FACT - she was not in line to anything. Her children were. I agree that the islamic fundamentalism angle probably deserves more attention. Maybe it should get some! You know, since we're so interested in conspiracy theories an' all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Geoff
He knows that. The point is that while she's not in line to anything, she's still the mother of William and Harry, who are in line. It's all PR. She's the most popular of all royalty there. To have her married to a Muslim would look bad even though yes, she wasn't in line to anything. Even though she has no real power, she did have the power of the hearts and minds of the people more than anyone else, and that's more powerful than any power those royals have anymore. Stupid and wicked things like that have happened in the past all for the sake of public image. I don't see why it'd be any different here. Hell, they're still a monarchy so that just shows how old beliefs and other thinkings still exist to this day. - N
You are correct, sir. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748 It seems that Saudi Arabia deliberately inflammed this issue in order to distract from the stampede that happened in Mecca, which wasn't that big a deal here, but was in muslim countries like Pakistan. It seems they took a page right out of the Republican playbook.
Actually the original implication (by Happeh, understandably) was that Diana and Fadl's children would be next in line to the throne, which is of course ludicrous. I should say that I am deeply skeptical of any claim that such a marriage would "look bad" in the pre-9/11 environment. The monarchy has excelled at looking bad over the last years; Fergie's behaviour aside, the actions of Diana - as those of a mere member of the landowning class and not a proper "Royal" per se - would probably fail to excite much interest, in Britain at least. I can't say for sure what the reaction would be in Saudi Arabia, but it might well be exceedingly poor; Saudi Arabia not exactly being known for its stalwart commitment to democracy, social rights, and the inherent value of human life. I believe that outside of Syria or somesuch, it's one of the few places that "blood money" can still be paid to someone's relatives to attone for murder, with proportionally less value being attached to women and religious minorities. Neildo, has the issue of "Jewishness" been continued in another thread or are we dropping it? Thanks. Geoff
Its a sad, sad thing when you are obligated by your religion to burn down a Holiday Inn and a Pizza Hut. What is even worse is that these people can't see that they are proving the cartoon that they so detest right. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/pakistan.cartoons.ap/index.html
In my view, in any civilised society, burning down Pizza Huts should be mandatory. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In your view, we should be out there in fields digging for grubs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am afraid I must pronounce fatwa on you for your shirk: verily you have made offense against the Almighty Hut. Pizzlam is tolerant, of course; and all those saying it's not must be decapitated. Your soul will be boiled in the vat of a thousand Cheezy-Breads; verily ye will be given new skins as the old become just way too tasty not to nibble on. For know ye that Allah is Doer, Seer, Extra-Cheesy. Imam Geoff
I dunno where the thread James is talking about is at. So I guess dropped. I shall see you on the next battle-field! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
I believe the words of H. L. Menken apply here. You do not have the freedom to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater he said. To do so, if there is no fire, endangers many lives. Although yelling FIRE in that case is a lie, it is not the basic reason why it is banned as free speech. It is the underlying incitement to riot that is the crime. After all people tell lies all the time, even in crowded theaters. Isn’t it an amazing coincidence that eleven European newspapers in seven countries simultaneously published the same provocative cartoons? It was a coordinated collusion that would put those who fix the price of gasoline to shame. Those same Europeans will have a hard time convincing me that it was all in the name of freedom of the press while France, Germany and Austria have stringent laws on their books that no one is free to question the Holocaust in print. If you publish material that challenges the accepted statistics about that event you go to jail, and three people are currently locked up for doing so. Not for libel, mind you, but for posing questions that dare not be asked!
Of course, Denmark isn't a country that criminalises Holocaust denial. And yet they were the first to publish. Only half-controlled, eh? :bugeye:
/sarc Yes; it almost makes one wonder if there exist some kind of special communications devices that allow the dissemination of information over long distances. Surely, of course, such devices would be Israeli-controlled. /sarcoff ...Saudi Arabia? Geoff
My god! That's a brilliant idea! We might be able to write information to each other that could transmitted and received in mere hours! Perhaps, one day in the future, the technology would be so advanced as to talk with people several kilometers away as if they were right next to you! We could call such a device a LongSpeaker! Of course, they would be so expensive and the machinery so refined that only the five richest kings in Jewrope^H^H^H Europe, of course, mein Führer... mr. President, would be able to afford one. But still - think of the possibilities! (Yes, I wholly realize that was taking the joke too far, but you can't take chances such as subtlety with Happeh.)
To paraphrase a greater man than I, one-armed, one-eyed womanizing bastard though he be: "No joke can be too far wrong if it places irony alongside the enemy." Geoff
