Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 7, 2006 First swedish company to boycut any danish products. What a lack of backbone. No swedish newspaper have released the cartoons - and its not a surprise for me. In Sweden, people arent "allowed" to weay the swedish flag for example. Any patriotic or proud (and believe me, there are reasons to be proud of being swedish) feeling of their country is being looked down at. Denoir.... Whats up with this? I am sure you dont agree with that company. But I cant believe that a company in scandinavian looks past the freedom of speech - even though the cartoons were a mistake and a stupid thing to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted February 7, 2006 (Espectro @ Feb. 07 2006,20:21) said: First swedish company to boycut any danish products. What a lack of backbone.No swedish newspaper have released the cartoons - and its not a surprise for me. Denoir.... Whats up with this? I am sure you dont agree with that company. But I cant believe that a company in scandinavian looks past the freedom of speech - even though the cartoons were a mistake and a stupid thing to do. I haven't heard anything about a Swedish company boycotting Danish products. There is nothing in the Swedish media about anything like that. [b said: Quote[/b] ]In Sweden, people arent "allowed" to weay the swedish flag for example. Any patriotic or proud (and believe me, there are reasons to be proud of being swedish) feeling of their country is being looked down at. Nah, we have just reached a new level of nationalism. We are so convinced that we are to best that we don't need to wave flags to show that. No, but seriously, there is plenty of nationalism in Sweden, it does just not so overt as in other countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 7, 2006 Ahh.... Sorry I forgot the link: <-- Link in swedish Well... I cant really remember who it was (it was a swedihs OFP player for sure, hehe). He told me, that he hated the fact that he couldnt go out with the swedish flag printed on his T-shirt, because that would be considered racism. Well, if thats the case, I can understand you guys think we are racists here in Denmark, lol. Both us and foreigners are showing their flags everywhere. Im proud of being danish. And im proud to show the worlds oldest flag that belongs to the oldest Monarchy in the world. I can understand why others are proud of their country as well.. Why cant we be proud? Lets be a little more open-minded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted February 7, 2006 (Espectro @ Feb. 07 2006,21:44) said: Ahh.... Sorry I forgot the link: <-- Link in swedish They changed suppliers in order to maintain their sales in the Middle east, hardly a boycot... And since when do companies have backbone when it comes to making money? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 7, 2006 (GoOB @ Feb. 07 2006,21:53) said: (Espectro @ Feb. 07 2006,21:44) said: Ahh.... Sorry I forgot the link: <-- Link in swedish They changed suppliers in order to maintain their sales in the Middle east, hardly a boycot... And since when do companies have backbone when it comes to making money? Well, here in Denmark the companies stick together and back up Arla, Maersk and other suppliers. Before, many wasnt buying arla because it has a kind of monopol in Danish milk products. Now more danes are buying arla to show them support. I am sure, if the scandal had hit sweden, the danish population would punish a danish company for switching supplier. Its about the liberty of speech, and it is essential to the western culture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted February 7, 2006 (Espectro @ Feb. 07 2006,22:15) said: I am sure, if the scandal had hit sweden, the danish population would punish a danish company for switching supplier. Its about the liberty of speech, and it is essential to the western culture. For the company it's about making money, nothing more, nothing less. If they had a Swiss supplier and Switzerland would have contracted some "bad attention" that reduced sales, they would have switched to another supplier. Accomodating customers (which this company obviously needed to do to preserve their market in the Middle east) is something companies do. Helping to prove political points, or enfocing core values by losing income, is something companies don't do. "It's nothing personal, just business" EDIT: I just realized, this is way OT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Barron 0 Posted February 7, 2006 (Balschoiw @ Feb. 07 2006,02:15) said: An image was created that labelled all muslims evil. This was done to raise support and fear to justify the military and domestic actions from and within the US. The actions we see today are just the echo of those PR campaigns and the military actions in the middle east. BS. This muslim anger has been around long before the Iraq war. Need I remind anyone of September 11, 2001? The 9-11 terrorist attacks didn't just 'spontainously' happen. They took years of planning. And it was only because of decades of brainwashing young muslims prior that the terrorists could even build a network large and rich enough to pull off a stunt like that. I remember watching joyous celebrations occur in the muslim world after 9-11. I remember watching Palestinian children cheering as they burned my flag and watched my people die. Those same children are now calling for your deaths as well. This isn't a problem that just 'popped up' since the war in Iraq. It has been around for a long, long time. It will continue to be a problem until the world decides to do something about it. [b said: Quote[/b] ]My prediction is war in late 2007 combined with a cultural clash and constant terorist strikes in europe. My prediction: the war starts in late 2001, although it is preceeded by decades of constant terrorist strikes against western peoples around the world (Lebanon, Mogadishu, Tehran, the Phillipines, USS Cole, ad naseum). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Barron 0 Posted February 7, 2006 Heh... replace the US flag with the EU flag of your choice: [mg]http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/t-flag.jpg[/img] EDIT [b said: Quote[/b] ]Can we please stop with the cartoon posting? NM... image removed, but link is still there. Sorry mods if this is still unacceptable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 7, 2006 [b said: Quote[/b] ]BS. This muslim anger has been around long before the Iraq war. Need I remind anyone of September 11, 2001? First of all you need to separate. The terrorist attacks on the WTC were conducted by TERRORISTS, who happened to be muslims. The attacks were not commited by the worldwide muslim community but by AQ. Generalizations like that lead to the situation we have today. [b said: Quote[/b] ]And it was only because of decades of brainwashing young muslims prior that the terrorists could even build a network large and rich enough to pull off a stunt like that. It was also about the influence of the western nations on such organizations and interfering with countries to their benefit. I may remind you that the US were the ones who basically put Bin Laden to the position he had before he started the AQ movement. So basically the US on their own supported 9/11 long long ago. [b said: Quote[/b] ]I remember watching joyous celebrations occur in the muslim world after 9-11. Selective memory ? I also remember a lot of muslim leaders condeming the attacks from the depth of their hearts like they condemn the beheadings and kidnappings in Iraq today. I´m pretty sick of the generalizations as they only worsen things, and yes I absolutely do stand by my point that the war in Iraq worsened the situation much more. The radicalisation and exploding numbers of fresh recruitings since the war has been started, speak on their own. There´s not much to debate about here. [b said: Quote[/b] ]It will continue to be a problem until the world decides to do something about it. That is ? Crush, kill, destroy ? Didn´t work well over the last decades. By your reasoning you declare all muslims hostile. This will certainly give a solid ground to start from. Good luck. Nothing more to add. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
General Barron 0 Posted February 7, 2006 [b said: Quote[/b] ]By your reasoning you declare all muslims hostile. I fail to see where I made that point. [b said: Quote[/b] ]The terrorist attacks on the WTC were conducted by TERRORISTS, who happened to be muslims. The attacks were not commited by the worldwide muslim community but by AQ. Agreed. And the murders that have occured in the name of this stupid cartoon controversy... were those committed by "terrorists who happened to be muslim", or by the "worldwide muslim community"? I think we would both argue the former. I fail to see your point. [b said: Quote[/b] ]So basically the US on their own supported 9/11 long long ago. This logic is absurd. The US supported Bin Laden because he was our "enemy's enemy" in the fight vs the soviets. Obviously the US wasn't trying to set up AQ--it was just short-sighted coldwar policy. [b said: Quote[/b] ]I absolutely do stand by my point that the war in Iraq worsened the situation much more. The radicalisation and exploding numbers of fresh recruitings since the war has been started, speak on their own. There´s not much to debate about here. Please post these numbers that are speaking on their own. I'm actually not disinclined to believe you. However, there is one very important point you are overlooking: even if recruitment is up, there is still one less government in the ME to support these terrorists. Others have already pointed out the fact that this controversy has been exacerbated by various ME regimes. It is only with these government's *wink wink* permission that the embassies have been burned. It is only with these government's suppression of a free press that blatant lies have been able to circulate. It is only because of these government's funding, harboring, and support that many terrorist attacks are able to occur. Hussein's government was a known supporter of various muslim terrorist organizations. That means, the entire economic power of the Iraqi people--even those who are opposed to terrorism--was available to support it. That is no longer the case, even if recruiting is up among poor ME muslims. Remember: to carry out a terrorist attack takes lots of $$$, but only a few actual people. [b said: Quote[/b] ]It will continue to be a problem until the world decides to do something about it. I don't pretend to know exactly what should be done. But what do you think would happen if the entire ME was free like the west? What if there were no governments there that supported terrorism, repressed their own people both economically and socially? Would we still have the same kinds of problems we are having today, on the same scale? I'm not proposing the US go and invade every country in the ME; nor am I proposing the UN actually do anything. Again, I don't know what exactly should be done, but I do know the world would be a safer place if those people were free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harley 3 1185 0 Posted February 8, 2006 If Britain were to declare that everyone who had ever rejoiced over a terrorist attack on British nationals, property etc. in the last 60 years was to become an enemy of the state, that would mean we'd have to arrest half the population of Northern Ireland, a number of Muslims, a huge number of Kenyans, and lest I remind us Britons, we'd have to go have a peeing contest on the graves of a great number of Israeli statesmen. Lord only knows how we're ever going to set the Muslim world straight on liberties and non-violent protesting, but calling them all crazy, anti-American, misguided religious zealots isn't going to solve anything. [b said: Quote[/b] ]there is still one less government in the ME to support these terrorists. Where there's one, there's always another. Ever since Iraq, Iran has started moving out of the quiet patch it endured in the 90s after the death of Khomeini and has become far more annoyingly pro-active than Saddam ever was. As to the ME and NE government's tacit approval of burning embassies, they need whatever carrot the EU or the UN is holding in front of them yanked away. They've got to learn the hard way that such blatant sitting on the fence is not good. The problem with many of these countries now is that they don't want our (Western) help for idealogical reasons, but they sure wouldn't mind our little perks, making most national policies generally incoherent and ineffective, whilst at the same time indulging in the obligatory bashing of Israel in deference to Allah, which makes any possible Western aid less likely as time goes by. Factor in the occasional rumbling of "Death to America", and the current religious explosion, and one gets the feeling that they really don't want any of our filthy, Western, Christian dollars, pounds and euros. Note, this is not a criticism of Muslims in general, but an indictment of the current (and past?) ruling elites of the Middle East countries and those who are so blatantly stirring up trouble over the cartoon quandary. One thing which it is heartening to note is that there have been so many peaceful protests in many Islamic countries about the cartoons; surprisingly (to me, anyway) there were a large number of peaceful demonstrations in Somalia of all places the other day, normally such a violent country; alas, there was one incident involving heavy fighting and the loss of life - the work of zealots unfortunately. That there have been dignified objections registered in addition to the notorious embassy burnings and riots is certainly a good sign IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commando84 0 Posted February 8, 2006 does really terrorist organizations need goverments really? I think many of them manage on their own, Iraq was overthrown and well how much terrorism did that stop? It just made things worse, but maybe in the long run iraq will grow into a beatiful democracy. I think a friend of mine that commented on the whole danish story says it best "its retarded to start war just cause of some drawings showing cartoon militia moslems. By saying that we will bomb your country and stuff like that the moslems just show that the cartons maybe was true.." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 8, 2006 there is no reason to go to war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ozanzac 0 Posted February 8, 2006 As much of a shame that it is, that the middle east can't find peace within itself and it's neighbours, I beleive it's only a matter of time until the situation of the middle east comes to that of africa, where no-one in the western world will genuinly give a rats about just how peaceful it is in the middle east. The one thing that seperates the middle easts relevance from the african continents general irrellevance to western society, is that the middle east has a commodity that we've grown dependant on, in order to function.... Oil. Africa, on the other hand, has few resources that westerners are interested in. The resources that do spark interest, namely gold and diamonds, are considered as luxury items, and thus, our dependance on Africa to produce those items is minimal. Hence the desire to create 'pro western regimes' for stable gold and diamond supplies, in Africa, is in no way, as great as it for our desire to have stable regimes in the middle east for stable oil supplies. The people of the middle east are not stupid, and they know that their resources are fuelling the prosperous west while they linger with governments who effectivly pimp those resources away, and do very little to advance them. It's a vicious cycle, because while we keep propping these governments up, with the view that they will continue to let us exploit their resources, tensions between the government and the people they are supposed to govern for, are almost always, just a couple of notches away from full blown revolt. Hardly stable, nor 'democratic', one could argue. I beleive the intentions of the US behind the invasion of Iraq, and the west's close ties with the Saudi's and other arab nations, is solely to secure a plentiful supply of oil. Bush re-enforced this with his state of the union address, indicating that america has to become less dependant on oil, because the majority comes from unstable political climates. Who knows what he incites when he says this. More regime changes, & more war is hardly stabilising at all. The only thing that will see a dramatic change, IS a relaxing of our dependence on oil. To be honest.... I don't think the west will ever see true peace with the middle east. But when their oil runs dry, I doubt anyone in the west will care what goes on in a barren foreign land. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LennyD 0 Posted February 8, 2006 [b said: Quote[/b] ]I´m pretty sick of the generalizations as they only worsen things,and yes I absolutely do stand by my point that the war in Iraq worsened the situation much more. The radicalisation and exploding numbers of fresh recruitings since the war has been started, speak on their own. There´s not much to debate about here. [b said: Quote[/b] ]Where there's one,there's always another. Ever since Iraq, Iran has started moving out of the quiet patch it endured in the 90s after the death of Khomeini and has become far more annoyingly pro-active than Saddam ever was. [b said: Quote[/b] ]I think many of them manage on their own, Iraq was overthrown and well how much terrorism did that stop? It just made things worse, but maybe in the long run iraq will grow into a beatiful democracy. Interesting points. We all know that the war against the Iraq wasn't the unselfish act to bring deocracy to the people there, as some governments want us to believe....i think we're not that daft. But on the other side i would like to hear a nother solution to the problems. As you all think the actions taken by the western comunity are wrong, what is IYO the best way do deal with this situation or the ones before? Not bringing down Saddam MIGHT have ended in an "1000-year-lasting-Iraqi-Empire"-atempt by Saddam Hit...errm..Hussein. I do think it is most annoying that the west stood still so long and watched him....all the news about contracts and money making as a war benefit (and part of it's reason) don't really please me. But what other answer was there? What about A-Stan? A nother regime gone (well...mainly)... should we have talked to the taliban more or what? With which results? There is simply no way of deescalation when you deal with extemists. Just study history a littel and you'll see what i mean. Of course the western actions have driven more extremists into the arms of terror and maybe even made the "creation" of them easy, but the potential is there and has been there before. How whould you want to change that? "The people turning terrorists can only be pleased by giving them what they want"...just listen to them and tell me you would let them do what the want. And don't trie to tell me that the islamic extremists whould rest if the west wouldn't look further than thier own borders....come on...:rolleyes: Second problem is that IMO a larger part of the muslims then we thougt has those extrem islamic opinions....like i posted before i find it rather shocking to see that "friendly neighbours" don't exept our principles of a democratic staate at all (maybe a individual case...but still makes me think). I've spend the last day lookink at a lot of "german islamic comunity"-forums and find it sad, to read lots of radical, violent posts and only very, very few deescalation or moderate thoughts. Could post a minimum of 30 links to forums with post calling to bring down our press freedom by violence (and i'm only speeking of GERMAN forums ). If the west dosn't continue stopping the worst terrorists and staats backing them, sooner or later thier influence will spreed more and more...with a result i don't want to see at all. I would really like to know how you think we should cope with these extremists and those staates supporting them! Telling us the actions taken up to now where wrong is just to easy...convince me of a better answer to terror Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted February 8, 2006 LennyD could you please change your avatar? Sure you have the legal right to have it but it's quite obvious that it's very offensive to a large part of the worlds population, hence it's flaming. The swastika is legal in most countries but for obvious reasons I don't think it would be accepted as an avatar. I'm being beaten by some bikers and I ask myself, what can I do to make them stop. The answer is "stop pissing on their Harleys!" People, just calm down and have a cup of coffee or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 8, 2006 I think its a nice avatar. What can we do to stop these demonstrations? Well... at first we can just stop doing anything... Allthey have been doing so far is burning down their own cities, tipping over their own cars and killing each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Finally some progress: UN, EU and 57 Islamic countries have joined together in a united attempt to stop the violence. They all critizise the Islamic Conference Organisation (OIC), for their lacking ability to solve this matter through dialog and peace. They also critizise the 12 Muhammed drawings, and are saying they should never have been published. Freedom of speech should be used with responsibility. OIC have also just agreed to meet with the Danish foregn Minister Per Stig Mřller. Lets hope this will sort things out. Source (Jyllands-Posten, for those who can read scandinavien): http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3544144/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 8, 2006 (Espectro @ Feb. 08 2006,10:28) said: Source (Jyllands-Posten, for those who can read scandinavien): http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3544144/ They've made a speedy recovery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Yea, they were down for an hour or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted February 8, 2006 Currently all options are still being on the table. At the moment the entire conflict is like an election, in which both sides try to win the undecided liberal and moderate muslims for themselves. If I understood it correctly it was an other newspaper who made the muslim community in denmark aware of the drawings. Probably because they wanted to harm their competitor. One mullah saw this as an opportunity and tried to make the entire media aware of this insult and upset his community. But he didnt succeed. So he went to the middle East instead, added some images to the collection which he found on racist internet sites and showed them to the muslim communities, claiming all of them appeared in a western newspaper. Well that part of the story you probably know, but what I find especially astonishing is the fact. That now, months later, a wave of demonstrations hit the middle East, and they are perfectly well organised. Demonstrations in Syria (noone survives a demonstration in Syria if the government doesnt want you to demonstrate). Demonstrations in Lebanon (by Syrians) and you see tons of muslims talking about western newspapers that cant even read or properly interpret the western seperation of church and state. And where the hell do all the danish flags come from. Of course I have seen some which were made at home but most I saw were properly factory made. Do you want to tell me that shops in the middle East constantly have danish flags in stock? Nah, these rather looked like they were ordered in china weeks ago. Again, extremists profit from the lack of education in their countries and use the most unsophisticated people their best demonstrators. And the west? we are trying to do it western style, we try to calm down the people that demonstrate instead of trying to win the hearts of those, which are still undecided! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LennyD 0 Posted February 8, 2006 (Llauma @ Feb. 08 2006,08:17) said: LennyD could you please change your avatar? Sure you have the legal right to have it but it's quite obvious that it's very offensive to a large part of the worlds population, hence it's flaming. The swastika is legal in most countries but for obvious reasons I don't think it would be accepted as an avatar. Expected a reaction like this sooner or later (was a provocation towards it, i must admit)... Here lies the dilemma... by my standarts it is not offensive and not insulting anybody at all. So chosing it was my free will. As there has been a sensible, moderate complain here now, i will remove it. That's all it takes when you are among civilized, educated humans....no need of force. This is the civilized way of solving a conflict... If i would have acted like an extremist and tried to force my opinion throught, then there would have been no option, then getting the forces in (admins) to make me remove it...get what i wanted to say So, what if the muslim comunity had not take the street of violence and made a sensible, moderate complain? They wouldn't have lost my simpathy...which they totaly have now....thats my point. Some people and states have a lot to learn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted February 8, 2006 (Llauma @ Feb. 08 2006,08:17) said: LennyD could you please change your avatar? Sure you have the legal right to have it but it's quite obvious that it's very offensive to a large part of the worlds population, hence it's flaming. The swastika is legal in most countries but for obvious reasons I don't think it would be accepted as an avatar. While one shouldn't go out the ones way to provoke people, I think that the comparison is flawed. The swastika is a symbolic representation of a regime that was responsible for the murder of millions of people. The Mohammed cartoons on the other hand have a completely arbitrary meaning. Did you know that Islam forbids images of any prophet -- not just Mohammed. Jesus for instance, which Islam sees as a prophet, is also on the list of figures whose image is forbidden. So, should we tear down the cathedrals in Europe because those images on the stained-glass windows go against the rules of Islam and as such are insults to Muslims? Religion is arbitrary. There are many different religions and most of them have contradictory goals and rules. Hence no religion has the right to demand respect for their rules and laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supah 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Something I heard on the local airbase, Dutch F-16's have fired warning shots with the 20mm cannons at a crowd near Maymana in the north of Afghanistan as the locals tried to storm a norwegian base there. So far I've read no reports of injuries so I think they didnt fire directly at the crowd That would have been really messy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LennyD 0 Posted February 8, 2006 (denoir @ Feb. 08 2006,12:27) said: ...I think that the comparison is flawed. The swastika is a symbolic representation of a regime that was responsible for the murder of millions of people. The Mohammed cartoons on the other hand have a completely arbitrary meaning... x2....just didn't want to say it. Maybe it was wrong to post an image that is offencive to some people...but on the other side so are some comercials with to much sex in them ...or a bumpersticker with a f-finger on....as long as there is a sensible talk there is no problem. But this is what isn't happening...radicals led the way in some countries and the only way of changing this is to remove them. Correct me if I'm wrong..but i haven't heard better options here. The point here is respect for each other...yes. But as we respect a lot of rules other religions have (e.g. you'll always find a vegetarion or non pigmeat meal in german barracks, mosques are allowed to have the calls for praying same as churches have bells...) i demand some respect for our way of living. We have a strickt borderline betwen religion and state....and as one of the bases of our state is freedom of speech, i demand respect in this case! Every man and his donkey kann make up his own religion and make all sorts of rules here if he wants to....as long as there is no interfearing with the basic laws of our society. I would only wish for some decent signal that this is accepted....no "But" at all....the basic laws stand above any religios rules...that would be a signal from the european muslims. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites