Good article.

Reminds me of the way the Jews were being seen between the Wars as an example of evil.

Imagine the outrage in the West if somebody released a film showing the other point of view, with images of their own that we don't get to see in our daily media.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the cartoon controversy is how so many people can get hold of so many Danish flags to burn at such short notice all over the world (or wherever there is a camera conveniently nearby).

I would have imagined there would not be much of a market for such things in foreign countries.

Where would you go to buy one here, if not dozens or hundreds of them?

Somebody really wants this to keep this conflict simmering and I suspect it's coming from both sides.

Dear Runner

You say I forgot to mention my mate Stalin.

Thanks for equating me with Stalin.

Actually he murdered those standing in my political tradition. He was the gravedigger of the Revolution, not its logical successor.

Sandra Bloodworth has just released a book called How Workers Took Power: The 1917 Russian revolution.

It deals with the sort of nonsense runner has come out with and argues that the ideals and reality of the revolution in its early days - democracy, workers and peasants running society, glimpsing a world in which production occurs to satisfy human need - are as relevant today as they were in 1917.

She looks at the reasons for the defeat of the revolution - without a revolution in Germany we are defeated said Lenin - and describes how Stalin, the mass murderer and destroyer of the revolution led a new ruling class and set up state capitalism in Russia.

I notice runner doesn't challenge my view that George Bush is a mass murderer and war criminal as well. George W represents a particular class interest, one much more powerful than the class interests Bin Laden represents. In fact the main terrorists sit in Washington, London and Canberra.

At least this article attempts to understand Islam, unlike some of the posters here.

I know, don't feed the trolls, but I can't help myself sometimes.

AMAZING.

BIAS.
"of over 600,000 Muslim Iraqi children... due to the sanctions"

BALANCE If the author was truly interested in TRUTH, she would have also pointed out that Saddaam was continuing to build his palaces, and re-stock his armaments.He COULD have used the money for medicines.

IS ISLAM INHERRENTLY EVIL? Well.. many have tried to answer this question on this thread.... some affirming, some denying.

I won't even address that 'well oiled' question, but I do address a question to Ruby for her serious contemplation, and response.

RUBY SAID:

<<The Old Testament FREQUENTLY instructs the Israelites to murder and RAPE other tribes, ....>>

THAT IS RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION... Ruby..sorry, but it is. In this case, you have not used "Truth" but a lie.. albeit an "oft promoted by Muslims one"

There is not a syllable of "instruction to rape".. so, in this deliberate misrepresentation of the Bible, you have vilified all Christians and all Jews.

The relevant verse calls for Israel to "utterly destoy" the Midianites, but to "keep for yourselves all those female children who have not known man".

"KEEP for yourselves" is not 'so you can rape them' it is "as captives"

Now female captives were under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses which allowed only MARRIAGE to female captive WOMEN...
-after a month of grieving.
-with the assurance of freedom slavery if the marriage did not work out.

So..I'm sorry but your comments have vilified me as a Christian,and all Jews.

So.. I expect an apology.. specifically mentioning that you have:

-Misunderstood the passage and are sorry for misreperesenting Christians and Jews and the Bible.

or..

-You did really understand it, but deliberately misrepresented it, and now, seeing the harm done, are repentant..sorry and now wish to confess your wrong doing, and express your deepest regrets for it.

In either case, you have infringed section 9 of the Act. "Motive is not relevant"

Passy

Excellent comments in your post above and you responded beautifully to Runner, as to whether he will even understand is entirely moot - the discerning OLO reader will understand.

Shame that your excellent post had to be followed by the usual rant from Boaz. He even claimed that Ruby was indulging in vilification of the Christian religion!. I wonder if he has ever read the old and new testaments in their entirety. If he had he would be aware that there is much call to violence invoked by the writers of these old texts, even Jesus was claimed to have "come with a sword".

However, any regular to OLO is aware that Boaz cherry picks his own holy book as much as he cherry picks the Koran.

Of course this article is just another opportunity for wacka-mozzie by Boaz. Why it is acceptable in Boaz's mind to vilify Islam but to squeal indignant if someone points out that christianity is less than perfect is simply indicative of the duality of mind that is required for religious belief.

On topic, I have seen a significant amount of the movie, I believe at one level that Islam needs to be held up to criticism like any other religion, however, there was no balance at all in the film and any moderate muslim would feel unhappy that Wilder's offered no chance for a meeting of minds. He painted a picture as bleak as any of Boaz's rantings.

However, Islam has yet to enter the 21st century and being held to account is a part of that. I would like to see a movie by Muslims countering the extremist fundamentalists of their religion, that would have more impact than someone outside their religion. We have had enough of that.

aaah.. sigh.. "MOOD LABEL" = 'mildly annoyed/still jovial'

Fractelle.. now.. honestly you need a good talking to. Pity 350 words isn't enough.

1/ Have I read the Old and New testaments in their entirity? YES.. a number of times, 3 yrs full time study of most of the books, plus some greek.

2/ CHERRY PICKING. No Fractelle.. 'judiciously selective' just as any journalist or lawyer would 'select' information to illustrate a point in a case.
What I DON'T do..is what you DID. "Even Jesus claimed to have come with a sword" now.. either you deliberately chose to ignore, or.. simply don't know the facts. I'll take the latter and give you the benefit of the doubt, but I've addressed this issue a number of times.

The main reference is Matthew 10:34, the context of which begins at verse 1. The reference also includes a quotation of Micah 7:6 and you need to understand THAT also in context. So.. presuming you will actually seek to understand these matters, I sincerely hope that you will not again trot out material which vilifies Christians by making false claims against Jesus and Christians by implication.

You also said:

<<he would be aware that there is much call to violence invoked by the writers of these old texts>>

You are both correct and incorrect here. It was not the 'writers' of the texts, but God Himself.

Now.. if you wish to say "God, in the Bible advocates and commands GENOCIDE of specific peoples".. I won't argue in the slightest with you. I will not feel vilified, nor misrepresented. Because it is TRUE.

But if you say "God 'commanded' the Israelites to RAPE"....then I'll have you along with Ruby at the EOC quick smart :)

Are you seeing it yet?

To say "The Freemasons sect permits child abuse" would be true, IF...they had texts spelling that out. It cannot be vilification to point this out, it is in the public interest. As far as I know, they don't.

Boazy: << To say "The Freemasons sect permits child abuse" would be true, IF...they had texts spelling that out. It cannot be vilification to point this out, it is in the public interest. As far as I know, they don't. >>

So Boazy, are you still beating your daughter?