rainheart

Alright let's see...

=] Actually, yes.

Right, I apologize if it seemed inflammatory but I got pretty worked up reading the first 3 pages of responses.

I'm not saying this is definitively the beginning of another world war, rather I am saying that at this rate of polarization, it could easily degenerate into it if we let it continue.

And to tell you exactly who the players are is very hard to do, the only thing I can give you is my best guess- none of us here have any sort of profound access to that information. My best guess at the moment? Something along the vague idea of the western world vs. the middle east.

Sorry but I found those choice of words very interesting. I'm talking about "philosophical" and "brethren". I don't think we are really getting too philosophical and that we are representatives of different fraternities. I think it's really more a matter of trying to define the reality of this matter and try to discuss what the most conductive solution to this problem would be.

Frankly reading your posts make me very, very scared. Just because I'm angry at you and some other people like you for making some very ignorant comments doesn't mean I am casting supreme judgement- it's no different than some of the things you've said, take a look:

Fallacious. You are equating the cartoonists with the people who are against the violent protests. The cartoonists however seem to care very little about freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin. People against these violent protests include many: moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, moderate muslims, and anyone else who basically, due to being sensible is labelled "moderate" to virtually cast aside some of the verity of their ideas. Bottom line: Not every person who is opposed to islam is a freedom lover.

The islamists and jihadists are seen as holy warriors doing the work of Allah because the Muslims are too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated by them. Exactly how has the actions of Al Qaeda been beneficial to muslims worldwide?

I don't think the real problem is that Muslims are violent. I think the real problem is that people are stupid. A group of protestors in these sorts of circumstances is very prone to rapidly degenerating into an angry lynch mob. Likewise, the backlash to violent Muslim protests seems to justify the reprinting of those prejudiced cartoons in the first place.

People are stupid, because they will respond to hatred with violence, and violence with more violence.

Let's take a gander at what happened then:
These cartoons depicted Muhammed, it is blasphemy to do so in Islam. Well fuck that, I agree that for that reason alone, the cartoons deserve to be reprinted. However, these cartoons did not stop there. They profiled all muslims because of their religion. Muhammed was the prophet who revealed the religion to it's followers, thus any attack on Muhammed will be perceived as an attack on all Muslims. The cartoons depicted all muslims as:
- Amoral
- Terrorists
- Misogynistic
- Aligned with satan

None of these things justify the violent protests. But the cartoons themselves are prejudiced. I should not (and would not) draw a cartoon depicting an average black person in queue for a welfare cheque. I should not draw a cartoon depicting the holy virgin Mary as a whore who bore a fatherless son. This is the same level at which some of those cartoons are.

Some of those cartoons cleverly hide behind the idea that they should be allowed to be reprinted because to refrain from doing so would be to restrict freedom of speech.
1. They are mixed among cartoons which are actually not very inflammatory at all.
2. They pose a question about freedom of speech which has already been answered: free speech and expression is limited to people who use it responsibly, and who implement it along with many civil rights including the freedom to not be discriminated against based on race, religion, and national origin- and many other things which at this time I don't think are relevant to this case in particular.

I disagree with most of this article. Let me explain on which points:
Did you ever stop and ask if it really was not slander against an entire people? There was a bomb in his turban. That's pretty slanderous if you ask me.

I reiterate, the cartoons should not be removed because they depict Muhammed, they should be removed for being prejudiced.

We'll eventually reach this state. We are in a positive feedback loop right now that goes as such:
1. Something happens that is perceived as persecution of muslims by the muslim community, but is not perceived so by the non-muslim community.
2. Muslim extremist leaders take delight and call to arms.
3. The number of muslim extremists increases, and they commit atrocities. The increased number of muslim extremists creates an environment in which the moderate muslims' voices are flooded out- media conglomorates often end up making the case worse.
4. Non muslim societies are disgusted, and they become diametrically opposed to all muslims. Backlash ensues and behold.. another thing happens that is perceived as persecution of muslims by the muslim community. One day it may even actually become persecution of muslims.
5. Rinse & repeat.

Many muslims have already said that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. But the funny thing, Aladdin, is that this article says "their assumption, dangerous in many ways, [is] that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people." How ironic that a person who partakes in this false assumption would post the very article.




I hope you're using "muslim barbarians" as a term to describe a narrow band of muslims.

In response to your questions: "Is it fair to say that the presence of so much Turkish culture in the neighbourhood "inflamed" the local skinheads?" -> No. It is unfair to say that.

"Should you suggest that the Turks try to change their behaviour so the skinheads would not be inflamed ot carry out acts of savagery?" No. I would not.

The problem is that you're asking irrelevant questions. You should be wondering: "Is it fair to say that the cartoons which depicted Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, which depicted him as a misogynist, in which one of them was written 'Prophet! Daft and dumb keeping women under thumb', were offensive to Muslims? Would we be offended if such a thing were said about us?"

I think you are really focussing on defining this as a very black-and-white issue, and I think you have to be careful about exactly the things you're saying. Seeing in absolutes is basically the talent of fundamentalists, and this is what I mean by manipulation. The few fundamentalists who do see things in black and white are very adept at making the rest of us believe things in such terms too. Fundamentalist muslims want us to believe that they represent all muslims, and fundamentalist christians want us to believe that they represent all christians- so that we end up getting dragged into conflicts that aren't really ours. And you know, when we get dragged into it, we'll be locked inside of conflicts that are of a very large scale- only because so many of us fell for these traps. And I know that I don't have all the ideas down perfectly but I'm positive I'm on the right path, so that's why I get argumentative about it. So you can see why I use potentially inflammatory words like "tool" to describe how I see people who would, from my p.o.v, do exactly the kind of thing that helps put more kindling on this fire until it consumes everything.