Controversial cartoons spark protests throughout the world

[robotic]

a danish newspaper published controversial cartoons depicting images of prophet muhammed with a turban shaped like a bomb, and another showing him saying that the paradise was running out of virgins.

user comments on bbc have mixed opinions: some people believe opposition to these cartoons is hindering their freedom of speech, while others believe that freedom of speech isn't meant to offend.

have your say (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=904&&edition=2&ttl=20060202231743)

links to more articles/opinions/news updates etc. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4675462.stm)

what do you think?

[haplesshobo]

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the controversy spread to the entire Danish government, where people want a apology from the Danish government.

Here are some of the ripple effects attributed to those cartoons:
• Gaza: On Monday, gunmen seized an EU office, demanding apologies from Denmark and Norway (where another publication later reprinted the cartoons). On Tuesday, demonstrators chanted “War on Denmark, death to Denmark” as they burned Danish flags.

• Arab interior ministers declared: “We ask the Danish authorities to take the necessary measures to punish those responsible for this harm and to take action to avoid a repeat.”

• Libya and Saudi Arabia recalled their ambassadors from Copenhagen, while in Saudi Arabia, a mob beat two employees of the Danish corporation Arla Foods, which has been subjected to a crippling boycott throughout the Islamic world -- a boycott that has been endorsed by, among others, the Sudanese Defense Minister.

• Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari complained to the Danish ambassador to Baghdad, while Danish troops were put on alert there after a fatwa concerning the cartoons was issued.

I find it very telling about the differences between the West and the Middleast. There's also a very controversial political cartoon by Toles in the Washington Post, where he uses a quadrapalagic soldier in a hosptial bed. There have also been controversial artistic efforts, which many Christians felt blasphemied their religion. You had protests and demands to cut federal funding for those artists. But, nothing like the violence and protest here, or what happened to Rushdie.

It would be a sad and scary thing if we felt we needed to self censor ourselves because we were afraid how obviously crazy people half away from the world are going to overreact. Should we cower to such threats, and start banishing depictions of the human body in our Arts because those same crazy fanatics would feel that's blashmephous to their God.

[Arex]

There have also been controversial artistic efforts, which many Christians felt blasphemied their religion. You had protests and demands to cut federal funding for those artists. But, nothing like the violence and protest here, or what happened to Rushdie. Obviously, those Christians don't feel quite as strongly about the issue...=P

It would be a sad and scary thing if we felt we needed to self censor ourselves because we were afraid how obviously crazy people half away from the world are going to overreact. Should we cower to such threats, and start banishing depictions of the human body in our Arts because those same crazy fanatics would feel that's blashmephous to their God.While I don't necessarily believe in self-censoring out of fear, I think it's reasonable and responsible to self-censor out of respect. And, while you and I may think these people are overreacting, I bet you that they certainly don't think they are. Seeing as we're outsiders to their culture and religion, I would have to defer to them, the same as I would expect a non-Asian to defer to me when I tell them that something has offended me.

[Yeahman]

Do they have the right to publish such these? Of course.
Should they? Out of respect, they should not.
Those who are protesting violently do not even believe that freedom of speech should exist.
Christians in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.

[younggiftedandblack]

It was an editorial cartoon, correct?

[DragonKnight]

Those who are protesting violently do not even believe that freedom of speech should exist.
Christians in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.
Well, if you want to be fair, Islam is probably in a stage of accelerated reformation (it did have a later start). Christianity already went through that a few hundred years ago. So by comparison, publish these types of comics back then and you'll have Christians left and right actually draw and quartering heretic comic artists on a daily basis...in the middle of the village square no less. The Inquisition would have a field day with a comic depicting our heavenly Lord with an exploding cannon ball on his head or St. Peter telling those poor souls that the heaven quota was fulfilled and are accepting no more salvation applicants.

[VV o n g B a]

the islamic protestors hating on the danish gov't are troglodytes. just as the chinese protesters were troglodytes when they destroyed japanese restaurants in protest of japan. a gov't is not run by a newspaper just as a restaurant isn't run by a gov't. have some goddamned sense. doing this just makes u look like an idiot who deserves no international respect. they look more like english soccer hooligans than anything else.

if u're gonna protest, truck a bunch of ppl out infront of the newspaper's headquarters and trash the place like the smarter (or at least more logical) chinese protestors did when they trashed the japanese embassy.

*edit: oh, responding to the original question, no they shouldn't have published out of respect. but have some sense of proportion so that u don't go seizing foreign offices and beating ppl in the street. wtf are u dumb?

[robotic]

i guess our reactions to the cartoons have made it less likely for people to take us seriously. i think the problem with the image of islam and muslims is... our over-the-top, violent, etc. comebacks or reactions. i don't think that the papers needed to publish those cartoons (not like they had to, right?); keeping in mind all the bull we've had to take after 9/11 :biggrin: it's not like you can throw anything at us and we'll brush it off, because we are completely and thoroughly convinced every step you take has HIDDEN MEANING <3 : D

i think that's your answer to the over-reaction.
still a big blow for even the most moderate of them all, because the prophet is heavily revered in islam. and if you strictly aren't supposed to protray him physically, here you have people drawing vulgar cartoons -_-' gyah. what do you expect?

[Chad]

i think the boycotts and protests are justified but not the violence. some people are exploiting this for their own agendas... the newspapers didnt seem to understand why the cartoons were offensive.

[Banana]

I've heard countless people state that other religions have been caricaturized as well and have no idea why Muslims are so angry. To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall these other religions distinctly stating that idolizing or displaying images of God is blasphemous.

US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-03T202815Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml&rpc=22

[younggiftedandblack]

Can you take the press seriously if they start to bend to the pressure of every group that feels offended?

[Banana]

Why not? I don't take them seriously now.

[younggiftedandblack]

Why not? I don't take them seriously now.
Touché

[deez nuts]

the muslims are overreacting.

[robotic]

the muslims are overreacting.

and we all know why.

ahah~

[kuilong]

(1) Islam has not been (http://www.crankyprofessor.com/archives/000492.html) as consistently aniconistic as is often assumed.

(2) If it's considered blasphemous for works of art to depict the prophets, faces and all, what are we to do about the numerous Christian churches in Europe that have icons and other artwork depicting the prophets?

(3) Why was it that many of the same people who are condemning this were either silent or approving of when a French court censured (http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/06/criticism_not_n.html) Le Monde's publisher for publishing insulting cartoons of Ariel Sharon? As Chris Bertram writes: "No doubt those wishing to distinguish the cases would claim that cartoons of Sharon eating babies are racist but those depicting Muslims as ignorant towel-heads and suicide bombers are merely engaged in the legitimate criticism of ideas: the images may look like they come from Julius Streicher but the motive comes from Voltaire."

[didu]

the muslims are overreacting.

I agree. People should have the freedom to question and express
their opinions of a religion and some religious figures.

[robotic]

but then again, why do people forget about the muslim mentality?

even if we remain divided, we continue this chain reaction: we only need certain events to spark it all over again! ignore the circumstances and that is what happens. muslims are at the peak of their sensitivity. if people are so fully aware of that stereotypical response (i.e. muslim anger, ;-;~) whyyyy do it. right? for their own sake, mate.

i'm also tried of our hypocrisy, i do agree. if we don't want hate, we shouldn't spread hate.
but the situation is so bad now.

[LaiSteve66]

Glad it wasn't a US paper.

[thaite]

(2) If it's considered blasphemous for works of art to depict the prophets, faces and all, what are we to do about the numerous Christian churches in Europe that have icons and other artwork depicting the prophets?

Yeah, but most of Christianity does not consider it blasphemous to depict icons, prophets and faces. Just the Muslims.

[kuilong]

Yeah, but most of Christianity does not consider it blasphemous to depict icons, prophets and faces. Just the Muslims.

Yes, but apparently several Muslims feel it is blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict prophets. Jyllands-Posten is a fascist rag, not a Muslim one.

[robotic]

Glad it wasn't a US paper.

haha, oh man. totally.

this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4678220.stm) does make a good point:

The row over the Danish cartoons would probably have remained a local dispute between some Muslims and a Danish newspaper had it not been for three factors:

* the rise of violent political Islam
* America's war on terror
* modern transnational media.

America's war on terror is still largely perceived in the Arab world as a war on Islam - a perception reinforced by the fact that it is happening exclusively in Muslim countries, namely Iraq and Afghanistan.

in short, we muslims have become paranoid. ^_~ and we are not looking towards the right initiatives to improve our image in the media, if at all.

[thaite]

Yes, but apparently several Muslims feel it is blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict prophets. Jyllands-Posten is a fascist rag, not a Muslim one.

Wait, are you saying that Muslims say it's blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict non-Muslim icons, or that it's blasphemous for non-Muslims and Muslims alike to depict Muslim icons?

I would say definitly the latter, and a little bit of the former.

[kuilong]

Wait, are you saying that Muslims say it's blasphemous for non-Muslims to depict non-Muslim icons, or that it's blasphemous for non-Muslims and Muslims alike to depict Muslim icons?

I would say definitly the latter, and a little bit of the former.

The latter, but you're aware that Christianity and Islam share many prophets, no?

[haplesshobo]

The row over the Danish cartoons would probably have remained a local dispute between some Muslims and a Danish newspaper had it not been for three factors:

* the rise of violent political Islam
* America's war on terror
* modern transnational media.

America's war on terror is still largely perceived in the Arab world as a war on Islam - a perception reinforced by the fact that it is happening exclusively in Muslim countries, namely Iraq and Afghanistan.

in short, we muslims have become paranoid. ^_~ and we are not looking towards the right initiatives to improve our image in the media, if at all.

From what somebody sent me, there seems to more to this outrage than what you outlined. After all, we're talking about cartoons that originally ran in a danish newspaper in september, and only now is there a uproar. I don't know how accurate or valid this story is, and I do have my doubts about it. But, if true, this might explain the outrage:

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.

[thaite]

The latter, but you're aware that Christianity and Islam share many prophets, no?

Yes, I am aware of that.

[yoMAMA]

LOL, they burned the embassies in syria.

[robotic]

to my knowledge, yes, the danish cartoons were printed way back in september.

but they were reprinted in january by a norwegian newspaper, and by spanish, french, italian and german newspapers in february.

also, because we're so caught up in the whole "freedom of speech" dynamic of the issue, how racist were the cartoons really?

i mean the prophet probably wore a turban because osama bin laden did :rolleyes: or, hey, he bombed people because that's what he did too, or is what our religion encourages?

:/ i mean, surely, why support hate being published about anything, anywhere?

[haplesshobo]

While I don't necessarily believe in self-censoring out of fear, I think it's reasonable and responsible to self-censor out of respect.

But, let's take this logic for respect and political correctness to its conclusion. Should Toles not have done that political cartoon in the Washington Post because some people might have felt it was offensive to soldiers who had gone to war and paid a horrifying sacrifice? Should political cartoonists stop commenting on the Bush presidency because they aren't showing respect for the presidency? Should Scorcesse never have done the film Last Temptation of Christ because it offended some Christians?

The problem is that there are too many groups out there, and somebody will always get offended. I do not believe the solution to that is to keep our comments and art as unoffensive and plain as milquestoast.

And, while you and I may think these people are overreacting, I bet you that they certainly don't think they are. Seeing as we're outsiders to their culture and religion, I would have to defer to them, the same as I would expect a non-Asian to defer to me when I tell them that something has offended me.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be offended by this carictaure. But, let's call a spade a spade and say they are overreacting to a political cartoon when they are beating up people or when thousands of syrians torched the danish and noregwian embassieses in damascuss. It doesn't matter if we're not muslim to say that it was overeaction when a fatwa was issued that sentenced salman rushdie to death for his book, satanic verses, as well as over a million dollars bounty for his death because of the book's irreverent portrayal of Mohammed. Bookstores were firebombed, people who translated the book were killed, etc..

Even if something offended asian americans like a political cartoon that showed us with slanty eyes and buck teeth, it would be a overreaction if we started burning down buildings or killing people because of it.

Should we start excusing those people who firebomb abortion clinics and not say its an overreaction because we are outsiders to their religious culture and defer to them?

[robotic]

i really don't understand you, hapless.
:biggrin:

to me, simply,

this is a chain reaction.

pay some heed to muslim sensitivity. we've had to handle so much crap from the media :biggrin:

[Anaestacia]

It's not just about feeling offended. To me, it's contains ripple effects from cultural genocides spanning centuries against western imperialist rule, namely Europeans.

I don't like the violence and handling whatever "crap from the media" is a point taken but a lousy scapegoat. I disagree with how flippant some Europeans, more specifically the Dutch (not to mention others, ie. Americans) are by calling it merely an overreaction. The fact that some of the teachings are not understood and displayed by some individuals is proof that ISLAM as a whole is NOT understood by Europeans.

The artist of the cartoon drew it from a perspective outside of knowing the culture. Had he understood that their religion usually discourages representations of Allah or their leaders, I wonder if he would have put his gifts to more constructive uses.

[AznTrojan]

of course it's an overreaction by these muslims whackos..

hell.. you didn't hear about christian fundamentalists torching embassies after piss-chirst..

[Yeahman]

Well, if you want to be fair, Islam is probably in a stage of accelerated reformation (it did have a later start). Christianity already went through that a few hundred years ago. So by comparison, publish these types of comics back then and you'll have Christians left and right actually draw and quartering heretic comic artists on a daily basis...in the middle of the village square no less. The Inquisition would have a field day with a comic depicting our heavenly Lord with an exploding cannon ball on his head or St. Peter telling those poor souls that the heaven quota was fulfilled and are accepting no more salvation applicants.
This area is one were the pope is trying to make a contribution. Having developed a theology of religious pluralism, Christian theologians like the Holy Father can help Islam develop their own.

the islamic protestors hating on the danish gov't are troglodytes. just as the chinese protesters were troglodytes when they destroyed japanese restaurants in protest of japan. a gov't is not run by a newspaper just as a restaurant isn't run by a gov't. have some goddamned sense. doing this just makes u look like an idiot who deserves no international respect. they look more like english soccer hooligans than anything else.

if u're gonna protest, truck a bunch of ppl out infront of the newspaper's headquarters and trash the place like the smarter (or at least more logical) chinese protestors did when they trashed the japanese embassy.

*edit: oh, responding to the original question, no they shouldn't have published out of respect. but have some sense of proportion so that u don't go seizing foreign offices and beating ppl in the street. wtf are u dumb?
They are angry that Denmark allows offensive material to be published.

I've heard countless people state that other religions have been caricaturized as well and have no idea why Muslims are so angry. To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall these other religions distinctly stating that idolizing or displaying images of God is blasphemous.

US backs Muslims in cartoon dispute

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-02-03T202815Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml&rpc=22
1. Jews and some Protestants believe that creating images of God is a grave sin.
2. Mohammed is not a deity.
3. Everyone believes that mocking their respective deities is blasphemous.

[mr. x]

the bigger problem here is that a lot of people in the muslim world clearly don't know moderation, and this is a social problem as opposed to a religious one. when you got people attacking the Chilean embassy for God knows what reason someone needs to chill the fuck out

the boycott is within reason, torching a government embassy is not. this is another case where the Syrians clearly are projecting there own failings and releasing pent up shit on others

[kuilong]

As I see it, this is a bit like if an American paper were to publish racist cartoons of Malcolm X or something. Certainly it should be legal, but I don't see why I should approve of it beyond that.

In any case, moderation is an expensive commodity, not easily affordable to the downtrodden. This doesn't make the actions of many of the protesters laudable, but it makes them understandable, at least.

The leaders and legislators in the Middle East who focused attention on this rather than on umpteen more important problems are really bastards.

And anyone who expected an iota of good taste or decency from a paper that used to be pro-Nazi is just naive.

[Chad]

we expect the people of the Muslim world to show moderation and control their anger and violence, but then we're always willing to bomb them at the drop of a hat. Western governments show little restraint when it comes to interfering in politics and daily life in the Muslim world. in the past there was colonialism, where a bunch of Europeans decided to invade, occupy, and subjugate for what reasons? because those people were "backwards" and they had natural resources the Europeans wanted. in modern times the Europeans are collaborating with the Americans in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. once again the reasons for this are because those people have to learn about our systems, in other words they don't know the proper way to govern themselves and live so we have to invade and show them. covert operations to manipulate politics are known to have been carried out by agencies such as the CIA and MI5 in several countries in the past 60 years.
maybe if we want the Muslim world to show restraint and moderation, we should start setting a better example.

[robotic]

i agree with chad - our reaction has been terribly and horrendously violent - but there are racial politics, economical repressions and a constant battle with our protrayal by a dominant western media involved. often, people forget about them. there's a lot of anger present here, for reasons that stretch far past september 11 2001. after 9/11, the reasons for that anger escalated: where a dozen people were being detained, racially profiled, bullied or made fun of (can you sincerely be of middle-eastern or south asian heritage and admit that you haven't once heard a derogatory term that connotates your skin colour and culture with suicide bombing, sand-dwelling etc. etc.? remember this (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=27500) thread? ^_~)

if we only take the recent events into consideration - we might have brought this upon ourselves. in the same way we brought upon a tarnished image after 9/11, right? the danish embassies that were torched did not deserve to be. but why people don't treat us as individuals who just happen to belong to a religion that a few militant fundamentalists claim to belong to. as people of colour, something prickles at the back of my neck when i hear justifications for why publishing this was fundamentally "right". why are we on a site like yw when we want to reinforce a bandwagon ideology that has been eating away at our people forever.

it is beyond me, and perhaps what offended me about this cartoon the most - above all, it reinforces those stereotypes - and worst of all, it tries to sew in "hey, your religion teaches you that!" when revered scholars condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings around the world. people ignore those words because they believe actions speak louder than words. forget about what religion they belong to for a moment. remember the past history that involved them with the western world and spurred war and hate. was religion involved?

some of us don't want change. it is true. we have people here, just like in another nation or religion, that don't want the best for this world. but i am honestly sick of, and yes i'll complete this sentence, of hearing about how our religion teaches us to kill any non-muslim in sight.

terrorists use religion as an excuse, period.

a billion followers, and a few rotten apples, and everyone is subjected to hate.

in the same way, a million americans, a few rotten apples, and everyone is subjected to hate.

why are we all doing the same thing??? ;_;

[AznTrojan]

we expect the people of the Muslim world to show moderation and control their anger and violence, but then we're always willing to bomb them at the drop of a hat. Western governments show little restraint when it comes to interfering in politics and daily life in the Muslim world. in the past there was colonialism, where a bunch of Europeans decided to invade, occupy, and subjugate for what reasons? because those people were "backwards" and they had natural resources the Europeans wanted. in modern times the Europeans are collaborating with the Americans in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. once again the reasons for this are because those people have to learn about our systems, in other words they don't know the proper way to govern themselves and live so we have to invade and show them. covert operations to manipulate politics are known to have been carried out by agencies such as the CIA and MI5 in several countries in the past 60 years.
maybe if we want the Muslim world to show restraint and moderation, we should start setting a better example.

so the muslim overreaction is now the everyone else's fault but their own? are you kidding me?

btw.. i was against the iraq war.. but to say the war in afghanistan was planned with a drop of the hat is absolutely wrong

[robotic]

their overreaction is their fault. but the cause of the overreaction is not.

[deez nuts]

lol muslims gone wild

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10705393/

[haplesshobo]

their overreaction is their fault. but the cause of the overreaction is not.

I love the Syrian government's response to the Danish embassy getting set fire upon in Syria:

Syria blamed Denmark for the protests, criticizing the Scandinavian nation for refusing to apologize for the caricatures of Islam’s holiest figure.

“(Denmark’s) government was able to avoid reaching this point ... simply through an apology” as requested by Arab and Muslim diplomats, state-run daily Al-Thawra said in an editorial Sunday.

“It is unjustifiable under any kind of personal freedoms to allow a person or a group to insult the beliefs of millions of Muslims,” the paper said.

where a dozen people were being detained, racially profiled, bullied or made fun of (can you sincerely be of middle-eastern or south asian heritage and admit that you haven't once heard a derogatory term that connotates your skin colour and culture with suicide bombing, sand-dwelling etc. etc

What does have to do anything? How does that justify the violence we're seeing in the Middleast, since, while what you're describing, while unfortunate, is what happens to muslims in europe and america. It might explain the signs in London where protestors were holding signs that promised "be prepared for the real holocaust", "behead those who insult islam", or promising that europe will have its own 9/11. But, I don't see why that would have caused the reaction in Syria unless another Islamic group from Europe went to the Middleast to try to start up trobule.

I would feel a lot more sympathetic to the Muslim complaints about these editorial cartoons if their own government controlled media didn't run some of the most anti-semitic stuff out there, such as how the jewish religion needs to kill non jews for their non-jewish blood for jewish religious holidays.

Maybe, that's why Muslims are insisting that the Danish government apologize since that's a foreign concept to them- the separation between the media and government in their own countries. But, to me, this whole issuse seems like the western nations are being told to follow fatwa, muslim religous laws, when we cannot publish such cartoons.


it tries to sew in "hey, your religion teaches you that!" when revered scholars condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings around the world.

What about ayatollah khomenhi? Was he not a revered scholar, the spiritual leader to Shia muslims in Iran? Doesn't the title ayatollah mean that person is a reveered religious scholar, who is an expert in islamic studies. But, this is the same guy who issused that fatwa condeming Salman Rusdie to death for writing Satanic Verses, which khomenhi considered blasphemous.


a billion followers, and a few rotten apples, and everyone is subjected to hate.


Look, I'm not saying that being Muslim makes a person sympathetic to terrorism or means they want to kill every non-muslim

But, at the same time, its also foolish say that there was only a handful of support for Osma in the Middleast, and to deny that there is much wider support for AQ than we'd all like to believe.

These are the results of a poll of Egyptian opinion by Al-Arham:

Question 1: How would you describe your feelings when you saw the destruction of the New York twin towers?

They deserved it: 52%
Sympathy for the victims: 35%
Afraid of the future: 24%
Admiration for the culprits: 28%
Anger at the culprits: 10%

[VV o n g B a]

“It is unjustifiable under any kind of personal freedoms to allow a person or a group to insult the beliefs of millions of Muslims,” the paper said.yes, interesting. here is what Nasrallah, the leader of the syrian supported terrorist group hezbollah, had to say about israel, "To this enemy we say again: There is no place for you here and there is no life for you among us. Death to Israel." also, pres ahmadinejad of iran has repeatedly denied israel's right to exist as a nation.

so what's more serious, leaders of a terrorist organization and a nation (that's developing nuke technology) saying a neighboring nation should be wiped off the face of the earth, or a newspaper cartoonist from another continent insulting a region's religion?

[Banana]

I believe that there is a right to publish these cartoons but was ultimately disrespectful to someone else's religion or sensitivities. However, the main reason this paper proceeded to draw these cartoons was because it's considered socially acceptable to berate and trivialize Muslims much like how it's acceptable to do the same to Asian Americans as opposed to African Americans or Jews in the US. I wonder how people would react had the cartoonists scribbled some pictures that were reminiscent of Nazi anti-Semitic World War 2 posters?

What really makes me laugh is that the Western world knows that the Middle East is rife with conservatives and fanatical Muslims and to do such an act would be inviting trouble. Why would you continue to throw rocks at a hornets nest and they act surprised by the violent reaction? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a good fuckin' idea. I could drive with my feet but it doesn't mean I should.

[VV o n g B a]

I could drive with my feet but it doesn't mean I should.interesting. i assumed most ppl used their feet when driving. u must be special.

[mr. x]

remember the incident in Nigeria where that journalist said the beauty pageant being held there was a good thing and that Muhammed would choose a wife amongst the contestants and they went all apeshit and a lot of people died?

yeah same thing. problem is not that the journalist shoulda kept her mouth shut, problem is people are fucking stupid. there is nothing in the Koran that says "go apeshit whenever someone says something well meaning"

stupidity lies with the people

[nonamerasian]

I don't like what the newspaper did, of course.

Images of Mohammad being blasphemous is one of those things that I thought everyone knew.

That was the ultimate disrespect.

While the newpaper had the right to show it, I suppose. It was very irresponsible for them to do so.

[Banana]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

Mr Mortazavi said tomorrow's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Last week, the Iranian foreign ministry also invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Teheran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Mr Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid".

Mr Blair also said Mr Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators".

[robotic]

oh great >_< what are you doing, iran?!

[mr. x]

[url]
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.[/I]
big fucking difference Iran

in "the west" we can say shit like "I dont like my government"

let's see you say it mr. mouthpiece

[haplesshobo]

Well, if you want to be fair, Islam is probably in a stage of accelerated reformation (it did have a later start). Christianity already went through that a few hundred years ago. So by comparison, publish these types of comics back then and you'll have Christians left and right actually draw and quartering heretic comic artists on a daily basis...in the middle of the village square no less. The Inquisition would have a field day with a comic depicting our heavenly Lord with an exploding cannon ball on his head or St. Peter telling those poor souls that the heaven quota was fulfilled and are accepting no more salvation applicants.

Even though I'm an atheist more than anything else, I've also detected what I thought was a christian paranoia on this forum, a anti-christian bias. You'd read threads about Disney promoting Narnia to Christian audiences or how a supreme court justice was a practicing catholic, as if they're was something wrong with that. There always seemed to be a sentiment that christianity should not play too large of a role in the public sphere.

So, you'd think if one were against Christainity from becoming too dominant in western culture, I would have thought that you'd also be against Islam from playing too large of a role in midleastern society and laws. But, I get the sense that the people who are apologizing the most for the Muslim reactions as the cartoons were insensitive to Islamic beliefs would be the ones most likely to be sensitive to any encroachment of christian beliefs in our country. I have to wonder if we were talking about something that was insensitive to christianity, would people be as willing to accomodate that. Would we be willing to slash public funding to artists that christians felt were being disresptful towards christianity, etc..

[sinisterpanda]

Anyone else think it was sort of childish that they published the cartoon depicting anne franke with hitler? I mean...we did that in kindergarten, someone hits you, you hit that back even harder.

[Arex]

Even though I'm an atheist more than anything else, I've also detected what I thought was a christian paranoia on this forum, a anti-christian bias. You'd read threads about Disney promoting Narnia to Christian audiences or how a supreme court justice was a practicing catholic, as if they're was something wrong with that. There always seemed to be a sentiment that christianity should not play too large of a role in the public sphere.

So, you'd think if one were against Christainity from becoming too dominant in western culture, I would have thought that you'd also be against Islam from playing too large of a role in midleastern society and laws. But, I get the sense that the people who are apologizing the most for the Muslim reactions as the cartoons were insensitive to Islamic beliefs would be the ones most likely to be sensitive to any encroachment of christian beliefs in our country. I have to wonder if we were talking about something that was insensitive to christianity, would people be as willing to accomodate that. Would we be willing to slash public funding to artists that christians felt were being disresptful towards christianity, etc..You're probably right that people here would not care nearly as much if a paper were to publish a cartoon that was offensive to Christians. But Christianity also happens to be the dominant religion in the western world. So I don't think what you've been seeing here is any kind of bias against Christianity as Christianity. Rather, I think what you're seeing is a reactance against Christianity as the dominant organized religion in western society.

I don't doubt that if Islamic beliefs somehow came to dominate our culture and society, you would see a similar reactance against attempts to inject too much Islam into our government the same as you're seeing with Christianity today. That is what one should expect from a country whose constitution explicitly states, in essence, that the government should not become excessively entangled in religion.

On the other hand, not all governments and societies are set up to respect freedom of religion as is ours. That's why we may decry and resist the rise of a particular religion in our government (in the U.S.'s case, Christianity), while respecting the fact that Islamist beliefs play a huge role in other governments/societies.

[Banana]

I fully support the outrage (minus the death and destruction) coming from the Middle East because it is my sincere belief that their fury has little to do with the cartoons. This situation was merely the catalyst. From what I detect, the cause of this outrage is a long lasting one in that there is a general aura of disrespect, mockery, and evilness imposed on Islam by the West. I'm not talking about government practices or policies, mind you. I'm talking about ordinary people that live ordinary lives.

It is this snide condescending attitude that not only emanates from Europe but also from, to a lesser extent, the United States. It is this very same attitude that allows Islam to be the target of disrespect that is not afforded to others. Sure, we state that we insult every religion on God's green Earth but when was Judaism really harshly criticized in the West? It's gotten to the point where any criticism of Judaism or Israel is automatically labeled anti-Semitic.

I compare their situation much like the Asian American one where Asians are regularly and routinely mocked in mainstream American media whereas the same isn't afforded to African Americans and Jews for the fear of being labeled a racist or anti-Semitic. My main point being that, from their [Muslims'] perspective, it's socially acceptable to disrespect Islam.

[VV o n g B a]

My main point being that, from their [Muslims'] perspective, it's socially acceptable to disrespect Islam.if muslims don't take action to police and reform their own societies to bring themselves into the modern world, they deserve much of the disrespect thrown at them. the only places that might possibly be worse to live in is north korea or sub-saharan africa but it's really a toss-up. how much can u really respect these societies that continue to put up w/ the bullshit they put up w/?

hell, iranians voted for their current pres. palestinians voted for a terrorist group to govern them. if that's their response to the outside world disrespecting them, they certainly deserve to be disrepected (or worse... pitied) b/c they're cutting their own throats. muslims in turkey and southeast asia seem to live on the same earth the rest of the world does. the muslims i know in the US are also just regular ppl. why is it that only the muslims in the middle east are capable of making a violent radical a norm of society? the most violent "norm" of a western radical is that of a wto protestor, and even they avoid killing ppl when they riot and they don't make suicide bombing a lifestyle.

[Banana]

I'm not talking about going out of one's way to respect someone else's culture, religion, or social values but rather not deliberately disrespecting them. There is a big difference between being ignorant about Christianity and stating that Jesus was a fetus that should have been aborted.

It's pretty ludicrous to delve into the history and psychological workings of the Middle East in a single post but from what several of my friends from Israel said, the majority of the population is poor and uneducated. They're brought up to honor the Koran and hold God up as the highest authority. Thus, nothing is more important than God, even freedom of press and speech.

[AznTrojan]

I fully support the outrage (minus the death and destruction) coming from the Middle East because it is my sincere belief that their fury has little to do with the cartoons. This situation was merely the catalyst. From what I detect, the cause of this outrage is a long lasting one in that there is a general aura of disrespect, mockery, and evilness imposed on Islam by the West. I'm not talking about government practices or policies, mind you. I'm talking about ordinary people that live ordinary lives.

It is this snide condescending attitude that not only emanates from Europe but also from, to a lesser extent, the United States. It is this very same attitude that allows Islam to be the target of disrespect that is not afforded to others. Sure, we state that we insult every religion on God's green Earth but when was Judaism really harshly criticized in the West? It's gotten to the point where any criticism of Judaism or Israel is automatically labeled anti-Semitic.

I compare their situation much like the Asian American one where Asians are regularly and routinely mocked in mainstream American media whereas the same isn't afforded to African Americans and Jews for the fear of being labeled a racist or anti-Semitic. My main point being that, from their [Muslims'] perspective, it's socially acceptable to disrespect Islam.

suicide bombers in iraq - no muslim outrage

9/11 - no muslim outrage

continued terrorist attacks throughout the world (including our allies, as well as bali, etc) - no muslim outrage

insurgents using women and children as human shields - no muslim outrage

sharia law and their restrictions on women - no muslim outrage

beheadings in iraq - no muslim outrage

jesus cartoons (e.g. south park) - no muslim outrage (note.. in islam.. jesus is also a prophet equal in stature to mohammed)

piss-christ - no muslim outrage

cartoons that were printed 4 months ago - muslim outrage.. fuck em

[Arex]

^ If you'd bothered to read the first two sentences in his post...

I fully support the outrage (minus the death and destruction) coming from the Middle East because it is my sincere belief that their fury has little to do with the cartoons. This situation was merely the catalyst.

Or were you not disagreeing with the original point?

[AznTrojan]

^ If you'd bothered to read the first two sentences in his post...



Or were you not disagreeing with the original point?

i did.. unlike the previous poster.. i don't support the outrage by the muslim community.. considering this cartoon was first shown in september..

Even though I'm an atheist more than anything else, I've also detected what I thought was a christian paranoia on this forum, a anti-christian bias. You'd read threads about Disney promoting Narnia to Christian audiences or how a supreme court justice was a practicing catholic, as if they're was something wrong with that. There always seemed to be a sentiment that christianity should not play too large of a role in the public sphere.

So, you'd think if one were against Christainity from becoming too dominant in western culture, I would have thought that you'd also be against Islam from playing too large of a role in midleastern society and laws. But, I get the sense that the people who are apologizing the most for the Muslim reactions as the cartoons were insensitive to Islamic beliefs would be the ones most likely to be sensitive to any encroachment of christian beliefs in our country. I have to wonder if we were talking about something that was insensitive to christianity, would people be as willing to accomodate that. Would we be willing to slash public funding to artists that christians felt were being disresptful towards christianity, etc..

i have no problem if people want to slash public funding for piss-christ..

at least there was no american embassies burned.. or mass genocidal violence incited

[Arex]

Wouldn't the fact that the cartoon is relatively stale tend to support the suggestion that the outrage isn't solely over the cartoon, but is rather indicative of greater, more deeply seeded frustrations--frustrations which could possibly be explained by their constant villification/mistreatment by the west?

[AznTrojan]

Wouldn't the fact that the cartoon is relatively stale tend to support the suggestion that the outrage isn't solely over the cartoon, but is rather indicative of greater, more deeply seeded frustrations--frustrations which could possibly be explained by their constant villification/mistreatment by the west?

no doubt.. the muslim politicians are using the cartoons as an excuse to "stir up" the muslim grassroots.. and the sheep are following it.. nevertheless... the outrage is completely irrational.. where is all the outrage over what was aforementioned in my previous post..

[Banana]

No, I didn't bother reading someone else's post as I was not addressing that particular individual and was merely chiming in with my own personal opinion.

The outrage is completely irrational to you because you're still attributing the riots solely to the cartoons that were published. It goes far deeper than that; stemming from centuries worth of gripes, complaints, paranoia, and animosities.

[robotic]

azntrojan, you're seeping with bias :wink:

re-assess your evaluation! XD

haha, it would go by undetected if you didn't try the derogatory u-turn :/

[Yeahman]

Your Taboo, Not Mine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156609,00.html)

[Arex]

no doubt.. the muslim politicians are using the cartoons as an excuse to "stir up" the muslim grassroots.. and the sheep are following it.. nevertheless... the outrage is completely irrational.. where is all the outrage over what was aforementioned in my previous post..None of the things you mentioned (9/11, terrorist attacks at home or abroad, beheadings, caricatures of Jesus) can be seen as an affront to all Muslim people, so why would you necessarily expect organized and widespread outrage from Muslims over those incidents? If the basis for the outrage is the constant mistreatment of Muslims by the west (as symbolized by the cartoon), seems to me that 9/11, or other attacks against the western world, would hardly be good platforms to base your protests on.

[Chad]

the most violent "norm" of a western radical is that of a wto protestor, and even they avoid killing ppl when they riot and they don't make suicide bombing a lifestyle.
I disagree with this. There are violent people in the West who could be described as radicals (religious or political) who bomb abortion clinics, attack homosexuals and minorities, sometimes killing them. Some of these people are in organizations or militias but most of them are not. It's still pretty OK in the part of the West where I live to beat someone up because they're gay. I mean the type of person who would do this would get a pat on the back from their buddies and wouldn't likely be prosecuted. He can always say "the faggot tried to come on to me." This type of person would likely be supported in their actions by their family and church. The most obvious example of violent radicals in the West is the Bush administration.
As for Turkey.. there are paramilitaries there called the Grey Wolves, right-wing extremists who basically do the dirtywork of the police. They have assassinated many people (mostly leftists) and one of them made an attempt on Pope John Paul II's life. There are also the Islamist groups in Turkey but the state keeps them and all other threats down with an iron fist.

[Banana]

This brings me to another interesting question.

Why is that when a few crazy Muslims commit heinous crimes such as Sept 11th, the whole Muslim world must atone for it whereas when a few crazy Nazis go on a shooting or beating rampage, whites don't have to repay the favor?

The people protesting number in the hundreds or low thousands. There are, what, one billion Muslims in the world? I must object to this perception that somehow all Muslims are lumped into this category as being backwards or savage. The only thing that's valid is that Muslim radicals *might* outnumber other religions' radicals.

[Yeahman]

None of the things you mentioned (9/11, terrorist attacks at home or abroad, beheadings, caricatures of Jesus) can be seen as an affront to all Muslim people, so why would you necessarily expect organized and widespread outrage from Muslims over those incidents? If the basis for the outrage is the constant mistreatment of Muslims by the west (as symbolized by the cartoon), seems to me that 9/11, or other attacks against the western world, would hardly be good platforms to base your protests on.
From the Time article I linked previously:
And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance.

This brings me to another interesting question.

Why is that when a few crazy Muslims commit heinous crimes such as Sept 11th, the whole Muslim world must atone for it whereas when a few crazy Nazis go on a shooting or beating rampage, whites don't have to repay the favor?

The people protesting number in the hundreds or low thousands. There are, what, one billion Muslims in the world? I must object to this perception that somehow all Muslims are lumped into this category as being backwards or savage. The only thing that's valid is that Muslim radicals *might* outnumber other religions' radicals.
The people protesting number in at least the tens of thousands. Nobody is saying that all Muslims are backwards or savages. But why is there far more outrage in the general Muslim population over a cartoon than over bin Laden who is supposedly perverting the peaceful religion of Islam?

If 19 Christian radicals killed thousands of people in the name of Jesus Christ you can be sure that there would be condemnation after condemnation from Christian leaders. Churches would hold vigils for the victims. As for blasphemy against Christ, it's so common I hardly take notice any more.

Why the difference? Well we know why. The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech. It is a cultural difference.

[VV o n g B a]

I disagree with this. There are violent people in the West who could be described as radicals (religious or political) who bomb abortion clinics, attack homosexuals and minorities, sometimes killing them.yes, and there are eco-terrorists that put spikes in trees so chainsaws will bounce back on the logger. but these ppl aren't even close to the mainstream. they're the extreme of the extreme. when i refer to "norm" of a radical, i mean ppl that mainstream ppl can identify w/. most ppl in the US can't identify w/ abortion bombers or ppl that kill gays, whereas it seems like most ppl in the middle east can identify w/ the cartoon rioters and suicide bombers.

[DragonKnight]

If 19 Christian radicals killed thousands of people in the name of Jesus Christ you can be sure that there would be condemnation after condemnation from Christian leaders. Churches would hold vigils for the victims. As for blasphemy against Christ, it's so common I hardly take notice any more.

It's cause Christianity has already done its deed of slaughtering millions of people, contributed to the cause of cultural and human genocide, and has persecuted more human lives in the name of God than Islam and Judaism put together.

Despite its current merciful and generous stance on human life, there's no denying Christianity has had it's own growing pains.


Why the difference? Well we know why. The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech. It is a cultural difference.
Here's a theory presented by a lecturer (professor of religion from UCLA) on the current development of Islam. Judaism has went through it, Christianity has went through it, and Islam is no exception. It's reformation in the intepretation of its doctrine. Now the main difference between Islam and the other two monotheistic religions is that Islamic Reformation is occuring during an era in which advance technologies and means of communication is at their disposal. This leads to an exponential development of idealism which will lead to more radical results.

Now, with this being said does this justify the violent outcry by Muslims worldwide?

No. They are justified in their outcry, but the violence is not.

What I'm say is that there has to be an understanding why there is such an outcry of this magnitude and to understand why such a reaction has occured.

One simply cannot say, "The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech. It is a cultural difference."

That is a statement of ignorance and biased disillusion. As a person who has his share of Muslim friends not one of them match the above highlighted statement.

If anything, I remember Christians once being considered cannibals. Yes, the people who once percieved that were quite ignorant and biased. :rolleyes:

[VV o n g B a]

u know if i was god, and ppl mangled what i had to say like christians did before and muslims do today, i'd just come in, kill'em all and start over. once christians passed the point of killing ppl of blasphemy, god would be dead to them. ppl could mock and denigrate me w/o fear of retribution. what a pathetic god right?

but what of the muslims still stuck in the intolerant phase? could i just allow them to run amok and kill random ppl in my name? what pathetic excuse for a god would i be if i allowed that?

therefore i must conclude that god does not exist, for if he did, it would almost be worse than not having existed at all b/c he's so goddamned impotent. that is all.

[haplesshobo]

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.

I had my doubts when I first heard this story since for all I knew, the source could have been biased and thus affected the accuracy of the story in order to portray this group in the worst possible light. But, I just heard the same thing today on NPR, confirming the allegations. I wouldn't expect NPR to carry the same biases as the first source and so I'm inclined to now believe the story: that a delegation of muslims traveled throughout the middleast to try to inflame the situation where denmark would feel their wrath. And, to further provoke and make the situation worse, they inserted fake cartoons that were even more inflammatory.

[deez nuts]

the non-muslim world might be more sympathetic to this issue if they were as vocal about 9/11 and placed a bounty on those responsible as they have been over these cartoons and placing a bounty on the cartoonist. i know i know the argument that 9/11 was political and these cartoons are religious blah blah blah. but in the eyes of the general public, both are related or at the very least a very fine and undefined line that seperates the two at this point.

bottomline: the muslim public relation machine sucks. maybe they should hire you robotic.

as for the issue of the cartoon itself, am i sympathetic to those offended? to be honest; no, not really. however, if you're gonna stir up the hornet's nest just be prepared to get stung.

[AznTrojan]

None of the things you mentioned (9/11, terrorist attacks at home or abroad, beheadings, caricatures of Jesus) can be seen as an affront to all Muslim people, so why would you necessarily expect organized and widespread outrage from Muslims over those incidents? If the basis for the outrage is the constant mistreatment of Muslims by the west (as symbolized by the cartoon), seems to me that 9/11, or other attacks against the western world, would hardly be good platforms to base your protests on.

you do realize jesus is a prophet right? according to islam.. jesus is a prophet equal to mohammed.. where's their outrage?

they have murderers and terrorists defaming islam through various violent activities.. yet the majority of the muslim community does absolutely nothing to curb their anger..

nevertheless.. when they play the "victims" role.. it's all fine and dandy

[Yeahman]

It's cause Christianity has already done its deed of slaughtering millions of people, contributed to the cause of cultural and human genocide, and has persecuted more human lives in the name of God than Islam and Judaism put together.

Despite its current merciful and generous stance on human life, there's no denying Christianity has had it's own growing pains.
What is your point? I may be mistaken but I didn't think this thread was about the history of Christianity.

Here's a theory presented by a lecturer (professor of religion from UCLA) on the current development of Islam. Judaism has went through it, Christianity has went through it, and Islam is no exception. It's reformation in the intepretation of its doctrine. Now the main difference between Islam and the other two monotheistic religions is that Islamic Reformation is occuring during an era in which advance technologies and means of communication is at their disposal. This leads to an exponential development of idealism which will lead to more radical results.

Now, with this being said does this justify the violent outcry by Muslims worldwide?

No. They are justified in their outcry, but the violence is not.

What I'm say is that there has to be an understanding why there is such an outcry of this magnitude and to understand why such a reaction has occured.

One simply cannot say, "The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech. It is a cultural difference."

That is a statement of ignorance and biased disillusion. As a person who has his share of Muslim friends not one of them match the above highlighted statement.

If anything, I remember Christians once being considered cannibals. Yes, the people who once percieved that were quite ignorant and biased. :rolleyes:
You agree with me and then call my statement ignorant? Good one.
BTW, the Islamic world is a bit bigger than your group of Muslim friends.

The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

That is a statement of fact that the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of protesters and their millions of supporters would agree with. Yes, there are exceptions expecially in the US where Muslims have been heavily influenced by American ideals. But the statement is true for the Islamic world at large.


Oh wait, I just put 2 and 2 together. The Islamic world cannot be criticized. Only the Christian world can be criticized. That seems to be your position, DragonKnight. It's hard to read what you wrote above and not come away with that conclusion. You say: "Christianity has already done its deed of slaughtering millions of people, contributed to the cause of cultural and human genocide, and has persecuted more human lives in the name of God than Islam and Judaism put together. Despite its current merciful and generous stance on human life, there's no denying Christianity has had it's own growing pains."

But nobody is allowed to say that about Islam?

[Arex]

the non-muslim world might be more sympathetic to this issue if they were as vocal about 9/11 and placed a bounty on those responsible as they have been over these cartoons and placing a bounty on the cartoonist. i know i know the argument that 9/11 was political and these cartoons are religious blah blah blah. but in the eyes of the general public, both are related or at the very least a very fine and undefined line that seperates the two at this point.See, this is a point I've never understood. The cartoons were an insult against Muslims. 9/11 was an attack against the U.S. Granted, from a reasonable, disinterested third party's perspective, 9/11 and the murder of thousands in a terrorist attack are arguably more reprehensible than a cartoon, but it wasn't an attack against the Muslim community. So, again, why should we expect them to react the same way?

Us trying to dismiss the protestors' grievances here would be the equivalent of a white person telling us they can't take our campaigns against Kung Fool, Abercrombie & Fitch and other racist and insulting material leveled against Asians seriously because we didn't as vigorously protest Chai Vang's murder of those six hunters in Wisconsin. Why would we have protested his actions? Like Banana said, it's not the responsibility of all Muslims to atone for the acts of a few radicals, the same as it's not every Asian Americans' responsibility to apologize for the acts of a Hmong acting alone, the same as it's not every white person's responsibility to apologize for the acts of Tim McVeigh, the same as it's not the Danish government's responsibility to apologize for the acts of one Danish cartoonist/newspaper.

At any rate, by all accounts I've seen, the majority of the Muslim community did condemn the 9/11 attacks and has condemned the violence which has resulted from the cartoon as being fundamentally un-Islamic. And, as we are seeing here and in Andrew Sullivan's piece, apparently they must condemn it or they will be lumped into the same category as the extremists who are responsible for the violence. The majority of Muslims are not burning down embassies or calling for a bounty on the head of the cartoonist. Andrew Sullivan conveniently seems to forget that fact simply so he can ignore their arguably valid complaints. That mindset is basically racist.

you do realize jesus is a prophet right? according to islam.. jesus is a prophet equal to mohammed.. where's their outrage?That may be true, but cartoons which depict Jesus are usually cartoons about Chrisianity, directed at believers in the western world, unlike cartoons depicting Mohammed which would, I assume, relate solely to Islam. And besides, I thought we already went over this: the protesting isn't really just about the cartoon but is a manifestation of the resentment which has resulted from decades of mistreatment by the west.

[deez nuts]

See, this is a point I've never understood. The cartoons were an insult against Muslims. 9/11 was an attack against the U.S. Granted, from a reasonable, disinterested third party's perspective, 9/11 and the murder of thousands in a terrorist attack are arguably more reprehensible than a cartoon, but it wasn't an attack against the Muslim community. So, again, why should we expect them to react the same way?

Us trying to dismiss the protestors' grievances here would be the equivalent of a white person telling us they can't take our campaigns against Kung Fool, Abercrombie & Fitch and other racist and insulting material leveled against Asians seriously because we didn't as vigorously protest Chai Vang's murder of those six hunters in Wisconsin. Why would we have protested his actions? Like Banana said, it's not the responsibility of all Muslims to atone for the acts of a few radicals, the same as it's not every Asian Americans' responsibility to apologize for the acts of a Hmong acting alone, the same as it's not every white person's responsibility to apologize for the acts of Tim McVeigh, the same as it's not the Danish government's responsibility to apologize for the acts of one Danish cartoonist/newspaper.

At any rate, by all accounts I've seen, the majority of the Muslim community did condemn the 9/11 attacks and has condemned the violence which has resulted from the cartoon as being fundamentally un-Islamic. And, as we are seeing here and in Andrew Sullivan's piece, apparently they must condemn it or they will be lumped into the same category as the extremists who are responsible for the violence. The majority of Muslims are not burning down embassies or calling for a bounty on the head of the cartoonist. Andrew Sullivan conveniently seems to forget that fact simply so he can ignore their arguably valid complaints. That mindset is basically racist.

That may be true, but cartoons which depict Jesus are usually cartoons about Chrisianity, directed at believers in the western world, unlike cartoons depicting Mohammed which would, I assume, relate solely to Islam. And besides, I thought we already went over this: the protesting isn't really just about the cartoon but is a manifestation of the resentment which has resulted from decades of mistreatment by the west.

you missed my point.

i'm not talking about accountability and culpability here. i'm talking about saving themselves from a public relations nightmare from the actions of radical sect(s). somebody should've been savvy enough to step foward the days following 9/11 and say "hey we should do whatever we can to make ourselves look good since we're gonna be villified. we should do more cuz this is gonna bite us in the ass from now on."

i know most muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks and the recent attacks on embassies as a result of these cartoons. but, in both these cases they should've been more vocal. mind you again: vocal not in the sense of accountability or culpability. but, in the sense of salvaging what will be a public relations and public image nightmare especially when the actions and future actions of a select radical few outshadow and will continue to outshadow the majority already.

it's not just "a manifestation of the resentment which has resulted from decades of mistreatment by the west" as you put it. it's that and a combination of many factors that is both external and internal.

i mean hey if the radical muslim sect can put a bounty on the heads of that cartoonist and salman rushdie. the muslim community can put a bounty on the heads on the likes of bin laden. it'll be publicized just as much.

[Yeahman]

See, this is a point I've never understood. The cartoons were an insult against Muslims. 9/11 was an attack against the U.S. Granted, from a reasonable, disinterested third party's perspective, 9/11 and the murder of thousands in a terrorist attack are arguably more reprehensible than a cartoon, but it wasn't an attack against the Muslim community. So, again, why should we expect them to react the same way?

Us trying to dismiss the protestors' grievances here would be the equivalent of a white person telling us they can't take our campaigns against Kung Fool, Abercrombie & Fitch and other racist and insulting material leveled against Asians seriously because we didn't as vigorously protest Chai Vang's murder of those six hunters in Wisconsin. Why would we have protested his actions? Like Banana said, it's not the responsibility of all Muslims to atone for the acts of a few radicals, the same as it's not every Asian Americans' responsibility to apologize for the acts of a Hmong acting alone, the same as it's not every white person's responsibility to apologize for the acts of Tim McVeigh, the same as it's not the Danish government's responsibility to apologize for the acts of one Danish cartoonist/newspaper.

At any rate, by all accounts I've seen, the majority of the Muslim community did condemn the 9/11 attacks and has condemned the violence which has resulted from the cartoon as being fundamentally un-Islamic. And, as we are seeing here and in Andrew Sullivan's piece, apparently they must condemn it or they will be lumped into the same category as the extremists who are responsible for the violence. The majority of Muslims are not burning down embassies or calling for a bounty on the head of the cartoonist. Andrew Sullivan conveniently seems to forget that fact simply so he can ignore their arguably valid complaints. That mindset is basically racist.

That may be true, but cartoons which depict Jesus are usually cartoons about Chrisianity, directed at believers in the western world, unlike cartoons depicting Mohammed which would, I assume, relate solely to Islam. And besides, I thought we already went over this: the protesting isn't really just about the cartoon but is a manifestation of the resentment which has resulted from decades of mistreatment by the west.
We have been told that bin Laden distorts the peaceful religion of Islam. Then shouldn't there have been widespread and strong condemnation of 9/11?
Yes, most Muslims believe that attacks on 9/11 were wrong. But few spoke out. It was more like you had to ask them. They didn't voluntarily come out to condemn it. This is a criticism that many Muslims make too. The Islamic world needs to be more vocal in it's condemnation of terrorism and violence in general.

Nobody here is trying to minimize legitament grievances. But at the same time nobody should pretend that all wrong-doing is excusable so long as you have a legitament grievance.

[Chad]

are we supposed to get out and protest every time a bomb falls on Iraq or Afghanistan and kills the wrong person?
why would people in other countries react more strongly to 9/11 if it didn't happen in their country? anyways what this really comes down to is the media. if many Muslims did come out and condemn the 9/11 attack (and many did), would the media would report all of this? hell no. instead they will roll stock footage of Palestinians dancing outside from a previous date. it's a bunch of fucking lies from a bunch of fucking liars. there's no other way for me to describe them.
anyways I think there is a good debate about this herE:
anyways I think there is a good debate about this here (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/07/1458210)
i don't have total access to very many foreign media services in english language but i try to take advantage of the few that i do. there's all kinds of journalists and activists all over who condemned 9/11 but that's not what America wanted to hear at the time and that's evidently not what it wants to hear now, either. the media has a product to sell, the truth is not what they provide.

[Arex]

you missed my point.

i'm not talking about accountability and culpability here. i'm talking about saving themselves from a public relations nightmare from the actions of radical sect(s). somebody should've been savvy enough to step foward the days following 9/11 and say "hey we should do whatever we can to make ourselves look good since we're gonna be villified. we should do more cuz this is gonna bite us in the ass from now on."

i know most muslims condemned the 9/11 attacks and the recent attacks on embassies as a result of these cartoons. but, in both these cases they should've been more vocal. mind you again: vocal not in the sense of accountability or culpability. but, in the sense of salvaging what will be a public relations and public image nightmare especially when the actions and future actions of a select radical few outshadow and will continue to outshadow the majority already.

it's not just "a manifestation of the resentment which has resulted from decades of mistreatment by the west" as you put it. it's that and a combination of many factors that is both external and internal.

i mean hey if the radical muslim sect can put a bounty on the heads of that cartoonist and salman rushdie. the muslim community can put a bounty on the heads on the likes of bin laden. it'll be publicized just as much.I agree that the international Muslim community could do a lot more to diffuse the public relations nightmare, but why should they even have to do this? Particularly if we readily acknowledge that the acts of violence are caused by a small, but particularly vocal group of radicals. Why is it so easy for us to let the violent, irrational acts of a few dictate how we are going to perceive and react to millions of others who have valid complaints? Basically, I just feel we're all smart enough and well enough informed to be above that.

We have been told that bin Laden distorts the peaceful religion of Islam. Then shouldn't there have been widespread and strong condemnation of 9/11?
Yes, most Muslims believe that attacks on 9/11 were wrong. But few spoke out. It was more like you had to ask them. They didn't voluntarily come out to condemn it. This is a criticism that many Muslims make too. The Islamic world needs to be more vocal in it's condemnation of terrorism and violence in general.

Nobody here is trying to minimize legitament grievances. But at the same time nobody should pretend that all wrong-doing is excusable so long as you have a legitament grievance.But people are doing exactly that (i.e., minimizing legitimate grievances)! See, e.g., AznTrojan's and nuts's posts and Andrew Sullivan's piece. Basically their points seem to be Muslims worldwide are not doing enough to condemn violence against our interests (ignoring the fact that they were not the ones actually responsible for the violent acts and they do speak out against such violence), so they could care less if Muslims are offended by the cartoon. That is what I view as problematic.

You're right though, a legitimate grievance, no matter how severe, does not excuse all wrongdoing. Which is, again, exactly why most Muslims condemned 9/11 and why most condemn specific acts of violence that have resulted from the cartoons even though I believe they really shouldn't have to.

[Yeahman]

are we supposed to get out and protest every time a bomb falls on Iraq or Afghanistan and kills the wrong person?
9/11 doesn't happen everyday. It's kind of a big event if you ask me.

If there was an unjust war in Iraq, I would expect people to protest. And we did! The largest protest in human history!

why would people in other countries react more strongly to 9/11 if it didn't happen in their country?
The cartoons were published in Denmark. Why is there rioting in Indonesia?

anyways what this really comes down to is the media. if many Muslims did come out and condemn the 9/11 attack (and many did), would the media would report all of this? hell no. instead they will roll stock footage of Palestinians dancing outside from a previous date. it's a bunch of fucking lies from a bunch of fucking liars. there's no other way for me to describe them.
Can you point me to any mass protests against the attacks of 9/11 by Muslims?

[deez nuts]

I agree that the international Muslim community could do a lot more to diffuse the public relations nightmare, but why should they even have to do this? Particularly if we readily acknowledge that the acts of violence are caused by a small, but particularly vocal group of radicals.
for every reason to do something. you can find more reasons not to do it. but, does that
mean it shouldn't be done?

Why is it so easy for us to let the violent, irrational acts of a few dictate how we are going to perceive and react to millions of others who have valid complaints?

complete 180 you just did here. this is why i said more should've been done.

you on the other hand, first you say more need not be done since we readily ackowledge that the acts are done by a small but vocal group not indicative of the majority. you then turn around and say perception of valid complaints will be skewed because of the action of the minority radical sect. so which is it? and what is the smarter option?

Basically their points seem to be Muslims worldwide are not doing enough to condemn violence against our interests (ignoring the fact that they were not the ones actually responsible for the violent acts and they do speak out against such violence), so they could care less if Muslims are offended by the cartoon. That is what I view as problematic.


no, i did not say that all muslims are completely responsible for violent acts of a select few. what i did say is that they're responsible for the public relations nightmare that they are currently in because of the actions of a radical few. yes, it is responsibility. but, in no way implying what you are implying.

[Arex]

for every reason to do something. you can find more reasons not to do it. but, does that
mean it shouldn't be done?

complete 180 you just did here. this is why i said more should've been done.

you on the other hand, first you say more need not be done since we readily ackowledge that the acts are done by a small but vocal group not indicative of the majority. you then turn around and say perception of valid complaints will be skewed because of the action of the minority radical sect. so which is it? and what is the smarter option?Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear enough, but I'm saying that even though it inevitably occurs, perception of valid complaints should not be skewed because of the actions of a few. I'm saying that while more could be done, ideally it shouldn't need to be done because it's understood that we're not dealing with the same groups here. In order for my complaints about the Tsunami song to be taken seriously, I should not have to first condemn the actions of Chai Vang.

no, i did not say that all muslims are completely responsible for violent acts of a select few. what i did say is that they're responsible for the public relations nightmare that they are currently in because of the actions of a radical few. yes, it is responsibility. but, in no way implying what you are implying.I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that you said all muslims are responsible for the acts of a few radicals. What I said was that you and others seem to be dismissing arguably valid complaints based on the fact that the international Muslim community has not done enough to condemn the reprehensible acts of a select few radicals. The only ones who should be ultimately responsible for the public relations nightmare are those that committed the bad acts.

Perhaps this miscommunication is the result of me speaking in ideals, and you pointing out the reality of the situation. I fully acknowledge that the international Muslim community could do more. I'm just saying that, in an ideal world, they shouldn't have to.

The cartoons were published in Denmark. Why is there rioting in Indonesia?I don't think anyone here supports the rioting or violence or calls for the beheading of the cartoon's author. I thought the original question was whether or not their outrage is justified and whether the cartoon should have been published.

[Banana]

From what I've heard, the numbers are usually in the low hundreds and at worst, in the thousands. That have never heard of the riots numbering into the tens of thousands.

I think the reason why Muslims, as a whole, haven't condemned 9/11 is because they felt it was a political issue whereas the cartoon situation is a religious issue. This brings up the response of why other religions don't start riots because their religion is mocked which is usually countered with "Well, that's their choice, not ours."

[Chad]

9/11 doesn't happen everyday. It's kind of a big event if you ask me.

If there was an unjust war in Iraq, I would expect people to protest. And we did! The largest protest in human history!


The cartoons were published in Denmark. Why is there rioting in Indonesia?


Can you point me to any mass protests against the attacks of 9/11 by Muslims?
Americans protested the Iraq war because it was the US military that was going to be sent to war. If it were someone else's army being sent, it wouldn't have been such a big deal here. The US government and the military represent us, the citizens, abroad.
There would be no point in having a demonstration here against the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan since, even though it was a terrible invasion and much suffering came from it, we were not in a part of the Soviet Union and their government and military did not represent us. Do you understand this? The Soviet government wouldn't have given two shits if some Americans citizens protested against their Afghanistan war. Makes sense?
Likewise, al-Qaeda and their allies were not elected, chosen, or appointed by the Muslims in any way whatsoever to represent them. You might as well be asking why the daffodils didn't demonstrate against 9/11. It doesn't make any sense.
Have you, like the Western press, appointed al-Qaeda and Bin Laden as King of Muslims? If so, that is your own issue, not theirs.
After 9/11, every Muslim in the West was suddenly expected to answer for Bin Laden and his actions, as if they were all his secretaries or personal assistants. And then they're expected to take measures to prove that they're not his supporters, and that they're loyal to the countries they live in.
Would it be fair if I expected you to answer for the actions of some militant radical Mormon faction in Utah, even if you're a Catholic? So why did your people blow up that coffee shop? What was their reason? Are you a part of their group? Can you prove that you're not? Are you a sympathizer?

[Dei Wong]

I personally think there is a problem when a cartoon can warrant attacking and bombing of an embassy. I will never say those cartoons are right nor will I say all people of the Muslim faith are bad. But is kind of behavior has got to stop. What give you the right to attack others because you don't like what they say or write about you. Is that the image you want to project. No reason can make that behavior right. What if all Americans after 9/11 found every Muslim who believed America deserved it and beat them to dead and took and burned everything they had and kicked the ones who survived out. Would it be alright? Hell the fuck no and whats happening over this cartoon is bullshit. Many Muslim don't agree with this behavior but they will they talk against it or condemn it? The sad answer is no. How would they react if someone acted this way after one they're many insults. I agree with them that the west should stay out of their business. 50% of this is the west's fault. We should just tell the oil companys to chill and start using another energy source oil is 40 years out of date. There are many more affective energy sources. Everyone should leave and let them a fight to the death. I bet even after we leave they would still curse the west.

[robotic]

the only reason you agree to these cartoons is:
a) the muslims overreacted
b) the muslims got what they deserved
c) you don't really see the discriminatory aspect (see: muhammed representing all muslims; thus representing all muslims with turban bombs)
d) did i mention you think the muslims are crazy?

now i suggest you vote from a - d, hahaha,

maybe, to some aspect, all of this is true. unless you don't agree to any. which is kind of impossible if you thought the cartoons were alright. d'oh^_^~ PARADOX.

anyway, so who wanted a vote from a muslim who condemns 9/11?

*raises an arm that extends into the sky and beyond*

or hatred against the west?

*arms stretches past the sun*

there you go.

XD

[Chad]

Many Muslim don't agree with this behavior but they will they talk against it or condemn it? The sad answer is no.
not true.. many have already been condemning it. and some of that has been reported in the US already. most of it won't make news here because:
1. that's not what Americans are interested in
2. it's not in English language and if the translation isn't done by the foreign news agencies, the American ones sure as hell aren't going to do it.
always remember that everything we know about any given subject has been passed through several filters. at best these filters are biased translations. at worst, they're biased AND incorrect translations or are simply not translated at all and new content is made up.

[draconisz]

Sorry for the late response. I voted "yes". They had the right to publish the cartoon and Muslims have the right to be angry. Will this escalate. . .well, I would hope not.

But we all know that it probably will. Soon we will see a lot of cartoons about Jesus, Moses, etc. soon.

[Yeahman]

The sad reality is that bin Laden has become the de facto spokesman for Islam simply because noone else gets the same amount of attention. So yes we should expect the rest of the Islamic world to set the record straight. But instead we hear; "Yes, it's wrong BUT it's ultimately the West's fault and therefore bin Laden's culpability is lessened and the West should apologize." We hear non-Muslims condemning bin Laden more. Why? The Islamic world can stop terrorism just by coming out in one voice and condemning it loud and clear. It doesn't matter if it's not their job. They CAN do it. It would help. So why don't they?

[robotic]

But instead we hear; "Yes, it's wrong BUT it's ultimately the West's fault and therefore bin Laden's culpability is lessened and the West should apologize." We hear non-Muslims condemning bin Laden more. Why? The Islamic world can stop terrorism just by coming out in one voice and condemning it loud and clear. It doesn't matter if it's not their job. They CAN do it. It would help. So why don't they?

there are plays of hypocrisy in the muslim world, just like in many other places, along with sort of... an attachment to that identity. you want to prove yourself right. rarely will one encounter an individual who brushes the bias aside and confronts the "truth" - but what is the truth?

i'm guilty of bias, and just about everyone would agree.

i think the most safe answer to that is stick to that bias, and pretend to not be biased at the same time! :biggrin: explaining the chain reaction justification.

you are right.

but like chad points out, how we do we really know that the media has ever coveraged speeches, or messages, or anything that circulates by muslims condeming 9/11 or bin laden? maybe it's just simply blocked out by more 'shocking' news, haha. although muslims condeming attacks would be a shocker in itself for some, we can never really be too sure.

[Banana]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[DragonKnight]

What is your point? I may be mistaken but I didn't think this thread was about the history of Christianity.

My point is that your post clearly paints Islam as a religion based on violence and intolerance while pushing Christianity as some kind of peace loving religion...which history clearly has shown that during the same stage that Islam is currently in, it is not.


You agree with me and then call my statement ignorant? Good one.
BTW, the Islamic world is a bit bigger than your group of Muslim friends.

No, I didn't agree with *you* in regards that...


The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

I don't see that in regards to the Islamic world as a whole. Why? Cause you cannot ignore the Muslims who don't apply to that statement.

Just as the Christian world isn't always about the Virgin Mary, the Son, Saints, etc, the Islamic world isn't all about religious tolerance and freedom of speech. In fact, it is my experience that certain Christian sects, preachers, and soapbox religous-fanatic right-wingers who troll the internet have preached about intolerance to other religions and following the Church doctrine NO MATTER WHAT. That sure isn't religious tolerance nor freedom of speech.


That is a statement of fact that the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of protesters and their millions of supporters would agree with. Yes, there are exceptions expecially in the US where Muslims have been heavily influenced by American ideals. But the statement is true for the Islamic world at large.

And once again I shall state that Islam is in a state of reformation. Your argument says that thousands of supporters are out there protesting, yet forget that perhaps the other millions of Islamic followers are at home tilling their fields not giving a rat's ass about some stupid comic?


Oh wait, I just put 2 and 2 together. The Islamic world cannot be criticized. Only the Christian world can be criticized. That seems to be your position, DragonKnight. It's hard to read what you wrote above and not come away with that conclusion. You say: "Christianity has already done its deed of slaughtering millions of people, contributed to the cause of cultural and human genocide, and has persecuted more human lives in the name of God than Islam and Judaism put together. Despite its current merciful and generous stance on human life, there's no denying Christianity has had it's own growing pains."

But nobody is allowed to say that about Islam?
Your post was comparing two religions during different stages of development. Christianity is well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism. Islam is not. I felt it was unfair to compare the two in that your post blackballed Islam while making Christianity look like a peaceful and open religion.

I'm just throwing out a fact that Christianity hasn't always been the loving religion that narrow-minded individuals tend to portray it. Feel free to judge the whole of the Islamic world as religiously intolerent and denying freedom of speech. I'll be more than willing to dig up more of Christianity's own dark past.

But really, to be fair, one must compare Islam of today to Christianity of Reformation and the Inquisition. It doesn't justify the violence, but it does increase better understanding of the Islamic world and what it is going through.

[Yeahman]

Again you are disagreeing with me then agreeing!
"Christianity is well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism. Islam is not."
"The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech."

You ARE agreeing with me! Where do we differ?

[DragonKnight]

Again you are disagreeing with me then agreeing!
"Christianity is well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism. Islam is not."
"The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech."

You ARE agreeing with me! Where do we differ?
Read my post again (and all the previous ones before it). You obviously aren't progressing enough to understand my argument.

...no pun intended.

And I suggest not nitpicking my sentences then comparing it with your own to use to your own advantage to your misguided attempts fermenting more negativity and misunderstanding of the Islamic world.

[fresh22]

I just saw the Yahoo News snippet about protestors demonstrating at a U.S. miliatry in Afghanistan. Why am I not suprised? Eventually some Muslims would direct their anger towards the U.S. even though no U.S. media outlet or organization had anything to do with publishing the cartoons. Then again, a lot of Muslims worldwide don't like the U.S. anyways and will try to associate anything offending them to U.S. influence and imperialism.

Forgive me for the broad generalizations because I know people on here hate that, but just stating how I view it.

[deez nuts]

Perhaps this miscommunication is the result of me speaking in ideals, and you pointing out the reality of the situation. I fully acknowledge that the international Muslim community could do more. I'm just saying that, in an ideal world, they shouldn't have to.


please focus on the reality of the situation, counselor, because in an ideal world 9/11 would never have happened and peace in the middle east would be a reality ;).


the only reason you agree to these cartoons is:
a) the muslims overreacted
b) the muslims got what they deserved
c) you don't really see the discriminatory aspect (see: muhammed representing all muslims; thus representing all muslims with turban bombs)
d) did i mention you think the muslims are crazy?

now i suggest you vote from a - d, hahaha,


i will vote "e" which is depiction of religious caricatures especially in the context of the current status quo is just amusing to me. that is why i am not sympathetic.

they should come out with a prophet muhammad action figure or statue. it'll go well with my jesus action figure and my mini porcelain statue of buddha.

[Dei Wong]

not true.. many have already been condemning it. and some of that has been reported in the US already. most of it won't make news here because:
1. that's not what Americans are interested in
2. it's not in English language and if the translation isn't done by the foreign news agencies, the American ones sure as hell aren't going to do it.
always remember that everything we know about any given subject has been passed through several filters. at best these filters are biased translations. at worst, they're biased AND incorrect translations or are simply not translated at all and new content is made up.

Are they making an effort to stop them from tarnishing the image of their religion?

[Yeahman]

Read my post again (and all the previous ones before it). You obviously aren't progressing enough to understand my argument.

...no pun intended.

And I suggest not nitpicking my sentences then comparing it with your own to use to your own advantage to your misguided attempts fermenting more negativity and misunderstanding of the Islamic world.
You're hopeless.

[DragonKnight]

You're hopeless.
Considering your posts have a heavy, closed-minded fanatical Christian bias bent on making any other religion look like shit, I think not. Hope goes to those with an open-mind and inclusive attitude toward encouraging a better understanding of the situation rather than to those who just outright pass negative judgement from a biased and narrow-minded point of view. :wink:

[Chad]

The sad reality is that bin Laden has become the de facto spokesman for Islam simply because noone else gets the same amount of attention. So yes we should expect the rest of the Islamic world to set the record straight. ?
So I guess that's a "yes" to my question. You have appointed Bin Laden King of Muslims. It's not their fault that nobody else gets as much attention. They're not in control of the media. They're not in control of al-Qaeda. They can't do anything about it that hasn't already been done.

But instead we hear; "Yes, it's wrong BUT it's ultimately the West's fault and therefore bin Laden's culpability is lessened and the West should apologize." We hear non-Muslims condemning bin Laden more. Why? The Islamic world can stop terrorism just by coming out in one voice and condemning it loud and clear. It doesn't matter if it's not their job. They CAN do it. It would help. So why don't they?
Which country was the first to try to arrest Osama Bin Laden? Libya. Who stopped Libya from arresting him? MI5. You have it totally backwards. The fiercest critics of bin Laden, of al-Qaeda, and of similar groups are in the Muslim world. The people and governments who were opposed to bin Laden, opposed to Islamism were the same people who the US government called "enemies." Sometimes they also called them commies, dangerous, "threats to stability," etc. You have a very backwards view of the world. And today the Western governments tell the people in the Muslim world the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they told them before, that Islamism and extremism are bad. What kind of message does this send? It's conflicting, hypocritical, dishonest, attempt to manipulate. But this is a tangent...
to get back on topic, it's not very difficult to find critics of radicalism and violence in the Muslim world. a simple google search turned up results:
Al-Fayhaa TV, November 30, 2005:

Islam has various interpretations. Some of these interpretations are completely divorced from humanity, let alone from Islam itself. The well-known ideology of accusing others of heresy is an ideology of terrorism. Who turned Al-Zarqawi into a criminal murderer? Who? He was just a little boy crawling into his mother's arms, but then, out of his love for the religion and the mosque... He began to go to the mosque, and the imam got hold of him, and turned him into what he is. He didn't emerge from his mother's womb as a murderer, or as someone who makes car bombs, and so on.

We face a bloodthirsty religion, or rather, a bloodthirsty interpretation of the religion. This is the truth. Some people's interpretation of Islam is bloodthirsty, while others' interpretation of it is civilized and human. There is an abyss between the two.
-Iraqi Politician Iyad Jamal Al-Din

Egyptian Sociologist Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim, Al-Arabiya TV on October 20, 2005
It saddens me and breaks my heart to say this. Countries like India, Malaysia, and many others have suffered horrors, wars and famine, and emerged from a situation that was much worse than that of us Arabs, after World War II.

The Arab leaders and tyrannical regimes have used Israel as a pretext. True, Israel has exhausted many Arab resources, but nevertheless, I say that the regimes have exhausted the resources of their own countries, have smuggled and stolen more than the war against Israel has cost us.


Following are excerpts from a UAE Friday sermon, which was broadcast on UAE TV on November 11, 2005.

Our greatest disaster today comes not from the people of other religions, but from people who profess to belong to Islam, yet commit acts that have nothing to do with Islam.

The greatest calamity is the harming of Islam in the name of Islam. Our crisis is caused by people who present our religion to others as a religion of killing, destruction and the corruption throughout the land. This harms the religion of Islam, and each and everyone of you must fight this.

The bombings in Jordan sound all the warning bells, and prove that the enemies of Islam from among the terrorists have taken their moral bankruptcy to an unprecedented level.
Oh worshippers of Allah, is there a doubt left in the mind of any reasonable Muslim that these people's actions are heinous, and that Islam has nothing to do with them or their actions?

The clerics should make it clear to the public that these murderers are excommunicated, because of their ugly actions that violate the tolerance of Islam, and the mercy it has brought.


this is only a little bit.. there is plenty more. much, much more.
So the question is, why won't CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc. broadcast these types of messages? These messages appear on TV in the Muslim world. But they won't appear on our TV. Why is this? Who has freedom of expression, freedom of press?
The onus is on the Western governments and media to explain these problems, not the people of the Muslim world.

[Shuriken]

I’d like to say something about this issue, but I’m not sure what I want to say. Yes, this is an ugly example of what can happen when free speech clashes with sensitivity towards minorities. But I think that something more is going on.

When I was active with MANAA, we frequently voiced our displeasure to media-makers for their output that was objectionable, but we always acknowledged their First Amendment right to say whatever they wanted. Of course, we also acknowledged that the playing field was not level: they usually had access to wide distribution outlets to spread their opinions, while MANAA did not. Nevertheless, we felt that we could get our point across by sensitizing the media producers, not censoring them. MANAA has had mixed results from our various endeavors, but our course, I believe, was the right one.

However, I see a difference with the case of the cartoons that offended many Muslims. For one thing, if there was any misrepresentation of Islam, it was Islam as a minority religion in a Western context. Any offense should have been dealt with by Danish-dwelling Muslims addressing the newspaper that published the cartoons directly about their grievances. Instead, a Muslim activist took the cartoons to countries where Islam is the dominant religion — in some cases, where it is impossible to practice other religions openly — to share his discontent with Muslims who do not share his religious-minority predicament. This strikes me not so much as the activist voicing his offense to the offending newspaper, but as his stoking the perception in Muslim lands that the West is inherently anti-Islam. I have to wonder if his spreading the cartoons was really about getting the newspaper to apologize or using the cartoons as a convenient tool to spread hostility towards the West among Middle Eastern people.

Another thing is the representation of the prophet Muhammad. The main offense to Muslims was not that Muhammad was depicted in an unflattering way, but that he was depicted at all. Just as devout Jews believe that is is blasphemous to write or speak God’s Jewish name in its entirety, Muslims believe that is is blasphemous to portray Muhammad in any medium. (This orthodoxy of non-representation isn’t exclusive to Islam: in the 1930s, British movies were prohibited from showing Jesus Christ on the screen.) I’m sure that this is a deeply held religious belief among most Muslims, but I’d like to know how it squares with free speech. A respect for free speech is basic to a democratic society. If the people of the Middle East can’t honor the freedom of expression — especially by a foreigner in his own country — this doesn’t bode well for a blossoming of true Jeffersonian democracy in Muslim lands. I wish that the Bush administration had examined issues like this before they decided to “bring democracy” to Iraq.

Furthermore, the fact that people impose this restriction on speech for religious reasons underlines the need to keep church and state separate.

A poster on this thread asks why so many Arabs are demanding an apology from the Danish government, not just the paper itself. That is because most Middle Eastern citizens aren’t all that familiar with the concept of a free press. They are mostly familiar with a government-run press, where the government must approve of everything that a paper publishes, and whatever doesn’t pass governmental ideological muster doesn’t make it into the paper. Therefore, they figure that if an offensive cartoon appeared in a Danish newspaper, it must reflect the Danish government’s official position. I don’t say this to excuse the rioters, but merely to understand where they’re coming from.

I’m surprised that these Danish cartoons have spread such unrest throughout the Middle East. If only the region’s citizens had shown this kind of outrage over the beheadings of Western hostages in Iraq, our civilizations might not look at each other with such bafflement.

I’m still not sure if I said what I wanted to say.

[Yeahman]

Considering your posts have a heavy, closed-minded fanatical Christian bias bent on making any other religion look like shit, I think not. Hope goes to those with an open-mind and inclusive attitude toward encouraging a better understanding of the situation rather than to those who just outright pass negative judgement from a biased and narrow-minded point of view. :wink:
The same goes for you since we agree on everything! How blind do you have to be to not see that? You have not presented a single point of disagreement besides you claiming that you disagree.

[DragonKnight]

The same goes for you since we agree on everything! How blind do you have to be to not see that? You have not presented a single point of disagreement besides you claiming that you disagree.
Boy do I have to hold your hand on everything?! :rolleyes:

I said I disagree with you on:

The Islamic world has not yet embraced religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

...in that you are making *every* single Muslim in the Islamic world is the same way. As for my statement:

"Christianity is well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism. Islam is not."

Islam is not well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism, that is true. It is in the middle of it. There are those in the Muslim world that embrace religious tolerance and freedom of speech. Plus if you read Chad's post:

Al-Fayhaa TV, November 30, 2005:

Islam has various interpretations. Some of these interpretations are completely divorced from humanity, let alone from Islam itself. The well-known ideology of accusing others of heresy is an ideology of terrorism. Who turned Al-Zarqawi into a criminal murderer? Who? He was just a little boy crawling into his mother's arms, but then, out of his love for the religion and the mosque... He began to go to the mosque, and the imam got hold of him, and turned him into what he is. He didn't emerge from his mother's womb as a murderer, or as someone who makes car bombs, and so on.

We face a bloodthirsty religion, or rather, a bloodthirsty interpretation of the religion. This is the truth. Some people's interpretation of Islam is bloodthirsty, while others' interpretation of it is civilized and human. There is an abyss between the two.
-Iraqi Politician Iyad Jamal Al-Din

Your posts obviously judges from just one interpretation of Islam. Then your post branded it the world of Islam. Just like the media your posts exploits the thousands in protest, while ignoring the millions who live their daily lives not being involved in the politics of their religion. For all we know, they probably think the protesters out there are nuts.

In a nutshell, your posts:

- Blackball Islam in a negative light based on one interpretation.
- Dehumanize Muslims as a savage people.
- Exault Christianity in an attempt to further put down Islam.
- Create more negativity between religious communities, etc.

Oh and in regards to my own "negative" posts on Christianity, it is simply a counterpoint to your post since Christianity during its reformation has had a long history of religious intolerance and surpressing freedom of speech. But then, so far none of your posts has even acknowledged that.

[Yeahman]

...in that you are making *every* single Muslim in the Islamic world is the same way.
No, I'm not. That is your close-minded interpretation of what I'm saying. I'm saying exactly what you're saying:
Islam is not well beyond its reformation and diversification of idealism, that is true. It is in the middle of it. There are those in the Muslim world that embrace religious tolerance and freedom of speech.
Are you saying that those who follow a peaceful tolerant interpretation of Islam are not following true Islam? You substituted "Islam" for my "Islamic world" and you're claiming that there's a world of difference between our statements.

Your posts obviously judges from just one interpretation of Islam. Then your post branded it the world of Islam. Just like the media your posts exploits the thousands in protest, while ignoring the millions who live their daily lives not being involved in the politics of their religion. For all we know, they probably think the protesters out there are nuts.

In a nutshell, your posts:

- Blackball Islam in a negative light based on one interpretation.
- Dehumanize Muslims as a savage people.
- Exault Christianity in an attempt to further put down Islam.
- Create more negativity between religious communities, etc.

Oh and in regards to my own "negative" posts on Christianity, it is simply a counterpoint to your post since Christianity during its reformation has had a long history of religious intolerance and surpressing freedom of speech. But then, so far none of your posts has even acknowledged that.
puahhahahhaha. Dehumanizing Muslims as a savage people? Hey I can do it too. You're saying that Christianity is evil and Christians do not deserve to live. You didn't actually say that but as long as we're making shit up, I'm saying that you said it.

There is a reason why you are the only one to think what you are thinking about my posts. You are delusional. You think I posted things that I did not post.

I aknowledge that Christianity has developed a theology to support freedom of religion and speech where it did not exist before. I aknowledge that the sky is blue and that frogs are green. I aknowledge that 1+1=2. WTF does any of this have to do with the discussion?! You brought in a topic (history of Christianity) which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread simply because you wanted to make sure everyone knew that Christianity is bad. I'm not the only one who sees this, DragonKnight. Others have comments on your anti-Christian bias as well. You are the only one to say that I am anti-Islam. Open your mind and try to understand why you're wrong.

[Arex]

You two should just get a room.=)

[DragonKnight]

No, I'm not. That is your close-minded interpretation of what I'm saying. I'm saying exactly what you're saying:

Then perhaps your posts should have more clarification.


Are you saying that those who follow a peaceful tolerant interpretation of Islam are not following true Islam? You substituted "Islam" for my "Islamic world" and you're claiming that there's a world of difference between our statements.

My previous posts already stated the difference of our statements.

Also, define "true Islam". Like there are many perspectives on how the Christian faith should be practice, there are many perspectives on how Islam should be practiced as well.


puahhahahhaha. Dehumanizing Muslims as a savage people? Hey I can do it too. You're saying that Christianity is evil and Christians do not deserve to live. You didn't actually say that but as long as we're making shit up, I'm saying that you said it.

Has any of your posts once humanized Muslims? No. In fact you did a compare and contrast between Muslims and Christians:


Those who are protesting violently do not even believe that freedom of speech should exist.
Christians in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.

So what was the point of that? The Christian part could've been left out altogether. Then this:


This area is one were the pope is trying to make a contribution. Having developed a theology of religious pluralism, Christian theologians like the Holy Father can help Islam develop their own.

Once again, why state Christianity? Why not add Judaism? How about the Dalai Lama? Or even better, American Muslims contributing?


There is a reason why you are the only one to think what you are thinking about my posts. You are delusional. You think I posted things that I did not post.

Should I reason with you by saying you are 'blind as a bat?'


I aknowledge that Christianity has developed a theology to support freedom of religion and speech where it did not exist before. I aknowledge that the sky is blue and that frogs are green. I aknowledge that 1+1=2. WTF does any of this have to do with the discussion?! You brought in a topic (history of Christianity) which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread simply because you wanted to make sure everyone knew that Christianity is bad. I'm not the only one who sees this, DragonKnight. Others have comments on your anti-Christian bias as well. You are the only one to say that I am anti-Islam. Open your mind and try to understand why you're wrong.
Wrong, your 1st post (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showpost.php?p=453948&postcount=4) brought in a topic which had absolutely nothing to do with this topic.


Do they have the right to publish such these? Of course.
Should they? Out of respect, they should not.
Those who are protesting violently do not even believe that freedom of speech should exist.
Christians in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.
So again, what was the point of this? My posts merely provided a counterpoint which has been repeated multiple times throughout the thread. But that statement in your 1st post has nothing to do with this topic, unless for the purpose of putting Christians in a better light in comparison to Muslims. Cause really, it would have been better to say:

Muslims in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.

[Yeahman]

My previous posts already stated the difference of our statements.
Yes, I used the words "Islamic world" while you said "Islam." That is your beef. We said the same thing!

Also, define "true Islam". Like there are many perspectives on how the Christian faith should be practice, there are many perspectives on how Islam should be practiced as well.
You're the one that said that Islam does not yet have a "diversification of idealism." So what ideals should Islam have that it doesn't have today? What is Islam lacking today?

So what was the point of that? The Christian part could've been left out altogether.
Not when it's in reply to posts about why Christians don't protest as violently.

Once again, why state Christianity? Why not add Judaism? How about the Dalai Lama? Or even better, American Muslims contributing?
Because it's only true of Christianity. Last I checked the pope was Catholic.

So again, what was the point of this? My posts merely provided a counterpoint which has been repeated multiple times throughout the thread. But that statement in your 1st post has nothing to do with this topic, unless for the purpose of putting Christians in a better light in comparison to Muslims. Cause really, it would have been better to say:

Muslims in the US protest but they still recognize a freedom of speech.
Except that the reply was to why Christians in the US don't protest violently.


The truth is that you agree with the content of my posts. You just object to me mentioning a fault of another tradition without bringing up the Spanish Inquisition to fault my own.

[DragonKnight]

I'm not going to reply to any of the your other statements as I have already explained myself again and again. I'm done rehashing this debate with you with two exceptions:


Except that the reply was to why Christians in the US don't protest violently.

Wrong, read it again. The statement I mentioned was in your 1st post in this thread. It wasn't a reply to why Christians in the US don't protest violently. It was stating it outright. So again, what was the purpose of that statement in your 1st post in this thread?

You just object to me mentioning a fault of another tradition without bringing up the Spanish Inquisition to fault my own.
Ever heard of the passage that describes a speck in someone's eye when you have a log in your own?

[robotic]

>.< we all need to hug, so bad.

[Yeahman]

I'm not going to reply to any of the your other statements as I have already explained myself again and again. I'm done rehashing this debate with you with two exceptions:
I accept your surrender.

Wrong, read it again. The statement I mentioned was in your 1st post in this thread. It wasn't a reply to why Christians in the US don't protest violently. It was stating it outright. So again, what was the purpose of that statement in your 1st post in this thread?
It was a reply to the previous person's post:
There have also been controversial artistic efforts, which many Christians felt blasphemied their religion. You had protests and demands to cut federal funding for those artists. But, nothing like the violence and protest here, or what happened to Rushdie.
Obviously, those Christians don't feel quite as strongly about the issue...=P

Ever heard of the passage that describes a speck in someone's eye when you have a log in your own?
The log was removed a couple of hundred years ago from the eye of Christianity. You are attempting to jam it back in.

[DragonKnight]

It was a reply to the previous person's post:

Now that I didn't know about. My apologies for wasting your time and the time of others.

[deez nuts]

no retreat; no surrender. keep on fighting!

"you're the best around......around....nothing's ever gonna keep you down"

[sandra]

moving to rant.

[Dei Wong]

no retreat; no surrender. keep on fighting!

"you're the best around......around....nothing's ever gonna keep you down"

hahahahahahahahahahahaha your like Daniel don't you

[Faithless]

a danish newspaper published controversial cartoons depicting images of prophet muhammed with a turban shaped like a bomb, and another showing him saying that the paradise was running out of virgins.

user comments on bbc have mixed opinions: some people believe opposition to these cartoons is hindering their freedom of speech, while others believe that freedom of speech isn't meant to offend.

...
what do you think?
I know that it seems like a slap in the face, but I think that it is more political and current events commentary than anything racial. :smile:

That whole 70 virgins thing is something we hear that the suicide bombers supposedly die for.

(And 70, as opposed to 88! :rolleyes: )

I hate to say it, but I laughed out loud at that one cartoon, "Stop! Stop..." because it seemed like the perfect punchline for a really ridiculous reason to die.

The key thing about the reaction hear and whenever the christian right over-reacts is to ask, "What is so goddamn sacred cowish about religion that nobody can make comment on in any form?"

[deez nuts]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha your like Daniel don't you

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel-san not mine."

edit: hahaha oops forgot abiut the "mocking asian accents - hiliarious or self-hating? " thread. just read the above without the japanese accent, mmmmmm'kay?

[Yeahman]

There would be no point in having a demonstration here against the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan since, even though it was a terrible invasion and much suffering came from it, we were not in a part of the Soviet Union and their government and military did not represent us. Do you understand this? The Soviet government wouldn't have given two shits if some Americans citizens protested against their Afghanistan war. Makes sense?
I was watching TV and it made me think of this post of your's. I didn't know this but there were demonstrations in the US when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan! Jimmy Carter launched a boycott of the Moscow Olympics.

[Chad]

And those demonstrations? What did they accomplish? The Soviets would laugh... but a worthy cause, even if futile.

There has also been some talk about "freedom of speech" or "freedom of press" in this thread. It is said that these Muslims don't understand freedom of speech, or don't respect it. The problem with this claim is that Europe does not have freedom of speech. In the USA we have slightly more freedom than the Europeans in regard to expression, but our censors are different entities than theirs... in Europe the governments have certain laws which make the expression of certain ideas illegal. People have been put on trial and sentenced for expressing illegal ideas in modern, secular Europe. A French court found Roger Garaudy guilty of holocaust denial and convicted him. I don't endorse these types of writers or their ideas, but this tells us that Europe has its own sacred cows which are not to be written about or insulted.
Clearly this kind of revisionist history is a huge insult to Jewish people, and the courts in Europe recognize this and have enforced the law. So then from the perspective of the Muslims, shouldn't they also do something about the kind of insults like the cartoons? If so many people were enraged by the publication then it is clearly a huge insult to them. It's a double standard.

[noname]

The cartoon was in poor taste, but I have more of a problem with how people reacted (with all the violence) to the cartoon, than the cartoon itself.

Wasn't there similar violence a while back after there were news reports of allegations of US troops in Guantanamo Bay flushing Korans down the toilet, before there was any proof of such actions?
Talk about extreme knee-jerk reactions.

[Dei Wong]

The cartoon was in poor taste, but I have more of a problem with how people reacted (with all the violence) to the cartoon, than the cartoon itself.

Wasn't there similar violence a while back after there were news reports of allegations of US troops in Guantanamo Bay flushing Korans down the toilet, before there was any proof of such actions?
Talk about extreme knee-jerk reactions.

I agree the violence has got to stop. Imagine if everyone acted that way when someone did something they didn't like.

[robotic]

now its like, every major newspaper is trying to republish these cartoons with full idea of its consequences XD there were peaceful protests in toronto and across the province of ontario on saturday, but i heard a paper in calgary reprinted them again. the republishing determination by some publishers cannot help this situation :(

what the editor of empire notes has to say:

Last September, a Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, ran twelve cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad; today, everyone is talking about it.

The cartoons range from unclear or neutral to increasingly scurrilous. The worst depicts the prophet with a bomb in his turban, and the Muslim creed, “Allahu akbar,” “God is great,” written on it.

Muslims responded with outrage and calls for a boycott of Danish goods, for the Danish government to apologize or to act against the newspaper, for the U.N. to sanction Denmark in some way.

Supposedly as a lesson to Muslims about freedom of speech, papers in Norway, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other European countries reprinted the cartoons – as has the Philadelphia Inquirer in the United States. Papers in Jordan ran them as well.

The Muslim response has escalated, with calls from some groups for violence, the burning of embassy buildings in Syria, and finally the burning of the Danish consulate in Beirut.

Everyone is talking about it, but some key things are being left unsaid.

First, the cartoons are not just blasphemous. Blasphemy, to me, is an internal matter for any religion and not the business of the state or the polity as a whole. Here, however, the portrayal of the prophet as a terrorist was not primarily a statement about him and his life but a claim that Muslims are essentially terrorists.

As such, it is deeply racist. Except that racist is not the right term, because Muslim aren’t a race. We need new categories.

In theory, attacking members of a religion is different from attacking members of a race because you can choose your religious beliefs but not your race. In practice, there is often little difference. The vast majority of people are born to their religion; they don’t choose it. And in the context of a “war for civilization” where Muslims are being essentialized, uniformized, and criticized on a constant basis, the distinction blurs almost into nothingness.

It is not simply a matter of the cartoons’ being offensive to Muslims. They are offensive to everyone who is anti-racist, and we all have an interest in opposing them. This does not mean keeping criticism of Islam and even of the prophet out of the public sphere, but this depiction crosses the line into a universally discredited discrimination. A newspaper has the right to publish even this, just as it has the right to publish offensive depictions of African-Americans, but it should be opposed when it does.

Also left unsaid in the various pious finger-wagging lectures about free speech so graciously delivered to Muslims by newspapers in Christian countries is an extreme double standard. It is true that Christian countries have seen art works like Andres Serrano’s depiction of a crucifix in urine without erupting into violent conflagrations (although there was a great deal of protest by Christians), but those were works by individual artists. Please, show me the American or European mainstream daily newspaper that would publish something so defamatory about Jesus. Has the Inquirer or any other paper run a cartoon depicting Jesus sodomizing stacked naked inmates at Abu Ghraib or even Jesus yelling “Yee-hah” as he drops a bomb on Fallujah (much as George Bush might be doing today had he stuck it out with the Texas Air National Guard)? Until they do, all this talk about free speech is the sheerest hypocrisy.

The response from the Muslim world has been excessive. Of course, boycotting Danish goods is their right – our wonderful economic system is based on freedom of transaction – although it makes little sense to target all of Denmark instead of the paper in question. Calls for a government apology or for government action against the newspaper betray an unhealthy lack of appreciation for independence of the press. And, of course, burning down buildings and calls to kill people are unacceptable, as numerous Muslim leaders, including one of the key organizers of the march in Beirut that led to the burning of the consulate, have stated quite clearly.

But let’s get a grip here. One person may have died in Beirut; reports conflict. But so far nobody else has been killed in this campaign that has aroused so much opprobrium. All of the Sturm und Drang doesn’t compare to one day in occupied Palestine, let alone to the violent invasion and occupation of two countries, killing tens of thousands directly and leading, in Iraq, to the death, direct and iof over 150,000 people.

It is a little too much to see the perpetrators or supporters of those atrocities lecturing the victims about overreaction.

The great crusade and culture war the Bush administration has set in motion since 9/11 has had many unfortunate effects. One of the worst for the Middle East, other than direct occupation and destruction like in Iraq, may be the hardening of increasingly strict religious interpretations. That will harm the people there far more than those in Europe or the United States, but it also increases an already extreme polarization that is harmful for everyone. Bombing Muslims while simultaneously lecturing them is not the way to defuse this dynamic. That really ought to be obvious.

http://empirenotes.org/02062006commentary.html

[Faithless]

I guess, if you're making fun of one fanatic religion, that's okay. :rolleyes:

In an email to Reuters, Mr Zieler said his drawings were rejected by the newspaper's Sunday edition three years ago. One sequence of his cartoons published by a Norwegian paper this weekend lampoons the Christian tradition of Jesus' resurrection.

Danish paper 'refused Jesus cartoons' (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/02/09/1139379578740.html)

Copenhagen | February 9, 2006 - 12:40AM

The Danish newspaper which first published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have angered Muslims worldwide had previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, the artist said yesterday.

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, stoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers - readers in general, not necessarily Christians," said cartoonist Christoffer Zieler.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. But Christian congregations have protested at sacrilegious portrayals, especially in the cinema.

In an email to Reuters, Mr Zieler said his drawings were rejected by the newspaper's Sunday edition three years ago. One sequence of his cartoons published by a Norwegian paper this weekend lampoons the Christian tradition of Jesus' resurrection.

"This was not the same editor who later chose to publish the caricatures of Muhammad that offended so many," he added.

The newspaper referred questions to the former Sunday editor who still works at Jyllands-Posten, but he was not immediately available for comment.

The editor of Jyllands-Posten has apologised for offending Muslims, but defended his right to print the cartoons in the interests of free speech. Dozens of newspapers in Europe and elsewhere have reproduced them with the same justification.

But Zieler said he no longer believed "a discussion of Jyllands-Posten's lack of judgment" was any longer relevant to the global uproar unleashed by the cartoons.

"Perhaps explaining my story of three years ago in its proper context at least won't make matters any worse," he said. "Perhaps ignoring it may be better."

[LaiSteve66]

Police kill up to 11 demonstrators as violence spreads to another country


TRIPOLI, Libya - The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad continued to send shock waves around the world Friday as protesters set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and clashed with police hours after an Islamic cleric in Pakistan offered a $1 million reward for killing one of the cartoonists.

Libyan security officials said 11 protesters were killed or wounded in the clashes in Benghazi.

An Italian consular official, Antonio Simoes-Goncalves, put the death toll at nine and said several more had been wounded as armed police clashed with a crowd of more than 1,000 demonstrators.

Libyan state television showed a part of the consulate building on fire, and firefighters trying to extinguish it.

The Italian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the first floor of the building had been set on fire after the crowd charged into the grounds of the consulate late Friday. In a statement in Rome, the ministry said the consulate was being protected by Libyan security forces.

Security officials said the demonstrators hurled stones and bottles at the consulate, and later entered the grounds and set fire to the building and a consular car.

Police fired shots to try to disperse the crowd, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Simoes-Goncalves told the Associated Press in Rome that the Libyan police were not able to control the crowd, even though they were firing bullets and tear gas.

‘They are still continually firing’
"They are still continually firing," he said at 4 p.m. ET, speaking on the telephone from inside the consulate where he was holed up. "They haven't managed to block them."

He said the rioters had torched four cars in the consulate compound and also broke windows of the building.

No Italians inside the compound were injured, the Italian Foreign Ministry said.

Numerous riots and demonstrations have occurred the Muslim world in recent weeks over 12 cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September. They were republished in many other European newspapers earlier this month.

Earlier, a Pakistani cleric was placed under house detention after announcing a $1 million bounty for killing one of the cartoonists who drew the caricatures, as thousands rallied across the country and authorities arrested scores of protesters.

Five people have been killed in Pakistan this week during protests, but most demonstrations Friday were peaceful.

In Denmark, where the prophet drawings were first published in September, the government said Friday it had temporarily closed its embassy in Pakistan following the violent protests this week.

Pakistan recalled its ambassador to Denmark for “consultations” about the caricatures, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said.

Cash and a car
Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in the conservative northwestern city of Peshawar, announced the mosque and the Jamia Ashrafia religious school he leads would give a $25,000 reward and a car for killing the cartoonist who drew the prophet caricatures — considered blasphemous by Muslims.

He also said a local jewelers’ association would give $1 million, but no representative of the association was available to confirm the offer.

“Whoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get $1 million from the association of the jewelers bazaar, 1 million rupees ($16,700) from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees ($8,350) and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward,” Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

“This is a unanimous decision by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophets deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize.”

Qureshi did not name any cartoonist in his announcement and did not appear to be aware that 12 different people had drawn the pictures. The crowd outside the mosque burned a Danish flag and an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten first printed the prophet drawings by 12 cartoonists in September. The newspaper has since apologized to Muslims for the drawings, one of them showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with an ignited fuse.

Cartoonists went underground
Other Western newspapers, mostly in Europe but also some in the United States, have reprinted the pictures, asserting their news value and the right to freedom of expression.

A spokesman for Jyllands-Posten did not want to comment on Qureshi’s offer.

“We are not going to discuss this with that kind of people,” Tage Clausen said.

The cartoonists have gone underground and lived under police protection since the conflict started escalating last year. The president of the Danish Journalist Union, Mogens Blicher Bjerregaard, who is a spokesman for the cartoonists, would not say whether security surrounding them had been increased.

The publication of the drawings set off weeks of protests across the Muslim world in which at least 19 people have been killed, most of them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Islamabad, former President Clinton criticized the drawings but said Muslims wasted an opportunity to build better ties with the West by mounting violent protests.

“I can tell you most people in the United States deeply respect Islam ... and most people in Europe do,” he said.

Protests across Pakistan
Clerics at mosques across Pakistan condemned the caricatures at Friday prayers.

“Give enough power to the Muslim countries and enable them to take revenge,” said Qari Saeed Ullah, a prayer leader in Islamabad.

Thousands of demonstrators defied a ban on rallies in Punjab, one of Pakistan’s four provinces. Thousands of security forces were deployed across the country to prevent unrest.

Police arrested 125 protesters for violating the ban on rallies in eastern Pakistan and 70 others after firing tear gas to disperse protests in the southern city of Karachi.

In Peshawar, where violent protests Wednesday left two dead and scores injured, police fired tear gas to disperse more than 1,000 people trying to block a street. Four effigies representing Danish, German, French and Norwegian leaders were hanged from lampposts.

Police in eastern Punjab province were ordered to restrict the movement of all religious leaders who might address rallies and to round up religious activists who could threaten law and order.

In Multan, another city in Punjab, about 300 police detained 125 protesters, who gathered at a traffic circle, chanting, “We are slaves of the prophet,” and trampling on a Danish flag, police official Sharif Zafar said.

Zafar said they had violated the ban on rallies in Punjab — declared after deadly riots in Lahore on Tuesday.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, chief of the radical group Jamaat al-Dawat, became the first religious leader detained by authorities since protests began in Pakistan early this month. He was due to make a speech in Faisalabad, about 75 miles away.

Intelligence officials have said scores of members of Jamaat al-Dawat and assorted militant groups joined the Lahore protest Tuesday and incited the violence in a bid to undermine President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s government, a close ally of the United States.

Witnesses said about 7,000 people protested in Rawalpindi, near the capital, while about 5,000 demonstrated in the southwestern city of Quetta. There were no immediate reports of violence. About 5,000 people protested in Karachi in small-scale rallies, and 70 were arrested, said Rauf Siddiqi, the regional home minister.

Danish closures
Denmark’s decision to close its embassy comes after the government temporarily closed its embassies in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Indonesia last week amid anti-Danish protests and threats against staff.

“We have decided to do so because of the general security situation in the country,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lars Thuesen said of the Pakistani closure. “Our staff are still in the country but not at the embassy in Islamabad.”

Reporters Without Borders, a leading media watchdog group, urged the release of six journalists held in Algeria and Yemen for reprinting the prophet drawings.

In India, police used batons and tear gas to disperse several thousand angry Muslims worshippers who rioted over the drawings, police said. The protesters burned Danish flags, pelted police with stones, and looted shops after Friday prayers in Hyderabad, a city of 7 million people, nearly half of them Muslim.

Thousands of Hong Kong Muslims also marched Friday to condemn the caricatures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11383819/page/2/

[robotic]

this is escalating ;_; it's like these people needed one momentum opportunity to lash out all their frustration, coupled with the already frustrating issue of reprinting and republishing the caricatures in light of "trying to cool it down", or flex some muscle about the way freedom of speech really behaves.

this issue unearths so many feelings of distrust, generalization, suspicion and hate. when you dig quite deep, sometimes the problem evolves. you could justify it when being on one side, but it sinks so far below the surface that you can never really look at it in terms of black and white.

[Faithless]

It seems the cartoons against Priest have been pretty severe. Should we say that these cartoonists stop?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/c/catholic_priest_sex_scandal.asp

http://www.cagle.com/news/PedophilePriests/main.asp

Are cartoons against Islam anything new?

Search cartoonstock.com (http://www.cartoonstock.com/) for the term Islam (http://www.cartoonstock.com/search.asp?x=a&keyword=islam&Category=Not+Selected&Boolean=Or&Artist=Not+Selected&submit=Search).

[Azn Retribution]

[QUOTE=Faithless]It seems the cartoons against Priest have been pretty severe. Should we say that these cartoonists stop?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/c/catholic_priest_sex_scandal.asp

http://www.cagle.com/news/PedophilePriests/main.asp

Are cartoons against Islam anything new?



They are hypocritical
They make cartoons about Jews and the Holocaust all the time
as well as cartoons mocking christ and whatever.

You don't see the rest of western (or far eastern) civilization throwing a shit-fit.

Where are all the "Islam" moderates to condemn it?
If christians were doing this you'd see it condemned up the ass.
The only condemning they do is in front of us.
You don't see them condemning their own people

Hell Cleric's of the church are offering bounties on the cartoonists.

http://www.whitehouse.com/images/reaction.jpg
http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images4/breen.gif

http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images4/sack.gif
http://cagle.com/news/blog/BLOGgifs/Muhammad%20060211/priggee.gif
http://www.n-tv.de/img/634520_src_path.jpg

[PropellerheadCP]

Just my 2 cents:

I don't think it's about protesting just the cartoons alone. It's also about having been severely discriminated after 9/11 and this being the last straw. I know a lot of Islamic communities had to live in fear (and still do) because of an increase of hate crimes that were committed against them, simply because of their religion and more often combined with their race.
Of course they weren't protesting after the London bombings or 9/11, because they knew ignorant people would probably kill them. The smart thing to do is to stay out of sight. Calling their prophet a terrorist is all out offensive because the majority of the communities have had to spend half their time trying to explain to ignorant people that they just want to live in peace, for years.

[robotic]

azn retribution, you seem to be oversimplifying the issue. ^_~

not to say that you are wrong or that the radicals actions are justified, but we're moreover individuals that just happen to belong to this religion that has been demonized for as long as i can remember. in their black and white distinctions, people tend to forget that we're human.

there are so many things clouding this issue that we can't simply come to one wicked conclusion and be sure that that is the right one.

and about muslims not condemn anything, i'll be the first to start.

[Azn Retribution]

I'm not coming to a wicked conclusion
nor simplifying it.
I'm just stating the truth(tm)


They are being hypocritical.
We keep our extremists in line for the most part.
Why can't the so called moderate and peaceful majority do the same?

If we do ONE thing slightly out of line.
You know what? All our moderates and liberals come down on it HARD.

I refuse to hold them to different standards.

and please. calling them a terrorist.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE GODDAMN PROTEST PICTURE AGAIN.
They are fucking promoting Hitler for christ sake.
They demonize Christians and Jews all the damn time.
Sure some islam communities live in fear. but why?
if something DOES happen to islam communities here
It does not go unpunished.
Maybe they shouldn't shut themselves in their houses
Maybe they should show that they don't support these kinds of actions. but gasp. I hardly ever see/read/hear about as many of those demonstrations as I do of the opposing side.
See.
cuz you know our government likes to separate church and state.
It's good for the peoples rights.


This hand holding of them being demonized in the past goes both ways in history.

If they want to live in peace.
Then maybe they need to STEP FORWARD and put pressure on these radicals. They need to take action in their community, in their country, in their religion and push for progression.

Yet they remain SILENT.

**SILENT**

I see NO ONE condemning cleric's for offering million dollar bounties on the authors heads.

Now not to be extreme on one end.
I'm well aware of protests against these actions.
but they are hardly as wide-spread and common
as the more violent ones.

There is nothing clouding this issue except that people don't want to hold them to the same standards because they do not want to be inconvenienced. We don't seem to give a shit about our rights anymore.

and for that reason. They've already fucking WON.
The terrorists have pwn3d us and they don't know it.
Not militarily, Not politically, Not economically
They've hit us where it hurts, below the belt.

Nothing complex here. no black and white distinctions.

There is no legitimate defense for killing 12 people over a fucking cartoon.
and
That's the simple truth of the matter.

[robotic]

I see NO ONE condemning cleric's for offering million dollar bounties on the authors heads.

:tongue:

they did.

as chad pointed out, even if we do condemn it, does the media really support us enough to coverage it?

i'm not sure who you mean by "they". are they, me and my family? or my friends and relatives? are we the "they" people who secretly hate all the christians and jews that we interact and befriend? this is what i mean by oversimplification. you simply trust the world to be christians, jews, non-muslims vs. muslims, but in the real world - we are friends, and we don't live behind barbed wires, casting wary eyes - i'm sure that there many muslims that you personally know that don't encourage these attacks. why we are put under that umbrella is really beyond me, heha. even if we are moderate and so called peaceful, it's not like people believe us to be, anyway.

[hkRT]

This is a difficult question. Were the newspapers right to publish the cartoons?

Legally yes. Morally no.

First what’s freedom of speech? To my understanding, people seem to agree that freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want without fear of oppression or repercussion.

So what happens if a certain group of people has more freedom of speech than another group? Not talking about the government but among different groups of people, e.g. racial groups, religious groups, rich vs. poor people, etc. Although the law says every one is equal, has the right to freedom of speech regardless of race, creed, religion, gender, etc. etc, some people in actuality may have a bigger voice, are more heard and listened to, have more freedom and privilege than others.

Ideally, in a society where everyone is equal and free, it’s ok to talk just about anything, throw any insults at anyone because everyone is assumed to be able to throw the insults back in the same manner…. back and forth. But if the society is not ideal, then who is to ensure that the less privileged also have an equal voice, the same freedom to say whatever and are equally protected to speak without societal pressure telling them to shut up or go back home. So then the law saying EVERY one has the right to freedom of speech regardless of blah blah blah is just nice on paper? If so, who tends to call for freedom of speech in a relatively free society? Who tends to have to resort to violence to get the message across?

Second, assuming everyone is equal and free, does freedom of speech really mean saying or printing whatever? Why are pornographic/extremely violent graphics/cartoons depicting certain immoral acts not published as editorial cartoons as well? It just doesn’t seem right. I guess because freedom of speech also comes with a responsibility. Not meaning to sound PC.

So was mocking a group of people’s faith disrespectful to those people’s faith? Are people too PC to say the cartoon is intentionally disrespectful? Ok, so the cartoon was pulled, apology was made, freedom of speech diminished all for the sake of being PC? Or do people really understand beyond this stupid cartoon why it’s so degrading to one group of people and not at all to another group? Maybe there has never really been a true understanding and basic respect to begin with. Maybe all that is needed is just a true understanding and some basic genuine respect for one another instead of a dumbfounded apology.

Violence, however, is evil, senseless; it only deepens misunderstanding and further disrespect. One quote comes to mind in regards to violence, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

[Dei Wong]

robotic I will agree with you that sometimes the media shows muslims
in a bad light. But at the sametime not enough muslims are stepping up and outright condemning these acts of violence. You really think if key figures in the muslim community really wanted to go on T.V. and condemn these actions that any and every station wouldn't love to have them. Look how the acts of a few scar the image of the many.

[deez nuts]

and about muslims not condemn anything, i'll be the first to start.

seems like you spend more time defending than condemning on here at least, sweetheart.

[Chad]

It's kind of depressing that *some* of the Asian Americans around here see that the white media portrays Asians in an inaccurate and unfair way, yet don't think for a second that they would do that to anyone else. I realize this doesn't apply to many of you, since it seems like you don't even notice or care that it happens.
Over and over again I've seen complaints on these forums about how the media is making us look bad, perpetuates stereotypes, spreads myths, etc. yet when the media does this to someone else do we back them up or think that it might be a little bit biased? Hell no.. I might as well be talking to a Klan rally here.

[AznTrojan]

It's kind of depressing that *some* of the Asian Americans around here see that the white media portrays Asians in an inaccurate and unfair way, yet don't think for a second that they would do that to anyone else. I realize this doesn't apply to many of you, since it seems like you don't even notice or care that it happens.
Over and over again I've seen complaints on these forums about how the media is making us look bad, perpetuates stereotypes, spreads myths, etc. yet when the media does this to someone else do we back them up or think that it might be a little bit biased? Hell no.. I might as well be talking to a Klan rally here.

have ya seen the worldwide violent protests.. it doesn't take the media to make these muslims look bad.. and the lack of strong moderate muslim voice doesn't help either..

hell.. the protesters in indonesia have attacked the u.s. embassy.. where the hell was their outrage when they were asking for tsunami aid while the majority of the muslim countries were dicking around and spreading bullshit rumors about the west detonating underwater nukes causing the tsunami..

40 percent of Muslims in UK Want Sharia Law

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html

[deez nuts]

hahahah klan rally.

[Faithless]

It's kind of depressing that *some* of the Asian Americans around here see that the white media portrays Asians in an inaccurate and unfair way, yet don't think for a second that they would do that to anyone else.
...
For me, I see the cartoons to be a comment about radical islam. Look at what they are jumping up and down about -- cartoons.

Look at the comments about what other things that have garnered as much anger. Nothing to the extent of the cartoons.

A war drags on in Iraq, but the anger over that has never seemed to reach that generated by the cartoons. The bombings in Damadola -- just as lackluster, except for the localized anger.

The uproar over the cartoons kind of reminds of the uproar the Chinese make over the Japanese prime minister visiting the Japanese war shrine (which I can understand). (But) With all the ways people are really screwing with these groups, they get vocally incensed over symbolic acts.

*** *** ***

Out of curiosity, why haven't the American muslims protested as vehemently?

[AznTrojan]

For me, I see the cartoons to be a comment about radical islam. Look at what they are jumping up and down about -- cartoons.

Look at the comments about what other things that have garnered as much anger. Nothing to the extent of the cartoons.

A war drags on in Iraq, but the anger over that has never seemed to reach that generated by the cartoons. The bombings in Damadola -- just as lackluster, except for the localized anger.

The uproar over the cartoons kind of reminds of the uproar the Chinese make over the Japanese prime minister visiting the Japanese war shrine (which I can understand). (But) With all the ways people are really screwing with these groups, they get vocally incensed over symbolic acts.

*** *** ***

Out of curiosity, why haven't the American muslims protested as vehemently?

because if they started doing some of the stuff like they do overseas.. they are pretty much asking for a 1-way ticket to lovely gitmo..

[Azn Retribution]

It's kind of depressing that *some* of the Asian Americans around here see that the white media portrays Asians in an inaccurate and unfair way, yet don't think for a second that they would do that to anyone else. I realize this doesn't apply to many of you, since it seems like you don't even notice or care that it happens.
Over and over again I've seen complaints on these forums about how the media is making us look bad, perpetuates stereotypes, spreads myths, etc. yet when the media does this to someone else do we back them up or think that it might be a little bit biased? Hell no.. I might as well be talking to a Klan rally here.

I'm more than well aware its a little biased
that granted. This isn't so much a ethnic thing as it is a religious/nationalistic thing.

Why isn't there a strong muslim moderate or liberal voice shutting these people down? I do not go just for mainstream media.

I'm not "over simplifying" it as she seems to imply.
I'm not make it us vs them
I'm trying to say
Someone (being the so-called majority of peaceful muslims)
needs to take charge and voice their opinion.

You want Islam to be taken seriously as a religion of peace?
Then put your religious leaders in order.

Prove us wrong. SHOW us what you believe.
If there were more of your demonstrations than violent ones
I'm sure I'd see it on at least SOME un-obscure media sources.

Living in fear because of discrimination is not an excuse.
If we don't believe you to be (Im just saying this as other countries generalized. any intelligent person already knows the difference although, like me, where the hell is the wide-spread condemnation from muslim nations on this?)

then you need to SHOW us that your opposed.
Sometimes you gotta stand up for what you believe in.

Your argument is a weak one and there is no justification, or defense against this. Cartoonists satirize everyone. Tough. Is it immoral or not? Maybe, Maybe so. depends on the personal ethics involved.

You can't justify this bullshit
No amount of spinning will do it.

I'm sorry if saying it how it is is "over simplifying it"

I don't think Mohammad the Prophet if he was indeed a great man such as given would be given to telling people to murder innocent people over a CARTOON

especially when there are MANY historical precedents for Muslim artists depicting Mohammad himself.

[Chad]

For me, I see the cartoons to be a comment about radical islam. Look at what they are jumping up and down about -- cartoons.

Look at the comments about what other things that have garnered as much anger. Nothing to the extent of the cartoons.

A war drags on in Iraq, but the anger over that has never seemed to reach that generated by the cartoons. The bombings in Damadola -- just as lackluster, except for the localized anger.

The uproar over the cartoons kind of reminds of the uproar the Chinese make over the Japanese prime minister visiting the Japanese war shrine (which I can understand). (But) With all the ways people are really screwing with these groups, they get vocally incensed over symbolic acts.

*** *** ***

Out of curiosity, why haven't the American muslims protested as vehemently?
the language used here, "they" and "them"... let's be clear on this. I think there are over 1.1 billion muslims in the world, or somewhere near that... so that's about 1 in 5 people. the majority of them live in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh.
if you look at the numbers of people protesting violently, and then the number of Muslims in the world, there is overwhelmingly a non-response. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are not responding to the cartoons and there's a good chance that they don't really care about them.
If you want to talk about the Middle East, well violence is no stranger there. Anti-American demonstrations are a regular thing there.. anti-Israel as well. In some places it is just a normal part of the Friday sermon.
What is happening is the Western press is taking offense to the demonstrations because it is a matter of disagreement that the protesters have with the Western press. If it were a matter of disagreement between some Muslims groups and say, a gay rights group, we wouldn't even be hearing about any of this because gay rights groups have very little power in the media. But the media outlets feels attacked so it is responding with extremely biased coverage.
Why haven't American Muslim groups gone to the streets about this? Maybe they don't give a shit? Maybe the Muslim world is not a huge, homogenous mass of religious fanatics?

[Faithless]

...
What is happening is the Western press is taking offense to the demonstrations because it is a matter of disagreement that the protesters have with the Western press. If it were a matter of disagreement between some Muslims groups and say, a gay rights group, we wouldn't even be hearing about any of this because gay rights groups have very little power in the media. But the media outlets feels attacked so it is responding with extremely biased coverage.
And outside of Stonewall, where have gay rights groups been acting-out violently?

Why haven't American Muslim groups gone to the streets about this? Maybe they don't give a shit? Maybe the Muslim world is not a huge, homogenous mass of religious fanatics?
Right. All this big stink over some cartoons by a small group of religious fanatics. Which would point to the idea of "what's the big deal?"

What I don't get is how some of the muslims have reacted in kind -- talking shit about the Holocaust. If they want to argue "whose religion sucks", why don't they point out the hypocracies of the western religions? I'd tip my hats to them if they would put in their papers editorial cartoons about the catholic priest child abuse coverups.

[AznTrojan]

chad

there have been demonstrations in new york and SF.. but they were peaceful..

[Azn Retribution]

I think we're targeting more the muslim population in the middle east and europe as opposed to muslims world-wide. As they are usually the ones utilizing violence as a protesting tool.

I don't think anyone realistically demonizes the world wide population of Islam as the same as these radicals or as giving a shit.

however.

This doesn't mean they don't have a responsibility to speak up against it.(If they don't want the negative backlash associated with a dumbass press that doesn't give half a damn.) or go through the proper channels to protest it (which the US ones did in a peaceful manner, in which I wholeheartedly approve as it is their right.)

Ironically, and hypocritically
has anyone noticed the "holocaust cartoon" contests the middle eastern media is sponsoring?

The Jewish community seem to be taking it in stride sponsoring a sister competition for jewish jokes and jewish cartoon humor.

Now let's go back to the situation.

Let's remove Islam and place "Christianity in its place" in this story.
and let's put it in the same context. politically/historically.

Christians riot violently and kill 12 over a cartoon depicting Jesus in a very sacrilegious and blasphemous way.

If that were the headline. (The media doesn't give a shit about east or west or religion. They like stirring shit up and they don't care about the specifics. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity/unbias or responsibility in this day and age.)

How many of you would have sympathy or be trying to defend it?

Yeah. thats what I thought.

Now as for what should be done IMHO.
I don't think sheltering them (censoring cartoons or our speech)
is going to do anything beneficial in the long run.
Sooner or later. They are gonna have to grow a thicker skin.

This is akin to a insecure kid reacting with violence to each perceived insult.
It's not acceptable civilized behaviour and holding them to different standards
would not be treating them as an equal.

--

I suppose you could consider there being alot of "violent" christian protests as well even in this age.

*cough* Abortion clinic bombers *cough*
*cough* Professors vehemently against creationism getting jumped *cough*

[Faithless]

If Americans see know problem with the cartoons, then why should they have any problem with this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/chottomatte/flagburn001.jpg

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/184/story_18483_1.html

...
It’s been my experience that most groups are humor-impaired when outsiders make fun of them. On MSNBC.com, readers were asked to vote on whether they thought the Muslim protests were justified. The vote was running 82 percent against the Muslim reaction when I checked Thursday night.

But let’s just change the image. What if it were a cartoon showing someone burning the American flag? What if it were a depiction of Jesus with a smoking shotgun as a comment on Christians shooting abortion doctors? What if it were the Star of David used as a hoop that a politician must jump through to get elected?

I’m guessing the approval rating would plummet. Actually, I don’t need to guess because at various times in my career I’ve penned (and my newspaper has published) cartoons along those lines. Lack of humor ensued after each one. A number of my cartoons have caused boycotts, lost advertising for my newspaper, and elicited streams of phone calls and/or picketing in front of our building.
...

[Azn Retribution]

We don't kill people over depiction of the flag burning.
I'm sorry that's a non-sequitur as well as a strawman fallacy
but nice try, thanks for playing.

[Faithless]

We don't kill people over depiction of the flag burning.
I'm sorry that's a non-sequitur as well as a strawman fallacy
but nice try, thanks for playing.
What are you talking about? Or what do you think I'm referring to?

[mizhi]

If Americans see know problem with the cartoons, then why should they have any problem with this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/chottomatte/flagburn001.jpg

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/184/story_18483_1.html

Americans would have a problem with those images. Just as it should be no surprise that Muslims had a problem with the images of Mohammed.

The difference is that if Iran or other middle eastern country were to publish those images, I don't think Americans would burn their embassy. I don't think you'd see large groups of Americans marching through the streets of Saudi Arabia or Lebanon, beating people.

It's not the outrage or protests, it's the violence that has shocked many in the west.

[Chad]

The Holocaust reference is a challenge to the European press. Many European countries have laws against holocaust denial or revisionism, people have gone to prison over this. Free speech? What's it mean, again?

[Faithless]

Americans would have a problem with those images. Just as it should be no surprise that Muslims had a problem with the images of Mohammed.

The difference is that if Iran or other middle eastern country were to publish those images, I don't think Americans would burn their embassy. I don't think you'd see large groups of Americans marching through the streets of Saudi Arabia or Lebanon, beating people.

It's not the outrage or protests, it's the violence that has shocked many in the west.
My question was really a parenthetical thought on the situation.

Seeing as Americans see know problem, by and large, with the Danish cartoons of muslims, I am asking why they would have a problem with flag burning? It seems to be making an equal social statement.

[mizhi]

My question was really a parenthetical thought on the situation.

Seeing as Americans see know [1] problem, by and large, with the Danish cartoons of muslims, I am asking why they would have a problem with flag burning? It seems to be making an equal social statement.

I believe [2] that Americans can see how the cartoons would be offensive; but they don't see why the publication of those cartoons has brought the current mayhem.

Just as other countries can see why burning our flag offends us. To date though, I know of no incident where citizens of another country have burned our flag, and we've deemed the appropriate response to burn their embassy or businesses.

[1] Should be "no."
[2] I don't have statistics to back this up, just a gut feeling.

[robotic]

most of the muslims on tv that you see are so-called "illiterate" shouldn't y'all take pride in knowing more than them? :tongue:

to me, it really is a matter of poverty, illiteracy (and in turn sentimentality and thus, intolerance?) and how, by the lack of interaction with people of western civilizations, they tend to create a negative consensus of all western people being that way.

but the funny thing is.

in our civilized societies, you do get to meet all kinds of people of different cultures and races, where you see the variety of individual each race and culture has to offer. but still stereotypes and generalizations tend to remain.

as a people we will never escape the bandwagon ideology.

seems like you spend more time defending than condemning on here at least, sweetheart.

gyhaha. i will defend my identity and people who are pushed into the generalized, negative light simply because they belong to the muslim community. but i won't support what those protesters out there are doing, no sirree.

[Azn Retribution]

The Holocaust reference is a challenge to the European press. Many European countries have laws against holocaust denial or revisionism, people have gone to prison over this. Free speech? What's it mean, again?

Once again a strawman fallacy perpatrated by both them and you.
and They've been doing the holocaust/pro-nazi/antijews/antiwest/antichristian thing for a long time anyway. This is just an excuse to "justify" it.

and the anti-holocaust thing
That refers to laws in those european countries.

These cartoons were published in europe. In european newspapers.
Keep that in mind.

Respect for other countries laws?
What's that mean again?

Oh. That's right.
Their rioting and killing people over something published
in another country.

Right.

most of the muslims on tv that you see are so-called "illiterate" shouldn't y'all take pride in knowing more than them? :tongue:

to me, it really is a matter of poverty, illiteracy (and in turn sentimentality and thus, intolerance?) and how, by the lack of interaction with people of western civilizations, they tend to create a negative consensus of all western people being that way.

but the funny thing is.

in our civilized societies, you do get to meet all kinds of people of different cultures and races, where you see the variety of individual each race and culture has to offer. but still stereotypes and generalizations tend to remain.

as a people we will never escape the bandwagon ideology.



gyhaha. i will defend my identity and people who are pushed into the generalized, negative light simply because they belong to the muslim community. but i won't support what those protesters out there are doing, no sirree.

I've stated time and again I'm not part of the bandwagon party.
and we've all established that we aren't generalizing islam as a whole but rather that segregated part of islam.

so why don't you already STFU already and address our points
instead of pussy-footing around about history and the past as we are well aware of the black, the white, the shades of gray and all the other shit you want to throw attention on rather than the issue at hand. Poor and Literacy isn't an excuse to kill people if thats what your trying to portend. They are literate enough to read the koran no?

which is a bunch of morons are killing people over a cartoon.
yes. they happen to be muslim. yes they happen to be radical.
and no we are not throwing this shit on the ethnicity or religion in general.

but here's MY interesting observation

You don't support them
but you don't condemn them.
You just try to excuse their behaviour.
or find some way to put it on us.

Funny that.

[deez nuts]

gyhaha. i will defend my identity and people who are pushed into the generalized, negative light simply because they belong to the muslim community. but i won't support what those protesters out there are doing, no sirree.

what's there to defend here? who is attacking your identity here? we already said that the majority of muslims are not fanatics.

do you want each post that anybody writes denouncing the violent actions of these fanatics to be followed with a disclaimer stating that the majority of the muslims of the world are not fanatics? would that make you feel better? if it does, we can do that for you. i already do it for any posts i make in regards to japan and china. it's really no big deal to me at this point.

[Chad]

so far I think all of the deaths have been protestors being killed by police. but maybe something else has happened, i haven't kept up.
the Holocaust was brought into this because the critics of the protestors said that "those people don't understand freedom of speech that we have in Europe." Well just today a man named David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison in Austria for saying the wrong things about history. even after he recanted.
i don't think anybody here is advocating the violence.

It would be better if these countries would get rid of laws forbidding holocaust denial because then the deniars would just look like the loonies that they are. Sending them to prison for it is flattery because it gives them the idea that they have dangerous knowledge, or have uncovered some ugly truth.

anyways "Free speech" really only means freedom of speech for a few chosen citizens. others will have to watch what they say. even in the USA, freedom of speech was not a universal right. slaves could not say whatever they wanted without facing severe punishments. religious deviants, political dissidents and others were always punished for what they said. free speech is a novel idea but has not been a reality in most of US history.
the same is true in Europe right now since certain subjects are protected from criticism by law.

A war drags on in Iraq, but the anger over that has never seemed to reach that generated by the cartoons. The bombings in Damadola -- just as lackluster, except for the localized anger.

I'm going to have to disagree with this because there is a lot of anger over the Iraq war but it's being expressed in a different way. I think a person has to be kind of angry to kill people with IEDs and car bombs. The cartoons might have made a lot of people angry but the Iraq war has resulted in thousands dead.

[robotic]

so why don't you already STFU already and address our points
instead of pussy-footing around about history and the past as we are well aware of the black, the white, the shades of gray and all the other shit you want to throw attention on rather than the issue at hand. Poor and Literacy isn't an excuse to kill people if thats what your trying to portend. They are literate enough to read the koran no?

which is a bunch of morons are killing people over a cartoon.
yes. they happen to be muslim. yes they happen to be radical.
and no we are not throwing this shit on the ethnicity or religion in general.

but here's MY interesting observation

You don't support them
but you don't condemn them.
You just try to excuse their behaviour.
or find some way to put it on us.

Funny that.

i really have no idea what you mean ;_;
would you like me to say that islam doesn't preach terrorism?
because y'all sure as hell won't believe that now. your sentence on "they are literate enough to read the quran" clearly illustrates that. literate enough to read the quran? a great percentage of muslims aren't even arab! that means most of them don't even know how to interpret the quran! there you go!

or that i'm being biased, which i probably am, but how can you be so sure?

i never said it's okay to kill people. or that the violent protests were right. i never really get the feeling that you really are going to believe that the quran doesn't preach hatred as much as you think.

[AznTrojan]

so far I think all of the deaths have been protestors being killed by police. but maybe something else has happened, i haven't kept up.
the Holocaust was brought into this because the critics of the protestors said that "those people don't understand freedom of speech that we have in Europe." Well just today a man named David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison in Austria for saying the wrong things about history. even after he recanted.
i don't think anybody here is advocating the violence.

It would be better if these countries would get rid of laws forbidding holocaust denial because then the deniars would just look like the loonies that they are. Sending them to prison for it is flattery because it gives them the idea that they have dangerous knowledge, or have uncovered some ugly truth.

anyways "Free speech" really only means freedom of speech for a few chosen citizens. others will have to watch what they say. even in the USA, freedom of speech was not a universal right. slaves could not say whatever they wanted without facing severe punishments. religious deviants, political dissidents and others were always punished for what they said. free speech is a novel idea but has not been a reality in most of US history.
the same is true in Europe right now since certain subjects are protected from criticism by law.


I'm going to have to disagree with this because there is a lot of anger over the Iraq war but it's being expressed in a different way. I think a person has to be kind of angry to kill people with IEDs and car bombs. The cartoons might have made a lot of people angry but the Iraq war has resulted in thousands dead.

are you kidding me.. christians have been targeted and killed by these muslim.. property owned by christians have been targeted by muslim.. embassies worldwide have been targeted by muslims.. yet the protesters are victims.. :rolleyes:

of note.. david irving broke the law.. and he recanted his original position to avoid jail time because he was originally an asshat.. way to stick to your principles.. what a jackass..

and the iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with their anger.. these people hated us before 9-11, before the afghan war, before the iraq war, before usama bin laden was damn fetus..

the fact you sympathize with the insurgency and suicide bombers is absolutely despicable..

[Azn Retribution]

i really have no idea what you mean ;_;
would you like me to say that islam doesn't preach terrorism?
because y'all sure as hell won't believe that now. your sentence on "they are literate enough to read the quran" clearly illustrates that. literate enough to read the quran? a great percentage of muslims aren't even arab! that means most of them don't even know how to interpret the quran! there you go!

or that i'm being biased, which i probably am, but how can you be so sure?

i never said it's okay to kill people. or that the violent protests were right. i never really get the feeling that you really are going to believe that the quran doesn't preach hatred as much as you think.

I think it's been made pretty obvious that your not paying attention to a damn thing we're saying.

Hey. maybe a bulleted list would make things easier.

* We do not GENERALIZE all Muslims as the same.

* The Qu'ran is translated into different languages. There you go.

* I never said Islam preached terrorism or hatred. but thanks for always bringing out the strawman fallacies(strawman fallacie is that you misdirect the argument by pointing it at something that wasn't even there in the first place and is hardly relevant in order to distract from the point that you don't want to counter/talk about)


* I never said the Qu'ran preaches hatred. nothing in what i said even insinuates that. You said that people were illiterate. I said that funny. They seem to be able to read or get people to read the Qu'Ran for them as a reason that illiteracy isn't a reason or issue or an excuse for this kind of behaviour.

* Finally, You never say they are wrong either. Why are you taking "their side" as "united muslims" rather than representing yourself individually as a muslim. As you appear to be doing.

We are not threatening you or your ethnicity/religion/beliefs or stereotyping them as one side or another.
Stop fighitng a battle thats not even going on

but I'm not even going to bother anymore considering you haven't read anything deeznut or I have said prior.

so far I think all of the deaths have been protestors being killed by police. but maybe something else has happened, i haven't kept up.
the Holocaust was brought into this because the critics of the protestors said that "those people don't understand freedom of speech that we have in Europe." Well just today a man named David Irving was sentenced to 3 years in prison in Austria for saying the wrong things about history. even after he recanted.
i don't think anybody here is advocating the violence.

It would be better if these countries would get rid of laws forbidding holocaust denial because then the deniars would just look like the loonies that they are. Sending them to prison for it is flattery because it gives them the idea that they have dangerous knowledge, or have uncovered some ugly truth.

anyways "Free speech" really only means freedom of speech for a few chosen citizens. others will have to watch what they say. even in the USA, freedom of speech was not a universal right. slaves could not say whatever they wanted without facing severe punishments. religious deviants, political dissidents and others were always punished for what they said. free speech is a novel idea but has not been a reality in most of US history.
the same is true in Europe right now since certain subjects are protected from criticism by law.


I'm going to have to disagree with this because there is a lot of anger over the Iraq war but it's being expressed in a different way. I think a person has to be kind of angry to kill people with IEDs and car bombs. The cartoons might have made a lot of people angry but the Iraq war has resulted in thousands dead.


The holocaust argument is a completely different allegory in that it happened and it involved the deaths of millions. It is a law and a limit that in the spirit of social contract/democracy that the citizens have agreed to.


First lets look at the actual cartoon.

The Mohammad cartoon is an legitimate political cartoon
with legitimate and relevant commentary towards what is going on.

Pointing out things such as the irony of bombs and violence committed in the name of Mohammad.

It would be no different than a Crusades/Christ type cartoon
depicting Christ in a sacriligious way about how christians rape, steal, kill and conquer in the name of Christ.

Both are legitimate commentaries/satire and hardly worth dying/killing/rioting about

Now lets look of the context/geopolitically/geographically of the cartoon. EUROPE.

It was in *EUROPE* and is legal by their definition of free speech.

Riots involving 12 deaths(regardless of who did the killing) over a cartoon is RIDICULOUS.

Now for the arab media to hold contests for a holocaust cartoon and challenge the west to put it on their newspapers and call it freedom of speech is not an adaquate allegory or comparison.
we never challenged or even attempted to put it in an arab newspaper.


It's a misleading allegory fallacy. however its close enough to fool people into believing it.

The Arab media can do whatever anti-semetic/anti-west shit on their newspapers they want. (They do and its often way more extreme. Just like we got Fox news)

We do some tame religious/political commentary cartoon that is not even published in their country and not even intended for them most likely.
and all shithell breaks lose.

[haplesshobo]

so far I think all of the deaths have been protestors being killed by police. but maybe something else has happened, i haven't kept up.


No, in Nigeria, the nigerian muslim protestors have attacked nigerian christians as well as burning down christian churches, with 15 people already reported to have died. The AP reported that there were muslim mobs that were carrying matchetes and other weapons, where one such group set a man on fire.

Not really surprised by the apologists at this point on this forum. Its all about being politically correct, and ignoring the realities in front of us. According to them, all the violence we're seeing doesn't even really exist or is only isolated to a few protestors. Not the thousands we're seeing in Syria, etc.. That's also ignoring the opinion polls in those countries that show that there is much greater support for 9/11 hijakers than we'd all want. This reminds me of the whole london bombings again, when people here kept insisting that it was a white hate group, and in no way linked to radical islam, despite all the evidence that at least pointed out that Al-Queda was involved.

What's also scary, to me, ii the refusal by some muslims in western countries to accept concepts such as freedom of speech. Let's remember that the reason this whole thing spread was that you muslim groups in denmark who inflamed the situation by spreading fake cartoons outside denmark. Is that the future of Islam in america and the west, where they really want us to start imposing sharia laws in the western countries?

[Azn Retribution]

I think we need to delineate between law, countries and religion at the moment. before we jump to that kind of rhetoric.

See. No laws were broken in Europe in making this cartoon.
Those muslim groups in denmark are citizens, if they disagree with the law they should make their point in an appropriate and acceptable fashion as in accordance with the social contract they have as a citizen of that country.

Riots in other countries demanding that we take away our right to do what is legal in our country is ridiculous.

I don't entirely see Chad as an apologist.
It looks like he's playing Devil's advocate.
where as Robotic is hardcore apologist as if anyone couldn't tell from his previous posts.

I will have to play middle ground on the case that the number of our left or "PC" being as numerous as our "right" is one of our greatest strengths even as it is a double-edged sword.
The problem with not jumping to conclusions and waiting is that it gives the appearance of indecisiveness and meekness.
I personally think that's why moderates have lost their appeal to the american people to an extent. They aren't decisive enough. and the american people don't want complex. they want simple black and white. if they can't get it from us. someone else will make some conjecture convincing enough to appeal.

granted.

It still rather is scary how muslims themselves such as robotic
never condemn.
they just say they don't support.
Awfully close in some ironic respect to
"Do as I say..... not as I do......?"

Anyway.

Radical Muslims in the Middle East are like a petulant violent child.
His temper and emotions easily flared and triggered over name calling or even a friendly joke at his expense. Willing to automatically go to blows.

Now I know while we in the first/second world are not parents by any means. We should treat all countries as equals to an extent..
So I don't think we should shelter them from ourselves and how own expression.

Especially when the portrayal of mohommad was hardly racist.
it was a legitimate political statement.

[deez nuts]

Now let's go back to the situation.

Let's remove Islam and place "Christianity in its place" in this story.
and let's put it in the same context. politically/historically.

Christians riot violently and kill 12 over a cartoon depicting Jesus in a very sacrilegious and blasphemous way.

If that were the headline. (The media doesn't give a shit about east or west or religion. They like stirring shit up and they don't care about the specifics. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity/unbias or responsibility in this day and age.)

How many of you would have sympathy or be trying to defend it?


if you're not white and christian, we must find any reason to absolve any iota and/or degree of accountability and responsibility for personal actions.

[Chad]

the fact you sympathize with the insurgency and suicide bombers is absolutely despicable..
haha, i hope this is a joke. you think i sympathize with suicide bombers? all i said was that they're probably angry people. what do you want me to say, that they're not angry?
OK.. suicide bombers are not angry people. makes a lot of sense! Iraq is one big happy picnic! all of those IEDs and car bombs going off are just accidents cuz those foolish people dont know how to hook up their celebration fireworks properly.


of note.. david irving broke the law.. and he recanted his original position to avoid jail time because he was originally an asshat.. way to stick to your principles.. what a jackass..

yeah and the law forbids saying certain things about history. look at holocaust deniers in the USA, you never hear about them. they get almost no publicity, most people think they're loonies. know why? because we don't give them attention. let them go on with their BS as much as they want to...
what kind of message does this ruling in Austria send to people?
it tells them that it's cool to publish things in newspapers that offend Muslims, but if you say something in your obscure corner of pseudo-scientific research that offends Jews, you're going to jail.
but that's nothing new since Europe has hated the Muslims (and non-Muslim orientals) for a long time. crusades, invasions, colonial projects, etc.


and the iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with their anger.. these people hated us before 9-11, before the afghan war, before the iraq war, before usama bin laden was damn fetus..

you're living in a fantasy world. watched too many movies I guess. why don't you call up Chuck Norris to come kick all their asses?

nobody talks about how much hatred the West has had for other people for centuries. it's always "those people, over there" who are at fault. it's not just Muslims who the West hates. they even hate Christians who lived in the East. in the 20th century the West was constantly churning out racist films, even before some of those people had seen any films before.
i don't have time to give a history lesson about colonialism to people who should already know it. colonial projects survive to this day... it was Europeans who committed the holocaust, it was Europeans who set up Israel, but it is not Europeans who have to pay the price for the crime. to the people who are occupied, it is just another European colonial project, in continuity with many others.

[deez nuts]

you're living in a fantasy world. watched too many movies I guess. why don't you call up Chuck Norris to come kick all their asses?



chuck norris is one tough dude. there is no disabled people. only people that have met chuck norris.

[AznTrojan]

haha, i hope this is a joke. you think i sympathize with suicide bombers? all i said was that they're probably angry people. what do you want me to say, that they're not angry?
OK.. suicide bombers are not angry people. makes a lot of sense! Iraq is one big happy picnic! all of those IEDs and car bombs going off are just accidents cuz those foolish people dont know how to hook up their celebration fireworks properly.


yeah and the law forbids saying certain things about history. look at holocaust deniers in the USA, you never hear about them. they get almost no publicity, most people think they're loonies. know why? because we don't give them attention. let them go on with their BS as much as they want to...
what kind of message does this ruling in Austria send to people?
it tells them that it's cool to publish things in newspapers that offend Muslims, but if you say something in your obscure corner of pseudo-scientific research that offends Jews, you're going to jail.
but that's nothing new since Europe has hated the Muslims (and non-Muslim orientals) for a long time. crusades, invasions, colonial projects, etc.


you're living in a fantasy world. watched too many movies I guess. why don't you call up Chuck Norris to come kick all their asses?

nobody talks about how much hatred the West has had for other people for centuries. it's always "those people, over there" who are at fault. it's not just Muslims who the West hates. they even hate Christians who lived in the East. in the 20th century the West was constantly churning out racist films, even before some of those people had seen any films before.
i don't have time to give a history lesson about colonialism to people who should already know it. colonial projects survive to this day... it was Europeans who committed the holocaust, it was Europeans who set up Israel, but it is not Europeans who have to pay the price for the crime. to the people who are occupied, it is just another European colonial project, in continuity with many others.

regarding the holocaust deniers - there is no law in the u.s. regarding this issue.. whereas there is a law in many parts of europe.. different countries.. different laws..

the cartoons were initially printed in denmark.. not austria..

the cartoon was satire.. not denial of facts..

you do realize it wasn't a muslim who was the holocaust denier right?

secondly.. you made my point the muslims in the middle east anger is due to a multitude of things (e.g. blame the europeans).. none of which are necessarily related to the iraq war.. even without the iraq war.. this anger was present..

and yes.. you sympathize with the insurgency.. or at least you're an apologist

[Chad]

I'm quite familiar with David Irving's controversy (haven't read any of his books) so yes, I am familiar with who he is. He is a British pseudo-historian who go counter-sued by a woman named Lipstadt.
What does David Irving's religion have to do with this anyways?Would it make a difference if he was a Muslim or not? I assume he is a Christian but for all I know, he may not be religious at all. He is not the first European to be prosecuted for this. He's probably a Nazi.
regarding the holocaust deniers - there is no law in the u.s. regarding this issue.. whereas there is a law in many parts of europe.. different countries.. different laws..
thanks for repeating what I already said.

I suppose you're of the mind that thinks that colonialism was for the benefit of those ignorant, dirty, brown people? Is it something that they shouldn't be angry about? If so, please explain.

[AznTrojan]

I'm quite familiar with David Irving's controversy (haven't read any of his books) so yes, I am familiar with who he is. He is a British pseudo-historian who go counter-sued by a woman named Lipstadt.
What does David Irving's religion have to do with this anyways?Would it make a difference if he was a Muslim or not? I assume he is a Christian but for all I know, he may not be religious at all. He is not the first European to be prosecuted for this. He's probably a Nazi.

thanks for repeating what I already said.

I suppose you're of the mind that thinks that colonialism was for the benefit of those ignorant, dirty, brown people? Is it something that they shouldn't be angry about? If so, please explain.

why would the middle east muslims give a crap about a "nazi" or "christian" spewing anti-semitic rhetoric? you can't spew anti-semitic rhetoric because it's against the law in AUSTRIA..

the cartoons (from DENMARK) on the otherhand is satire..

there have been cartoons up the wazoo satiring other religions as well as other leaders.. hell... there have also been other depictions of mohammed before these cartoons.. yet there have been no uproar.. or burning of embassies.. or violence against christians.. stop being an apologist to the maniacal mulsim mob

re-read my previous post(s).. i agree with you that colonialism clusterfucked a lot of the middle east.. hence.. much of the anger from the middle east muslims stems before the iraq war..

[Chad]

I'm not an apologist for the violent mobs, I just don't like it when the media uses this to paint a very biased picture of what's happening. Our TV news networks give all their attention to the radicals and extremists and blackout any moderates or reformists who aren't rabidly pro-West.
People ask "why doesn't anybody over there condemn this?" But it's happening.. it happens almost every time anything major like this happens. It's just not reported here because that's not the image of the Middle East they're selling. I've already gone over this earlier in the thread and posted some examples.
Our knowledge is limited by our sources.. right now the only sources available to me are television, radio, newspapers, and internet. The internet provides the most in quality and quantity so it is the one I rely on the most. Radio seems to be the worst source, providing an image of the conflict as something akin to Popeye the Sailor Man.

[Dei Wong]

I'm not an apologist for the violent mobs, I just don't like it when the media uses this to paint a very biased picture of what's happening. Our TV news networks give all their attention to the radicals and extremists and blackout any moderates or reformists who aren't rabidly pro-West.
People ask "why doesn't anybody over there condemn this?" But it's happening.. it happens almost every time anything major like this happens. It's just not reported here because that's not the image of the Middle East they're selling. I've already gone over this earlier in the thread and posted some examples.
Our knowledge is limited by our sources.. right now the only sources available to me are television, radio, newspapers, and internet. The internet provides the most in quality and quantity so it is the one I rely on the most. Radio seems to be the worst source, providing an image of the conflict as something akin to Popeye the Sailor Man.

If these actions are condemned on such a large scale how is this happening. This is just a small percentage. If this is hurting the image of a peaceful religion why doesn't the greater mass become more vocal. No matter what you think no media could silence them. I don't think that anyone really believes that most Muslims support these act. But it would help if they could provide a little more support in stopping the violence.

[Azn Retribution]

Radio seems to be the worst source, providing an image of the conflict as something akin to Popeye the Sailor Man.


Hahhahaha
Your referring to the conservative AM radio talk shows right?
lol. Michael Medved and the like?

I turn them on for entertainment occasionally
it makes me wonder if they are quite serious about their beliefs
or if they are faking for controversy and just play devil's advocate
to the extreme.
or alternately if they are on some kind of drug.

[power puff girl]

i can understand why those protests got out of hand. it was the only effective alternative left to those protestors. mari matsuda made the point that affirmative action was not established until only after protests had turned violent, as a way to appease and buy off minorities. let's say those protestors had simply peacefully protestored those racist cartoons. what would have happened? nothing, the west would have ignored them untill they needed more oil.

in the scheme of things, who's been more violent- the united states or a few hundred protestors? who's the real terrorists?

[Azn Retribution]

i can understand why those protests got out of hand. it was the only effective alternative left to those protestors. mari matsuda made the point that affirmative action was not established until only after protests had turned violent, as a way to appease and buy off minorities. let's say those protestors had simply peacefully protestored those racist cartoons. what would have happened? nothing, the west would have ignored them untill they needed more oil.

in the scheme of things, who's been more violent- the united states or a few hundred protestors? who's the real terrorists?


.... I don't know if this is some kind of really stupid sarcasm
or if its meant to be taken seriously.

where to begin.

Even urkle is left speechless by the lack of reason or sanity in your overreaching retardedly stupid generalization.

http://x0f.xanga.com/8d9a2a762133135411097/z12233961.jpg
http://x23.xanga.com/6ddb267a1363140457301/z27587248.jpg

[haplesshobo]

SouthPark just had a two parter about this very controversy. I haven't watched that show in years as I felt it became too preachy but I did end up watching parts of this last show.

Their network wouldn't allow them to have a depiction of Mohommed on the show. So, when it came time to show Mohommed, the entire show was blacked out and you read a message that told the viewers that Comedy Central wouldn't allow them to show an image. Then, they followed it with Jesus Christ pooping all over the President or something like that.

It was their way of pointing out the hyprocisy of it all. You can't have an image of Mohommed because it would be disresptful to the Muslim religion. But, during the holiest week to the Christian fatith, you could have an image of Jesus pooping all over stuff.

[haplesshobo]

SouthPark just had a two parter about this very controversy. I haven't watched that show in years as I felt it became too preachy but I did end up watching parts of this last show.

Their network wouldn't allow them to have a depiction of Mohommed on the show. So, when it came time to show Mohommed, the entire show was blacked out and you read a message that told the viewers that Comedy Central wouldn't allow them to show an image. Then, they followed it with Jesus Christ pooping all over the President or something like that.

It was their way of pointing out the hyprocisy of it all. You can't have an image of Mohommed because it would be disresptful to the Muslim religion. But, during the holiest week to the Christian fatith, you could have an image of Jesus pooping all over stuff.

[Chad]

Why would a Christian watch southpark? For that matter, why would anyone watch southpark? what trite, horrible jokes. those guys have no talent.

[Faithless]

Why would a Christian watch southpark? For that matter, why would anyone watch southpark? what trite, horrible jokes. those guys have no talent.
Why? Spiritual vigilance. I mean, come on, Popetown? :rolleyes:

Spirit World: German Catholics protest MTV cartoon (http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_3713120)

A television cartoon about a senile pope, sexy nuns and a trio of criminal cardinals conspiring to become the world's richest people has caused widespread protests in Germany before it is even aired.

Although ''Popetown'' is not set to premiere on MTV until May 3, a trailer in which Jesus Christ has climbed down from the cross to watch TV - still with his crown of thorns and a slogan (''Don't just hang around. Have a laugh.'') in the background - already has generated an intense backlash from German Catholics.

At the urging of the Central Committee for German Catholics, many Germans have e-mailed protests to MTV. Additionally, Stern magazine reported Tuesday that dioceses in heavily-Catholic southern Germany are considering a lawsuit against MTV for disturbing the public peace.
- Religion News Service