[Janos]

in the second link down.

I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.

But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.

Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of   seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?

Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.

There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.

Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with nes in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.

I'm not American.

edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB

[IPAndrews]

I just went to the bbc news main page and saw a link to a report entitled:

"Pakistan cartoon violence spreads!"

Is there anyone else who finds this funny? 

[Flipside]

The phrase 'Infidel' is based on 'Infidelity' which is basically, calling someone a Traitor for not believing in the Islamic religion. So basically, it's perfectly alright to call the Western churches Treacherous, and the members of those religions 'Traitors'. It's done so often now we, and probably the people using the term, don't even see the implied insult.

Ironic huh?

[Krackers87]

in the second link down.

I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.

But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.

Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of   seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?

Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.

There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.

Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.

I'm not American.

edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB

I never said you were... and uh.... 

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

[aldo_14]

I never said you were... and uh....

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon?  He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.

[Styxx]

Hey, we're marked as "Defenders of freedom of speech" on the map. Cool!

[Flipside]

I notice our own press remains strangely neutral, I can't quite figure that out, I've always considered the British Tabloids to be world leaders in supporting Freedom of Speech, even, sometimes, beyond the point of reasonable.

It's probably our mixed culture that does it, but most of the Muslims I know had an  opinion of 'I don't find the cartoons anger me, I find they sadden me.'

[Janos]

in the second link down.

I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.

But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.

Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of   seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?

Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.

There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.

Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.

I'm not American.

edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB

I never said you were... and uh.... 

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

As aldo so eloquently put, you didn't give us even any hypothetical scenarios which we could discuss. I wanted to know just what your wild assertion of propability of war being as high as 99,8% was based on - who, how, what, when, why. Your remarks of "learn some history and maybe I'll explain later" didn't help either because you made a point - the burden of proof is on you and now anyone can want you to explain your points.

 Anyways.

Populace can riot. They can do stupid stuff as much as they want, because that rarely has any real effect on politics - and this is even more true in non-free countries. That doesn't mean governments would be as stupid as people - they shouldn't be and they rarely are. Even the most insane dictatorships - let's take Iran and NK, both being pretty visible players in world politics - know their limits.
NK throws a ****fit every now and then and then are willing to discuss and negotiate, all while essentially keeping the necessary aid flowing and their enigmatic country isolated in all respects. Iran is quite possibly trying to become a nuclear state, but so far even they haven't attacked Israel, Turkey, Iraq, US, whomever because they would lose more than they would gain. They do hilarious things like holocaust denial cartoon contests and bossing/trying to boss IAEA around, but so far nothing really solid.
This is backbone of all politics - gains and losses. Also, Iran has more allies than NK and can, for quite complex reasons, somehow rely on Russia (which is pretty interested in keeping it's southern borders stable, obedient and suitable for oil trade..).

Spewing fiery rhetorics and taking machiavellian stances on violent riots is a really, really good way to pump up civilian support. It's also great if you're trying to turn attention from, let's say, political assasinations, bad economy, nonexistant freedoms and all that jazz, because it always works.

Boycotting Danish products is quite far from turning into a full-scale war. OK, Denmark can become a big bad bogeyman and hated in those countries - but that doesn't mean war (or at least war as we are used to define it. State-supported terrorism, for example, is rather grey area and has been a useful tool in world politics too!)

[Turnsky]

obviously whoever said "the pen is mightier than the sword" didn't have this in mind.
look, to be serious folks, if this wasn't so tragic, it'd be hilarious to watch, i mean, people getting riled up over a -cartoon- of all things, i know it's a religious figure and whatnot, but people have done that to various popes, jesus, and god, and a few fundies might complain, but they don't go absolutely ape**** about it. i mean, these actions show a degree of immaturity you don't see all that often outside the internet. 

[Goober5000]

Ya rly.  The Catholics didn't do this when that guy did that painting of the Virgin Mary covered in whatsit.

Of course, the newspapers had no compunctions then about reprinting pictures of that. Real consistent of them.

[Ford Prefect]

If you're referring to Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", that piece was intended only to honor the Virgin Mary through the use of African symbolic motifs. It was entirely misunderstood because people didn't even take the time to learn about the piece. (Not that I would condone its removal even if it had been meant offensively.)

[Krackers87]

I never said you were... and uh....

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon?  He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.

No, i admited that i wasnt going to take the time out of my day to research my point to answer his questions if he was going to behave like a 3 year old, especialy the little time i have, and its still much of a hunch but a big one at that, and since you express disbelief for the same reasons and manage to make your disbelief one of an adult whom if i were to take the time to go ahead and spend the time to make a strong backup for what i said, not just rebute them with retarded crap like that, i will go ahead and do so when i find the energy as ive been home for maybe 2 whole hours today.

[Krackers87]

in the second link down.

I couldnt honestly tell you when but from what ive learned from history class and my own insight into history, this has all the makings of the prelude to a war.

But timewise, im thinking by the end of the year, at least from the level of escalation over the past month, also if i understand correctly many of the spiritual leaders of the sunnis or shiites, have been calling for acts of violence. I think thats pretty damn well higher level to me.

Plus most of the middle eastern countries (jordan/lebanon/syria i think) have been warring against each other for a multitude of   seemingly minor (in comparison considering the sheer level of people in uproar) religious/political reasons. Whats to stop them from declaring war on other nations for reasons which, seem to be stronger, against those nations which theyve either hated, or most have had pretty negative feelings towards?

Quite a few things have a making of war. What we learn from history is basically that we cannot draw direct comparisons between a historic moment(s) and current moment, because the circumstances can differ quite dramatically. Wars were fought for stuff like this centuries ago, but not always.

There are couple of things which are pretty good at preventing something like a war - and honestly, I cannot believe a word you say if you're unable to even name some countries and some motives, it's like saying "well something bad is gunna happen! dunno what though". One of the reasons is that every single major islamic country lacks force projection. Another reason is economy, they cannot piss off western world because they would be quite ****ed - granted, oil countries have leverage but that has little use if someone starts shooting. Yet another reason is something called NATO, which both Denmark and Norway are part of. And yet another reason is that nobody really dares to piss off USA because they would lose. And so on and so on.

Dont be so high and mighty about the US, also, if you kept up with news in the past 4 years i wouldnt have to explain, but i will tommorow after work if i dont feel like it when i get home tonight.

I'm not American.

edit: READ MY MIND OR UR DUMB

I never said you were... and uh.... 

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

As aldo so eloquently put, you didn't give us even any hypothetical scenarios which we could discuss. I wanted to know just what your wild assertion of propability of war being as high as 99,8% was based on - who, how, what, when, why. Your remarks of "learn some history and maybe I'll explain later" didn't help either because you made a point - the burden of proof is on you and now anyone can want you to explain your points.

 Anyways.

Populace can riot. They can do stupid stuff as much as they want, because that rarely has any real effect on politics - and this is even more true in non-free countries. That doesn't mean governments would be as stupid as people - they shouldn't be and they rarely are. Even the most insane dictatorships - let's take Iran and NK, both being pretty visible players in world politics - know their limits.
NK throws a ****fit every now and then and then are willing to discuss and negotiate, all while essentially keeping the necessary aid flowing and their enigmatic country isolated in all respects. Iran is quite possibly trying to become a nuclear state, but so far even they haven't attacked Israel, Turkey, Iraq, US, whomever because they would lose more than they would gain. They do hilarious things like holocaust denial cartoon contests and bossing/trying to boss IAEA around, but so far nothing really solid.
This is backbone of all politics - gains and losses. Also, Iran has more allies than NK and can, for quite complex reasons, somehow rely on Russia (which is pretty interested in keeping it's southern borders stable, obedient and suitable for oil trade..).

Spewing fiery rhetorics and taking machiavellian stances on violent riots is a really, really good way to pump up civilian support. It's also great if you're trying to turn attention from, let's say, political assasinations, bad economy, nonexistant freedoms and all that jazz, because it always works.

Boycotting Danish products is quite far from turning into a full-scale war. OK, Denmark can become a big bad bogeyman and hated in those countries - but that doesn't mean war (or at least war as we are used to define it. State-supported terrorism, for example, is rather grey area and has been a useful tool in world politics too!)

Asking for proof requires time for me to give you that proof, or evidence of proof etc,

Try to take that into account next time.

[Goober5000]

If you're referring to Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary", that piece was intended only to honor the Virgin Mary through the use of African symbolic motifs. It was entirely misunderstood because people didn't even take the time to learn about the piece. (Not that I would condone its removal even if it had been meant offensively.)

It can be taken two ways, neither of which justifies the painting:

1) It used obscure symbolism to honor the Virgin Mary.  Fine.  But who is going investigate obscure symbolism that on its face is patently offensive, revolting, and insulting?  It's just not appropriate.  If you want to honor the Virgin Mary using obscure symbolism, for goodness sake pick something that doesn't outrage your entire target audience!

2) More likely, it was a direct attack on Catholicism.  Also fine; nothing is above criticism.  But using "art" as a thinly-veiled cover for all-out butchering of Catholic sensibilities is deplorable - both for its content and for the fact that the "artist" is trying to pass off and excuse his attack as something other than what it really is.  I'd even say it blasphemes art as much as it blasphemes Catholicism.  I support art; I even support the absurd "abstract art" that passes for high-society entertainment these days.  But I do not and will not support such an abominable assault on public sensibilities.  And taxpayers have the right to determine what their money is used for.

This article expresses it better than I could:

The obliviousness of elite opinion on this issue is astonishing. A New York Times editorial on the Brooklyn controversy informed us that "cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life." Transgression aimed at Christian believers may be a walk in the park to the Times, but the paper clearly doesn't feel that way when the transgression is aimed at groups it cares more about.

This is known as a double standard. Many people, including black and Jewish leaders, came forward to say that a dung-and-porn portrait of a rabbi or Martin Luther King Jr. would probably have been yanked from the show with no blather at all about artistic freedom....

The usual term for this kind of politics is propaganda. And nasty propaganda ought to be denounced, even when it's gussied up as art.

Now, having read this post, step outside the discussion for a moment.  I'm upset about this.  If I was Catholic, I'd probably be even more upset.  And the fact that it was reprinted and discussed everywhere did nothing to quell the tension; in fact it exacerbated it.  But neither I nor any Catholics across the globe rioted or advocated war against the artist or those who support it.  And hardly any newspapers or media outlets refused to run the story or refused to air the pictures out of respect for Catholicism.

[Janos]

I never said you were... and uh....

I retract my previous statements of proving my points, i refuse to argue with children.

So you admit he was right in that Middle Eastern nations have no military ability to go to war with countries hundreds of miles away which they have a strong economic dependence upon?  He was right, too, that you failed to name any country which would actually declare war on a western nation and for what reason the government of such a government would choose to do so.

No, i admited that i wasnt going to take the time out of my day to research my point to answer his questions if he was going to behave like a 3 year old, especialy the little time i have, and its still much of a hunch but a big one at that, and since you express disbelief for the same reasons and manage to make your disbelief one of an adult whom if i were to take the time to go ahead and spend the time to make a strong backup for what i said, not just rebute them with retarded crap like that, i will go ahead and do so when i find the energy as ive been home for maybe 2 whole hours today.

My rebute "READ MY THOUGHTS OR UR DUMB" was maybe, just maybe, because you make a wild statement and then when called out on it say stuff like "well lol history learn my young padawan". You know, you can provide your proof amd just reply later.

Now, just on what was your assertion based on?

[Ford Prefect]

It can be taken two ways, neither of which justifies the painting:

1) It used obscure symbolism to honor the Virgin Mary.  Fine.  But who is going investigate obscure symbolism that on its face is patently offensive, revolting, and insulting?  It's just not appropriate.  If you want to honor the Virgin Mary using obscure symbolism, for goodness sake pick something that doesn't outrage your entire target audience!

2) More likely, it was a direct attack on Catholicism.  Also fine; nothing is above criticism.  But using "art" as a thinly-veiled cover for all-out butchering of Catholic sensibilities is deplorable - both for its content and for the fact that the "artist" is trying to pass off and excuse his attack as something other than what it really is.  I'd even say it blasphemes art as much as it blasphemes Catholicism.  I support art; I even support the absurd "abstract art" that passes for high-society entertainment these days.  But I do not and will not support such an abominable assault on public sensibilities.  And taxpayers have the right to determine what their money is used for.

It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.

[Turnsky]

Ya rly.  The Catholics didn't do this when that guy did that painting of the Virgin Mary covered in whatsit.

Of course, the newspapers had no compunctions then about reprinting pictures of that. Real consistent of them.

that and a whole bunch of catholic fundies didn't threaten to blow up the place, i mean, anybody remember the "stink" over the "piss jesus" ? this deal in Denmark makes that pale in comparison. really.

[Flipside]

I must admit, I think this one by Cagle pretty much covers it all....

http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/lauzan.gif

[TrashMan]

It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.

If people are trying ot say something, than they should say it in a way that everyone can understand..
I understand hte concept of art, but if you're making things that only you and a select few nutjobs on the planet can understand or appreciate, then you're better of doing nothing.

A lot of crap these days passes for art, while in reality has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, this is just a general assesment of the situation -  I personalyl never seen taht pisture so I cna't comment on that.

[aldo_14]

It was not an attack on Catholicism. Chris Ofili is of Nigerian descent and spent a lot of time studying traditional art in Zimbabwe, and he frequently uses the same material that he employed for that piece in many of his other works. He was sincerely creating a work intended to express reverence for the Virgin Mary through the use of techniques that he found appealing, and had studied at great length. Obscurity is no excuse for laziness; nobody dismisses James Joyce because you need an encyclopedia to read Finnegan's Wake. If you just make a cursory examination of a work of art, whether it's literature, film, visual art or anything, and then decide that you're offended, all you've done is to put words in the artist's mouth. Art is the external manifestation of people's largest, most complex thoughts, and there is no way on Earth that you're going to hear what they're really trying to say if you don't do them the courtesy of actually studying their work. With real art, that usually requires learning a thing or two beyond the piece itself. If you've done that, you can feel however you want about it.

If people are trying ot say something, than they should say it in a way that everyone can understand..
I understand hte concept of art, but if you're making things that only you and a select few nutjobs on the planet can understand or appreciate, then you're better of doing nothing.

A lot of crap these days passes for art, while in reality has nothing to do with it.
Mind you, this is just a general assesment of the situation -  I personalyl never seen taht pisture so I cna't comment on that.

The value of art should never be defined by it's accesibility.  We've seen time and time again that trying to appeal to the largest possible demographic just leads to worthless tat with little or no originality or thought; just look at pop music and soap operas.   In many ways, the value of the meaning of art increases the more it challenges the viewer, the more it makes them think about it; if you restrict art to be 'so that everyone can understand', you just get a recurring simplification of the medium, and a matching societal loss of imagination and intelligence.

Art is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.