I will be marching on the Turkish embassy later and looking for Turks to take as hostages or just hurt because I am mad. I have 6 Turkish flags to burn as well. Hope to see you there. Please bring lots of ammo to shoot into the air...
*************************************************************
By BENJAMIN HARVEY
(AP) A woman stands next to a billboard featuring the new Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves Iraq" in...
Full Image
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - In the most expensive Turkish movie ever made, American soldiers in Iraq crash a wedding and pump a little boy full of lead in front of his mother.
They kill dozens of innocent people with random machine gun fire, shoot the groom in the head, and drag those left alive to Abu Ghraib prison - where a Jewish doctor cuts out their organs, which he sells to rich people in New York, London and Tel Aviv.
"Valley of the Wolves Iraq" - set to open in Turkey on Friday - feeds off the increasingly negative feelings many Turks harbor toward their longtime NATO allies: Americans.
The movie, which reportedly cost some $10 million, is the latest in a new genre of popular culture that demonizes the United States. It comes on the heels of a novel called "Metal Storm" about a war between Turkey and the U.S., which has been a best seller for months.
One recent opinion poll revealed the depth of the hostility in Turkey toward Americans: 53 percent of Turks who responded to the 2005 Pew Global Attitudes survey associated Americans with the word "rude"; 70 percent with "violent"; 68 percent with "greedy"; and 57 percent with "immoral."
Advance tickets are already selling out across Turkey for the film, which has dialogue in Turkish, Arabic, Kurdish and English. In addition to Turkey, the film is set to be shown in more than a dozen other countries - including the United States, Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Britain, Denmark, Russia, Egypt, Syria and Australia.
The movie's American stars are Billy Zane, who plays a self-professed "peacekeeper sent by God," and Gary Busey as the Jewish-American doctor.
U.S. soldiers have become hate figures in Muslim countries around the world after the unpopular war in Iraq. But here in Turkey, a personal grudge fuels the resentment.
"Valley of the Wolves Iraq" opens with a true story: On July 4, 2003, in Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq, troops from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade raided and ransacked a Turkish special forces office, threw hoods over the heads of 11 Turkish special forces officers, and held them in custody for more than two days.
The Americans said they had been looking for Iraqi insurgents and unwittingly rounded up the Turks because they were not in uniform. Still, the incident damaged Turkish-U.S. relations and hurt Turkish national pride. Turks traditionally idolize their soldiers; most enthusiastically send their sons off for mandatory military service.
In the movie, one of the Turkish special forces officers commits suicide to save his honor. His farewell letter reaches Polat Alemdar, an elite Turkish intelligence officer who travels to northern Iraq with a small group of men to avenge the humiliation.
There they find a rogue group of U.S. soldiers led by officer Sam William Marshall - played by Zane. In the bloodfest that ensues, the small band of Turks bonds with the people of Iraq and eventually ends American atrocities there, killing Zane and his men in the final scene.
"The scenario is great," Istanbul Mayor Kadir Topbas told The Associated Press after the film was shown at a posh opening gala Tuesday night. "It was very successful. ... a soldier's honor must never be damaged."
But Topbas and other Turks at the premiere weren't too concerned about how the movie would be perceived in the United States.
"There isn't going to be a war over this," said Nefise Karatay, a Turkish model lounging on a sofa after the premiere. "Everyone knows that Americans have a good side. That's not what this is about."
I think it is in bad taste; the same as I do any disrespect of any other religion. But I believe this falls in the relm of free speech and the Muslims would be better off letting the trash speak for itself.
However, this just in from Reuters.
Quote:US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
source
Some irritating topics now on the Bush's supporter site - FOREIGN NEWS
:wink:
Continuing with it:
Quote:Jack Straw praises UK media's 'sensitivity' over cartoons
Chris Tryhorn and agencies
Friday February 3, 2006
Jack Straw attacked European media organisations today for publishing controversial cartoons of Muhammad that have sparked outrage across the Muslim world.
But the foreign secretary praised British newspapers for their "considerable responsibility and sensitivity" in not printing the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and have been reprinted in a host of newspapers across the continent this week.
Although TV news in this country showed some of the cartoons as they appeared in European newspapers, no national newspaper in the UK has so far chosen to reproduce the images, one of which depicts Muhammad with a bomb fizzing out of his turban.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Some irritating topics now on the Bush's supporter site
Actually I'd thought to read some praises and cheers about John Boehner?
Walter Hinteler wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Some irritating topics now on the Bush's supporter site
Actually I'd thought to read some praises and cheers about John Boehner?
I think he actually was a pretty good choice. At least for people like me, who like much of the Republican platform, but resent the culture of corruption that infests the party's leadership. I was hoping that House Republicans would elect the candidate furthest apart from Jack Abramov -- and they did. Good for you, guys.
You were apparently unaware of the candidate farthest away from Abramoff, Thomas - Shadegg.
Boehner is hardly less corrupt than Blunt; but he has nothing but opportunity to prove me wrong and enact a reform agenda. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Cycloptichorn
I Googled about JustWonders' blasphemy question some more, and it looks as if our penal code comes close to covering the caricatures in §166
Strafgesetzbuch. Here is my translation of the article, with the syntax substantially altered to make it comprehensible to English-speakers.
(1) Whoever insults the content of a religious or ideological persuasion, publically or through distribution of writings, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years, or with a fine.
(2) It shall likewise be punished whoever insults a domestically existing church or other religious community or ideological association, its institutions or customs, publically or through distribution of writings, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace.
Or in other words, it's an even closer call than I first thought. If it had been a German newspaper that printed those caricatures first, and if Muslims were rioting in German streets, maybe German law
would hold the newspaper criminally liable. Walter, what do you think?
old europe wrote:We do have a law about the "Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life", but I don't think it can be read as an anti-blasphemy law. It goes more along the lines of maintaining the public peace. Like not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, yaknow....
I don't think it's the same as "shouting Fire" at all.
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire), the result could be death and injury due to panic, and that's why it's illegal.
If I use my First Amendment rights to publish a cartoon mocking a religious icon, where's the crime? I may be accused of using poor taste, but I've committed no crime.
Well, I looked a bit through various textbooks, comments and law journals and think, my earlier done response on the
Blasphemy thread [a semi-official translation of the relevant section is there, too :wink: ] seems still to be valid:
Walter Hinteler wrote:Here, it seems to be consensus that these caricatures are within what is freedom of speech and not violating any law.
Here - again - we have had such quite often at courts and even more often thought of by various prosecution offices: in more conservative offices and at more conservative courts (= in e.g. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg = more Catholic regions), a public provocation is easier be seen than in e.g. more evangelical dominated states and/or those with a less conservative dominated prosecution.
Personally, I think
now, it depends on where and who would start a prosecution.
JustWonders wrote:I don't think it's the same as "shouting Fire" at all.
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire), the result could be death and injury due to panic, and that's why it's illegal.
If I use my First Amendment rights to publish a cartoon mocking a religious icon, where's the crime? I may be accused of using poor taste, but I've committed no crime.
JW,
have a look at the aptly translated paragraphs Thomas posted. I think the operational term here is
"in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace".
The way I'd read that: if it
doesn't disturb the public peace, it's legal. No?
JustWonders wrote:
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire), the result could be death and injury due to panic, and that's why it's illegal.
If I use my First Amendment rights to publish a cartoon mocking a religious icon, where's the crime? I may be accused of using poor taste, but I've committed no crime.
I don't doubt that at all.
Opposite to the USA constitution, our Basic Law contains not only an appreciation of personal freedoms but some have a provisio clause.
To observe the legality of laws we have a Federal Constitutional Court ... and Section 166 of the German Criminal Code is definitely according to our constitution.
I'd say that § 166 might even be in accord with the US Constitution...
old europe wrote:JustWonders wrote:I don't think it's the same as "shouting Fire" at all.
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire), the result could be death and injury due to panic, and that's why it's illegal.
If I use my First Amendment rights to publish a cartoon mocking a religious icon, where's the crime? I may be accused of using poor taste, but I've committed no crime.
JW,
have a look at the aptly translated paragraphs Thomas posted. I think the operational term here is
"in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace".
The way I'd read that: if it
doesn't disturb the public peace, it's legal. No?
Goofy. If someone in NYC reacted violently to seeing that crucifix in a jar of urine and started "disturbing the peace", he'd be arrested - not the so-called "artist" who published his photos.
old europe wrote:I'd say that § 166 might even be in accord with the US Constitution...
Really? Which part of the US Constitution, if you don't mind me asking?
JW,
read the paragraph again, without the religious bit:
(1) Whoever insults <snip> in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years, or with a fine.
or
(2) It shall likewise be punished whoever insults <snip> publically or through distribution of writings, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace.
It can, of course, be argued if that implies the intention of disturbing the public peace (which would probably be punishable in the US, too - see e.g. the "Free Speech Zones"), or if it could be prosecuted even though a disturbance of the public peace was unintended....
JustWonders wrote:Goofy. If someone in NYC reacted violently to seeing that crucifix in a jar of urine and started "disturbing the peace", he'd be arrested - not the so-called "artist" who published his photos.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
If I am correctly informed, the currently applicable test under your constitutional caselaw is whether a "clear and imminent danger" arises from your speech. I would expect that this imposes a stronger burden of proof than our penal code's "capable of disturbing the public peace". But they are differences of degree, not in kind. (And it is independent of the danger that someone might manufacture a riot to trigger the law.)
While I do not claim to be an expert,I have to ask.
Even if its legal to run those cartoons,isnt it kind of silly to print something that you KNOW will offend so many people?
Just because I CAN offend you,does that mean I SHOULD offend you?
mysteryman wrote:Even if its legal to run those cartoons,isnt it kind of silly to print something that you KNOW will offend so many people?
Yes it is silly, unless there are other reasons to print it anyway. But of course, that's just my opinion (TM).
