 7th Feb brue, you need to mod when you say +1 anything. It's just common sense. ...heh, kids, eh?

unga-bunga said @ 7:04am GMT on 7th Feb I feel cheated every time, too...

Saint_Marck said @ 9:06pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] If only we could get them to confine the entire conflict to the realm of cartoons.

samejima said @ 9:12pm GMT on 6th Feb you wonder what the staff meeting where they came up with this one was like? the crucifiction? NAH, Slavery?NAH, the irish potato famine?NAH, 9/11, maybe put that one to the side? the holocaust? that's it !!! that's it!!! you get a raise!!!!

maryyugo said @ 9:09pm GMT on 6th Feb the Iranian government's antenna doesn't receive all the stations

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:10pm GMT on 6th Feb I like the bit about Iran sending independent investigators to Europe to search for evidence of the Holocaust.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:21pm GMT on 6th Feb They should just talk to the Institute for Historical Review.

mflynn00 said @ 12:51am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] is that like OJ searching for the real killers?

maryyugo said @ 12:00pm GMT on 7th Feb yes. while abusing his current girlfriend.

serenity said @ 9:36pm GMT on 6th Feb The United States has a history of censoring anti-semitism and racism, particularly against blacks, that is declared as hate speech. I am not talking about private ads that whatever group may pay for. I am talking about the actual news source; such as a cartoon in the USA Today. Even scientific reseacrh has been completely torn out of journals when certain people became offended (see here for example). Now you may say, "but it's not illegal." Yeah right. I look forward to seeing the number of major newspapers in Germany that print anything showing the Holocaust in a positive light. Even the game Castle Wolfenstein was banned from the country.

serenity said @ 9:37pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 WTF] This is the link I was referring to: Scientific censorship

jaxtraw said @ 9:47pm GMT on 6th Feb I do find that quite shocking. I'd thought that at least in academic circles it would be acceptable to accept the terrifying reality that the Jews are genitcally similar to their neighbours. I mean, even mythically, Abram was just an ordinary bedouin (from "Ur of the Chaldees") until he got religion.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:48pm GMT on 6th Feb Don't you think the Palestinians would be more pissed?

jaxtraw said @ 9:56pm GMT on 6th Feb Than who?

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:57pm GMT on 6th Feb I mean don't you think Palestinians would be more pissed that they were so genetically identical? I may have just misread your statement, but I thought you were saying the Jews would be horrified by the similarity. If so, I apologize.

maryyugo said @ 12:02pm GMT on 7th Feb i think the average Palestinian doesn't know a gene from a gnome -- nor do they care.

ar656 said @ 12:54pm GMT on 7th Feb And that simple question highlights the ignorance about Palestinians. Palestinians cannot be more pissed off, because they have been pissed off for the last 60 years, and the world does not care, the Western countries do not care, the Arab countries do no care, and they are being used and disregarded by everybody, while everybody tells them thet they should compromised and accept the people who stole their land. Luis

arteitle said @ 10:33pm GMT on 6th Feb This article says that the journal article was removed due to inappropriately political content, not its scientific content or conclusions.

jaxtraw said @ 9:38pm GMT on 6th Feb I'm just sitting here trying to think of some "positive light" one could show on the Holocaust. nope, still thinking

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:42pm GMT on 6th Feb Curbing overpopulation, perhaps?

dravenjoke said @ 11:45pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] not funny dude. tell that to my grandma with the bullet in her head who saw her mother be killed.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:35am GMT on 7th Feb Not really meant to be funny, except perhaps in the sense of parody. I've heard people honestly proclaim that war is good because it prevents overpopulation.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:43pm GMT on 6th Feb Hitler would probably argue he was the Messiah, since he returned the Jews to the Holy Land.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:43pm GMT on 6th Feb You know, if he hadn't put a bullet through his twisted brain.

noone said @ 1:38am GMT on 7th Feb Yeah, see that is funny. And a cartoon by the Iranians about western culture having produced Hitler would be more of a parallel with the ones they are upset over. Somehow mix Hitler and Jesus and the parallel would be complete.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 2:06am GMT on 7th Feb Parallel to what? A madpride post?

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 2:07am GMT on 7th Feb I dunno, but my post wasn't supposed to be funny. I honestly think Hitler would've made that argument.

serenity said @ 9:49pm GMT on 6th Feb I know articles have been retracted in the United States before because they suggested that the holocaust did not happen to the exact degree people claim it did.

Naruki said @ 10:34pm GMT on 6th Feb And what, precisely, do you know about that?

serenity said @ 11:59pm GMT on 6th Feb I know that we are all complete hypocrites with the bullshit we preach at other people and cultures and our actual practices. This is really no different than any other issue. We chastise others on human rights while we have the death penalty and have people locked up in Guantanamo indefinietly without charge. We tell others to give freedom to their people while we forbid gay people from having true equal rights. We advocate women's rights while women get paid less than men in our public institutions for the exact same qulaifications. Etc, etc. Now we tell others to accept "freedom of speech" when we all know full well that our society restricts certain themes from our own press in actual practice.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:12am GMT on 7th Feb The death penalty is more humane that 60 years in prison with the constant threat of sodomy, I know that much. In my state gays get marraige and all that. We allowed Nazis to march in the city with the highest percentage of Jews. We allowed it when we knew they only wanted to march there because of the Jews. Holocaust deniers can spew their lies anywhere they want.

willrogers said @ 1:02am GMT on 7th Feb I'll have to find the article for you, but it was published recently and dispelled the myth about prison sodomy and rape. It's probably more likely that you get stabbed or killed than raped in prison.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:04am GMT on 7th Feb I've never read about prison sexuality being a myth, but that it was exagerrated. Even without the sodomy if you said "ok you can live in a set of rooms for the rest of your life, without any freedom whatsoever" or "you can be put to sleep", I'd choose the second.

Albert_Schweitzer said @ 1:18am GMT on 7th Feb Where there is life there is hope.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:21am GMT on 7th Feb Without the possibility of parole ftw. I guess I could hope for a jailbreak.

pempek said @ 9:43am GMT on 7th Feb Or you could hope for the downfall of the government that imprisoned you. Or maybe co-ed jails. Or a Thai Ladyboy blowjob champ for a cellmate.. whatever works.

ComposerNate said @ 5:44am GMT on 7th Feb If someone told me "ok you can live in a set of rooms for the rest of your life, without any freedom whatsoever," I would do what I had to and get some musical instrument and/or notation paper and go about my business.

unga-bunga said @ 7:07am GMT on 7th Feb Here, let me straighten out your facts for you.l

eIfish said @ 8:56am GMT on 7th Feb Did you actually read any of these accounts? The few I read described not rape, but violent homophobic overreaction to clumsy, desparate attempts at courtship. In all the accounts I read, the worst violence was perpetrated by the speaker. Any one of these would be ideal for a high-school class on the dramatic monologue.

jaxtraw said @ 10:13am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] I don't know how you can read them that way. Try going into a sleeping woman's room, starting to have sex with her, then explaining to the authorities it's just a clumsy, desperate attempt at courtship, and see where it gets you.

willrogers said @ 1:07am GMT on 7th Feb I agree with you that the US is hypocritical in many ways and I am not defending torture, inequality, or censorship in US in any way, BUT... There are many countries that are much worse and much more severe in these regards, so it is quite ignorant to equate US inequality or human rights violations with those of, say, China or Saudi Arabia. I would still rather live in the US than in any other nation in the world, including Canada with its speech codes.

Sinai said @ 12:33am GMT on 7th Feb Probably there were some technological advances due to the Holocaust. The Germans documentably spent a lot effort on finding better, more efficient ways to kill people. Also I'm pretty sure that scientists pored over some of the inhumane experiments taken place that they could never have ethically done, but in the name of science and human advancement, it behooves them to study the results. Arguably there was a good deal of natural selection in various especially persecuted populations which may or may not have been advantageous, but was at least interesting. Also, the backlash against the Holocause may have prevented other genocidal attempts from occuring in the nations influenced heavily by WWII. Genocide hasn't generally been attempted by such nations, although genocidal attempts of course still occur today in somewhat less civilized areas. Oh, and the Holocaust contributed to giving us a real, human, historical enemy that almost everyone can agree is evil and thus make great villains in video games. Oh, and Jews that live in Germany today can probably thank the Holocaust for their lives being practically free from anti-semitism. See, it's easy to think of silver linings.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:35am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:3 Insightful] Except in the video games any mention of the Holocaust is noticeably absent. Just once, I'd like to liberate a concentration camp.

assbastard said @ 5:12am GMT on 7th Feb My grandfather's army unit liberated a champagne factory from the nazis. Seriously. Among other things, of course.

captainstubing said @ 7:58am GMT on 7th Feb Now that's something I could fight for. Like a bloke I knew who was Navy, says he chose that because you go into battle with a fully stocked bar onboard.

Ashura_Stephanos said @ 7:45am GMT on 7th Feb There was one a couple of years ago... heard it sucked tho.

maryyugo said @ 12:04pm GMT on 7th Feb "Just once, I'd like to liberate a concentration camp." you have strange tastes. ever see the PBS videos of concentration camps and the victims? you'd want to be there (so to speak)? better hope they don't add scratch and sniff to video games.

willrogers said @ 1:11am GMT on 7th Feb "Also, the backlash against the Holocause may have prevented other genocidal attempts from occuring in the nations influenced heavily by WWII." Actually, Josef Stalin was preparing to start killing Jews and professionals (a la Khmer Rouge) right before he died, which was AFTER World War II.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:14am GMT on 7th Feb The guy won the war with a zerg rush. That's just cheap.

gos_jim said @ 1:20am GMT on 7th Feb I remember reading somewhere that it is estimated the work of Dr. Mengele in the concentration camps advanced medical science about 40 years.

dravenjoke said @ 1:21am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] how simply marvelous.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:23am GMT on 7th Feb I have the oddest feeling that it wasn't his work that advanced anything. The man was a sadist, and his work had very little to do with medicine or science.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:45pm GMT on 6th Feb Holocaust denial/revisionism is a crime in Germany.

Naruki said @ 10:33pm GMT on 6th Feb In Germany it IS illegal. The Human Immunology journal you mention chose to censor themselves because they were asshats, not because the US government required it. Blaming the US for one company's stupid actions is a bit weak.

Armageddon said @ 9:42pm GMT on 6th Feb

Barnabas_Truman said @ 9:45pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny] "You worship an unexploded nuclear missile?" "No one's that observant; it's mainly a Christmas and Easter thing."

strangeffect said @ 9:48pm GMT on 6th Feb That's not gonna be good for business. That's not gonna be good for anyone.

Naruki said @ 10:24pm GMT on 6th Feb Are there a lot of Iranian businesses patronized by non-Muslims?

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 10:41pm GMT on 6th Feb I patronize Iran all the time.

vahid said @ 1:19am GMT on 7th Feb yes.

bigjohnson said @ 9:49pm GMT on 6th Feb all religions are stupid...but islam has the most stupid people in it...well next to american-christianity

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 9:50pm GMT on 6th Feb American-christianity? I think you mean fundamentalist Christianity. Fundamentalists are the most dangerous folk in any religion.

Naruki said @ 10:41pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny] Or other philosophical groupings, like politics and sports. So my highschool coach who kept harping on the fundamentals? Terrorist.

Naruki said @ 10:18pm GMT on 6th Feb I guess nobody told them the Dutch were Christians?

Naruki said @ 10:22pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:2 Insightful] I guess nobody told me how to distinguish between Denmark and the Netherlands?

MuthaLovesYou said @ 10:21pm GMT on 6th Feb So the kickoff to the end of humanity is over a cartoon. Whatever advanced alien race that is watching life on earth for entertainment, and had "cartoon" in the office pool is going to win a shitload of money.

EndofHumanityCartoon said @ 10:36pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:-1 Flamebait]

Dioxin said @ 11:55pm GMT on 6th Feb When madpride says he's God, I have to believe him.

b said @ 10:23pm GMT on 6th Feb oh yah, this is mature. way to go iran, you're really showing those damn danes, with their butter cookies and their pastries and their milk maids.

b said @ 10:24pm GMT on 6th Feb wait, wait... is there a +1 stupid?

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 10:41pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Funny] is there a +1 milk maids?

b said @ 11:25pm GMT on 6th Feb i wish!

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 10:59pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:5 Funny] Well, that's my entry. I think I'll go sponge my brain out now...

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 11:09pm GMT on 6th Feb BTW - feel free to downmod. It's only right.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 11:11pm GMT on 6th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] If I could upmod, I would.

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 11:34pm GMT on 6th Feb Hang in there, kitty...

Naruki said @ 7:59am GMT on 7th Feb I'd whine about my self-imposed impotence, if I were you.

DetentionCamps said @ 11:02pm GMT on 6th Feb Bush Orders Vast New Detention Camps Want to split a duplex in British Columbia? Halliburton just received a $385 million contract from the Bush to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities." The contract calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when. I think the coming "natural disaster" is Bush getting impeached. Why is Halliburton getting hundreds of millions more dollars to built giant prisons? Who's going in there? Intellectuals, Jews, gypsies and teachers? "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, the famous former military analyst. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo." http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=eed74d9d44c30493706fe03f4c9b3a77

Dioxin said @ 11:56pm GMT on 6th Feb That's got nothing to do with anypride.

Sleepnotwork said @ 11:48pm GMT on 6th Feb Good on them. I'll take it over burning down Danish embassies.

dravenjoke said @ 11:48pm GMT on 6th Feb I honestly don't blame Islam. I blame the desert. I think the desert has just made these people crazy. If the Middle East was prodominently Christian, or Buddhist, or even fucking pagan, they would be blowing shit up in the name of Thor. Fucking desert.

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 12:04am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] I RECLAIM THIS HOLY LAND IN THE NAME OF THOR! [It's funny because they're Danish!]

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:09am GMT on 7th Feb +1 funny -1 historically inaccurate (they didn't have horns on their helms)

Sgt Harry 'Snapper' Organs.. said @ 12:18am GMT on 7th Feb I know, they were just burial goods. But, hell, how would you identify them in a print situation otherwise? Oooh, here be we, a grand an various seafaring race, with many technical accomplishments and a varied pantheon of gods? No. Stick to the horns....

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:26am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:2] I know, I was just being a dick.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 12:58am GMT on 7th Feb Of course, violently insane religious fanatics are hardly paragons of historical accuracy, are they? The minions of Al-Qaeda, for instance, should have threatened America by sneaking into the White House late at night, silently placing a traditional ceremonial dagger (and perhaps a list of demands) on Bush's pillow right next to his head, and sneaking out completely undetected, not by flying huge modern planes into huge modern buildings. They're completely missing out on the terrifying subtleties of the Hashishim and instead going for ineffective brute force methods.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:01am GMT on 7th Feb And I quote: 'I know, I was just being a dick.'

Barnabas_Truman said @ 1:20am GMT on 7th Feb Yeah, I know; I just thought I could start from your comment and go on a tangent to make an interesting point. In any case I think an inexplicable dagger on Bush's own pillow would be far more effective in scaring him than blowing up buildings in another state. The Hashishim really knew what they were doing. Or at least the Hashishim's leaders really knew what the Hashishim were doing.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:24am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] Yeah, and you'd definitely need to be on hash to even try to get in the White House.

insanemonkey said @ 9:41am GMT on 7th Feb Yeah, the leaders did. The Hashishim themsleves didn't have a clue. They thought they were going to the shop to get a mars bar.

blasphemy said @ 12:14am GMT on 7th Feb Fuck the Danes for being so arrogant and blindsided Fuck Iran for just being fucking radicals And Fuck Bush for destablizing the region I hope to God these events arent a sign of escalating things to come.

ir8 said @ 12:18am GMT on 7th Feb In a perfect world this entire conflict would move to insulting newspaper comic strips and continue that way forever. +1 No dirty bombs....yet.

blasphemy said @ 1:15am GMT on 7th Feb if only it were so

medyv said @ 12:39am GMT on 7th Feb Their reasoning makes perfect sense. If a right-wing Danish newspaper can publish cartoons insulting Muslims in the name of free speech, I don't see why a right-wing Islamic newspaper can't publish equally offensive cartoons insulting Jews and the victims of fascism. Or do we apply our standards of freedom of expression selectively to the West?

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:45am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:3 Insightful] I'd like to point you to jax's post above showing the ridiculousness of their "reasoning" (I use the word very loosely here). The Danes were pretty much saying "haha you blow up people in the name of Mohammed. Good one!". So the Iranians are pretty much saying "haha you were processed like cattle, sent in trains to camps and gassed to death in a slaughter unseen in the history of humanity! Good one!" One mocks victimizers, the other mocks the victims.

Sam_Clemens said @ 12:51am GMT on 7th Feb Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.

serenity said @ 12:53am GMT on 7th Feb The Iranians are pretty much saying, "You go out of your way to print shit that is a total slap in the face to over a billion people and then carelessly state it's in the name of freedom of expression, so let's see if you really mean it."

dravenjoke said @ 12:56am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:2] no, they didn't say that. they set fire to a building and danced in the street while screaming.

captainstubing said @ 8:06am GMT on 7th Feb C'mon draven, let's get angry and burn some shit down...you know you want to.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:57am GMT on 7th Feb No, they're not. If that were the case they'd attack the Danes or Christians, not attack an event that has nothing to do with the whole cartoon nonsense.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 12:58am GMT on 7th Feb And as a Catholic I'd have nothing against them mocking Jesus or Christians. I do find their attack on the Holocaust offensive.

serenity said @ 1:07am GMT on 7th Feb Jesus is a very holy prophet in Islam, so it doesn't make sense to mock him does it?

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:12am GMT on 7th Feb Bible Belt Christians are ripe for the mocking.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 1:22am GMT on 7th Feb I always thought that abbreviating "peace be upon him" to "PBUH" seemed ridiculous and somewhat insulting.

serenity said @ 1:04am GMT on 7th Feb The debate is about whether or not it should be illegal to publish things that are obviously offensive and are likely to incite hate. Many Western countries recently published the cartoons bashing Islam. It makes perfect sense for Iran to pick a topic that is taboo in these Western countries (such as anti-semitism or racism against blacks). It does not make sense to pick a topic that obviously will not generate a reaction with public sentiment (such as Danes).

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:07am GMT on 7th Feb I never said it should be illegal. It's stupid, immature, ridiculous, and offensive just for the sake of offending. But should I expect something more from a country whose "president" denies the very fact the Holocaust occurred?

serenity said @ 1:15am GMT on 7th Feb "It's stupid, immature, ridiculous, and offensive just for the sake of offending." Hey we agree on something. (As long as you feel the Danish newspaper was stupid, immature, ridiculous, and offensive just for the sake of offending) If you don't because you feel there is some truth behind the Islam-bashing cartoons then take a moment to realize the hypocrisy.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:19am GMT on 7th Feb Criticizing people who use their religion as an excuse to blow "infidels" up isn't offensive just for the sake of offending, nice try though. I don't know if you follow the news, but there are Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their religion. It's not hypocrisy to not care that Danes print critical cartoons, while staunch antisemites make Holocaust cartoons. How do you criticize the Holocaust? "Should've fought harder, pussies"? "Learn how to hold your breath"?

serenity said @ 1:33am GMT on 7th Feb I don't know if you follow the demographics of the world, but there are over a billion Muslims who do not blow themsleves people. Obviously when cartoons depict Muslims as being evil it may offend anyone who is Muslim. I also don't know if you followed the recent news when the Islam bashing cartoons were published. Many politicians and newspapers came out and said that, "Islamic countries need to lighten up because we are not going to restrict freedom of expression just because it offends you." The issue is not the specific subject that is targetted in the cartoon (Islam, Holocaust, etc.). It is about whether or not printing things that are going to incite hate should be accepted. I agree that it shouldn't be illegal, but I feel it is stupid, ridiculous, and immature to go out of your way to mock entire cultures. Just my opinion. Religion, ethinicity, and nationality are all arbitrary groups man has invented to separate "us" and "them". It is hypocrisy to accept one form hate against a given group but not towards another. But man hasn't matured enough to see that I guess.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:38am GMT on 7th Feb It isn't hate to point out that some people use Islam as a tool for destruction. People point it out for Christianity all the time. There are plenty of Christians who don't want to persecute people on different faiths, but there ARE STILL CLOSE-MINDED CHRISTIANS. You think that the good Muslims negate the bad? No. The Danish satire is valid. Making cartoons about the Holocaust isn't. They come across as children trying to push more buttons, as opposed to making a satirical point.

serenity said @ 1:45am GMT on 7th Feb When I see a Western cartoon in a major paper of Martin Luther King Jr. plagerizing his speeches or the Pope molesting a child then we'll have something that we can directly compare. I don't think you comprehend what it means in Islam to depict the prophet Muhammad as being evil. It is every bit as serious to many Muslims as making fun of the Holocaust is to Jews.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 1:48am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:2 Insightful] They're not mocking Mohammed, they're mocking the very belief that this guy would happily allow you in to Paradise after blowing up innocents. I don't think you understood the cartoons.

maryyugo said @ 12:09pm GMT on 7th Feb +1 excellent. exactly. and obviously not evident to the rioting Muslims.

jaxtraw said @ 8:20am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] Firstly, the fact that muslims foolishly deify somebody and expect everybody else to just shows them to be silly, just as christians are silly for worshipping the corpse of an executed man or the jews are silly for believing their friend in the sky wants them to cut bits off their childrens' genitalia. All these things are very silly and the last thing they deserve or should get is respect. But the main issue here is, you're comparing apples and oranges. The jews don't deify or worship or glorify the Holocaust. It's not an article of faith. It's a terrible event that happened in the recent past, not part of their religion. It's simply not the same kind of thing as a prophet. Taking the piss out of Abraham or Moses would be comparable to taking the piss out of Mohammed. The holocaust is simply not comparable.

ebrawer said @ 9:04am GMT on 7th Feb As I understand it, the rules in judaism had some rational basis (3000-2000 years ago). No eating porc was because people at the time shat in the streets, and then pigs would eat the shit. Eating pigs would thus result in disease. Circumcision is a hygene thing today, but I'm not sure if it had any rational basis.

jaxtraw said @ 9:22am GMT on 7th Feb None of it had any rational basis. The people who became Israel emerged from the hill country and were sheep farmers. Their tribal enemies, the biblically reviled Canaanites, were more prosperous and advanced and lived in the valleys and coastal regions, and among other things ate pork. There's no evidence whatsoever that they were less healthy as a result. The food hygiene issue is a retcon to explain the prohibition on various foods- the reality is that the laws created by the priesthood as they set up their theocracy were in many cases just codifications of differences between them and their neighbours- e.g. what clothes you can wear (no mixed fibres or fringed garments). The Canaanites eat pork, so we don't on principle. They wear fashionable patterned and fringed garments, so we don't on principle. And so on. Circumcision never had any rational basis, other than as a means of marking jews as different to those reviled neighbours. It was all just about preserving "otherness" and tribal purity. Us and them. Hence, also, the priestly creation of an imagined mythical history of empire and conquest and struggle against the evil Other People. It worked very well, far beyond (one would imagine) what even the priests expected. All those other tribes have long dissolved into the mists of history- but Israel remains.

jaxtraw said @ 9:25am GMT on 7th Feb Just to add further on circumcision- it wasn't a hygiene issue then and it isn't a hygiene issue now. IMV it's disgusting that it's still being practiced, and as I believe the state has a duty to protect children from abuse, it should be immediately and rigorously banned.

shawnwilkesbooth1 said @ 10:55am GMT on 7th Feb ...it's easier to keep your whang clean without a foreskin.

jaxtraw said @ 11:15am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] And if you chopped off your toes, you wouldn't have to clean them either. How desperate to avoid washing are you?

maryyugo said @ 12:16pm GMT on 7th Feb your toes have foreskins? and moist, easily infected mucosa underneath? (this is *not* defending circumcision in this day and place)

maryyugo said @ 12:14pm GMT on 7th Feb "None of it had any rational basis." that's just silly. and wrong. many dietary "laws" had basis in the observations that people died of disease after violating them. pork was prohibited because of the now almost extinct round worm disease trichinosis which causes horribly painful disability and death. that disease still kills people and killed large numbers worldwide until the 1950's. similarly, shellfish were banned because they spoil easily and sometimes undetectably and so on. and it *is* easier to keep a foreskin-less prick clean and free of vermin and infections in the desert when you can't wash for weeks. none of that excuses carrying these practices into an era and places in which they no longer apply and can cause inconvenience and harm.

jaxtraw said @ 12:58pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] I would argue that those are retrospective explanations for the jewish dietary laws, rather than definitive explanations of why they began. I was told them at school too. But there isn't anywhere in a text or ancient inscription where somebody says "we're going to ban pork because of trichosis". All there is is an assumption, from a modern perspective, that there must have been some reason that the laws were introduced and that seemed plausible. Archaelogy shows that their Canaanite neighbours ate lots of pigs (as did most other ancient people) and there's no evidence that their health was any poorer than the Israelites in the hills' health. Since there are so many irrational Levitican laws which are clearly intended purely as cultural markers (the clothing regulations being a good example) it makes more sense to look for a cultural explanation rather than a medical one. Besides all else, we must remember how basic their understanding of the physical world was. They had no concept of disease as a physical thing which is carried from sufferer to sufferer, let alone any idea of germs or disease being caused by parasites. They saw disease exclusively as a supernatural thing, brought down upon sufferers by supernatural powers. Hence, in the biblical story where the Israelites moan about the food, and God sends them "quails from the sea", and they all get ill, it's not seen as food poisoning- it's the wrath of God. As to the justifications for circumcision, that saddens me enormously that somebody as rational as you would believe them. A "foreskin-less prick" is open to the elements, which is why evolution went to all that trouble of evolving it. It's designed to protect the glans penis and as I'm sure you're aware, the human body has an excellent immune system that doesn't need drastic surgery to work. It's pretty ludicrous to suggest that the body would evolve a protection for the penis that actually harms it. Additionally, we must remember the very high risk of permanent damage to the penis, and of infection and death, which would certainly outweigh any minor health advantages of cleanliness. I have a nice picture of a post-circumcision baby with necrotising fasciitis and gangrenous testes you may like to see. Deserts are dry, arid places where there's no particular issue of cleanliness of the penis (no doubt some pro-mutilators will produce some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, though). Additionally, the ancient jews weren't desert dwellers. They never wandered around for 40 years in the Sinai. They lived in the palestinian hills, with their sheep and goats. Millions of other semi-nomadic hill farmers have managed fine without chopping off their foreskins. Circumcision is first recorded being done to slaves by the Egyptians. Why the Israelites picked up on it, we cannot know, other than again it's a cultural marker (primitive peoples often go in for bodily mutilations as cultural makers). Again, the idea that it's to prevent infection makes no sense, since they had no concept of infection. If you got a mouldy penis, that would be God's will. It's probable that both Yahweh and circumcision were imported to the area by the various peoples who were wandering through, some of whom settled and joined the barbarians in the hills. These various practices became culturally imbedded, and eventually declared the will of Yahweh when he was elevated to chief God. As we can clearly see then, all these practices are merely cultural identifiers, and no "medical" explanations are required, nor indeed satisfactory.

maryyugo said @ 2:12pm GMT on 7th Feb both views can be argued. but you misundertood me. i was not attributing modern knowledge to primitive cultures. i don't have time to get as far into this as you. i do think it's possible that primitive people could link eating pork and shellfish to diseases. someone travelling might notice it when in a different culture that certain diseases are absent or present. you don't need to know how the disease works to make the observation. i have no opinion on studies of who was healthy -- i think it's mostly irrelevant. as to circumcision and evolution, if you know of studies please cite them. far as i know, evolution sometimes leaves vestiges. i don't know any evidence that the foreskin is particularly protective or necessary. that has nothing to do with it's being fun. in a desert culture, water and washing are at a premium. or maybe screwing camels causes infections. i really don't know and i doubt that you do.

jaxtraw said @ 2:35pm GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] With all due respect, (and to be honest I should be working but SE is good displacement activity) I really don't think you've thought at all about what you just wrote about the foreskin. To suggest it's a "vestige" is as ludicrous as suggesting that the nose or eyelids are an evolutionary vestige- and one doesn't need a medical study to realise its obvious function as a protective sheath for the delicate membranes of the penis. It has a stimulative sexual function (it's packed full of nerves that are denied the victims of circumcision). It's designed to lubricate the penis (this is of course why circumcised males require lube just to masturbate). When not involved in sex, it protects the penis, which is a very sensitive organ- until you hack off its protective sheath, which results in it being desensitised through the daily abuse of exposure to the elements. The evidence is in its presence on the human body. To suggest that such a clearly well adapted organ is somehow vestigial is, well, just ludicrous. I repeat that the ancient Jews were not desert dwellers. Very few people live in deserts. That's why they're called deserts- because they're deserted. The ancient jews lived in the hills, with their animals and, simply put, if you haven't got enough water to wash your cock your sheep aren't going to live very long. I admit I get rather polemical and agitated on the issue of circumcision because it appalls me. One thing that saddens me most is how dismissive women frequently are, often advocating this mutilation on arbitrary aesthetic grounds(!). If it were little girls routinely having their genitals hacked about, the feminist movement would, quite rightly, be screaming from the rooftops about it- as they do regarding ritual clitoridectomy. It's understandable that women can't understand the issue, because it's a part of the anatomy they don't share, just as men can't understand what it's like to have a clitoris or breasts. But to dismiss it as "you can't prove it's any use" appalls me. Put simply, I really do know why it's protective and necessary- because I own one. Take a lookee here, particularly at pics 29-33 (photos of penises, not safe for work probably).

willrogers said @ 1:39am GMT on 7th Feb That may be what the Iranians are saying, but what they are saying is totally wrong, at least from my perspective. I have not seen all of the cartoons, but the ones I have seen depict Mohammed with a bomb over his head and Mohammed receiving terrorists in Heaven. Iranians will see them as implying that Mohammed and/or all Muslims are terrorists, but the cartoons seem to actually be satirical critiques of Muslim terrorists and their justifications and rationalizations, e.g. Mohammed would support their Jihad, Suicide bombing will result in heavenly reward, encroachment into Muslim territories and Muslim culture by Western nations justifies violence, etc. These cartoons seem to actually defend Muslims and their religion against being associated with fundamentalist terrorists, who probably literally believe the cartoons as part of their dogma.

medyv said @ 10:43am GMT on 7th Feb You've missed the point completely. Who or what the different cartoons insult is totally irrelevant; they're both calculated defamations of a group of people. The issue is whether they should be defended for doing so in the name of freedom of expression. The vast majority of people here have supported the right of the Danish newspaper to do so (again, irrespective of whether or not they hate Muslims), yet the same standard is obviously not being applied to Iran.

jaxtraw said @ 10:53am GMT on 7th Feb I'm applying the same standard. They can publish what they're like as far as I'm concerned. And I reserve my right to think they're a bunch of twats for doing so, also.

dravenjoke said @ 1:03am GMT on 7th Feb "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/06/cartoon.protests/index.html gag.

assbastard said @ 5:15am GMT on 7th Feb On The Colbert Report tonight, Colbert said that he wasn't going to show the cartoons on the ethical grounds that they're fucking scared to.

vahid said @ 1:17am GMT on 7th Feb right argument, wrong target. Asswipes.

cympltun said @ 2:07am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:4 Insightful] There isn't a jew alive that isn't welcoming a war of jokes with iran. Note to mullah: The idea is to attack using your strength against your opponents weakness. Not the other way around.

Barnabas_Truman said @ 3:10am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] Any race that is oppressed for that long must learn to laugh at itself as a safeguard against going collectively insane. I've studied Jewish humour--Iran doesn't stand a chance.

IllCom said @ 2:22am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Funny] omg!

punchopenpunchclose said @ 4:54am GMT on 7th Feb Somebody paste an american, (any) european, and chinese soldier in there instead. Nobody likes the disney land trifecta. Not even read meat whitebread americans and eurotrash.

carrotboi said @ 2:37am GMT on 7th Feb they're just cartoons and words, get over it everybody. denounce islam and you won't have to burn embassies...i hope

tragic said @ 2:52am GMT on 7th Feb Why couldnt they have just made cartoons in response to start with, rather than going on riots?

ar656 said @ 12:24pm GMT on 7th Feb Why do people think of "Muslims" like they are a billion geese all flying the same direction? In Indonesia, for example there are 100 million Muslims, and those manifesting on the streets were less than two hundred. There were no riots in Iran, and no embassies burnt. But in Pakistan, where illiteracy is rampant, thousands participated and surely thousands more would have if they had been able to read the panflets inciting to the riot. No riots in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the Emirates. Luis

maryyugo said @ 2:15pm GMT on 7th Feb good points. poverty, unemployment, lack of education and ignorance, as much as religiosity, play into the motivation of rioters. and in many of the countries where the riots took place, law enforcement is crude, violent, non-technological and primitive as are the courts and the whole legal system.

cardinal said @ 4:39am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Underrated] I think they should publish the Jew cartoons, the Islamic cartoons, the Jesus cartoons, the Pagan cartoons, the fucking everything. Hell, let's get some AIDS in there too (I live in South Africa, it's a sensitive topic for me, you know that "Everyone has AIDS!" song in Team America? A lot of people walked out of the cinema.) The sooner we can all laugh at ourselves, the better.

Kal said @ 4:44am GMT on 7th Feb I agree. If we're going to be tasteless then it has to be all or nothing. You simply can't say it's alright to publish an image that degrades someones god, but it's not alright to publish an image that makes light of the holocaust when the entire problem with publishing an image that degrades someones god was that it was necessary to allow it so that freedom of speach/the press could continue. If we can't all learn to laugh at eachother then this will certainly end badly. Hopefully the Jewish communities shall have enough good sense to take this on the chin and laugh it off, showing the Iranians a good example of how it should be done.

ComposerNate said @ 6:44am GMT on 7th Feb [Score:1 Insightful] "If, say, in the middle of Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark unveiled a giant bronze statue of Mohammed on his knees getting teabagged by a smiling, standing Jesus Christ as throngs of gathered Danes, all hoisting sugary Danishes in the air, sang, "There Is a Lovely Land" before they pelted Mohammed and his scrotum-filled mouth with thousands of sticky buns, well, shit, okay, then we'd have something to talk about. But the thuggery that's being done allegedly in the name of a few shitty sketches of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper is smoke and mirrors, a bullshit blow-up over a few bullshit cartoons that a bunch of bullshit opportunists used to create bullshit advantage to their bullshit causes. Such utter nonsense, because not only are the cartoons themselves six months old, but Mohammed's kisser's been "depicted" since, you know, say, the start of Islam. So, hey, hush, don't let anyone know that Mohammed's one of the Super Best Friends on South Park or they might start burning Cartman in effigy. The majority of the riots went something like this: Some idiot with a megaphone yells how everyone needs to show how much they love them some Mohammed. One guy tells another guy in the protest crowd that he loves Mohammed more. Guy 1 says, no; in fact, he loves Mohammed more. Guy 2 says oh, yeah, he'll show you how much he loves Mohammed, and Guy 2 breaks a window. Guy 1 says, fuck you, fucker, he'll show you how he loves Mohammed more, and launches a Molotov cocktail through the broken window. Guy 3 announces that there's shit to steal and all hell breaks loose, as man with megaphone looks on proudly. This is not to mention whoever sent megaphone man out there in the first place." - The Rude Pundit http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

incpenners said @ 7:04am GMT on 7th Feb I'm given to understand that a carving of Muhammed adorns the exterior of the US Supreme Court building Does that mean we're next? Wait a minute!

Nihil said @ 7:58am GMT on 7th Feb ROFL. As much as I'd like to see the whole Iranian theocracy getting a good kick in the ass, I have to say I'm starting to respect Ahmadinejad. He isn't a cleric, yet rallied enough popular support through both religious and secular arguments to win the elections against a whole bunch of them. He consolidated that support by publicly pissing off the Western powers, knowing fully well that the USA already have a handful in Iraq and that neither USA nor Israel nor Europe will ever send nukes at him, unless he strikes first. As the UN are about to assemble and decide what to do with Iran's nuclear threat, he keeps silent and dodges the cartoon trap (he can do that since Shi'ites aren't iconoclasts): adding to the choir of protests would have made him look even more like a rabid fundamentalist than before. And now he answers it (the newspaper is his) in a non-violent way, yet one that pleases the Arab masses. Nerdy conclusion: if I were a Ventrue, I'd Embrace him ASAP.

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.