acrossthepond

I'm getting sweet bugger-all on Iraq except a "transmission interrupted" notice. Any other streams flowing?

Really thrilled with this signing. Get a striker and we're sorted. This window has really been full of pleasant surprises.

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say. I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later. My point is that you all have theories/ideas based on your own agendas/something you've read rather than experienced or fact hence judgement on a book none of you have read but rather paraphrased via Google. Some are so anti US they believe anything they see written that slings dirt in their direction. The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here). I think I asked you for specifics. You didn't provide any. It's unfortunate that you assume that a: I haven't read the book and b: that I don't base my ideas on 'experiences' or 'fact.' Well, I can see 'The Satanic Verses' from where I am sitting right now. It's on a shelf, between 'White Teeth' and 'The Search for the Giant Squid' (don't ask.) Would you like me to quote from it for you? Here you go: "The anger with God carried him through another day, but then it faded and in its place there came a terrible emptiness, an isolation, as he realized he was talking to thin air, that there was nobody there at all and thrn he felt more foolish than ever in his life and he began to plead into the emptiness, ya Allah, just be there, damn it, just be." Page 30. It's one half of a paragraph about 1/3 of the way down on the right-hand page. Secondly, I think my 'experiences' and the 'facts' that I know will vastly outstrip yours. Unless you mean to tell me that you are also a Muslim and a New Yorker, that you were in NY on 9/11, that you have lived in a Muslim country (Egypt), that you have two degrees in Middle Eastern history and high school education, that you make your living teaching this exact sort of thing to adolescents, I think I have 'experienced' a bit more than you and I think I know a few more 'facts' than you do. Even those who most vehemently disagree with what I have to say on the subject have never tried to insinuate that my knowledge of the topic is 'paraphrased from Google', of all things. So unless you'd like to join in the discussion in earnest and bring your own facts and evidence to back up the specific statements that you make instead of throwing out a few undefined accusations of 'agendas' and 'naivete' (that's with a second 'e', not a 'y', just for your information), then please, in the immortal words of Stevie, pipe down. I don't think the 'entire purpose of this thread' was to express outrage at the freedom of people to protest, as you say. Look back at the first post. I think it was to express outrage and wonder at what they have chosen to protest. Similarly, did you think the teddy bear Muhammad scandal was an outrageous cause for conflict and inflammation? But do you support the right of those people to protest (peacefully) what they felt to be wrong? Again presumption over fact. Interested to know what the two degrees equate to? Did you take it twice or were they separate degrees? So I ask again have you read the book (I ask because your synopsis is rather familiar to reviews I've seen before). I've never once disagreed with you, rather questioned your(and others) facts/motivation. You say you've experienced more than me but have utterly no clue who I am, or what I've seen, experienced, whether I'm Muslim, Christian, Humanist, or just a WUM. I could make a link between your avatar and the first country to adopt Christianity...... but why would I? Basically standard WUM fare. Undefined statements, backing down when questioned on them, attempts to downplay involvement, etc etc etc. Jog on.

Pic's been pulled from .com. Another false alarm?

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say. I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later. My point is that you all have theories/ideas based on your own agendas/something you've read rather than experienced or fact hence judgement on a book none of you have read but rather paraphrased via Google. Some are so anti US they believe anything they see written that slings dirt in their direction. The whole point of this thread was basically outrage that people had the freedom to protest against something they felt was wrong. The fact that they weren't burning books, issuing death sentences is what sets them apart from those you see burning effigies of anyonr who had the sheer nerve to disagree with their opinions (almost what happens on here). I think I asked you for specifics. You didn't provide any. It's unfortunate that you assume that a: I haven't read the book and b: that I don't base my ideas on 'experiences' or 'fact.' Well, I can see 'The Satanic Verses' from where I am sitting right now. It's on a shelf, between 'White Teeth' and 'The Search for the Giant Squid' (don't ask.) Would you like me to quote from it for you? Here you go: "The anger with God carried him through another day, but then it faded and in its place there came a terrible emptiness, an isolation, as he realized he was talking to thin air, that there was nobody there at all and thrn he felt more foolish than ever in his life and he began to plead into the emptiness, ya Allah, just be there, damn it, just be." Page 30. It's one half of a paragraph about 1/3 of the way down on the right-hand page. Secondly, I think my 'experiences' and the 'facts' that I know will vastly outstrip yours. Unless you mean to tell me that you are also a Muslim and a New Yorker, that you were in NY on 9/11, that you have lived in a Muslim country (Egypt), that you have two degrees in Middle Eastern history and high school education, that you make your living teaching this exact sort of thing to adolescents, I think I have 'experienced' a bit more than you and I think I know a few more 'facts' than you do. Even those who most vehemently disagree with what I have to say on the subject have never tried to insinuate that my knowledge of the topic is 'paraphrased from Google', of all things. So unless you'd like to join in the discussion in earnest and bring your own facts and evidence to back up the specific statements that you make instead of throwing out a few undefined accusations of 'agendas' and 'naivete' (that's with a second 'e', not a 'y', just for your information), then please, in the immortal words of Stevie, pipe down. I don't think the 'entire purpose of this thread' was to express outrage at the freedom of people to protest, as you say. Look back at the first post. I think it was to express outrage and wonder at what they have chosen to protest. Similarly, did you think the teddy bear Muhammad scandal was an outrageous cause for conflict and inflammation? But do you support the right of those people to protest (peacefully) what they felt to be wrong?

You've done a good job of standing off and interjecting little one-liners like this from time to time. Makes you sound oh-so-world-weary. Also makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, when I doubt you do. So what might these 'facts' be? Where is the 'conspiracy theory'? Who's being 'naive'? Join in the discussion if you have something to say. I see your post Leazes and I'll respond later.

Red dippers behind 1-0 at half time. Not looking too great for Woy. Doubt he'll make it to Christmas at this rate.

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread. You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"? I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution. so you expect us in the west to understand you are offended by fairy stories and teddy bears called Mohammed, but you don't understand that we in the west are offended by women walking around with their faces covered or aeroplanes being flown into buildings and then a mosque being built near that very site ? Is there anyone else who has looked at my posts and thinks that what Leazes said is an adequate summary? You can be offended by whatever you like, as will I. Doesn't mean either of us has the right to say it should be stopped. I think Rushdie's "fairy story" is a deliberate attempt to profane our religion and I think the entire teddy bear blow-up was a ludicrous overreaction (not sure how that got into this discussion), but I don't deny the rights of either one of them to publish the book/call the teddy bear whatever they like. Equally, you may be offended by face veils and a Muslim community centre being built (vaguely close to) the WTC site, but you can't deny the rights of people to wear whatever they like and build whatever they like.

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread. You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"? I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims. I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm. I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"? Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside. NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort. This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality. But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society. The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

Still no evidence that anything is actually happening, but I'm liking the sound of quotes saying we have agreed a deal instead of quotes saying we haven't as seems to be the norm with us. I still want to get him in. Then we'll just need a striker and we should be set.

The Cordoba Group have the best of intentions. Rushdie's intention was clearly to offend. That's the real difference. Your reference to 9/11 is irrelevant as nothing about a cultural centre being built should - for reasonable people - evoke memories of that event. Should we ban kebab stands for two blocks around Ground Zero because the Muslims who ran them bombed the WTC? Maybe we should erect a barrier that keeps out all Muslims from coming within two blocks of the site, since the sight of them might be 'insensitive.' Maybe you forget that Muslims were killed at the WTC as well. "Freedom of religion - just not in my backyard." Is that it? I utterly reject the idea that the construction of this cultural centre is 'insensitive.' Because people who called themselves Muslims killed people, we should ban them from building their houses of worship nearby? Because some Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we should ban sushi shops in Hawaii? Slippery slope time.

I agree. Isn't it interesting, the way this parallels the Rushdie issue? Rushdie did something that some of us found to be offensive and 'insensitive' to use your word. Muslims reacted negatively (and I'm not talking about the violence here, which is always unwarranted.) These Cordoba Group fellows are doing something that some people find to be offensive and insensitive. Those people reacted negatively. Why is it that we're 'getting our knickers in a twist about the most insignificant shit' but they're justified?

Quite a game. They looked good value for 2 goals, so fair play to them. Krul was brilliant as was LuaLua - didn't see anything convincing from Vuckic tbh. Good strikes in that game - both of theirs and R. Taylor/Lovenkrands for us.

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims. "Segregation" will only confirm the feelings of "them against us" that I spoke about in an earlier post where I explained the origin of Islamism. We have to work together. And that's what's ironic about this blow-up - Muslims who are actually trying to work to improve community relations are facing backlash. That's the kind of thing that leads to young people saying "what's the use?" and turning to extremism.

The Muslim world comprises over a billion people. Don't give me this "large swathes" nonsense. There was a fatwa from Iran - Shi'a nutters. There were riots in the UK, participants mainly British Muslims of Pakistani heritage - don't get me started on Pakistan's brand of Islam. And many Muslim countries and countries containing significant Muslim minorities banned the book.

I don't know if I'm going to be able to adequately explain the nature of some of the obvious offenses that Rushdie presented in the book, but I'll give it a go. - In some of the "dream sequences" wherein are contained the most inflammatory material, the book tells a story of a "prophet" (who is apparently one of the book's main characters) who is named Mahound. That name harks back to the first interactions of European Christians and Muslims, where the Christians wrongly interpreted Islam as a religion wherein the Prophet is worshiped. "Mahound" is the name those Christians falsely gave the figure they believed to be the "God" of Islam. In fact, some medieval texts cited "Mahound" as one of the names of the devil. Giving the name Mahound to this prophet character, who is plainly meant to represent Muhammad (pbuh), is somewhat equivalent to having a character in a story who walks on water, changes water to wine, has 13 disciples and is called Lucifer. - The city where this prophet lives (which again is obviously meant to represent Mecca) is called Jahiliya. Jahiliya is an Arabic word that signifies the period of "ignorance" that existed in the Arabian Peninsula (including Mecca) before the advent of Islam. So by bestowing this name on his fictional Meccaesque city, he is trying to show that Mecca (even in the time of the Prophet) is still ignorant; in other words, he denies the revelations of the Qur'an. - There is a brothel in this city of Jahiliya where the prostitutes have the same name as the Prophet's wives. The wives are greatly esteemed in Islam. I'm sure I don't have to explain this one any further. - In another dream sequence there is an Indian girl who leads believers into the ocean and apparently gets them all drowned. This girl is called Aisha, who was the Prophet's most beloved wife. I could go on. Some of these may not make sense or be relevant to you, but I assure you that they are grievous insults and that Rushdie, as a Muslim and an educated man himself, could not have unintentionally included these inflammatory references. The dream sequences of the book seem to be deliberately set up in order to profane everything that is held holy in Islam. I can't see what perspective that could have come from, other than one intended to 'outrage.' *** Leazes, I'm not sure where the source of conflict here is. I've already said over and over again that I don't dispute that Rushdie or anyone else can write and publish whatever he wants. But what I am also saying is that he was clearly attempting to enrage people with his writing and that he shouldn't be surprised by what the result was - whether it was right or not (it wasn't.)

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better." He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off. Rattled yet, you sad old man?

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. EDIT: Just by the way, if you'd actually been reading anything I wrote, you would've seen that I said I defend Rushdie's right to publish whatever he wants. But don't let that stop you from trotting out the old "if they want to live by their own rules then stay in their own countries" line.

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now?

Saw rumours yesterday that Stoke were in for him. He played defender for Pompey in the PL if I'm not mistaken? Taylor out to be replaced by a shite Championship defender - you heard it here first.

I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. I have read the Satanic Verses and if I'm honest it is a load of shocking, inflammatory rubbish. I affirm his right to have it published, but I don't believe for a second that his intentions were anything but to rile up the people he claims as his co-religionists. He's truly getting away with murder (maybe a bad choice of words? ) to have that wummery-in-book-form called 'literature.' Oh and this fellow is never Fop. Fop would've resorted to smileys long ago.

Scored 5 in 12 in his first spell with them. Don't think he got any league goals in his second spell. We could do worse on a loan.

The depiction of the Prophet isn't "forbidden in the Qur'an." You want to check your facts, mate. @sniffer: "People like me?" And who might that be? It's good to know that you know me so well (or think you do), but I'd like to hear some specifics.