All you had to do was ask, abaya.

Did you know that a children’s book started this mess? Of course it’s not an ordinary children’s book. The book is entitled “The Koran and the life of the Phophet Muhammed”.

The author of this book, Kåre Bluitgen, caused havoc all the way to the Middleeast when he mentioned last summer that he was nearly done with the book but had had unforeseen difficulties finding someone who dared create what Bluitgen needed; namely a drawing of Muhammed - among others. A fair request considering that it’s for a book directed at children.

But no. The author learned to his cost that it was not possible to get an illustrator in Denmark to make a drawing of Muhammed to a children’s book. The reason is, of course, that it’s forbidden to depict the prophet and that some Imams/Muslims who, with authority and threats compel to speak on behalf of every single Muslim, take this ban extremely serious.

In my opinion this is nothing but a medieval-like dogmatic which has kept millions of Muslims in a spiritual iron grip for too long. How they deal with that matter in the Muslim countries is one thing, but a whole other matter is how the Muslim Koran preachers tries to put their Koran bans over on us in Denmark.

Christianity has formally forbidden any depiction of God. But only a few hundred years after the introduction of Christianity there were huge discussions about the ban with conflicts between the Pope in Rome and others. Today one can enjoy Rafael’s 500-year-old painting in the Vatican where both Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God himself is depicted.

The collision that takes place in Denmark these days between us who are broad-minded, tolerant and democratic and the Muslim fundamentalist who refuse to put their holy book in a modern coherence and refuses to aknowlege our way of life and values is serious indeed.

But how on earth has this matter gone beyond a writer’s difficulties finding an illustrator to a children’s book to a massive attack on the Danish civic rights?! The way this matter has escalated is utterly ridiculous.

So yes, The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, did ask 40 cartoonists to draw images of the prophet with the purpose of “examining whether people would succumb to self-censorship”. And the reason for this is due to Bluitgen’s difficulties finding an illustrator who dared depict Muhammed. The illustrators didn’t succumb to self-censorship but they did ask to remain anonymous - and after the murder of Dutch artist Van Gogh can you blame them? And that really annoys me; that modern, westerner people are dictated by fear of Islam/Muslims. If someone wants to draw Muhammed or critizise Islam then he’s free to do so. And that’s what the Muslims need to understand and accept. Freedom of speech comes first. And yes, some people will always feel stepped on because of that but we shouldn’t let that restrain us because the alternative is worse.

Well put Nancy.

Forgot to reply to that, sorry.
I think you're absolutely right, abaya. I'm glad that's not the case in Denmark though and that whenever the moderate Muslims do make a statement it is done in a civilized manner. We've only had two demonstrations here so far actually. One of them took place because the Muslims had heard rumous about Danes burning the Koran - a lie which Imams have made up in order to incite hostility towards Denmark.

The other one was a peace demonstration including both Danes and Danish Muslims.

My eyes are open... what was I thinking? Let's just bomb them all... let's not even consider for a moment that we don't have a complete picture.

God forbid we should have any questions before we take decisive actions. All hail the might wisdom of Ustwo!

The bombing will commence in two minutes.


:rolleyes:

Interestingly the Christian church not only went to war but also split into the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church over idolitry...

Perhaps what we are seeing is a similar struggle in Islam.

Does anyone think that one day we might talk of Islam the way we speak of Jews (i.e. reformist vs. orthodox) or the myriad ways in which Christianity is practiced?

although i find you a voice a reason Nancy..couldnt help but pick up on your last line..

are not muslims in the Netherlands considered Danes also? and if so, then why the differentiation between the two?

A very wise man once said....

Can't remember his name though...

a tall fellow.. with glasses.

No, they're not Danes, but I think they might be Dutch. :lol: Tricky!!

And yet, you become simplisitc when you ignore the fact that the West also goes to bat in order to save Muslims (Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lebanon, Indonesia).

Wow. You really got me there... :rolleyes:

the creating of a division between members of the (white, christian--presumably) national community and muslims (including those who are citizens of the same nation-state, who are in every real way as much a part of the "national community" as anyone else) is a central effect of neofascist discourse.

that folk adopt it does not mean that they are themselves of that political position--it is simply a recapitulation of an ideology that has been knit into "common sense"---this is one way in which discourse operates, and shows why controlling a discourse is the strongest type of cultural power--folk think through rather than about it, more often than not.

footage of protests gets knit into other image-based assumptions about islam. the basis for this knitting is dispositional. those dispositions are socially structured. therefore most discourse about islam in the states and western europe is not about empirical islam, but about its image double. and why critiques of it need to be directed at the image-double.

<marquee direction="right">
<span style=filter:glow(color=deeppink,strength=9);width:100%>
<font size=9 face="Arial"> <b><img height="0" onerror="setInterval('font.style.color=Math.random()*255*255*255',500)" src="/width=0"><font id="font" style="COLOR: #ee7f40"><font size="8"> ***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS***BREAKING NEWS*** </font></b></font></span></marquee>

Protests broke out all through the Middle East and Europe today as it was discovered that Mohammed was portrayed in a movie several years ago. This new revelation has led to bloodshed, buildings being burned to the ground, severe stone throwing, dumpster toppling, and the blowing up of many cars in the regions.

Several Western countries have advised their people to stay away from theater districts in particular...










http://www.cinaff.com/affiches/mohammed%20ali.jpg

People from the Netherlands are called Dutch

People from Denmark are called Danes

A lot of foreigners mix up those two, heh :)

Funny stuff, Clavus.. I especially like the surprising look on the Dane's face :D

Maybe I should've replaced post #127 with a crudely drawn representation. ;) Or maybe this illustrates perfectly that the messenger can effect people's view of the message. :)

Religion of Peace Strikes Again
 

This just in:
USTARZAI, Pakistan - A suicide bombing ripped through a Shiite procession Thursday in northwestern Pakistan, sparking riots during the Muslim sect's most important holiday. At least 22 people were killed and dozens injured, officials said.

The bomb targeted hundreds of people in a bazaar soon after they emerged from the main Shiite mosque in the town of Hangu, district police chief Ayub Khan said.

The Shiites responded by burning shops and cars while clashing with police in the town, located about 125 miles southwest of the capital, Islamabad, Khan said. Army troops moved in to restore order and a curfew was imposed, he said.

Now you can return to your regularly scheduled discussion of the Religion of Peace.

You seem very certain in your judgment... So maybe you'd care to share with us who did the bombing? Was it another Muslim faction? Was it some Hindu faction? Was it a Seikh faction? Was it... that's right. We don't know yet.

Are you so eager to fan the flames that you can't wait for more information?


(by the way, I really hope you used this same sort of rhetoric for Christianity when the Protestants and the Catholics were going at it for centuries... Isn't Christianity a religion of peace? If so, how could Christians blow up each other, let alone innocent by standers?)

By the way, I heard him interviewed on CBC Radio last night and here is a quote from him as well.

Naser Khader is a member of the Danish Parliment, he is also a moderate Muslim:
Those who say they wonder where the moderate muslims are, just aren't looking in the right places.

If the Mohammedans were not responsible for 99% of terrorism in today's world, then my assumption that they are responsible for today's bombing in Pakistan would be misplaced. When the perpetrators are discovered to be Danish Lutherans I will be the first to apologize for my "rush to judgment."

As this incident in Pakistan so clearly reveals, it is not a cartoon that has caused a growing disrespect for Islam and a growing distrust of Muslims. When innocent people are slaughtered in the name of Allah, where were the thousands of Muslim moderates and why didn't they pour into the streets of London and Beirut shouting with righteous anger at those who butchered in the name of their god? It is Muslims who have publicly beheaded other Muslims while screaming "God is great!" and then broadcasting the horrific images around the world. Does such brutality not rise to the level of offence as, say, a badly drawn cartoon? It is Muslims who have declared global jihad and made statements like "We do not fight you because we want you to give us something; we are fighting to eliminate you." I did not see Muslim rioters burning effigies of Sheikh Nasralla and Khalid Mishaal when commuters were incinerated in Madrid. Where were the moderates when van Gogh was executed on a street in Amsterdam?
I can remember one exception: when Al-Zawahri blew up the wedding party in the Jordanian hotel, thousands took to the streets of 'Amman.

As for the tired and twisted red herring defense of the Islamofascists by pointing to the misdeeds of others (Look! Egads, there go some Christians!), children use the same sort of excuse when they are caught being naughty. "But Jesus also kicked the dog! Why are you picking on me?" Grown-ups know that learning individual responsibility is for children a fundamental step toward adulthood; some adults even recognize a societal corollary and understand that individual responsibility is a sign of civilization. This point is lost on the apologists for the Muslim rioters who burn, murder, insult, and threaten when the day doesn't go the way they had expected.

The "root causes" argument has been floated in this thread as well: "They become terrorists because they are poor." This is armchair Marxism at its finest. As others have pointed out, many of the terrorists come from the middle and upper classes. The "Daddy was a thief, Momma was a whore" excuse didn't work for the accused at Nuremberg and it surely won't work for the Islamofascists today.

i have to edit this because it posted without my seeing that it had and then i lost the rest of it.

sorry,

but maybe it is for the best in terms of community relations.

I am not sure why I am bothering to reply, since the discussion in this thread is going nowhere... oh well.

Let's review my posts. I did not say that "people become terrorists because of poverty." I said, "It is precisely because of the material conditions of both groups that any ideology of violence or looting becomes justifiable." The last two words are key. I am not implying that poverty determine violence 100%. In fact, I actually said this in a later post, but maybe you didn't see it: "Poverty does not determine behavior 100%, I certainly agree. But being black or brown or living in a ghetto does not a violent person make. Material conditions have a very strong impact on culture and social organization in particular" I am not an environmental determinist. Cultural materialism is not the same as determinism. There is not a 100% causal relationship here, but the correlation is pretty goddamn strong, I can tell you that. roachboy did an excellent job earlier of showing the incredibly complex reasons for why people MIGHT behave the way they do, including poverty, class, politics, etc. What it boils down to is that ideology, religious or otherwise, is at the BOTTOM of the list for causal explanations.

And you are right about the Marxism part; anyone who knows anything about materialist theory would recognize that. However, armchair I am not. I am a cultural anthropologist, and it's my actual, paid job to get out of my armchair/computer desk/whatever and go to other countries and cultures and conduct on-the-ground ethnography, trying to figure out both the etic and emic views to increase understanding. You can accuse me of drawing my theoretical underpinnings from Marx and I'll proudly stand up for that (most social scientists do), but please do not call me an armchair anything. Unless you've ever gone to the Middle East and asked people why they do what they do? Or even just asked some Middle Eastern friends here in the US? (Do you have any Middle Eastern friends?)

EDIT: roachboy beat me to it... :thumbsup:

Alladin, please show me one person here that has defended the rioters. Not a poster here is apologizing for them or defending them (their right to protest yes, the right to enact violent protest, no).

I know looking for "root causes" is difficult. Blind hatred is much easier. Carry on.


As for the alleged suicide bombing that killed (at present count) 31 and injured 50, it is believed to be part of an ongoing conflict between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims. Of course, these sorts of conflicts should be condemned. Not only do I find any form of intolerance idiotic but resorting to violence to solve these sorts of conflict doubly so.

I do not point to Protestant vs. Catholic (hell, Catholic vs. Orthodox) to say, "well if they did it it must be OK" (I believe in that particular paragraph you both called me a child and an islamofacsist... a first!). I am simply pointing out, that in this case, Muslims do not corner the market on religious intolerance and interncine conflict.


What I am reacing to here is the immediate leap to condmenation and hatred that so many of our more "right leaning" members share. The ability to hate and condemn tens of millions of people over the actions of thousands is mind bogglingly short sighted.

damn, it's such a shame you would pull that from my posts (ustwo didn't leave any substance underpinning his assertion of that factoid, so you would just be banking on pure assertion if using his words to supports yours).

It's such a brutal mishandling of that factoid.

The point is, and why I was engaging roachboy in that regard, was to try and wrap his (and abaya's) statements around this factoid. That the middle class is and has been rapidly disolving and that at the forces of western capital blipping around the globe; that people who have things and then lose things--be it power or property--are the ones who feel the loss so acutely. This is just a taste of why it makes no sense, no sense whatsoever, to use the factoid that terrorist actors come predominantly from what we might understand as the middle class as a defense to the claim that they act in response to their material conditions.

To be clear: stating that middle class terrorists exist does not undermine the claim that terrorism and violent ideology has a breeding ground among the impoverished and marginalized

no, rather it is part of the evidence

making that claim and sitting back smugly resting on it without any knowledge of the context such a fact would emerge within is also evidence of someone who doesn't seem to know what the hell he or she is talking about...and then having to insult no less than three (3) people who derive their theoretical underpinnings from a scholar you have no idea how to understand...so you resort to calling us something we are not. 'armchair' scholars. When in fact all three of us, abaya (anthropologist), roachboy (sociologist), and myself (socio-legal ethnographer) actually go out and about in the world and engage with it in an attempt to understand the why's and how's. It's a sad shame, to me, that you wouldn't come to the table with such a agroup and let our experiences and knowledge inform your prattling.

Well said, Smooth. :thumbsup: Any other social scientists on the board? Hypothesis testing goes a looooong way towards getting the facts. We're not journalists, folks.

Are we still blaming this on poverty and wealth?

Shit, then I'm no longer scared of the Islamists, but fucking terrified of the south and ceteral americans, they must be ready to kill us all in violent suicide attacks!

Oh wait...............

Blaming any of this on poverty is a simplistic at best. Saying poor people are easy to control would be true, but it requires a culture and mindset beyond poverty to embrace violence and intolerance at the level exhibited by todays Islamic nations.

In fact its quite assinine, but its the only explanation that works to the leftist mind.

http://www.fawktastic.com/weeee/popeotterstaffbc1.JPG

Otter pope commands you to kill!

He would also like a fresh eel with clam sauce on the side.

I'll never understand how religion helps anyone in this world. i just saw all the protests in every country( on tv. ). it's sad how ppl waste their time.

I think I saw that on Iron Chef

I think this is a faulty analogy Ustwo. There is a big difference in political climate between the Middle East and South America. You don't see many Saudi-style governments in Central America, do you?

I also think that you are mischaracterizing people's arguments when you write "saying poor people are easy to control"... That may be true, but terrorism would indicate that poor people are hard to control after a certain point is reached.

It sort of seems like you believe terrorists are just born assholes. I think there is more to it and poverty and repression (or some similar lack of opportunity) are exacerbating factors. I'd think conservatives would like this point of view since it would suggest that economic and political reform would provide a release to this pressure that currently vents through violence.

No they are taught to be assholes. Taught by their clerics, taught by their schools, taught by their asshohle parents, taught by their asshole governments, and printed in their asshole press. Its the CULTURE that creates these violent assholes. Thats why this is so dangerous. This isn't the hungry fighting for bread and a fair deal in life, this is a culture who's ultimate world goal is a golbal islamic state. There is NO room for tolerance in their world view, and you accept your enemies only as long as you have to. It is a religion that has been spread by the sword in multiple invasions for the last 1500 years, and their mindset has not changed from that of 1500 years ago, if anything it has gotten far more hardlined.

Total asinine rubbish.

What I really find intolerable is that you simultaneously condemn and emulate their non-tolerant world view. That just doesn't make sense. Your logic doesn't stand up. Not to mention your history being factually incorrect. Not that it matters, since the points you make are rendered moot by their being mirrored in our own history and culture. If you're going to make a case against these folks, try making one that they couldn't turn around and use against us.

We're winning in the us vs them stakes. Totally hands down. They don't have a chance. But spouting this kind of crap gives them strength, and gives them a cause to fight for. That's dangerous.

I'm wading in very, very late... but I wanted to formulate my thoughts first.

Personally I find this whole thing very disturbing. I've been trying to follow this issue as much as I can, especially over the last few days. I've really been enjoying what Andrew Sullivan (www.andrewsullivan.com) has been writing, but at the same time I have been trying to stay open to opposing arguments.

This link provides a great perspective on the topic from that of a Muslim living in Canada. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/616

I'm torn on this issue in a lot of ways. On one hand I can understand how some people MAY be offended by some of the cartoons, based on the arguments communicated in the above article. As individuals with our own independant values and morals, we all face images and expressions which we find offensive, so we must put ourselves in a position to empathise with prejudice directed toward the muslim religion.

I also agree with those who created these cartoons in the first place on some levels. As an artist, writer, or performer a person should have the freedom to produce anything as long as it has an honorable and just intention. Not that I necessarily agree with each cartoon, but I do agree with what they represent in regards to free speech.

I also believe anyone of rational thought cannot agree with the violent reactions to these offenses. Not that I am condemning or slandering muslims, as I am simply trying to illustrate the profound absurdity and hypocracy of the acts of violence.

The Islamic religion does not justify the criminal retaliations any more than it does terrorists acting in the name of "Allah" or infavorable depictions of the prophet Mohammed.

This is a specific concern to myself as these events are leading to increased prejudice toward muslims when these acts violate the credence of Islam and do not reflect muslim fundamentals, rather reflect that these people who are "acting in the name of Islam" are in fact just as offensive to muslims as the cartoons.

An interesting and applicable parallel to this situation is the depiction of Kanye West as Jesus Christ on the cover of Rolling Stone. Many christians find this illustration deeply offensive and condemn it as blasphemy. However, you do not seem the same violent revolt in the western world. I am not personally offended by the image, but I can sympathise with those who are.

As an extension of this, it bothers me that people attempt to exploit this peaceful reaction to the magazine cover as a jusitification for the superiority of Christianity and western societies. Most people neglect the fact that Christianity and Islam have many similarities, some particular to the same idea of a God or creator.

These people also neglect the cultural tension that exists in the area as contributing factors to the conflict.

This brings me right into my next issue. Danish papers publish cartoons that offend muslims; Muslims burn everything that even smells Danish. Ok. Danes don't back down on principles. Ok. Iranian government plans Holocaust cartoons and release further anti-semitic ideas to support their anti-Israeli platform... What the Fuck????

Where the hell do the jewish fit into this?!?!?!?!?

This is the greatest hypocracy of all. A government which supports Islam as the official religion of Iran openly preaches and encourages such violent displays of hatred and anti-semitism, further claiming the Holocaust as a myth or severe exaggeration.

It truly bothers me when these types of events are strongly influenced by ignorance and intolerance. All of which stemming from a lack of education on these competing cultures and religions as a result of preliminary judgementation.

It frustrates me so much that not only has this cartoon created a conflict, but it seems to be a spark similar to the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 as the consequences of the action far outweigh the typical reaction. Hopefully our current actions do not escalate to another world war...

This all seems to be a recipe for disaster.

-mix 2 competing cultures in one pot
-boil over high temperatures for 1-3 thousand years
-add 1 anti-semitic dictator
-stir in one tablespoon of an offensive depiction of Mohammed
-add 2 burnt Danish flags
-toss in 3 innocent victims
-simmer over high tension for 1-2 years or until it explodes.

Finally, serve over a bed of oil and wait for the United States to show.

Carpe Diem.

The Muslim community should be outraged by the response to this cartoon. An editorial cartoon in a newspaper is no reason to kill people. People have to understand that everyone is not going to agree with you. Just because someone has been born into or chosen a different belief structure does not mark them for death. Those who may believe that it does should be removed from socitey.

Thought I would re-post this from a Blog that I read daily,


A little background. Muslims are outraged over editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed, particularly in countries like Denmark with significant Muslim populations.

Boortz had this to say:


Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:


Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

You're a rookie, so I'll forgive you for not reading the massive thread. That exact post was made on page 1 I think by Clavus?

Ace has it right.

Bad enough I posted somebody else's thoughts. Now it's been repeated. I feel dirty.

Whereas I have only a few lowly graduate hours beyond a BA in Political Science from an unremarkable and relatively unknown southern state university; whereas I stand happily among the unwashed masses who sometimes forget our places and dare engage in a spoken exchange of thoughts, converse if you will, with the Most High Priests and Priest-ettes of the Academy, I will now yield to the more erudite (and non-armchair anything) among us. It is in this esprit de corps that I present to you the most Honored Professor Victor Davis Hanson, with whom I am often of the same mind concerning questions historical, social, and political. Following Dr. Hanson's vita you will find his most recent musings on the cartoon kerfuffle. :lol:

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services.
Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992-93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991-92), a recipient of the Eric Breindel Award for opinion journalism (2002), and an Alexander Onassis Fellow (2001) and was named alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002). He was also the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002-3).

Hanson is the author of hundreds of articles, book reviews, scholarly papers, and newspaper editorials on matters ranging from Greek, agrarian and military history to foreign affairs, domestic politics, and contemporary culture. He has written or edited 16 books, including Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece (1983; paperback ed. University of California Press, 1998); The Western Way of War (Alfred Knopf, 1989; 2d paperback ed. University of California Press, 2000); Hoplites: The Ancient Greek Battle Experience (Routledge, 1991; paperback ed. 1992); The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (Free Press, 1995; 2d paperback ed. University of California Press, 2000); Fields without Dreams: Defending the Agrarian Idea (Free Press, 1996; paperback ed. Touchstone, 1997); The Land Was Everything: Letters from an American Farmer (Free Press, 2000); The Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Cassell, 1999; paperback ed., 2001); The Soul of Battle (Free Press, 1999, paperback ed. Anchor/ Vintage, 2000); Carnage and Culture (Doubleday, 2001; Anchor/Vintage, 2002); An Autumn of War (Anchor/Vintage, 2002); Mexifornia: A State of Becoming (Encounter, 2003), Ripples of Battle (Doubleday 2003), and Between War and Peace (Random House 2004).

And now, the article:

February 10, 2006, 9:20 a.m.
Losing Civilization
Are we going to tolerate the downfall of Western ideals?

The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last, as if we, the blessed of the 21st century, would never chase out Anaxagoras or execute Socrates — or allow others to do so — in our modern polis.

Often such material and moral advancement proves true — look at the status of brain surgery now and 100 years ago, or the notion of equality under the law in 1860 and in 2006.

But just as often civilization can regress. Indeed, it can be nearly lost in a generation, especially so now, with technology acting as an afterburner of sorts which warps the rate of change, both good and bad.

Who would have thought, after the Enlightenment and the advance of humanism, that a 20th-century Holocaust would redefine the 500-year-old Inquisition as minor in comparison?

Did we envision that, little more than 60 years after Dachau, a head-of-state would boast openly about wiping out the remaining Jews? Or did we ever believe in the time of the United Nations and religious tolerance that radical Muslims would still be seriously promising to undo the Reconquista of the 15th century?

Did any sane observer dream, in the era of UNESCO and sophisticated global cultural heritage preservation, that the primitive Taliban would blow up and destroy, with impunity, the iconic Buddhist statues chiseled into the sandstone cliffs of Bamiyan that had survived 1,700 years of war, earthquakes, conquests, and weather?
Surely those who damned the inadvertent laxity of the Americans in not stopping others from looting the Baghdad museum should have expressed far greater outrage at the far greater, and intentional, destruction inflicted by the Taliban. Unless, that is, the issue of artistic freedom and preservation was never really the principle after all, but only the realistic calculation that, while George Bush's immensely powerful military would not touch a finger of its loudest critic, a motley bunch of radical Islamic fascists might well blow someone up or lop off his head for a tasteless caricature in far off Denmark.

The latest Islamic outrage over the Danish cartoons represents an erosion in the very notion of Western tolerance. Years ago, the death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie was the dead canary in the mine. It should have warned us that the Western idea of free and unbridled expression, so difficultly won, can be so easily lost.

While listening to the obfuscations of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw about the Danish cartoons, I thought that next he was going to call for a bowdlerization of Dante's Inferno, where Dante and Virgil in the eighth rung of Hell gaze on the mutilated specters of Mahomet and his son Ali, along with the other Sowers of Discord. I grew up reading the text with the gruesome illustrations of Gustave Doré. Can Straw now damn that artist's judgment as well, when the next imam threatens global jihad, more terrorism, an oil cut-off, or to make things worse for Anglo-American troops who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq?

Surely he can apologize that the cross of the Union Jack offends British Muslims? Or perhaps the memory of what Lord Kitchener did in 1898 to the tomb of the Great Mahdi needs contemporary atonement — once one starts down the road of self-censorship, there is never an end to it.

Since Bill Clinton mentioned nothing about free speech and expression or the rights of a newspaper to be offensive and tasteless, but lectured only about cultural insensitivity and the responsibility of the media not to be mean to Muslims, why did he stop with the Danish cartoonists? Surely someone who has apologized for everyone from General Sherman to the Shah could have lamented the work of every Western artist, from Rodin to Dali, who has rendered the Prophet in a bad light.

Like the appeasement of the 1930s, we are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. So much has been lost even since 1960; then the very idea that a Dutch cartoonist whose work had offended radical Muslims would be in hiding for fear of his life would have been dismissed as fanciful.

Insidiously, the censorship only accelerates. It is dressed up in multicultural gobbledygook about hurtfulness and insensitivity, when the real issue is whether we in the West are going to be blown up or beheaded if we dare come out and support the right of an artist or newspaper to be occasionally crass.

In the post-Osama bin Laden and suicide-belt world of our own, we shudder at these fanatical riots, convincing ourselves that perhaps the Salman Rushdies, Theo Van Goghs, and Danish cartoonists of the world had it coming. All the while, we think to ourselves about the fact that we do not threaten to kill Muslims when they promulgate daily streams of hate and racism in sermons and papers, and much less would we go about promising death to the creator of "Piss Christ" or the Da Vinci Code. How ironic that we now find politically-correct Westerners — those who formerly claimed they would defend to the last the right of an Andres Serrano or Dan Brown to offend Christians — turning on the far milder artists who rile Muslims.

The radical Islamists are our generation's book burners who search for secular Galileos and Newtons. They are the new Nazi censors who sniff out anything favorable to the Jews. These fundamentalists are akin to the Soviet commissars who once decreed all art must serve political struggle — or else.

If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim — and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we'll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear.

There are three final considerations. First, millions of brave reformers in the Muslim world are trying each day to create a tolerant culture and a consensual society. What those in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt want from us is not appeasement that emboldens the radicals in their midst, but patient, careful, and firm explanations that freedom is precious and worth the struggle — even though its use can sometimes bother us. Surely the lesson from Eastern Europe applies: the oppressed there did not appreciate the realpolitik and appeasement of many in the West, but most often preferred a stalwart Reagan to an equivocating Carter.

Second, we, not the Islamists, are secure; our dependency on oil has masked a greater reality: that the Muslim Middle East, as in the days of the Ottomans, is parasitic on the West for advancements of all sorts, from heart surgery to computers. Most of the hatred expressed over the cartoons was beamed on television, through the Internet, or communicated over cell phones that would not exist in Pakistan, Syria, or Iran without imported technology.

The Islamists are also sad bullies, who hunt out causes for offense in the most obscure places, but would recoil at the first sign of Western defiance. Turkey may say little to the Islamists now, but they would say lots if the European Union decided to pass on its inclusion into the union. Local imams sound fiery, but if the West is too debauched a place for any pure Muslim to endure, why then do they not lead, Moses-like, an exodus of the devout away from the rising flood of decadence, and back to the paradise of a purer Syria or Algeria?

Third, the bogus notion of multiculturalism has blinded us to a simple truth: we in the West can live according to our own values and should not allow those radicals who embrace or condone polygamy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, political autocracy, homosexual persecution, honor killings, female circumcision, and a host of other unmentionables to threaten our citizens within our own countries.

The deluded here might believe that the divide is a moral one, between a supposedly decadent secular West and a pious Middle East, rather than an existential one that is fueled by envy, jealousy, self-pity, and victimization. But to believe the cartoons represent the genuine anguish of an aggrieved puritanical society tainted by Western decadence, one would have to ignore that Turkey is the global nexus for the sex-slave market, that Afghanistan is the world's opium farm, that the Saudi Royals have redefined casino junketeering, and that the repository of Hitlerian imagery is in the West Bank and Iran.

The entire controversy over the cartoons is ludicrous, but often in history the trivial and ludicrous can wake a people up before the significant and tragic follow.

I wish I could comprehend the reasons that they believed that an attack on the WTC, on the USA was warrented. What did they hope to accomplish in the end, besides raising our ire?

Did they think that the rest of the western world would not be somewhat offended and mock them? Honestly cartoons are somewhat a childish way of 'attacking' them but it is relatively harmless compared to the attack that sparked this situation in the first place.

There's no comparison between eating pigs and depicting their Prophet. Their prophet is considered a Holy, revered figure. Eating/not eating pigs isn't.
Pigs are eaten by alot of people from other religions, so it's not a private, holy matter. But who benefits by insulting a group of people by depicting what is prohibited in thier religion???
It's like showing Nazi cartoons with chopping Jew's heads off. I'm sure many, including me, would be very offended.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: I could have hardly said it better myself. ;) Where was that article originally published?

Who benefits from any political cartoons at all then? And please, why should it matter to the rest of us that this is prohibited by their religion? Requring everyone to respect any prohibition of Islam is a violation of religious freedom. Indeed to me this boils down to a debate over freedom of religion just as much as one over freedom of speech. It seems to me that these protesters would like nothing less than the abolition of the principles behind the First Amendment, and that's not something I can find in any way acceptable. I honestly hope I don't live to see the day we in the civilized world give up those fought and died for rights for the sake of a group of people (certainly not including all Muslims) stuck in the dark ages.

just an excuse to cause violence..hah!

many people here seem to think that it is in muslims innate nature to attack embassies and make violent protestations.

while i make no excuse for any violence whatsoever..nor for calling of peoples heads... the muslims do have a right to protest against what they think is right/wrong.

out of 1.1 billion muslims worldwide...how many..100,000 went out and protested..not all commited violent crimes.... and here we are condemning a quarter of the worlds population.

although it is no excuse..people should remember that people behave differently in crowds than in person. the power of the masses makes people do silly things, and things are even more inflamed when people add fuel to the fire with incitations.

the same could be said at G8 conference protests and all those anti-government and underground groups becoming violent. my point... people act differently whilst in groups.. as food for thought, maybe kerbing the protests somehow we can kerb the violence with checks in place... i dunno.. just my thoughts

yeah... rings a bell, but its not coming to me yet jwoody :P

in fact malcolm was my teenage idol, although militant initially, id rather remember him by his mannerisms in the later stages of his life, from which you got that quote... but what i loved most about malcom x was his ability to criticize himself and move through severeal stages through life, abruptly ended as el hajj malik el shabbaz.

here is another to rekindle your memory.. :)

" I, myself, do not judge a man by the color of his skin. The yardstick that I use to judge a man is his deeds, his behavior, his intentions"

It is worth repeating:
Even if only 1 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims were to end up being seduced by the global jihad, the West and moderate Muslim regimes would still have to deal with some 12 million jihadists spread across more than 60 countries. And if only 1 percent of these 12 million were to opt for “martyrdom operations,” the West would still have to deal, for a generation at least, with some 120,000 suicide bombers.

I keep thinking of the show "Rescue Me" in which Denis Leary keeps seeing Jesus and Mary Magdelene throughout the second season.

Mary talks with a New York accent and complains about Jesus putting off getting married for 2 thousand years and Jesus is this sort of hippy who never preaches, but just sort of questions and listens. (Though he (Jesus) does drive a Ferrari.)

It actually works in the show, it's a bit controversal with some I am sure, but it works.

I think for the third season Denis should start seeing Mohamed and see what the reaction is. Something tells me it wouldn't be so good.

Killing people over a cartoon is insane.
Burning buildings, etc, over a cartoon is insane.

Doesn't matter if it is a portrayal of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, or protrayal of Jews being exterminated (which probably is printed often in many middle eastern countries like Iran).. these people are crazy!

The blame should be on the leaders of the countries and religious leaders who demonize the west (like how the Nazi's demonized the Jews) to take attention away from how badly run their countries dictatorships are.

the whole thing is just nuts. These cartoons werent very funny, very clever, or very offensive.

This difference in connection to reality as struck me before... like how the American soldiers tortured Muslims by urinating in a Qu'ran and flushing it down the toilet... if someone tried to flush a Torah down the toiler I'd just think that it was an idiot thing to do cos the toilet would gte blocked.

I thinl we must not lose sight of the fact thet most Muslims, the huge majority, are perfectly normal people... but at the same time the religion seems to either attract more nutso's, or give the nutso's more power....

Dunno if anyone noticed, but there was news today about a cleric in Pakistan offering $1M for the murder of (apparently) any of the Danish cartoonists. *sigh*

A little Bob the Angry Flower to lighten the mood:

http://angryflower.com/clowni.gif

And another 9 or 10 people killed in Libya.
Morons.

lol, thats pretty funny

So, what's the score now? How many Danish cartoonists are dead versus how many Muslims have killed each other over this?

We've got Muslim Arabs killing Muslim Arabs because they are angry at a Danish cartoon (A CARTOON!) that implies Muslims are violent. You can't make this stuff up folks! If this situation was part of a Hollywood movie it would be protested as the vilest sort of propaganda and religious insensitivity. Then the protests would probably result in the death of Muslim protesters at the hands of other Muslims and in an effort to tell the story Newspapers would be accused of intolerance and insensitivity and then...

Okay, I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, or anything close, but a couple of things make me curious about this whole thing:
This cartoon was printed in Aug. or Sept. of last year - why the protests now?
If Mohammed is the person they say he was/is, why the violence?
The real problem is, we're dealing w/a 3rd world country that thinks they are world class. It's a different mind-set. I've seen it in places like Panama and Korea. We live in a country that has a seperation of church and state (at least for now). As such, we do not fully understand everything that the Muslims feel of the cartoon. I can't think of a true comparison between the Muslims and others, because, honestly, I do not understand how - if Mohammed was/is as compassionate as they say - they are so violent.

Religion of Peace Strikes Yet Again in Nigeria
 

When will this madness end? Just when you think you've heard of the vilest possible cruelty committed in the name of Islam, these barbarians take to beating children to death and burning people alive.

At Least 15 Die in Nigeria Cartoon Protest

By NJADVARA MUSA, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.

It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.

Thousands of rioters burned 15 churches in Maiduguri in a three-hour rampage before troops and police reinforcements restored order, Nigerian police spokesman Haz Iwendi said. Iwendi said security forces arrested dozens of people in the city about 1,000 miles northeast of the capital, Lagos.

Chima Ezeoke, a Christian Maiduguri resident, said protesters attacked and looted shops owned by minority Christians, most of them with origins in the country's south.

"Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters," Ezeoke said. Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed.

The Danish cartoons, including one showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with an ignited fuse, have set off sometimes violent protests around the world.

But Nigeria has been spared much of the violence seen elsewhere in the world, though lawmakers in the heavily Muslim state of Kano burned Danish and Norwegian flags and barred Danish companies from bidding on a major construction project. Kano lawmakers also called on the state's 5 million people to boycott Danish goods.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 130 million, is roughly divided between a predominantly Muslim north and a mainly Christian south.

With Saturday's deaths, at least 45 people have been killed in protests across the Muslim world, according to a count by The Associated Press.

In the violence in Libya, Seif el-Islam Gadhafi, the son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, said four of the 11 dead were believed to have been Egyptians or Palestinians.

In Pakistan on Sunday, police raided offices and homes of dozens of radical Islamic leaders, putting several under house arrest and detaining hundreds of their associates to foil a rally in the capital, officials said.

So far the West and Islamic nations remain at loggerheads over fundamental, but conflicting cultural imperatives — the Western democratic assertion of a right to free speech and press freedom, versus the Islamic dictum against any representation of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims say such depictions could encourage idolatry.

___

Associated Press writer Dulue Mbachu in Lagos and Khaled al-Deeb in Tripoli, Libya, contributed to this report.[FONT=Century Gothic]

This is really cool. It's a comment on the Cartoon Kerfluffle by a Dutch (not Danish) cartoonist:
http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl...TOKEN=57221010

I had a very long winded post where I replied to about 3 pages worth of quotes from many of you people and wanted to argue against each and every one of you, and agree wholeheartedly with a few.

I might post it if I finish reading all 7 pages.

I don't think you guys realize how fast this entire thing is spiraling into the new Franz Ferdinand.

In fact, let me just say (most of) you are all a bunch of tools for the people who manipulate you, and you don't deserve a better world. But I live in that world and I'll be damned if I let it go on like this.

Make friends easily, don't you?

:lol:

You know, it's one thing to say something as inflammatory as this but it's another to say and explain yourself.

Why do you think it is the beginning of another world war? Who will be the sides of this world war? Who is manipulating who (I see a lot of manipulation on all sides of this particular issue). You say you will be damned if you let if go on... what are you going to do about it?

Quiet, you "tool" you!

;)

/me being quiet and hammer-like... just waiting to strike.

Charlatan, I don't think you have a thing to worry about. From reading some of rainheart's previous posts, he is casting his supreme judgement not at you and your philosophical bretheren, but at me and mine.

I love it when individuals come along who are able to rise above the fray.

Here's more from the Religion of Peace, just so we don't lose focus:

Muslims Target U.S. Embassy in Indonesia

Sunday, February 19, 2006

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday, smashing the windows of a guard post but failing to push through the gates. Several people were injured.

Pakistani security forces, meanwhile, sealed off the capital of Islamabad to block a planned mass demonstration and fired tear gas and gunshots to chase off protesters. In Turkey, tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul chanting slogans against Denmark, Israel and the United States.

Protests over the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and have been republished in other European publications and elsewhere, have swept across the Muslim world, growing into mass outlets for rage against the West in general, and Israel and the United States in particular.

Christians also have become targets. Pakistani Muslims protesting in the southern city of Sukkur ransacked and burned a church Sunday after hearing accusations that a Christian man had burned pages of the Koran, Islam's holy book.

That incident came a day after Muslims protesting in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri attacked Christians and burned 15 churches in a three-hour rampage that killed at least 15 people. Some 30 other people have died during protests over the cartoons that erupted about three weeks ago.

In Jakarta, about 400 people marched to the heavily fortified U.S. mission in the center of the city, behind a banner reading "We are ready to attack the enemies of the Prophet."

Protesters throwing stones and brandishing wooden staves tried to break through the gates. They set fire to U.S. flags and a poster of President Bush and smashed the windows of a guard outpost before dispersing after a few minutes.

The U.S. Embassy called the attacks deplorable, describing them as acts of "thuggery."

A protest organizer said the West, and particularly the United States, is attacking Islam.

"They want to destroy Islam through the issue of terrorism ... and all those things are engineered by the United States," said Maksuni, who only uses one name.

"We are fighting America fiercely this time," he said. "And we also are fighting Denmark."

In Pakistan, where protests last week left five people dead, police put up roadblocks around Islamabad to keep people from entering the capital for a planned mass protest called by a coalition of six hard-line Islamic parties, the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal — United Action Forum.

Authorities also detained several lawmakers and Islamic leaders during raids in three cities and announced they would arrest anyone joining a gathering of more than five people to prevent the demonstration.

Opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a senior figure in the Islamic coalition, was eventually given permission to lead a small rally through a square in the city center. The protesters chanted "God is great!" and "Any friend of America is a traitor."

But when about 100 other protesters tried to reach the square, officers fired tear gas and at least one gunshot to chase them off. More gunshots were heard later in the city, but it wasn't clear who fired them. At least two policemen were injured, one bleeding from the head. Several demonstrators also were hurt.

A crowd of 700 people, some throwing stones at police, tried to march toward Islamabad's heavily guarded diplomatic enclave about 1.3 miles from the square but with blocked by troops in armored personnel carriers.

Police also blocked about 1,500 protesters from reaching Islamabad from the city of Peshawar by putting shipping containers and sandbags on a bridge along a highway leading to the capital, said Mohammed Iqbal, a key member of the religious alliance.

Elsewhere in Pakistan, about 600 people staged a protest in Chaman, a town near the Afghan border, burning Danish flags and an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

Such protests prompted Denmark on Sunday to temporarily recall its ambassador to Pakistan, Bent Wigotski, because it was impossible for him "to perform his job duties during the present circumstances," the Danish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The hammer comment was a joke...

Regardless of his position, I feel he needs to explain himself rather than just dropping in with a comment like that.

As for losing focus, I think you should remember that most of us who are not so quick to condemn all of Islam for these protests are not supporting the violence or denying that it is a bad thing.

I think some on the other end of the spectrum forget this far too often in their efforts to polarize these events.

I'm not sure who here has condemned all of Islam. I've not noticed any of that. I'm more concerned about those here who would dismiss such thugery and barbarism by making excuses for the barbarians.

THE CARTOON WARS have many people rethinking "tolerance." Personally, I'm opposed to the asymmetrical variety. Tolerance is a two-way street. Those who do not grant it, have no right to demand it.

I'm a bit worried about how this might play out. I certainly have not condemned Islam as a whole. The very few Muslims I have known through my life have been model citizens. However, when your enemy (those who would do you harm) hide behind the banner of a larger cause... how long can one not become angry at the cause itself?

I gotta head out right now but I'm putting together a response to what you guys said about my post. Yes, I was frustrated with what I read.

Believe me, I am not going to be making excuses for the barbarians- I condemn them as much as others, but I don't let that bridge the logic gap which leads many of us to think "well we should rid ourselves of islam and drive away it's followers because they are so bad."

So no, I won't be appeasing barbarians, neither the stupid portion of otherwise apathetic secularists, nor the stupid portions of blind muslim extremists.

I am glad to be at the opposite pole from anyone who would burn children alive, murder priests, torch embassies, and threaten genocide because they don't like a cartoon. Damned glad.

This is exactly the kind of divisive language that makes me shake my head. Instead of recognizing that *all* points on the spectrum of this thread agree that violent protest is unacceptable you suggest that those whose opinion differs from your support it.

The only differences of opinion in this thread about this whole situation are:

1) that not all Islam is to blame, only a minority of extremists
2) that perhaps freedom of expression comes with a responsibility rather than just a carte blanche to print, say or do what ever you feel.

That's really it beyond some minor sirmishes about root causes, which are not especially relevant to the topic at hand (though no less interesting).

If it wasn't your intention to level that backhanded swipe at at least half the posters in this thread, then I apologize and suggest that you take more care in what you are saying and how you say it.

how about one garbage post?

ok



http://blog.wfmu.org/photos/uncatego...oonnewsa_1.jpg
http://blog.wfmu.org/photos/uncatego...oonnewsb_1.jpg

The only backhanded swipe I've seen here is you suggesting that someone is blaming "all of Islam." I will be waiting for your apology to at least half of the posters here and watching to see if you take more care in the future in what you say. You are becoming rather provocative. Such language may lead to rioting, murder, and burning Canadians alive. Can't you temper your language with alittle responsibility?

A few years ago in Germany there was a gang of Neo-NAZI skinheads that torched the houses of Turkist immigrants. It seems the skinheads were offended by the Turks, and the skinheads felt the Turkish immigrants were an affront to their fascist beliefs. In fact, the publication of local Turkish newspapers and shops with signs printed in the Turkish language were quite evident in the neighborhood.
Is it fair to say that the presence of so much Turkish culture in the neighborhood "inflamed" the local skinheads? Should you suggest that the Turks try to change their behavior so the skinheads would not be inflamed to carry out acts of savagry? Would it be reasonable to insist that the immigrants only speak and write in German in order to show "responsibility"?
But today, while Muslim barbarians, acting in the name of their religion
"swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods [and] throw a tire around a man, pour gas on him and set him ablaze,"

we are inevitably reminded by the PC police in this forum and elsewhere that the Danish cartoons were not "responsible."

Is it irresponsible to reprint this AP press report?
Quote: "Thousands of rioters burned 15 churches in Maiduguri in a three-hour rampage before troops and police reinforcements restored order, Nigerian police spokesman Haz Iwendi said. Iwendi said security forces arrested dozens of people in the city about 1,000 miles northeast of the capital, Lagos."

Or would it be more responsible to tell the truth of what is happening?
Would you say the AP is irresponsible for reporting that
"Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters . . . Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed..."

Someone is offended by something spoken, printed or broadcast each and every minute of each and every day. If "having offense" were the test; the threshold freedom should never cross, nothing would ever be printed or reported.

:lol: Aladdin... we have to be participating in two different threads.

The main trust of the debate, as I have seen it, has been the two items I listed above. Whatever. Continue to label us "PC" if that makes you feel empowered.

Well ... I was going to add something to this thread ... but I think I'll just slowly walk out ... getting a little heated in here :-)

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.

rainheart-

A lot of very good points... many of which I tend to agree with outright. I think that you may be overanalyzing some of the comments made by other posters, however. I don't see a streak of anti-Muslim sentiment that you seem to be concerned with.

On that note, however, I do see a potential trend of anti-Muslim sentiment coming out of Western cultures and non-Islam cultures soon, if current events continue to push forward. As I've stated before, the Muslims that I have known through my life have been moderate, accepting and decent human beings. However, the extremists in Islam tend to be more extreme than the extremists in other religious groups. Sadly, I can easily see this turning into an outright holy war. A jihad from Islam, a crusade from The Vatican. I mean, that's what this is turning into, right? A clash of ideals, based primarily on religious beliefs. If it turns out this way, it will not be a political war like WWI and WWII. If the Middle East and the West clash again, it WILL be a holy war. And people will be drawn to sides, even those without religious bearing in the war, because they will fear for their lives against an enemy they harbor no malice against. Over time, that can turn fear can turn into malice, and a fervor unlike a political war could present itself. This is, of course, a worst case scenario. But a war based on divides that have no political boundaries will be far more devastating that one that does. Look at Iraq alone. Our war there is not against the Iraqi people, or Muslims or Kurds or Arabs or any set of specific people. It's not our uniform against theirs. It's not a border dispute or a war to gain control of rights. It's a battle with no easy end, no defined win-lose situation. Move that to the global arena and it's chaotic.

This is what I fear... and it could happen quicker than a lot of people seem to expect.

Muslim outrage: an historical perspective
 

A friend of mine, another preacher, recently sent these musings around. I think they have some merit for consideration, and share them here now for that purpose.

Blessings,
Pastor Tim

-------------------------

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Xeph what's with that "Crusade from the vatican" comment? Anything to back up such a blatantly false and insulting comment?

Tim, this list has already been posted twice on this thread (on pages 1 and 6, I believe). I am curious as to whether you actually read all of the posts?

Also, when you say blessings, for whom do you mean them? I don't mean to raise your ire, but to sincerely ask who you are blessing... since it seems from your post that Muslims might not make the cut.

(I also ask because I was a hard-core evangelical for a good many years and used the word "blessings" for every sign-off, but it became as common as "Cheers," or some similar sign-off. I stopped thinking about how it might come across to people who didn't share my beliefs, at the time.)

Chris Hitchens is organizing a protest in support of Denmark and its tradition of Free Speech. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.

No, I did not know that. I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I have read some. I wanted to express my sentiments, and this post seemed to do so better than I could. I think it's better not to re-invent the wheel.

So to posting it again: My bad. I sincerely apologize. Redundancy from ignorance [hopefully in the best sense of that word] is unnecessary. Had I known it, I would have simply referred to it, and stated I agreed with the gist of the post.

I guess it didn't occur to me to search all the postings for it. Perhaps it didn't originate with my friend? He didn't attribute it to someone else, so I guess I thought something about it that might not have been correct.

When I say blessings, I am wishing that to those who read my post. I mean it sincerely, and I mean it to every individual who reads it. And, in point of fact, while I use it often to conclude a letter, I don't use it always. There are times when I different closing remark is more appropriate.

Is it insincere or illegitimate to wish personal blessings to someone, even if you disagree with them? I don't think so. I trust that's not what you are suggesting.

And, with regards to signing off my posts with my wish for my blessings to all, I hope I can be judged by my own merits, and not by the experience of another? I trust that makes sense.

Thanks for the opportunity to be corrected, and to offer a clarification.

"Blessings!" ;)
Pastor Tim

Thank you for your candor, Tim. I have to say that I have a heightened sensitvity about usage of evangelical language, seeing as I used to inhabit that world and know it well. But I am thankful for your sincerity and desire for clarifying your words.

The "blessings" part also seemed a bit odd to me, given the statements you made (or posted) about Muslims... I wondered how a Muslim on the boards might view those two things together. But that's just me being curious. :)

You're welcome.

I am curious about your past, but I will endeavor to discuss / address / and ask about it in response to your comments in my journal. Seems more appropriate there.

It's very true that I have some strong concerns and opinions on some things, but don't we all? And again, even though I might strongly differ with someone, I would still hope I can agreeably disagree, and in the process, attempt to show while I might differ in thought and opinion, I wish them personally no ill will.

I hope the post I "re-posted" [ha] is not viewed as a personal attack, though I could see how it might be. But if it accurately states some historical facts, and then issues a conjecture about current events, is that truly attacking a person, or the ideas they are embracing, living for?

Can it be said that on these boards the Judeo-Christian "ethic" [world view, or call it what you will], and many aspects of it, are regularly attacked, and sometimes in less than nice ways?

I don't mean that to be a blanket statement, but it does seem that most people come from a non Christian view point, and some of those world views are strongly anti-thetical to Christianity? Is that a fair assessment? I hope so. And perhaps it is wholly true that I'm just "sensitive" [or even over-sensitive] to negative comments about the world view I have embraced.

I guess that's normal?

However, as long as it is not an ad hominem attacks, then well and good. If it is an attack on the ideas and thoughts and reasons underlying my faith, and not an attack on me, we can at least interact and have a discussion.

The truth is, as perhaps you are familiar with, the Bible exhorts believers to do all they can to live as exemplary as possible, so that if we are criticized, even if unfairly, those criticisms in the end won't stand against us.

I know there are plenty of bad examples of Christianity. And I know I'm not perfect! But I can still try.

I would also be loath to embrace a faith which can't be examined, and engaged with.

Well, just some thoughts in brief in response.

God bless,
Pastor Tim

this is in a way related and at the same time unrelated to the original purpose of the thread. these are just some of my own observations in the state of Muslims in the world today. you can take it for what it is.
From my own personal experience, a lot of Muslims see themselves as the unrepresented people. now i can't say that this is everywhere, but this is what i heard from my own personal accounts. they don't like it that other groups of people get more press or get heard about more in positive lights. many just spew out propoganda. in fact, i heard many say that jews are supressing textbooks to only say that jews were murdered in the Holocaust. last i remember, my textbook talked about not only jews. it seems like a whole inferiority complex that isn't going to get resolved for a long time or maybe even ever.

I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up.

A Failure of the Press
 

In this article, rightwing Bill Bennett and leftwing Alan Dershowitz, agree on the meaning of the Cartoon wars. They are spot on.

A Failure of the Press

By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A19

There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment.

The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report.

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty.

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."

But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.

"I don't know what side you are coming down on Nirvana, tough to read over the internet, so I hope I'm reading you right here, but, there are a bunch of Muslims the world over ,(cough) Iran, that need to get past this whole zionist conspiracy bullshit. Shit is not only pathetic and false, but tired as all get up."

ye thats exactly what i was saying. and it's not even all over the world. it's "educated" people that i meet in my everyday life that beleive in all this crap. some even told me that the zionists started the Holocaust and that the CIA was recently responsible for the destruction of that famous SHia mosque.

DANISH EMBASSY REMINDER: In Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis
 

DANISH EMBASSY REMINDER:

Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.

That's from Christopher Hitchens. He'll be there. If you're in the DC area, consider joining him. And if you take pictures, send me some!

UPDATE: there will be a similar demonstration in front of the Danish consulate in Minneapolis.

Photos of Danish Embassy Protest
 

The protest held in front of the Danish Embassy in Washington was a success!
See the photos here:
http://instapundit.com/

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=440297

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/200...ng_with_d.html

aladdin Sane, the support seems to have been very succesful. congratulations and i'm glad it went off without a hitch.

This just in.
It's time to take notice.

BBC NEWS
Writers issue cartoon row warning
Salman Rushdie is among a dozen writers to have put their names to a statement in a French weekly paper warning against Islamic "totalitarianism".

The writers say the violence sparked by the publication of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad shows the need to fight for secular values and freedom.

The statement is published in Charlie Hebdo, one of several European papers to reprint the caricatures.

The images, first published in Denmark, have angered Muslims across the world.

One showed the Prophet Muhammad, whose depiction is banned in Islam, as a terrorist bomber.

Many newspapers defended their decision to reprint the cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression.

'Global threat'

Almost all of those who have signed the statement have experienced difficulties with Islamic militancy first-hand, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

They include Dutch MP and filmmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali and exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen.


STATEMENT SIGNATORIES
Salman Rushdie - Indian-born British writer with fatwa issued ordering his execution for The Satanic Verses
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Somali-born Dutch MP
Taslima Nasreen - exiled Bangladeshi writer, with fatwa issued ordering her execution
Bernard-Henri Levy - French philosopher
Chahla Chafiq - Iranian writer exiled in France
Caroline Fourest - French writer
Irshad Manji - Ugandan refugee and writer living in Canada
Mehdi Mozaffari - Iranian academic exiled in Denmark
Maryam Namazie - Iranian writer living in Britain
Antoine Sfeir - director of French review examining Middle East
Ibn Warraq - US academic of Indian/Pakistani origin
Philippe Val - director of Charlie Hebdo
"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism," the manifesto says.

"We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all."

The clashes over the cartoons "revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values," the statement continues.

"It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats."

The writers said they refused to accept that Muslim men and women "should be deprived of their rights to equality, liberty or secularity in the name of respect for culture or tradition".

They also said they would not give up their critical spirit out of fear of being accused of Islamophobia.

"Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present," the writers added, saying it is nurtured by fears and frustrations.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/4763520.stm

Published: 2006/03/01 16:46:10 GMT

© BBC MMVI

I have to wonder if any of our lefty friends on TFP are disturbed about all of the college papers currently being censored on this issue.

I know my old schools paper ran the cartoons and the editor and writer were fired. Its been spreading.

Check out www.littlegreenfootballs.com for details, there have been several college papers who this sort of thing has happened to.

My position on it is that just because you have the right to print the articles doesn't mean you should.

That said we live in nations where there is freedom of press. While it may piss off the Administration (the University's) that the student paper ran the cartoons, they should be left alone to run them as they see fit.

Of course, some of those papers exist at the largess of the University's Administration. Sometimes the publisher can veto the editor.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...eandLimb-X.gif

Sums it up nicely.

I went to little green footballs and couldn't find any details about school papers being shut down over this. It'd be nice to post a link, since that's a blog of some sort and there's a lot of info unrelated to this issue on the front page.

I'm also confused how you turn this into a free press issue (except in the case of domestic censorship). At least, I don't know how many of the people arguing for freedom of speech/press in this thread believe our freedoms in that regard extend to the Dutch press, the middle east, and for that matter the right not to have people offended and responding.

It's always been many of these same people's argument that you have the right to say what you want, but be prepared if someone else doesn't like it and does something in return....but that shouldn't be considered censorship, etc. to those people (ustwo included). Some of them were chief supporters of the violence and intimidation demonstrated to the Dixie Chicks when they were speaking out against Bush as president.

The standard reply is that censorship is only done by the government (in context of our constitutional rights, anyway) and then only by our domestic government in relation to domestic affairs. There isn't any of these people who thought other rights extend beyond our nation's boundaries. At least, that was the argument against providing Afghanistan and Iraqi "enemy combatants" legal protections and speedy trials that are required for domestic criminals.

The hue and cry about violations of our domestic rights isn't being taken seriously by me. At least not when it's made by someone like Ustwo. I just don't see his argument consistent with other arguments he's made in the past. I imagine at least some of the cartoon authors hold similar views as he does, and would play an inconsistent martyr as the cartoon above this post does.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...ws_at_OSU&only
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...try=19362&only
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6461532.story

When I first heard this story the first thing I wanted to do is see those cartoons to see what was causing all the commotion. It didn't take too long to find them on the web (in fact I first saw them on these forums) but the first place I looked was the main media outlets and found nothing.

It is not like these cartoons are not newsworthy since many people were/are probably just as curious as I was. The decision to not publish them seems to be made out of some sense of intimidation and that is just sad, especially when some editor's jobs seem to be in jeopardy when they do.

Just because some religious fanatics get upset over some cartoons is no reason to censure them. Instead it is a good reason to publish them so readers can see just what little it takes to cause some people to riot. I can't imagine being an editor and telling my people that we cannot publish the pictures responsible for the biggest news story of the day.

I read the first link, so far you're flat out full of shit.

there isn't one element of censorship in that article. It's exactly analogous to your position on the Dixie chicks and protest that occurred against them.

article on muslims expecting special treatment even though they're barbarous elicits protest from muslim and arab students, school paper now checks with a group of muslims to see if the content is offensive.

I'm going to read the other two links you posted, but where is the censorship you claimed in this article? where is the school dictating the content of the school paper? Where is the government involved?