Colrom

taks, What's the source for the info on Hayes? I hadn't read that!

Anyway, I'm not so familiar with South Park, although I have seen a few shows. It seems pretty smart to me - mostly exposing hypocracy every which way. Not much malice I can detect - although I may just be missing it. Too bad about the scientology show. I guess we will have to wait to see what they have in mind. But we will, I'm sure.

Even though I do not watch South Park much, but I faintly recall that episode. I guess it wasn't a problem back then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did they put a bomb in his hat or have him talk about virgins to suicide bombers? It never was just the representation. It was the mockery and the malice. Sort of like the derogatory anti Jewish jokes that the Europeans used to tell before they killed most of the Jews in Europe. Some jokes are kinda funny. Some are kinda vicious. Knowing the difference can be a survival skill.

I remember that show! You may want to find that show and look again! The woman who tried to put up with the water dripping found it to be a very very major torture! She was shaking and desperate to have it stopped after some relatively short time like fifteen minutes or half an hour! You really need to find the video and look at it again!

Of course, its like the Chinese water drop torture. The first drop is not a problem. " Nor the next. " Nor the next. " Nor the next. . . . But eventually, Since there is no end, Its torture.

Gromnir, Why do Dr. Fritz Haber and Dr. William Schockley strike you as significant villains? They were ground breaking scientists who received Nobel prizes. They were flawed and perhaps tragic people. But villains? I'm having trouble seeing it. Henchman, yes! But villains? What do you think of Nobel himself then, eh?

I'm reading a book by an expert on the development of torture techniques who asserts that the Abu Ghraib photos do not just show examples of wild late night antics by a few out of control guards but rather show good examples of the implementation of CIA torture techniques using sensory deprivation, self inflicted injury, and ego assualt - techniques which start right at the moment of capture when captives are hooded, blindfolded, and earmuffed, and then forced to assume high stress positions. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds just boarding school sixth form detention ... :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know what you mean. I remember a a nasty Nun (most Nuns I remember were wonderful - but not her) whose favorite punishment was to have students hold their hands up in the air over their heads. It starts to hurt very quickly. She may have been a CIA adviser and field tester!

I'm reading a book by an expert on the development of torture techniques who asserts that the Abu Ghraib photos do not just show examples of wild late night antics by a few out of control guards but rather show good examples of the implementation of CIA torture techniques using sensory deprivation, self inflicted injury, and ego assualt - techniques which start right at the moment of capture when captives are hooded, blindfolded, and earmuffed, and then forced to assume high stress positions. Apparantly these techniques were developed over many years of research and can be considered completely successful when the victims try to kill themselves and then discover that they won't even be allowed to die unless the torturer wants them to. These techniques do not come naturally to guards and interrogators. They are learned by training. This expert saw the pictures the rest of us saw and said "I recognize those methods." He probably also recognized the "I'll shove my tools in your mouth and push your head around as I see fit" technique (otherwise known as the "your body is my plaything technique") we all got to see right out in the open with the US "Medic" and Saddam video. I think the real masters of torture are many and not yet brought to account. Hopefully that will yet happen.

I think these types of generalizations are proposed as rules for assigning labels by those who seek to do that type of thing. Over time I have come to the view that most people are sufficiently "conservative" that they might be willing to accept the "conservative" label in the right context. Some are conservative Fascists. Others are conservative Communists. Others are conservative Baseball fans. Etc.

I should have said "discrediting the practical utility of militarism" since even successful militarism could be viewed by some Christians as spiritually bancrupt. I find it discouraging that try as I might I fall into the pattern of seeing validation as achievable through successful militarism. I guess we need General Christ to lead us all to eternal glory! Is that Narnia?

I find alot to like about the French, the Poles, the Italians, the Germans, the English and the Russians - independently of whether they were the victors or the defeated at various times in history. It is not unusual for criminal personalities to rationalize murders by claiming that the victims somehow deserved to die because they were unable to stop their demise. This is not so different than the argument - which seems to be popular here and elsewhere - that a nation is undeserving of regard because they were unable to stop their defeat in some signature battle or war. In so far as this viewpoint appears over and over, especially in the context of glorifying German militarism and dismissing French or Italian humanism, it is peculiar that the consistent historical pattern of glorius opening militaristic agression followed, slowly but surely, by ultimate popularist victory, never seems to have the sobering impact in discrediting militarism that it would seem to deserve. The Spanish Revolution is certainly an opposing example, however. A case where militarism was victorius in the long haul - until after Franco's death anyway. Still such examples of militarist victory over extended times - although there are many - don't abound in the conversations we have here. We usually glorify the the Nazis in particular, and anyone else only in so far as they showed their metal in victorious combat against the Nazis. It is also pecular that people who claim to be Christians, or to have Christian values, and who claim that some (for example, Muslims), who are not Christian, are violent by nature, should themselves put such stock in murderous talent when evaluating the worth of people.

The foul hate mongers spread their evil seeds near and far to Christians and Jews and Muslims alike. Their work is going well. They urge folks to choose sides and opppose each other. I refuse. They can go to hell. :angry:

I used to think that way too. Now I'm not so sure. The problem is that information may not seep through the barriers like I used to assume it would. Government control is very good - especially when it alters the terms of reference - including even the definitions of words. We may find that some of our folks share common interest with some of their folks in keeping some of their and our folks in the dark.

Quote from Di> Excellent. This still does not tell me the following: (1.) Do you believe any newspaper has the right to publish material that some segment of society may deem offensive? (2.) If some segment of society deems something printed by a newspaper offensive, does it have the right to riot, advocate violence, issue death threats, etc.? Not once have you given a straight answer to a direct question, not once in this thread. I simply do not know how to make myself any clearer than to ask the two questions above, which can each be answered either yes or no. Answers: (1) Yes. (2) Yes on riot/protest. No on advocate violence and issue death threats. But there is the third side: Do you think it was good for the paper to publish these characatures? My answer is no. I think they were wrong. And they should be told so. That is where the stories about the black cow dung Virgin Mary and the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz who doesn't repeat himself in the movies come in! One is a story about the reaction to another expression which many thought offensive. The other is a story about altering the tone in order not to be offensive. I am sorry if my references seem obscure.

There is an us and a them - but I regret it. We can only change ourselves. We have colonized them and exploited them and restrained their development at every turn over hundreds of years. We have spoked of development and peace but dispensed embargos and violence over hundreds of years. Maybe it is time for a change. I mean the oil is almost all gone now. There are other trade routes to asia. What's the point anymore? Why don't we give them a hand for a change? That's just my view. And since it is my view I am disappointed that the Danes who have a reputation for being decent are being such blowhards.

Sorry Di. You seem to think that there are two sides here - a Muslim side and a Danish side - or something like that - I never was good at mind reading - so I could be wrong. I am not on the Muslim radical side. I am not on the Danish anti Muslim radical side. I am on the third side. I hold all hate mongers equally despicable. Since this is an anti Muslim mob my comments are directed primarily to that.

I'm confused about the positions some folks are taking. There are many options: Are you for/against violence against _______? Are you for/against threats of violence against ______? Are you for/against ridicule of _______? Are you for/against free speech regarding _______? By the way, I was glad to see an acknowledgement of the possibility of laws regarding what is said about the Danish Queen in Denmark. There are similar laws in other countries. Regarding threats of violence and violence - we are living through difficult times - which may get more difficult before they get better. Quite a few in the East and the West seem to be riled up and eager for other peoples blood. Those who foster hatred and violence are wrong. Here are some more you can and should be outraged by: Ann Coulter said "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," recently. Pat Robinson said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination," referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, "but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." "We have the ability to take him out," Robertson continued, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Whatever you say about the origins of violence I am inclined to just look the piles of dead bodies parties have to their name (kill rings on their barrels as it were) when I judge whether people have murderous intentions. Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," in the context of an outraged mob. In this case I see two mobs and think that Christ's advice would be good for both. (edited next to last paragraph)

I don't advocate or condone violence or incitement to violence. Please read my sig. It is completely serious and sincere. You can also determine my values from my previous posts on all sorts of topics.

Well then Lucius, I sense an opportunity for you. The Queen has not been a recent target. At least not enough of a target to draw notice. This is your opportunity to draw attention to this deficiency in obnoxiousness. Find something to say or do about the Queen that will draw a mob of Danes looking to have your head! Go to it! ----- As an aside, does anyone remember the 1998 episode of the black Virgin Mary done in cow dung art and displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Modern Art? There was quite an outrage about that. Mayor Guiliani was quite vocal - especially since it was done at a Museum using public funding. ----- How big is Denmark anyway? I mean is it possible that a modest mob in Jakarta could have a bigger draw then the entire population of Denmark? Is it bigger than Kansas. The Strawman in The Wizard of Oz (the book) said that if he only had a brain he might be able to understand why anyone would want to live in Kansas. They didn't put that in the movie. I wonder why?

I'll say this for freedom, it gives us a chance to see what choices people make when the options are wide open. I suppose the Danish paper could have solicited cartoons ridiculing the Queen in some way that would draw outrage (I assume that is possible). Or they could have made fun of Jews in an outrageous way (Jews being previously and even these days a popular target for ridicule). But they didn't. They chose to mock and taunt Muslims instead. And in making that choice they revealed the focus of their hostility while they sought to rally others to join in public ridicule of their target. No one is really suggesting that these artists be thrown in jail. What is being suggested is that they and all those who rally to their side be shown the disregard that they deserve. My boycot is doing fine. In America we have achieved some wisdom from our own experience and the experience of our European friends - that even when speech is free it is not without consequences.

There is altogether too much disgusting Islamophobic ridicule and misinformation in this thread - much of it orchestrated by Lucius. Whether it was legal or illegal it was harmful and wrong. Past wrongs do not justify it. Because Muslims protest is not good reason to further ridicule them. There is no "they" there is only "us".

If you spit on people and kick them in the balls you can generally expect that they will be rightfully angry with you. Muslims have a right to free expression too. So now you get to live with it. Stop whining about the consequences of your offensive displays of material designed to be offensive to Muslims. Danes have no done their work against Muslims. Time for them to move on and take pride in their ability to offend Jews and Catholics and other groups too. After reading the attitudes of Danes in this thread and elsewhere I'm going to join the boycot myself.

And yet the Danish also did this: "It's one of the great stories of World War II: In 1943, in German-occupied Denmark, the Danish people find out that all 7,500 Danish Jews are about to be rounded up and deported to German concentration camps. Danish citizens spontaneously make their own decision: it's not going to happen. And it didn't. Risking their own lives, the Danes quickly rallied round to save their fellow citizens, and almost all of the country's Jews were able to escape the clutches of the Nazis and find refuge in neutral Sweden."

Here is a report that may also be relevant: We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen By Hannah Cleaver in Berlin (Filed: 15/04/2005) Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad. Her comments further undermined the image of Denmark as a liberal haven for those seeking a new life in northern Europe. Queen Margrethe II The Danish government has already been accused of fuelling xenophobia by introducing measures which effectively closed the country to asylum seekers. But in overtly political passages from an official biography published yesterday Queen Margrethe makes comments certain to complicate her nation's relationship with Muslims. She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy. "We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance." "And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction." The Queen, who turns 65 tomorrow and has reigned since 1972, wields no political power but does occasionally comment on political issues. Denmark has seriously limited immigration in the past three years and the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, an ally of the centre-Right government, has pushed through laws making it harder to bring in foreign spouses or qualify for asylum. The queen told her biographer, Annelise Bistrup, apparently referring to Muslim fundamentalists: "There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave." She said she understood how disaffected young Muslims might find refuge in religion. This tendency should be fought by encouraging Muslims to learn Danish so they could integrate better, she said. "We should not be content with living next to each other. We should rather live together."

But Galloway is probably twice the man and twice the intellect of the old school lick spittle dollies who pretend to be in charge of the UK these days. :D