if you think free expression equals 'ammunition.' Do you even know what it was, precisely, about The Satanic Verses that Muslims found so offensive? Offensive enough to advocate the murder of the author?

You still missing the point. i didnt object to him writing anything. I disgreed with it but i didnt say he did not have the right to do it. I objected to the UK honoring him knowing that this action would offend the people we are trying to get on our side and that is a time of war.

and why are you soooo concerned (obsessed?) about my intellect, my knowledge and and my understanding? thanks for your attention to my mental capacity. However, just discuss (if you wish) what i say not my mental state. You imagine and presuppose lots of things. It is more useful to keep discussions objective not personal.

I don't WANT anyone who would condone the murder of an author over a work of fiction 'on our side.'Most moderate Muslims were horrified when the fatwa was issued, and many actually admire Rushdie's work. THESE are the ones we want on our side.

finally you got the point. the moderate Muslims are offended when they see the UK honor someone who insulted their prophet. They did not agree with the Fatwa but the book offended the majority of them. these are facts you can see in their media and books.

I'll align myself with more civilized Muslims, thank you.

These are the same Muslims who are offended by the UK actions. Read what they, these same Muslims, say and you will understand what i am saying.

Use it to our advantage, yes. Let them dictate what we think and say, no. And that is what is happening here. His knighting (not even of this country) has nothing to do with GB's foreign policy or the way they conduct relations with other countries. Yet now their INTERNAL culture is being dictated to by a foreign body - be it the extremists or another nation. And while it would be "easier" to succumb to their dictates (easier in that we would not have to fear a crazed extremist blowing up a subway station), where does it stop? When they threaten to blow us up because we do not veil our women?

My compromise with Pakistan and other countries is this: If I go to yoru country and start quoting Satanic Verses - you can then throw me in jail or kill me - in your country. Not in mine.

these are the same Muslims who called for the death of the pope when he quoted someone else

these are also the same Muslims that called for the total destruction of Holland because of one cartoon in one newspaper.

these are also the same Muslims that called for the destruction of the French government for enforcing their laws.

These are the same Muslims who are offended by the UK actionsthese are the same Muslims who called for the death of the pope when he quoted someone elsethese are also the same Muslims that called for the total destruction of Holland because of one cartoon in one newspaper. these are also the same Muslims that called for the destruction of the French government for enforcing their laws.

you sure are confusing many people with each other. I am sure you can figure out the difference between them yourself. if you wanted to, that is. Foggy thinking blinded by bias does that, you know.

OK your right

the Muslims in england were upset about what england did

the Muslims in France were upset about the French enforcing their laws. the Muslims in France didn't protest for almost two months over law enforcement

the Muslims in Holland were upset about what the newspaper in Holland did. the Muslims in Holland didn't call for the total destruction of Holland

the Muslims in Rome did not call for the death of the pope.

but the Muslims in the middle east did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope.

some of the Muslims in America did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope.



THERE IS THAT BETTER WE WOULDN'T WANT TO UPSET THE MUSLIMS THEY MIGHT CALL FOR THE DEATH OF EVERYONE WHO USES THIS SITE.


by the way one of the Muslims calling for the death of the pope had been on fox with bill telling him how only the radical Muslims call for the death of anyone. she was one of the leading voices calling for the death of the pope.

Let them dictate what we think and say, no. And that is what is happening here. His knighting (not even of this country) has nothing to do with GB's foreign policy or the way they conduct relations with other countries

I agree, and i didnt say or imply anything that suggests that. However, his knighting has a lot to do with UK's foreign policy.

The question is not do we allow anyone to dictate anything to us or to our allies. The question is:

Is it a good idea to take an action that people we like to have on our side consider offensive even if we dont consider it that way especially if that action has no effect whatsoever on anything except it says something about what UK thinks about a certain person?

I think it hurts us, and what does it mean to the UK? nothing at all. So why do it? that is my point.

by the way one of the Muslims calling for the death of the pope had been on fox with bill telling him how only the radical Muslims call for the death of anyone. she was one of the leading voices calling for the death of the pope.

and today there was another Muslim as stupid as this one on CNN.

these are the ones we should deny the support of the masses in their areas. and that is my point. These fanatics play on the feelings of their people, we should not give them actions to support their propaganda especially if these actions are really not that important to do. in other words, why offend people we like to have on our side with something that doesnt mean much to us while it means a lot to the people there?

but the Muslims in the middle east did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope. some of the Muslims in America did call for the destruction of Holland and the death of the pope

You should have inserted "some" at the begining as you did at the end. Then your statement would be true . and those "some" (not the majority) are the ones we should deny the support of the rest. the more we shrink the human base of those fanatics the successful we would be in our effort to eliminate them.

i expect these people to be themselves. and i expect them to let me be who i am.

i will not change who i am because i might offend them because of what i believe.

in the case of the pope he was quoting a Byzantine emperor.

in the case of the Holland newspaper it was a drawing of the so called prophet.

in the case of France they were enforcing existing laws.

in the case of england who really cares.

and i watched most of the controversial Christ movie and i found nothing in there that wasn't in any other movie about Christ except for the extra blood.

i saw some program on TV this month and they were talking about how the romans persecuted Christ(not Christians) and the romans DID NOT persecute Christ.

the above is what is wrong with america

However, his knighting has a lot to do with UK's foreign policy.

Let me guess.  You are totally clueless on how a Democratic Monarchy works.  Right?  Let me give you a very brief overview.

The Royals are figure heads.  They do not set laws, or conduct foreign policy.  All they do is smile for Cameras, and knight people.  Parliment conducts foreign affairs and passes laws.  And should the occassion arise, they can over rule the house of lords (those who were born to knighthood or were bestowed it).  The latter rarely happens as the lords (and ladies) know they are just there to basically be sub-royals.

The Queen does not make laws, and Parliment does not make knights.  So it has NOTHING to do with their foreign policy, other than it makes international news.

Basically, "The Satanic Verses" has a literary Christian equivalent: The Da Vinci Code. While the parallel isn't perfect, the analogy's close enough to work for us. Dan Brown has received accolade after accolade, and I've never seen you express sensitivity to the Christians these awards offend, TA. Have you once advocated for censoring the Da Vinci Code out of fear that Christian hate groups will act out, and that moderate Christians will support them in their anger? Nope, because it does happen. Others have offered equally strong examples.

England is a sovereign nation, and has a right to bestow awards on writers she deems worthy, regardless of what you or I think of it.

I think I understand what you are saying ThinkAloud but I believe that you are only excusing those who would be offended and not expecting from them what you expect from England, or us for that matter. Why is it that you think we should be concerned with offending those who could be our allies and not expect them to do the same? Should they not respect other peoples opinions as well? Should not liking what someone else writes be enough of an excuse to joing the opposing team?

I agree with some here that you are excusing the actions of those who would be offended instead of expecting them to accept freedom of speech from others. Why should I be carefull with what I say in a society of free speech just because someone does not like what I write? Why should I respect what Muslims believe when they do not respect our beliefs? Why do you not hold Muslims to the same standard as you hold us or England? Why can't these Muslins who get offended simply dismiss the writings of this man as his own opinion?

This sounds like one of those "the truth hurts" situation. They always seem to get up in arms every time someone says anything about their religion, but people on this site constantly make fun or insult other religions and those of these religions do not call for beheadings every time.