This is so stupid. So get even.
[It also comes in Canadian dollars]

Posted by: beq | Aug 26 2007 18:24 utc | 3

A nice Touch Tante Aime. Thanks

Posted by: R.L. | Aug 26 2007 19:08 utc | 5

Heh, what about those Muslims being so un-cool and so anti free-speech, primitive dontcha know, murderous, incomprehensible, just some mild cartoons in some crappy Danish paper!

Posted by: Tangerine | Aug 26 2007 20:40 utc | 7

Catlady can you e-mail me at gustawherling@dodgit.com please?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 26 2007 21:34 utc | 9

Ask and you shall receive.

Posted by: beq | Aug 26 2007 21:50 utc | 11

A little googling around and I came up with this, which is too funny not to add here, even if slightly off topic.

George Bush for President
Toilet Paper for Vice President!

Posted by: Bea | Aug 26 2007 22:47 utc | 13

Dunno about this… by taking this perspective, I think b is being patronizing to the Afghans. “It’s okay that they are angry about this, because they’re just too stupid/backward/ignorant/furrin to understand; the westerners, who are so much smarter, should have known better than to do this.”
b’s parody doesn’t work, because the product in question exists, and is sold in America (that’s where he got the image) and there are no demonstrations about it. Americans are not, in fact, as worshipful of money as all that.
So where, in the west, can you find demonstrations (or other disproportionate reaction) over trivial things like this? Over religion, of course. Islam is not alone, and never has been, in being dangerously loony.
The fact of the matter is that Islam is bad for the world. So is Christianity. So is Judaism. So is Hinduism. So is Shintoism. Probably so are Confucianism and Buddhism, although I admit to being less well-informed on those two than the others. As long as we pretend that religion, and the activity of people inspired by religion, is beyond our ability to judge, stupidity and violence will continue.
Remember that survey by Pew Global? The one where they found that 26% of American Muslim men under 30 thought that suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam might be justified? (Along with other, less startling, results.) This study was blatantly unfair. It was unfair not because it painted a picture of Muslims as zealots — anyone who thinks that suicide bombing civilian targets in defense of a religion can be justified is a dangerous lunatic zealot, and if a quarter of young American Muslim men think so, then a quarter of young American Muslim men are dangerous lunatic zealots — but because equivalent questions were not asked of other religions. Where is the survey asking Christians whether it is can be justified to kill civilians to defend Christianity, or to stop abortion, or to spread Christianity? Where is the survey asking Jews the same questions?
There are reasons to suspect that we would get some disturbing results from such surveys.
Until we stop pretending that religion is a force for good in this world, that religious people are moderates and nice and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese just like real people, we will keep seeing riots demonstrations over sports equipment and pickets at funerals (there’s nobody who hates strongly enough to escape the treatment), and a million imitation Sneetches.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 26 2007 23:25 utc | 15

tante gets the sunday full moon gold star for the perfect post.

Posted by: annie | Aug 27 2007 4:05 utc | 17

@a.s.k.o.d.:
“Assuming your nation is under attack. Would you be willing to die for your country bombing the enemies cities?”
That isn’t as blunt as the question which was asked of the Muslims. They were asked specifically about the phrase “civilian targets”. “Bombing a city” in such a brief context is more ambiguous — it suggests civilian targets, but doesn’t guarantee them.
I’d be willing to bet that if there are any polls that are that blunt but testing nationalistic, rather than religious, loyalties, the percentage of dangerous lunatics is dramatically lower.
And I’m even willing to say that in the U.S. under the Bush administration — even when the Bush administration managed to get people to swallow a nonexistent connection between Iraq and Al Queda, even when an overwhelming majority of America considered themselves attacked by Al Queda, Bush started the war over the disapproval of a majority of the citizenry, and only managed to get it through by claiming that Iraq posed a serious military threat. If the Bush administration had said “we’re going to end up killing more innocent people than actual enemies because we won’t be able to tell the difference” instead, then even with the popular delusion of an Iraqi-Al Queda alliance and the idea of retaliation for a terrorist attack, it wouldn’t have worked.
they mostly killed people to steal their stuff, enslave them and take their land without much of an ideological pretext
Oh really? And did they steal their fellow believers’ stuff, enslave each other, and take each other’s land on the same scale that they did to other people? I don’t remember reading anything about that anywhere, although I admit that I’m weaker on Scandinavian history than other European history. If not, then they were still obeying a religious bias.
@Tante Aime:
Sorry about the misaccreditation — I noticed that the original post was yours after I made my post. Mea culpa.
Still, I don’t think you have a point. The Afghans weren’t protesting on the premise that “we were promised a lot of money, and they’re trying to fob us off with a bunch of balls”. If they were, they would be right, and so would you.
Instead, they were protesting because they didn’t like having a symbol of their religion (the name of God is a symbol) on something which is meant to be kicked. You, along with many of the people on this board, suffer from westerner guilt when dealing with the third world. So do I; I am well known in my circle for being a killjoy. But the guilt is only a good thing when it improves your behavior. If it just makes you excuse other people’s bad behavior, then it does nobody any good.
In this case, Muslims were seriously overreacting. Apply the standard of reverse treatment: I don’t know if the Israeli flag is on those balls, so I can’t say whether Jews weren’t offended at kicking the star of David, but the Union Jack is there, and that’s three Christian crosses layered on each other, yet you don’t hear any Christians complaining about it. (And yes, the crosses on the U.K. flag are supposed to be Christian symbols; one cross apiece from a patron saint from each of three countries.) I haven’t heard a murmur about that sort of usage from anywhere. Muslims are being absurdly oversensitive.
The Danish cartoons are, I admit, a somewhat different category, because there the offense was palpably intentional. Still, if you apply an equal standard and look for similar incidents, the significant percentage of Islamic overreaction was shocking and deserves censure. Only a very small number of Christians and Jews demand death for blasphemy. If we can criticize Giuliani for withdrawing public funding because he considered that the Ofili Holy Virgin Mary was in bad taste, then we can definitely criticize Muslims who made death threats over cartoons.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 27 2007 5:54 utc | 19

jonku,
true, they traded more then they conquered and pillaged. As all things go the some aspects gets blown up while others get minimised. They did however also conquere and pillage.
TTGVWYCI

Oh really? And did they steal their fellow believers’ stuff, enslave each other, and take each other’s land on the same scale that they did to other people?

They did attack each other, there was a lot of intra-viking fighting going on at least in the conquered territories. Same scale is a harder question as viking sources as scarce (run-stones only became popular towards the end of the viking era). There are archeological structures that look defensive and are presumed to be a counter against other vikings (though there are arguments that they might be ritual places). There are also societal structures that survives into the christian era and thus are recorded, the military structure (leidung) was divided into offensive raiding force (útróðr) and a defensive coast defense (wardhald), suggesting protection against other vikings was a priority.
Making the picture even more muddied, viking raids did take into consideration cost/benefit and therefore they avoided raiding strong or poor opponents. And there is also the matter of increased risks if you are recognised. While other nations did not make punitive missions into viking homelands, vikings could very well make them. So if they were on a smaller scale (which we have really no way of knowing) concluding that it must be religious demands quite a leap.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Aug 27 2007 15:43 utc | 21

Yaz.

Yaz.

Posted by: Yaz. | Jan 25 2010 19:25 utc | 23