Posted on 02/12/2006 9:27:39 AM PST by struwwelpeter
As in 'bats in the belfry'?
The chronical beneath the article seems to contradict the author's thesis, but I thought it was interesting to look at another point of view for a change. Of course, when viewed from their 'belfry', Western Europe probably looks like a prosperous island of stability.
Neo-Nazis aren't my first choice to go to battle against fanatic Moslems, but, at this point, I'll take whoever has the balls to do it.
I kind of doubt there was a clash of neo-Nazis with the Mooslims, it was probably more like 3 or 4 skinheads holding a banner while surrounded by 300 journalists.
So, I guess you really mean that the end DOES justify the means, if the end is what YOU want. The means, however, AREN'T justified if the end isn't what YOU want.
Put another way: the road to hell ISN'T paved with good intentions.
Or, it's not what you do OR how you do it.
Is that what you mean?
Why are the DANISH neo-nazis fighting the German battle? The Germans never did anything for the Danes (except give them Danish).
Also, if the neo-Nazis had REAL balls they would have street fights against the Muslims in GERMANY. Now, there would be a show of balls.
"neo-Nazis"
I wouldn't go there. neo-Nazis are scum. They'd be great for fertilizer and that's about it.
I liked this article btw. I tend to agree: the riots aren't about religion. Anything will do as an outlet for islamic extremists.
Oh..my God... now that's a keeper.
http://grani.ru/Culture/essay/rubinstein/p.101518.html
No, you did it on purpose!
It is a complex topic, what can you say? What can offend someone is not always understandable, and in that sense if someone really wants to be offended, he will find a reason.
Recently I was in the Moscow Metro and in a big hurry. In my haste, I accidentally bumped into a man. I immediately apologized, but at the same time I was excusing myself there followed a blow to my back. "What's that for?" I asked, dumbfounded. "Why did you push me?" he replied. "But I apologized." "And why should I care that you apologized?" "But I didn't do it on purpose!" "No, you did it on purpose!" Exhausting my reserves of arguments, I went on my way.
I think that it is reasonable to be offended if the offending party did it consciously. To be offended by awkwardness or tactlessness is neither practical nor smart. In general, the more confident a person is that he is right, then the less touchy he is about something.
Cultural differences and traditions should also be remembered. Let us assume that a word in some language means something like holiness or virtuousness, but in another language it sounds like something very indecent and insulting to someone's national feelings. What can you do?
To depict a prophet in a very foolish context is a great sin in Islamic tradition, but not in Christian tradition, or at least sometimes. There are even atheistic traditions, but these too have won for themselves the right to exist.
So, some Viking joker drew two or three pictures (and not very good ones, by the way), and they got published in some local newspaper over there. So what? Who would have noticed, had it not been for the cries of the offended?
And so it went. The offended now threaten and rattle sabers, demanding apologies and sanctions, demanding clampdowns and punishments. Others, just to spite the offended, reprint these pictures in their newspapers, this defending their right to this freedom. That is also pretty silly, but it is more intelligible and nearer to me personally. I understand that people, whose profession and work are connected with speaking, writing, drawing, singing, and filming, are inclined to be nervous whenever the discussion turns to putting limits on creative freedom.
I am not justifying it, but I understand. I understand, because I am one of those, who hold the concept of freedom no less piously than someone else may hold sacred something else. They say, however, that religious feelings are a special subject. No joking. But why are they special? Why no jokes? If it was a case of 'in a hanged man's house don't mention a rope', then I could understand, but why here? Is it an unhealthy topic, in this sense? But why is it unhealthy? That is, I understand, that this topic can be unhealthy for those who do not have strong faith, but if they do believe strongly, then why?
I am not a very religious person, but it seems to be that if I were, then I would discuss the matter this way: say a person said, drew, or sculpted something that in one way or another insulted my religious sensitivities. Yes, he is committing sacrilege and blasphemy, but he is an unreasonable, unhappy heathen, who does not know or understand what I know and understand. I have faith and I am happy. He does not have faith and he is wretched and deprived.
I would pray for him and for his straying soul, since he does not know what he is doing. If he is worthy of punishment, then I, as man of faith, know that it is for someone other than myself to punish him.
Lev Rubenstein
February 3rd, 2006 17:52
This is exactly what I was talking about - thanks for the post.
The first one was interesting, and it is probably valid to look at what is going on as a response to change or the lack of it. However, that does not make it right or even tolerable.
Exactly! I won't lose a wink if both destroy each other. If given the chance, I'd even do what I feel the CIA should be doing, antagonise them against each other.
This is an interesting sentence. No worries about culture or history, nations reduced to their governments and citizenship reduced to the obligation of paying tribute to the central elite in hopes that they will maintain "satisfactory social order." A new feudalism and perhaps capitalism's final development. It makes nations, or at least nations as they presently exist, rather unnecessary since that state is defined only by its ability to keep order. All too clever by half since no matter what this nitwit thinks it will make a difference when France, say, is majority Muslim and African.
Guys that had to guard them said the Iraqis had no problem gobbling down the infamous 'pork patty' MRE, and loved that UHT room-temperature milk too.
That's just what I'd love on a blistering, dusty day in the desert. A big old cheese-spread sandwhich washed down with warm milk... chocolate... barf.
There's only one USA, and unfortunately the USA hovers around 51% USA and 49% European.
Someone gave me a link to a Russian site: A short dictionary of a liberal superman. Though it's tongue in cheek, it sort of gives an insight:
WORK - that, which BYDLO (sort of a crude form of 'sheeple') don't know how to do.Apparently Russian liberals and American ones are two different birds entirely. The last thing our liberals earned for themselves was the gold in the 100-meter Oldsmobile freestyles at Chappaquiddick.OLIGARCHY - the highest form of DEMOCRACY
TO TAKE EVERYTHING AND SHARE IT – the dream and main slogan of BYDLO, NATIONALISTS, COMMUNISTS, AND PATRIOTS.
BYDLO - a creature that is neither a member of the SPS or Yabloko parties. BYDLO is guilty of all the problems in RASHKA.
RASHKA - the country where BYDLO lives.
TO EARN IT YOURSELF - the lifestyle of liberals. It resists the tendency of BYDLO TO TAKE EVERYTHING AND SHARE IT.
Perhaps there's something even more evil than Nazis loose on the earth theses days :-(
You are preaching moral equivalency.
It is a BASIC concept of Christianity and ALL religions that the ends DON'T justify the means EVER, in any circumstance.
That is one of the very cornerstones of all philosophy and it's an absolute morality of Christian (any religion) ethics.
Evil monsters throughout our history have believed the way you do.
You must be very young. Take a look at my tagline.
I don't know what Churchill might have said. But, he was a moral equivocator sometimes.
The THEORY is that in war, enemies and friends sometimes blur in the heat of moral equivalency.
Prime example of U.S. moral equivlancy, that is, backing a monster because it was convenient (Jimmy Carter foreign policy, continued by Reagan):
The U.S. back the monster Sadaam Hussein against Iran. The U.S. knew full well what a monster Hussein was and were reminded of it by every Arab nation in the area. But, the U.S. wanted to get Iran more.
Result: after 9 years of fruitless support, both financial, moral and armaments, Iraq won not one inch of Iranian land and had to sue for peace.
Iran was the hero nation of Islam because they fought U.S.-back, supported, financed and armed Iraq....and beat back the Butcher of Baghdad. That has ALWAYS been Sadaam's nickname, way back from the 1970's.
Worse than Hitler? Oh yes. Stalin was worse, only because he had MUCH more time.
Worse than Stalin? Oh yes. Mao was worse. He wins the title of most people killed, tortured, imprisoned, experimented on, massed graved, etc.
In those two countries, you saw evil personified. The DIDN'T do it all alone, either. Sad thing: Mao is still a HERO in his country. How warped is that?
Usama bin Laden and Al-Qaida are evil too but they simply don't have the numbers ... yet. They need several tens of millions to kill, torture, imprison, experiment on, etc., to catch up to Stalin or Mao. They won't catch up with them, of course, because they aren't nations, are just individuals, have no national armies and incur the anger of their own.
bin Laden was stripped of his Saudi citizenship years ago and awaits a head-chopping if he ever goes home. No one will take him in....except, of course, Afghanistan and Pakistan, both Muslim nations....neither of which are Arab countries.
The 'Putin is bringing back the USSR' crowd maintain that behind all our enemies stands a Russian. The 'Putinists' regard him as the least evil of a whole lot of evils, which in essence summarize Russian history.
Looking forward to your reply :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.