I actually don’t think we disagree at all Sunny. I just read your article on this.

But in the end its too late to really matter.

We have a cold war looming in Eastern Europe, and we have occupation of the middle east.

One positive aspect might be that muslims are unlikely to volunteer for this chapter of the grand plan, or ever again.

A lesson learned I hope.

How come the man who always harps on about free speech didn’t when it came to business and noone complained.

Whose to know that the book wasn’t crap and rather than waste money publishing it the publisher didn’t just shelve it. Or possibly they are creating a controversy to make the book sell because it is so poor.

Thus now they can say that they will publish to uphold free speech and also makes loads of money. Bonus is that they and others can blame the Muslims for not allowing free speech!

Maybe it is a business strategy to sell a book that may not be so good.

yes it proves that it was not the cartoons themselves that offended, but the fact that they were published by infidels

Actually, it is the other way around: it is considered blasphemy (e.g. depicting Mo.) if it comes from a Muslim.

and that proves anything in particular?

It proves the thesis that all it takes for creating controversy is for a few elders and governments to make a case of it – governments are notorious for exploiting these stupid cases to divert from their failures. On its own, most of the people “affected” would not have read the book, nor would they understand why is it blasphemy.

In the case of this book, the issue of violence/censorship seems to have originated with Prof. Spellberg who, having being asked to read a galley, responded by deciding it was her duty to ‘warn’ the islamic world of this threat, then inform the publisher that the book was ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’

Mr. Amanullah, who Prof. Spellberg initially contacted (frantically sounding the alarm) seems to have taken a more sober and academically responsible approach. Alas, too late.

Given that Sherry Jones could hardly have controled these events, and that Prof. Spellberg is publishing a book of her own on Aisha, if there is an element of PR about this it might just as easily be aimed at benefitting the Spellberg book.

yes it proves that it was not the cartoons themselves that offended, but the fact that they were published by infidels (ie a Western white group in Denmark)

and that proves anything in particular?

Call me cynical, but at first glance it appears like a PR and marketing campaign for a book that otherwise would have probably gone unnoticed (we’re all here debating it for starters…)

It may well be true. But if one takes cue on the Danish cartoons, it is all too easy to build up violence and incite hate and passion even if the book doesn’t warrant that wrath. All idiot villagers who will make noise, death and violence threats will not read the book – as they lack basic literary skills, but will believe anything that their unscrupulous leaders tell them to do.

Don’t forget that the whole Danish cartoons fiasco only erupted when a few Danish imans added two extra cartoons – one in which Mo. was wearing a pig’s costume, and another in which a dog was being amorous with him… the original cartoons themselves were published in Egypt a good few months before, and nobody cared about it.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Nav – am only giving you a taste of your own medicine.

So you think, Sir.

Rumbold, how dare you use outdated terms such as New Labour. Don’t you know its ZaNuLabour?

Nav – am only giving you a taste of your own medicine.

I beg to differ.

In any case it would have been apt: after all, they do say that sarcasm is wit of the lowest denominator and thoroughly indicative of those who choose to use it.

I think that there was a degree of sarcasm in Mr. Hundal’s comment at #10.

You can thank New Labour’s destruction of the education system for that.

I don’t think that’s ample excuse for Mr Hundal’s putting words into my mouth nor do I think him young enough to have been educated under a Labour government having read some of his “work”.

“Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received “cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”

He added: “In this instance we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2521794/Publisher-Random-House-has-pulled-a-novel-about-Islam-over-protest-fears.html

Nav:

“Is someone adding 2 and 2 and making 5?”

You can thank New Labour’s destruction of the education system for that.

Why is one getting so emotional? I inferred something from your ramblings and all you had to do, if you wanted to deny it, was refute my perception and state what you were really insinuating.

Relax.

Sunny:

A cowardly fashion? That suggests to me you think all women and Muslims must be cowards. That surely suggest you’re the son of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer and the devil’s spawn.

Who brought women into this?

Is someone adding 2 and 2 and making 5?

A cowardly fashion? That suggests to me you think all women and Muslims must be cowards. That surely suggest you’re the son of Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer and the devil’s spawn.

I’d rather people didn’t get violent because (a) it’s wrong (b) it creates a headache for bloggers and writers who then have to deal with nonsense like yours.

[Ends]