I agree The danes are pushing them to more violent actions but i think it's more a case of there being a racist attitude to the danes of middle eastern immigrants. they are really sickof it and it is becoming serious problem. France is tired of taking them in to subsidize them, Norway, Sweden, England (perhaps) and other European countries including other nations like Australia that take them in and then subsidize them. People hate that shit and we hate it in this country with South Americans. These are very common themes.
SOOO the cartoons are really there to sort of comiserate with the peoples of these countries in their burden of having to suport these people who viemently in many cases hate the European countries they are in.
So he Danes comiserate with each other about it--why should they have to support these people, house them, feed them and yet have them hate you for it. W in America would not stand for it at all, nor should the Europeans be of a higher standard. Look at Lou Dobbs night after night--Mexico Mexico Mexico.
XYMPH NOBODY LIKES BEING USURPED.
Ahkmad...misspelt? Yes why should the danes put up with these people who hate them? good question. Why should the arab world have to put up with israel, why should the arab world have to put up with the mess the americans are and have created in the middle east. Why do the arabs have to put up with sanction after sanction after threat after threat coming from the west. Why do the arabs have to put up with the theft of natural resources from their lands for little compensation. Why should the arabs put up with the threats the west direct at them.
So you see, these are just some of the why's. You want globalization to make your economy bigger and better, to drive your kids in an SUV, to watch the superbowl on a flatscreen but want to take a nimby approach. You gotta give and take my friend. You want the benefits? You should also be open to the consequences.
there has been a real troll multiplication since this cartoons stunt came out - "ahkmad" is supposed to be a pun I think ...
The big trouble about most conspirationists - with our host here a notorious exception - is that their understanding of the psychological mechanisms at work either collectively or at the individual level behind political processes is close to nil, or at best limited to the 1-bit world view offered by the TV sets that brought them up. When it comes to explaining popular explosions of rage, there is little difference between elitist views, whether they are those of conspirationists, trotskyists, neo-cons or for that matter the views offered by rulers all over the world solely for propaganda purposes (innerly, they do know better of course). They are unable of conceiving of the "masses" having a volition, or emotions, or intelligence, of their own, any popular movement usually gets analyzed (?) in terms of manipulation: the French Revolution was caused by the Free-Masons (or British finance, says LaRouche!), the Russian Revolution by Jewish Bolcheviks and so on ad nauseam. Most conspirationists cannot understand that when a people or an ethnic or religious group get tramped on long enough, as Muslims have been both domestically (in Europe) or internationally (thanks to the British, then the US empire), they are bound to react. Which is why conspirationists usually stay clear of the so-called anti-globalist movement, it's too multifacetted to fit in their 1-bit mindset.
In a previous life, I've been involved in mass demonstrations. Some have been peaceful, other have turned violent. I've also been an active participant in small groups, some with the intent of quiet discussion, others bent on committing disruptive actions. I've met theoretical thinkers and analysts at close hold and I've had links with people who would fall under the commonly accepted definition of murderous terrorists. In other words, a bit of experience from the real world in True Colour, not just as perceived from behind a computer or a TV screen when the only live psyche to interact with is one's own, as observed in a deforming mirror. That's why I hardly ever recognize as plausible any of the scenarios offered by conspirationists. My first step, in the case of the violent demonstrations against Denmark in the Muslim world, would be to draw a comparison with Watts, or even closer, with the riots related to the Rodney King case (last fall's French riots also come to mind, of course)
Mutadis mutandis, of course, for the situation of American Blacks isn't exactly the same as that of 1.2 billion Muslims spread over the world, consistently submitted over decades to murderous actions on the part of an array of nations, and also because US Afro-Americans do not have the cohesiveness-inducing ideological factor called Islam. Would anyone claim that the ghetto riots took place as the effect of a goal-oriented conspiracy? Doubtful. But this does by no mean preclude that some sleezball politicians, spin doctors, secret services, media outlets, religious fanatics, in differe
in different states of preparedness or un-preparedness, have always been willing to jump on the band-waggon (the fertile soil) offered to them on a silver plate by the pissed-off masses.
1-bit conspirationism has the same hard time grabbing the complex nature of the groupings that are described as the "bad guys" - political leaders, capitalists, Zionists, Illuminati, conspirators and so on. The fact that they are composed of an infinity of fractions that are at times allied, at times in opposition to each other, that these fractions are composed of individuals with their own personalities, their own interests and their own conflicts (and their own sicknesses), all this seems to escape your simplistic conspirationist.
If you look at the current cartoon morass and solely interpret it as the purposeful effort of a Virtual Project for the Clash of Civilizations or some similar entity, you cannot make sense of the information disclosed by the newspaper Politiken (see my other post) today. It appears that some time after the first publication of the cartoons, but way before the explosion of sentiments now taking place, A.P. Møller Mærsk has run a discrete internal memo instructing their employees all over the world to explain to all their contacts, business or administrative, that the corporation's policies were in no way supportive of such undertakings as these cartoons. Now, there's a lot more to APMM than can be described in a few lines, but let's consider that (1) it is Denmark's largest corporation, with a monopoly on the North Sea oil and gas, making the country independent of hydrocarbon imports, with roughly half of the country's retail grocery supermarkets and with the control of Denmark's largest bank corporation; (2) it is the world's largest shipping container corporation, with roughly 20% of the market, and a dominant world actor in the field of container ship terminals, noticeably in China and in the Middle East; (3) it has been an active supporter of Gulf wars I and II, a fact that must be seen in the light of its contracts with the US military for the freighting of their equipment to the Persian Gulf (contract signed in October 2002 for that purpose, i.e. 6 months before the invasion); (4) its attachment to US world dominance has remained unabated since the defeat of Nazi Germany; (5) it is known for its radical opposition to anything remotely progressive from trade unions to informal clothing, and for its support and sponsorship of political actors with traditional, conservative, nationalistic values (including the xenophobic Danish People's Party), as long as they are favourable to APMM's dominance; and (6) it is infamous for its secretiveness in matters of finances and policies ("no comment" on the disclosure of this memo, is again all what Politiken's journalist got from them). In other words, what most of us call "bad guys".
Now, why would a corporation like APMM, who has a hand in a substantial portion of
Now, why would a corporation like APMM, who has a hand in a substantial portion of the decisions, both underhanded and overt, made by the rulers of this planet, estimate that the promotion of the clash of civilizations, whether voluntary or accidental, which we are now witnessing, isn't what they deem to be most conducive to the healthy business environment they need to pursue their and their friend's dominance? To the degree of having to get out of their way to appease any potential incidents by diplomatic means?
Look, Qûr, it is simpler than you think : Flemming Rose is a Lizard from Eta Reticuli, disguised in human form.
Thanks for Illuminating me, RB. Maybe we could write a treatise on the circumcision of Lizards (have always wondered if the KKK also mutilate their own male children)?
(First of all, let me say that most of time I agree with you, and I'm probably marked somewhere as terrorist sympathizer due to amount of money I donate to all kinds of progressive sites and organisation.)
'The official Danish response, that nothing can be done because it is a free speech issue, has been proven to be a lie as the same newspaper had rejected cartoons insulting to Christians on the basis that they would offend its readership and "provoke an outcry"'
That is bs. You, and especially Aseem S. you quote, are mixing up several issues here.
1. Scandinavian press has freedom to say whatever it wants on most issues. I say "most", because for example accusing someone of commiting crimes they didn't do, can lead to magazine or tv channel paying fines to their target. Press defends the freedom very aggressively, and no politician dares to suggest narrowing it even a slightest way.
2. While press has freedom to speak, no newspaper or magazine can be forced to publish every viewpoint; progressive magazine is free to only publish progressive articles and so forth. If editor of paper thinks that article (such as christian cartoons you mentioned) offends readers, it is rational for paper not to publish it.
3. Danish PM cannot order magazine to apologize, and if he tried to, he would only get pummeled by media (which would get mad because of attempt to narrow the freedom of speech). However, he could have apologized himself and otherwise acted much more humbly than he did.
4. Unlike Aseem S. claims, social work of Hamas and US "torture flights" have gotten very much press coverage, at least here in Finland, and I assume it's the same in other parts of scandinavia. So much for "ripping free speech issue to shreds", unless "western media" for him is half dozen major US tv channels.
5. Although everyone has heard it now that it's forbidden to make a picture of Muhammed, I'm sure most people here in Scandinavia / Europe have hard time trying to figure out what the fuss is all about - after all, the picture isn't really offensive by *western* standards. Some cultural differences are harder to understand than others.
While I find it promising that both leading politicians and papers here have told that everyone should now calm down and stop acting stupid, the situation now is very promising for extremists on BOTH sides for rallying their supporters.
MERETE ELDRUP, managing director of company that published the anti-Islamic cartoons in Denmark (JP/Politikens Hus)is married to ANDERS ELDRUP, who has attended the last FIVE Bilderberg
meetings.
She is a former Head of Secretariat at the Ministry of Economic and
Business Affairs and Deputy Director of the Danish Energy Authority.
She must be a useful contact for her husband. He is chairman of DONG,
the big State-owned energy company ('Danish Oil and Natural Gas'), which
will soon be privatised:
Interestingly, a previous editor-in-chief of 'Politiken', another of JP/Politikens Hus's newspapers, namely Toger Seidenfaden, was also a long-time Bilderberger.
In a round up of reactions to the November French riots I stumbled across reporters of the Danish reaction to the cartoons and am convinced that there has been a concerted attempt to fuel Muslim outrage.
This also coincided with the NATO conference when Rummy was trying to expand the world role for NATO forces last weekend.... and the decisions to send Dutch and UK troops to Afghanistan.
Neat that MI5 mole Abu Hamza has been tucked away for 7 years in the UK followed by a free trip to the Land of the Free for even more chokey. ... which conicided with the London weekend marches and the "suicide bomber" on parole now back where he belongs ...in prison.... coinciding with the failure to convict the BNP leaders etc., etc.,
Natch the UK right wing press are turning to Enoch Powell and longing to prove the truth of his "rivers of blood speech"..
I'm just not sure I buy all this conspiracy stuff. It seems like more of the same to me. Early settlers to America racist towards the native Americans, Those living on the border with Mexico tired of the illegals crossing through their backyards. The Danes as I see it are doing the same, showing their sentiments towards ending socialized policies of having to support these immigrations.
Europe is getting sick of it, there was a time in America when people were anti-roman Catholic Irish. More of the same--but the difference is we did not in this country have to feed and house them upon coming over here. They came here and they worked and labored.
Yes Globalism has taken a toll, a better term for that is Japanization which in Europe will not work due to them having little if any protectionism on their markets which is why Japan can be what it is economically. The EU was perhaps one of the worst ideas ever concieved and thus unworkable as it is forced to subsidize it's own industries/manufacturing to keep them there and afloat because they as businesses have to now compensate for a lower yeild currency which is what an export economy provides them to work with. Not conducive for import parts buying overseas. the whole thing in Europe is akin to a hollywood set for a western movie that exists as nothing more than a 2-dimensional facade for show with very deep deep structural problems.
But this arab cartoon thing is just a sign that people are tired of the burdens of socialism and perhaps should look more to what they signed on to with pseudo-japanization (globalism) and what socialism really is, a nonprioritized burden to placate a people who desperately need more capitalist reforms.
As you probably know, due to the language barrier, we're not very familiar with Finland in spite of the proximity, Teemu. So it would appear to me that there are some sizeable differences with Denmark, either because the emigrant community isn't as large in Finland, or because your government doesn't have its foreign politics dictated by Washington as ours does. There are a few newspapers, such as Politiken and Information (which publishes Robert Fisk here), and a dwindling number of programs on one of the four channels of the National Radio Broadcast, which provide us with the kind of news you describe as getting everywhere in Finland. Radio news bulletins are a weird mix of extremely biased, even openly atlanticist or anti-Russian and anti-Muslim journalistic, uncritical repetition of AP and Reuters and true compassionate, investigative journalism. There might be the occasional TV show, but I'm blissfully spared the ownership of a TV so I can't say much about that (yet, I know that yesterday Alan Dershowitz was interviewed at length by Danish TV:
http://www.dvd2dvd.org/
AlanDersh...tzInterview.wmv
on the cartoons issue, talk of a balanced view!). Of the two tabloids in the country, one occasionally has sympathetic views (such as a White Book against the country's participation in the Iraq War, sent for free to anyone who cared to ask for it on their website), whereas the other one is outright fascistic, racist and xenophobic. So is the rest of the press, to varying degrees, Jyllands-Pesten being among the worst. I'd say that 20, maybe 30% pay attention to the "good" news, whereas the rest are either only too happy to let themselves get brainwashed (enfeebled by intentional ignorance, as Chomsky would say), especially when it comes to all the horrors visited on us by Muslims, or they just don't even care to hear or read about anything else than mass TV entertainment.
Good comments, Teemu and Qur. You make some great points.
My view is that freedom of speech is a fundamental and inalienable right in any free society, with reasonable exceptions (slander and libel, for instance). These cartoons fall under free speech protections, regardless of any hypothesized ulterior motive on the part of elites for publishing them. American activist Nat Hentoff has written that the only way to combat bad or offensive speech is with more speech, not with infringements of press liberty or freedom of speech. It bothers me deeply that the debate over the cartoons has started to turn to whether free speech goes too far, whether some restrictions should be put in place to keep from offending the hypersensitive among us. WRONG! That is absolutely the WORST approach to this affair.
IMO, the real issue here isn't freedom of speech or the press and its limitations, it's hypocrisy and double-standards. If these newspapers felt free to publish cartoons they knew would offend Muslims, but wouldn't even consider publishing similar cartoons that would offend Jews or Christians, then they are being hypocritical and disingenuous in their free speech arguments. As Teemu wrote, a newspaper has the right to make editorial decisions about what to publish, but if it's practicing double-standards, then it opens itself to legitimate criticism. But religion and religious beliefs should not be made immune to criticism, as they are beliefs and opinions, not innate characteristics like race, sex, ethnicity, etc.
Perhaps elements of the elites in various countries pushed this crisis for sinister reasons--ok, well then, fight them and argue the point on those grounds, not on the grounds of debating the merits of free speech or press freedom.
In this vein, I think Xymph is misguided in his statement that "'Free speech' is being used as another weapon in the West's attempts at dominating the Middle East." Again, this is painting freedom of speech as something misguided, suspicious, something to be treated with disdain. Attack the hypocrisy and double-standards, but don't start trashing a fundamental principle of liberty in the process!
Finally, I have yet to hear anyone muse that perhaps BOTH sides of the debate in the West are pleasing to the corporate neo-con masters. Obviously, those who focus on the violent Muslim reaction and use that as an excuse to line up in support of Israeli crimes, US aggression, anti-immigrant measures, racial profiling, police state repression, etc. are buying into the elite's agenda. But those on the left who use the debate to start fretting about freedom of speech, how it can be "abused," whether to protect the weak from potentially "offensive" speech, etc. are helping the masters too. The masters are most decidedly NOT champions of free speech in any way, shape, and form, and would love nothing more than to find sneaky ways of attacking it and restricting it. In that respect, lefties who malign
. . .and undermine such a fundamental freedom, even indirectly, play right into their hands. Sadly, it appears that Xymph is flirting with this.
Tom Tancredo-ism has come to Europe. General Franco-ism has come to America. Both roads lead to Damascus
Good points Qur.
My main concern about this controversy is that
1) these cartoons had no content other than a provocative one
2) it added nothing new to the debate about religions and the role it plays into our societies
3) the end results of publishing these was also a no-brainer to guess.
With that said, what did the publishers really expect ?
Of course, the violent reactions across the Middle East will be used to further the warmongers' agenda, or it might even not. The unwitting will just bathe into even more "ambient" propaganda, "chattering" that totally corroborates and helps the "war on terror" rationale.
I honestly believe that these publications borders the definition of a deliberate act.
I think that conspiracy is the wrong word to use: the real aim is propaganda designed to shape public opinion. This stuff is straight out of Machiavelli, as explained by Orwell. The state requires enemies of a demonic nature to rally the population. This is also seen in any social animal behavior - for example, buffalo threatened by predators form a group, males on the outside, calves on the inside. It is a basic emotional fear trigger, hardwired into our brains. That is why this issue gets major play on Fox News - attempting to caricature the 'enemy'. This is also why so many Americans (including myself) are surprised when we see images of Iraq which look 'normal' - a freeway overpass, a residential neighborhood, kids in jeans throwing balls around, etc. These images generally appear only on blogs, etc. They are startling because they conflict with the endlessly repeated images of 'islamic terror' that we are inundated with via corporate media. What we are seeing is simple propaganda, and like it or not, we can't help but be a little affected by it - even if we know what's going on.
As far as freedom of the press goes, can you imagine U.S.A. Today publishing cartoons of Jesus Christ blowing up abortion clinics or raping children? Not exactly likely, even if self-proclaimed "followers of Jesus" have engaged in such activity. That just might trigger a violent response, yes? Especially if our political leaders made statements supporting the right to publish such material, as the Danish PM did.
Resisting propaganda requires internal sensitivity (is someone trying to push my emotional buttons here?) as well as analysis (does this story hang together logically? Is it internally self-consistent?). Building such skills really should be a part of any modern educational program.
My guess is that this is part of an attempt to 'soften up' the public for another Mideast invasion - Iran or Syria.
Cartoons violated Danish law but went unpunished
WASHINGTON: The publication of the blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was in violation of Danish law, although no action was taken against the publication.??According to an analysis by Khalid Baig, published on the California-based website Albalagh, “Denmark has laws regarding blasphemy as well as racism. Both of these laws have been violated in the current case, the assertion of the newspaper that it broke no laws notwithstanding.??“Section 266-B of the Danish Criminal Code says: ‘Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years.’??“Section 140, which deals with blasphemy, reads: ‘Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to four months’.”??Baig points out that in the same way, Section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code provides for punishment for any person “who publicly insults or in an offensive manner shows contempt for any religious creed … or for the doctrines or worship of any religious community lawfully existing here.”
http://tinyurl.com/ao2nc
And those codes are another byproduct of socialist EU Bullshit they need to get rid of.
Republicans in this country provoke liberals not as a conspiracy BUT because they know it's easy. The Dane conservatives apparently are doing the same--I mean if a cartoon can start burning and violent protest, maybe the problem isn't the newspaper but people who get that bent out of shape about something so small. Why not put out a press release asking for appologies and begin engaging in a mature discussion--why this explosivity instead??
That's what I mean--this is button pushing yes but ones that garner rediculous reactions. Would the Christians do this? Would the Buddhists do this? Would the Jews do this? Would the Zaroastrians do this? Would the freakin' Pagans do this? Would the god-damned Scientologists do this? Would any other religion on the planet have a reaction like this? Burning down buildings and making jihadi threats?
NO it's just Islam--why? Because they are whackos bent on theocratic totalitarianism! that's the truth guys--name one other religion that would react this way. Name one.
STOP with the apologetics for these ass-holes they do this because they are who they are and Islam is a foul stupid violent religion--just like Mohammad their revered pirate/plunderer/despot who commited murder and rapes enmasse throughout his tyrranical reign. Read the hadiths sometime it will show clearly that Mohammad was a ignorant murderous two bit, child raping, clitoris removing, infidel beheading, back asswards barbarian who made up his own God to murder and loot.
Personally, I wasn't into apologies for those who were into violent reactions.
They perfectly, patheticaly took the bait.
uninvited guest--Yes, I could imagine some artist or publication in the US producing vicious commentary or satire like what you outlined, but of course no one in the mainstream would, it would only be on the fringe. Such representations SHOULD be defended by the government and courts and staunch defenders of freedom of speech were they ever to appear, even if those people found them offensive. That's how the principle works. I'm not saying that free speech absolutist position would carry the day in real life (given the current state of affairs in the US, there's no way it would), but it should. That's what defending a principle of liberty is all about. Those who claim to support freedom of speech but would not defend something they find personally offensive are liars, hypocrites, unprincipled, confused, or support double-standards. And if such things were published, and right-wing Christian zealots (for example) reacted violently, then they should be condemned and held accountable. I guess I don't quite get your point (or the similar points made by many other commentators). The US and Europe are often hypocritical in their application and defense of freedom of speech and the press, no doubt. But that is not an argument against the principle and fundamental right itself, it's an argument against hypocrisy and uneven standards. The West should make more of an effort to abide by its principles at all times, rather than undermining them further. If your swimming pool has sprung a few leaks, you plug those leaks--you don't poke out more!
Who knew?--the continued existence of cultural fossils like blasphemy laws in EU countries is shameful, and a direct infringement of freedom of speech by suppressing opinion, and by making criticism of religion a thought crime. Religion is not race, sex, or ethnicity, it's more like political ideology. It's a set of beliefs, of opinions, not an innate characteristic. It should not be made immune to criticism in any way. If people are offended by honest and frank criticism of their religious beliefs in the public sphere, too bad. Grow a thicker skin, defend your position with reason and sound argumentation, engage in dialogue. But don't run to the state and cry for the sinners to be thrown behind bars. That idea is so repugnant, it's no surprise that the laws aren't enforced--people wouldn't stand for it in Europe. But it shows how political correctness and oversensitivity have come to dominate the debate there by the fact that these repellent laws are still on the books. It's right up there with the UK's insane libel law, which presumes guilt and forces a defendant to prove a negative. Utterly, totally whacked. It's shit like this that reminds an American that although Europe might have us beat in some areas, it's hardly Utopia.
nice cartoon re cartoons row:
http://www.bendib.com/newones/20...rk-
cartoons.jpg
Covert 2 Overt--yes, they sure did, and continue to do so, judging by today's Iranian announcement about the Holocaust cartoons.
Ahkmad--I agree with most of your points in general, even if your rhetoric got a bit overheated by the end 
Mohammed was a very unsavory character, and that is being EXTREMELY kind. But let's be fair and realistic, and take a wider view. Islam is not the only religion to use extreme violence to advance its agenda, either historically or currently. All religions have ignoble elements, forces, and histories in this regard--but to widely varying degrees. You could probably arrange religions on a continuum of violence and intolerance, with Buddhism, Taoism, Baha'i, Quakers, UUs, etc. clustered at one end, and the Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) at the other. You can look around the world today and see much violence and intolerance perpetuated in the name of religion, and not just Islam. But it is undeniable that Islam stands out from the pack, especially if one looks beyond aberrations like suicide bombings to view the wider picture of Islam's origins, history, beliefs, philosophy, education, social and political influence, views of art, culture, and science, treatment of women, handling of other religions and the non-religious, etc. Violence, intolerance, puritanical attitudes, theocratic aspirations, extreme cultural and social restrictions, and oppression of women--all these things have been central to Islam from its very inception, and remain so today. I fail to see how any enlightened, educated, modern person--and especially any Westerner--can make excuses for such an ugly system.
Follow-up to my last post: I remember reading something once that really made an impression. At risk of provoking howls of rage from the regular lurkers on this site, it was in. . .Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." Now before I go on, I must say that I found much to disagree with in that book, and his political agenda was patent. Nevertheless, the book contained some nuggets of wisdom and insight. In one passage, he described the relationship between religion and government in his various regions (civilizations). He said that the tradition in the West has been to keep God and Caesar strictly separated into their own spheres; in Russia, God was Caesar's junior partner; in E Asia, Caesar was God; and in Islam, God was Caesar. Of course these generalizations are simplistic shorthand, but it struck me that even so they are rather accurate representations of the histories and systems of these areas. Islam's greater tradition of theocratic rule and continued pursuit of such continues to hobble it in comparison to other traditions.
Humanists is exactly the kind of unthinking thinking person from whom the strategies behind the publication of these cartoons sought to elicit support.
THe odious character of some aspects of Muslim society has nothing to do with the motives behind the publication of these cartoons.
The West has been fucking up the Middle East since the Ottomans made the fatal decision of backing the wrong side in WWI.
All enhanced by the implantation of the West's satrap Israel right in the middle of it.
Has Humanist been keeping count of the carnage perpetrated by 'our' side?
Where is the humanism in this?
ej--"Unthinking thinking person" huh? Hmmm, I'd say that describes most people who comment at this site. I never claimed that "The odious character of some aspects of Muslim society has [something] to do with the motives behind the publication of these cartoons." That's completely backwards. I said that the violent Muslim overreaction to the cartoons brought into sharp focus many odious features of Muslim society. Your comments about the Ottomans and Israel are accurate enough, no disagreement there. But the Muslim world was stagnant and lagging long before Gallipoli. The Ottoman Empire was known as the "Sick Man of Europe" for many years before WWI for a good reason, after all!
I have no "side" in the current Middle Eastern imbroglio. I oppose violence by ALL sides. As I've stated elsewhere, I oppose America's imperial foreign policy and military aggression, I oppose Israeli crimes and occupation, I also oppose terrorism directed at civilians. My humanism leads me to oppose war and violence, exploitation and oppression in all forms, and religious dogmatism and intolerance. I know full well of the "carnage perpetrated by [the West]" and condemn it. I haven't once in any of my comments advocated Western violence or aggression against Muslim nations or peoples, and I defy you to find one instance of that. I find your insinuations above insulting, but oh-so-typical of those of your ilk. You failed to read what I actually wrote, and saw what you thought was there instead.
Leaving all that aside, one other thing my humanism allows me to do is to see the REAL nature of Islam, stripped of the mask of PC cultural relativism provided by Western leftists. And the face behind the mask is hideously ugly. I oppose Islam for the same reasons I oppose Christianity, Judaism, and other rigid, irrational, intolerant orthodoxies--because they're absurd and anti-human. But Islam stands out as deserving of more opprobrium due to its especially savage and fetid position in the world today.
The article from the Pakistan Daily Times shows no understanding whatsoever of the legal procedures in force in Denmark. Proceedings are under way, and while it could be worse (think USA or Italy), there are specific routines to be followed. I'd try to get into details as the non-professional I am in these matters, but I think Juan Cole has summarized it quite well (see link somewhere else).Currently, as of yesterday, the "state prosecutor" has found that it was a "non-case". This has been appealed to the "royal prosecutor" (sorry, no better translations out of the bag, but don't think that the royals are involved in any of this). Law professors and other "experts" are discussing at pompous length whether there is a case or not, and whether it should fall under the so-called Law against Blasphemy, or under the Law against Racism. Now, whether, as all too often is the case, the wile of complex legal proceedures is used against defendants that are on the wrong side of the fence, that's another story.
For the record: only once has anyone been convicted for a violation of the so-called blasphemy law, and that was in 1938, when the law was passed. Since then, proceedings have been initiated on a few occasions (if I remember well, in one case of jesusses with hard-ons and the like), but they were all turned down with reference to freedom of expression. Those who favour jurisprudence against the letter of the law predict that this case will be a no-go. I wish the Muslims who brought the case could find another way that would pinpoint that the issue is not the cartoons, but the years of humiliation. Courts are not the places where true revolutions are made.
One other thought: There seems to be an unfortunate tendency among critics of the US and Israel to look the other way when it comes to the repellent features of Islam. It's as if they say, "Well, there's a lot of nasty shit in the Muslim world. But the US and Israel are doing some terrible things over there, so all that nasty shit is either a justified Muslim reaction to attack, or an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of provocation, or a bunch of forgivable transgressions. Let's just ignore it and heap criticism on the US and Israel, and hopefully the Muslim world will quickly evolve into a humane and progressive place all on its own, as if by magic." Everything odious in the Muslim world is blamed on the US, or Israel, or Zionism, or Western imperialism, or Western materialism and pop culture, or Christianity and Judaism, or oil politics, or authoritarian regimes installed or propped up by the West, or unlucky geography and runaway demographics, or a rigid class structure, or this, or that--everything, it seems, but the pulsating heart of nomadic barbarism still beating in the chest of Islam. Enough. Bullshit. Islam is an ethic of violence, of puritanism, of intolerance, of theocracy, of oppression, of ignorance. It always has been and is now. Until that changes, the Muslim world (and especially the Middle East) will be volatile, unstable, poor, and bloody. For Western liberals and leftists to pretend that there isn't something rotten at the core of Islam, that it's all just the West's fault, is dangerous and disingenuous nonsense.
Lets have a bit less humanism around here
Qur--"it could be worse (think USA)"
There you're wrong, my Scandinavian friend. It would actually be much better in the USA, for due to the fact that we don't have silly legal relics like blasphemy laws, there would be no charges laid, no case to pursue, no procedures to follow at all. See how easy that is?
Good morning, Mr. Berkeley! I trust you enjoyed your fresh, invigorating cup of English Breakfast Tea, and perhaps a scone or two.
You're right, as always. Less humanism all around. That seems to be the trend around the world currently. Your Muslim pals certainly banished humanism from their sphere long ago, if it ever existed there at all. Let's have a big cheer for rigid, dogmatic orthodoxy! Another for smug anti-Americanism and Eurosnobbery! And three cheers for reductionist, Jew-baiting propaganda cliches! Hip hip hooray!
Qûr:
The KKK, being based in the US, is part of the male member-mutiliating culture there. So yeah, they mutilate their male children, just like Jews and Muslims. Interestingly, South Koreans have taken after the Yanks and have adopted circumcision nearly universally since WWII.
I've always wondered if there's some connection to the violence we see acted out in and by the countries that maintain the practice of cock clipping.
I said USA or Italy. I was talking of tediously long proceedings and counter-proceedings that make the whole circus ununderstandable to anyone that's not part of the initiated few.
Horace,
South Korea... that is something I really didn't expect. As for the rest... the Nazis or the French in their different excesses of empire would contradict your hypothesis, and so would probably a good number of Black African people such as the Diolas of southern Senegal (they resort to witchcraft, not wars)
Qur--got it, thx for the clarification. That's a valid point.
Horace--??? The violence in the world is due to. . .circumcision? Ummm, I totally oppose infant male circumcision unless it's absolutely medically necessary, but I think your contention is a bit of a stretch. Germany, Russia, China, Japan, France, Britain, and other non-circumcising countries have certainly contributed their historic share of violence to the world. How does that square with your thesis?
BTW, I just returned to the US from a significant stretch living and working in the Philippines. That's another country that adopted routine male circumcision in the last century due to American cultural influence, from when the Philippines was a US territory and commonwealth from 1898-1946. No one there quite knows why they do it, they just picked it up from the Americans without questioning it, and now it's routine. The only twist there is that only the well-to-do have their boys circumcised after birth in a hospital. Most Filipino boys get circumcised around the age of 13 by going to a specialist with their barkada (gang or group of friends). No family allowed or invited. It's a ritualized procedure that has evolved into something of a boys' rite of passage to correspond to girls' first menses. Unlike even in the US, where there's quite a bit of opposition to circumcision, no one there even questions it or thinks about it too much. Very interesting, and an example of American influence leading to the adoption of a stupid, cruel, unnecessary, and barbaric procedure.
I don't buy the line that this is all just about Danish xenophobia. Denmark can - and in fact has - restricted Muslim immigration. It can oblige immigrants to study the Danish language and culture and all those sort of assimilationist measures that other countries impose on migrants from time to time.
This has got nothing to do with the domestic Muslim population - it's got everything to do with fabricating the 'clash of civilizations.'
This is an actual strategy of the sort that gets discussed at Bilderberg meetings (no Muslims allowed). There are today people whose job it is to go around the world identifying potential hotspots and working out ways to help turn simmering tensions into open ones. It's all deliberate, and you can actually find it being plotted if you research some of the stuff that was being written in the early 1990s, when many of us thought an era of peace had begun with the termination of the Cold War.
Stayed tuned for some interesting revelations on the Jyllands-Posten and on the 'clash of civilizations'on my blog in the next week or two.
I think you guys are missing the point. I don't think this is really about religion at all. It's about the powerful haves doing an "in your face" to the havenots they have been taking advantage of for years. It's a focus for frustration, anguish and rage. It's a human reaction like the Watts riots or the riots in Belfast.
I am also aware of the Philippines' adoption of circumcision. It's gaining ground in Hungary and China as well. Probably seen as tres chic.
To clarify, I said I wondered if there's a connection between violation of people's bodies in the form of circumcision and violence carried out by male members (pun intended) of those societies. In no way did I intend to imply that only people so harmed could carry out violence, as that is unfortunately an impulse of the human animal, with or without foreskin. I just suspect that somehow having the searing pain of a circumcision be one of the first experience of a neonate, or used as a coming of age rite to harden a boy to the harsh realities of adult life, affect the psyche on some level.
Back to our cartoon programming...
Thank you for what you wrote on your blog.
Karl--I don't think anyone is really arguing that this cartoon tempest is only about religion. I certainly don't see it that way. It's a complex siutation with many different things going on. I've just been hammering away on the religion angle because I think it is playing a major role and is being sidelined by many liberals/leftists due to their exclusive focus on a conspiratorial, "clash of civilizations," stirring-things-up-to-lay-the-groundwork-for-the-
next-invasion angle. I saw that as only part of the story and wanted to talk some about the other aspects of the controversy.
You have a point, but don't ignore religious or cultural factors in this controversy in favor of an exclusively class-based analysis. That's just one piece of the puzzle. That's one thing that soured me on Marxism over the years--the dogmatic insistence that all human issues and conflicts be reduced to economics and class struggle. It's too limiting and simplistic. Human beings and their societies are far more complicated than Marxism allows them to be.
Horace--thx for clarifying, I think that's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how you could accurately assess it with sound, rigorous studies. There are just too many factors involved for international comparisons, too many individual psychological and social factors, and for most of those circumcised, it happens at such a young age that they harbor no memories of the event. But it's something curious to muse about. . .
There is little room for doubt that there must be something else into all this than the sole exercise of a right, that of free speech, for its own sake. Nobody wants to insult the islamic beliefs but a lot of papers are republihing the drawings as if to rekindle the fire. Never satisfied. Not enough, please give me more. Come on! Who´s behind all this ? What´s the relationship of this campaign with the french riots in the banlieus? Anything to do with the Iran crisis? The chechenian oil fields ? Whose hand is behind the islamic terror international? Who benefits? Who sways public opinion ? Too many unanswered questions.
PUH-LEASE. You cite as support for your theory a guy who claims the CIA was behind the Bali bombings and/or 9/11. Just a bunch of lame conspiracy theories.
Muslims over-reacted. That's their fault and nobody else's.
I don't think it's a matter of looking the other way Humanist.
It's matter of stopping to support Arab dictatures, theocracies (ie Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq of the 70s-80s, Iran (but that's another kind of "support")) and letting THEIR own people sort it out. Israel support needs to be stopped to, at least military support.
That's the first thing that needs to be done before even thinking about judging one people's religion IMO. If the people of Islamistan or whatever country decides they've had enough of their Imams, be it. Let them take care of it.
Zero-ing on Islam I beleive, gives the exact needed pretext and excuse that whatever Arab speaking country "needs to be dealt with".
The neocons of today needs these radicalizing factors anyways.
Horace: on the chopping of foreskins, just to make sure we never drown in generalizations. A friend of mine, a pink European, had to get circumcised because of a birth condition that caused him extreme pain during intercourse. Now, it seems that this genetic condition is very common among some ethnic groups of African Blacks. A Diola man I once knew well told me that he had intercourse with a girl before he got circumcised (I think, but I'm not sure that the Diolas are one of those ethnic groups that have circumcision ceremonies every so and so many years, chopping in one go all the youth that came of age in the meantime). He ended up with terrible pains and, as he described it to me many years later, "bleeding like a pig".
Emilio--the short answer to your question, the one that would be provided by most commentators at this site, is that of course the Israeli Jew Zionists did it, and are behind all the things you listed, plus much, much, SO much more. It's so self-evident really.
I mean, let's look at some facts, shall we? The entire annual GNP of Israel, in Purchasing Power Parity (the most accurate way to compare int'l economic statistics), is about 1/4 the size of the Pentagon's annual PUBLIC budget, let alone it's top-secret, "black" budget. The US intelligence establishment has an annual budget estimated at 40-50% of Israel's annual GNP. Sure, the US provides some billions of support to Israel every year, but not enough to significantly alter those basic statistics. The annual Israeli defense/intelligence budget is but a fraction the size of the defense/intelligence budgets of even countries like France or the UK. Israel, after all, is much, much smaller than those countries and significantly poorer on a per capita basis, not to mention the USA. The Israeli military is smaller than those of France or Britain, and although no one really knows the size or budgets of Mossad and Shin Bet, it's a pretty safe assumption that they're smaller and less well-funded than similar agencies in the strongest Euro states, and just a small fraction of the strength and wealth of the equivalent US agencies. Israel has a population smaller than London's, of which only about 80-82% are Jews, not all of whom are fanatical Zionist extremists by any measure. What can we conclude from all this?
Clearly, the crafty Israeli Zionists are of near-superhuman strength, intelligence, endurance, talent, resourcefulness, and capabilities. They can be seemingly everywhere at once, running the world as they see fit, orchestrating war and terror globally on a shoestring. They have infiltrated their spies and agents into all governments, bureaucracies, militaries, and foreign intelligence agencies of any consequence, all layers of media throughout the world, academia, business and finance, all terrorist organizations of any note (many of which they've created themselves for their own nefarious purposes, those wily bastards!)--you name it. From these posts, they set the global agenda, run world affairs, foment wars, plan and wage campaigns of terror to implicate their enemies and gain sympathy, carry out innumerable assassinations, suck up massive quantities of information to use to blackmail anyone, anywhere who gets in their way, and so much more. They are all-seeing, all-knowing, with a finger in every pie, and seemingly unlimited power and luck. Behind every plot, at the heart of every conspiracy, their bloody fingerprints all over wars and terrorist attacks the world over. And all with such limited resources! Those sinister Zionists know how to economize, baby! To make so much out of so little! I guess the Jews' reputation as penny-pinching tightwads has some basis in fact,
and has led them to the pinnacle of world power, to the point that they can lead around the wealthiest, most powerful nation in world history like a naked, bootlicking sex slave on a leash. One has no option but to bow down and worship such omnipotence! They really must be the "Chosen" people!
Horace, the Koreans need to hault that practice immediately they are inadequate enough in that department--jeesh. Weiner clipping=nonviolence hmm I never thought of that, are we a moyl looking to drum up business?? If so--awesome PR approach my friend. what can you do with labiaplasty?
What I was talking about is primarily of the 20th century onward and yes especially Catholicism has been very violent BUT THE CONNECTION IS the yearning to create theocratic rule and or dictatorships as Islam has done and is asserting with much that they do, in, and with primarily Islamic countries.
Granted I was a bit 'heated' in my contest to those who see the victim as Islam without seeing the reallities of their hyper-reactionism to religious offense BUT the connection is that Islam wants a theocratic dictatorship to reign supreme. Numerous other religions who have no such vested interest largely do not do this. Catholicism wanted theocratic rule (or more to the point to maintain the one they had) so they went on the agenda of harsh violence to attain the power to do or keep that. that's the connection so Islam having the same dictatorial theocratic wants does the same to get it and or in many cases moves to justify it to maintain it as we have with these latest fires.
I guess a case can be drawn that the protestors were pawn-like to the theocratic governments. But it is really a choice either civility or hostility and time and time again the hostile road by Islam is persued geared by what they ultimately want--to conquer the west and raise up a kingdom ruled by clerics bent on violence themselves.
They are not the friendly little elves that the west and it's PC has mistaken them for nor their faith entirely noble. They are quite determined to create hostile theocratic regeims and such bursts of irrational violence are a means to atleast justify that.I.e. the west is such an enemy to us so we must separate ourselves and defy them, AND whom does that ultimately serve? A cause? A cause to do what?
If it were really about civil rights they would have gone the civil path.
This sums it up for me: (from a Dutch newspaper, quoted in the New York Times}: "In America, few people fear that they will have to live according to the norms of Islam. In European countries, with a large or growing Muslim minority, there is a real fear that behind the demand for respect hides another agenda: the threat that everyone must adjust to the rules of Islam". Indeed, freedom of speech is not the issue, it's the other word that starts with an 'f'.
Your sarcasm seems to have fallen a bit flat, o voluble humanist entity.
As flat as all your commentary on this site? Oh horrors!
Sarcasm is the only pertinent response to so much of the shite (as you no doubt would put it) on this site and in the commentary. . .
Jason--thanks for the quote, the Dutch paper makes a valid point. It's so easy for comfy Western armchair critics of Israel and the US to ignore the human rights disaster that is Islam, to look the other way, to make excuses, to blame all of it on the West, for the simple fact that none of them live under the sword of Islam, or have any intention to, nor will they face that likelihood. Of course they wouldn't in a million years voluntarily choose to live under such a system--why, the precious liberties they take for granted would then be infringed, many of them would face harsh treatment or even death for their beliefs, views, and behaviors, and they'd have to face up to what Islam REALLY is, not their warm and fuzzy Western liberal/lefty cultural relativist feel-goody can't-we-all-just-get-along? fantasy of Islam. And of course such a thing would be anathema to them. Those who DO face more of a threat from Muslim beliefs and attitudes justifiably have a very different take on the issue.
'Shite' is an irish term, humanist, not an english one. Your views on Islam seem somewhat lacking in the first hand department, if I may make so bold as to say so.
Funny, I've heard many English, including some personal friends, use "shite." Perhaps they were all just surreptitiously making fun of the Irish by doing so, and the "joke" was lost in translation to the American. I guess that wouldn't be surprising knowing how the English are to the Irish. . .
Rowan, your thought processes are so illogical sometimes, I really have to scratch my head in puzzlement. So what if I don't have direct life experience of living under Islam? I've traveled to Muslim countries before, and I'm intelligent and informed enough to have studied Muslim religion, society, and history. I can form my own reasonable conclusions based on a wealth of evidence. Let's take your "thinking" to its logical conclusion. The peoples of Britain, France, the US, etc. had no experience of living under fascism or Nazism in the 1930s. Does that mean they shouldn't have spoken out in criticism of those abhorrent systems? People in the West had no experience of living under totalitarian Stalinism in the Soviet Union. Should they not have expressed opposition to that inhuman system? Westerners have no experience of living in the Occupied Territories of Palestine under Israeli oppression. Should they not condemn Israeli abuses for that reason? No one alive today has any experience living in a slave-owning, plantation society like that of the American Southeast before the Civil War. Does that mean we can't express horror and outrage at such a perverse institution as chattel slavery? I could come up with many more examples. Your argument is. . .well, how to put it? I guess I could use some complex, Latinized, professorial terms, but all that comes to mind is. . .STUPID.
re:humanist@11:52
I would think that a few banana and coffee plantation workers would disagree with you there.
For Humanist, the point about not condemning the Muslim reaction is not that anyone thinks modern Islam is perfect but that there are more important things to worry about...
Imagine there's this town next to a chemical factory and kids start getting sick and dying. Then this one doctor links the sick children to playing in a stream near the factory. The chemical factory's in big trouble but then they find out the doctor's an alcoholic and his papers aren't quite in order. If you were editor of the town paper, would you write "We will listen to Dr Smith when he solves his drink problem and sorts out his papers" or "We have to stop this pollution now".
We can debate whether Israel and the US are really as evil as some think but to say that that debate has to be postponed until the Muslims turn into angels is really not fair.
I totally agree with Rogerh on that point.
Anyways those who want and say we should critisize religion first are, IMO, implicitly backing and supporting the current war in Iraq and the next ones that are coming.
What kind of concrete plan is there behind the rationale "critisize Islam first" ? None. The thinking process stops there.
", or allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency itself may have been involved in the Bali bombings of 2002."
I would like to see a link to support this assertion, if anyone has one.
digitalspy--I should have wrote: "No one alive today IN THE WEST has any experience. . ." in my point about chattel slavery. Certainly, conditions approaching slavery exist in some parts of the world today, and some people really are still enslaved. But my point was about Westerners condemning systems of which they have no direct experience, to rebut Rowan's silly thesis that I can't criticize Islam as a socioreligious system because I don't live under it.
Rogerh--your analogy is painfully strained. I'm sorry, but the evils of Islam are just a BIT greater than a person being an alcoholic with his papers out of order! If you can't see that, then you're blind--the only question is whether or not it's willful blindness. And I never, EVER asserted that we need to put off addressing Israeli and American crimes in the Middle East until Mulsims become "angels." That is a total misreading of everything I've written on this site. I'm offended that you could so misconstrue my point, after I've made it quite clear several different times. I hope it was only unintentional.
Covert 2 Overt--where did I ever say that we need to criticize Islam or religion "first?" You're inaccurately attributing statements and sentiments to me that I don't hold and haven't expressed. And you're completely off-base to assert that my criticisms of Islam demonstrate implicit support of the Iraq war or "the next ones that are coming." That's merely your uninformed opinion and shows the straightjacket that you've forced your "thinking" into (if it even deserves to be graced by the term "thinking").
I just don't get the people on this site--everything is always totally black-and-white, either-or, A or not-A, positive or negative--all issues are seen as a zero-sum game. If you find anything to condemn about Islam and express that opinion, then you clearly support the US and Israel 100%. If you attack the US and Israel for their crimes, then you have to look away and give Islam a pass for its despicable qualities. Is it that simplistic, that cut-and-dried? Can't a reasonable, thinking, informed, enlightened, fair-minded person condemn BOTH sides--the US and Israel for their aggressions, oppressions, and crimes, and Islam for its oppressions and crimes too? Damn, why is that SO fucking hard to understand? Is there just a cognitive block in the brains of leftists and anti-Zionists? Or is it just the people on this site?
Jeezus, so many people on this site would be laughed out of a high school debating club. . .
Of course my first line should read: "I should have written. . ." Type too fast and don't proofread and those pesky little grammatical slip-ups will get you every time!
And the humanist, being deeply concerned with human rights and freedoms, democracy, equality, health, prosperity, quality of life, etc. would not be content to secure a people against the depredations of one oppressor, only to leave them in the clutches of another, unmolested. The humanist desires to free the individual and the society from ALL forms of oppression. That is why I, as a humanist, condemn both Islam and the crimes of the West in the Middle East. I merely focus so much on Islam on this site because no one else deems it worthy of discussion and everyone here already pounds away relentlessly at the West without my two cents being added to the fusillade.
"I just don't get the people on this site--everything is always totally black-and-white, either-or, A or not-A, positive or negative--all issues are seen as a zero-sum game."
-- poor humanist, you have landed among people who just can't see the shades of gray.
Damn right, Rowan. And that's a weakness of the analysis here, not a strength!
Humanist.
Sorry for putting you in a box you don't belong.
I just think that we know all we need to know about religions; they all can be twisted, distorted in order to con, control and have the population cower into submission. Anything new ? Anything new to the debate that's not just a inflammtory statements that will just put more mud into the water ?
I KNOW religions can be THAT bad, yes.
I just think these cartoons didn't belong to the category "constructive critic" and people defending this controversy on the basis of "we should critisize Islam" are defending something I think is very doubtful as a valid argument. Let's face it, the cartoons just plain sucked.
Covert 2 Overt--thanks for the apology, that's a rare thing on this site!
I agree that YOU and I might know all the dark dirty secrets of religion, but many people don't. Many people view it as essential to humanity, as self-evidently good and righteous, and as justified in its persecution of other religions, non-believers, or seculars. These sentiments are deeply entrenched in the Muslim world, to a degree most Westerners would find deeply baffling. So, I'm not quite ready to concede with you that honest, valid criticisms of religion are merely inflammatory muddying of the waters. And we're not just talking about Islam either. Radical Zionist Judaism is fucking up Israel, right-wing evangelical Christianity is battling for power and influence in the US, radical Hinduism is a big problem on the Indian subcontinent and on Sri Lanka. There are more examples. So I feel it our duty to speak out against dogmatic orthodoxies and oppressive systems no matter what they are.
You're right, the cartoons did suck and weren't constructive criticism. I wasn't arguing that they were though. my free speech absolutist argument was that even if they were offensive and non-constructive, they had a right to be published anyway. And people had a right to protest their publication as being in bad taste. But when the protests in the West started to undermine the fundamental liberty of free speech, and when the protest in Muslim countries rejected dialogue and exceeded the bounds of reasonable, proportionate response to become hideously violent, then we had a big problem all around. The problem in the West lay with the provocateurs who published the cartoons and with the namby-pamby PC crowd who started wringing their hands afterwards. The problem in the Muslim world was excessive and ugly violence, orchestrated and coordinated, and aided and abetted by the states involved. The episode points up flaws in EVERYONE involved, including Muslims. Then I was attacked and pushed down the blind alley of arguing what a wretched system Islam is to its own people, and what a danger it is, and although I firmly support those notions, my initial purpose wasn't to force that issue so much. It just developed that way.
They have inflamed public opinion and perpetuated the divide between muslims and non-muslims, east and west. This is the gooal of both western government and their extremist counterparts. Now it is that bit easier for them to invade muslim countries. Pretty relevent for them with the current situation with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria.
"both western government and their extremist counterparts" is hopefully a slight over simplification, Jamal. The more intelligent right wingers, both in Europe and in the USA, are able to see that the war between Christians and Muslims is simply a Jewish trap. You may be surprised at the extent to which they are also able to use what looks like simplistic race rhetoric without actually being taken in by it themselves, simply to offset the class rhetoric used by their opponents.
i send you grettings buying birth control pills without a prescription canada
student credit card instant student credit card instant student credit card instant // ringtones for v60i ringtones for v60i ringtones for v60i
cash loan need now cash loan need now cash loan need now. discharging student loan bankruptcy discharging student loan bankruptcy discharging student loan bankruptcy.
Commenting by HaloScan
