Danish Cartoon
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4673908.stm

Well, this made me laugh. Good on the Danes, and especially the other papers that reprinted them. I don't get whats so special about islam that stops it being a target for critism? Stop winging is all i have to say.

I've aslo been reading the comments posted by some people on the BBC website talking about their opinions. My favourite was one saying how islam was so very peaceful, non confrontational and everyone should respect it, which is fair enough, but the fact it was posted right under the news report detailing riots in palestine that made me shake my head.

Hypocrisy off the starboard bow if you ask me. :hmm:



I have searched under what i can think of, so i don't think theres another thread around with this, but hey, i've been wrong before.

it's not about critcism it's about depicting Mohammed which is not allowed in their faith since it can be construed as idolatry.

currently some people in the US are mad at AOL for using I AM as part of an advertising campaign because they say that I AM refers to Yahweh.

There's billions of people on the planet, there are billions of lifestyles, opinions and interpretations.

Nothing to see here, really.

What gets me is that the Wahhabists in Afghanistan pissed on the worldview of the Buddhists when they destroyed those centuries old statues of Buddha a few years back. A lot of Muslims are getting upset at this "desecration" of the Prophet, yet look the other way at the sacriligeous actions of their own people. The recall of ambassadors etc is ridiculous.

Until the Muslims learn to seperate church and state, we'll keep seeing sill things like the extreme Muslim reaction we are seeing now.

The Religion of Peace is full of tribal shitheads who will chop your head off for the slightest insult. But they aren't alone.

Religious fanatics are generally humor-impared. I get shit occasionally for my cartoons involving Jesus. I even got threatened once. Some of my cartoons poke fun a islamic suicide bombers, but I haven't gotten any threats from Muslims yet. (Though I DO see my cartoons linked to Islam discussion boards). I figure it's just a matter of time.

http://www.mightywombat.com/toons/jokers.gif

It really is ridiculous...tell me again why it's the rest of the world's fault that Islam comes with all this baggage and is followed by a bunch of whackos who oppose freedom of expression.

Hold on, folks. I agree that religious fanatics tend to lack a sense of humor, and I thought the reactions to the Danish newspaper were overdone.

However, let's look at principles here. I don't understand why other European newspapers have published the cartoons. Imagine if all those newspapers had caricatures of Jews, all across Europe... gee, would anyone say that if Jews didn't like it, they were just way oversensitive and had no sense of humor? I highly doubt it.

What if an American paper published a cartoon making fun of black people, Latinos, Chinese? It would not happen, or it would be severely looked down upon. How is this situation any different?

It's not a matter of free press, it's a matter of tolerance and not stooping to the level of adolescents passing cartoons around in school. Political cartoons... now, they are often sophisticated enough to give the audience a better understanding of a complex issue. But I fail to see how these cartoons are acceptable journalism in any format, regardless of how overreactive "the Muslims" are being (and gee, what a nice generalization that is, since they are all obviously of one mind?).

The cartoons don't mock Muslims as a people. The cartoons are about the Prophet Muhammad, an individual. That is vastly different from having "caricatures of jews." It's more like having a carictures of Moses.

It is nothing like making fun of black people, Latinos or Chinese people.

Having spent many many wonderful months in Denmark over the last 20 years because my in-laws live there, I must say that The Danes are wonderful, well read, educated open-minded people. They are always on top of world events & try to live their beliefs. I am proud that their newpapers aren't afriad to print the truth even if it offends the various religious beliefs - especially ones that openly teach hate against others. Remember that when the Jews were being persecuted by the Nazis and the occupying troops made all Jews wear yellow Stars of David on their clothes the King of Denmark & his family (not Jewish) started wearing the Stars and everyone in Denmark followed suit and wore them! That takes guts! To start talking censorship to the Danes is pure insanity. They aren't people who fear retalliation for saying what is truthful and fair.

It appears that so far this discussion is not fully informed of the facts at hand.

To sum:


The reaction from a few groups of Muslims has not entirely been what most of us would call reasonable:



Not everyone in the Muslim world is acting in the manner described above. Some are doing exactly what most of us would call reasonable:

This was followed by censorship:

This guy, did something worthwhile:

Full Text Here.


The discussion at hand should be focused on the type of reaction to the cartoons and its level of reasonableness.

For my 2 cents:
Verbal protests over an offensive cartoon are appropriate.
Armed violence is not.

Newspapers don't need guidelines to follow when depicting ANY religions right wing insanity and "excuse" for violence and the proliferation of hatred and war.

Too bad the Muslims can't just protest verbally. Any excuse for violence is their focus now.

That's what I was trying to say... the protests in response to the cartoon is extreme, certainly. But I think the cartoons are still offensive. It is not the same as portraying Moses, because there is no prohibition on portraying an image of Moses. The West KNOWS that Muslims take offense at portrayals of Mohammed, and yet Europe went ahead and did this just to "test" tolerance. That is no way to go about encouraging dialogue, and both parties are to blame if you ask me. The paper should not have printed something just to piss a group of people off on purpose (again, what kind of journalism is that?), and the group responding should not resort to these means to make their opposition known.

In my opinion, it's totally irrelevant that we know they don't like portrayals of Mohammad. Islam doesn't like people eating pigs either; do we stop eating pigs because it offends Muslims? They are the ones with the problem here. It's their religion, not ours, we don't have to follow it, and we don't have to follow its anachronistic rules. That, the suggestion that we do have to follow its rules, is what I find offensive personally. Did the original publisher do it intentionally to piss them off? I don't know, and I don't care either, because it would be perfectly reasonable to print these cartoons without an intention to offend anyone as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1574759

from google news one hour ago...

I would find a similar depiction of Christ offensive. Sure some aspects of the protest are extreme in their nature, some are legitimate. It's not directed at an individual, it's directed at a whole religion. Couple this with something the religion forbids and it's even more offensive. The criticism directed at the newspaper by me is not about following the rules of Islam, it's about having some sense when dealing with a sensitive issue. To put it in forum terms: they've just flamebaited a whole religion.

I agree, but I still think they have the right to do so even though it might not be the smartest thing to do.
I feel the descision to print these cartoons in the first place was retarded, anyone with half a brain would realize the consequences. I do feel though that even if the descision was stupid, they have a right to be stupid.

Yes I agree. I also think it's rather unwise that this is being taken out on non related entitities who had no part in printing the cartoon. Also the nature of some of the responses (kidnapping people etc.) are inappropriate.

Thinking about it further, if someone had just written a letter, then the Danes would have probably said oops, our mistake, we'll be nicer next time. The muslim world pushed the west with violence, and the west pushed back by publishing more cartoons.

I'm going to open a flag shop in Palestine.

*cha-fuckin-ching*

It could be certainly argued that putting the Prophet and depicting him and therefore all Muslims as suicide bombers is openly teaching hate. That's not my view though. My view is that that cartoon does propagate sterotypes and false information about Muslims as a whole. With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to at least educate yourself on the matter you wish to speak about.

Drawing a comparison to Moses is not the best choice as Moses, while important to the Christian faith, is not a central figure. Instead imagine the way Christians would be reacting if Jesus Christ had been depicted as a suicide bomber. As billage has posted some of the Muslim community is seeking reasonable action. Others are too busy being angry to even see the apology and instead resort to violence. It's a shame that the violence receives more press then the reactions emphasizing the need for peaceful protest. Since the press is highlighting the acts of violence in the name of news it enables a small vocal minority to speak for a large mass of people.

Edited because I can't spell. :rolleyes:

Bingo. Well said.

Here's one that should've been printed:

http://info2us.dk/muhammed/Mohammed/2006-01-26.jpg

LMAO!

Thats pretty damned funny.

This is something I rarely do, but I must give the European press some kodus to sticking up to the 'religion of peace'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669360.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

And this is what we fight....

http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/articles/new/cartoon.htm

I've read some of the comments mentioning that images of Christ in a manner such as Mohammed was depicted would also be offensive.

That's interesting, as it helps make a point. We're not so much discussing that the images are offensive or not, but rather let's assume they are. The interesting thing is the Muslim's reaction to the image. Those that aren't arming themselves and screaming "death to country XXXX" are having big protests. It's interesting to me that they seem to have such reactions.

I'd like to touch on the idea that images of other religous figures would be as offensive to Christians or other religions.

I present the Buddy Christ.

The Buddy Christ Statue.

The Body of Christ, now with chocolate sprinkles.

A poke using the birth of Christ.

While not a religious leader
the US President.

Some charming cartoons in
Arab media.

If you spend some time doing a GIS for images of world religions in the media you'll find that there's no shortage of them. There's also no shortage of cartoons that are "offensive" to those depicted in them. Especially when including world leaders, or countries. In fact, the US is depicted quite horribley on a very regular basis in Arab media. I have yet to try shutting down and embassy in reaction...

Christ is a pretty popular figure in cartoons, both political and non, and has also featured regularly in a few TV shows as of late. I seem to remember Dennis Leary talking to Christ in his show. Christ certainly gets around.

I mean to show that on a daily basis the religious figures of the world are depicted in ways ranging from revered to rediculous. Yet, most of the worlds population is not beside itself with indignation, taking hostages, and firing AK-47's in the air. Last time I checked, there was no Catholic protest marches, nor hostage taking when "Dogma" and its "Buddy Christ" debuted. Nor was there "death to xxxxx" calls when during the Catholic sex abuse scandel's height had "offensive" cartoons in the US and EU papers on a weekly (if not daily) basis.

At the very least, the Muslim community seems to have unrealistic expectations of how others should conduct themselves in reference to Islam.

They're certainly not impressing me any.

Catholic League seems to be quite active in complaining about religious depections:

South Park

Book of Daniel

Senator Diane Feinstein

groups will complain, just happens to be how much actual press someone gets, those heroin puppies made it all over the news around the world.

No problem with people complaining or protesting - that is their right, as it is the right of newspapers to print material that may be offensive to some.

But when you start suggesting people should have their heads cut off, as many are doing in the Muslim world, or storming embassies, that's well over the line.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

And now the US State Department is condemning the European papers for publishing the cartoons.

I'm so confused...

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...hMuslims04.jpg
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...hMuslims03.jpg
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...hMuslims01.jpg
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...hMuslims03.jpg


:hmm:

England isn't quite so merry these days.

Thats england?

Those are the people we're always complaining the government should kick out, ******rs.

And here I thought the outrage over the
washington post cartoon was ridiculous
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100599

Now this?......this is just plain pathetic

Coming from a Christian perspective. Christians were quite inflamed when an 'artist' put a cross (I forget if it had a figure of Christ ON the cross of if it was just a cross.) and placed in a beaker of piss. An art museum even displayed the 'creation'. Christians protested against it being considered art. YET I don't recall ONE Christian marchin on the museum with guns and a show of force.

As for comparing a depiction of Christ as a suicide bomber it is an inaccurant comparison to Muhammed depicted as a suicide bomber.
Name for me ONE Christian who blew themselves up in a public place in the name of Christ??
Ok, now name for me ONE (or multiple) muslims who blew themselves up in a public place in the name of Muhammed?? or their God??

The cartoons could have been somewhat tasteless but I've seen cartoons in our country that knock Conservatives, Christianity, Creationism, etc and NO ONE reacts like dumbass militants.

If Islam is a peaceful religion then PROVE it. By reacting to criticism and mocking with honest open communication and criticism of their own. They're just showing themselves to be just what the cartoon depicted. I guess it was accurate?

And for some reason Islamic people are surprised when others consider them a religion of hate? Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer... Exterminate those who slander Islam... Now I am not saying that Christianity, Buddhism etc are the religions of tolerance but wtf!

To make a complaint, fine. To stage a protest, ok a little extreme imo however its still peaceful. To blockade countries, attempt to storm embassies and threaten violence... quite frankly its this sort of thing that makes people turn round and say "why not just nuke the middle east" (heard it at least twice today in relation to this topic).

While we cannot hold all members of a religion to bear for what some members do the leadership of this religion should at least be attempting to douse the flames rather than throwing on fuel, we live in a global world, if you want to play hardball there are many others willing to play. Islam cannot reasonably expect others to follow its teachings, all it can do is hold itself "above" the rest of us and show us the way... if we are to follow what Islam is teaching us right now I think the world is going to be a very messy and unhappy place shortly.


Further proof that Christianity gets mocked fairly regularly:

GIS for "Jesus Lol"

so what are the specifications of this cartoon ban? if i draw a car with a nametag that says "mohammed," is that wrong? how about a dotted line that represents mohammed? no good?

as far as breaking the laws of religion...christ is often joked about, which has been mentioned. as for fundamental religious rules, there are the ten commandments in judeo-christian faith. secular media doesn't go out of their way to adhere to these rules, but luckily no one is getting shot (usually).

i wish the level of tolerance and forbearance in the many corners of the arab world had developed faster than their ability to obtain automatic weapons.

It's time for a Holy War.

I saw this on FARK today. Draw your own conclusions (and draw your own cartoons!)
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

* 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.

That's a rather simplistic list. You leave out the part where Western forces bomb and kill Mulims in (at least) the tens of thousands, and few in the west are outraged.

I am not defending the Muslims actions here, I am just pointing out that inflammatory lists, like this, that take a myopic approach to a complex situation, don't help.

that's their right to SAY they want to, just like it's the right to complain. It's however not acceptable to ACT on it.

Here's a link to one of the cartoons, which frankly, are annoyingly hard to find.

Muhammed with a bomb/turban.

I'm personally dissapointed in the Muslim community for behavior like:

I really enjoy how this guy takes the disagreement worldwide.

Right. Sure. Whatever buddy. Your people's actions are really endearing.

This is cute too:

It's okay to rebroadcast the living hell out of anything video/voice attributed to that sick Bin Laden fellow, but there will be no disrepecting Islam.

Arab media, especially papers, can regularly villify any Western leader they want, use any symbols they want, but other soverign nations who DO respect free press, can't do anything that offends the Muslims. God forbid we offend the Muslims.

You run into some free speach that offends you, good for you. You feel so offended you feel like writing a letter, organizing a letter writing campaign, blogging about it, organizing a boycott, or even getting yourself on TV to deliver your free speech opinion, and I'm all for you doing that. This whole eagerness to declare "die evil non-muslims" and break things is rediculous.

Remember kids:
It's cool to disrespect national leaders, other religions, but not the bomb throwing, flag torching, effigy lighting, peaceful people of Islam.


Link to the cartoons.

But when saying it, encourages or emboldens others to act, it is wrong. In my opinion it shouldn't be allowed. It is for this reason that hate laws exist.

Last time I checked there were shitloads of people in the West (myself included) who are outraged about the war in Iraq.

But in the interest of fairness, to follow is a list of atrocities committed in the name of Islam which were then protested in the Muslim world.




end of list

so when you say,"I'm gonna kill you!!!" when you are upset, that's enough to incarcerate you.

it's the acting upon that is wrong, not the speech.

i dont understand what relation there is between new and previous posts--if folk do not read the thread before they write things, that is---billege made a couple points that are worth repeating: the actions that all and sundry are complaining about are undertaken by a very small percentrage of the total population, representing for the most part very conservative positions---to act as though all of islam is somehow embroiled in the same way in this tumult is simply wrong.

but....i have been reading a wide range of press reports on this from lots of different places and have noticed something odd...the american coverage, across the variety of conservative positions that folk confuse with an actual political spectrum, tends of be written in a quite sloppy way in that the writers are not contextualizing that information about protests that they present---it is as if the view of islam on the part of many american journalists is as uninformed and undifferentiated as what you see repeatedly in this thread.

on the other hand, across the board complaints about the danish cartoons refer to the same general argument: this is an aspect of a general contempt for islam, a kind of religious or race war mentality in the west. reading through some of the responses above, i think, in this limited regard, these folk are right.

that said, i think the reactions to these cartoons internationally echoes the kind of thing in the politics thread on the washington post cartoon linked above.
in general, it seems a really stupid idea for folk who object to a particular cultural product to mobilize extensively against it because every such move ends up generating huge publicity around the object, changes the status of the artist, makes them stars in potentia.
this is not rocket science.
in this media climate, ignoring objects is far more effective in that it helps speed the disappearance of them into the vast ooze that is the space of the barely noticed, the filtered out, the half-repressed---the space into which fall almost all visual elements that float through the various media that help keep us all narocitzed and feeling-safe...the half-life of barely noticed visual elements in a space as extensive as this visual culture is very very short---folk should make friends with this almost-instant obsolescence.

but no.

thanks billege, here are the rest of them...some are simply reactions to the whole situation.

http://pics.livejournal.com/weev/gallery/000038dy

/ducks


also, here is a nice collection of mohammed images throughout history. it also has better information on the issue than most of the news reports. the page seems to be experiencing a lot of traffic, so you might have to try a few times.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Especially when, in some of these instances, it is people in positions of power saying it. When an imam or a member of Fatah or Hamas leadership or someone of that ilk says "Kill the Danish infidels", it is taken as an instruction and order or command to do so by many.

Actually it can be... there are laws in most states regarding the threat of violence.

roachboy-

I think you're missing the overall feeling here though. They are "outraged" and respond with violence. This is nothing new. Muslims, throughout history, have been a people that are happy to go to war over religion, idealism, money, trade, feelings... Outside of the Crusades, which most Christians as I understand it are not proud of, most Western Religions do not have this kind of fervor against other people. Hell, the Christian group that protests soldiers funerals as part of their on-going war protest makes me madder than hell... but it's their right to do so, and it's my right to be pissed. If they started shooting rounds into funeral goers, or I went and started firing into their ranks, that would be WHOLLY different. But, that *IS* how things often occur in the world of Islam. No, not all Muslims are like that, but an unfortunately large number of them are.

So then, sure, no religion is 100% perfect. But Islam generates a far greater number (total and per capita I'd imagine) that resort to violence than other major religions around the world. Can you so simply explain this away as bad press? Ireland has some angsty Christian issues that are ongoing, but they are nowhere NEAR the regular use of violence, especially against the innocent, as are used in middle-eastern countries. I'm not generally a hateful person, but actions like theirs are exactly what fosters a general feeling of contempt for the whole of Islam. If they acted under the banner of "Religion of Peace" rather than just using it as a jargon line, I think there would be less tension in the middle-east. They like to blame the US and the west, but before there was a US, and before there WAS an organized Europe, there was war and hatred and distrust amongst the Arab peoples. Read any history or old religious text for examples. The Middle East has never had true peace in recorded history.

Yes, Charlatan, my thoughts exactly. Thank you for saying this. I know for a fact that Muslims can come up with a much longer list of the offenses the West has committed against the rest of the world... not ideologically, but politically and economically. Shall we begin with Israel, people??

Also, all of you who are comparing Christ to Mohammed are blowing in the wind. Our Western version of Christ has very little of the ideological power of Mohammed in the Islamic world. As such, I invite people to think of WESTERN equivalents, and I mean EQUIVALENTS, to the portrayal of Mohammad.

What icon of America, if someone destroyed or made fun of it, would send us into a warlike state?

Hmm, maybe a couple of tall buildings?

Or, on a more mundane level, how would this country react if some newspaper published cartoons making fun of soldiers in Iraq? Would we sit around and take that peacefully? Probably not. People would be ALL over the newspapers' asses for desecrating the rights of people to go fight for our freedom.

Consider what OUR country holds near and dear... NOT Christ, he's long gone from anyone's care about what's sacred. But we do hold things VERY dearly around here, and if people threaten or mock them, you can bet your ass we get violent about it.

Once again, I am NOT justifying the use of violence to respond to sacrilege. But at what point do we justify the use of violence (e.g. going to war) to defend what we perceive to be sacrilege? Obviously, we seem to think it's justified in our case... and yet we condemn the Muslims for their own reactions, without looking at the provocation.

Both sides have erred here. The Europeans are idiots for thinking they could get away with this. They KNEW what they were getting into... integration of immigrants is THE massive problem in Europe right now, and that is what is feeding into this. Remember those riots in France?? Yeah, it is all tied together folks. There is something MUCH bigger going on here than just a bunch of stupid cartoons. It is more complex than that, that's all I'm saying. And I thought the TFP would be more sophisticated in its treatment of the subject.

Hold on here, have you read a history of Europe or the US lately? They weren't sitting around singing kumbaya around the old campfire, I can tell you that. Even when there WAS a US, we had a damn nasty civil war. Before the US, we massacred millions of native Americans. Europeans sure slaughtered each other to death for, oh, most of the last 2,000 years if not more?

There have been many offensive depictions of Christ in the past.

Guess you have never seen "Piss-Christ" by Andres Serrano.

Piss Christ is a controversial photograph by the artist Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. Some have suggested that the glass may also contain the artist's blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ



Now imagine such a photo if it were Mohamed instead of Christ emerged in a vat of piss.

Last time I heard, Mr. Serrano was still wearing his head.

The last 10's of thousands of musslims killed was the Iraqi Army. The rest is basically false, much like the proven inflated numbers used by the Taliban and reported by Western papers as fact.

See above my friend.

another...

I recall seeing this or something similar at the MoMa... wasn't all that impressed.

Also, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses book brought issue from the Muslim community. He still walks about the planet.

http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/images/ofili.jpg

LINK

Here's some interesting photos on Yahoo showing the muslims getting upset.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Religion/

Strangely enough, Muslims seem to think it's ok to constantly publish photos slandering the jews.

Time for a few deportations.

And THAT right there is is the crux of the situation. I assure you that Osama Bin Shithead did not "make fun of" the WTC. He knocked it down and killed thousands of noncombatants.

Those who would equate mocking a building with killing people are in sore need of a reality check.

Unfortunately, the Middle East seems to be full of people who are more concerned with the value of their so-called honor than the value of life.

Well, I for one say, "Fuck 'em."

Hey, let's not forget that those buildings held several thousand CIVILIANS doing their daily paper pushing jobs. It wasn't a symbol, it wasn't a picture, it was innocent people.

of course the wtc was a symbolic target.
if you don't see that, then you don't see anythng.....

No, the Washington Monument is a symbol, the White House is a symbol, the trade towers were a badly thought out target. Western civilisation when it goes to war tries not to target civilians, children and women, we attempt to adhere to rules of combat and attempt to treat people with a modicum of respect.

Hitting the towers is in no way the same as this, hitting the towers resulted in the loss of a lot of civilian life, hitting the towers realistically had no point in a terror war, did it stop people using high buildings? Did it stop people flying? No, at the end of the day all it did was kill a lot of people, inconvenience us a bit more but reaslistically it hasn't changed a lot or made many people that terrified (look at London post 7/7... they were on the tubes the next day).

An equivalent target in Western society is probably Jesus, or perhaps Martin Luther King but as a society we tend to ignore a lot of things, a live and let live and turn the other cheek kind of moment as thats what we have been told, allow tolerance, allow differences, allow people of all nations, religions, faiths, colours, and shoe sizes to go on with their daily lives and work together. Not to say that the Muslim world is less tolerant but in many of their states there is a lot less tolerance (try eating a pig in the middle of say Riyadh?).

Absolutely. Send those little bastards back to the wonderful, democratic, freedom loving bastions of justice in the world, like Saudi Arabia, Sudan or Iran.

Suggesting whole nations and random European innocents should die because privately owned newspapers printed something you think is offensive is, IMO, a hate crime. Lock 'em up, and deport 'em. If they were born there - ah, deport 'em anyway.

So would be the Washinton monument. Only difference is one resulted in the deaths of a few thousand people. There in lies the difference and if you can't see that you dont' see anything.
:rolleyes:

maybe you can explain to me how the fact that there were victims alters anything about the nature of the wtc as a target.
it seems implausible that even you would think the wtc just any building, a random target---unless you prefer to think that the folk who carried out the attack were so stupid as to not have a plan?
if you think that, what would the rationale be? that they were muslim?

let me see if i have this straight...

it's an offense to allah to portray his prophet in a picture but okay to show jill carroll terrified of her islamic captors who are about to behead her in his name???

someone has their diaper wrapped too tight around his head - loosen the fan belt...

Like it or not, Western Civilization is already in a war with the forces of Radical Islam. A religious war? Yes, but if that makes you uncomfortable you may call it whatever you like. But it's time to face facts.

This cartoon mess is only one more indication of the seriousness of the conflict we face. If you believe in Freedom of the Press, Free Speech, and the basic human rights of western democracy, please do not make excuses and/or attempt to appease the barbarians who have threatened beheadings and torched an embassy over cartoons. Had he not been shot and practically decapitated on an Amsterdam street by an "offended" Muslim, Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh would tell you that these threats must be taken seriously. When you see the Muhammad cartoon protestors carrying signs that proclaim "Free Speech can GO TO HELL!," stop for one minute to consider the implications.
The cartoon uproar is just one more wake up call for the West.

deleted.
not worth it.

This thing keeps getting worse and worse...

It's amazing to see the hypocrisy of people complaing about drawings then torching buildings afterwards. Anyway.

However I do feel there is blame on both sides in this, although the Muslim side is certainly the one doing the excesses now.

I would like to say that this issue is not really about "Freedom of speech" though. Freedom of speech, yes even in Europe, is not absolute. Depending on where you live, there are things you can't say: threats of violence, lies and defamation, trade or governmental secrets, hate speech, or general cultural taboos. Even in the US, you can't really publish pictures of military coffins in the newspapers. Besides, just because you're free to post something doesn't mean you have the right to expect no counter-reaction.

Some (not all) of those cartoons are definitely offensive, and are meant to be so. This being Denmark, which has some issues with its muslim immigrants, this amounts to flame baiting which sadly has caught on (and the publication of the cartoons in places like France was even more of the same). The local response eventually grew up to be a more global one; and countries such as Saudi Arabia did no one a service by upping the ante and withdrawing ambassadors. Especially knowing how the media is not controlled by the gov't over there (so there's not much that the gov't can actually do), and that people would obviously rally over 'freedom of speech' rethoric in the West.

As a Middle Easterner, I can tell you that these protests are not solely about this cartoons. That's frankly just an excuse to express a lot of anger in those countries. While I don't believe there is a "Clash of civilizations" (that implies monolithic blocs on both sides), there is a certain degree of hatred and misunderstanding on both sides. And that's what driving this issue, it's just taking the shape of anti-Danish-cartoons demonstrations on one side.

Plainly put; though for instance the US has more influence (negative to some people) over what happens in the Middle East, it's easier - and carries less global repercussions - to burn the Danish Embassy than the American one (Also, this being Syria, it wouldn't have happened unless the govt let it happen).

For instance (that's one example, not the case for everybody btw), if you're some 18 year old refugee in a refugee camp in overcrowded Gaza, living in poverty, having no job, feeling humiliated by a "westernized" occupation, you have a lot of stuff you could be angry about. Offensive cartoons in some Danish newspaper are not the real issue. But with irresponsible religious leaders that play into these frustrations, things degenerate. I truly hope no blood will be shed over this issue, but I know everything's possible. And once again the hypocrisy of people who advocate violence after some offensive drawings is startling.

In the end, after this row dies down, it will have created more anger and hatred on both sides. Some Middle Easterners will be even more opposed to the West; and Western countries will see the others are more of an 'uncivilized' bunch of brutes. Which will be reflected in their views of muslim immigrants in their own countries, and those immigrants will likely be less integrated in response. Which won't help anybody.

Ah, righteous religious anger. It's no wonder I'm an atheist. One less thing to fight and kill about.

PS: I could never support a boycott that would ban Danish butter cookies. Mmmmmmmmm. Danish butter cookies forever :icare:

PSS: I'd be interested in hearing from our resident Dane Nancy over how this is playing out in Denmark.

I wonder if they would protest the Internet if they knew the pictures are on here?

The only one I could see them being offended at is the one with the bomb as a turbin. The one where they ran out of virgins is funny.

Whoever said, "An individual person is smart, a group of people is stupid." Is very smart.

Well. Now they've started burning things.

Surely, this is an appropriate response to a cartoon:

Full Text

Interesting response from the Vatican:
I disagree. Freedom of speech precisely ensures that I can say somthing that offends someone elses religious beliefs. Thier beliefs do not control mine.

Full Text.

I'm really sick of this whole thing. They are being totally unreasonable. It was a cartoon. Get over it. You have the right to be offended, fine. Be offended. I'd do the same thing, except I wouldn't set anything on fire, or threaten to behead anyone.

Religion Of Peace™ for sure...

Several of my friends have "diapers" on their heads and to honest, statements like yours disgust me to know end. How old are you? Grow up.

And before we become too critical of all the "diaper heads" in the world who according to this forum are all of the same ilk, let's have a few middle eastern newspapers showing a depiction of Jesus Christ getting a blowjob from an 8 year old boy. Hmmm, what do you think would happen then? More invasions of countries by the "non diaper heads"? More torture by those same people? Or just a blanket statement that those people are ignorant beyond reason and always have been?

Funny how the outrage to some violence is so hypocritically chastised but to other forms, and even more in destructive intensity, is condoned because those doing the damage are the savours of all rights and liberties.

:lol:

I imagine jihad will be declared on the infidels of the TFP. I can't wait!

No it's not funny at all. It's a serious fact. The people threatening to do violence and actually doing the violence are the ones protesting against freedoms that we in the West take for granted. Those standing against them are supporting those freedoms.

In one sense you are correct. This is about more than cartoons. It is about much more. One only needs to listen to what the Islamists are saying. They do not hide their goal of global jihad, of reestablishing the Caliphate and spreading their "religion of peace" at the point of a sword.
Here are some questions for all who read these pages: Do you despise homosexuals? How about gender equality? Wanna do away with that? Do you think little girls should be forbidden to go to school? Do you hope that the death penalty is more strictly enforced, and that it is carried out by public beheading? How about seeing movies and flying kites--should kids be publicly beaten for that? Want to punish with beheading people who dare believe in Buddha, Jesus, or anything other than the strictest of Muhammadian orthodoxy? Are you really fond of dictatorship? Do you want to see an end to the separation of church and state? Should the government destroy ancient religious relics (like Buddhist statues, for example), because they offend Allah? If you answered yes to any one of these questions, you're gonna love the Jihadis.
As for the attempt to connect Christianity to pedophilia, there really is a difference between Catholic priests who committed these disgusting crimes against perhaps hundreds of innocent children, and Muslims who murder thousands of innocent people in the belief that they will get to have sex with dozens of virgins in Paradise. The difference is that no one doubts that the priests' crimes were grossly wicked and immoral. The priests themselves know the depravity of their actions. Church leaders condemn them in no uncertain terms. They have been punished by the Church and the legal system. No one defends their actions by saying God wanted them to do it or that the children deserved it. They are universally condemned. The same cannot be said for the Muslim savages who are now carrying out violence against people because of cartoons they find offensive. In fact, the opposite is true. It is their religion that (they believe) gives them the right to kill, burn, and terrorize all who offend them. In many parts of the Muslim world they are seen as holy warriors doing the work of Allah.

yikes, aladdin sane: sounds like something you'd read on a front national page.
you know, the neofascist political party.
i am sure you are familiar with this type of organization: they position themselves as defenders of a threatened white christian europe heroically standing up to the invading brown (muslim) hoardes etc. etc. etc....
in doing this, these organizations also position themselves as racist.
so do you.


well played.

If I am a racist, you are an idiot.
OK, good. Now that the personal attacks are outta the way, how about some rational discussion?

Bumpity...

This Just In
People react as expected!


In recent months we have seen a rapid decline in
support for our "War on Terror".
Both sides in fact have grown weary of this battle.
Israel is moving to the moderate center,
even Hamas is looking for a peaceful soultion.
We have too much invested in this war
to allow it to fizzle out at such an early stage.
It is time to "Fan the Flames"
A total assault on each side's most sacred object is in order.
The muslims see mohammad as a most sacred object
So we will assail his image in the press,
repeatedly, until we are able to solicit the proper amount of outrage.
The muslims can always be counted on to react in a violent way,
given the proper motivation.
Next we will portray their reaction as being against the
West's most sacred object "The Free Press"
When the West see's the Muslim threat of violence,
and demands for censorship,
replayed over and over and over in the media,
They are sure to react with a renewed vengance.
One thing in this world is guaranteed,
The people will always react to the proper stimulus.
Thank You For Your Continued Support,
The Ruling Elite

Was discussing the isse with a Danish friend of mine. I was surprised when he didn't seem that upset and thought it better that such cartoons had never been published. In his words, Denmark, up until about 30 or 40 years ago had been a very homogeneous society with essentially one people - Danes. Now, there is a large muslim minority in Denmark, and there is some cultural friction.

He also said that essentially when you are dealing with muslims you are essentially dealing with a theocracy that is like it or not, operating well in the past. His comparison was "imagine printing such cartoons in Europe in say 1500."

The church would be out scouting nice poles right now to tie you to for the wienie roast. Only it would be your wienie about to be roasted.

Muslims are a primative culture, steeped in religous traditions, out of step with the modern world. And I use the word primitive deliberately, since that is how they strike me.

The only really scary difference is that unlike the Christians of 1500 who would have roasted your ass, these guys are living in 2006 and as such are actively trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Think about that for a minute.

aladdin:
i didnt say you were anything.
i said your argument amounted to a racist argument.
that is why the post ended with the phrase "well played"


i would explain more but it hardly seems worthwhile.

james t kirk

since i am a muslim, i find your comments quite offensive. your stereotypical comments that paint all muslims with the same brush hardly seems like you put much thought into your words. you obviously dont have many muslim friends.

and for your information.. "muslims are a primitive culture" wtf???.. islam is not a culture, its a religion.. muslims happen to be followers of islam. get off whatever your on buddy.

seeing that tfp is such an open and liberal forum to voice one views, i find some membes comments quite disturbing.

dishguy, aren't most religions primitive at the extreme? Not in intelligence or capability, but in the idealized lifestyle? The stereotypical path to purity rejects modern convenience, addictions, etc. Primitive wouldn't be the word I'd use but that's how I interpret it in this context.

I'm not worried about individuals seeking personal faith and spirituality, but I am worried about those seeking power through religion, and followers who believe they must compel others to follow their path. As far as I'm aware, every major religion has writings that, taken literally, would put us at each others' throats. The danger's in the dogma and its interpretation.

What I find extreme is people who are ready to burn embassies and threaten decapitation because a cartoon offends them. "We will redeem our prophet, Muhammad, with our blood!" they chanted. So yes, such intolerance is the very definition of primitive.

This says it all:

fighting words
Cartoon Debate
The case for mocking religion.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Saturday, Feb. 4, 2006, at 4:31 PM ET

As well as being a small masterpiece of inarticulacy and self-abnegation, the statement from the State Department about this week's international Muslim pogrom against the free press was also accidentally accurate.

"Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief."

Thus the hapless Sean McCormack, reading painfully slowly from what was reported as a prepared government statement. How appalling for the country of the First Amendment to be represented by such an administration. What does he mean "unacceptable?" That it should be forbidden? And how abysmal that a "spokesman" cannot distinguish between criticism of a belief system and slander against a people. However, the illiterate McCormack is right in unintentionally comparing racist libels to religious faith. Many people have pointed out that the Arab and Muslim press is replete with anti-Jewish caricature, often of the most lurid and hateful kind. In one way the comparison is hopelessly inexact. These foul items mostly appear in countries where the state decides what is published or broadcast. However, when Muslims republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or perpetuate the story of Jewish blood-sacrifice at Passover, they are recycling the fantasies of the Russian Orthodox Christian secret police (in the first instance) and of centuries of Roman Catholic and Lutheran propaganda (in the second). And, when an Israeli politician refers to Palestinians as snakes or pigs or monkeys, it is near to a certainty that he will be a rabbi (most usually Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the leader of the disgraceful Shas party), and will cite Talmudic authority for his racism. For most of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin, and it still shows.

Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. And the Bush administration has no business at all expressing an opinion on that. If it is to say anything, it is constitutionally obliged to uphold the right and no more. You can be sure that the relevant European newspapers have also printed their share of cartoons making fun of nuns and popes and messianic Israeli settlers, and taunting child-raping priests. There was a time when this would not have been possible. But those taboos have been broken.

Which is what taboos are for. Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find "offensive." ( By the way, hasn't the word "offensive" become really offensive lately?) The innate human revulsion against desecration is much older than any monotheism: Its most powerful expression is in the Antigone of Sophocles. It belongs to civilization. I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs, and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings. The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

As it happens, the cartoons themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance. … In fact, Sunni Muslim leaders can't even seem to condemn the blowing-up of Shiite mosques and funeral processions, which even I would describe as sacrilege. Of course there are many millions of Muslims who do worry about this, and another reason for condemning the idiots at Foggy Bottom is their assumption, dangerous in many ways, that the first lynch mob on the scene is actually the genuine voice of the people. There's an insult to Islam, if you like.

The question of "offensiveness" is easy to decide. First: Suppose that we all agreed to comport ourselves in order to avoid offending the believers? How could we ever be sure that we had taken enough precautions? On Saturday, I appeared on CNN, which was so terrified of reprisal that it "pixilated" the very cartoons that its viewers needed to see. And this ignoble fear in Atlanta, Ga., arose because of an illustration in a small Scandinavian newspaper of which nobody had ever heard before! Is it not clear, then, that those who are determined to be "offended" will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.

Second (and important enough to be insisted upon): Can the discussion be carried on without the threat of violence, or the automatic resort to it? When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses in 1988, he did so in the hope of forwarding a discussion that was already opening in the Muslim world, between extreme Quranic literalists and those who hoped that the text could be interpreted. We know what his own reward was, and we sometimes forget that the fatwa was directed not just against him but against "all those involved in its publication," which led to the murder of the book's Japanese translator and the near-deaths of another translator and one publisher. I went on Crossfire at one point, to debate some spokesman for outraged faith, and said that we on our side would happily debate the propriety of using holy writ for literary and artistic purposes. But that we would not exchange a word until the person on the other side of the podium had put away his gun. (The menacing Muslim bigmouth on the other side refused to forswear state-sponsored suborning of assassination, and was of course backed up by the Catholic bigot Pat Buchanan.) The same point holds for international relations: There can be no negotiation under duress or under the threat of blackmail and assassination. And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

This is funny at first....

Its in the Koran

Then its scary, because its 100% true.

I could do a cartoon about Jesus Christ fucking Robert E Lee in the ass on the steps of Radio City Music Hall and nobody would burn a building.

Stop with trying to say that an offended Western Society would react like these crazy, murderous motherfuckers. We wouldn't.

I agree. But if you have Jesus Christ fucking Robert E Lee in the ass on the steps of Radio City Music Hall while singing "The Eyes of Texas are Upon You," I'll cut your nuts off!

Whilst for many people this matter might seem a fuss over very little, I think that it represents very well the situation that we find ourselves in post-9/11, and it is a worrying sign for things to come, for two reasons. Firstly, the argument over these drawings cannot be seen in isolation. For many, these drawings appear as yet another attack among many upon the Muslim people since September 2001. Denmark in particular has been the setting for much hostility in recent years. Secondly, the publication of these drawings represents the confused and conflicting values of Western media, particularly its much-championed yet hypocritical usage of ‘free speech’.

Returning to the issue in Denmark, since 9/11 in particular there has been a series of actions by the Danish government and others that could be accused of victimising Muslims. I will briefly mention a few of these. For three or four years now, the Danish immigration system has become much tighter and discriminative.5 In September 2004, a new immigration act was passed specifically in order to limit the ability for Muslims to enter into Denmark.6 In the same month, the leader of the Danish People’s Party, Pia Kjærsgaard appeared in the Copenhagen Post, under the headline, ‘Party's call-to-arms against Islamism’:

Kjærsgaard compared Islamism with Nazism and Marxism, and issued a rousing call-to-arms to party members against this new "world revolutionary" movement, which she said was aiming to impose "Sharia" around the world. Kjærsgaard cited an article appearing in daily tabloid B.T. which put the number of Danish immigrant children sent on "reconditioning" trips at Muslim schools - "Koran prisons," as Kjærsgaard called them - at 5,000.7

This came only a few months after a poll was published in the same newspaper, claiming that one in four Danes believe that there will one day be more Muslims in Denmark than non-Muslims.8 Though Muslims currently only make up around two percent of the Danish population.9 In April last year, Queen Margrethe of Denmark in an authorised biography argued that Danish people should stand up to Islam, and that Muslims should learn to speak Danish properly.10 A few months later in October, Danish Member of Parliament Louise Frevert, a member of the nationalist Danish People’s Party, was severely criticised for anti-Muslim statements that appeared on her website.11 These included the claim that young Muslims believe that it is their right to rape and assault Danish people. A 2004 political pamphlet by Frevert also claimed that Muslims secretly planned to takeover Denmark. Frevert pleaded ignorance and claimed that her webmaster, Ebbe Talleruphuus was responsible for these remarks. Talleruphuus later accepted responsibility and resigned.

This is just a small sample of a few of the negative Muslim stories that can easily be found through a quick search through any of the major media outlets. And this is the climate in which these sacrilegious drawings of Mohammed appear. Given this climate and the tense post-9/11 and Iraq War global atmosphere, even the most ardent defender of Jyllands-Posten’s actions must accept that the publication of these drawings was, at the very least, extremely naïve.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...articleId=1870

To say that there was no Muslim outrage at these events is simply untrue. How many of you watch Arabic media, read Arabic newspapers? How many of you will have seen the GM of Al Arabiya condemn those who commit these acts in the name of religion? How many will watch the religious programming that comes from even Saudi Arabia, condemning those who kill in the name of Islam? Just because the West chooses not to report it and you can't be bothered to research it yourselves, don't just assume it doesn't exist.

Stupid lists like these serve the same purpose as the cartoons - intentional baiting. I doubt those that fought and died to ensure we had 'free speech' would be proud to learn that we are using it as an excuse to intentionally provoke religious groups and nothing more.

This whole thing started in the beginning of January, with letters and meetings. Denmark's response was basically that they'll do what they want. Then it slowly escalated to what it is today, when the US media decided to start covering it.

Actually, it all started in September of 2005 when the Danish paper first published them and was reignited when a Norwegian magazine decided to reprint them in January 2006 because not enough people had complained about them yet.

DJ, the Danish government basically did apologise, they said that they could not apologise on behalf of a privately owned newspaper. The Norwegians etc got it right, freedom of speech should allow me to offend anyone I feel like (and they have the right to be upset or disagree), promising violence, direct threats etc is wrong but if I say in jest "lets kill all muslims" thats free speech, if I hold a rally which intends to disseminate information on and support the killing of muslims then that is probably not free speech covered.

There are many enlightened muslims, there are many enlightened christians, however it seems as a whole that Islam tends to produce more fanatics per worshiper than other religions. This is problematic in a world access to weapons, technology to produce weapons and transport is easy to acquire. The Clerics and suchlike calling these images distasteful but calling for rational discussion from the Islamic world I support however there are many clerics and governments instead either sitting back or "supporting" these actions. Attacking an Embassy is imo an act of war, for a goverment to sit back and allow its people to assault a soverign nations representatives in your country is outrageous (you might not like them but they are there for diplomatic reasons and as such should be protected).

How about the next time I am offended I declare a crusade and go wipe out or at least threaten to wipe out some civilisations, racial groups or religions? Doesn't really seem sensible now does it... I think the Bible got this one right, an Eye for an Eye, so they can reprint some cartoons mocking our faiths, but to take actions far beyond that?

The vatican support of this (and Jack Straw's) annoys me, religious taboos for members of that religion are for them not anyone else, sure I can be respectful however I am not forced to... Can I form a religion saying that beer is taboo, women should be naked and guys totally covered up and then complain when everyone else either disagrees with me or thinks I am a nutcase? I don't think I really have a case here.

For something that's supposed to be so good for people, religion sures creates a huge mess with the world.

classic...

and speaking of vain...

An old man was sitting on a bench at the mall.
A young man walked up to the bench and sat down.
He had spiked hair in all different colors:
green, red, orange, blue, and yellow.

The old man just stared.
Every time the young man looked, the old man was staring.

The young man finally said sarcastically,
"What's the matter old timer, never done anything wild in your life?"

Without batting an eye, the old man replied,
"Got drunk once and had sex with a peacock. I was just wondering
if you were my son."

we are all different and we may all have our opinions how the world should flow...

i just don't understand how some people that raid villages, embassies, burn down neighborhoods or bomb cafes are any better than those that looted new orleans except for the fact they're doing it in the name of their god with his blessing...

bring him down here, i wanna ask him that myself

The Danish government said it condemned the newspaper. It did not apologise. The newspaper apologised for causing offense (which I find strange as that was the reason they published the cartoons in the first place) and then said they would do it all again if they had the choice.

It is the most childish exertion of 'free speech' I have ever witnessed, akin to a 4 year old poking his sister until she gets so angry she lashes out at him and then gets blamed for starting trouble. Expose the truth, express an opinion, make yourself heard, but hiding behind a provilege as fundamental and important as free speech just to see how far you can provoke a billion people is truly shameful.

Having said that, the Muslim response is completely over the top, or at least has gradually become so in the month that Denmark has been running and hiding behind the 'free speech' wall. But the newspaper must take its share of blame for the mess this has become.

Was their initial reason not to see if the artists would self censor themselves? Something that a lot of people seem to do in relation to Islam far more than they do for say Christianity (just look at the GIS I posted, imagine "Muhammed Lol" as a picture series?).

The Danish government can condem the newspaper however they are right that they cannot apologise on behalf of an independent entity. As for the paper printing these was an issue of free speech based on a "good" reason. Imagine if I asked for images Jesus following the Catholic Priest + "small children" season? I would imagine that I would get a lot of really quite distasteful pictures however the point of the asking is a valid one (to see if people will censor themselves).

Its hardly a childish example. Is printing images of the Japanese/Chinese war offensive (lots of corpses, mass graves etc?), its a historical fact which the Japanese basically say didn't happen... am I offending them? Or perhaps we should ensure that all Western women wear Burkhas outside for fear of upsetting Islam?

Everything you do can cause offense to someone (in Britain for example myself and my Black friends can walk down the street calling each other Nigger and Ho and not offend ourselves, however if someone else believes this to be racist it becomes a racist incident) despite the fact that they have nothing to do with our conversation/arguement). To monitor everything for offense is silly, heck I find PC terms very offensive (Horizontally challenged? Deferred success?---- special?) Lets call a spade a spade here and get over ourselves, no matter what we do we can offend others... the paper wasn't looking to offend Islam it was looking at an interesting article... if they were delibrately trying to offend thats a different story but they have taken this way too far, attacking Embassies? Threatening Terrorist attacks? Offering to exterminate us... arrest them all and let Justice decide.

The old adage comes to mind:

Don't wrestle with a pig.
You both get dirty.
He enjoys it.

Not to call religious extremists pigs in any way, but they do have many large, poorly balanced chips on their collective shoulder, and killing seems to be in fashion.

Nor am I suggesting the non-fanatical roll over and be walked upon, but this cartoon exercise seems like a pointless mud-pit.

a recap of this hullaballoo, from this morning's guardian:

source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus...702538,00.html

The cartoons can be found on this blog

About an hour ago, Wolf Blitzer showed the Saudi ambassador to the US several cartoons published in a Saudi neswpaper that portrayed Isreal and Jews very badly. The ambassador of course said he objected to them.

I have a bad feeling about this. If a group of people want to get upset and retaliate, they will be able to find enough to get pissed at.

Too me, this isn't really about the cartoons. Rather, the cartoons are a match in a pile of very dry tinder.

To point to the hooligans pictured above with signs calling for beheadings and the like, is like using pictures of neo-nazis protesting to sum up the feelings of the white majority. They are idiots who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No question.

Regarding the cartoons directly, yes you can cry freedom of speech, but was this an example of a responsible use of freedom of speech? I think Jack Straw has summed it up nicely: 'There is freedom of speech, we all respect that, but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory... I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.'

These cartoons only served to further divide an already divided community.

No offense, but your religion needs a little work on the issue of tolerance.

Better yet, an entire reformation in order to lessen the locks on the way that so many (mind you not all) muslims think.

After looking at those toons I cannot understand what about them warrents anything more than a complaint letter to the editor. Even a public protest seems outrageous. I don't care if you are an extremist Islamic or a moderate, you should not be condoning the actions of these protestors, let alone defending them. If anything you should be criticising them because they are protraying a worldwide image of a violent, intolerant religion. If Islam is not violent and intolerant then why am I not hearing any criticism from the islamic world over the protestors actions?

Agreed. You know, the closer you are to an area where stuff like that is happening, the better you can see the different factors at play.

I woke up this morning to see that the Danish embassy in Beirut (my original hometown) was burned down. After the initial shock, and reading up on this demonstration-turned-violent, I can see the different aspects of it:

1) Fringe extremist groups (mostly from outside Beirut) were bused in.
2) 2/3 of those arrested (basically the ones that were agitating things) were Syrian and Palestinian (though probably the majority of those demonstrating where Lebanese Sunnis, not Shias (i.e. not Hizbullah at this point)).
3) Rocks were thrown at a nearby church.

So, analyzing that, I can tie it to the troubles we've had since the Syrians were forced to withdraw; the fact that they still have agents in Lebanon trying to forment troubles (and that they are locked in a conflict with Western powers at this time), the fact that Palestinians are still mostly-unwelcome-guests, many of them with weapons. There's also the crossing of a red line by throwing stones at a church which very few groups would actually do in Lebanon, there's the situation of the fringe religious groups in economically deprived areas of the country, who have had clashes with the government before, etc..

So, basically, there's a lot more at play here than just cartoons -> burnt embassies. I only know this much detail about Lebanon, but I can imagine there are complexities like those in every country where this is happening..

Simplistic analysis, such as "Damn Muslim world, hating the freedom of the press, fighting the West because of some cartoons" is not useful.

I don't think most moderates would defend the violence... Protest, yes but not the violence.

Think about the protests in Seattle, not too long ago. There were many who supported the protests in principle but not the violence the ultimately errupted.

Again, this isn't just about the cartoons. There has been a lot more leading up to this... the cartoons are just an excuse to release the pressure that has been building up. Remember that freedom of press and speech do not exist in many of these nations. As a result, there isn't room for moderate dissent in the press. In many cases, the only place where dissenting voices are allowed to be heard are in the Mosques. The moderates have been largely marginalized while the more radical elements have been allowed to fourish.

As ktspktsp points out, the situation is not as simple nor as cut and dry as a similar set of events would play out in the west.

i think some of this is just an excuse to cause violence. I don't think there is anything you could write or draw in the paper that would drive me to burn down buildings and call for peoples heads. although i'm not fucking insane either.