Scandinavians not welcome in Gaza

[Ryokan]

BBC is showing the drawings tonight!

[Bjorn]

Le Monde printed them today.

[BPSCG]

Le Monde printed them today.Spreading like a viral infection. Kinda like telling your kid not to put beans in his nose...

[homer]

Those cartoons didn't offend me in the least , but there again I wasn't offended by ' Life of Brian ' . I wonder if we should consider a remake and just to keep things fair , this time it could be set in the early days of Islam .
I expect though that they might be offended by somebody being mistaken for a major religious figure even if he's really a rather nice guy who meant well but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time .Well christians were offended , even some who had not even seen the film .
I bet most of those arab protesters haven't seen those cartoons either , but I don't suppose that'll stop them breaking the strict Islamic rule against murder .

[Elind]

Those cartoons didn't offend me in the least , but there again I wasn't offended by ' Life of Brian ' . I wonder if we should consider a remake and just to keep things fair , this time it could be set in the early days of Islam .

I think that would not be as entertaining as you suggest. Islam in earlier times was, I believe far more accommodating and open. My own experience in parts of the Middle East since the early 70s, was that it was even then far more flexible than it is today.

[TragicMonkey]

I despair of the Palestinians. For a people who need all the friends they can get, they sure know how to make enemies and alienate people.

No kidding. I used to be sympathetic, but their response to 9/11 killed that.

[Jon_in_london]

Interestingly, the BNP leader Nick Griffin has been cleared of all charges relating to racial hatred

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4672792.stm

Besides the fact that this is typical of our hopeless Criminal justice System and a massive waste of taxpayers money, what will happen if Hamza gets convicted?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4671126.stm

in conjunction with the allahtoons, could we be looking at a spring of race riots?

[Jon_in_london]

No kidding. I used to be sympathetic, but their response to 9/11 killed that.

Well, exactly! At least Europe was fairly 50/50 on the matter.. but now?

[Skeptic]

And the local Israel-right-or-wrong folks are also pretty busy using this too, it seems...

Yeah, I know, I know, Israel numero-uno, Palestinians baaaadd...

(sigh) :rolleyes:

Well, it seems what the Palestinians want from their western supporters is rather clear.

First, they want their aid money.
Second, they want the supporters to never say or do anything that might offend Islam, or they will bomb/kill them.

[Orwell]

Well, it seems what the Palestinians want from their western supporters is rather clear.

First, they want their aid money.
Second, they want the supporters to never say or do anything that might offend Islam, or they will bomb/kill them.

Which Palestinians, Skeptic? All Palestinians? A few? Am I one of them western supporters? Do I get pigeonholed in that category because I don't agree with every dumb thing the Israeli gov. does (just as I oppose extremists in general, be they Palestinian or Canadian or whatever)?

But this thread isn't really about that now, is it?

[BPSCG]

Which Palestinians, Skeptic? All Palestinians? A few? How about the ones who voted for Hamas? That's a plurality, anyway, if not an outright majority.

[Orwell]

How about the ones who voted for Hamas? That's a plurality, anyway, if not an outright majority.

Why did they voted for Hamas? Got any theories that don't involve the old "palestinians baaaad" oversimplification?

Thread derailment...

[TragicMonkey]

I'm getting tired of having to play fair. If some Palestinians think they can attack the citizens of a country because other people in that country published something in a newspaper, then why isn't turnabout fair play? Why do we have to rush to say "well, not all Palestinians are attacking embassies and threatening people." They're not extending the same courtesy of benefit-of-the-doubt to us.

I say, fine. For years now, we've heard the radical fundamentalists claim that the evil West is making war on Islam. They want a culture war? Maybe we ought to give them one, so they can see the difference. It's one thing for people to institute backwards laws in their own countries, but now they're mad at us for having enlightened laws in our countries? After decades of us not imposing our beliefs on them, they can't return the freaking courtesy?

[BPSCG]

Why did they voted for Hamas? Got any theories that don't involve the old "palestinians baaaad" oversimplification?Yeah - they wanted clean, honest government, social services, and trains that ran on time. The vast majority of them have nothing against the filthy Jews, they were just fed up with Fatah, so they held their noses and voted for Hamas.

How did the "Let's make peace with Israel" candidates do in the election? The ones who lived, I mean.

[Freakshow]

I'm getting tired of having to play fair. If some Palestinians think they can attack the citizens of a country because other people in that country published something in a newspaper, then why isn't turnabout fair play? Why do we have to rush to say "well, not all Palestinians are attacking embassies and threatening people." They're not extending the same courtesy of benefit-of-the-doubt to us.

I say, fine. For years now, we've heard the radical fundamentalists claim that the evil West is making war on Islam. They want a culture war? Maybe we ought to give them one, so they can see the difference. It's one thing for people to institute backwards laws in their own countries, but now they're mad at us for having enlightened laws in our countries? After decades of us not imposing our beliefs on them, they can't return the freaking courtesy?Welcome to the dark side. It took you long enough to join us. ;)

[Elind]

Why did they voted for Hamas? Got any theories that don't involve the old "palestinians baaaad" oversimplification?



never miss an opportunity to miss.......:boggled:

[Mycroft]

I'm getting tired of having to play fair. If some Palestinians think they can attack the citizens of a country because other people in that country published something in a newspaper, then why isn't turnabout fair play? Why do we have to rush to say "well, not all Palestinians are attacking embassies and threatening people." They're not extending the same courtesy of benefit-of-the-doubt to us.

I just want to take a moment to point out that it's not any better to target the specific individual who said/did the offending thing. Theo Van Gough did not deserve to die for making his film, and civilized society does not condone murder as a way to suppress the expression of ideas that offend you.

[Jon_in_london]

I just want to take a moment to point out that it's not any better to target the specific individual who said/did the offending thing. Theo Van Gough did not deserve to die for making his film, and civilized society does not condone murder as a way to suppress the expression of ideas that offend you.

Indeed not, but insisting an entire nation apologise because one of its privately onwed newspapers published a picture that they find offensive is so utterly bizarre....

[Nyarlathotep]

Why did they voted for Hamas? Got any theories that don't involve the old "palestinians baaaad" oversimplification?

Thread derailment...


The Palestineans have no one to blame for the "Palestineans Baaaad" oversimplification except for themselves. When they express joy at the attacks on 9/11, when they vote in a government whose central tenet isn't just getting Palestineans their own country (a couse I would otherwise wholeheartedly support) but the destruction of another one, and when they begin issuing death threats to people and using intimidation on people because a sovereign government that isn't even predominantly Islamic refuses to stifle the free speech of some rinky-dink tabloid that printed some cartoons that offend them, when Palestineans do all of those things (and more), they ought to expect some backlash from the rest of the world.

If they don't want people to look at them as bloodthirsty barbarians, my suggestion to them is not to ACT like bloodthirsty barbarians. The ones who are NOT bloodthirsty barbarians (and I am sure that encompasses many, maybe even most of them) would be well advised to do what they can to disccourage their countryment who are not so good natured. If they do not take this advice, then if people regard them as "baaaaad", it is simply a case of them reaping what they sow.

[Belgian thought]

But if they boycott Denmark, where will they get their bacon from?

Does not matter, boycott them back! - I say to all free minded unbiggoted Europeans, do not buy dates or sand from now on - that'll teach them!!

Oh and as for the others, let us not be addicted to their oil - problem sorted!

[Ryokan]

Oh and as for the others, let us not be addicted to their oil - problem sorted!

For Norway, that's no problem ;)

[Freakshow]

For Norway, that's no problem ;)You guys run cars on whale oil, or something? :D

[Skeptic]

The Palestineans have no one to blame for the "Palestineans Baaaad" oversimplification except for themselves. When they express joy at the attacks on 9/11, when they vote in a government whose central tenet isn't just getting Palestineans their own country (a couse I would otherwise wholeheartedly support) but the destruction of another one, and when they begin issuing death threats to people and using intimidation on people because a sovereign government that isn't even predominantly Islamic refuses to stifle the free speech of some rinky-dink tabloid that printed some cartoons that offend them, when Palestineans do all of those things (and more), they ought to expect some backlash from the rest of the world.

No, no, no.

It's all the occupation's fault, and Islam is a religion of peace.

Now go to your room, and write that 100 times!

[Ryokan]

You guys run cars on whale oil, or something? :D

Haha.

You do know that Norway is the third largest oil exporting country in the world, don't you?

We have oil. Lots of it. We're the dealers of your addiction, baby! And keep using, it's making us filthy rich! :D

[Manny]

I'm getting tired of having to play fair. If some Palestinians think they can attack the citizens of a country because other people in that country published something in a newspaper, then why isn't turnabout fair play? Why do we have to rush to say "well, not all Palestinians are attacking embassies and threatening people." They're not extending the same courtesy of benefit-of-the-doubt to us.

I say, fine. For years now, we've heard the radical fundamentalists claim that the evil West is making war on Islam. They want a culture war? Maybe we ought to give them one, so they can see the difference. It's one thing for people to institute backwards laws in their own countries, but now they're mad at us for having enlightened laws in our countries? After decades of us not imposing our beliefs on them, they can't return the freaking courtesy?The Force is strong with you. A powerful Sith you will become. Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Monkey.

[Ryokan]

No, no, no.

It's all the occupation's fault, and Islam is a religion of peace.

Now go to your room, and write that 100 times!

I'm going to ask nicely.

There are a million Israel/Palestine threads, could we not make this one into one more?

[Freakshow]

Haha.

You do know that Norway is the third largest oil exporting country in the world, don't you?

We have oil. Lots of it. We're the dealers of your addiction, baby! And keep using, it's making us filthy rich! :DWhew! That's good. I've heard that burning whale stinks somethin' awful!!!!!

Don't ask me how I ever got on THAT topic of conversation with someone...

[epepke]

Indeed not, but insisting an entire nation apologise because one of its privately onwed newspapers published a picture that they find offensive is so utterly bizarre....

Exactly. It's viewed as not fair and wrong and bad to make any sort of judgement at all of any Muslims, on the grounds that not every Muslim thinks that way. On the other hand, it is viewed as fair and right and good, or at least understandable, given Western hegemony and so forth and so on, to demand that an entire nation apologize for a picture in a newspaper.

Of course, I do see the reality distortion field applied to anything Islam, which has been in place since Said published Occidentalism as breaking down. This is a good thing. I fully support the rights of people to burn Norwegian flags and say outlandish things, but I also support the right of other people to develop opinions based on those actions.

There's a limit to how much one can bend over backward before one is upright again. The French are still pissed off over Freedom Fries. I see flags getting burned almost every day on television; I'm inured to it. It's part of being an adult.

[Belgian thought]

Haha.

You do know that Norway is the third largest oil exporting country in the world, don't you?

We have oil. Lots of it. We're the dealers of your addiction, baby! And keep using, it's making us filthy rich! :D


I know of a little man who would do anything for oil - better keep mouth shut I would say...

[Skeptic]

Why did they voted for Hamas? Got any theories that don't involve the old "palestinians baaaad" oversimplification?

The Palestinians voted for a government dedicated to the violent destruction of israel. Why? Well, there may be many reasons, but the simplest explanaion is that they want the violent destruction of israel. God knows the openly and clearly express just that view long enough.

This is not an "oversimplification", but what is known in philosophy as "inference to the best explanation": it's the simplest hypothesis that explains the events, and, besides, many of them are telling you just that.

Why do you think it's such an oversimplification? Apart from you not wanting it to be true, that is.

[Ryokan]

I know of a little man who would do anything for oil - better keep mouth shut I would say...


But the difference is, we don't have weapons of mass destruction!

Oh, wait... Yeah, I see your point... Yeah, we use whale oil! And yeah, it smells! Terribly! Whew...

(Ooops, sorry for derailing the thread in the same way I didn't want others to do it)

Back to topic!

[Skeptic]

I'm going to ask nicely.

There are a million Israel/Palestine threads, could we not make this one into one more?

Sorry, I'll try to stop myself next time...

But you know, there are some issues that get people to talk about things--israeli/Arab conflict, G. W. Bush, sex, Islam... I mean, look at the thread, "Bush seen nude in Palestine with hot Islamic babe"-- 10,433 replies in the first 10 minutes.

[Ryokan]

Sorry, I'll try to stop myself next time...

But you know, there are some issues that get people to talk about things--israeli/Arab conflict, G. W. Bush, sex, Islam... I mean, look at the thread, "Bush seen nude in Palestine with hot Islamic babe"-- 10,433 replies in the first 10 minutes.

No problem, man.

And I do understand the temptation. However, that's what the other million threads are for ;)

[Belgian thought]

The Palestinians voted for a government dedicated to the violent destruction of israel. Why? Well, there may be many reasons, but the simplest explanaion is that they want the violent destruction of israel. God knows the openly and clearly express just that view long enough.

This is not an "oversimplification", but what is known in philosophy as "inference to the best explanation": it's the simplest hypothesis that explains the events, and, besides, many of them are telling you just that.

Why do you think it's such an oversimplification? Apart from you not wanting it to be true, that is.


Hi

In Northern Ireland only ten years ago, Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) started making headway on the political agenda having previously preached and allegedly backing violence against the UK, protestants and so forth. In the last few years they have been sitting around a table. Is there no way of replicating this and making Hamas go down a similar path?

[Nyarlathotep]

No problem, man.

And I do understand the temptation. However, that's what the other million threads are for ;)

I participated in the de-rail so I'll apologize too.

I do think its an effed-up thing for them to expect your country (and the other countries involved) to abide by their religious rules, and to threaten your citizens when you don't.

If I could think of something specifically Danish or Norwegian to buy I'd go out and do so just as my little way of telling these jerks "up yours".

In a way, I almost wish it were Sweden they were threatening. "Swedish Fish" are my favorite candy in the whole wide world. Instead, maybe I'll go find some good Danish beer, according to Claus it's pretty good too.:D

[Tony4245]

Wow, what logic and of course the usual double standard learned from masters like Arafat. One face in English (or whatever), another in Arabic.

Ah, yes - the man who never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

After awhile, one needs to stop paying attention to the rhetoric and judge by actions.

[Belgian thought]

Ah, yes - the man who never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. -

what man does not?

After awhile, one needs to stop paying attention to the rhetoric and judge by actions. -

indeed!

[jay gw]

clash of civilizations

[BPSCG]

The Palestineans have no one to blame for the "Palestineans Baaaad" oversimplification except for themselves. When they express joy at the attacks on 9/11, when they vote in a government whose central tenet isn't just getting Palestineans their own country (a couse I would otherwise wholeheartedly support) but the destruction of another one, and when they begin issuing death threats to people and using intimidation on people because a sovereign government that isn't even predominantly Islamic refuses to stifle the free speech of some rinky-dink tabloid that printed some cartoons that offend them, when Palestineans do all of those things (and more), they ought to expect some backlash from the rest of the world. Does this remind you of anyone?...there was once an insanely aggressive race of people called the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax. That was just the name of their race. The name of their army was something quite horrific. Luckily they lived even further back in Galactic history than anything we have so far encountered - twenty billion years ago - when the Galaxy was young and fresh, and every idea worth fighting for was a new one.

And fighting was what the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax were good at, and being good at it, they did a lot. They fought their enemies (i.e. everybody else), they fought each other. Their planet was a complete wreck. The surface was littered with abandoned cities which were surrounded by abandoned war machines, which were in turn surrounded by deep bunkers in which the Silastic Armorfiends lived and squabbled with each other.

The best way to pick a fight with a Silastic Armorfiend was just to be born. They didn't like it, they got resentful. And when an Armorfiend got resentful, someone got hurt. An exhausting way of life, one might think, but they did seem to have an awful lot of energy.

The best way of dealing with a Silastic Armorfiend was to put him into a room of his own, because sooner or later he would simply beat himself up.

Eventually they realized that this was something they were going to have to sort out, and they passed a law decreeing that anyone who had to carry a weapon as part of his normal Silastic work (policemen, security guards, primary school teachers, etc.) had to spend at least forty-five minutes every day punching a sack of potatoes in order to work off his or her surplus aggressions.

For a while this worked well, until someone thought that it would be much more efficient and less time-consuming if they just shot the potatoes instead.

This led to a renewed enthusiasm for shooting all sorts of things, and they all got very excited at the prospect of their first major war for weeks.

[epepke]

Northern Ireland only ten years ago, Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) started making headway on the political agenda having previously preached and allegedly backing violence against the UK, protestants and so forth. In the last few years they have been sitting around a table. Is there no way of replicating this and making Hamas go down a similar path?

Gah, you're hard to quote. Too many COLOR tags. Don't hit the button so often or whatever you're doing next time, OK?

Technically, this is conceivably possible.

But how do you propose to do it?

I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already.

As for the IRA, there are two basic differences:

1) Unlike Islam, there has not been an academic tradition to the effect that the Irish are completely superior creatures who never go to the toilet and couldn't possibly ever do anything wrong.

2) Unlike Israel, the English are not assumed always to be wrong and bad about everything in the same academic tradition.

[epepke]

dup post

[Bjorn]

YEAH for Jordan ...Not so fast:

In the Arab world, a Jordanian newspaper, Shihan, took the bold step Thursday of running some of the drawings, saying it wanted to show its readers how offensive the cartoons were but also urging the world's Muslims to "be reasonable." Its editorial noted that Jyllands-Posten had apologized, "but for some reason, nobody in the Muslim world wants to hear the apology."

Hours later, the Jordanian government threatened legal action against Shihan, and the owners of the weekly said they had fired its chief editor, Jihad al-Momani, and withdrawn the issue from sale.http://www.wral.com/apworldnews/6688271/detail.html

[luchog]

If I could think of something specifically Danish or Norwegian to buy I'd go out and do so just as my little way of telling these jerks "up yours".
Lutefisk?

Denmark makes some darn good cheese. I'll avoid the Danish beer, though. It's mostly lager, and I'm much of of an ale drinker.

[Orwell]

Gah, you're hard to quote. Too many COLOR tags. Don't hit the button so often or whatever you're doing next time, OK?

Technically, this is conceivably possible.

But how do you propose to do it?

I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already.

As for the IRA, there are two basic differences:

1) Unlike Islam, there has not been an academic tradition to the effect that the Irish are completely superior creatures who never go to the toilet and couldn't possibly ever do anything wrong.

2) Unlike Israel, the English are not assumed always to be wrong and bad about everything in the same academic tradition.

Man, do you smell straw? 'Cause I sure do smell me some thick straw!

[Freakshow]

Man, do you smell straw? 'Cause I sure do smell me some thick straw!I don't. I thought the positions stated were pretty accurate for the positions of the extremist muslim terrorists. Not all muslims. Just the ones that are so extremist as to become terrorists. And unfortunately, that is more than just a few dozen or so.

[Orwell]

I don't. I thought the positions stated were pretty accurate for the positions of the extremist muslim terrorists. Not all muslims. Just the ones that are so extremist as to become terrorists. And unfortunately, that is more than just a few dozen or so.

It's the "I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already" thing I'm objecting to. That's bunk.

[Mycroft]

It's the "I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already" thing I'm objecting to. That's bunk.

You think that's straw? Start a thread proposing that very thing and see what happens.

[BPSCG]

It's the "I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already" thing I'm objecting to. That's bunk.Well, it's a prediction, and a falsifiable one at that. But how is it a straw man?

[Orwell]

And BPSCG, I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams would find your usage of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax pretty offensive.

[Freakshow]

And BPSCG, I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams would find your usage of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax pretty offensive.I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, at the moment. :o

[Orwell]

Well, it's a prediction, and a falsifiable one at that. But how is it a straw man?

Because it assumes that the by default position of at least half of the intellectuals in the West is pro-Palestinian. It also doesn't take into account why so many people tend to support the Palestinian cause, nor the extent of their support. I'm pretty sure that very few Western intellectuals would agree with the views of palestinian extremists. Like most strawmen, it is a caricature.

[Orwell]

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, at the moment. :o

Yeah, unfortunately... (Sad)

[Elind]

Hi

In Northern Ireland only ten years ago, Sinn Fein (the political arm of the IRA) started making headway on the political agenda having previously preached andallegedly backing violenceagainst the UK, protestants and so forth. In the last few years they have been sitting around a table. Is there no way of replicating this and making Hamas go down a similar path?


Come back in 10 years and find out.:(

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Orwell http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1420376#post1420269):
And BPSCG, I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams would find your usage of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax pretty offensive.


I'm pretty sure he wouldn't, at the moment. :o
Adams?? I thought he was talking about Ron Hubbard, but of course he won't either at the moment. Now, his lawyer would be another matter.

[Bjorn]

On one hand ...

Military leaders angrily denounced as "beyond tasteless" a Washington Post editorial cartoon featuring a likeness of a severely wounded soldier and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as an attending doctor who says, "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'"

In a letter to the Post signed by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, the vice-chairman, as well as the chiefs of the four military services, they blasted the cartoon as "a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation and as a result have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds."
"We believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices," they wrote, while adding that the newspaper is "free to address any topic, including the state of readiness of today's armed forces."On the other hand ...

Asked about the matter Thursday during an appearance before journalists at the National Press Club, Rumsfeld said he had not been aware of the service chiefs' letter, but he defended their right to express their view.
He recalled that editorial cartoonists had made "vicious" attacks on President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War and had published "perfectly terrible" cartoons about President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.
"That's the way it is here," Rumsfeld said. "It comes with the territory, I guess is all I can say."The cartoon seems to be removed from the Washington Post's website (I find all other dates there).

[Bjorn]

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/02/02/PH2006020200736.jpg

[BPSCG]

And BPSCG, I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams would find your usage of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax pretty offensive.Would he, now? Apart from my regrettable failure to attribute, why would he be offended? I'll have to check the copyright date, but that passage sure sounds to me like an intentional satire of the Palestinians.

[epepke]

It's the "I'm pretty sure that any actual attempts to put pressure on the Palestinian Authority to behave in a civilized manner would be met by waves of shrieking by half of the intellectuals in the West. We seem to be seeing the harbingers of this already" thing I'm objecting to. That's bunk.

It's a prediction. That is, an educated guess about what will happen in the future, if anybody with power (e.g. the US Government) actually tries to put pressure on the PA.

I'm sticking to it. I may be wrong, and quite frankly, I'd be delighted if I were. But based on my experience, that's the way things go.

And, yeah, I have seen the harbingers of this already. Condoleeza Rice suggested that countries should stop giving aid to the PA, which is a form of pressure. There's been a fair amount of shrieking about that.

[BPSCG]

Because it assumes that the by default position of at least half of the intellectuals in the West is pro-Palestinian. It also doesn't take into account why so many people tend to support the Palestinian cause, nor the extent of their support. I'm pretty sure that very few Western intellectuals would agree with the views of palestinian extremists. Like most strawmen, it is a caricature.Pretty tortured definition of "straw man".

[epepke]

Because it assumes that the by default position of at least half of the intellectuals in the West is pro-Palestinian. It also doesn't take into account why so many people tend to support the Palestinian cause, nor the extent of their support. I'm pretty sure that very few Western intellectuals would agree with the views of palestinian extremists. Like most strawmen, it is a caricature.

It doesn't matter, Orwell. I'm predicting that about half of the intellectuals will stick to the pro-Palestinian side whatever happens. Whatever their reasons.

I don't think they'll actually accede to the demands of the extremists. I think they'll play their usual game, which is to run interference for the extremists. I expect them to say, repeatedly, "Not all Paliestinians are like that, and you can't judge, you Islamophobe" and so forth and so on, ad infinitum.

And I think I need to point out again that this was a reasonably democratic election.

[Nyarlathotep]

Lutefisk?

Denmark makes some darn good cheese. I'll avoid the Danish beer, though. It's mostly lager, and I'm much of of an ale drinker.


Ye Gads! I have heard of Lutefisk but was never quite sure what it was, so your post made me think to google it.

Lemme put it this way. Is there anything ELSE Norwegian I can buy?:D

[epepke]

Ye Gads! I have heard of Lutefisk but was never quite sure what it was, so your post made me think to google it.

Lemme put it this way. Is there anything ELSE Norwegian I can buy?:D

Gjetost cheese. A thin slice of it is equivalent in flavor to a cup of sweet milk paste, only without the sweetness. Delicious. Use it in moderation.

[Mycroft]

Would he, now? Apart from my regrettable failure to attribute, why would he be offended? I'll have to check the copyright date, but that passage sure sounds to me like an intentional satire of the Palestinians.

Back then people were making Beirut jokes.

[Kaylee]

I'm wondering if this was just staged by the Fatah party to show that they can be just as suicidal as the Hamas party? And it's certainly a good way to detract from the local problems by creating more international problems.

If the Danish newspaper hadn't conveniently published the cartoons, I'm sure the Fatah party could have found something else offensive to Islam to stage a show around.

[Skeptic]

Hours later, the Jordanian government threatened legal action against Shihan, and the owners of the weekly said they had fired its chief editor, Jihad al-Momani

An unfortunate name for a man who is obviously the only reasonable man in Jordan...

Let's see...

"Islamic Extremist": "If you run a cartoon I don't like, I'll kill you".
"Ismamic Moderate": "If you run a cartoon I don't like, you're fired."

And don't tell me the latter is the same thing as in the USA. In the USA, a cartoonist might be fired by the boss for running a cartoon he doesn't like, but, first, he will have legal recourse for unjust firing, and, second, it is not GOVERNMENT ACTION that LEGALLY BANS cartoons IT doesn't like.

I'm beginning to think the name "extremism" is wrong for the fundamentalist Muslims. At least in absolute numbers, there are many of them. The REAL extremists, those who REALLY are considered insane nuts in the Muslim world, are people like Mr. Momani here--with their crazy, lunatic, off-the-wall views that freedom of speech matters, or that Muslims debase themselves when they behave barbarically.

In the Muslim world, THAT is extremism. It is a world, it seems, where you and your neighbors sit around thinking of ever more horrific punishment for the infidels for publishing a cartoon--and the village idiot rants on about "freedom of speech" and "respect for democracy".

But there isn't going to be the slightest demand, I am afraid, for the Muslims world to really embrace freedom of speech or democracy. "It's their culture", wink wink, nudge nudge--which really means, "hey, what do you expect of savages?"

[Tony4245]

WARNING - Pro-Israeli...
This is the Larry (not Dennis!) Miller bit from back in 2002:

"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you really need. Don't thank me. I'm a giver. Here we go:
The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention.
Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."
So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death." I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters."
Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course-that's where the real fun is-but mostly they want Israel. Why?
For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it - for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on G-d's Earth, and if you've ever been around G-d's Earth, you know that's really saying something.
It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.
Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
Mr. Bush, G-d bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations coming up against Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away. However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint. If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan. (Hey, wait a minute, that's actually not such a bad id . . . uh, that is, what a horrible thought, yeah, horrible.)"

[Skeptic]

But there isn't going to be the slightest demand, I am afraid, for the Muslims world to really embrace freedom of speech or democracy. "It's their culture", wink wink, nudge nudge--which really means, "hey, what do you expect of savages?"

Along the same vein is the demand of the israelis, "hey, what did you expect coming to Palestine except for violent genocidal hatered from the natives?". This always reminds me of accusing people who perished in an earthquake, for example, "Hey, what did they expect, living in an earthquake zone?".

It sounds really "realistic", but, in reality, it denies the humanity of the Muslims. Their genocidal hatered is treated as a force of nature, like earthquakes or hurricanes, something over which the Muslims have no control whatever. They have no free will or humanity.

They just HAVE to be genocidally hateful at the slightest (or at no) provocation, just like the earth HAS to quake when the forces within the earth's crust are strong enough.

In this sense, someone who says, "Muslims are evil!" is more humane and less racist than someone who says, "Islam is a religion of peace, but we must not provoke them or you'll get death threats!". At least an evil person is a PERSON, someone who chooses to do evil. They could change and decided to do good.

For many bien pensants in the west, though, Muslims are simply not persons. When provoked they just have to make bomb threats--lacking free will and reacting automatically, such as it is--so that the only way to stop them to making bomb threats is to not provoke them. It's in their nature.

Which is more racist--the one who hates you as an evil person, or the one who "loves" or "undestands" you as a morally innocent, if dangerous, animal?

[Tony4245]

For many bien pensants in the west, though, Muslims are simply not persons. When provoked they just have to make bomb threats--lacking free will and reacting automatically, such as it is--so that the only way to stop them to making bomb threats is to not provoke them. It's in their nature.

As I said elsewhere, I find it hard to reconcile the hateful images the media insists on showing me with the memories I have of the very friendly people I knew.

Which is more racist--the one who hates you as an evil person, or the one who "loves" or "undestands" you as a morally innocent, if dangerous, animal?

Interesting question. I wonder which one Pat Robertson would be?
:confused:

[zenith-nadir]

Fri Feb 3, 1:15 AM ET (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_20)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad escalated in the Arab and Islamic world Thursday, with Palestinian gunmen briefly kidnapping a German citizen and protesters in Pakistan chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark."

Palestinian militants surrounded European Union headquarters in Gaza, and gunmen burst into several hotels and apartments in the West Bank in search of foreigners to take hostage.

The protests spread to Indonesia on Friday, with Islamic hardliners barging into a building housing the Danish Embassy and burning the European country's flag.

In one unusual twist, Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, visited a Gaza church Thursday and promised protection to Christians after Fatah gunmen threatened to target churches as part of their protests.

Gunmen are actually searching for foreigners in Gaza to take hostage over a cartoon! Does it say something about your society when people are actually looking to kidnap and do harm to other people over a cartoon that appeared in a small newspaper 4000 miles away in Europe?

Anger over images of Mohammad spreads across Asia - Fri Feb 3, 2006 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_dc_3)

PARIS (Reuters) - Outrage spread across the Islamic world on Friday over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, as Muslims condemned them as "blasphemous" and more European newspapers published them, arguing freedom of speech was sacred.

Up to 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta. Shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest), they smashed lamps with bamboo sticks, threw chairs, lobbed rotten eggs and tomatoes and tore up a Danish flag....and muslims wonder why Islam has a bad image problem in the West. :rolleyes:

{edited to add}


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20060203/capt.sge.gyi70.030206125416.photo00.photo.default-384x253.jpg

Muslims burn the Danish (L) and Norweigian flags inside Al-Aqsa Mosques compound after the Friday Prayer in Jerusalem. Thousands of angry Muslims demonstrated at Jerusalem's flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque compound after prayers protesting against caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed published by European newspapers.(AFP/Awad Awad)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.jrl10702031302.mideast_israel_palestinians__j rl107.jpg

Palestinian Hamas supporters burn Danish products during a demonstration in the West Bank town of Jenin Friday Feb. 3, 2006. Large-scale demonstrations against the publication of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad in European newspapers were planned throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank following noon prayers Friday. (AP Photo/Mohammed Ballas)...over a frikkin' cartoon...I'm sorry but you need a HUGE value and reality check if you get this militant and insane over a cartoon.

[Leif Roar]

Ye Gads! I have heard of Lutefisk but was never quite sure what it was, so your post made me think to google it.

Lemme put it this way. Is there anything ELSE Norwegian I can buy?:D

Oh, there's lots. Myrmelk, rakørret, gravlaks and smalahåve, for instance.

[The Don]

Ye Gads! I have heard of Lutefisk but was never quite sure what it was, so your post made me think to google it.

Lemme put it this way. Is there anything ELSE Norwegian I can buy?:D
Ooooh lots (http://www.nortrade.com/)

[Lukretius]

Ooooh lots [/url]

Here's some examples of Danish exporters:

- Arla Foods
- Bang & Olufsen
- Cabinplant (Capital equipment for fishing industries)
- Carlsberg (Liquid for thirsty souls)
- COWI
- Danfoss
- Danisco (foods)
- Danish Crown (foods)
- Danske Bank
- Grundfos
- HEMPEL
- J. Lauritzen
- LEGO
- Le Klint
- A.P. Moller - Maersk
- Nodea (arts)
- Novo Nordisk (medicin)
- Oticon
- VELUX
- Vestas

I especially like the last one. Vestas is one of the worlds leading windmill producers, so if anybody should happen to be in need of a 300 feet high windmill, Vestas is the firm to call :D

And of course - if you're a sucker for designer furnitures from the 50's and 60's we have loads of overpriced goods for sale :p

[The Don]

For our Northern Irish members, you can support Danske Bank by bankind at the Northern Irish Bank or the Northern Bank.

Beerwise, you could do worse than drinking Albani. On no account should you touch Gamel Dansk

[Lukretius]

For our Northern Irish members, you can support Danske Bank by bankind at the Northern Irish Bank or the Northern Bank.

Beerwise, you could do worse than drinking Albani. On no account should you touch Gamel Dansk

In general Danish beer is ok, but quite boring. And the advise against Gammel Dansk is wise - I'll never forget the hellish hangover following a night with only Gammel Dansk on the menu, not to mention that it tastes like skunk piss. :boggled:

(Gammel Dansk is a bitter, and the name translate into "Old Danish" - but they don't tell you that it's THAT old)

[zenith-nadir]

It is absolutely crazy what a few cartoons will motivate people to do....(from Yahoo News)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.jrl11602031417.mideast_israel_palestinians_pr ophet_drawings_jrl116.jpg

Palestinian Hamas supporters attend a rally against the publication of cartoons in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Mohammad, in front of the Palestinian parliament in Gaza City, Friday, Feb, 3, 2006. AP Photo/Adel Hana

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r2350871356.jpg

A Palestinian holds the Koran during a Hamas rally to protest against the publication of cartoons in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Mohammad, inside Palestinian parliament in Gaza City February 3, 2006. REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.jrl11202031402.mideast_israel_palestinians__j rl112.jpg

Supporters of the Islamic group Hamas burn a French flag during a demonstration in the West Bank town of Ramallah Friday Feb. 3, 2006. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060203/capt.jrl11302031404.mideast_israel_palestinains_pr ophet_drawingsp_jrl113.jpg

Supporters of the Islamic group Hamas burn a Danish flag during a demonstration in the West Bank town of Nablus Friday Feb. 3, 2006.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r3976262156.jpg

Palestinians burn European Union products during a Hamas demonstration in the West Bank city of Jenin February 3, 2006. REUTERS/Mohamed Torkoman

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060203/2006_02_03t085205_450x316_us_religion_cartoons_1.j pg

Palestinian Hamas supporters burn a Danish flag during a Hamas rally in Gaza February 3, 2006. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)

Meanwhile in Lebanon....

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r3099267572.jpg

Palestinian children shout slogans during a demonstration against cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad published in several European newspapers, after Friday prayers in Bourj al-Barajneh refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon February 3, 2006. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r498099471.jpg

A Palestinian woman from the Hamas group holds the Muslim holy book Koran and a banner calling for a boycott of European products during a demonstration after Friday prayers in Bourj al-Barajneh refugee camp in Beirut February 3, 2006.


Note to Scandinavians...your cartoonists have a very militant fanbase. ;)

[Orwell]

Would he, now? Apart from my regrettable failure to attribute, why would he be offended? I'll have to check the copyright date, but that passage sure sounds to me like an intentional satire of the Palestinians.

There's a bit of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax in a lot of folks, BP... And I'm pretty sure that that was what Adam's intended to satirise.

[BPSCG]

Have I missed something here? Why is it only the Palis who have their britches in such a twist about this? Why aren't they burning Danish flags in Damascus and Cairo and Riyadh and Peshawar and Teheran and...?

[BPSCG]

There's a bit of the Silastic Armorfiends of Striterax in a lot of folks, BP... Truer words were never spoken; there is a bit of the Silastic Armorfiends in a lot of folks.

But there's a lot of it in the Palis.

Try this experiment: Read the Silastic paragraph again, substituting "Palestinians" for "Silastic Armorfiends" throughout. Description still rings pretty true, doesn't it?

Now substitute "Canadians."

Doesn't work nearly as well, does it?

[zenith-nadir]

Have I missed something here? Why is it only the Palis who have their britches in such a twist about this? Why aren't they burning Danish flags in Damascus and Cairo and Riyadh and Peshawar and Teheran and...?Oh they will be...

You just don't get it BPSCG that cartoons are taken very very seriously by some people... and...er....ahhhh....you'd better wake up.....and...er...ahhmmm... and you also must accept that WW3, "the cartoon war", is upon us!

Muslims Again Protest Muhammad Caricatures (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_25) Feb 03, 2006

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Tens of thousands of angry Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance Friday against European countries where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were published.

In Iraq, thousands demonstrated after Friday mosque services, and the country's leading Shiite cleric denounced the drawings. About 4,500 people rallied in Basra and hundreds at a Baghdad mosque. Danish flags were burned at both demonstrations.

Muslims in Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia demonstrated against the European nations whose papers published them.


(edited to add)

Tell me everyone, these kind of protests are obviously staged and planned. I bet a weeks pay that most of the people burning these flags and calling for vengence never have read the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten or the Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet. So let's see the forest from the trees for a sec. Who is organizing these many over-the-top protests and what is their ultimate goal?

[Kopji]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11097877/

In Indonesia, 150 demonstrators hurled eggs at the building housing the Danish Embassy, then stormed in, pushing past security guards.

Shouting “God is Great,” they tried to enter elevators to reach the mission on the building’s 25th floor, but had to settle for tearing down a Danish flag and burning it on the pavement outside the building.

“We are not terrorists, we are not anarchists, but we are against those people who blaspheme Islam,” a protester wearing white Arabic-style robes shouted outside the building.

...

[Manny]

Have I missed something here? Why is it only the Palis who have their britches in such a twist about this? Why aren't they burning Danish flags in Damascus and Cairo and Riyadh and Peshawar and Teheran and...?That's just where the photographers are. Protests in Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13779629.htm). And other places I'm too lazy to link.

[Darat]

I hope no one sees what someone has done with this Islamic prophet (http://www.ifilm.com/player/?ifilmId=2648328&pg=default&skin=default&refsite=default&mediaSize=default&context=product&launchVal=1&data=)!

[plindboe]

As a dane I couldn't care less about their flag burning fun. I just scratch my neck and think to myself; "what a bunch of fanatics".

[Orwell]

Have I missed something here? Why is it only the Palis who have their britches in such a twist about this? Why aren't they burning Danish flags in Damascus and Cairo and Riyadh and Peshawar and Teheran and...?

There have been protests all around the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1701518,00.html

Reading the threads on this, it seems that it isn't only the offended Muslims (most of them seem to be of the fundamentalist persuasion) that need to calm down. Too much self-righteousness going around...

I liked this editorial on the subject:

Cartoons and their context (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html)

[Nyarlathotep]

Ooooh lots (http://www.nortrade.com/)

I wanna buy that helicopter on the web page.


I hope they'll take a check post-dated April 4, 2087, though.

[Elind]

Gjetost cheese. A thin slice of it is equivalent in flavor to a cup of sweet milk paste, only without the sweetness. Delicious. Use it in moderation.

You can do better than that. Don't they have Sur Ströming in Norway? Mes Ost, Mes Smör?

[zenith-nadir]

I liked this editorial on the subject:

Cartoons and their context (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html)Except that Guardian...cough...cough...editorial spins the responsibility for the over-the-top protests, boycotts, violence and flag burning on:

"The cartoons, which are of very mixed quality (and which many newspapers would reject on those grounds alone), offend and provoke."The cartoons.

"That is why the defiant republication of the cartoons in some parts of Europe (some of them with far less good histories of intercommunal relations than this country) is more questionable than it may appear at first sight."The republication of the cartoons.

"So too is the political situation in Denmark itself, where the cartoons were first published, and where a large and strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark's centre-right government."...and the political situation in Denmark.

Funny but that Guardian editorial forgot to address that the responsibility for the over-the-top protests, violence, boycotts, and flag burnings belongs to the protestors and not to A) the cartoon, B) the republication of the cartoons or C) the political situation in Denmark.

[BPSCG]

That's just where the photographers are. Protests in Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13779629.htm). And other places I'm too lazy to link.Excellent.

Let's hear again how Islam is really a religion of peace that's been highjacked by a few radicals.

[Mark]

Excellent.

Let's hear again how Islam is really a religion of peace that's been highjacked by a few radicals.

You watch...if these Muslim lunatics do manage to eliminate foreign investment in their countries, they will then start screaming that the lack of foreign investment is a Zionist plot against Islam, and will start killing people over the idea.

[BPSCG]

I liked this editorial on the subject:

Cartoons and their context (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html)The money quote from that editorial:It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the prophet. As long as that is not illegal - and not even the government's amended religious hatred bill makes it so - then that right undoubtedly exists. But it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims...Translation: You have rights. Just don't try to use them. Government Censorship = Bad. Self-Censorship = Good.

Funny how the Guardian is concerned that we not cause offense to Mulsims. Do Muslims care about whether or not they cause offense to the kafirs?

[Elind]

Have I missed something here? Why is it only the Palis who have their britches in such a twist about this? Why aren't they burning Danish flags in Damascus and Cairo and Riyadh and Peshawar and Teheran and...?

They have jobs not paid for by foreigners in those places.

[JPK71]

As I am also from Denmark I would like to make a comment also. Quite frankly - most danes don´t give a s..t, and neither do I. If they want to burn flags, well go ahead. But an excuse for something that in no way conflicts with danish laws is out of the question. Muslims need to get it into their heads, that Denmark is not a muslem country - and never will be. We have a constitution that puts freedom of speech at top level.
I have an urge to say something very nasty about the muslims - but I can´t really be bothered anymore with this annoying fit of hysteria the muslems are suffering from.

[zenith-nadir]

As a dane I couldn't care less about their flag burning fun. I just scratch my neck and think to myself; "what a bunch of fanatics".

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r775918326.jpg

Palestinians stand on Danish and French flags to protest against caricatures of Prophet Mohammad published in several European newspapers in the port city of Sidon in south Lebanon February 3, 2006. REUTERS/Ali Hashisho

Who you callin' a fanatic? ....


p.s. Why do Palestinians - with green HAMAS bandana's - just happen to carry submachine guns in Sidon Lebanon?

[Nyarlathotep]

Funny how the Guardian is concerned that we not cause offense to Mulsims. Do Muslims care about whether or not they cause offense to the kafirs?

Exactly. I am offended that these fanatics are demanding that people who live in a country thousands of miles away, who generally do not even subscribe to their religion., be forced to abide by these people's religious rules under threat of death. That offends me very much.

The difference is, I am not going to give voice to that offence by finding the nearest muslim and threatening to kill him if the Muslims do not stop doing these things. Nor am I threatening to blow up consulates of Islamic countries.

[Mark]

Exactly. I am offended that these fanatics are demanding that people who live in a country thousands of miles away, who generally do not even subscribe to their religion., be forced to abide by these people's religious rules under threat of death. That offends me very much.

The difference is, I am not going to give voice to that offence by finding the nearest muslim and threatening to kill him if the Muslims do not stop doing these things. Nor am I threatening to blow up consulates of Islamic countries.

You are forgetting that in their minds God demands that they do these things. Fairness and logic have nothing to do with any of it.
They differ from the Religious Right in this country only by degree.

[zenith-nadir]

But don't feel left out Europe, there's enough "love" for everyone...

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060203/i/r727633863.jpg

Syrians walk over the Israeli flag on the pavement leading up to a mosque in Damascus February 3, 2006, where Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal delivered a speech on Friday. He demanded an apology for the cartoons published in some European papers that have sparked an escalating diplomatic standoff between Muslims and the offending European countries. REUTERS/ Khaled al-Hariri(emphasis mine)

"leading up to a mosque"...how quaint....wait a sec...is that the same Hamas leader who now runs the Palestinian Authori....nevermind. :rolleyes:

[Mycroft]

There have been protests all around the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1701518,00.html

Reading the threads on this, it seems that it isn't only the offended Muslims (most of them seem to be of the fundamentalist persuasion) that need to calm down. Too much self-righteousness going around...

I liked this editorial on the subject:

Cartoons and their context (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html)

How disapointing of the Guardian. There was a time when a liberal leaning paper would have gone to the mat for freedom of speech.

[Orwell]

But that is not the end of the matter. There are limits and boundaries - of taste, law, convention, principle or judgment. All these constraints matter and cannot be automatically overriden by invoking the larger principle. In any case, the right to publish does not imply any obligation to do so. Adults are entitled to make up their own minds about what they individually want to view or read, which is why we are publishing details of the internet links to the cartoons in the newspaper and on our website. But newspapers are not obliged to republish offensive material merely because it is controversial. It would not be appropriate, for instance, to publish an anti-semitic cartoon of the sort that was commonplace in Nazi Germany. Nor would we publish one which depicted black people in the way a Victorian caricature might have done. Every newspaper in the country regularly carries stories about child pornography, yet none has yet reproduced examples of such pornography as part of their coverage. Few people would argue that it is essential to an understanding of the issues that they should do so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html

[zenith-nadir]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.htmlI don't get your defense of the Guardian. Why? Because reproducing examples of child pornography is against the law. Therefore that analogy is useless, it simply grasping at straws. No credible news organization on earth would reproduce "examples of child pornography" in articles about child pornography. Meanwhile reproducing examples of Allah cartoons is not against any law.

[Nyarlathotep]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html

All well and good. Sometimes you have to stand up to a bully, though. RIght now, right now these muslims are attempting to be bullies. If the est of the world caves, they will just make more demands. Reprinting these cartoons shows that these other countries aren't going to cave.

If I had the money, I'd reprint the darn things on a billboard over Times Square or some other REALLY prominent location.

[Orwell]

Would you be offended if I posted anti-Semitic cartoons? Yes, and rightly so. You would probably accuse me of being an anti-Semite. There's a chance I would even get expelled from this forum. Is posting anti-Semitic cartoons against the law? No.

It is not necessary to repeatedly publish the offending cartoons to talk about the offending cartoons. They've become widely available, and anyone who wants to see them can see them.

In this case, the line between defending freedom of expression and bash-the-Muslim is a mighty fine one. There's a good chance that these cartoons were initially published by people whose specific intent was to offend Muslims and cause this kind of controversy: Muslim baiting, so to to speak. And these cartoons are mostly being reprinted by European right-wing papers who would probably never dare publish a cartoon making fun of christianism, which makes their alleged defence of freedom of speech a bit suspect... Intolerance from one side doesn't excuse insensitivity from the other.

To me, this whole affair sounds more like recuperating the events to push a certain political agenda, the agenda being either the fundamentalist's hatred of the west, or the Muslim bashing of certain elements of the European (and US) right wing. I don't feel like playing these kinds of games, you know? I've seen the cartoons, they don't offend me, but then again, I'm not Muslim. I don't approve of religious stupidity and intolerance (hell, I have quite a lot of contempt for religion in general), but I don't approve of gratuitous attacks against someone's core beliefs just for the sake of controversy either.

[Lukretius]

The reactions of these – seemingly ”ordinary” – Muslims, is without a doubt the most stupid actions I have ever seen. They DEMAND that we understand their thoughts and feelings, but the do NOTHING to understand why the pictures are legal, and why they MUST be legal. For f***’s sake.

Please Americans put some taxes on gasoline and demand that your government spend the revenue on research on alternative fuels. Then we can demand from our government that they spend the high taxes we’ve had here for years, for the same purposes (they have always just been behavioural taxes with the intend of making people consume less gasoline). Hopefully that would lead to a cheap alternative to oil in a hurry. As far as I understand, we’re not even that far away today.

The point being obviously that with no need for oil in our part of the world, the Arabic world will see – in a hurry – what good it does to base your society on religion. These people (with a maximum generalization) can’t do anything by themselves. They are on a broad scale ignorant, intolerant, uneducated, and downright idiotic. Let them have they stupidity for them selves, and let them feel what comes out of their kind of thinking.

That way WE won’t have to be as much hypocrites either. The Iraqi war was never about anything else than the fact, that the Iraqis has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and Bush wanted to put some pressure on the largest oil reserve – Saudi Arabia – after September 11.

Get rid of the oil dependency and let’s see the Arabic world turn even poorer than they are now, and let them have all the theocracies they want, just keep some heavy weapons pointed in that direction and some agents gathering real intelligence.

F*** I’m tired of this s***. :mad:

[Mark]

The reactions of these – seemingly ”ordinary” – Muslims, is without a doubt the most stupid actions I have ever seen. They DEMAND that we understand their thoughts and feelings, but the do NOTHING to understand why the pictures are legal, and why they MUST be legal. For f***’s sake.

Please Americans put some taxes on gasoline and demand that your government spend the revenue on research on alternative fuels. Then we can demand from our government that they spend the high taxes we’ve had here for years, for the same purposes (they have always just been behavioural taxes with the intend of making people consume less gasoline). Hopefully that would lead to a cheap alternative to oil in a hurry. As far as I understand, we’re not even that far away today.

The point being obviously that with no need for oil in our part of the world, the Arabic world will see – in a hurry – what good it does to base your society on religion. These people (with a maximum generalization) can’t do anything by themselves. They are on a broad scale ignorant, intolerant, uneducated, and downright idiotic. Let them have they stupidity for them selves, and let them feel what comes out of their kind of thinking.

That way WE won’t have to be as much hypocrites either. The Iraqi war was never about anything else than the fact, that the Iraqis has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and Bush wanted to put some pressure on the largest oil reserve – Saudi Arabia – after September 11.

Get rid of the oil dependency and let’s see the Arabic world turn even poorer than they are now, and let them have all the theocracies they want, just keep some heavy weapons pointed in that direction and some agents gathering real intelligence.

F*** I’m tired of this s***. :mad:


Our president, vice-president, secretary of state (people on this very board are already thrilled at the prospect of her becoming president), and many others are all oil executives. I agree with your sentiment, but ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.

[Elind]

Would you be offended if I posted anti-Semitic cartoons? Yes, and rightly so. You would probably accuse me of being an anti-Semite. There's a chance I would even get expelled from this forum. Is posting anti-Semitic cartoons against the law? No.



If you published a cartoon of someone with dreadlocks and a box on his head, bashing his head against a wall, would you be expelled from this forum? No!

If I said I saw one once in an airport doing that and thought momentarily he was a pervert jerking off against the wall, would I be expelled? We'll see.

Yes, there is an issue of sensitivity and some may like to be more sensitive than others, but why should one group demand to be treated with more sensitivity than any other?

Poor Kurious Kathy has received a lot more insensitivity on this forum than any Muslims, and that is on religion too, but she is not asking for the death of anyone. (she says her god might, but she isn't)

This is a matter of treating people(s) like adults, not children. (or perhaps the reverse). They need to grow up, that's all.

[richardm]

How disapointing of the Guardian. There was a time when a liberal leaning paper would have gone to the mat for freedom of speech.
Be fair; the article says:


The cartoons, which are of very mixed quality (and which many newspapers would reject on those grounds alone), offend and provoke. But that is what cartoons do, whether they are good or bad. The right to freedom of speech which allows newspapers to publish such provocative cartoons has been hard won, is inextricably essential to liberty, must be robustly defended and has sometimes to be controversially asserted.

I don't believe that the Danes should have apologised for initially publishing them, but I don't see how, after hearing that people were offended by them, anyone can interpret the republishing of them as anything other than a provocation. It doesn't excuse what's going on, but honestly - who is surprised that this has been the reaction? I think this is all the Guardian is getting at - just because we can say it doesn't mean we have to keep on hammering the insult home.

[Elind]

Going south of the equator now.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3561502a12,00.html

After posting this I tried the link that is supposed to give a bigger version of the cartoons, but can't connect. Perhaps overloaded?

Do others get the same?

[Mycroft]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1700999,00.html

I didn't say they couldn't rationalize their decision.

[Orwell]

I didn't say they couldn't rationalize their decision.

Well, I happen to think that their position is reasonable. I've explained why in my previous post.

[Bjorn]

Washington Post/Reuters right now:

US sides with Muslims in cartoon dispute

Reuters
Friday, February 3, 2006; 11:55 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam\'s Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

[Mycroft]

Would you be offended if I posted anti-Semitic cartoons? Yes, and rightly so.

It depends on the context. If you were promoting anti-Semitic steriotypes, then yes, I would be offended. If you were saying, "Hey, look at this anti-Semitic trash" then no, I wouldn't.

In fact, in that context, I believe I've posted anti-Semitic cartoons in this forum. Another user had linked to an anti-Israel article, I checked out the link, found some anti-Semitic cartoons, and I reposted them here saying, "Hey, look what else your source says!"

[Lukretius]

I don't believe that the Danes should have apologised for initially publishing them, but I don't see how, after hearing that people were offended by them, anyone can interpret the republishing of them as anything other than a provocation. It doesn't excuse what's going on, but honestly - who is surprised that this has been the reaction? I think this is all the Guardian is getting at - just because we can say it doesn't mean we have to keep on hammering the insult home.

Meaning - if you figure out that something hurts peoples religius feelings, introduce self censorship at once, even though nobody else get's to see what all this stupidity is about? :confused:

[richardm]

Meaning - if you figure out that something hurts peoples religius feelings, introduce self censorship at once, even though nobody else get's to see what all this stupidity is about? :confused:

At the very least you can't pretend to be amazed when people who are already over-reacting continue to over-react.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Be fair; the article says:


I don't believe that the Danes should have apologised for initially publishing them, but I don't see how, after hearing that people were offended by them, anyone can interpret the republishing of them as anything other than a provocation. It doesn't excuse what's going on, but honestly - who is surprised that this has been the reaction? I think this is all the Guardian is getting at - just because we can say it doesn't mean we have to keep on hammering the insult home.

I can see it as a defense of free speech. Of being willing to put your head above the parapet for a principle that you think is of huge importance. Of being willing to stand up, whether for a newspaper or a country, that is being threatened with violence for carrying out entirely legal activities.

As stated earlier I wish every newspaper which enjoys and benefits from freedom of speech got together and agreed that on a given day they would ALL publish the cartoons as a clear declaration that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is worth standing up for and that they will not be intimidated by threats of violence into giving it up.

I cannot understand a viewpoint that gives up freedom of speech because some people don't like what is being said.

What if someone decides that they don't like pictures of ANYBODY being published in papers? Promotes idolatory after all. Do all papers stop including pictures?

What if they decide that they don't like non-Muslim views (Jewish, Christian, secular or whatever) being published in papers? Do you want to accept that to?

At what point are you willing to take a stance?

[Mycroft]

Well, I happen to think that their position is reasonable. I've explained why in my previous post.

Then I appologize. The way I read it you seemed to be supporting the Guardian editorial.

[Lukretius]

At the very least you can't pretend to be amazed when people who are already over-reacting continue to over-react.

Agree, but I think the republishing of them is a sign that western media takes this serious, and tend to agree that Muslims demands to be treated as rotten eggs. And no matter what anyone says – that is a problem in itself.

[richardm]

Meaning - if you figure out that something hurts peoples religius feelings, introduce self censorship at once, even though nobody else get's to see what all this stupidity is about? :confused:

Well, you have to decide what your position is going to be. If you know - and let's face it it's not a surprise - that people are going to go overboard if you republish then it is a deliberate provocation to republish. It's absolutely your right to do it - but is it a wise thing to do? Why? Even Washington in that bastion of free-speech has said they don't think it was a good plan.

Isn't it possible to support the Danes without plastering the offending material all over the place? At the very least you can't pretend to be amazed when people who are already over-reacting continue to over-react; at the worst you might be giving the impression that you are purposefully trying to offend to even quite moderate muslims, which isn't what we, as a society, want - is it?

Or, you can say "F* 'em, we don't care what their reaction is". In actual fact I rather suspect that most of the Western world is so used to seeing muslims massively over-reaction to all sorts of things that to us appear quite minor that this is what most people are thinking anyway. The major question my wife had at lunchtime was "Where do they get their flags from? I'd struggle to find a Danish flag around here, never mind in Palestine" :D

In some ways I find it quite amusing - yesterday the BBC were broadcasting the pictures, very much along the lines of "Let's have a look at this stuff which is dreadfully upsetting.... Oo, yes, I can see why muslims would be enraged by that cartoon. And now the next page".

[richardm]

Agree, but I think the republishing of them is a sign that western media takes this serious, and tend to agree that Muslims demands to be treated as rotten eggs. And no matter what anyone says – that is a problem in itself.
Sorry, I heavily edited that post while you were replying! Well, I say edited - I mean I added about 200 words to a two-line post :D

[Orwell]

It depends on the context. If you were promoting anti-Semitic steriotypes, then yes, I would be offended. If you were saying, "Hey, look at this anti-Semitic trash" then no, I wouldn't.

In fact, in that context, I believe I've posted anti-Semitic cartoons in this forum. Another user had linked to an anti-Israel article, I checked out the link, found some anti-Semitic cartoons, and I reposted them here saying, "Hey, look what else your source says!"

Yes, I do agree with that.

What's the context of the publication of these cartoons? They were first published in September by a right-wing Danish paper
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/10/14/Arts/prophet_051014.html
There was some controversy, but nothing like the stuff that is going on today.

But then they were reprinted in January, three months later, by a Norwegian paper (an evangelical Christian newspaper, it seems) and I'm betting that they knew perfectly well this would cause controversy. They claim they were defending freedom of expression...

And them guess what, the Muslim fundamentalist wack jobs get a whiff of this, and the crap hits the fan. I read somewhere that some of these "gentlemen" are now touring the world showing the offending cartoons plus a few that weren't even published that are even more insulting... A lot of people seem to be profiting from this stupid controversy, eh?

[BPSCG]

Would you be offended if I posted anti-Semitic cartoons? Yes, and rightly so. Ah, but would any of these people who are burning the Danish, Norwegian, and other flags?

No chance.

They publish the vilest filth in their government-run newspapers every day, showing Jews as blood-drinking Nazis who control Bush in their evil plans to dominate the world (or are controlled by Bush in his evil plans to dominate the world. Whatever...).

We are supposed to be sensitive to their feelings. But sensitivity doesn't run both ways.

This is excellent. Religion of peace, my ass. Religion of offend-me-and-I-will-kill-you is more like it. The more of this, the better - whatever it takes to force the world to behold evil's true face.

[Elind]

And them guess what, the Muslim fundamentalist wack jobs get a whiff of this, and the crap hits the fan. I read somewhere that some of these fundamentalist "gentlemen" are now touring the world showing the offending cartoons plus a few that weren't even published that are even more insulting... A lot of people seem to be profiting from this stupid controversy, eh?

By Muslim fundamentalist wack jobs, I presume you mean the various ambassadors withdrawn from Denmark, and perhaps elsewhere soon?

[Orwell]

Then I appologize. The way I read it you seemed to be supporting the Guardian editorial.

I am supporting the Guardian's decision to not publish the cartoons.

[Orwell]

Ah, but would any of these people who are burning the Danish, Norwegian, and other flags?

No chance.

They publish the vilest filth in their government-run newspapers every day, showing Jews as blood-drinking Nazis who control Bush in their evil plans to dominate the world (or are controlled by Bush in his evil plans to dominate the world. Whatever...).

We are supposed to be sensitive to their feelings. But sensitivity doesn't run both ways. Yes, and that is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. You are familiar with the dreaded Tu Quoque, aren't you?

This is excellent. Religion of peace, my ass. Religion of offend-me-and-I-will-kill-you is more like it. The more of this, the better - whatever it takes to force the world to behold evil's true face. Don't generalise.

[Mycroft]

And them guess what, the Muslim fundamentalist wack jobs get a whiff of this, and the crap hits the fan. I read somewhere that some of these fundamentalist "gentlemen" are now touring the world showing the offending cartoons plus a few that weren't even published that are even more insulting... A lot of people seem to be profiting from this stupid controversy, eh?

And I think one of the benefits of reprinting the cartoons will be to draw attention to those that purposefully inflame Muslim anger. Not the papers, the radicals among the Muslims.

[Orwell]

By Muslim fundamentalist wack jobs, I presume you mean the various ambassadors withdrawn from Denmark, and perhaps elsewhere soon?

As far as I know, only the Saudi ambassador has been recalled. Some of the others have sent protests.

[Orwell]

And I think one of the benefits of reprinting the cartoons will be to draw attention to those that purposefully inflame Muslim anger. Not the papers, the radicals among the Muslims.

It is reprehensible that the radicals among the Muslims use this to win converts and political support. I also think that it is reprehensible that certain papers are using this to sell print.

[Mycroft]

It is reprehensible that the radicals among the Muslims use this to win converts and political support. I also think that it is reprehensible that certain papers use this to sell print.

I don't see it as selling print, I see it as taking a stand. If papers bow to pressure this time, it sets a precident that makes it more difficult to stand up for your rights next time.

Besides, it also has an effect on moderate Muslims. At some point they have to recognize the absurdity of the radicals among them and speak up.

[Tony4245]

You watch...if these Muslim lunatics do manage to eliminate foreign investment in their countries, they will then start screaming that the lack of foreign investment is a Zionist plot against Islam, and will start killing people over the idea.

The only way to win... is not to play.

[Freakshow]

Yes, and that is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. You are familiar with the dreaded Tu Quoque, aren't you? What exactly was wrong in this case? Can you clarify?

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't see it as selling print, I see it as taking a stand. If papers bow to pressure this time, it sets a precident that makes it more difficult to stand up for your rights next time.

Besides, it also has an effect on moderate Muslims. At some point they have to recognize the absurdity of the radicals among them and speak up.

Yep. And failure to take such a stand is rather like giving in to a temper tantrum thrown by a child. It encourages further temper tantrums with bigger demands the next time.

[JPK71]

Its fantastic how much response this little issue has gotten. And by the way - the saudi ambassador has been called home and the Libyen embassy has been closed down. Now - if we could just get the other 200.000 muslems to go home too, it would be really nice.

Sorry about the harsh words - but listening to the numerous lies the muslems in denmark are telling the arab countries, you get kind of irritated.

And btw look at the drawings - its f..king lightweight satire. You should see some of the drawings that are made of the primeminister of Denmark - then you would be shocked - he is usually depicted as a neanderthal.

[Orwell]

What exactly was wrong in this case? Can you clarify?

The fact that some Middle Eastern newspapers print anti-Semitic cartoons doesn't justify the printing of gratuitously offensive cartoons that are deemed to be anti-Muslim by either Israeli papers, or western papers. We are supposed to be better than that.

[Ryokan]

I don't see it as selling print, I see it as taking a stand. If papers bow to pressure this time, it sets a precident that makes it more difficult to stand up for your rights next time.

Not only that, but it's pretty hard to debate the issue in other countries with free speech without actually showing what the debate is about.

"In the news today, Muslims all over the world are rampaging because of some nasty cartoons published by Danish and Norwegian papers. But we're not going to show you the cartoons because they're nasty and some people wouldn't like it. Just use your imagination, okay?"

[Freakshow]

The fact that some Middle Eastern newspapers print anti-Semitic cartoons doesn't justify the printing of gratuitously offensive cartoons that are deemed to be anti-Muslim by either Israeli papers, or western papers. We are supposed to be better than that.Supposed to be? Maybe, but we aren't. Over here in the real world, satire is pretty common. Some people (like Mel Brooks) even make great careers out of it.

Maybe some people are just too thin-skinned? Maybe some people are just LOOKING for an excuse to get offended over, to justify feelings they already had, or actions they were already planning?

[Manny]

Yep. And failure to take such a stand is rather like giving in to a temper tantrum thrown by a child. It encourages further temper tantrums with bigger demands the next time.Yep. If I'm Christian I'm watching this very closely. "Gee, what do I have to do to get that mocking of my Lord's crucifixion (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-02-03T000037Z_01_N02248499_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-LEISURE-WILLGRACE-DC.XML) not to run? Well, I note that thousands of angry letters haven't worked in the past. And I note that the very network running the show isn't showing those cartoons of Mohammed 'out of respect for Islam.' Hmmm."

[BPSCG]

Yes, and that is wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right. You are familiar with the dreaded Tu Quoque, aren't you? Spare me your moral equivalency arguments. "Oh, we'd be just as bad as them!" News flash - we'd have to be a lot more intolerant before we were even on the same planet of intolerance as the tens of thousands who chant for my death at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
Don't generalise.Fine, have it your way, Islam is a religion of peace. Now show me the Muslim Gandhi, the Muslim Martin Luther King, the Muslim Jesus.

Here's a list of Muslims internationally recognized for working for peace:
Yassir Arafat

[Orwell]

I don't see it as selling print, I see it as taking a stand. If papers bow to pressure this time, it sets a precident that makes it more difficult to stand up for your rights next time.

Besides, it also has an effect on moderate Muslims. At some point they have to recognize the absurdity of the radicals among them and speak up.

As I said before, I find this defending freedom of press argument a bit suspect. The original Danish cartoons were reprinted by a Norwegian evangelical Christian newspaper, it seems. Some of the papers that are reprinting these things aren't renowned for their tolerance of foreigners, particularly muslims.

The cartoons have been published, the protests and death threats have been made. What's the point in keeping at it?

I think that this controversy is being used by extremists on both sides to excite hatred...

[BPSCG]

The fact that some Middle Eastern newspapers print anti-Semitic cartoons doesn't justify the printing of gratuitously offensive cartoons that are deemed to be anti-Muslim by either Israeli papers, or western papers. We are supposed to be better than that.But perish the thought that we might hold the Muslims to the same standard. Why don't we burn their flags and recall our ambassadors the next time some government-run newspaper shows a cartoon of Bush decapitating Muslim children and drinking their blood?

[Orwell]

Spare me your moral equivalency arguments. "Oh, we'd be just as bad as them!" News flash - we'd have to be a lot more intolerant before we were even on the same planet of intolerance as the tens of thousands who chant for my death at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
We where that intolerant not long ago.

[BPSCG]

Maybe some people are just LOOKING for an excuse to get offended over, to justify feelings they already had, or actions they were already planning?"To the wicked, everything serves as pretext." -- Voltaire

[SuperCoolGuy]

At the very least you can't pretend to be amazed when people who are already over-reacting continue to over-react.

It is now a race to show how "religious" Muslims are internationally. The more outraged you are, obviously the better of a Muslim you are.

What we are witnessing is idiots in the Muslim world defining tolerance as an act of weakness. Those who have nothing better to do but burn a flag or throw eggs at an embassy are ascerting themselves as better believers. This has turned into a fantastic rally for Muslims around the world to find one more excuse for hating non-Muslims.

Remember, it's not about how "good" Islam is, it is how "bad" everyone else is. This is classic blame shifting, and has become standard practice for many Muslims. The longer the media plays this up, the more international leaders treat this is a serious issue, then the chest beating will continue to worsen.

[BPSCG]

We where that intolerant not long ago.Please back that statement up with evidence.

[Giz]

1
Well, you have to decide what your position is going to be. If you know - and let's face it it's not a surprise - that people are going to go overboard if you republish then it is a deliberate provocation to republish. It's absolutely your right to do it - but is it a wise thing to do? Why?

Because not publishing makes it seem as if the howls and threats have made you cave in. I think reprinting the cartoons was absolutely the right thing to do - one of the most important rights we have is under threat. I am disapointted that US and UK media have not been more prominant (perhaps they have been asked to tread softly to avoid inflaming opinion in Iraq?)

2
(from the BBC) "Sayeed Nadeem Kazmi is a member of the Al-Khoei Foundation, an Islamic charitable organisation based in London...
Muslims are feeling under siege since 9/11 and the London bombings last year. "

Right... this is kind of the problem - denail, and relishing victim status. By what rights can muslims see themselves as under siege after 9/11 and 7/7? (I know they do, but perhaps it would be more rational to consider New Yorkers and Londoners as under siege!)

[Orwell]

But perish the thought that we might hold the Muslims to the same standard. Why don't we burn their flags and recall our ambassadors the next time some government-run newspaper shows a cartoon of Bush decapitating Muslim children and drinking their blood?

By all means, do that! It's within your rights to do so! It is not within your rights to make death threats and promise violent retaliation, though. But, please, if you're going to protest those things, don't forget to boycott their oil too, eh? ;)

[TragicMonkey]

Its fantastic how much response this little issue has gotten.

My prediction is that this little issue will loom large in history. It's sort of a defining moment. The West values freedom of the press very highly. Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed is held no less fervently. This is a direct conflict between two strongly-held principles, and neither side will be willing to compromise or back down. It's a culture conflict, one that involves core principles. More and more westerners are going to abandon their ideals of toleration and diversity in the light of Islam's apparent inability to tolerate back. More and more Muslims are going to decide that the West is utterly decadent and inimical to Islam.

[Elind]

I think that this controversy is being used by extremists on both sides to excite hatred...

I think amused, bewildered, contemptuous, might be better words on one of those sides, don't you?

[Orwell]

Please back that statement up with evidence.

Aw come on! Do I have to make a long post on Western anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, and racism? Rhetorical question, I don't intend to spend much time explaining away the bleeding obvious.

[Orwell]

My prediction is that this little issue will loom large in history. It's sort of a defining moment. The West values freedom of the press very highly. Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed is held no less fervently. This is a direct conflict between two strongly-held principles, and neither side will be willing to compromise or back down. It's a culture conflict, one that involves core principles. More and more westerners are going to abandon their ideals of toleration and diversity in the light of Islam's apparent inability to tolerate back. More and more Muslims are going to decide that the West is utterly decadent and inimical to Islam.

I don't intend to abandon my ideals of toleration and diversity.

[Freakshow]

Aw come on! Do I have to make a long post on Western anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, and racism?Yes, you have to show were a tiny set of political cartoons in a foreign country resulted, by themselves, in a large number of Americans calling for wide-scale death and destruction.

Do the words "proportional response" mean anything to you?

[BPSCG]

By all means, do that! It's within your rights to do so! It is not within your rights to make death threats and promise violent retaliation, though. It's not? you mean Muslims have rights that I don't? You calling me a dhimmi?

[Freakshow]

I don't intend to abandon my ideals of toleration and diversity.But does that ideal include having to be extra careful to not OFFEND anyone? Not a life I envy. Or respect. I value truth and openness much more than I do efforts at being nice.

[Orwell]

I think amused, bewildered, contemptuous, might be better words on one of those sides, don't you?

Well, that's you, and that's me. Don't underestimate xenophobic feelings of many Europeans.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't intend to abandon my ideals of toleration and diversity.

Nor do I expect the majority to. They may, however, reevaluate the notion of tolerating something that is itself intolerant. If Islam cannot compromise, then how can it get along with the West?

[Giz]

I don't intend to abandon my ideals of toleration and diversity.

Even when "the other side" does not appear willing to tolerate back? And is willing to use force to obtain results in direct opoosition to your values?

How tolerant are you of Nazis?

[Orwell]

But does that ideal include having to be extra careful to not OFFEND anyone? Not a life I envy. Or respect. I value truth and openness much more than I do efforts at being nice.

No. but it doesn't mean that I have to purposively go out of my way to offend either.

[Elind]

The cartoons have been published, the protests and death threats have been made. What's the point in keeping at it?

?? What's the point of "who" keeping at it?

Surely you realize by now that it has passed the point where ALL westerners can stop publishing this without appearing to have caved in to threats of violence? It is no longer a matter of sensitivity.

I'd actually be tempted to agree with you if that was all it took for everyone to shake hands and make up, and perhaps then the Islamists might agree to take note when their cartoons were noted as being offensive? All lovey dovey.

Not very likely. This is something that has to be played out in one way or another.

[Orwell]

Even when "the other side" does not appear willing to tolerate back? And is willing to use force to obtain results in direct opoosition to your values?

How tolerant are you of Nazis?

I don't believe that the fundamentalist Muslims are representative of all Muslims.

[Freakshow]

I don't believe that the fundamentalist Muslims are representative of all Muslims.But want to be "tolerant" of these fundamentalist Muslims?

[Mycroft]

Not only that, but it's pretty hard to debate the issue in other countries with free speech without actually showing what the debate is about.

"In the news today, Muslims all over the world are rampaging because of some nasty cartoons published by Danish and Norwegian papers. But we're not going to show you the cartoons because they're nasty and some people wouldn't like it. Just use your imagination, okay?"

And if the cartoons were not shown, people would assume they were much worse than they actually were. For that reason, it's essential that the cartoons be shown.

[Freakshow]

No. but it doesn't mean that I have to purposively go out of my way to offend either.Understood. No career in satire for you, then. ;)

[Orwell]

Nor do I expect the majority to. They may, however, reevaluate the notion of tolerating something that is itself intolerant. If Islam cannot compromise, then how can it get along with the West?

There are several kinds of Islam, some intolerant.

[Nyarlathotep]

Nor do I expect the majority to. They may, however, reevaluate the notion of tolerating something that is itself intolerant. If Islam cannot compromise, then how can it get along with the West?

I know this incident is causeing me to do that. I am not so sure I am able to be tolerant of a people who do not give me the same consideration.

[Freakshow]

There are several kinds of Islam, some intolerant.So what are we to do about these intolerant muslims?

[Giz]

There are several kinds of Islam, some intolerant.

So you want to co-exist with intolerant Islam while not caving in to the intolerant fundamentalists?

Fine! Publish the cartoons! Tolerant muslims will (by definition) tolerate it, and the fundies are a lost cause that will have to be stood up to (assuming we decide not to go dhimmi)... right?

[Orwell]

But want to be "tolerant" of these fundamentalist Muslims?

If they have done something illegal, throw the book at them.

[Orwell]

So you want to co-exist with intolerant Islam while not caving in to the intolerant fundamentalists?

Fine! Publish the cartoons! Tolerant muslims will (by definition) tolerate it, and the fundies are a lost cause that will have to be stood up to (assuming we decide not to go dhimmi)... right?

Ok, I guess that papers can print anti-Semitic cartoons then. Tolerant Jews will (by definition) tolerate it, and the intolerant are a lost cause that will have to be stood up to... right?

Peacefully protesting a cartoon you find offensive isn't an act of intolerance. Uttering death threats and promising bloody vengeance is an act of intolerance.

[Freakshow]

If they have done something illegal, throw the book at them.So we ignore them and let them do what they want until they do something illegal?

Cool. While we are ignoring them, I will ignore their reactions to any political cartoons they don't like.

[Mycroft]

I don't intend to abandon my ideals of toleration and diversity.

To mean anything, those ideals have to go both directions. The important thing to realize here is that publishing the cartoons is not an attack on Islam, but on Islamic intollerance.

[sackett]

It is now a race to show how "religious" Muslims are internationally. The more outraged you are, obviously the better of a Muslim you are.

What we are witnessing is idiots in the Muslim world defining tolerance as an act of weakness. Those who have nothing better to do but burn a flag or throw eggs at an embassy are ascerting themselves as better believers. This has turned into a fantastic rally for Muslims around the world to find one more excuse for hating non-Muslims.

Remember, it's not about how "good" Islam is, it is how "bad" everyone else is. This is classic blame shifting, and has become standard practice for many Muslims. The longer the media plays this up, the more international leaders treat this is a serious issue, then the chest beating will continue to worsen.


Once again, SuperCool shoots and scores.

V. S. Naipaul (who calls the cards the way they fall; no wonder people find him unpleasant at times) once made a useful observation: Islam is tragically tolerant of fanaticism. This seems to go back to a saying of Muhammed’s to the effect that the best Muslims would be the ones living in his own day; the next generation would be less good, the next generation worse, and so on. The acceptance of this odd notion (and The Faithful dare not reject anything their prophet said) makes most Muslims feel uneasy about themselves. They must ask, “Am I a good enough Muslim? Is not that ranting extremist over there a better Muslim than me? Isn’t anyone who champions the faith, no matter what means he uses, a better Muslim?”

Also, it doesn’t help if the ranting extremist is packing an AK and you aren’t.

[Freakshow]

Ok, I guess that papers can print anti-Semitic cartoons then. Tolerant Jews will (by definition) tolerate it, and the intolerant are a lost cause that will have to be stood up to... right?

Peacefully protesting a cartoon you find offensive isn't an act of intolerance. Uttering death threats and promising bloody vengeance is an act of intolerance.Yep. So?

People peacefully protest things they find offensive all the time. People who protest in a non-peaceful way are dealt with via the legal system.

I'm not following your concern here. I'm a bit confused.

[Mycroft]

The fact that some Middle Eastern newspapers print anti-Semitic cartoons doesn't justify the printing of gratuitously offensive cartoons that are deemed to be anti-Muslim by either Israeli papers, or western papers. We are supposed to be better than that.

We're supposed to be better than what? Muslims?

I got a better idea, how about if we treat Muslims like human beings and hold them to the same standards we hold ourselves.

[Giz]

Ok, I guess that papers can print anti-Semitic cartoons then. Tolerant Jews will (by definition) tolerate it, and the intolerant are a lost cause that will have to be stood up to... right?

Peacefully protesting a cartoon you find offensive isn't an act of intolerance. Uttering death threats and promising bloody vengeance is an act of intolerance.

You are aware that the campaign against the cartoons is not in the form of a letter writing exercise? (Though I wouldn't rule out letter bombs at some stage).

The problem is that a large number of muslims are protesting the depiction of Muhammed/Islam as a terrorist by engaging in terrorism (bomb threats, death threats, gunmen, etc). And it is being winked at by muslim spokesmen, who reserve their anger for substandard scribblers.

[BPSCG]

My prediction is that this little issue will loom large in history. It's sort of a defining moment. The West values freedom of the press very highly. Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed is held no less fervently. This is a direct conflict between two strongly-held principles, and neither side will be willing to compromise or back down. It's a culture conflict, one that involves core principles. More and more westerners are going to abandon their ideals of toleration and diversity in the light of Islam's apparent inability to tolerate back. More and more Muslims are going to decide that the West is utterly decadent and inimical to Islam.I think you are absolutely correct, which is why I've been saying "Excellent..." throughout these posts. Western culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes liberty and life. Islamic culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes submission and death. We need to confront that culture of submission and death. Up to now, people have blinded themselves to the truth about that culture. But they are now forcing the issue on us. How do you reason with a man who says, "I will kill you over cartoons"? Answer: You don't.

[rwguinn]

As I said before, I find this defending freedom of press argument a bit suspect. The original Danish cartoons were reprinted by a Norwegian evangelical Christian newspaper, it seems. Some of the papers that are reprinting these things aren't renowned for their tolerance of foreigners, particularly muslims.

The cartoons have been published, the protests and death threats have been made. What's the point in keeping at it?

I think that this controversy is being used by extremists on both sides to excite hatred...

Actually, I have this wishful thinking thing going that finally, the free press is fed up with coddling and the one-sided "diplomacy" going on with regards to the Middle East, and has decided to at last expose that culture for what it actually is, in a way that no one can ignore.

[Orwell]

Understood. No career in satire for you, then. ;)

True... But it depends on what you do too. Normally, it would be natural to expect journalists that pretend to be doing serious information to behave sensibly and responsibly.

[Orwell]

We're supposed to be better than what? Muslims?

I got a better idea, how about if we treat Muslims like human beings and hold them to the same standards we hold ourselves.

Prey tell, how am I not doing that?

[Orwell]

Yep. So?

People peacefully protest things they find offensive all the time. People who protest in a non-peaceful way are dealt with via the legal system.

I'm not following your concern here. I'm a bit confused.

I'm concerned that this episode is being exploited by extremists on both sides. I'm getting pretty feed-up with this "clash of civilisations" bullflop.

[Orwell]

I think you are absolutely correct, which is why I've been saying "Excellent..." throughout these posts. Western culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes liberty and life. Islamic culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes submission and death. We need to confront that culture of submission and death.

:rolleyes: Yeah, tell that to the million of US and Canadian Muslims who are perfectly regular well-integrated citizens, who pay their taxes and never cause any trouble.

[Freakshow]

I'm concerned that this episode is being exploited by extremists on both sides. i'm getting pretty feed-up with this "clash of civilisations" bullflop.I'm not sure "clash of civilizations" is not an accurate term.

But when there is a conflict (or "clash") it is important to evaluate the standing of each side, and see just how much in the wrong and in the right each side is. You will rarely find a conflict where each sides are equally at fault, and equally right. Such relativism hinders the finding of accurate solutions. You can't solve a problem if you have misdiagnosed it.

[Mycroft]

Prey tell, how am I not doing that?

By placing us, who are supposed to be "better than that" above Muslims.

[Skeptic]

Would you be offended if I posted anti-Semitic cartoons? Yes, and rightly so.

Yup.

You would probably accuse me of being an anti-Semite.

Possibly.

There's a chance I would even get expelled from this forum.

Quite right.

However, here is a list of things that will NOT happen to you:

1). You will not recieve death threats for "offending judaism".
2). Nobody will burn the Canadian flag and/or walk over it due to the cartoons.
3). Your workplace will not be the target of bomb scares.
4). You will not have thousands of people shout "death to Orwell!" in the streets due to your cartoons.
5). jews who, while expressing dislike of your cartoons, defend your right for free speech will not be fired from their jobs for "offending judaism" themselves.
6). Masked gunmen will not post pictures of you and/or your country's flag with their guns thretheningly aimed at it.
7). You will not have to move to a safehouse since all it takes is one guy with a bomb to get you.
8). You will not be the target of a fatwah allowing your death (didn't happen yet? Wanna bet it's in the works?)

Etc., etc., etc.

I think we've got a slight difference here...

There's a good chance that these cartoons were initially published by people whose specific intent was to offend Muslims and cause this kind of controversy: Muslim baiting, so to to speak.

And they succeeded wonderfully, wouldn't you say?

In their wildest dreams, I'm sure, they couldn't have imagined that Muslims would react to these cartoons in precisely the way those who believe Muslims are inherently violent, barbaric, intolerant thugs expect them to react.

If I provoke you by saying, "hey, you're a violent thug!" and you punch me in the face, stomp on me, and threathen to kill me for saying that, then, sure, I provoked you... but it was your behavior who proved to everybody you are a violent thug, didn't it?

It is the Muslim world's reaction to the cartoons, not the cartoons themselves, which is convincing people in the world that the Muslims are violent, prmitive thugs.

Intolerance from one side doesn't excuse insensitivity from the other.

You bet your @$$ it does.

In fact, intolerant violent from one side means precisely that it gives up any moral right to be treated with sensitivity from the other side, in the same way that a violent husband had no right to demand consideration for his TV-watching schedule from his wife.

If one side is so intolerant as to threathen with death and destruction and bombing and terorrism people who aren't "sensitive" enough to their precious beliefs, people who draw a cartoon they dislike, it becomes a moral imperative to be as unsensitive and inconsiderate to their beliefs as possible, and to dare them do their worst.

For otherwise, the real result, behind all the talk about "sensitivity" and "consideration" and "not being right-wing", what we have is a surrender of one's freedom of speech to the judgement of violent thugs. When you think you have some sort of "duty" to be "sensitive" to a violent thug's feelings--with the violent thug, of course, determining what counts as sensitive enough behavior on your part--this is simply the same thing as agreeing in advance to do whatever the violent thug asks you to.

[Skeptic]

:rolleyes: Yeah, tell that to the million of US and Canadian Muslims who are perfectly regular well-integrated citizens, who pay their taxes and never cause any trouble.

You mean, tell that to westernized Muslims.

[Orwell]

Nobody is surrendering any freedom of speech. I strongly suggest you folks step down from your soapboxes, all this self-righteousness is getting pretty tiring.

Muslims represent about 22% of the world's population. They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is larger, with 33% of the world's inhabitants. How many of these Muslims are "intolerant thugs"? Porbably a small minority. But a small minority out of 1,2 billion, that's still a lot of people. Do you have to alienate the majority in order to fight the thuggish minority? That would be pretty counterproductive, wouldn't it?

[Skeptic]

I'm concerned that this episode is being exploited by extremists on both sides.

But the extremists of one side show their "extremism" in writing outraged newspaper editorials, or in cartoons that are "insensitive"...

...while the exremists in another civilization show their extremism with death threats, bombs, violence, and thuggery.

This is not "there are extremists in both civilizations so they're the same". It simply shows that one side is civilized, and the other, barbaric.

[Freakshow]

Nobody is surrendering any freedom of speech.They aren't? "Don't print that, or we'll kill you!" "OK, we won't print it." That's not surrendering freedom of speech?

Do you have to alienate the majority in order to fight the thuggish minority? How is the majority being alienated? Am I alienated because of anti-US political cartoons that appear in Canadian papers? No. So what?

[Nyarlathotep]

Nobody is surrendering any freedom of speech. I strongly suggest you folks step down from your soapboxes, all this self-righteousness is getting pretty tiring.

Muslims represent about 22% of the world's population. They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is larger, with 33% of the world's inhabitants. How many of these Muslims are "intolerant thugs"?

Nobody is yet surrendering any freedom of speech, true. However, these mobs are demanding the Norwegian, Danish, et al, governments force their people to do just that. And Islamic governments (i.e. the Saudis) are asking the same. Such things cannot be tolerated or given into. And it is important to show them that such demands will NOT be given into.

[Orwell]

But the extremists of one side show their "extremism" in writing outraged newspaper editorials, or in cartoons that are "insensitive"...

...while the exremists in another civilization show their extremism with death threats, bombs, violence, and thuggery.

This is not "there are extremists in both civilizations so they're the same". It simply shows that one side is civilized, and the other, barbaric.


What, you mean to tell me that westerners never, ever show their extremism "with death threats, bombs, violence, and thuggery"? That western civilisation is incapable of producing that?

"Civilised" extremism vs. "barbaric" extremism. That's cute! :rolleyes:

[BPSCG]

Aw come on! Do I have to make a long post on Western anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, and racism? Rhetorical question, I don't intend to spend much time explaining away the bleeding obvious.Good, I'll do it for you then.

Western history has been the history of increasing tolerance for others. It's been a fitful history, not without backsliding, but we are more tolerant of others today than we were in 1906, and in 1906 were more tolerant of others than in 1806, and so on and on back to at least the Middle Ages.

Islam, by contrast, has, if anything, become less tolerant of those who are different. The Koran and the Sura preach that devout Muslims should give the unbeliever three options, in order - if he does not accept the first, then offer the second; if he refuses the second, he must be given the third. The options are:
Conversion to Islam;
Dhimmitude (briefly, payment of special extra taxes for nonbelievers, as well as numerous social penalties relegating one to second-class citizenship);
DeathMuhammad was teaching this 1400 years ago, and it is still an article of faith in the Muslim world.

Western civilization, by contrast, began leaving that kind of thinking behind centuries ago, and today, any Christian or Jew making that kind of offer to nonbelievers would be a laughingstock (Pat Robertson comes nearest to mind).

[Freakshow]

What, you mean to tell me that westerners never, ever show their extremism "with death threats, bombs, violence, and thuggery"? That western civilisation is incapable of producing that?

"Civilised" extremism vs. "barbaric" extremism. That's cute! :rolleyes:Maybe he was talking about how common and frequent things are, and he wasn't talking about an absolute as to whether or not something ever has or does exist. :rolleyes:

[Giz]

What, you mean to tell me that westerners never, ever show their extremism "with death threats, bombs, violence, and thuggery"? That western civilisation is incapable of producing that?

"Civilised" extremism vs. "barbaric" extremism. That's cute! :rolleyes:

Are you seriously equating a few fringe nutters in the west with mainstream Islamic spokesmen in the West plus Islamic Govt ministers in the East?

[The_Fire]

Excellent.

Let's hear again how Islam is really a religion of peace that's been highjacked by a few radicals.
YOu know, this make me think: How would the Christians feel if they were judged all the time by the actions of say....Pat Robertson?

Edit: BAAAD word choice...

[Freakshow]

YOu know, this make me think: How would the Christians feel if they were judged all the time by the standards of say....Pat Robertson?But the Muslims aren't being judged by the standards of people like Pat Robertson. They are being judged by people with much more influence and power in their societies than Pat Roberston has in our society. And they are being judged by how many people of their population participate in such extremist events.

[TragicMonkey]

I think you are absolutely correct, which is why I've been saying "Excellent..." throughout these posts. Western culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes liberty and life. Islamic culture is a culture that, broadly, cherishes submission and death. We need to confront that culture of submission and death. Up to now, people have blinded themselves to the truth about that culture.

The sad thing is, it didn't used to be like that. Islam had some pretty good times. Art, architecture, science, scholarship, literature, astronomy, navigation, exploration... there was a time when it was the Islamic nations that were the centers of civilization. But religion degrades things over time, I think. "Bedoin values" and Wahhabism, in conjunction with colonialism, polluted what used to be great. The question now is, can it be saved? Can the extremist elements be removed, and mainstream Islam put back to its glory days? I hope so, but it seems more and more unlikely.

[Freakshow]

Are you seriously equating a few fringe nutters in the west with mainstream Islamic spokesmen in the West plus Islamic Govt ministers in the East?Pssst...might wanna re-write that. I read it three times, and can't quite figure it out. :)

[Orwell]

Are you seriously equating a few fringe nutters in the west with mainstream Islamic spokesmen in the West plus Islamic Govt ministers in the East?

Which mainstream Islamic spokesmen in the West plus Islamic Govt ministers in the East are advocating violence?

[Freakshow]

The sad thing is, it didn't used to be like that. Islam had some pretty good times. Art, architecture, science, scholarship, literature, astronomy, navigation, exploration... there was a time when it was the Islamic nations that were the centers of civilization. But religion degrades things over time, I think. "Bedoin values" and Wahhabism, in conjunction with colonialism, polluted what used to be great. The question now is, can it be saved? Can the extremist elements be removed, and mainstream Islam put back to its glory days? I hope so, but it seems more and more unlikely.And it will become even more and more unlikely if we continue to cave into extremists. We should be highlighting the absurdity of the extremists, not downplaying it and trying to pretend it doesn't exist. The world needs to see how crazy these extremists are.

[Elind]

I'm concerned that this episode is being exploited by extremists on both sides. I'm getting pretty feed-up with this "clash of civilisations" bullflop.

Which are the extremists on "our" side that you are concerned about? Those of us here who are not quite as tolerant or sensitive as you?

[Orwell]

But the Muslims aren't being judged by the standards of people like Pat Robertson. They are being judged by people with much more influence and power in their societies than Pat Roberston has in our society. And they are being judged by how many people of their population participate in such extremist events.

How many "people of their population participate in such extremist events"?

[Orwell]

Which are the extremists on "our" side that you are concerned about?
Those who push for this "clash of civilisations" bullflop and who regularly engage in Muslim bashing.

[Freakshow]

How many people of their population participate in such extremist events?Depends on the event, and which country it is in. But it can reach well into the thousands, as we recently saw with a Hamas rally, complete with machine guns and RPG's.

I'm sure Pat Robertson regularly gets thousands of people together, complete with machine guns and RPG's. :rolleyes: That's in the news all the time. ;)

[Freakshow]

Those who push for this "clash of civilisations" bullflop and who regularly engage in Muslim bashing.Bashing of Muslims? Or bashing of extremist Muslims?

[Orwell]

Bashing of Muslims? Or bashing of extremist Muslims?

Does BPSCG and Skeptic sound like they are uniquely bashing Muslim extremists?

[The_Fire]

But the Muslims aren't being judged by the standards of people like Pat Robertson. They are being judged by people with much more influence and power in their societies than Pat Roberston has in our society. And they are being judged by how many people of their population participate in such extremist events.

[for the sake of comparison]
ok, then....Let's make that George Bush then.....And let's make it the average american instead of an everyday christian.
One of the word I've heard connected with the President of the US within the last couple of years is "Warmonger".
Now let's, for the sake of argument, say that everyone OUTSIDE the US, on the basis of Bush's reputation, started to base their opions on the concept of every american being a warmonger, not cariing that a majority of americans don't support war (I don't know the statistics on that one though). How would that feel?
[/for the sake of comparison]

[Orwell]

Depends on the event, and which country it is in. But it can reach well into the thousands, as we recently saw with a Hamas rally, complete with machine guns and RPG's.

I'm sure Pat Robertson regularly gets thousands of people together, complete with machine guns and RPG's. :rolleyes: That's in the news all the time. ;)

So you would agree that it is not the majority, wouldn't you?

[Freakshow]

Does BPSCG and Skeptic sound like they are uniquely bashing Muslim extremists?Yes, they do to me.

I think you are underestimating the number and infuence of extremist Islam in the middle east. Or maybe you have a different definition of "extremist" than I do.

[Freakshow]

So you would agree that it is not the majority, wouldn't you?Sure, of course. I still don't get your point.

[Freakshow]

[for the sake of comparison]
ok, then....Let's make that George Bush then.....And let's make it the average american instead of an everyday christian.
One of the word I've heard connected with the President of the US within the last couple of years is "Warmonger".
Now let's, for the sake of argument, say that everyone OUTSIDE the US, on the basis of Bush's reputation, started to base their opions on the concept of every american being a warmonger, not cariing that a majority of americans don't support war (I don't know the statistics on that one though). How would that feel?
[/for the sake of comparison]I could not care less what others think of me. As long as they are not trying to harm me. They can have whatever opinion they want. Don't care. As soon as they cross the line and try to harm me, they pay for it. Dearly. Others learn by that example. Think what you want. Just keep your hands to yourself.

[Skeptic]

I wonder how many of those who refuse to see anything less good in Islam's conditions vis-a-vis the western world with arguments such as "but not all Muslims are extremists" or "some extremists exist in the west, too" would be willing to go back to the time of, say, the Spanish Inquisition or the Witch Trials.

After all, most Christians who lived then were not members of either the Inquisition or of the Witch Trials tribunals. And, if insane "kill all the unbelievers" people existed then in generous quanities in Europe, they exist to some in the west today, too.

Surely, then--using the same logic--there is no essential difference between Europe in 1450 or 1600 and Europe today in terms of how civilized the place is.

Right?

[egslim]

My prediction is that this little issue will loom large in history. It's sort of a defining moment. The West values freedom of the press very highly. Islam's prohibition on images of Muhammed is held no less fervently. This is a direct conflict between two strongly-held principles, and neither side will be willing to compromise or back down. It's a culture conflict, one that involves core principles. More and more westerners are going to abandon their ideals of toleration and diversity in the light of Islam's apparent inability to tolerate back. More and more Muslims are going to decide that the West is utterly decadent and inimical to Islam.
That's how I see it too. On the other hand, I don't think the West is mentally ready yet to put its foot down. I think the politicians will cave in a little, and I expect the population to not be very happy about that. I also expect Muslims to continue with more demands, until the whole thing really blows.

[homer]

Here in the UK it seems to be OK for muslims to parade through the streets calling for the murder of all sorts of people who they don't like . On the other side of the coin a BNP guy is facing criminal charges for saving that Muslims kill people who disagree with them . Err um something wrong here .
By the way in no way do I support the BNP which can be racist , just like some other folks in the middle east who hate jews . Of course they haven't got any oil to sell us so thats OK . What a load of ............

[Nyarlathotep]

Does BPSCG and Skeptic sound like they are uniquely bashing Muslim extremists?

Even they are not calling for the death of all muslims or looking to find Muslims they can kidnap/beat up/kill in retaliation for the acts of the Muslims over there. And if they were to do such a thing, they would face social stigmatization for the former and jail time for the latter. I see no signs that such a reaction is occuring over there to the muslims who are demanding the death to infidels, etc.

[TragicMonkey]

So you would agree that it is not the majority, wouldn't you?

When a minority is vocal, and the majority is silent, what conclusions do you draw? That the majority is in complete disagreement, and is outraged by the antics of the minority? Or that they either agree with them, disagree slightly but not enough to justify confronting them, or that they simply don't care?

Think about western extremists. Pat Robertson. Fred Phelps. What do you notice when they commit their follies? Outrage. The majority condemns them, mocks them, opposes them. Even if you want to use Bush as an example, look at the response to his actions: outrage! There is no condemnation of him from foreigners than hasn't been met, exceeded, left far behind by the condemnation of nearly half his own people.

Where is the fuss being kicked up by this tolerant Muslim majority, then? Do they really hold those views, are they really opposed to the oh-so-vocal minority? Or is that a combination of wishful thinking and benefit-of-the-doubt that we project upon them because we don't like to imagine that the minority is in fact the majority, and that our neighbors are actually as crazy as they sound?

[Giz]

When a minority is vocal, and the majority is silent, what conclusions do you draw? That the majority is in complete disagreement, and is outraged by the antics of the minority? Or that they either agree with them, disagree slightly but not enough to justify confronting them, or that they simply don't care?

Think about western extremists. Pat Robertson. Fred Phelps. What do you notice when they commit their follies? Outrage. The majority condemns them, mocks them, opposes them. Even if you want to use Bush as an example, look at the response to his actions: outrage! There is no condemnation of him from foreigners than hasn't been met, exceeded, left far behind by the condemnation of nearly half his own people.

Where is the fuss being kicked up by this tolerant Muslim majority, then? Do they really hold those views, are they really opposed to the oh-so-vocal minority? Or is that a combination of wishful thinking and benefit-of-the-doubt that we project upon them because we don't like to imagine that the minority is in fact the majority, and that our neighbors are actually as crazy as they sound?

You have just described my feelings exactly. (I'd never realised how eloquent I was.)

[Skeptic]

So you would agree that it is not the majority, wouldn't you?

The majority of people in 1500s Spain did not belong to the Spanish Inquisition.

Therefore, 1500s Spain was not really intolerant and backward and fanatical. For how could we possible (horrors!) actually pass judgement on another society when only "a minority of extremists" were doing the bad stuff?

Obviously, 1500s Spain was comparable to the 2000s United States in terms of how civilized or free it is. After all, Spain had Torquemada, the USA had Pat Roberston; since they are both "extremists", it balances out.

Right?

[Orwell]

Sure, of course. I still don't get your point.

The majority of Muslims will probably find these cartoons offensive, but they won't make death threats and promise violence. The majority of Westerners would find an anti-Semitic or racist cartoon offensive, and they would probably behave the same way. People would just protest.

This is a legitimate position, and I think that these kinds of positions should be respected. If a paper inadvertently prints something that is considered racist or anti-semitic, we have come to expect that the paper will retract the offending article or cartoon, and excuse itself. Maybe they shouldn't, I dunno. The fact is, very few people will be going around screaming bloody murder and violation of freedom of the press if a paper retracts something that is racist or anti-semitic.

Now, what I find annoying is that perfectly reasonable protesting behaviour of many Muslims is being put together with the excesses of a violent minority, and that because of the actions of this violent minority, the legitimate concerns of the moderate majority are being ignored.

It is not the fault of the moderate Muslims that have been offended by these cartoons and who are behaving within reason that the wackos have taken over and given all this attention.

[Skeptic]

The majority of Muslims will probably find these cartoons offensive, but they won't make death threats and promise violence. The majority of Westerners would find an anti-Semitic or racist cartoon offensive, and they would probably behave the same way. People would just protest.

I'm quite certain that the majority of people in 1500s Spain would find a book saying Jesus isn't God offensive but would not particularly want to leave their fields or shops in order to kill him. It's just that tiny minority of the Inquisition's people that took it upon themselves to burn people who say things like that at the stake.

But surely we should undestand that despite the fact that this means criticising Christianity in 1500s Spain meant death, just like criticizing Islam in the 2000s Muslim world--and, soon, in the neighborhood near you--means death as well, doesn't really mean 1500s Spain was an intolerant theocracy.

The reason is that, using Orwell-logic, it doesn't matter what the "minority of extremists" actually does or how much power it has; that determines nothing about a civilization as a whole as long as it is still a numerical minority.

[Darat]

Interesting Article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4676632.stm

Dr Yunes Teinaz (spokesman for the London Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre) : Muslim governments have the right to boycott Danish and Norwegian goods. On the other hand, the way forward is to solve this amicably. Any violent threats against Danish, or other, people are completely unacceptable.

[Danivon]

Orwell, you have a point, but with respect, you are missing the fundamental issue. Your namesake would reject the extremism of both sides, I guess, but would also be more inclined towards freedom of expression.

The cartoons are, in the main poorly executed, not particularly funny, and some are borderline offensive. Some are quite good. However, the only reason I know this is because I have seen them. The papers had a right to print them. Muslims had a right to respond to them.

I think that in some corners this has been hijacked by the islamophobes, but why? Because the radical imams whipped up antagonism not just towards the authors, but their country as a whole. Whipped it up so that people felt it acceptable to threaten violence. If that hadn't happened, this whole issue would have gone away. If people were not still calling for the Danish government to apologise, it would go away.

Instead of knee-jerk reaction, muslims should (and some are, but drowned out by the credulous) explain in civil terms what the problem is, counter the assertions that the cartoons raise, and show that Islam is, as claimed, a civilised and tolerant religion. In many ways it is, if practised properly.

Some muslims are actually not offended by this, and defend the freedom of the press - and there is good reason for it. In Russia, a journalist has been convicted of provoking hatred, becuase his publication was objective (ie: not anti-Chechen) about events in the Caucasus and quoted one of the rebel leaders.

Those who cry freedom should show solidarity with Stanislav Dmitriyevsky as well as with Danes. Perhaps a few Muslims might join in...

[I can't post links, but there is a story on the BBC site, and I suppose a Google Search or something will give more info than I can]

[Mycroft]

How many "people of their population participate in such extremist events"?

If you're arguing it's a small number, isn't that an even better reason to run the cartoons?

[Orwell]

When a minority is vocal, and the majority is silent, what conclusions do you draw? That the majority is in complete disagreement, and is outraged by the antics of the minority? Or that they either agree with them, disagree slightly but not enough to justify confronting them, or that they simply don't care?

Think about western extremists. Pat Robertson. Fred Phelps. What do you notice when they commit their follies? Outrage. The majority condemns them, mocks them, opposes them. Even if you want to use Bush as an example, look at the response to his actions: outrage! There is no condemnation of him from foreigners than hasn't been met, exceeded, left far behind by the condemnation of nearly half his own people.

Where is the fuss being kicked up by this tolerant Muslim majority, then? Do they really hold those views, are they really opposed to the oh-so-vocal minority? Or is that a combination of wishful thinking and benefit-of-the-doubt that we project upon them because we don't like to imagine that the minority is in fact the majority, and that our neighbors are actually as crazy as they sound?

Who gets more attention in Western media? Muslim extremists or Muslim moderates?

Moderation is boring, it doesn't sell. Would a western paper write a column about my friend Tariq, who likes bacon and red wine? I don't think so.

[Freakshow]

Now, what I find annoying is that perfectly reasonable protesting behaviour of many Muslims is being put together with the excesses of a violent minority...I haven't really seen that. Can you clarify?

[Freakshow]

...the legitimate concerns of the moderate majority are being ignored.
What legitimate concerns? They didn't like it. And they can peacefully protest. What else do you want?

[TragicMonkey]

Who gets more attention in Western media? Muslim extremists or Muslim moderates?

Moderation is boring, it doesn't sell. Would a western paper write a column about my friend Tariq, who likes bacon and red wine? I don't think so.

Of course the media focuses on the immoderate. But can you assume, in every case, that there exists a moderate that is not being portrayed? By your reasoning, you should never trust any media, because you will extend the benefit of the doubt and assume the existence of a boring but decent majority. Is this always going to be true? How do you know? How do you know that what you think of as the moderate majority is not really a small minority? If you're going to reject media depictions, then what will you accept? Government positions? But sometimes the governments are more extreme than the population. Unless you have your own methods of carrying out large scale research independently, you cannot know whether you are right or wrong in your assessment. You are guessing.

I think the people who guess for a moderate majority are indulging in wishful thinking, while the people who guess the other way are swayed by fear and alarm. Who's right? And what are the consequences of being wrong?

[Elind]

Those who push for this "clash of civilisations" bullflop and who regularly engage in Muslim bashing.

Well, I don't know if that is the best term either, even though it does have a ring of truth to it; however I take issue with your description of "those who engage in Muslim bashing" (as in Bush bashing, Liberal bashing, Pat Robertson bashing....you get the idea), as being "extremist". I am tempted to call your categorization "extremist".

On the other hand I think we can agree on some parties being extremist, can't we?

[Orwell]

What legitimate concerns? They didn't like it. And they can peacefully protest. What else do you want?

I see a double-standard here. "If a paper inadvertently prints something that is considered racist or anti-semitic, we have come to expect that the paper will retract the offending article or cartoon, and excuse itself. Maybe they shouldn't, I dunno. The fact is, very few people will be going around screaming bloody murder and violation of freedom of the press if a paper retracts something that is racist or anti-semitic."

But now, because the fundamentalist wackos took the ball and ran away with it, it seems that some of the posters on this forum want to keep offending and ignoring the moderates in the name of freedom of the press.

I started posting on this subject because I supported the Guardian's decision to not print the cartoons. See, freedom of the press includes the freedom to not print!

[Orwell]

Orwell, you have a point, but with respect, you are missing the fundamental issue. Your namesake would reject the extremism of both sides, I guess, but would also be more inclined towards freedom of expression.

The cartoons are, in the main poorly executed, not particularly funny, and some are borderline offensive. Some are quite good. However, the only reason I know this is because I have seen them. The papers had a right to print them. Muslims had a right to respond to them.

I think that in some corners this has been hijacked by the islamophobes, but why? Because the radical imams whipped up antagonism not just towards the authors, but their country as a whole. Whipped it up so that people felt it acceptable to threaten violence. If that hadn't happened, this whole issue would have gone away. If people were not still calling for the Danish government to apologise, it would go away.

Instead of knee-jerk reaction, muslims should (and some are, but drowned out by the credulous) explain in civil terms what the problem is, counter the assertions that the cartoons raise, and show that Islam is, as claimed, a civilised and tolerant religion. In many ways it is, if practised properly.

Some muslims are actually not offended by this, and defend the freedom of the press - and there is good reason for it. In Russia, a journalist has been convicted of provoking hatred, becuase his publication was objective (ie: not anti-Chechen) about events in the Caucasus and quoted one of the rebel leaders.

Those who cry freedom should show solidarity with Stanislav Dmitriyevsky as well as with Danes. Perhaps a few Muslims might join in...

[I can't post links, but there is a story on the BBC site, and I suppose a Google Search or something will give more info than I can]

Absolutely! I must say that my irritation against some of the flagrant generalisations that have been posted on this subject has made me kind of play devil's advocate here.

[richardm]

It is now a race to show how "religious" Muslims are internationally. The more outraged you are, obviously the better of a Muslim you are.

What we are witnessing is idiots in the Muslim world defining tolerance as an act of weakness...The longer the media plays this up, the more international leaders treat this is a serious issue, then the chest beating will continue to worsen.

This is certainly true I think. I was very unpleasantly surprised to see British muslims parading the streets of London chanting "Freedom, Freedom, Go to Hell".

[Elind]

Now, what I find annoying is that perfectly reasonable protesting behaviour of many Muslims is being put together with the excesses of a violent minority, and that because of the actions of this violent minority, the legitimate concerns of the moderate majority are being ignored.

You have sidestepped my comment on this before, so perhaps this is a good time to bring it up again.

I believe, without researching, that more than one ambassador to Denmark was withdrawn, and certainly many "Official" government protests were made. But let's just say it was only Saudi, being the "guardian" of the holiest of holy places for Muslims.

Do you or do you not think that that is a direct encouragment to what you call the violent minority to act?

Why do you persist in claiming "most" muslims don't support this when we have heard from very very few that say so?

What Muslim governments have taken any steps at all to calm this down?

None that I can think of. All they do is encourage the hate. On the other hand, the western governments are starting to bend over, as usual, in the other direction.

It would be nice to hear you direct your criticism a bit more accurately, I think.

[Freakshow]

I see a double-standard here. "If a paper inadvertently prints something that is considered racist or anti-semitic, we have come to expect that the paper will retract the offending article or cartoon, and excuse itself.I don't expect that, no. But that's just me.

[richardm]

Because not publishing makes it seem as if the howls and threats have made you cave in. I think reprinting the cartoons was absolutely the right thing to do - one of the most important rights we have is under threat. I am disapointted that US and UK media have not been more prominant (perhaps they have been asked to tread softly to avoid inflaming opinion in Iraq?)


I think that's possible - although whether things could be much worse there I dunno!

But at the same time, if you have a mad dog do you keep prodding it or do you just leave it alone? Republishing these cartoons is surely prodding. It's not even a question of "Let's see what this prod looked like" - it's a new prod, and although I doubt that distinction matters to the nutters it matters to me.

I can see your point - I'm just not sure I entirely agree yet, although I'm willing to be persuaded. Perhaps these nutters are so far gone that they are beyond rationality, but I think there are more moderate muslims who also feel unhappy about both sides of this argument. On the one hand, they feel it's Western Culture being directly and deliberately opposed to Islamic values, on the other it's the lunatic fringe who are making Islam look like a bunch of madmen - it's a vicious circle, and they're trapped in the middle. We should be throwing them a lifeline rather than shouting "Up yours!".


Right... this is kind of the problem - denail, and relishing victim status. By what rights can muslims see themselves as under siege after 9/11 and 7/7? (I know they do, but perhaps it would be more rational to consider New Yorkers and Londoners as under siege!)

I don't know, but I guess that they feel that most people think they're all under suspicion of being culpable. And that's probably true.

[richardm]

And it is being winked at by muslim spokesmen, who reserve their anger for substandard scribblers.

Yeah, and this is why I say "And it's probably true" in my previous post. There are more moderate muslims, so why aren't they shouting these guys down? For once I can't just blame the media either. It's all very depressing. I'm off to the pub - bye!

[Skeptic]

I see a double-standard here. "If a paper inadvertently prints something that is considered racist or anti-semitic, we have come to expect that the paper will retract the offending article or cartoon, and excuse itself. Maybe they shouldn't, I dunno. The fact is, very few people will be going around screaming bloody murder and violation of freedom of the press if a paper retracts something that is racist or anti-semitic."

No double standard. If a paper inadvertently prints an antisemitic cartoon, gets angry letters from jews saying they were offended and the cartoon is disgusting, the newspaper probably should withdraw the antisemitic cartoon.

If, however, a paper inavertently prints an antisemtiic cartoon, gets angry bomb threats from numerous jews saying they will kill the unbelieving cartoonist and bomb the paper's headquarters, while israel arranges a parade where the flag of the country where the paper is published is burned, and in addition threats of holy war and terrorist attacks against it are made, then the paper shouldn't withdraw the antisemitic cartoon.

Whatever the original intent of the publication is, withdrawing the cartoon in the latter case is simply a matter of cowardly surrender to thuggish blackmail.

It seems like a double standard, but that is an optical illusion. True, people are often in favor of withdrawing, say, anti-christian cartoons and not in favor of withdrawing anti-Muslims ones. But that is because, generally speaking, Christians protesting anti-Christian cartoons act in the former, civilized and non-violent, manner, while Muslims protesting anti-Muslim cartoons act in the latter, thuggish and violent, manner.

Sorry.

[Orwell]

You have sidestepped my comment on this before, so perhaps this is a good time to bring it up again.

I believe, without researching, that more than one ambassador to Denmark was withdrawn, and certainly many "Official" government protests were made. But let's just say it was only Saudi, being the "guardian" of the holiest of holy places for Muslims.

Do you or do you not think that that is a direct encouragment to what you call the violent minority to act?

Why do you persist in claiming "most" muslims don't support this when we have heard from very very few that say so?

What Muslim governments have taken any steps at all to calm this down?

None that I can think of. All they do is encourage the hate. On the other hand, the western governments are starting to bend over, as usual, in the other direction.

It would be nice to hear you direct your criticism a bit more accurately, I think.

Sorry, I didn't intend to side step your commenst. Too many posts, too little time.

Most Muslim governments are repressive and undemocratic. Their position on this subject will not be necessarily representative of the views of most Muslims. In fact, we don't really know what most of the Middle East thinks of this... No free press, and there's a good chance that the press they have will use this for anti-western propaganda.

Personally, I think that the only Muslim positions that really matter in this case is what is being said by Muslim living in the West. When I'm talking about listening to moderate Muslims, I'm essentially talking about listening to those moderate Muslims that live amongst us. They are the ones that matter, in this case.

[BPSCG]

Who gets more attention in Western media? Muslim extremists or Muslim moderates? The extremists.

Ya think it might have something to do with the fact that the extremists blow up more people than the moderates do? Bombings have a way of getting people's attention.

[Orwell]

No double standard. If a paper inadvertently prints an antisemitic cartoon, gets angry letters from jews saying they were offended and the cartoon is disgusting, the newspaper probably should withdraw the antisemitic cartoon.

If, however, a paper inavertently prints an antisemtiic cartoon, gets angry bomb threats from numerous jews saying they will kill the unbelieving cartoonist and bomb the paper's headquarters, while israel arranges a parade where the flag of the country where the paper is published is burned, and in addition threats of holy war and terrorist attacks against it are made, then the paper shouldn't withdraw the antisemitic cartoon.

Whatever the original intent of the publication is, withdrawing the cartoon in the latter case is simply a matter of cowardly surrender to thuggish blackmail.

It seems like a double standard, but that is an optical illusion. True, people are often in favor of withdrawing, say, anti-christian cartoons and not in favor of withdrawing anti-Muslims ones. But that is because, generally speaking, Christians protesting anti-Christian cartoons act in the former, civilized and non-violent, manner, while Muslims protesting anti-Muslim cartoons act in the latter, thuggish and violent, manner.

Sorry.

Yeah, you have apoint, and I understand that. But it wouldn't be fair to the letter writing civilised Jews that their legitimate concerns get ignored because of the behaviour of the thugs.

[Orwell]

The extremists.

Ya think it might have something to do with the fact that the extremists blow up more people than the moderates do? Bombings have a way of getting people's attention.

Yes. The problem is that Islamophobes tend to not make distinctions between moderates and extremists.

[rikzilla]

You have sidestepped my comment on this before, so perhaps this is a good time to bring it up again.

I believe, without researching, that more than one ambassador to Denmark was withdrawn, and certainly many "Official" government protests were made. But let's just say it was only Saudi, being the "guardian" of the holiest of holy places for Muslims.

Do you or do you not think that that is a direct encouragment to what you call the violent minority to act?

Why do you persist in claiming "most" muslims don't support this when we have heard from very very few that say so?

What Muslim governments have taken any steps at all to calm this down?

None that I can think of. All they do is encourage the hate. On the other hand, the western governments are starting to bend over, as usual, in the other direction.

It would be nice to hear you direct your criticism a bit more accurately, I think.

Not just hate. Now the Prime Minister of our NATO ally; Turkey has come out in favor of repression of free speech:
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying the cartoons -- one depicting the founder of Islam wearing a turban resembling a bomb --showed press freedom should have its limits.
CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/02/cartoons.wrap/index.html)

So how far do we bend over? How much respect to show dangerous religious credophiles who wish to murder a Dane because of a cartoon published in his country? Obviously CNN is reaching for it's editorial ankles. Should we all do likewise?

If like Orwell says we should make every effort to coddle the Islamic "moderate"...where will it get us in the end? Won't that self-same moderate friend someday come to the inescapable conclusion that his culture will readily and courageously fight for their beliefs; while western culture won't even stand up for this most cherished of all freedoms; our freedom of speech!

Yeah we're bound to lose the Islamic moderates. However I'd rather lose them by being strong and true to our core western freedoms rather than lose them because we've become appeasing hypocrites that are culturally weak and stand for nothing.

-z

[Jocko]

Yeah, but it wouldn't be fair to the letter writing civilised Jews that their legitimate concerns get ignored because of the behaviour of the thugs.

Er, Orwell, if the thugs are running the show, then the cartoon isn't their real problem, now is it?

[BPSCG]

So you would agree that it is not the majority, wouldn't you?What does being in the majority have to do with holding power?

Is the conservative party in Canada in the majority?

The majority of voters in this country are not registered Republicans. And yet the Republicans control the government here.

Even if the majority of Muslims don't want to convert me, make a dhimmi out of me, or kill me, in that order, the ones who do are the most vocal and the most powerful. If they are in the minority, then why doesn't the moderate majority tell them to shut up and sit down?

Answer: Because the extremist (alleged) minority is so violent that the moderate ones dare not open their mouths for fear of being murdered themselves. If the majority is truly moderate, they are so cowed by the minority that they are irrelevant.

Who speaks for Islam? The extremist minority, when the moderate (alleged) majority is afraid to speak.

[Orwell]

Rik, I'm not saying make every effort to coddle the Islamic "moderates". What I'm saying is that I think that the concerns of the Islamic moderates over these cartoons are legitimate and should be taken seriously, that people should be careful to not mix the moderate's legitimate concerns with the exhortations to violence that are coming out of the mouth of the extremists. All of my posts have been made with the objective of defending a paper's (in this case the Guardian's) right to not post the offending cartoons. As I said before, freedom of the press includes that right.

[Ryokan]

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam.

So Americans are not even 'allowed' to see what the debate is about.

This is a problem.

[BPSCG]

See, freedom of the press includes the freedom to not print!It's not freedom when you refuse to print for fear of violent consequnces.

If the Guardian decides not to print something because it's simply not newsworthy and doesn't serve the mission of the newspaper, that's freedom of the press. When they decide not to print something for fear of bloody consequences, that's knuckling under to the bullies. They can knuckle under, if they like. But they shouldn't be congratulating themselves in the same breath.

[Nyarlathotep]

So Americans are not even 'allowed' to see what the debate is about.

This is a problem.

Not necessarily. That CNN is being cowed doesn't mean we are aren't "allowed" to see the images. It is not as if CNN is a state run news service. It took me a whole five minutes of googling to find several links to them.

[Bjorn]

CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/02/cartoons.wrap/index.html)Not just the CNN, but US media in general, I think:

While many European newspapers have turned the publication into a free speech debate no major US newspaper has published the cartoons.

Editors at several US news organizations told AFP they were covering the escalating row but had decided not to reprint them or air them on television out of respect for their readers or viewers.The last one made me wonder. :rolleyes:

Forgot the link:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/03/060203161134.7zd6bpnp.html

[Mycroft]

I see a double-standard here. "If a paper inadvertently prints something that is considered racist or anti-semitic, we have come to expect that the paper will retract the offending article or cartoon, and excuse itself. Maybe they shouldn't, I dunno. The fact is, very few people will be going around screaming bloody murder and violation of freedom of the press if a paper retracts something that is racist or anti-semitic."

I think it depends in part on what the message is. If a cartoon is printed that links Islam with suicide-bombings, it should be noted that it's not the cartoonist that's linking those two ideas, but the radical Muslims who engage in suicide bombings. It doesn't represent every Muslim, but it's a valid criticism.


I started posting on this subject because I supported the Guardian's decision to not print the cartoons. See, freedom of the press includes the freedom to not print!

And I agree. However in making their decision, I'm free to react to that decision. My reaction is disapointment.

[rikzilla]

Rik, I'm not saying make every effort to coddle the Islamic "moderates". What I'm saying is that I think that the concerns of the Islamic moderates over these cartoons are legitimate and should be taken seriously, that people should be careful to not mix the moderate's legitimate concerns with the exhortations to violence that are coming out of the mouth of the extremists. All of my posts have been made with the objective of defending a paper's (in this case the Guardian's) right to not post the offending cartoons. As I said before, freedom of the press includes that right.

Orwell,
I do understand your point. But freedom of speech is a concept that; yes; even an Islamic "moderate" should be able to understand! My point is that we cannot appease Islam on this point and retain our integrity. Hence shorn of our integrity even the moderates will sneer at "western freedoms and values" and rightly so! How can we value our freedoms if we refuse to defend them? How can we ask Islamic moderates to speak out if we are afraid in our own land to draw a few lame editorial cartoons!!??

Let me put this in terms you are likely to respect. Bush is a moron. He's a moron for ever believing that he could wage a war on terror while walking on the tightrope of not letting it become a war against Islam. It is becomming that you know. Honestly I'm glad for the cartoons...I'd rather know now that we're embroiled in an Islamic war on the west than later. There was a time when Danish members of this forum bought into the "Bush is a warmongering maniac" meme. Reality is a bitch eh? But at least now we can all get on the same page. Appeasement won't help...this is social Darwinism...it's becomming time for us to get serious about surviving.

-z

[dsm]

Why does the flag burning amendment or the recent arrest of Cindy Sheehan leap to mind...?

[dsm]

Another question:

Many storybooks have been written and illustrated to teach children about the stories of the Bible (both Old and New Testament). If Islam is totally against the depiction of Muhammad for fear of idolatry, what do they use to teach their children about Muhammad?

[rikzilla]

Why does the flag burning amendment or the recent arrest of Cindy Sheehan leap to mind...?

Because you've had your mind dipped into the cesspool of multiculturalism. You believe that the Islamists repression of free speech is equivalent to the furor over flag burning...or the removal of Cindy (tee shirt) Sheehan from the Capitol during a formal event.

Morla equivalence is a fraud. So is multiculturalism where we don't need to know anything about other cultures so long as we take a warm and fuzzy attitude of "acceptance". It's as bogus and empty as is your equating flag burning and Crazy Cindy with cultural and governmental repressions of freedoms.

-z

[Orwell]

It's not freedom when you refuse to print for fear of violent consequnces.

If the Guardian decides not to print something because it's simply not newsworthy and doesn't serve the mission of the newspaper, that's freedom of the press. When they decide not to print something for fear of bloody consequences, that's knuckling under to the bullies. They can knuckle under, if they like. But they shouldn't be congratulating themselves in the same breath.

What if they decide not to print something because they deemed it truly offensive to the sensibilities of a number of their readers? I think that's legitimate, and they should be allowed to do that.

Let's make something clear, if the British government ordered British newspapers not to print these cartoons, I would be the first one urging them to do it. But I believe that a newspaper has the right to choose to not print. Also, I think it is ridiculous that the Danish and Norwegian govs. apologised for this: they are not responsible for the actions of their newspapers. It's up to the newspapers to apologise, if they judge they should do so, not their govs. It sad that so many Muslims in the Middle East confuse the actions of westerners with the actions of western governments. It is sad, but also natural, since they have no free press (therefore they will probably tend to assume that if it is printed, it is because the gov. agrees with it) and very little understanding of the West.

Also, don't fall for this "freedom of the press" argument that is being bandied around by some of these newspapers. The original Danish cartoons were reprinted by a Norwegian evangelical Christian newspaper, it seems. Some of the papers that are reprinting these things aren't renowned for their tolerance of foreigners, particularly Muslims.

[Ed]

Rik, I'm not saying make every effort to coddle the Islamic "moderates". What I'm saying is that I think that the concerns of the Islamic moderates over these cartoons are legitimate and should be taken seriously, that people should be careful to not mix the moderate's legitimate concerns with the exhortations to violence that are coming out of the mouth of the extremists. All of my posts have been made with the objective of defending a paper's (in this case the Guardian's) right to not post the offending cartoons. As I said before, freedom of the press includes that right.

Their "concern" trumps my right of free speech?