Bush, Rice told to ‘shut up’ over cartoon issue

[sabra]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11251690/

Bush, Rice told to ‘shut up’ over cartoon issue
Hezbollah leader speaks to huge protest after Bush urged calm

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims transformed a religious ceremony in Lebanon on Thursday into an emotional but peaceful protest against cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

“Defending the prophet should continue worldwide,” Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, told the crowd. “Let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.”

“Today, we are defending the dignity of our prophet with a word, a demonstration but let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ... we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices,” Nasrallah added.

Rice on Wednesday accused Iran and Syria, both backers of Hezbollah and at loggerheads with the West, of deliberately stoking rage among Muslims.

[Catch22Dem]

1. Anyone who defends their prophet with blood is a fucking loon

End of story.

[rooboy]

5. Imagine living in a world where all you heard...

was Ann Coulter-like rants from every adult you know, every tv show you watch and every newspaper you read, from birth until you're dead. It's no wonder they're loons. :(

[jobycom]

7. Sounds like America. nt.

[krkaufman]

37. No, not really. I doubt you'd find a DU. n/t

[MaraJade]

47. You've hit the nail squarely on the head!

And that's what our nation will be like if the "Ann Coulters" over here get their way.

Just imagine.

Or better yet, don't.

[jobycom]

6. What values is it sane to defend with blood, then? Freedom, democracy?

Aren't we saying exactly the same thing about a couple of goddamn cartoons? "We will defend our right to draw squiggly lines on paper to offend your most deeply held beliefs with our blood!" That's loony, too.

Every nation believes it is the sane one. We defend our values with our blood, they defend their values with their blood. Our Founders who slaughtered millions of Native Americans defended their values with blood. Columbus, Hitler, Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Robespierre... The whole damn world was built on people defending their values with blood.

I once believed the unique aspect of America was that it respected other people's values even when it did not understand them. Wrong-o, I guess. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with blood--unless I just don't understand why you are saying it, then you'd better watch your ass!

I'm sick of this nation. We are the most arrogant race of humans this planet has ever seen. Even the xenophobic Greeks would be stunned at our hubris. Hubris invariable brings a nation down, and I can no longer see a reason this nation should suffer a different fate.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. Freedom and democracy? Of course!

Unverifiable religious claims about someone's status as a prophet? Not worth the bloodshed.

[jobycom]

24. They would argue that your religion is a myth, too.

You have no freedom, no democracy. All you can do is what the government allows you to do. We have created an American myth and been made fundamentalists willing to die and kill for it. Our myth makes no sense to them, theirs makes no sense to us. Just more tools for tyrants to use to whip us into a bloody frenzy.

Dying for the whims of leaders, that's all any war or rebellion is about. Our leaders are playing this to the hilt just to make our "enemy" seem less human, so we are more likely to attack. Same old song. "They are bayonetting babies in the streets, they are dumping infants from incubators, they are building human shredding machines, they are rioting over a cartoon..." Same old lies, same old crap. Our brainwashing makes us feel superior to anyone different, that's all this is about.

[Bill McBlueState]

27. redefining things

You can use a broader definition of "religion" than I was using to make your statement true, but the belief that "the United States is a democracy" is a different bird from "a particular figure from the seventh century had direct contact with a god."

One can be evaluated and maybe falsified by assessing the facts; the other is unfalsifiable.

[jobycom]

39. From the inside it looks that way.

When you are inside a belief, you can't see it from the outside. We can claim that Muhammad had no direct contact with God, because we say it in the most literal sense, and don't believe in a literal God (I don't, I'm guessing you don't from your posts). Like any religion, though, there are Muslims who do not consider God as literal, but rather as a myth to describe a higher truth they can't define. How would you say that something which created existence exists, for instance? What would existence mean in that sense? On a higher level, the question of a literal God becomes irrelevant--religion is a way to personify abstract and undefinable concepts. Why are we here? Is it better to be good or bad? Is there some reason to be good when being bad gets you so much more? I would answer that question in terms of science--for instance, society is built on a mutual trust and cooperation between all humans, and when that fails, society suffers in a way that harms all individuals. But that's too abstract for many, so the concept of Heaven and Hell, or divine retribution and reward on Earth, is much easier to get across to people. There are Muslims who would agree with this. For them, Muhammad is the personification of their culture, their beliefs, right and wrong. He exists as a myth exists, as some in America claim our flag or our Constitution exist. They defend any violation of the system of beliefs he has given them.

When I say democracy is a myth, I don't mean just that it can be rigged, as in 2000. I mean that the idea that we choose our government, our destiny, is a myth. We don't know who we are voting for. Candidates claim they will do one thing and do another. They create a false front to win a vote then do what they want once the govern. We aren't governed by the people, we are governed by a handful of people we rarely meet, and who don't generally care what we want. They adjust their plans and goals to win our approval in polls and elections, but the adjustments are rarely major adjustments. This is not much different than the way most other governments operate. In any government the leader has to worry about the will of the people. Will they rebel? Will they become less productive? A local governor or duke or whatever who can't make his subjects happy and productive will be replaced. A head of state who can't be productive will be overthrown by someone with more ability--either violently, or by whatever ruling class choses the leader.

Take Iraq. Hussein could not make his nation profitable or the lives of his people comfortable, yet he survived, so this is a seeming contradiction. But Hussein brought a level of stability Iraq had not had before. He kept together several factions by ensuring that none of them gained strength over the other. This was the best they could hope for, and though most people didn't like it, or like Hussein's methods, they did not rebel or overthrow him because no side felt the reward of doing so was worth the risk. Now we have established a "democracy" in Iraq. But the democracy is dominated by the dominant group, and the other groups are oppressed, and don't like the new system, and in order to maintain a semblance of peace the new leaders have to do the same things that the old leaders did. Democracy in itself hasn't changed anything.

Take America. We have been successful from the start because of our resources. In the beginning, only 15% or so of people could vote. Before 1965, a third of the nation was enslaved. Until women's sufferage, half the nation was ineligible to vote no matter what race. Until the 1970s, blacks were effectively prevented from voting. Yet our government has done essentially the same things the whole time. Democracy is a symbolic concept--it means we have an equal standing in our country, and we have some say in how our leaders are chosen, but the beauracracy, the nuts and bolts of government, and even the pool we choose our leaders from is little affected by it. They could be chosen by an aristocracy and we'd have largely the same results. Some would argue they have been chosen by an aristocracy all along.

I'm not saying democracy is meaningless. It involves the citizens in the government, and thus makes the government more quickly responsive to the people, and often with less violence. But it really doesn't give us much that other people haven't had. We may vehemently hate Bush, but what does he really do to us that makes us hate him? He kills people we don't often know, like all leaders. He reduces our level of comfort through bad management (but even in poverty our level of comfort far exceeds that of many places in the world). He really doesn't do much to us, he just runs things poorly. Whether we survive or fall as a nation really doesn't have a lot to do with him, it has more to do with out resources and capital base.

Yet we maintain the myth that our democracy is sacred and that it is the way we control our destinies. "Myth" doesn't mean false. Itis just a story that has been so often told that it's meaning is in the telling and not in reality. Same as religions, same as Muhammad.

I doubt anyone's still reading or even understanding me here. I guess what angers me about the elitist attitude on DU that Muslims have no right to their beliefs is the sheer "American Supremacy" attitude. I grew up in the South with similar arguments about why black people didn't deserve an education, or why their desire to vote was just silly because they weren't smart enough to, and all of that supremacist crap. Now we have the same attitude towards Islam. We had it towards the Native Americans, towards Spain, towards Japan, towards Viet Nam, towards every other group we have decided to attack. It's the attitude that makes war possible. "We know better than those silly little people with those irrational beliefs." Some of the smartest minds that have ever existed believed in Muhammad. We have algebra, we have medicine and science, we have love songs and poetry, we even have Greek and modern philosophy, because people who believed that Muhammad heard the words of God also believed that these intellectual exercises were worthy pursuits. To belittle these great minds because they believe something we don't is the height of arrogance.

[iverglas]

42. I did!

I doubt anyone's still reading or even understanding me here. I guess what angers me about the elitist attitude on DU that Muslims have no right to their beliefs is the sheer "American Supremacy" attitude.

And to summarize: what I think trumps what you think because I say so. I win, because I make the rules. And fuck you if you don't agree.

That works only as long as one has the big stick to back up the fuck you with. Because that's the only way one is going to win in the real world against people who don't agree that you get to make the rules.

Why bother engaging in discussion of what the rules should be, let alone agreeing that sometimes they should be something you don't like, if you've got the biggest stick?

But only a fool is surprised when somebody else pulls out a stick too.

[mom cat]

13. The article said that it was a peaceful protest.

[Catch22Dem]

22. Yeah, I read that part. Then I read...

"if we have to ... we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices"

Anyone who takes any religion that seriously has a severe disconnect with rational thought.

[mom cat]

26. I have to agree with you. All fundmentalism that spews any hatred

is an abomination.

[Mr. Peanut]

29. I'm sure what they really mean...

is "defend our prophet with your blood..."

[High Plains]

31. Anyone who dismisses religious belief out of hand

and sneers at the religions of others has a severe arrogance problem.

[Catch22Dem]

32. And anyone who relies on religion so heavily

That they're willing shed blood to "protect" it (apparently even from cartoons) is diluted and has a severe self confidence problem. Don't mistake my enlightenment for arrogance. Religion has been that which has divided us all and has killed more people than any other "idea." Spirituality comes from within. Organized religion is a sham.

[mitchum]

33. But religion is IRRATIONAL

[MetaTrope]

38. Perhaps religion would be less vital to them if they earned more than

$4,000 a year on average?

[adigal]

14. The cartoons WERE very disrespectful of their religion

and I have NO problem with peaceful protests over this - although there are many other things they could be concerned with. But I am with you - once your protests turn violent, you lose all credibility. That is why the NYPD has undercover agents trying to stoke violence when there are protests in NYC. To give the protestors a bad name.

[Igel]

18. The cartoons were very disrespectful of their religion.

I think I accepted this claim without actually considering whether it was true.

The more I think about it, the less I'm sure. I'm one of those fools that believe that disrespect must be intended. "Accidental disrespect" is a misunderstanding. Many Muslims certainly interpreted the cartoons as being wilfully disrespectful of their religion. Any word on how the Danish cartoonists intended them to be interpreted?

On the one hand a picture of a Muhammed with a bomb under his turban could be saying, "I, the cartoonist, assert that Muhammed was a terrorist." Or I could be saying, "I, the cartoonist, assert that at least some people have made Muhammed into a terrorist." I could probably come up with more interpretations, but those strike me as the most likely: Islam's claimed to be a religion of peace with a few bad apples nobody can deal with, but van Gogh was killed by a self-professed faithful Muslim claiming to be acting in accordance with Muhammed's words soon before the cartoon was drawn.

[megatherium]

20. The cartoons the Danish paper published were relatively

innocuous -- but when these were circulated by Islamist radicals, they included several nastier cartoons not published by the Danes. (Per NY Times editorial a couple of days ago.)

[iverglas]

43. have you answered my question yet?

Or do you get to just go on pretending you never heard it?

Any word on how the Danish cartoonists intended them to be interpreted?

Any reasonable, good faith claim possible that they could have thought they would NOT be interpreted as insulting, degrading and bigoted?

Anyone here not apply the notion that people are presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions in his/her own life? As I said before: what did you think would happen if you left the dog home alone? (Well I just thought it would watch TV all day and it simply never occurred to me that it would eat your shoes ...)

Anyone who claimed not to have anticipated that "cartoons" such as some of the ones published would be interpreted as insulting, degrading and bigoted would not come within the class of reasonable people of good faith, in my own view of the world, and so I really wouldn't have to consider anything s/he might "come up with" on the matter at all.

[donsu]

15. you should bone up on history - americans are guilty and bloody

hell, our current religious nuts speak openly of killing people they disagree with

[Catch22Dem]

23. At what point did you decide I was lacking in my education?

At what point did you draw the conclusion that I was speaking of one race, nationality, or religion? No, my statement stands as-is...un-altered. ANYONE who defends their prophet (any religion) with blood, is a fucking loon. That goes for christian Americans as well.

[JDPriestly]

2. Strange! Rice criticizing other leaders for exhorting their masses

to violence. Has she forgotten the mushroom cloud threat? Wasn't Saddam a threat to our basic values? Hmm. When the shoe's on the other foot . . . . ?

[blue in ohio]

3. Well......

This whole situation as I see it has no possibility of a good outcome.
I do however agree that Bush and Rice should shut up.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. About time

someone to shut their damn flaps.

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

11. Well said and welcome to DU!

[sui generis]

9. yeah well, sovereign nations will do whatever they want

restrictions on religion in one country doesn't mean that it should be restrictions on freedom of speech in another.

Or, more succinctly, freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion whenever the two intersect.

In my imaginary atheist country I would make fun of all religions with equal mischievousnous and irreverance, including making fun of us atheists.

The only difference is I doubt that the atheist extremists are going to go burn down our embassies in Latvia because the sovereign nation of Atheista has a sense of humor. Religion is just so fucking weird.

I can't wait until the aliens land and start asking questions. What are we going to tell them (tongue firmly in cheek)? There's this dude named Jesus and, oh and the unnameable god, yaweh, and some philosophers and MIRACLES!!!! people walking on water and virgins on stale grilled cheese sandwiches yee haw! and um, woopsie we've sorta been killing each other for all this shit for thousands of years because the devil might take our souls if we don't believe just right, but we're all better now because we have democracy and freedom of religion AND freedom of speech, so please please please show us how you fold space, because we're ready to go forth and multiply.

We call this place earth, they just call it the looney bin.

[Hardrada]

21. There have been some SF stories about advanced

interstellar civilizations placing quarantines on Terra just because of such unreason.

[iverglas]

44. sez you

Or, more succinctly, freedom of speech trumps freedom of religion whenever the two intersect.

Or even more succinctly: "fuck you".

And when the people who disagree, because they don't buy into whatever rules you've decided they have to play by, develop a bigger stick than you've got and start beating you over the head with it, I wonder whether you might wish you'd used a little bit of that vaunted freedom of speech to engage in the kind of speech that might just have resulted in their agreeing with you on a set of rules, instead of perceiving you as an arrogant bully in need of a beating ...

[Renew Deal]

10. Everyone needs to shut up.

Hezbollah, Bush, Rice, the Danish papers, and just about everyone else.

[Grown2Hate]

17. THANK YOU!

Exactly how I feel. I'm all for freedom of religion (being atheist myself, I can't blame some people for needing a hope to believe in). But when you have a problem with a cartoon someone distributed in some far away country, and that leads to violence... people need to get a grip (in my opinion). And on the other hand, there's nothing useful in stoking the fires by making the cartoons to begin with. (For the record, I'd feel the same way if it was an Arab newspaper printing cartoons showing Jesus in a less than flattering light... BIG DEAL.)

[sui generis]

25. nevermind the Jesus Versus Saddam smackdown on Southpark.

and this

[wordpix]

12. interesting that Hezbollah can completely control crowd so it is nonviolen

t, which isn't exactly Hezbollah's history.

[PATRICK]

16. I think both sides(governments)

are encouraging this as the prelude to war. The whipping up, the chest beating. Of course it is even sillier and more pointless than similar silly and pointless tempests in the past. You can point out, numbingly, a long laundry list of things this does for both sides, but the net gain goes to the Muslims.

When Bush took Iraq and the silent division of Sunni and Shiite hobbled any real reaction, the leaders all princely fellows of the capitalist world, agreed to the blackballing of bad boy Saddam. The side effects of occupation for oil greed simmer strongly among the majorities of ALL nations. This time a deciding factor in the total demise of most US military influence in the world(or something much more) could be a real unity of sects, moderates and fanatics, men and women, rich and poor in action. And why should they give a crap if the economy or the system of things suffers if they are suppressed into misery? Push people collectively, as is being done in the incompetent way Bush has tried to employ is bungling divide and conquer and they will learn to collectively push back. Something very hard for masses of people to contemplate even in harsh times.

While Bush is chopping alliances like so much dry spaghetti thinly spread out, relying on bullying and blackmail to coerce skin deep cooperation, the major powers of the world's energy supply(the one concept the west does not want to whisper about in the world's forums)may be the host of a general uprising of sorts by the populace. No, a cartoon can't instigate that, but it may have lit another and longer fuse that a mere war action by the omnipotent cannot see or overcome.

Though the governments may encourage it, though fanatics may raise the volume and collect the stones, it could be much bigger than the BS the sheeple are supposed to meekly swallow as they head for culling and selective slaughter at the whims of the wise of the West. The last time world opinion was cast underfoot by dithering, submissive, treacherous and ultimately uncaring or impotent leaders. Let's see them ride the backs of this one.

To hear our pathetic fraud of a SOS make her wrongheaded dictums and hypocritical sermons, one is sure of one thing. The US is being led into a terrible trap that no one may have planned, but stupidity stubbornly decrees.

[hadrons]

19. but, but , but Bush gave from freedom & democracy ....

that what the GOP shills said

[GoddessOfGuinness]

28. "Just shut up"

Is anyone else struck by the fact that this is exactly what we were told to do when Dumbyass was installed in the WH?

They are all peas of the same pod if you ask me...power greedy fundy extremists.

[Mr. Peanut]

30. When you're right you're right...

how true, how true.

[cookiebird]

34. 5 months??

How come it took these very angry jihadists 5 month to read a collection of cartoons???? Just wanna know, the level of coordination & orchestration of protests hits my weird sh*t-o-meter.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. They were waiting until

Bush really needed a boost in the polls.

[VegasWolf]

36. Good advice! Bush seems to antagonize everyone. nt

[saberjet22]

40. cartoons

whatever happened to Farmer Gray and those crazy inter-room chases with the Katzenjammer kids (or whoever they were)? How about Tom and Jerry?
This whole thing is sooooo ridiculous, it is to laugh, except for the insane seriousness of the demented masses. crazy. crazed. can't believe these animals. religious assholes.yet another example of the inconceivable stupidity of religious fanatics; their moronic actions know no bounds, no limit to the depths of their idiocy. May they all rot.

[saberjet22]

41. defending god in cartoon form

" Defending the prophet should continue worldwide,” Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, told the crowd. “Let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.”
And just what, pray tell, is this Hezbolla leader so incensed about. About a fucking cartoon! A cartoon? My goodness, apparently what we need is for Disney Studios to come out with a militant pastiche of Bambi and Snow White taking up arms to defeat the wicked evil muslim radicals. Our cartoons are definitely more powerful than theirs. Victory shall be ours!Forget the dead, it's those damnable cartoons that are so upsetting.

[madmark]

45. Hamas is really going to be pissed at the Mohamed bomb turban

t-shirt that just came out.

[Megahurtz]

46. No, YOU Shut Up!!!

(.......having nothing to do with those other two)