Scandinavians not welcome in Gaza

[jay gw]

Is there any particular reason why Danes and Muslims haven't demonstrated for peace and calm?

[Elind]

Don't feel like laughing, sorry...

I'm not laughing either, although if you step back a bit there is some cause for that. Nevertheless there are some fairly highly critical posts of Muslims right here, which if read by those rioting would very likely result in death threats from what we have seen.

I'd like to ask if what you call bigoted ********** is several degrees worse than what we see here, or if you are including present parties? And I'm trying to say it nicely:)

[mbp]

There is, as far as I can see, no such story to be found in EkstraBladet. Contrary to you I find it very hard to believe they would not publish it themselves if it were true, instead of handing it to this blog. I could be wrong.

You've not looked hard enough. They did publish it themselves. The story is here (http://www.ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=329877).

[JamesM]

Perhaps you are just pulling our legs with a facetious post to see how observant we are?:confused:
No. Just to be clear, are you saying that the Jenkins article, due to it not mentioning the Muslim world's response to the cartoons, represents a tacit approval of those actions?

[Orwell]

I'd like to ask if what you call bigoted ********** is several degrees worse than what we see here, or if you are including present parties? And I'm trying to say it nicely:)

Are you asking me if I'm accusing someone on this board of being an Islamophobe, Elind?

[Elind]

There is, as far as I can see, no such story to be found in EkstraBladet. Contrary to you I find it very hard to believe they would not publish it themselves if it were true, instead of handing it to this blog. I could be wrong.

http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/fabricated_cart.html

I don't know, it certainly sounds like something that would have been all over the Danish news by now. Perhaps they have a verification problem. However it does seem certain that none of this would have spread to the Middle East from an obscure Danish paper if it were not thanks to many people trying their best to make an issue of it. A campaign issue if you will.

Cartoon criticism of Muslims is not hate speech, but making sure as many Muslims in all corners of the world have it rubbed in their faces is. Who did that? The Danes or some others?

[mbp]

Is there any particular reason why Danes and Muslims haven't demonstrated for peace and calm?
It's very cold in Denmark at the moment. I wouldn't want to be standing peacefully and quitely outside for any length of time.

[Elind]

Are you asking me if I'm accusing someone on this board of being a bigoted *********, Elind?
Why yes, I am. :), but you know that from the previous post, don't you?

[CapelDodger]

I may have spent more time metaphorically in the 1920's and 30's than is healthy, but I'm still surprised at how little discussion there is about the motivations of those in Europe - which is where it all started - who published these cartoons of no obvious merit. I heard on CNN today that the original publisher had earlier refused to run a cartoon that insulted Jesus. I can't cite, but the guy seemed clued-up.

There was no merit in cartoons of Jews picking pockets when they were published in the 20's. Had Jews then responded as vociferously and energetically - say, burning down the Austrian embassy in the US - we'd have heard the same bigoted reaction as has been expressed on this thread. And Freedom of Speech would have been evoked. (Skeptic and zenith-nadir would have been on the other side, of course. But the right-wing, right-thinking Westerners amongst us would have been just as Jew-loving as their 30's counterparts. Which is to say, not much.)

Jews weren't presented as violent and stupid, as Muslims are now, but as clever and cowardly, but just as much a fifth column. You can't tell if a Muslim is hiding a bomb, but you can't tell if a Jew covertly owns your mortgage. The Muslims are trying to take over the world; what does that remind me of? They "all" want to kill "all" of us and sleep with our women, and that's "all" they've "all" ever wanted to do.

Twenty years ago there were covert commies to be scared of - like paedophiles, they look normal, which is not to say that someone who doesn't look normal isn't a commie paedophile, but that's digression - and nobody gave a hoot about Muslims. There were lots of them in Europe, not causing a problem, providing cheap labour and enhancing our urban life. Racist parties were always there, but marginal. Religion wasn't an issue.

The Enemy is Dead, Long Live the New Enemy! Lower-case enemies - welfare queens, the youth of today, the english - are always with us, of course.

I increasingly feel as if I'm living in those halcyon days between the wars. And then I realise I am living in those halcyon days between the wars. (Stolen, of course.)

[mbp]

I don't know, it certainly sounds like something that would have been all over the Danish news by now.
As indeed it has been for weeks.

ETA: The story I linked above is in Danish, but includes links to scans of the actual material the Islamic delegation presented during their trip to the Middle East.

[Orwell]

Why yes, I am. :), but you know that from the previous post, don't you?

It wasn't clearly stated.

Here's a wee guide to Islamophobia:

How to identify an Islamophobe in one simple step:

Look for the idiots who, instead of being sadden and dismayed by this crap, are triumphantly going "see, I told you so, Muslims are barbarians" or something similar... Don't bait me Elind. Don't feel like playing.

[Lukretius]

Gee – Orwell you’re really hanging in there aren’t you? But could you please try to tell me how YOUR picture of Islam is? I know you believe that stereotyping is a problem (unless of course we’re talking about stereotyping the west and capitalism and so on), but if you were to draw a few lines explaining your idea of the Muslim world of today, what would they be?

[epepke]

I may have spent more time metaphorically in the 1920's and 30's than is healthy, but I'm still surprised at how little discussion there is about the motivations of those in Europe - which is where it all started - who published these cartoons of no obvious merit. I heard on CNN today that the original publisher had earlier refused to run a cartoon that insulted Jesus. I can't cite, but the guy seemed clued-up.

I suppose that it's because people don't care, not should they.

I don't lose any sleep over the hundredth time the Weekly World News decides to rework their illustration of Bat-Boy for this holiday or that.

Besides, the motivations are clear anyway. Somebody was writing a book about Mohammed and couldn't find anyone who would do illustrations. The newspaper thought it was odd, and so they solicited some cartoons and printed them. Some of these could be considered offensive by most standards, and these are the ones that get played on the news channels. Some of them are actually quite good and respecful by non-Islamic standards. I liked the one with a portrait worked into the crescent and star. Some of them were even meta-cartoons, such as the one about the guy drawing a picture of Mohammad and looking worriedly over his shoulder, or the one with the orange labeled "PR Stunt" falling on the guy's head. Of course, people will say that they're all offensive because Islam, or at least some interpretations thereof, considers a portrayal of Mohammed as sacrilage.

Then some Muslim group went on a tour with these cartoons and others, which are obviously not even cartoons. I'm sure some dorboe will ask for hard proof that the others weren't in the original series, but all you have to do, really, is use your eyeballs to look at them.

So what's the motivation of the Muslim group? Nobody asks. The only reason I can think of for a non-Muslim to wonder about motivations is the presumption that Muslims can't possibly be expected to act on an emotional level above that of 6-year-old children.

[CapelDodger]

Is there any particular reason why Danes and Muslims haven't demonstrated for peace and calm?A joint demonstration expressing contempt for violence and bigotry per se would be an excellent thing. There are those at both extremes - racist and Islamist - working to promote division. Any effort to counteract that is welcome.

As to a particular reason, demonstrations need organising and that requires organisations which can communicate and co-ordinate. That in turn requires active involvement by citizens, be it in party, religion, pressure-group, trade union, forum or whatever. Ideally organisations should keep in regular touch so that they can respond quickly to events. In my local community, which is multi-ethnic from way back, there are regular get-togethers where people of half-a-dozen faiths revel in their shared religiosity. It's a metaphysical hot tub. But, given that religion ain't going away soon, it's a good thing.

[Giz]

No. Just to be clear, are you saying that the Jenkins article, due to it not mentioning the Muslim world's response to the cartoons, represents a tacit approval of those actions?

Jenkins was ignoring the elephant in the room. This has become a freedom of speech issue because of the threats and acts of violence. Showing that violence will not make us cravenly abandon our freedoms is exactly why we should be showing solidarity with the Danes and Norwegians. Hats off to the French for doing so (that's probably my first complimentary post about France!)

Jenkins also appeared to state that if you know you will cause offence you should self censor... I disagree with this take on three grounds:

1) Much worthwhile speech will offend. Jenkins appears not to think that the cartoons were worthwhile, how nice for him. Will he be available in future for media outlets to refer stories to him to see if they are worthwhile? Are the rest of us OK with him judging for us rather than letting us see for ourselves?

To quote Richard Dawkins:" another apparent foe of science, Simon Jenkins, former editor of The Times and a much more formidable adversary than the other journalists I've quoted, because he has some knowledge of what he is talking about. He resents compulsory science education and he holds the idiosyncratic view that it isn't useful. "

So would evolution, say, be considered worthwhile speech? Does Jenkins judge? How about we are individually given the chance to judge? Or is that kind of trust in the masses impossible in a democracy?

2) The furore has shown the sheer lack of assimilation in Europe. Multiculturalism can only work if there are certain common core values (i.e. respect for speech, democracy, equality). These are serious newsworthy issues, the reaction to the cartoons supplied evidence of a chasm between different groups in the community.

3) How are those without web access in the UK supposed to be informed?

Bah...

NB I note that Matthew Parris's Timesonline article is dead on the money...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2023870,00.html

[Freakshow]

How to identify an Islamofascist in one simple step:

Look for the idiots who, instead of being sadden and dismayed by this crap, are triumphantly going "see, I told you so, Westerners are evil infidels" or something similar...

How to identify an Islamophobe in one simple step:

Look for the idiots who, instead of being sadden and dismayed by this crap, are triumphantly going "see, I told you so, Muslims are barbarians" or something similar...ALL Muslims are barbarians? Who said that? Can you point the post out to me?

[Lukretius]

ALL Muslims are barbarians? Who said that? Can you point the post out to me?

Don't be rational about it! It MUST be islamophobic, because anything bad said about islam is - per se - islamophobic. Even those thousands of poor embassy burners are just mislead by 2 or 3 really crazy guys. They do not represent any part of Islam. You islamophobe.

[Bjorn]

You've not looked hard enough. They did publish it themselves. The story is here (http://www.ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=329877).They did indeed, and I missed it.

What I don't see in EkstraBladet's story is the claim that someone pretended these (extra) cartoons were printed in Danish newspapers or that they were "completely fabricated".

There is a difference between:

"these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet"

and what EkstraBladet wrote:

"the delegation also brought with them pictures and drawings showing Mohammad as a pedophile and with a pig's snout"

The fact that EkstraBladet is not saying where those drawings originated (and my view on EkstraBladet in general) ... I wonder where they came from. All this, of course, not an excuse for all the things that followed.

[Freakshow]

They "all" want to kill "all" of us...Who said "all"? Who? Post a link to the post, please.

[JamesM]

Jenkins was ignoring the elephant in the room. This has become a freedom of speech issue because of the threats and acts of violence. Showing that violence will not make us cravenly abandon our freedoms is exactly why we should be showing solidarity with the Danes and Norwegians.
I don't disagree with this, but my post was in reponse to Elind's contention that Jenkins considered the Muslim response to be perfectly understandable. I still don't see that that logically follows, or is even implied, from the article.

Ignoring the elephant in the room could also be acknowledging that the elephant is being well-examined elsewhere, and then considering other matters. I don't see that the issue of the Muslim response should be covered to the exclusion of any other aspects. The issue of press self-censorship is perfectly timely, and given that most of use are not Muslims and consider ourselves part of the democratic west and its ideal of freedom of speech, it has plenty of relevance.

How are those without web access in the UK supposed to be informed? I agree that the cartoons are of sufficient newsworthiness in themselves, that a good argument can be made for publishing them, subject to warnings that some people might find them offensive.

That's a different issue to printing the cartoons as an act of free-speech solidarity, though. I think it is arguable that reprinting the cartoons is the best way of going about this. To some extent, the protestors have succeeded in manipulating the western media. The media are reacting in indignation rather than fear, but they've still been provoked into taking actions they normally wouldn't if it was free-speech-as-usual.

[Giz]

I may have spent more time metaphorically in the 1920's and 30's than is healthy, but I'm still surprised at how little discussion there is about the motivations of those in Europe - which is where it all started - who published these cartoons of no obvious merit.

1) Whether they should be published or not is two different debates; i) initially, and ii) once the death threats, bomb threats, gunmen, and arson had made this undeniably newsworthy.

2) Regarding the initial publication I think:
a) The newspaper had the right to publish (whether or not it was wise to do so).
b) I think it can be argued that while the cartoons appear puerile at first glance - and might be seen as intended to provoke - that doesn't mean that they are perhaps similar to an undercover reporter or investigative journalist researching a piece on extremist groups and their influence. (If the cartoons had been responded to by a massive letter writing campaign and hardly any threats then we would have finally seen the "lesser spotted" muslim majority and peace, happiness and singing of kumybaya would have broken out.

[Orwell]

ALL Muslims are barbarians? Who said that? Can you point the post out to me?

Funny, why did you assume I am talking about people on this board?

[Orwell]

Anyway, since it seems several members are anxious to know if I think there are Islamophobes on this board... Here it is, folks, Orwell's list of probable Islamophobes!

Probable Islamophobes on this board: Skeptic, BPSCG, Zenith-Nadir, Webfusion, maybe Mycroft... If they're not bigoted, they sure do a pretty good imitation of a bigot. I'm pretty sure Skeptic and BPSCG have something against Muslims in general, but the others, I don't know if it's Muslims in general, or Palestinians in general. Oh, and what's is name, Hammegk... He's a pretty safe bet, he's a general bigot all around.

Hey Lukretious, are you one too? ;)

[Bjorn]

I may have spent more time metaphorically in the 1920's and 30's than is healthy, but I'm still surprised at how little discussion there is about the motivations of those in Europe - which is where it all started - who published these cartoons of no obvious merit. I heard on CNN today that the original publisher had earlier refused to run a cartoon that insulted Jesus. I can't cite, but the guy seemed clued-up.I think you're right, and that the motivation from the first couple of magazines was - well, not convincing.

There was no merit in cartoons of Jews picking pockets when they were published in the 20's. Had Jews then responded as vociferously and energetically - say, burning down the Austrian embassy in the US - we'd have heard the same bigoted reaction as has been expressed on this thread. And Freedom of Speech would have been evoked.Wouldn't burning embassies have been wrong in the 20's as well? As much as I see your point, isn't the violent answer we see right now the difference that makes the comparison not so valid?

Jews weren't presented as violent and stupid, as Muslims are now, but as clever and cowardly, but just as much a fifth column. You can't tell if a Muslim is hiding a bomb, but you can't tell if a Jew covertly owns your mortgage. The Muslims are trying to take over the world; what does that remind me of? They "all" want to kill "all" of us and sleep with our women, and that's "all" they've "all" ever wanted to do.

Twenty years ago there were covert commies to be scared of - like paedophiles, they look normal, which is not to say that someone who doesn't look normal isn't a commie paedophile, but that's digression - and nobody gave a hoot about Muslims. There were lots of them in Europe, not causing a problem, providing cheap labour and enhancing our urban life. Racist parties were always there, but marginal. Religion wasn't an issue.I think that's a good description.

But today, the persons accused of being 'covert commies' or 'paedophiles' or - to be precise - 'extremist muslims', didn't just march in protest or write letters to the editors, they burned embassies and threatened to kill newspaper editors.

The Enemy is Dead, Long Live the New Enemy! Lower-case enemies - welfare queens, the youth of today, the english - are always with us, of course.Or the French. :)

[Freakshow]

Funny, why did you assume I am talking about people on this board?Today isn't the first time I've seen you post, ya know. We do learn a bit about the views of our fellow posters as time goes by. You've talked about this subject before.

[Orwell]

Gee – Orwell you’re really hanging in there aren’t you? But could you please try to tell me how YOUR picture of Islam is? I know you believe that stereotyping is a problem (unless of course we’re talking about stereotyping the west and capitalism and so on), but if you were to draw a few lines explaining your idea of the Muslim world of today, what would they be?

My picture of Islam? As a religion, Islam is about as ridiculous as any other religion. As a culture, Islam has about contributed as much to human culture as the other important monotheistic religions.

The Middle east? Lets see, the last 100 years (150 if you include North Africa): first the Ottoman Empire, then France and England, and then division into little states with corrupt leaders propped up by one side or the other during the cold war... Add to this oil, the most sought after resource in the world, and of course, Israel, a recent arrival into the mess, and a virtual client state of the US... Throw in a few by proxy wars and a lot of violent political instability, and what do you get? A huge ***** mess! Centuries of misery, ignorance and oppression. No wonder the place is such a hotbed of conflict. No wonder so many people from over there are falling into religious extremism... Things are much more complicated than this, obviously (for instance, Europeans have been messing with North Africa for quite a way back, it all started back in 1415, with the conquest of Ceuta by the Portuguese) but this will give you an idea of what I think.

(unless of course we’re talking about stereotyping the west and capitalism and so on) Boy, just 19 posts, and he's already pigeonholing me! Pray tell, Mr. n00b, were have I done this exactly? I think you are confusing me with a figment of your imagination (which is a fancy way of saying "strawman").

[Orwell]

Today isn't the first time I've seen you post, ya know. We do learn a bit about the views of our fellow posters as time goes by. You've talked about this subject before.

When I initially posted it, I wasn't actually thinking about the folks on this board: I was reacting to something I read about some European fascists...

[LeFevre]

Anyway, since it seems several members are anxious to know if I think there are Islamophobes on this board... Here it is, folks, Orwell's list of probable Islamophobes!

Probable Islamophobes on this board: Skeptic, BPSCG, Zenith-Nadir, Webfusion, maybe Mycroft... If they're not bigoted, they sure do a pretty good imitation of a bigot. Oh, and what's is name, Hammegk... He's a pretty safe bet, he's a general bigot all around.

Hey Lukretious, are you one too? ;)
Wasn't there a freakout about calling some posters anti-Semitic or raceist/bigoted? Your expression of your opinion may get modded Orwell. :confused:

[Orwell]

Wasn't there a freakout about calling some posters anti-Semitic or raceist/bigoted? Your expression of your opinion may get modded Orwell. :confused:

Well, if it gets modded, it gets modded. I'm not in the habit of making veiled accusations, what you see is what you get. Get my quote corrected please, I did a few changes.

[Orwell]

By the way, the difference between a legitimate critic of Islam and a bigoted critic of Islam is that legitimate criticism takes into account the why i. e. historical context. The bigot doesn't.

[Freakshow]

By the way, the difference between a legitimate critic of Islam and a bigoted critic of Islam is that legitimate criticism takes into account the why i. e. historical context.No.

Historical context usually means nothing to me. If a mob comes to my house to drag me into the street and kill me, I don't care about why. It doesn't matter to me. I am going to fight. I am not being dragged out and killed, thinking to myself "Hmmm...what happened in history to cause this?"

You are just making excuses.

[webfusion]

heh heh , I have orwell on ignore but it seems he's looking to get banned so NOBODY at all has a chance to read his drivel. Good luck to him.

[Orwell]

No.

Historical context usually means nothing to me. If a mob comes to my house to drag me into the street and kill me, I don't care about why. It doesn't matter to me. I am going to fight. I am not being dragged out and killed, thinking to myself "Hmmm...what happened in history to cause this?"

You are just making excuses.

Who's dragging out the street to kill you, Freakshow?

In our little relatively safe corner of the world, the Islamophobes are politically much more dangerous than the Islamofascists. The Islamofascist can only blow themselves up along with a few civilians, while the Islamophobes can use fear of the Islamofascist to take over.

[Manny]

heh heh , I have orwell on ignore but it seems he's looking to get banned so NOBODY at all has a chance to read his drivel. Irrelevent. Last time he was so embarrassed that he left the forum he created a sock and came back. There's no reason to believe he won't repeat the behavior.

[Freakshow]

Who's dragging out the street to kill you, Freakshow?
There are parts of the world (especially this weekend) where it would be a real worry, if I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. For no reason other than being a non-Islamic westerner.

And because I am even aware that it is possible, you probably think that makes me an Islamophobe. :rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

heh heh , I have orwell on ignore but it seems he's looking to get banned so NOBODY at all has a chance to read his drivel. Good luck to him.Banned why? Did I miss something?

[epepke]

There are parts of the world (especially this weekend) where it would be a real worry, if I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. For no reason other than being a non-Islamic westerner.

It can't happen... heeeeeeeeere.

[Orwell]

Irrelevent. Last time he was so embarrassed that he left the forum he created a sock and came back. There's no reason to believe he won't repeat the behavior.

It's spelled i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t, Manny. And I never created a sock-puppet. I left, and then I came back later under a different name. I never posted under two names at the same time.

But I don't really need to justify myself, eh? ;)

[Orwell]

There are parts of the world (especially this weekend) where it would be a real worry, if I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. For no reason other than being a non-Islamic westerner. Yes, and if you were living there, I would urge you to get the hell out. I would still try to convince you to understand why things are the way they are; hate the mob, not the people...

And because I am even aware that it is possible, you probably think that makes me an Islamophobe. :rolleyes: As far as I recall, I never called you any names, simply because you never gave me reasons to do so.

[LeFevre]

It's spelled i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t, Manny. And I never created a sock-puppet. I left, and then I came back later under a different name. I never posted under two names at the same time.

But I don't really need to justify myself, eh? ;)
I thought Ex Lion Tamer was a friend? :eek:

[Orwell]

It can't happen... heeeeeeeeere.

Oh yes it can. But, see, the mob Freakshow mentions ain't gonna be a mob of Islamofascists ...

[Freakshow]

Yes, and if you were living there, I would urge you to get the hell out. I would still try to convince you to understand why things are the way they are; hate the mob, not the people... The people are the mob. The mob is the people. I realize mobs can take on a mind of their own. But there has to be some underlying common thoughts among the individuals for the mob to become what it does.

Hating people isn't always wrong. Some people are deserving of hatred. Some aren't. The key is to think carefully about which are which. Hating no one is as absurd as hating everyone.

[Freakshow]

Oh yes it can. But, see, the mob Freakshow mentions ain't gonna be a mob of Islamofascists ...Why not? Explain.

[Orwell]

I thought Ex Lion Tamer was a friend? :eek:

No, I was he. I thought my obviously absurd story about my having Ex Lion Tamer's love child kinda gave it away... Come on, I was obviously making fun of the whole hoopla!

[webfusion]

bjorn. there have been a lot of admin. warnings directed at orwell for personalizing the discussions here, and he doesn't care... as he just did it again, with a post mentioning his list of 'JREF bigots'.

Personally, I don't really care, since I'm not even reading his posts (for obvious reasons), but he is clearly in violation of his membership agreement, and from what manny says, even if he was kicked-off, he'd just come back in some other guise, so I dunno, I guess my solution is best --- simply ignore him.

[Orwell]

Why not? Explain.

Islamofascism taking over North America? Gimme a break! Yeah, that's gonna happen!

Muslims represent about 0.9% of the total population Canadian population! US statistics are probably similar.

For all of the world's muslims to become a serious threat to the US and Europe (comparable to the old USSR, for instance), they would have to be unified under some kind single political power. The chances of that happening aren't very realistic.

[Freakshow]

Islamofascism taking over North America? Gimme a break! Yeah, that's gonna happen!

Muslims represent about 0.9% of the total population Canadian population! US statistics are probably similar.

For all of the world's muslims to become a serious threat to the US and Europe, they would have to be unified under some kind single political power. The chances of that happening aren't very realistic.There are non-muslims living in places other than North America.

The point of my post wasn't to talk about ME. It was to talk about the mob, their intentions, their inability to reason, and the irrelevance of "historical context". Did that slip by you, seriously?

[Orwell]

bjorn. there have been a lot of admin. warnings directed at orwell for personalizing the discussions here, and he doesn't care... as he just did it again, with a post mentioning his list of 'JREF bigots'.

Personally, I don't really care, since I'm not even reading his posts (for obvious reasons), but he is clearly in violation of his membership agreement, and from what manny says, even if he was kicked-off, he'd just come back in some other guise, so I dunno, I guess my solution is best --- simply ignore him.

Well, some people asked me who I thought the Islamophobes on the forum were... I just gave my opinion! I like to call a spade a spade. Don't like it, well... Tough.

[Orwell]

There are non-muslims living in places other than North America.

The point of my post wasn't to talk about ME. It was to talk about the mob, their intentions, their inability to reason, and the irrelevance of "historical context". Did that slip by you, seriously?

Freak, Epepke wrote "It can't happen... heeeeeeeeere." to which I answered: "Oh yes it can. But, see, the mob Freakshow mentions ain't gonna be a mob of Islamofascists ...". Maybe I misunderstood Epepke's words...

As for the Muslims living in other places, most of them live in weak third world nations that are much poorer and smaller than the US and Canada. As for the "irrelevance of historical context", well, the way the mob behaves is typically dictated by historical context. Do you believe that hatred is born in a vacuum? Extremism is the enemy, right? You need to understand the enemy if you want to beat him, you need to understand historical context.

[John de Combe]

Two ways to justify a rubber spine:

The BBC way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm

Incidentally, what the BBC do not mention is that the BBC is currently closing down it's Eastern European World Service radio operations to start up a BBC Arabic Television service in an government inspired drive to create "USA/UK-friendly" competition fo Al Jazeera.

The Observer way:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html

Give people's supernatural superstitions an inch and they'll take a light year.

[epepke]

Freak, Epepke wrote "It can't happen... heeeeeeeeere." to which I answered: "Oh yes it can. But, see, the mob Freakshow mentions ain't gonna be a mob of Islamofascists ...". Maybe I misunderstood Epepke's words...

I can't say that you understood. However, it's a quote from a Frank Zappa song.

For a more extended version, not violating the 20% rule, here it is:

Who could imagine
That they would freak out in washington, d.c.
D.c. d.c. d.c. d.c. d.c.
It can’t happen here
Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba
It can’t happen here
It can’t happen here
Everybody’s safe and it can’t happen here
No freaks for us
It can’t happen here
Everybody’s clean and it can’t happen here
No, no, it won’t happen here
I’m telling you it can’t
It won’t happen here
(bop bop didi bop didi bop bop bop)
Plastic folks, you know
It won’t happen here
You’re safe, mama
You’re safe, baby
You just cook a tv dinner
And you make it
(bop bop bop)

The extended e's on "heeeeeere" are an approximation of the twisted Barbershop harmony on the album.

[Freakshow]

You need to understand the enemy if you want to beat him, you need to understand historical context.I don't need to understand anyone to shoot them.

[Orwell]

Two ways to justify a rubber spine:

The BBC way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4678100/4678186.stm

Incidentally, what the BBC do not mention is that the BBC is currently closing down it's Eastern European World Service radio operations to start up a BBC Arabic Television service in an government inspired drive to create "USA/UK-friendly" competition fo Al Jazeera.

The Observer way:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html

Give people's supernatural superstitions an inch and they'll take a light year.

:rolleyes: Yeah, let's be virile and stupid and keep throwing gas into the fire. I'm sure that both the islamophobes and the islamofascists will greatly appreciate it.

On 30 September last year, caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad appeared in a Danish newspaper. Four months later, images of masked gunmen burning the Danish flag were beamed around the world. Now we see placard-bearing youths take to the streets of London. Their slogans incite murder and praise terror. The editors who first made the decision to print the Muhammad cartoons cannot have anticipated this volatile reaction. Had they known, would they still publish? Should they? All we can say with certainty is that they certainly had the right to do so.
The choices that other European media have faced since then are more complex. Those who published the images have cited two justifications. The first is that audiences need to see the pictures to understand the story. The second is that since freedom of expression is under assault, running these particular cartoons is a point of principle.

Neither argument stands up to rigorous examination. Newsrooms routinely reject pictures for publication in order to avoid gratuitous offence. One German paper published the cartoons on grounds of 'Europe-wide solidarity', yet it is hard to see how the Continent benefits from Europeans insulting each other. German Muslims are Europeans, too.

Standing on principles, however dearly held, does not always make for wise judgment. To believe strongly in the right to publish is not a moral imperative to publish. Nor is the decision to show sensitivity to those who would be offended, in any way forfeiting rights or shirking responsibilities. Yet it is clear why the violence and intimidation, including death threats, intensified the pressure on European editors to make a stand. Caution and editorial restraint can easily become self-censorship. Are the boundaries of what is acceptable to be determined with reference to what may inflame a mob on the West Bank? Surely not.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html

To a free press, the right to not publish is as important as the right to publish.

[Orwell]

I don't need to understand anyone to shoot them.

That's the kind of attitude that fosters extremism.

[Freakshow]

That's the kind of attitude that fosters extremism.Its the kind of attitude that keeps the intended victims of extremism alive, when the extremists come for them.

[Orwell]

Its the kind of attitude that keeps the intended victims of extremism alive, when the extremists come for them.

And that's not a very efficient way of fighting something... Know thy enemy, you know?

[Freakshow]

And that's not a very efficient way of fighting something... Know thy enemy.But you don't want to know them so you can fight them. You want to know them so that you can excuse them. Big difference.

[Orwell]

But you don't want to know them so you can fight them. You want to know them so that you can excuse them. Big difference.

Why do you think I'm excusing them? Who I'm a excusing? The Islamofascists?

[Freakshow]

Why do you think I'm excusing them? Who I'm a excusing? The Islamofascists?Yes.

[John de Combe]

:rolleyes: Yeah, let's be virile and stupid and keep throwing gas into the fire. I'm sure that both the islamophobes and the islamofascists will greatly appreciate it.

Take your route and you end up not being able to publish or say anything in the end.

Bad things happen when good men do nothing. What you are suggesting amounts burying your head in the sand, doing nothing, and hoping you still have freedom of speech when you unbury it.

[Orwell]

Yes.

Well, I'm hurt.

Why would I want to excuse a bunch of obscurantists who would probably shoot me on sight, if they could?

Knowing is not excusing. And opposing these extremists doesn't demand foaming at the mouth, or a denial of their humanity.

[Orwell]

Take your route and you end up not being able to publish or say anything in the end.

Bad things happen when good men do nothing. What you are suggesting amounts burying your head in the sand, doing nothing, and hoping you still have freedom of speech when you unbury it.

Slippery slope fallacy.

The cartoons were posted. Not posting again is a legitimate a position as posting them again.

[Skeptic]

Bull. Do the best of your knowledge has an image ever been removed (barring obscene stuff) from here? Ever?

Allowing a link is a pussy figleaf.

Sorry, I disagree. I don't recall images in particular, but I certainly recall that when somebody posts a long article from a copyrighted source, it was removed and replaced with a link.

[John de Combe]

Slippery slope fallacy.

The cartoons were posted. Not posting again is a legitimate a position as posting them again.

Yes, but the reason for not posting them has been changed. Is it because they are not worth posting again? Or is it because you are scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do? Would you ever post such cartoons in future?

If you no longer publish cartoons again because you are scared even though you feel they may merit publication then haven't you lost something?

(BTW: I'm enjoying reading you debate this.)

[Orwell]

I can't say that you understood. However, it's a quote from a Frank Zappa song.

For a more extended version, not violating the 20% rule, here it is:

The extended e's on "heeeeeere" are an approximation of the twisted Barbershop harmony on the album.

Hey there, people, I’m bobby brown
They say I’m the cutest boy in town
My car is fast, my teeth is shiney
I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie
Here I am at a famous school
I’m dressin’ sharp ’n’ i’m
Actin’ cool
I got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paper
Let her do all the work ’n’ maybe later I’ll rape her

Oh God I am the american dream
I do not think I’m too extreme
An’ I’m a handsome sonofabitch
I’m gonna get a good job ’n’ be real rich

;)

[Skeptic]

The Islamofascists are having a field day with this. The Islamophobes are having a field day with this.

Yes, but one side has a field day by killing, rioting, threathening, bombing, calling for genocide, burning embassies, and--of course--inventing a conspiracy theory that blames it all on the jews...

...while the other side is having a field day by showing moral outrage, waiving Danish flags, and and offering moral support for freedom of speech and expression.

So, what does that tell you, Orwell?

[Freakshow]

Yes, but one side has a field day by killing, rioting, threathening, bombing, calling for genocide, burning embassies, and--of course--inventing a conspiracy theory that blames it all on the jews...

...while the other side is having a field day by showing moral outrage, waiving Danish flags, and and offering moral support for freedom of speech and expression.

So, what does that tell you, Orwell?:clap:

[Orwell]

Yes, but the reason for not posting them has been changed. Is it because they are not worth posting again? Or is it because you are scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do? Would you ever post such cartoons in future?

If you no longer publish cartoons again because you are scared even though you feel they may merit publication then haven't you lost something?

(BTW: I'm enjoying reading you debate this.)

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?

[epepke]

Hey there, people, I’m bobby brown
They say I’m the cutest boy in town
My car is fast, my teeth is shiney
I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie
Here I am at a famous school
I’m dressin’ sharp ’n’ i’m
Actin’ cool
I got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paper
Let her do all the work ’n’ maybe later I’ll rape her

Oh God I am the american dream
I do not think I’m too extreme
An’ I’m a handsome sonofabitch
I’m gonna get a good job ’n’ be real rich

;)

That's a good one. I even wrote a game on the TRS-80 to that song.

[Mycroft]

Yes, but one side has a field day by killing, rioting, threathening, bombing, calling for genocide, burning embassies, and--of course--inventing a conspiracy theory that blames it all on the jews...

...while the other side is having a field day by showing moral outrage, waiving Danish flags, and and offering moral support for freedom of speech and expression.

So, what does that tell you, Orwell?

That they're exactly the same!!!

[webfusion]

skeptic, there was no mention made of copyright issues, as far as I can find, in relation to the reproduction of the 12 satirical drawings.

The original controversy started when Danish author Kåre Bluitgen complained that he could not find an artist brave enought to illustrate his upcoming book about Mohammed. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten issued a call for submissions from any artists willing to take up the challenge. In the ensuing brouhaha, the original book was almost forgotten; it has now been released, and does feature page after page of Mohammed depictions. This site (http://www.exilen.org/debatt/read.php?f=17&i=195024&t=195024) features scans of several of the pages.

These are the facts as we know them...
and the thread which had the images deleted, specifically offered a complaint in the OP, saying "So where the heck is this cartoon that has the muslim loonies all worked up?
Nobody will show it in the US. We must be "sensitive", don't you know.
Anyone got a link?"

The first view I had of these drawings was here on JREF!

[John de Combe]

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?

True. But where and how would you draw the line? What would it take for you to publish something despite the reprecussions? Is there a line you would draw? Where does the border between right to freedom of speech and the need for responsibile behaviour cross?

[webfusion]

Tom Paine and his patriotic journalistic cohorts thumbed their collective noses at the prohibition against blaspheming the King of England, and said quite simply:

"Of more worth is one honest man to society ... than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."

Common Sense - 1776

[Skeptic]

There was no merit in cartoons of Jews picking pockets when they were published in the 20's. Had Jews then responded as vociferously and energetically - say, burning down the Austrian embassy in the US - we'd have heard the same bigoted reaction as has been expressed on this thread.

But that's just the difference, isn't it?

The jews--and the Christians for that matter--do not respond to antisemitic or anti-Christian cartoons in this way. They respond, rather, in a civilized manner: they write letters to newspapers, call the media and alerts them to the cartoons, go on talk shows denouncing them, and perhaps demonstrate in front of an embassy / newspaper headquarters. If that was the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, my--and most people's--reaction would have been rather different.

If the jewish reaction to Der Sturmer (who daily published cartoons which were much worse about the jews, as, incidentally, the Arab media does to this day) was that Germany must be burned to the ground and all Germans killed or converted to judaism, that German embassies were being burned down by jewish mobs, that bomb threats by jews against the paper's owners were proliferating, that jewish schools endlessly educated children to hate all Germans forever and to kill any German they find, that jewish leaders telling the world that Germany will soon suffer terrorist attacks by jewish suicide bombers, and so on... that would be rather strong evidence in favor of Hitler's view that the jews are out to destroy Germany, wouldn't you say?

P.S.

I also find it highly distatesful, not to say petently dishonest and pathetic, your attempt to draw some sort of spurious parallel between the prosecuted jews of the 30s and those "insulted" Muslims today, who openly claim both that the holocaust never happened and that they will soon perform another one on the jews in "occupied Palestine". (And then, incidentally, everywhere else.) If there is a parallel (and there is), it's obviously between the Islamists and the Nazis, not between the Islamists and the jews.

[Skeptic]

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?

Yes, it could be called that... by cowards.

I don't mean the JREF moderators are cowards, since I think in this case the cartoons were removed for violating forum rules that had nothing to do with fear of Islamist bombings.

I mean that in general, cowards always find some perfectly "rational" excuse for behaving cowardly, forgetting that the definition of bravery is to do something difficult, clearly against one's interests, out of dedication to a higher ideal.

"The brave man is called a fool by the coward"--Epictetus.

[John de Combe]

To a free press, the right to not publish is as important as the right to publish.

If, say, the National Secular Society or the Brights promised worse violence in Britain if the pictures *weren't* published than the Muslims would commit if they *were*, then on your logic it would be irresponsible not to publish the pictures?

Is what you are saying ultimately is always give in to the most ferocious bully?

[Skeptic]

skeptic, there was no mention made of copyright issues, as far as I can find, in relation to the reproduction of the 12 satirical drawings.

I used an inexact word. I don't think it's "copyright" per se, but the longstanding board policy that extensive quotations / material taken from other sources will be removed and replaced by a link.

I'm pretty sure that if I quoted, say, an entire Shakespeare play or act on this forum, it would too be removed and repalced by a link to it despite no copyright issues being involved.

[Skeptic]

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante

From Freakshow's signature. I think a few people on his forum need to think that one over. "They were neither for God nor the Devil, but only for themselves...", as Virgil describes the lost angels who are not allowed into either heaven or hell in the beginning of the Inferno.

P.S.

I read Dante's Inferno during field service in the army, and used to wonder if, things being as they are, my acquitance with its subject matter will not suddenly become rather, shall we say, more immediate.

(It's a bit like my "teach yourself Greek" and "Teach yourself Latin" career: at the rate I'm going, I'm probably going to be able to talk to Aristotle and Cato before I'm able to read them.)

[plindboe]

I may have spent more time metaphorically in the 1920's and 30's than is healthy, but I'm still surprised at how little discussion there is about the motivations of those in Europe - which is where it all started - who published these cartoons of no obvious merit. I heard on CNN today that the original publisher had earlier refused to run a cartoon that insulted Jesus. I can't cite, but the guy seemed clued-up.

I think you have mixed up the cases. Jyllandsposten published the original cartoons. The norwegian christian mag, that reprinted them, was the one with the editor with the doublestandards. Being a dane I have probably been able to follow the local debate and Jyllandspostens arguments more closely than you, and I'm convinced that they didn't have ulterior motives.

I think when people are suggesting that there must be ulterior motives they haven't really understood or looked into the arguments put forward by Jyllandsposten, and probably don't know the context(ongoing debate there was at the time) either. Self-censorship due to fear of violence is something we usually connect with totalitarian regimes, shall we just sit back when we observe the same in our own countries? We are proud of our free press, our ability to make fun of, and discuss issues with each other, and I think it's absurd to let others dictate that we are not allowed to do that anymore, simply because some people are extremely thin-skinned.

[epepke]

Self-censorship due to fear of violence is something we usually connect with totalitarian regimes, shall we just sit back when we observe the same in our own countries? We are proud of our free press, our ability to make fun of, and discuss issues with each other, and I think it's absurd to let others dictate that we are not allowed to do that anymore, simply because some people are extremely thin-skinned.

That's what the issue really boils down to.

I also suspect this is why some people are doing everything they can to divert attention away from it.

[John de Combe]

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante

:clap:

I think you've just about summed it up.

Right, off to buy my daughters some Duplo (and anything else Danish I can find).

[zenith-nadir]

Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death.

AP - Feb 4, 7:07 PM (ET) (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060205/D8FIK3M81.html)(emphasis mine)

February 04, 2006 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html)

TWELVE Danish cartoonists whose pictures sparked such outcry have gone into hiding under round-the-clock protection, fearing for their lives.

A spokesman for the cartoonists said: “They are in hiding around Denmark. Some of them are really, really scared. The leader of the "new & improved" ruling party of the Palestinian Authority thinks murdering the cartoonists is a good idea... He must be the moderate in Hamas the useful idiots talk so much about....:rolleyes: Meanwhile the cartoonists have gone into hiding fearing for their lives.

I am sorry but I do not threaten to murder people over cartoons no mater what the satirical content, nor would I torch an embassy over a cartoon or become violent over a cartoon, therefore I must take a stand and my avatar and signature reflect that decision.

[Lukretius]

My picture of Islam? As a religion, Islam is about as ridiculous as any other religion. As a culture, Islam has about contributed as much to human culture as the other important monotheistic religions.
I disagree. Looking at the cultural developments up until the beginning of the industrialization I would have agreed, but since then western culture (growing ever more secular) has contributed way more than any historical culture.
The Middle east? Lets see, the last 100 years (150 if you include North Africa): first the Ottoman Empire, then France and England, and then division into little states with corrupt leaders propped up by one side or the other during the cold war... Add to this oil, the most sought after resource in the world, and of course, Israel, a recent arrival into the mess, and a virtual client state of the US... Throw in a few by proxy wars and a lot of violent political instability, and what do you get? A huge ***** mess! Centuries of misery, ignorance and oppression. No wonder the place is such a hotbed of conflict. No wonder so many people from over there are falling into religious extremism... Things are much more complicated than this, obviously (for instance, Europeans have been messing with North Africa for quite a way back, it all started back in 1415, with the conquest of Ceuta by the Portuguese) but this will give you an idea of what I think.

But this is an extremely selective historical view. When the Muslim culture was at its highest – when they were the cultural highlight of the world – their troops stood all the way into Spain. Muslim (or Middle Eastern) culture has been exactly as aggressive and politically hypocritical as any nation or culture has ever been. The later just being a matter of international politics that has ALWAYS been hypocritical. I may not like that and you may not either, but none the less, that can’t be a criterion for excusing any behaviour at all. To me the explanation is another. Middle Eastern culture is secondary in development – I’d love to see you argue against that – and nobody likes to come in second. There’s no prestige in that. And you got to agree, that – in general – Middle Eastern cultures are pretty patriarchal, demanding equal respect for things not worthy of respect (I’m NOT saying that there is nothing to respect – I’m just saying that they are demanding respect for **** that’s not worth respecting). I honestly don’t think your “history” claim is very convincing. It can be used anytime, to excuse any kind of behaviour, and it usually is.

Boy, just 19 posts, and he's already pigeonholing me! Pray tell, Mr. n00b, were have I done this exactly? I think you are confusing me with a figment of your imagination (which is a fancy way of saying "strawman").
Oh - I didn't know there was a specific # of posts to reach, before you could enter the debate with you. For that I'm sorry of course. Had I known I would clearly have shut up. But the reason for the "strawman" - which I admittedly was considering NOT to write – is very simple. You seem obviously Marxian (and you may correct me if I’m wrong). But since I work at the most Marxian university in Denmark, I tend to grow a little tired of Marxist analysis. It always comes out with the same answer. It’s the western capitalist societies that make the world an evil place to be. And that’s too easy. Besides, the empirical evidence is overwhelming. Any country in the world, where the Marxist analysis has been used to form society, has failed miserably. And let me clear out any misunderstandings right away. I’m not against leftwing politics, I’m European and have voted leftwing myself for many years (although I don’t vote for any sides anymore – I leave a blank note), I’m just saying that the specific Marxian analysis – that you seem to be found of – is wrong, and shouldn’t be used anymore. Should I be wrong about you, then you have my apologies.

And then there was the question of Islamophobi. Well I certainly do not consider myself to be. I am agnostic, so if I'm anything I'm a hater of religion. What these last days has shown me however, is that we might have underestimated the fundamentalism in the population who has migrated to Europe the last 30 years. It seems that the moderate Muslims are having huge problems rallying op supporters for their views, while the extremist are able to gather thousands at ease. I'm still not sure it's a big problem, but I'll admit that I'm insecure. If that makes me islamophobic, well then I am.

[plindboe]

If, say, the National Secular Society or the Brights promised worse violence in Britain if the pictures *weren't* published than the Muslims would commit if they *were*, then on your logic it would be irresponsible not to publish the pictures?

Is what you are saying ultimately is always give in to the most ferocious bully?

That's a good point. The main reason that newspapers across Europe reprinted the cartoons was to show that we will not be silenced by threats. I think the silence that some people advocate would come back and bite us in the ass, as it will basically show the extremists, that issuing death threats and burning embassies are efficient ways to deal with viewpoints you don't like. That is why it's so important that we stand firm, as any backing down is not only a defeat of one of the most precious liberties we enjoy, but will be an encouragement of violence.

[Orwell]

Yes, but one side has a field day by killing, rioting, threathening, bombing, calling for genocide, burning embassies, and--of course--inventing a conspiracy theory that blames it all on the jews...

...while the other side is having a field day by showing moral outrage, waiving Danish flags, and and offering moral support for freedom of speech and expression.

So, what does that tell you, Orwell?

Ah yes, the usual spurious thinking that I have come to expect for dear Skeptic... Who's once again displaying, by his ignorance, the importance of historical context.

See, the islamofascists burn embassies and all that because they can! Their governments (who have used and manipulated hatred of the west for their own particular political ends) and the public opinion in their countries (manipulated by the government controlled media and islamofascist propaganda) will let them to do so.

Islamophobes don't do that. It would be bad PR, it would be against the law (it's probably against the law in Syria too, but they won't prosecute), it would remind many westerners of a few of the darkest pages of western history. So they just join in with the people peacefully showing their support for freedom of speech. Some stripes of Islamophobe will occasionally beat up the odd "Paki" in a dark alley, though. Or burn a few Corans.

But islamophobes will support things were the violence is more insidious: torture in the name of the fight against terrorism, unfair and restrictive immigration policies, xenophobia and exclusiosn, military actions against Muslims.

I'm not surprised that Mycroft goes along with this crap. But I'm a bit disappointed that you did, Freakshow.

[Orwell]

:clap:

I think you've just about summed it up.

Right, off to buy my daughters some Duplo (and anything else Danish I can find).

But I'm not maintaining my neutrality, am I? I oppose extremism and what I think foster extremsims. I oppose Islamofascists, I oppose Islamophobes.

I like this part over here:

Injury can be exaggerated and co-ordinated to political ends. There is no doubting that many Muslims are offended by irreverent depiction of the Prophet. But there are also factions within Islam that mobilise anti-Western feeling and push the most controversial voices to the fore. As we have seen with hostage-taking in Iraq, extremists can play the media for maximum exposure. The demonstrators who chant praise for al-Qaeda do not care whether or not European journalists show due reverence for Muhammad.

They crave confrontation and do not mind at all that their actions reinforce a completely unjustified stereotype that terrorism is a natural extension of Muslim practice. This is already the view of far-right parties in Europe and, in the current climate, risks gaining wider acceptance. That is another reason not to print images of, for example, Muhammad with a bomb for a turban. The archives of European newspapers are full of racist caricatures. When we talk about Europe's historic values, we should remember also that the Continent's record on dealing with religious pluralism has included genocide.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html

Like the Guardian, I believe that reprinting these cartoons helps the cause of extremists, and that's why I defend the right not to print them.

[Geckko]

That's a good point. The main reason that newspapers across Europe reprinted the cartoons was to show that we will not be silenced by threats. I think the silence that some people advocate would come back and bite us in the ass, as it will basically show the extremists, that issuing death threats and burning embassies are efficient ways to deal with viewpoints you don't like. That is why it's so important that we stand firm, as any backing down is not only a defeat of one of the most precious liberties we enjoy, but will be an encouragement of violence.

If you can be cowed from using your basic freedoms, those freedoms will quickly be lost.

[Skeptic]

See, the islamofascists burn embassies and all that because they can! ... Islamophobes don't do that. It would be bad PR, it would be against the law, it would remind many westerners of a few of the darkest pages of western history.

Well, yes, exactly: "Islamophobes" are civlized and non-violent, Isamist are barbaric and violent.

That's just my point. Now, what does that tell you?

But islamophobes will support things were the violence is more insidious:

Ah, of course. So the fact that the "islamophobes" are not violent merely proves that they are practicing "more insidious" violence.

Just like the fact that the Islamists torch embassies and call for the death of everybody just "proves" that there just have to be billions of "moderate Muslims" out there.

Facts just don't matter to you, do they, Orwell?

[BPSCG]

Anyway, since it seems several members are anxious to know if I think there are Islamophobes on this board... Here it is, folks, Orwell's list of probable Islamophobes!

Probable Islamophobes on this board: Skeptic, BPSCG, Zenith-Nadir, Webfusion, maybe Mycroft... If they're not bigoted, they sure do a pretty good imitation of a bigot. I'm pretty sure Skeptic and BPSCG have something against Muslims in general, but the others, I don't know if it's Muslims in general, or Palestinians in general. Oh, and what's is name, Hammegk... He's a pretty safe bet, he's a general bigot all around. Okay...

Phobia (n.) - A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

So an Islamophobe is one who has a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of Islam that compels him to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

Let's parse that statement to see if it evaluates logically as true or false as applies to my favorite person on this board, namely, myself:

1) Do I have a fear of Islam?
Okay, I'd have to say "yes". Not everything about Islam, but there are certainly core beliefs of the faith that frighten me.

2) Is it a persistent fear?
Well, it's not a 24/7 fear, but when I think about Islam, it is certainly there. So let's call that a "yes" also.

3) Do I avoid Islam?
Not sure how we'd evaluate that. I don't subscribe to the faith and I don't go out of my way to befriend Muslims and if I see someone on the subway platform reading the Koran and muttering to himself, I would certainly be wary of him. OTOH, I don't actively avoid Muslims, or cut off dealings with people when I find out they are Muslims. If there's a seat available on the subway next to a swarthy, Mediterranean-looking guy who appears otherwise harmless, I'll certainly sit next to him if there isn't a more attractive alternative available (seat next to a thinner person, seat next to a pretty lady, etc.). I'd say that if I avoid Islam, it's to no greater extent than most Americans in a US metropolitan area. But let's call it a "yes."

4) Is my fear of Islam abnormal?
I don't think so. I think I probably have the same concerns about Islam as many, even most Americans.

5) Is my fear of Islam irrational?
On September 11, 2001, Islamists tried to murder me. Around the world, Muslims publicly cheered the news, and their Muslim-led governments whether secular or not, did nothing to discourage those reactions, and in many cases, encouraged them. Since then, I have seen countless images of tens of thousands of Muslims chanting for my death and the destruction of my country. Since that date, Islamists have proven that they would be willing to travel anywhere on Earth to kill me, and anyone like me. These facts are all undeniable, so I would have to say that my fear of Islam is not irrational.

6) Am I "aware" that Islam is not dangerous?
No.

7) Has anyone given me "reassurance" that Islam is not dangerous?
No.

To sum up, of the seven requirements that must evaluate as true for me to be accurately qualified as an Islamophobe, three evaluate as true (no.s 1-3) and four evaluate as false (nos. 4-7)

Conclusion: BPSCG is not an Islamophobe, under this definition.

If you have a better definition of the term, other than "Here's how to spot an Islamophobe" (I wonder if you also have ways to spot gay people...), I'd like to hear it.

Meanwhile, I'll be working up my own list of horse's asses. See if you can guess who's at the top of the list.

[Geckko]

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?

That is some strange logic.

If there was someone who frequented this forum who took a particular dislike to your views and threatened you with violence unless you ceased posting, would it be a "repsonsible" act for you to comply with that demand?

[John de Combe]

Like the Guardian, I believe that reprinting these cartoons helps the cause of extremists, and that's why I defend the right not to print them.

Whereas not printing the cartoons because of existing extremists will turn more people into extremists.

If you want a "get out of journalistic scrutiny, discussion, satire and criticism free" card the message from the Guardian is just be senselessly violent and the we'll will fall over ourselves not to offend you.

[Orwell]

If, say, the National Secular Society or the Brights promised worse violence in Britain if the pictures *weren't* published than the Muslims would commit if they *were*, then on your logic it would be irresponsible not to publish the pictures?

Is what you are saying ultimately is always give in to the most ferocious bully?

My logic would dictate that it would be up to the newspaper to decide. And that I would hope that the newspaper would do the responsible thing. Some newspapers think that publishing is the responsible thing to do. That's a legitimate opinion, and I understand why they maintain that. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.

[Skeptic]

But I'm not maintaining my neutrality, am I? I oppose extremism and what I think foster extremsims.

To equally condemn two sides--one honorable and civilized and the other barbaric and thuggish--is to be a moral bankrupt, even if, in the interest of "fairness", you decide to smear the honorable and civilized side by calling it "Islamophobic" and all kind of other bad names, just so it will appear "just as bad" as the embassy-torching, Jihad-promising, terrorist-sending side.

You're like someone who equally condemns "all marital violence and behavior that fosters marital violence": you are equally tough on the husband for killing his wife for serving him cold soup and on the wife for serving the soup cold in the first place. Then, when you're told you're a moral bankrupt, you "explain" that you're actually reasonable because serving cold soup is an unfathomably evil act, as bad if not worse than murder.

[Orwell]

That is some strange logic.

If there was someone who frequented this forum who took a particular dislike to your views and threatened you with violence unless you ceased posting, would it be a "repsonsible" act for you to comply with that demand?

I am not a newspaper.

[Skeptic]

My logic would dictate that it would be up to the newspaper to decide. And that I would hope that the newspaper would do the responsible thing.

And can you elaborate what the "reasonable thing" is? Apparently, it's surrendering to the most thuggish bully in the interest of "dialogue" or "being against extremism", etc.

[kmortis]

Hey there, people, I’m bobby brown
They say I’m the cutest boy in town
My car is fast, my teeth is shiney
I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie
Here I am at a famous school
I’m dressin’ sharp ’n’ i’m
Actin’ cool
I got a cheerleader here wants to help with my paper
Let her do all the work ’n’ maybe later I’ll rape her

Oh God I am the american dream
I do not think I’m too extreme
An’ I’m a handsome sonofabitch
I’m gonna get a good job ’n’ be real rich

;)
Oh, c'mon, if you're gonna quote a Zappa song, at least choose one that's OT. He's got enough of them...

You can’t run a country
By a book of religion
Not by a heap
Or a lump or a smidgeon
Of foolish rules
Of ancient date
Designed to make
You all feel great
While you fold, spindle
And mutilate
Those unbelievers
From a neighboring state

To arms! to arms!
Hooray! that’s great
Two legs ain’t bad
Unless there’s a crate
They ship the parts
To mama in
For souvenirs: two ears (get down!)
Not his, not hers, (but what the hey? )
The good book says:
(it gotta be that way!)
But their book says:
Revenge the crusades...
With whips ’n chains
’n hand grenades...
Two arms? two arms?
Have another and another
Our God says:
There ain’t no other!
Our God says
It’s all okay!
Our God says
This is the way!

[webfusion]

orwell throws out another non-sequiter---- *snip* --- That doesn't mean that I have to agree with it (a newspaper deciding to publish something)

A newspaper has total and complete freedom to publish anything. Anything at all. It can offer insults to the President, or it can offer details about a secret NSA wiretapping scheme, it can give you phoney-baloney horoscopes, it can print Doonesbury, or even (horrors) publish reports of troop casualties in Iraq.

Maybe not in Canada, but in the United States of America, "The People" (meaning everyone) retain a basic liberty about that, and according to the Constitution's Bill of Rights, you cannot, under any circumstances, claim 'executive privelege' or 'insult to core sensibilities' or 'national security' or any other damn thing, in an effort to usurp the Freedom of the Press.

z-n mentions: "Meanwhile the cartoonists have gone into hiding fearing for their lives."

I have no doubt that Kare Bluitgen has also.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D050206/beirut.jpg
Danish embassy burns in Beirut, Lebanon.
Muslim cleric stands there for the camera, looking smug & satisfied...

[Orwell]

I happen to think that taking steps to calm everything down would be the responsible thing to do. Some people think that publishing the offending cartoons is the responsible thing to do.

Personally, I think that republishing the offending cartoons in the name of freedom of the press is like defending freedom of expression by repeatedly making loud farting noises in a public space...

Why don't they write in depth analysis of the problems of the Islamic world and of integration of Muslims into western society instead?

[zenith-nadir]

To equally condemn two sides--one honorable and civilized and the other barbaric and thuggish--is to be a moral bankrupt, even if, in the interest of "fairness", you decide to smear the honorable and civilized side by calling it "Islamophobic" and all kind of other bad names, just so it will appear "just as bad" as the embassy-torching, Jihad-promising, terrorist-sending side.That's the game...it's called turnspeak...the newspapers are as bad as the rioters.

Therefore...to put it in context of these events...

The Islamic fundamentalist rioters across the Middle East torching embassies "today" are really the victims of an attack by the Danish paper who printed the cartoon "yesterday".

Which is obviously B.S. but that is exactly what the rioters, and Orwell, claim... moral equivalency.

[kmortis]

I happen to think that taking steps to calm everything down would be the responsible thing to do. Some people think that publishing the offending cartoons is the responsible thing to do.

Personally, I think that republishing the offending cartoons in the name of freedom of the press is like defending freedom of expression by repeatedly making loud farting noises in a public space...

Why don't they write in depth analysis of the problems of the Islamic world and of integration of Muslims into western society instead?
Orwell,
If the Islamic world showed ANY indication that they wanted to be integrated into the 21st century, then I could agree with you. Instead, the extremist morons fundamentalists are generally the ones calling the shots, with the "moderates" sitting on the sidelines, afraid to speak up under fear of their own brand of excommunication.

[webfusion]

Here's what we know --
1. Kare Bluitgen decides to write a book. About Muhammed.
2. Out of fear for their lives, apparently, no artists are willing to draw illustrations of Muhammed for the book.
3. Some artists say "OK, we'll give it a shot, let's not be pussies about it"
4. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten (which is not until now a common household publication for 99.9% of the planet) offers their readers a look at the submmissions. Back in September.
5. A Palestinian muslim imam, Abu Laban (no relation to bin-Laden) takes these cartoons, and adds some nastier and more offensive ones of his own, and goes on a speaking-tour of the MidEast to 'internationalize the insults'
6. This became a matter of the public record, and therefore "NEWS" due to the PR efforts of the Palestinian imam.
7. Large mobs of Muslims riot, burn, threaten to kill, and generally behave like barbarians in several places on earth, in order to demonstrate that their religion is not barbaric as satired in the cartoons.

"Some people think that publishing the offending cartoons is the responsible thing to do. " says one of the posters on JREF. (kmortis quoted orwell, who I normally have on ignore) No, orwell, this is not 'some people' ---
It is the responsibility of the free press to ignore these external threats and make available to their readers all the facts and the evidence.
The cartoons themselves fall under the category of evidence and as such, publishing them is a valuable service which falls under the job description of 'journalist'. What about that don't you comprehend?
Jordan, maybe not surprisingly, decided that Freedom of the Press extends only so far... and we see the journalists arrested! YEEEccch.

[Skeptic]

I happen to think that taking steps to calm everything down would be the responsible thing to do.

No, Orwell, it's merely being cowardly.

Personally, I think that republishing the offending cartoons in the name of freedom of the press is like defending freedom of expression by repeatedly making loud farting noises in a public space...

I am offended by loud farting noises in public spaces.

However, if somebody farted in a public place and Islamic fundamentalists threathened to kill him, his family, his country, and his continent for doing that because it's "an insult to Islam" while burning down his country's embassy--which is precisely what they're doing--then we all should be arranging farting-in-public contests in reply.

Why don't they write in depth analysis of the problems of the Islamic world and of integration of Muslims into western society instead?

Because we already heard that a million times.

Such "detailed analysis" is always the same BS: on the one hand, the authors admit, the "problems of the Islamic world" do include theocratic kleptocracy, subjugation of women and non-Muslims, killing of "infidels", desire for a genocide of the jews, etc., etc., etc.--but, to be "even handed", one must also spend at least as much time on the "problems of integration", which is a code word for ranting "those Europeans are racist islamophobes!" for exactly as many pages as were used to criticize the Muslim world.

When you say "in depth analysis" in this context, it's really another expression for "why don't you write something that blames the west and the Muslims equally, no matter what, istead?"

[Giz]

Just to follow up on that Observer article that someone linked to earlier...

"Aggressive slogans glorifying the 7 July bombs in London or the 9/11 attacks on New York, threats to the lives of journalists, as well as yesterday's torching of embassies in Damascus, are disproportionate to the alleged offence and - this is important - nothing to do with the serious debate that needs to take place within European countries on how we live harmoniously and equitably in multi-faith communities."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html


How can the threats and violence not be an important part of the debate on "how we live and equitably in multi-faith communities." ??!?

(And I presume the Observer meant 'how we should live...'?)

[plindboe]

z-n mentions: "Meanwhile the cartoonists have gone into hiding fearing for their lives."

I have no doubt that Kare Bluitgen has also.

One would think so, but Kåre has recently released his childrens book with Muhammed drawings, he haven't gone in into hiding, and states that he refuses to be cowed. What a guy.

[rwguinn]

I happen to think that taking steps to calm everything down would be the responsible thing to do. Some people think that publishing the offending cartoons is the responsible thing to do.

Personally, I think that republishing the offending cartoons in the name of freedom of the press is like defending freedom of expression by repeatedly making loud farting noises in a public space...

Why don't they write in depth analysis of the problems of the Islamic world and of integration of Muslims into western society instead?

Or,
why not expose the problems so that all can see the actual depth of the problems--and expose the fact that they are apparently not subject to solution by dialog.
The factr is that only education will resolve the animosity between Middle Eastern and Western cultures, and the Middle Eastern culture rejects that solution totally.

[Orwell]

Yeah, just great, things have degenerated so much that now people are down to defending arguments of the "your prophet is a poopy head" variety in the name of freedom of expression! Yeah, that's really going to show the muslim extremists what we're made of, yes siree! Democracy and liberty defended by invective in lieu of debate. :rolleyes:

This whole thing started stupid, it got stupider and it's going to end stupidly.

[Orwell]

Or,
why not expose the problems so that all can see the actual depth of the problems--and expose the fact that they are apparently not subject to solution by dialog.
The factr is that only education will resolve the animosity between Middle Eastern and Western cultures, and the Middle Eastern culture rejects that solution totally.

Typically, it is very hard to see anything when involved in big emotional displays over insignificant events to which sentimentality attributes excessive symbolism.

Here's something I said repeatedly, and I think I should say it once again: To you (and others on this forum), it's as if politics amounts simply to reacting to bedtime stories that have cookie-cutter heroes and villains and gratifying moral endings. It's not about doing things in the world, it's about achieving catharsis. I'm not saying that's wrong. If it's what you want to make of politics, okey-dokey.
Could someone explain to me how all of this crap is going to help to solve the very serious problems of integration of Muslim minorities in the West, or how it all will improve the situation in the middle east?

[Freakshow]

Yeah, just great, things have degenerated so much that now people are down to defending arguments of the "your prophet is a poopy head" variety in the name of freedom of expression! Yeah, that's really going to show the muslim extremists what we're made of, yes siree! That's called "freedom of speech". Something the fundamentalist Islamn world doesn't want. I do. When we have freedom of speech, people are going to get offended sometimes.

[Orwell]

That's called "freedom of speech". Something the fundamentalist Islamn world doesn't want. I do. When we have freedom of speech, people are going to get offended sometimes.

Freedom if speech includes the freedom to shut the hell up, if you feel there are good reasons to do so. Are newspapers obliged to publish something every time some extremist tells them not to? Of course not.

[Freakshow]

Freedom if speech includes the freedom to shut the hell up, if you feel there are good reasons to do so. Are newspapers obliged to publish something every time some extremist tells them not to? Of course not.And I am not obliged to agree with it. And the fundamentalists aren't obliged to torch embassies.

And, of course, the newspapers are not obliged to NOT publish something when an extremist tells them not to.

There is a big difference between you and me. You make your decisions based on what others tell you (or threaten) to do. I do what I think is the right thing to do.

[rikzilla]

Anyway, since it seems several members are anxious to know if I think there are Islamophobes on this board... Here it is, folks, Orwell's list of probable Islamophobes!

Probable Islamophobes on this board: Skeptic, BPSCG, Zenith-Nadir, Webfusion, maybe Mycroft... If they're not bigoted, they sure do a pretty good imitation of a bigot. I'm pretty sure Skeptic and BPSCG have something against Muslims in general, but the others, I don't know if it's Muslims in general, or Palestinians in general. Oh, and what's is name, Hammegk... He's a pretty safe bet, he's a general bigot all around.

Hey Lukretious, are you one too? ;)

Hey you left me out! Or is it because you read of me berating Mel for his bigotted glee at hundreds of Muslim pilgrims trampling each other to death in their annual death by stomping at Mecca? No you are right not to include me as I am no misanthrope...nor is Mycroft or Beeps since they joined me in my condemnation of Mel. I am quite skeptical that any of the others you named are as well...The victims at Macca were just that...hapless victims of idiot organizers who have no idea how to do crowd control properly.

You have tarred a group of individuals; fellow skeptics and forumites; with the libelous label of "Islamophobe" (whatever that's supposed to mean)....care to cough up some evidence??
-z

NOTE: Let me share one thing I learned at TAM...we...all of us here have move in common than not. We're really all very much on the same side. Let's not get carried away by ad-homs because when you meet these folks in person and start to see who they really are...well...we're all very much on the same side. Thant's all I wanted to say.

-z

[Skeptic]

Freedom if speech includes the freedom to shut the hell up, if you feel there are good reasons to do so.

Such as Islamic fundamentalists telling you they'll kill you if you'll speak.

Therefore, submitting to their will and shutting up is just exercising one's "freedom of speech" to shut up.

[Orwell]

There is a big difference between you and me. You make your decisions based on what others tell you (or threaten) to do. I do what I think is the right thing to do.

Don't be so damn self-righteous, Freakster! ;)

[Orwell]

Such as Islamic fundamentalists telling you they'll kill you if you'll speak.

Therefore, submitting to their will and shutting up is just exercising one's "freedom of speech" to shut up.

That's not why I think it isn't necessary to publish and re-publish these stupid caricatures.

You sure do like your strawmen, don''t you?

[Freakshow]

Don't be so damn self-righteous, Freakster! ;)Its the truth, as best as I can tell.

[webfusion]

thanks plindboe, this entire saga has taken some bizarre twists, and it still is unfolding...

http://photobucket.com/albums/c308/kimpolita/Kaare%20Bluitgen%20Mohammed/
The Kåre Bluitgen illustrations.

[NoZed Avenger]

Maybe this is an aside (and I'll admit I only read about half the thread).

But after seeing a bunch of photos with people burning Danish flags all over, I must admit I have a question: Where did all the flags come from?

I mean, I assume they have dozens of warehouses across the world storing US flags just for the occasion when they can bring one out and light it up. I am guessing that 50% of all US flag sales is probably actually going to people for the express purpose of burning it -- but, Danish flags? How and why do all of these protest groups -- especially in places like Sysria, say -- get all of these flags for burning? Do the Emirs stock up flags of all western countries somewhere and hold onto them just in case some country gets out of line, or what?

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe this is an aside (and I'll admit I only read about half the thread).

But after seeing a bunch of photos with people burning Danish flags all over, I must admit I have a question: Where did all the flags come from?

I mean, I assume they have dozens of warehouses across the world storing US flags just for the occasion when they can bring one out and light it up. I am guessing that 50% of all US flag sales is probably actually going to people for the express purpose of burning it -- but, Danish flags? How and why do all of these protest groups -- especially in places like Sysria, say -- get all of these flags for burning? Do the Emirs stock up flags of all western countries somewhere and hold onto them just in case some country gets out of line, or what?

I dunno, but whoever manufactures them is making a mint right now. You could sell Danish flags to the supporters of Denmark and to the protestors! It'd be hilarious if both groups showed up at the flag store and waited quietly and peacefully in line.

"I say, Nils. I believe they got our orders mixed up. I ordered the 'extra-flammable', and this box says 'wrinkle-free'. I think we should swap."

"Why, Abdul, you're quite correct. Not much point in paying extra for wrinkle-free if you're just going to burn them!"

[TobiasTheViking]

I dunno, but whoever manufactures them is making a mint right now. You could sell Danish flags to the supporters of Denmark and to the protestors! It'd be hilarious if both groups showed up at the flag store and waited quietly and peacefully in line.

"I say, Nils. I believe they got our orders mixed up. I ordered the 'extra-flammable', and this box says 'wrinkle-free'. I think we should swap."

"Why, Abdul, you're quite correct. Not much point in paying extra for wrinkle-free if you're just going to burn them!"
bahahahahahahhahahaha..

[Elind]

It wasn't clearly stated.

Here's a wee guide to Islamophobia:


How to identify an Islamophobe in one simple step:

Look for the idiots who, instead of being sadden and dismayed by this crap, are triumphantly going "see, I told you so, Muslims are barbarians" or something similar...

Don't bait me Elind. Don't feel like playing.

I'm not baiting you, but I do think you are being coy in your responses and appearing to lump all critics into the above defintion. Most people here, including myself, are sad and dismayed by this crap. That however doesn't change the fact that a great proportion of Muslims are clearly barbarians.

Please don't mention the extreme minority argument. As always in past issues, they choose to be mostly silent (or under arrest like that poor fool in Jordan), or say one thing to Al Jazeera and and another to Reuters.

The truth here is that basically all the Muslim governments and Muslim organizations are guilty of deliberately starting this, which would otherwise have been nothing from an unknown Danish publication and died a simple death, like probably countless other cases that could have been made an issue of but weren't.

Start with Saudi Arabia's hyporitical barbarian government withdrawing their ambassador and thereby giving the green light (no pun intended) for the crap to come out.

Your problem is that you are unwilling to say it as it is. I don't advocate demonstrations with stupid placards about Muhammad, but I do advocate saying it like it is on forums like this.

Do you really think I'm just baiting?

[Elind]

Could someone explain to me how all of this crap is going to help to solve the very serious problems of integration of Muslim minorities in the West, or how it all will improve the situation in the middle east?

The solution to "the Middle East", is to reduce or eliminate dependence on their oil. That will probably happen in a few more generations, but not in mine.

The problem of integration of Muslims minorities in the West is to ask them to integrate and not to be so prejudiced. That will probably happen in a few more generations (if they don't breed everyone else into a minority), but not in mine.

In the meantime one deals with it a day at atime.

(Does that sound Islamicphobic?:cool:)

[Elind]

Maybe this is an aside (and I'll admit I only read about half the thread).

But after seeing a bunch of photos with people burning Danish flags all over, I must admit I have a question: Where did all the flags come from?



Where do all the T shirts come from at various events back home?

Islamist Extremists can still be entrepreneurs you know. Somebody always makes money in conflicts.

[Ed]

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?

There is nothing wrong with being scared. It is what you do that shows your worth.

[CapelDodger]

Wouldn't burning embassies have been wrong in the 20's as well? As much as I see your point, isn't the violent answer we see right now the difference that makes the comparison not so valid?My intent was to point out that bigotry doesn't change, all that changes is the target. Jews - proper, zionist Jews, not the self-hating kind - are now part of the in-group for right-wing, right-thinking types. Nation-building, swamp-draining, rifle-and-hoe frontier folk. The new target is Muslims, but the stereotyping and desire to vilify the out-group are the same. Burning embassies is not good policy, nor are threats or violence generally.

My concern is centred on Europe. That 1930's feeling just keeps growing.

But today, the persons accused of being 'covert commies' or 'paedophiles' or - to be precise - 'extremist muslims', didn't just march in protest or write letters to the editors, they burned embassies and threatened to kill newspaper editors.There are extremist Muslims (who must be loving this gift to polarisation, which is the first aim of the extremist), just as there were covert communists who betrayed their nation. The difference, and danger, lies in the easy identification of a group with those extremists. The group being Muslims, mostly from the European empires (Austro-Germany has Turks because they were pretty much squeezed out of the imperial game). Turks, North Africans, Indians (I will never recognise Pakistan or Bangladesh, on principle), Indonesians, some Arabs. Recognisable people in honky Europe.


Or the French. :)Why else do Brits still have The Bomb? That should be "french", by the way. Today I am a Scot, which is some small compensation for being Welsh yesterday.

[Ed]

Could someone explain to me how all of this crap is going to help to solve the very serious problems of integration of Muslim minorities in the West, or how it all will improve the situation in the middle east?

I draws a bright line between the differences between our cultures so that everyone knows what is at stake. That is something of great importance that some people need to understand. There are basic differences that are incompatable and no amount of "cultural sensitivity" or similar hoo ha will ever change that.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Orwell http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1425032#post1425032):
Like the Guardian, I believe that reprinting these cartoons helps the cause of extremists, and that's why I defend the right not to print them.


"To the wicked everything serves as pretext"
- Voltaire.

[CapelDodger]

There is nothing wrong with being scared. It is what you do that shows your worth.Ah, worth. People really should have a worth. A world against which people couldn't measure their worth would be drab.

[Freakshow]

Ah, worth. People really should have a worth. A world against which people couldn't measure their worth would be drab.Wouldn't be a world I'd want to live in.

[Ryokan]

"To the wicked everything serves as pretext"
- Voltaire.

Ed, why is your avatar sitting on the Norwegian flag?!? JIHAD!

Just kidding, thanks for your support :)

[CapelDodger]

I draws a bright line between the differences between our cultures so that everyone knows what is at stake. That is something of great importance that some people need to understand. There are basic differences that are incompatable and no amount of "cultural sensitivity" or similar hoo ha will ever change that.The Clash of Cultures in a nutshell. Muslims are not compatible with Europe. Or, presumably, with the US. Or India. It all seemed to be going so well for decades, but now those Muslims simply will not lie down to insults and provocations. By such logic, incompatibility has been proved and population transfer right now is the best option. Lance the boil, grasp the nettle, take the plunge.

In fact, Muslims can integrate in Europe. I personally wouldn't hire a Muslim, but I wouldn't hire anybody religious. Embassies aren't burning in Europe (unless I've missed something). There's been no unrest in Cardiff - not about this issue, anyway. A few placards in London have been given enormous coverage, because the media has to have balance - you've got your (hundreds of) peaceful demonstrators and then you've got your (few dozen) extremists, and both sides have to be covered. In the Arab world there's a lot going on quite apart from this matter, and Indonesia - the Javan Empire, inherited from the Dutch, not a good medium-term bet - is in transition. Has been for a long while.

[Freakshow]

The Clash of Cultures in a nutshell. Muslims are not compatible with Europe. Or, presumably, with the US. Or India. It all seemed to be going so well for decades, but now those Muslims simply will not lie down to insults and provocations. So you think the response to the cartoons was proportional and justified?

[CapelDodger]

Wouldn't be a world I'd want to live in.I know my worth. I have a Sporting Trophy, which I won, on my mantelpiece. Nobody was harmed in the process, not in a CSI sense anyway. Some egos and wallets took a hit. Mine took a hit, y'know what I'm sayin'?

The world is scary enough without people, and people are challenging enough without violence, we really don't need people stirring the pot just to see what happens.

[CapelDodger]

So you think the response to the cartoons was proportional and justified?You're asking about, what, the averaged response? I clearly don't think it's justified, since I don't regard any religion as justification for anything. Religion is bollocks. A Muslim response to the re-printing of the cartoons is to be expected, in the real world. My contention is that a response was intended. Most protesters have been peaceful, even in the Middle East. Has the peaceful Muslim response been proportionate? Yes. Has the Islamist response been proportionate? Time will tell, but they invest little.

Has the anti-Muslim response to 9/11 been proportional and justified? It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question.

[Ed]

Ed, why is your avatar sitting on the Norwegian flag?!? JIHAD!

Just kidding, thanks for your support :)

By Allah (PBUH) I did it quickly and didn't realize the naughty connotation. I shall fix when I get up in the AM.

[Freakshow]

Has the anti-Muslim response to 9/11 been proportional and justified?No, we haven't done enough.

It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question.No, it is a very normal question when judging someone's response to something. Was it proportional and justified? Most people ask and answer that question multiple times daily, even if they aren't aware of it, or won't admit it.

[BS Investigator]

Publishing these cartoons had the exact effect the editors wanted -- it exposed Islam as a crazed and dangerous religion incompatible with the freedom of speech we cherish in the West.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, we fight em back, clean up the terrorist attacks, and they come back with more.

What would an all out war with them entail? Suicide bombings in every world of the city? Well, at least that would take care of a bunch of the murdering fanatics off the bat, but how many of us will they take with them?

Then what would an all out war mean? A bunch of freaks still yelling "it's all about oil" when armies take over the middle east?

Then, like in Germany, outlawing their muslimism until they get old enough that most are converts?

Argh. This is a nightmare that will never end. They are making me mad and wishing they would all just die and go away, and I never thought I would get to that point! Holocausts are evil, so why am I welcoming one at this moment in time?

I'm going crazy!!! Halp.

[Skeptic]

but now those Muslims simply will not lie down to insults and provocations.

Of course, the Muslims daily and repeately insult other religions--especially jews--without a word of protest, in cartoons that resemble, and surpass, Der Sturmer for their viciousness and hatefulness.

But THAT is something the jews must take, as a matter of freedom of speech.

Of course, the "transgressive" and "progressive" community constantly insults, in particular, Christianity-- Gilbert & George's latest show, for example, repeatedly insults Christianity in general and Jesus in particular.

But THAT is something the Christians must take, as a matter of freedom of speech.

So why all of a sudden do the SAME "progressive enlightened people" who ARE almost invarialby for insulting religion, the more gratuitiously the better, calling for "respect" for Islam and "sensitivity" for their beliefs--when nobody else's belief are treated with respect, not by the Muslims and not by themselves? When, in fact, it is considered "progressive" and "brave" to rant against / insult / blaspheme Christianity?

The reason is simple. The "respect" has nothing to do with respect for religion. It is a combination of two things: first, the "western culture, ba-a-a-d, anything from the third world, goo-o-o-d" lamb-like mantras of the "progressive left", and, second--unadmitted but far more important--is that the "respect" the have for Islam is the "respect" they have for the Islamists' ability to blow them up and kill them.

What they REALLY "respect", their REAL concern when suddenly they decide "not to insult", is violence and intimidation. They're simply cowards, that's all. They are bullies towards the beliefs and values of those they know will not react violently--namely, modern Christians--but grovel in front of anybody who threathens them.

A prime example of this behavior was seen lately in London when a theatre decided to put on a play depicting the sexual abuse of women in the Sikh community. The play called for the woman to be raped in a Sikh temple by a Sikh religious leader. The local leaders of the Sikh community met with those producing the play and begged them to change the play. Not, mind you, to remove the rape scene; simply to change it so that the rapist is not a religious leader and the rape not in a temple, but in a home. What they wanted to avoid was the connection of their religion with rape, not to avoid mentioning rape in the community at all.

That, of course, was out of the question, and the request was rejected contemptously as "censorship" and "against freedom of speech", blah blah blah. Of course, it seemed easy--the Sikh leaders who met with them were elderly, polite men. So some Sikh youth decided to take a direct approach to "protest the play": they rioted violently. Of course, the moment violence was involved, all the talk about "censorship" and "freedom of speech" went straight out the window, and the play instantly closed.

Those putting on the play, as usual, were contemptous and bullying towards polite, nonviolent, reasonable requests to not insult religion... but cowered and gave up instantly in the face of violence.

Is there anything more pthetic than a cowardly bully, I wonder?




P.S.

You compared the behavior of the thuggish rioters now to what the jews in 1930s Austria should have done against antisemitic cartoons. Well, take a look at this:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

Do you think jews should burn down Arab embassies over these cartoons?

Or would that be censorship--only Muslims are allowed to riot and burn in response for much more tame claims?

[Skeptic]

My intent was to point out that bigotry doesn't change, all that changes is the target. Jews - proper, zionist Jews, not the self-hating kind - are now part of the in-group for right-wing, right-thinking types.

Yes, we all know how the European bien pensants just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE zionism.

So essentially the whole thing is a jewish plot: now that the evil zionists (or, more precisely, Hitler) had made genocidal hatered of jews taboo in Europe (though that seems to be changing), the Europeans just HAD to look around for someone else to be the evil outgroup and chose Muslims.

Stupid jews. Why couldn't they stay as the hated outgroup, doing nothing but grinning and bearing the occassional pogrom and genocide, instead of getting this stupid zionism into their heads and leaving the Europeans to find the hard-to-handle Muslims which actually fight violently as a target of their hate?

[Mycroft]

Publishing these cartoons had the exact effect the editors wanted -- it exposed Islam as a crazed and dangerous religion incompatible with the freedom of speech we cherish in the West.

As awfull as this is, we're still looking at a relatively small number of instigators inflaming a larger population. I think saying "Islam is a crazed and dangerous religion" is too much. The issue is not Islam as a whole, but specific Muslims.

[Mycroft]

The Clash of Cultures in a nutshell. Muslims are not compatible with Europe. Or, presumably, with the US. Or India. It all seemed to be going so well for decades, but now those Muslims simply will not lie down to insults and provocations. By such logic, incompatibility has been proved and population transfer right now is the best option. Lance the boil, grasp the nettle, take the plunge.

It seems to me that the "Clash of Cultures" is being promoted from the Islamist side more than the Western side. The organization Islamisk Trossamfund, for example, who inflamed this situation by making a tour of the Middle East with these cartoons plus sever much more inflammatory ones that were not published.

[Eos of the Eons]

The issue is not Islam as a whole, but specific Muslims.


Yeah. One tries to remember that, but it's sooooo many specific destructive inflammatory murderous muslims. Sighs.

[egslim]

Argh. This is a nightmare that will never end. They are making me mad and wishing they would all just die and go away, and I never thought I would get to that point! Holocausts are evil, so why am I welcoming one at this moment in time?
I think you have just expressed the feelings of many of us with admirable honesty and clarity.

Now this is very ironic, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser, President of Egypt. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.
From what I understand Iraq even after Saddam is still far more secular than surrounding countries.
It would not be very idealistic, but if the goal is to supress fundamentalist Islam tendencies to blow up Westerners and at the same time save Western lives, then installing puppet dictators in several Middle-East countries for a couple of decades may be necessary.

Torching a few embassies isn't enough to make me support such a move. A vast increase in the number of terrorist strikes would, though.

[richardm]

installing puppet dictators in several Middle-East countries for a couple of decades may be necessary.


What would this do, other than making the dictatees even more angry than they already are?

[egslim]

What would this do, other than making the dictatees even more angry than they already are?
Dictatorships have a few advantages compared to democracies. For one, they are much better able to control and reduce religious extremism among the population. They also require less support from the population to be stable without foreign military help.

If the goal is to teach Muslim children to not kill themselves in the name of religion, secular education and a crackdown on violent imams are necessary. Those two objectives are far easier to accomplish for a dictator than in a democracy where the entire population is severely religious.

[zenith-nadir]

If the goal is to teach Muslim children to not kill themselves in the name of religion, secular education and a crackdown on violent imams are necessary. Those two objectives are far easier to accomplish for a dictator than in a democracy where the entire population is severely religious.Case in point:


Hamas camp: Sun, fun ... indoctrination (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/HAMAS.TMP)

At one beach camp, attended by approximately 100 kids, an instructor wore a heavy flannel shirt under which a webbed belt could be seen strapped to his stomach. Asked by a reporter what it was, he answered, with a broad smile, "Boom!"

The instructor led a group of young teenagers through marching drills on the sand -- facing movements, close quarter drill. With a smile at the reporter, he put a megaphone to his lips.

"What are you?" he called.

"Monsters!" the kids replied.

"What are you?!"

"MONSTERS!"

As the instructor, Sa'eb Dormush, stepped aside for an interview, a youth in the group shouted out "moqawama!" -- resistance.

"That is the first word they learn when they are born," Dormush said with a laugh. "This is the next generation."

Across camp, a group of younger children -- most between 10 and 12 -- sat in a circle in the sand singing one of the "intifada songs" they learn at camp. One boy sang verses in a rolling soprano as the others joined in on the one-word chorus.

"We don't want to sleep.

HA-A-MAS!

We want revenge.

HA-A-MAS!

Raise it up.

HA-A-MAS!

Rifle fire.

HA-A-MAS!

If it will take a thousand martyrs.

HA-A-MAS!

Kill Zionists.

HA-A-MAS!

Wherever they are.

HA-A-MAS!

In the name of God.

HA-A-MAS!"

(emphasis mine)

[steenkh]

What would this do, other than making the dictatees even more angry than they already are?
For one, they will be angry at the dictator, not at the west. Their terror attacks will be directed inwards, not outwards.

How many Tunesian terrorists are we hearing about? None at all, although there is some resistance to the dictatorship in that country. But once the reins are looser, the islamists pop up and start supporting attacks against the West. This is common for all the Middle East countries (the Asian countries work differently).

It is because we believe in some inalienable rights that we support freedom of expression and democracy. It is not because it is in our own interest.

[SuperCoolGuy]

By Allah (PBUH) I did it quickly and didn't realize the naughty connotation. I shall fix when I get up in the AM.

Sigh. You don't say "Peace be upon him" regarding Allah, because Allah is not dead, since he's God. (PBUH) is used regarding Mohammed only. Other prophets have another phrase that basically says peace on them as well. Jesus has one for him that's different since he's not considered dead in Islam.

[luchog]

Hell, there are probably plenty of Americans who've never heard of Ohio, ferpetesake.
Yeah, but there's a good reason for not knowing about Ohio.

[CapelDodger]

Who said "all"? Who? Post a link to the post, please.I was trying to put across the general tenor, but Nyarlathotep : "Doubly strange. In a weird sort of way, we have the least to lose lose by printing them. They already want to kill us anyway.", page 14, is close.

(A hard thread to keep up with, this.)

[CapelDodger]

There was no merit in cartoons of Jews picking pockets when they were published in the 20's. Had Jews then responded as vociferously and energetically - say, burning down the Austrian embassy in the US - we'd have heard the same bigoted reaction as has been expressed on this thread.

But that's just the difference, isn't it?

The jews--and the Christians for that matter--do not respond to antisemitic or anti-Christian cartoons in this way. They respond, rather, in a civilized manner: they write letters to newspapers, call the media and alerts them to the cartoons, go on talk shows denouncing them, and perhaps demonstrate in front of an embassy / newspaper headquarters. If that was the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, my--and most people's--reaction would have been rather different. Look where the Jewish response led. They couldn't even get a US open-door policy for Jewish immigration - right-wing, right-thinking 'Murricans were opposed to it.

The Muslim reaction to the initial publication was to complain, write letters and try to get on talk-shows. They were widely ignored, and then the cartoons were re-published. Why? Was the original reaction a disappointment? I suspect so. Now the Muslim response is getting some attention, but concentrated on the violent minority.

If the jewish reaction to Der Sturmer (who daily published cartoons which were much worse about the jews, as, incidentally, the Arab media does to this day) was that Germany must be burned to the ground and all Germans killed or converted to judaism, that German embassies were being burned down by jewish mobs, that bomb threats by jews against the paper's owners were proliferating, that jewish schools endlessly educated children to hate all Germans forever and to kill any German they find, that jewish leaders telling the world that Germany will soon suffer terrorist attacks by jewish suicide bombers, and so on... that would be rather strong evidence in favor of Hitler's view that the jews are out to destroy Germany, wouldn't you say? This stereotypical caricature of Muslims is of just the same order as the Austro-German stereotype of the Jews. That is what concerns me.

P.S.

I also find it highly distatesful, not to say petently dishonest and pathetic, your attempt to draw some sort of spurious parallel between the prosecuted jews of the 30s and those "insulted" Muslims today, who openly claim both that the holocaust never happened and that they will soon perform another one on the jews in "occupied Palestine". (And then, incidentally, everywhere else.) If there is a parallel (and there is), it's obviously between the Islamists and the Nazis, not between the Islamists and the jews.The nature of Islamists - extremist Muslims, by common usage - doesn't alter the fact that a minority group is being demonised. The parallel is between the Nazis who demonised Jews and the right-wing that demonises Muslims. Some Muslims deny the Holocaust, some Muslims are Islamists. There's a distinction.

The right-wing is on the rise in Europe, and it's no comfort that they now target Muslims instead of (well, more publicly than) Jews. It's unsurprising that many zionists back them in that, since they're trying to project their conflict with the Palestinians over territory as a conflict with Muslims over religion. Unsurprising, but bloody tragic.

[CapelDodger]

No, we haven't done enough.Willy-waving.

No, it is a very normal question when judging someone's response to something. Was it proportional and justified? Most people ask and answer that question multiple times daily, even if they aren't aware of it, or won't admit it.You don't address my point, which is that there is a range of Muslim response, not a monolithic Muslim Response dictated by the Elders of Mecca.

[Mycroft]

The nature of Islamists - extremist Muslims, by common usage - doesn't alter the fact that a minority group is being demonised. The parallel is between the Nazis who demonised Jews and the right-wing that demonises Muslims. Some Muslims deny the Holocaust, some Muslims are Islamists. There's a distinction.

Muslims are not "demonized" by these cartoons of Mohammed. What’s demonizing them are riots where embassies are destroyed (where Muslims are not a minority, I might add) and demonstrations where Muslims are seen carrying signs threatening death and destruction to everyone.

[luchog]

What's wrong with being "scared of the personal or political consequences of publication if you do"? That could be called 'behaving responsibly', you know?
Only in a world populated with cowards.

"Behaving responsibly" doesn't mean "caving in to estremist pressure and threats of violence" or "refusing to act, due to fear of the consequences"; no matter how you try and twist it.

And this grandstanding about "doing the right thing" by not publishing in order not to offend people, particularly people prone to violent overreaction, sickens me. It is not the courageous or "decent" thing to do. It is merely spineless cowardice. As others have said, yes, they do have a right not to publish them. However, they do not have any call to pat themselves on the back for doing so. The eunuch bragging of his chastity.

The truly worthwhile and decent reaction would be exactly the opposite. Knowing that someone is going to be offended by the truth is a very good reason in favour of publishing. The more likely the truth is to offend someone, the more important it is that it be published.

"To support freedom of speech only for speech that we agree with, is to not support freedom of speech."

Seeing Christians demanding that things like Serrano's "Piss Christ", or Jerry Springer - the Opera not be published or performed, bothers me more, precisely because I am a Christian. I find Serrano's work to be vile and unecessarily offensive with no redeeming value; but I cherish the freedom that allows such work to be published since it allows me to publish things that non-Christians may find offensive, and I can see the results of such an attitude of censorship. (Government sponsorship of such work is a completely different issue.) A truly moderate Muslim should be able to understand the effects of such limits on free speech.

[Nyarlathotep]

I was trying to put across the general tenor, but Nyarlathotep : "Doubly strange. In a weird sort of way, we have the least to lose lose by printing them. They already want to kill us anyway.", page 14, is close.

(A hard thread to keep up with, this.)

Ah, but I never said that they ALL want to kill ALL of us. SOME of them DO want to kill ALL of us, though, I don't think anyone doubts that unless they have been living under a rock for the last ten years or so. Those are the THEY I was talking about. And there are enough of them to be worth worrying about, I think.

[CapelDodger]

Of course, the Muslims daily and repeately insult other religions--especially jews--without a word of protest, in cartoons that resemble, and surpass, Der Sturmer for their viciousness and hatefulness.Surpass? Do you have some sort of yard-stick, or does it just stir your loins to vilify to the max? Doesn't it trouble you that you think of "The Muslims" as a unit, not as disparate individuals? Would you refer to "The Jews" as a similar de-personalised unit? And as to the lack of protest, there is no lack of protest about anti-semitism in the Middle East.

So why all of a sudden do the SAME "progressive enlightened people" who ARE almost invarialby for insulting religion, the more gratuitiously the better, calling for "respect" for Islam and "sensitivity" for their beliefs--when nobody else's belief are treated with respect, not by the Muslims and not by themselves? When, in fact, it is considered "progressive" and "brave" to rant against / insult / blaspheme Christianity?I can't speak for these "progressive enlightened people" you refer to, they would be an alien sub-set of the progressive, enlightened people I know and count myself among. To my mind, no true progressive :) would take this position. If Gilbert and George catch a crap-storm for insulting Christians, that's their look-out and perhaps their intention. What concerns me is deliberate provocation in pursuit of demonisation. The extremist response and the provocation serve the same end - polarisation.

The reason is simple. The "respect" has nothing to do with respect for religion. It is a combination of two things: first, the "western culture, ba-a-a-d, anything from the third world, goo-o-o-d" lamb-like mantras of the "progressive left", and, second--unadmitted but far more important--is that the "respect" the have for Islam is the "respect" they have for the Islamists' ability to blow them up and kill them.Willy-waving. Those who do not subscribe to your view are lacking in moral fibre, and probably penis-length. (I kid.) Fake progressives, such as Galloway, who identify with any anti-Western, anti-capitalist groups are contemptible. The real progressive left has faced the threat of imprisonment, torture and death for a century-and-a-half and survived. You may see them as an out-group and therefore cowards, along with unwashed, stupid and any other negative you can summon up. Evidence suggests otherwise.

What they REALLY "respect", their REAL concern when suddenly they decide "not to insult", is violence and intimidation. They're simply cowards, that's all. They are bullies towards the beliefs and values of those they know will not react violently--namely, modern Christians--but grovel in front of anybody who threathens them.Cowards, of course. Not right-thinking. (Nice touch with "modern", by the way.)

A prime example of this behavior was seen lately in London when a theatre decided to put on a play depicting the sexual abuse of women in the Sikh community. {snip]A complex subject, in which the progressive left was very supportive of the play. Plays are staged in theatres, which have owners. The progressive left was not involved, to my knowledge, in the play being pulled.

As a side-note, I don't recommend taking on the Sikh community, male or female.

Do you think jews should burn down Arab embassies over these cartoons?

Or would that be censorship--only Muslims are allowed to riot and burn in response for much more tame claims?Why do you think it's a good idea to allow anybody to burn embassies? Or bomb, shell, missile (is that a verb yet?) them, if that's the technology you've got? You might enjoy the spectacle of Muslims burning embassies, but that doesn't make it right.

[CapelDodger]

Ah, but I never said that they ALL want to kill ALL of us. SOME of them DO want to kill ALL of us, though, I don't think anyone doubts that unless they have been living under a rock for the last ten years or so. Those are the THEY I was talking about. And there are enough of them to be worth worrying about, I think."They want to kill us anyway", when Muslim reactions are the subject, carries an implied "all" to all. The "us" was the weak point - it referred to 'Murricans - but my original post was about the general tenor of one strand of the thread. Quite a vocal one.

If you meant that any Muslim that would be offended by the cartoons already wanted to kill all 'Murricans, that's pretty much the same as saying all Muslims want to kill all 'Murricans except, perhaps, the Nation of Islam. Those they'd enslave. :)

[Nyarlathotep]

"They want to kill us anyway", when Muslim reactions are the subject, carries an implied "all" to all. The "us" was the weak point - it referred to 'Murricans - but my original post was about the general tenor of one strand of the thread. Quite a vocal one.

If you meant that any Muslim that would be offended by the cartoons already wanted to kill all 'Murricans, that's pretty much the same as saying all Muslims want to kill all 'Murricans except, perhaps, the Nation of Islam. Those they'd enslave. :)

I could be wrong on this, but I'd be willing to bet that the set of Muslims who are burning down embassies and calling for the cartoonists to be beheaded and the set of Muslims who would like to kill as many Americans as they can have enough overlap that they are the same group for all practical purposes. I seriously doubt that the ones who think Osama Bin Laden is a peach for taking down the WTC and whose only regret is that he didn't take more lives in the process are limiting the expression of their outrage to a strongly worded letter to the editor of the offending papers.

In short, even my implied all was meant as "all the ones who are reacting violently" not "all Muslims who get the least bit snippy about this whole thing"

[Elind]

As awfull as this is, we're still looking at a relatively small number of instigators inflaming a larger population. I think saying "Islam is a crazed and dangerous religion" is too much. The issue is not Islam as a whole, but specific Muslims.

Come on, Mycroft. I believe you have yourself suggested in the past that the issue is that Islam as a whole tolerates and encourages this from time to time.

[Freakshow]

I could be wrong on this, but I'd be willing to bet that the set of Muslims who are burning down embassies and calling for the cartoonists to be beheaded and the set of Muslims who would like to kill as many Americans as they can have enough overlap that they are the same group for all practical purposes. I seriously doubt that the ones who think Osama Bin Laden is a peach for taking down the WTC and whose only regret is that he didn't take more lives in the process are limiting the expression of their outrage to a strongly worded letter to the editor of the offending papers.

In short, even my implied all was meant as "all the ones who are reacting violently" not "all Muslims who get the least bit snippy about this whole thing"So, CD, it wasn't Nyarlathotep. Want to try again?

[CapelDodger]

Muslims are not "demonized" by these cartoons of Mohammed.Of course they are, and if they do represent Danish artists' image of Muhammad that's evidence that demonisation had progressed well already.
What’s demonizing them are riots where embassies are destroyed (where Muslims are not a minority, I might add) and demonstrations where Muslims are seen carrying signs threatening death and destruction to everyone.Muslim responses outside Europe are not simply about the cartoons, so I'm going to concentrate on the European situation. It's where I live, after all, and the place I know best. In Europe, Muslims are recently-formed minorities - Christendom only ever tolerated one other religion, and it wasn't Islam. Modern Christendom is more tolerant, and churches are emptier, but that might turn out to be a passing phase.

If that's the case, what's going to happen to the Muslim population? Industrial-scale slaughter is impossible now, but population-transfer has not been anathematised. That's how Turkish nationalists deny the Armenian genocide - they weren't killed, they were transferred on foot across deserts and the survivors dumped in the Middle East with no means of subsistence. If population-transfer were to be anathematised, the zionist expulsion of Palestinians - population-transfer of Arabs to Arab places - would come into serious question.

I don't see this scenario as unlikely, and I don't see it as being electorally unappealing. Humans being what they are, demonisation works.

If it happens it won't be a Holocaust, and I'm sure you'll be right out in front of the crowd saying so. It would be awful for the people transferred, but the rest of us would be left ruled by the bastards that did it. And they will not have forgotten the Jews. Muslims to Muslim places, Jews to Israel, blacks to Africa, it's all just tidying-up.

I see it and I fear it.

[Freakshow]

If that's the case, what's going to happen to the Muslim population? How about integrating into the cultures of their nations of current residence, and following the laws there?

[CapelDodger]

In short, even my implied all was meant as "all the ones who are reacting violently" not "all Muslims who get the least bit snippy about this whole thing"Being explicit is good. Your "the dangerous ones" implication was lost, for me, in the "they". The thing about implication is that makes assumptions about the reader. What may seem clearly implicated to you isn't necessarily as clearly implicated to me.

It's a real-time demonstration of the historian's dilemma : determine states-of-mind from implications or implications from states-of-mind.

That said, and general, the reluctance of the US and UK press to get offensive for the sake of it has done nothing to promote the Great Satans thesis. Some cynics might attribute that to cowardice, what with enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan to be going on with, but that would imply a press that pursued national interests, which is hardly a free press. Turning attention away from the US-UK connection by not attracting it is a good result, but I can't help thinking it's not strategic it's just about not being gratuitously offensive. (Please excuse the multiple negatives, it's hard work to be less than utterly cynical.)

[Mycroft]

Come on, Mycroft. I believe you have yourself suggested in the past that the issue is that Islam as a whole tolerates and encourages this from time to time.

The issue is that Islam has a problem.

The problem is that many of its followers are the source of extreme and irrational violence.

That’s a huge problem. It is not, however, the equivalent of saying, ” Islam as a crazed and dangerous religion incompatible with the freedom of speech we cherish in the West.” The truth is in the United States live millions of Muslims who would never think of blowing anything up and are painfully embarrassed by these actions overseas.

Daniel Pipes, whom I read fairly often, claims that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam, and I believe that. Further, he suggests that the moderate Islam found in the United States can be instrumental in reining in radicalism throughout the world.

[The Fool]

How about integrating into the cultures of their nations of current residence, and following the laws there?
Nobody integrates..This constant "they don't integrate" stuff is silly. Tell me (as an example) what is the culture you would have all american muslims integrate into....Generally when I hear that its the culture of the person making the "they don't integrate" statements that seems to be the preferred choice. America is a multicultural society and so are most other places that are not rare isolated small monocultures.

Should the muslims "integrate" into african american culture? (which one), white anglo culture, asian culture, cajun, hispanic, Jewish, mormon, amish....which one?

[CapelDodger]

How about integrating into the cultures of their nations of current residence, and following the laws there?The case I referred to was the toleration of Islam within Christendom being a passing phase. Christendom in the common usage, Christian rule centred on the Roman/Byzantine world. "White" more or less covers the case.

No buildings have been torched in Europe over this issue. Those that have incited violence in the UK by willy-waving placards will be targeted, and I confidently expect prosecutions. One guy has already confessed very publicly to being a complete arse. The polarisation effort has been a damp squib over here. The vast majority of protesters have complied with the law of the land including the right to demonstrate.

Integration is going to be a process, of Muslim generations losing their religion in the European style, and Christians have done it over just a few generations. Materialism trumps all religion. Muslim integration in Europe dates back to the 1940's, but only in the last 10-15 years has it become the Clash of Civilisations, which used to be between Freedom and Communism but that series was cancelled. I miss it.

Integration is, of course, a two-way thing, and some societies are better at interacting than others. The french, par example, are rubbish at it for all their Egalite cant. Not including Bretons, of course, or the Roussillon folk, and I wouldn't wish Marseilles on any nation. Lyon's a jewel.

Smashed and philosophical, me. Tapped a new barrel this evening, always problematic. Very tasty. I've known practicing Muslims but never been close, at least in part because my social life and alcohol are intimately connected. Sared food and drink open the windows to the soul, and by "drink" I don't mean yoghurt.

[WildCat]

Nobody integrates..This constant "they don't integrate" stuff is silly. Tell me (as an example) what is the culture you would have all american muslims integrate into....Generally when I hear that its the culture of the person making the "they don't integrate" statements that seems to be the preferred choice. America is a multicultural society and so are most other places that are not rare isolated small monocultures.

Should the muslims "integrate" into african american culture? (which one), white anglo culture, asian culture, cajun, hispanic, Jewish, mormon, amish....which one?
Many settle in my neighborhood (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) where they live peacefully among every race and creed imaginable, including (gasp!) Orthodox Jews. If only those elsewhere were so tolerant.

[Ed]

Nobody integrates..This constant "they don't integrate" stuff is silly. Tell me (as an example) what is the culture you would have all american muslims integrate into....Generally when I hear that its the culture of the person making the "they don't integrate" statements that seems to be the preferred choice. America is a multicultural society and so are most other places that are not rare isolated small monocultures.

Should the muslims "integrate" into african american culture? (which one), white anglo culture, asian culture, cajun, hispanic, Jewish, mormon, amish....which one?

That is complete nonsense. The nature of american culture is to be a hybred.

[Freakshow]

Nobody integrates..This constant "they don't integrate" stuff is silly. Tell me (as an example) what is the culture you would have all american muslims integrate into....Generally when I hear that its the culture of the person making the "they don't integrate" statements that seems to be the preferred choice. America is a multicultural society and so are most other places that are not rare isolated small monocultures.

Should the muslims "integrate" into african american culture? (which one), white anglo culture, asian culture, cajun, hispanic, Jewish, mormon, amish....which one?The culture they should integrate into is one that values freedom over religious dictatorship. Is that too much to ask?

Funny...when I talked about "culture", I was thinking about basic concepts of freedom and democracy. When you talked about it, you start talking about race and religion. I think that says something the different way that you and I look at things.

[Elind]

The issue is that Islam has a problem.

The problem is that many of its followers are the source of extreme and irrational violence.

That’s a huge problem. It is not, however, the equivalent of saying, ” Islam as a crazed and dangerous religion incompatible with the freedom of speech we cherish in the West.” The truth is in the United States live millions of Muslims who would never think of blowing anything up and are painfully embarrassed by these actions overseas.

Daniel Pipes, whom I read fairly often, claims that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam, and I believe that. Further, he suggests that the moderate Islam found in the United States can be instrumental in reining in radicalism throughout the world.

You may have a good point there, I hope.

The US has indeed, so far, been a good example in this "conflict", and I for one still appreciate my local source for good Lebanese food (wrongly called Middle Eastern by some) and enjoy shopping there.

The pendulum swings, as always. One day everyone will love the US again.:eye-poppi

[Elind]

Funny...when I talked about "culture", I was thinking about basic concepts of freedom and democracy. When you talked about it, you start talking about race and religion. I think that says something the different way that you and I look at things.

That's a good point. Me, when I think of culture, it's about excuse to eat, drink and celebrate, and of course to do so with specific good ingredients, and to invite those who are not yet familiar with them to try it out.

:alc::yahoo

[Skeptic]

Sigh. You don't say "Peace be upon him" regarding Allah, because Allah is not dead, since he's God. (PBUH) is used regarding Mohammed only.

So Ed really said, "Allah is dead"?

JIHAD!!!!

[Skeptic]

As awfull as this is, we're still looking at a relatively small number of instigators inflaming a larger population. I think saying "Islam is a crazed and dangerous religion" is too much. The issue is not Islam as a whole, but specific Muslims.

Come on, Mycroft. I believe you have yourself suggested in the past that the issue is that Islam as a whole tolerates and encourages this from time to time.

But that's just the problem: the Islamic world is extremist and violent not because all or most Muslims are, but because those who are are running the show and face no real opposition from those who aren't.

[Bjorn]

And this grandstanding about "doing the right thing" by not publishing in order not to offend people, particularly people prone to violent overreaction, sickens me. It is not the courageous or "decent" thing to do. It is merely spineless cowardice. As others have said, yes, they do have a right not to publish them. However, they do not have any call to pat themselves on the back for doing so. The eunuch bragging of his chastity.

The truly worthwhile and decent reaction would be exactly the opposite. Knowing that someone is going to be offended by the truth is a very good reason in favour of publishing. The more likely the truth is to offend someone, the more important it is that it be published.As much as I advocated publishing the cartoons after the embassy burnings, I don't think we're talking about someone being offended by the truth, unless you consider Mohammad with a snout or with a bomb in his turban to be the truth.

The original publishing of the drawings had, as far as I know, nothing to do with the truth, but was all about challenging the muslim 'prohibition' of pictures of Mohammad.

[Tony4245]

That's a good point. Me, when I think of culture, it's about excuse to eat, drink and celebrate, and of course to do so with specific good ingredients, and to invite those who are not yet familiar with them to try it out.

Works for me. When's the par-tay?
:D

[Elind]

But that's just the problem: the Islamic world is extremist and violent not because all or most Muslims are, but because those who are are running the show and face no real opposition from those who aren't.

I was about to retire and then found myself watching Cspan, and a press conference of the American Muslim Society specifically on this issue of the infamous cartoons.

It was interesting on several aspects, and I've probably forgotten a few already, but a few things struck me:

The speakers were rational and civil people and probably will do mostly the right thing. Moderates, if you will. Yes they do exist.

However what was missing, including from the press listening, was any direct questioning on what is the most emotive issue of all of this, like the torching of embassies and threats of death. Yes, there were a few sentences condemning extremist responses, but they were all very non specific. There was no actualy reference to any such acts, but on the other side there were a number of direct references to "what has gone on in Europe", meaning publication of cartoons, and implied condemnation of Europe as a whole (sound familiar?).

There were many suggestions that, while government censorship was not condoned, there should be self censorship, on possible pain of economic sanction.

There was a question concerning what responsibility a Danish company should have for what some newspaper published, and the response was that the society should know better, and economic sanction was the way to show displeasure (collective punishment I suppose is the principle).

There was a representative from a cartoonist association. He thought that what he heard was that cartoons that offended should be made illegal. The response was that no they should not, but if people felt they were offended then something like economic sanctions were reasonable (even if they amount to collective punishment, presumably).

The bottom line, in my interpretation, is still that even the most reasonable of Muslims (AKA moderates, in the USA) are unwilling to simply stand up and condemn in no uncertain terms the differences between threatening death and burning buildings, and being insulted, as they no doubt feel.

They too alluded to what we hear often, that the "moderates" may become extremists if not treated with the respect they think they deserve.

That could be a valid point if one related it, for example, to the days of segregation and civil rights, but I heard no claims of discrimination. Only of perceived offense.

Nevertheless, (and this may surprise in view of the above comentary), criticisms aside, these were rational people, no doubt walking a thin line in their minds; but they were not preaching hellfire and damnation or otherwise demanding anyone bow down to them, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, in the US at least.

[epepke]

The bottom line, in my interpretation, is still that even the most reasonable of Muslims (AKA moderates, in the USA) are unwilling to simply stand up and condemn in no uncertain terms the differences between threatening death and burning buildings, and being insulted, as they no doubt feel.

This is the elephant in the room, and the response is to paint the walls gray.

[Tony4245]

Yeah, but there's a good reason for not knowing about Ohio.

Testify, brother. Or sister.
:p

[Elind]

As much as I advocated publishing the cartoons after the embassy burnings, I don't think we're talking about someone being offended by the truth, unless you consider Mohammad with a snout or with a bomb in his turban to be the truth.

The original publishing of the drawings had, as far as I know, nothing to do with the truth, but was all about challenging the muslim 'prohibition' of pictures of Mohammad.

As I read it, it was more of an exploration of what were the perceptions of Muhammad, invited as cartoons. I don't know that there was any deliberate intent to cause a riot. Do you?

The "snout" was added, it seems, by Muslims to add injury to the insult; it was not one of the original cartoons.

The truth is in the eye of the beholder, and the time of day.:cool:

[Elind]

This is the elephant in the room, and the response is to paint the walls gray.

I'm having trouble coming up with a response to that. It's hard enough having been so understanding just now.

[epepke]

I'm having trouble coming up with a response to that. It's hard enough having been so understanding just now.

While you're thinking, please not that I wasn't attacking you.

[egslim]

The bottom line, in my interpretation, is still that even the most reasonable of Muslims (AKA moderates, in the USA) are unwilling to simply stand up and condemn in no uncertain terms the differences between threatening death and burning buildings, and being insulted, as they no doubt feel.

[...]

Nevertheless, (and this may surprise in view of the above comentary), criticisms aside, these were rational people, no doubt walking a thin line in their minds; but they were not preaching hellfire and damnation or otherwise demanding anyone bow down to them, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, in the US at least.
To me, that is really scary. To have rational, on the surface civilised people, who fail to condemn violence as a response to insults.

It makes me wonder if those Muslims who do speak against violence do so out of principle, or because they think it isn't a good tactic.

[Darat]

...snip...

A prime example of this behavior was seen lately in London when a theatre decided to put on a play depicting the sexual abuse of women in the Sikh community. The play called for the woman to be raped in a Sikh temple by a Sikh religious leader. The local leaders of the Sikh community met with those producing the play and begged them to change the play. Not, mind you, to remove the rape scene; simply to change it so that the rapist is not a religious leader and the rape not in a temple, but in a home. What they wanted to avoid was the connection of their religion with rape, not to avoid mentioning rape in the community at all.

...snip...

The theatre was in Birmingham by the way. Also you seem to have forgotten the violence that prompted the theatre to stop the run of the play.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

Yep that's right yet another religion that resorts to violence when they think their religion has been insulted.

...snip...

Hundreds of Sikh demonstrators protested outside a Birmingham theatre against a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a temple.

Five police officers were hurt during struggles at Birmingham's Repertory Theatre on Saturday night.

....

Mohan Singh, a local Sikh community leader, said: "When they're doing a play about a Sikh priest raping somebody inside a gurdwara, would any religion take it?"

In a statement, the Birmingham Repertory said more than 800 people were evacuated, security guards were attacked, a foyer door was destroyed, windows were broken in a restaurant and demonstrators entered back stage and smashed equipment.

...snip...

[BPSCG]

Moscow Museum to Exhibit Mohammad Cartoons (http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-072431-9805r)

[Orwell]

Moscow Museum to Exhibit Mohammad Cartoons (http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-072431-9805r)

Yeah, Russia, that Bastion of Free Speech, is showing the fundamentalists that it will not be intimidated... :rolleyes:

Can't you smell the bleeding obvious political recuperation?

[BPSCG]

Can't you smell the bleeding obvious political recuperation?Wouldn't have anything to do with Chechnya, would it?

[CFLarsen]

Some time after the cartoons was published, a number of Danish Muslims went on a round trip to the Middle East to try and create a stir about the cartoons.

They showed some of the 12 cartoons, as well as some racist pictures (in poor quality) they had found on the Internet, and presented them as if they were published by Danish media.

Now, at least one of the "caricatures" shown is not a caricature at all. It is a photo of a french clown, sporting a pig's snout and long ears. The event? A local pig festival.

It has nothing to do with either Islam, Muhammed, or the cartoons in the Danish newspaper.

Story in Danish, with comparative photos (http://www.berlingske.dk/indland/artikel:aid=693298/)

[BPSCG]

Now, at least one of the "caricatures" shown is not a caricature at all. It is a photo of a french clown, sporting a pig's snout and long ears. The event? A local pig festival. This picture defames Islam:

http://www.haruth.com/hogettes2005s.jpg

[Orwell]

Wouldn't have anything to do with Chechnya, would it?

Does a bird have wings?
Does a wolf cry out his loneliness?

[Ryokan]

Does a bird have wings?

Most, but not all of them. The kiwi, for example.

Does a wolf cry out his loneliness?

Sometimes, when it's lonely.

[SuperCoolGuy]

To me, that is really scary. To have rational, on the surface civilised people, who fail to condemn violence as a response to insults.

It makes me wonder if those Muslims who do speak against violence do so out of principle, or because they think it isn't a good tactic.

It has been, may have always been, and will continue to be the case, that Muslims regard those that are willing to literally fight with non-believers as Muslims who have strong belief in their religion.

No matter how moderate a Muslim may act, they have the inability to come out and condemn violence against non-Muslims because that would make themselves "look" less like a true believer.

There's no way to sugercoat this.

You can go in the Qu'ran and find verses that encourage peace. You can go in the Qu'ran and find verses that advocate for war.

ALL of the most notable Muslims in history have fought in wars (Muhammed, Khalid bin Wallid, Saladin). Islam venerates those with a willingness to fight non-believers.

No Muslim can come right out and say that Muslims should not fight non-Muslims without the risk of being accused of being a kafir (disbeliever).

When Muhammed had no army, Islam was a religion of peace.
When Muhammed had an army, Islam was a religion of war.
That's the history. Advocating for peace is advocating for a time when the prophet had few followers and relied on tribal protection to stay alive amongst a sea of enemies.
What Muslim would want to go back to those days of hardship?

Personally, I do. Muhammed befriended anyone who was willing to listen to his views on the concept of one god, to share wealth and ease the suffering of the poor, and to be pious and fair minded. That was Islam at its simplest. That all human beings are equal before God, and that what separates us is our willingness to do good in this world.

[zenith-nadir]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060207/capt.jrl13002071553.mideast_israel_palestinians_pr ophet_drawings_jrl130.jpg

Palestinian children hold an anti Danish banner during a joint Hamas and Fatah movement demonstration to protest against caricatures of Islam's prophet Muhammad in the West Bank town of Aram, just outside Jerusalem, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2006. Hundreds of Hamas and Fatah Party protesters turned out in Aram to burn Danish flags and call for a boycott of Danish products. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060207/i/r2993772120.jpg

Palestinians members of the Islamic movements of Hamas and Fatah burn Danish flags during a demonstration in the West Bank village of Aram, on the outskirts of Jerusalem February 7, 2006. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel




But don't forget to send us the international aid you owe us EU... :rolleyes:

[Ryokan]

Palestinians members of the Islamic movements of Hamas and Fatah burn Danish flags...

Correction, the flag that is burning is Norwegian.

[steenkh]

Both flags are out of proportions, even if they are better made than most burn-ready flags that we see!

I think there must be a good profit in making proper flags for burning, and selling them in packages, complete with matches and digital camera!

[TragicMonkey]

Of course, what ought to be done is change the Danish and Norwegian flags, so they both have the name of Allah on them, in Arabic. Then it would be blasphemy to burn those flags.

[Elind]

While you're thinking, please not that I wasn't attacking you.

I didn't think so. I should have put in a smilie. I was contemplating your wisdom. I was sure it was in there somewhere;)

[Elind]

According to Debka:

Tehran papers announce international contest for cartoons on the Nazi Holocaust. Winners will be awarded gold coins.

[zenith-nadir]

Correction, the flag that is burning is Norwegian.I beg your pardon. ;)


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060207/capt.jrl13302071612.mideast_israel_palestinians_pr ophet_drawings_jrl133.jpg

Palestinian supporters of the Islamic Hamas movement and the Fatah party, burn Danish flags during a demonstration to protest against caricatures depicting Islam's prophet Muhammad in the West Bank town of Aram, just outside Jerusalem, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2006. Hundreds of Hamas and Fatah Party protesters turned out in Aram to burn Danish flags and call for a boycott of Danish products. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)

[CapelDodger]

The pendulum swings, as always. One day everyone will love the US again.:eye-poppiNo. Sorry. Not gonna happen. It hasn't happened for the British a long way down the post-Top Dog timeline, and that's the US's future trajectory.

There was a time, in the 50's and early 60's, when 'most everybody loved the US. Even the Russians loved the US. Indo-China and sleazy behaviour in Central America put paid to that. 1973 saw the plateauing out, now we're well into the descent.

The US is actually coming out of this quite well, but 'Murrican culture does value politeness. Far more young 'Murricans "Sir" their elders than young Brits (more than none ain't much, but does draw attention). Some damn it as political correctness, but I find it rather fetching.

At the same time the blonder element of European culture is catching the flak, which I'm never against. Remember Lindisfarne. :mad:

[CapelDodger]

That's a good point. Me, when I think of culture, it's about excuse to eat, drink and celebrate, and of course to do so with specific good ingredients, and to invite those who are not yet familiar with them to try it out.

:alc::yahooWithout concealing from the that the meal contains pork, of course. Or peanuts.

[Orwell]

Most, but not all of them. The kiwi, for example.
Ah, but kiwis have small vestigial wings!

[CapelDodger]

The original publishing of the drawings had, as far as I know, nothing to do with the truth, but was all about challenging the muslim 'prohibition' of pictures of Mohammad.The prohibition is limited to some Sunni strands of Islam, Shias and Sufis have no prohibition. There are plenty of images of Muhammad on the InterNet, have been for a while, and it hasn't caused a problem. You are right the qualify the word. This 'prohibition' has entered the Simpleton's Guide to Islam mostly because the prohibitionist Sunni strands are dominant in Arabia Proper, which is where the English-speaking world has had most interaction with Islam.

The Muslim reaction has been against the insulting nature of some images, and I doubt anybody claims they aren't insulting.

I have a problem with the original editor's explanation. An author couldn't find an artist to illustrate a book on Muhammad because artists were ... unwilling, perhaps terrified, to depict Muhammad, so to publicise the fact an editor whistled up a dozen that were quite prepared to deliberately depict Muhammad insultingly. How does that work?

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, Russia, that Bastion of Free Speech, is showing the fundamentalists that it will not be intimidated... :rolleyes:

Can't you smell the bleeding obvious political recuperation?Russian motivations are transparent. Polarisation of Slavs and Muslim Circassians has been approved. The eradication of Muslims north of the Black Sea, a project started 150 years ago, is to be continued, and will happen. The long Ottoman retrenchment still has reverberations today.

[CapelDodger]

Yep that's right yet another religion that resorts to violence when they think their religion has been insulted.Have to share this.

Back in '77, I think, I was living just outside of Southall in London, and I knew people there. There was a neo-Nazi 'resurgence' going on at the time, Thatcher not yet having cut the legs out from under them, based on skinheads and soccer hooliganism. I kid you not. So, anyhoo, a mass skinhead Paki-bashing is arranged, and Southall's full of Punjabi people, which is all the same to a skinhead. They can get there easily from Millwall and West Ham and whatever stones Arsenal supporters live under. So a hundred or more skinheads barge into the largest Sikh community outside the subcontinent. Bad move. Spit on an old Sikh lady and you're inviting a gutting, and that's before her family get at you. The police had to rescue the skinheads from a notorious white pub in Hayes. That was the end of the Aryan resurgence.

Don't mess with Sikhs. That ranks with not invading Russia.

[CapelDodger]

Ah, but kiwis have small vestigial wings!They're lucky! We used to dream of vestigial wings! And do the frequent-fliers of today want to hear about it? Bollocks they do.

[CapelDodger]

However what was missing, including from the press listening, was any direct questioning on what is the most emotive issue of all of this, like the torching of embassies and threats of death. Yes, there were a few sentences condemning extremist responses, but they were all very non specific. There was no actualy reference to any such acts, but on the other side there were a number of direct references to "what has gone on in Europe", meaning publication of cartoons, and implied condemnation of Europe as a whole (sound familiar?).What about what has gone on in Europe? Why is it so damn' hard to get what is essentially a Western audience in this forum to concentrate on what is going on in Europe? Not just the publication, which did take place in Europe, but the Muslim response in Europe. Why should burnings of embassies outside the Western world be the focus of attention when Western Muslims are trying to get a point across about what's happening in Europe? No burnt embassies, threats of death and incitement to violence a minority exercise and actionable. Old hands on this forum (it's a conceit of mine that I'm one) understand the backwater ploy.

Just by following BBC News 24 and CNN I've seen mainstream Muslims condemning violence and threats in unequivocal terms.

I suspect you're focused on the wider Muslim reaction and ignoring the anti-Muslim right-wing European potential resurgence - let's face it, what threat is that to you? - which is a threat to Europeans. Burning embassies in parts of the world that are already in a religio-national turmoil signifies nothing in Europe. The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

[c4ts]

Does a bird have wings?


Is a bear Catholic?
Does the Pope s*** in the woods?

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[epepke]

Some time after the cartoons was published, a number of Danish Muslims went on a round trip to the Middle East to try and create a stir about the cartoons.

They showed some of the 12 cartoons, as well as some racist pictures (in poor quality) they had found on the Internet, and presented them as if they were published by Danish media.

The group claims that they were mailed to them anonymously, which of course is not so easy to test.

Now, at least one of the "caricatures" shown is not a caricature at all. It is a photo of a french clown, sporting a pig's snout and long ears. The event? A local pig festival.

Correct.

Seems to me that, if there's someone to blame for presenting this as a picture of Mohammed, it's the Danish Muslim group.

[Eos of the Eons]

The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.
It's ironic how they've been incited by their own propoganda. Why don't they start burning each other's houses down for depicting their god as a pig themselves? THEY were the ones they came up with the most offensive depictions of their own god. THEY knew what would get their fellow peers in a tizzy.

I guess the Danish CARTOONS just weren't offensive enough?

Bunch of hypocrites.

Then trying to paint the European non-muslims as the racists? It's the muslims that come up with the most racist depictions of jews I've ever seen since the nazis.

They have freedom of religion in Europe, and then throw their own pictures up as a reason to burn things down? They don't allow Europeans freedom of religion in muslim countries.

Bunch of hypocrites.

The red pots are calling grey kettles red. The red pots need to clean up their own act.

[zenith-nadir]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060208/capt.jrl10302081209.mideast_israel_palestinians_pr ophet_drawings_jrl103.jpghttp://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060208/i/r1032220569.jpg

Palestinians are seen at the entrance to the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, TIPH, offices in the West Bank town of Hebron Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006. About 300 Palestinians attacked an international observer mission in the West Bank city of Hebron on Wednesday, throwing stones, smashing windows and trying to set a building on fire to protest Danish cartoons seen as insulting Islam. (AP Photo/Nasser Shiyoukhi) The madness never ends....

[BPSCG]

Why should burnings of embassies outside the Western world be the focus of attention when Western Muslims are trying to get a point across about what's happening in Europe? No burnt embassies, threats of death and incitement to violence a minority exercise and actionable. Not sure what you're trying to say here (read that last sentence aloud and see if it makes sense as written), but if you're saying that the demonstrators in Europe weren't making death threats and incitements to violence, then what's this about? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1430976#post1430976)

[stamenflicker]

The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

Because they can. And because it's not illegal. For the same reasons someone dropped Jesus on the cross in a jar of human urine and called it art. For the same reason someone made a virgin Mary out of vaginas cut from a Penthouse magazine.

Why provoke? Because you can. Is it in poor taste? Sure.

If this situation tells us anything at all, it tells us the length to which Europe and many Americans go to appease the Muslim's tender sensibilities, and nothing to do with "provoking" them.

Bill Clinton-- Mr. Free Speech-- is already condemning the cartoons? CNN refusing to show the cartoons? Why didn't CNN refuse to show pictures of the crucfixion scene in a jar of piss? Because Christians don't take to the street en masse to committ arson and murder. So let's all say we're sorry and appease illegal behavior, rationalize illegal activity, prop up a riot by giving it credence, and set a great stage for the next kindergarten antic that just so happens to get people killed.

Flick

[epepke]

Bill Clinton-- Mr. Free Speech-- is already condemning the cartoons? CNN refusing to show the cartoons?

Despite my attempts to avoid watching television news, I've already shown one of the cartoons twice on the news.

[Darat]

...snip...

Bill Clinton-- Mr. Free Speech-- is already condemning the cartoons? CNN refusing to show the cartoons?

...snip..

It would seem then that Clinton is following the lead of the USA government.

[zenith-nadir]

So let's all say we're sorry and appease illegal behavior, rationalize illegal activity, prop up a riot by giving it credence, and set a great stage for the next kindergarten antic that just so happens to get people killed.

Flick:clap:

[Elind]

I suspect you're focused on the wider Muslim reaction and ignoring the anti-Muslim right-wing European potential resurgence - let's face it, what threat is that to you? - which is a threat to Europeans. Burning embassies in parts of the world that are already in a religio-national turmoil signifies nothing in Europe. The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

Of course that's what I'm focused on right now.:confused:

I'm sure you know how this started by now. The issue is the reaction by Muslims, not whether there are right wing islamophobes in the wings. There always will be.

Burning emabassies signifies nothing? Wow.

Your suggestion that all this is engineered by some right wingers in Europe will no doubt be seen as insulting by many. Personally, I'll just control myself and say that I think that opinion is not worth further comment.

[sackett]

It has been, may have always been, and will continue to be the case, that Muslims regard those that are willing to literally fight with non-believers as Muslims who have strong belief in their religion.

No matter how moderate a Muslim may act, they have the inability to come out and condemn violence against non-Muslims because that would make themselves "look" less like a true believer.

There's no way to sugercoat this.

You can go in the Qu'ran and find verses that encourage peace. You can go in the Qu'ran and find verses that advocate for war.

ALL of the most notable Muslims in history have fought in wars (Muhammed, Khalid bin Wallid, Saladin). Islam venerates those with a willingness to fight non-believers.

No Muslim can come right out and say that Muslims should not fight non-Muslims without the risk of being accused of being a kafir (disbeliever).

When Muhammed had no army, Islam was a religion of peace.
When Muhammed had an army, Islam was a religion of war.
That's the history. Advocating for peace is advocating for a time when the prophet had few followers and relied on tribal protection to stay alive amongst a sea of enemies.
What Muslim would want to go back to those days of hardship?

Personally, I do. Muhammed befriended anyone who was willing to listen to his views on the concept of one god, to share wealth and ease the suffering of the poor, and to be pious and fair minded. That was Islam at its simplest. That all human beings are equal before God, and that what separates us is our willingness to do good in this world.


Well said, SuperCool. Yours is the kind of Muslim voice we all need to hear.

How those political mullahs must hate and fear men like you! Watch your back.

Here's one kaffir who'll gladly shove in a clip and help you do it.

[Orwell]

Jesus had no army, Christianism was a religion of peace.
When Christians got an army, Christianism became a religion of war.

Middle Eastern monotheism, eh?

[Lukretius]

Jesus had no army, Christianism was a religion of peace.
When Christians got an army, Christianism became a religion of war.
And that seems to be the big problem with all religions.

[asmodean]

Jesus had no army, Christianism was a religion of peace.
When Christians got an army, Christianism became a religion of war.

Middle Eastern monotheism, eh?

Indeed. History repeats itself, does it not?

[sackett]

The mullahs must keep flogging their “war on Islam” no matter what. It’s their only source of power and wealth.

Trouble is, this whole “war” is a crock. The West has had Islam on Ignore for at least the past hundred years, maybe longer. Sometimes the West would cast half-admiring glances in Islam’s direction, romanticizing the picturesque aspects of the Faith of the Crescent and all that. (As long ago as the eighteenth century, Dr. Johnson could say, “Outside Christendom and Islam, all else is barbarism.”) But hostility, even passive hostility, was absent.

It’s that Ignore button that enrages the mullahs and their buddies – frightens them, too. Without a war, they’d have to turn our and earn an honest living.

[Skeptic]

The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

No, the important question to Europe is why do Muslims riot, threathen, burn, murder, and bomb over a friggin' cartoons.

I'd say that having millions calling for your death, burning down your embassies, and promising terrorist attacks is slightly more important for Europe than whether the cartoonists who did it were naughty or insensitive or even, god forbid, "islamophobes".

[epepke]

The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

No, the important question to Europe is why do Muslims riot, threathen, burn, murder, and bomb over a friggin' cartoons.

Yes.

I'd say that having millions calling for your death, burning down your embassies, and promising terrorist attacks is slightly more important for Europe than whether the cartoonists who did it were naughty or insensitive or even, god forbid, "islamophobes".

Well, considering that it was a Danish Muslim group that decided to include the spurious Pig Boy photo, I wonder exactly who's being naughty here.

[Orwell]

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html)

Although this is not enough to prove a double standard (it was, after all, 3 years ago), I suspect that there was a double standard. As for the second publication, in Norway, it was by a Christian newspaper... The double standard is implicit.

In other words, islamophobes provoking islamofascists and then protecting themselves behind free speech. And now, of course, because we want to defend free speech, were being taken along for the ride.

I feel manipulated. Don't you?

I tend to side with free speech pretty much by default, but in this case, even though I'm still siding on the side of free speech, I get the urge to just slap silly the provocateurs who absolutely needed to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre!

Not that it matters anyway, things are so tense between the Muslim communities in Europe (and probably elsewhere too) and the West that something like this had to eventually happen, if it wasn't the stupid cartoons, it would have been something else. I expect to hear a lot of the "clash of civilisations" malarky in the next few weeks...

[Nyarlathotep]

The important question in Europe is why some people have deliberately provoked Europe's Muslims.

I have three kids. Sometimes they argue. Sometimes one will get it in their head to slap or hit the other. When they get in trouble for this they will sometimes come up with excuses like "Well, she called me a Bitch", I then have to remind them that it doesn't matter what name the other called the one, slapping people for name-calling is unacceptable.

The same principle applies here but on a larger scale.

[Lukretius]

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html)

Although this is not enough to prove a double standard (it was, after all, 3 years ago), I suspect that there was a double standard. As for the second publication, in Norway, it was by a Christian newspaper... The double standard is implicit.

In other words, islamophobes provoking islamofascists and then protecting themselves behind free speech. And now, of course, because we want to defend free speech, were being taken along for the ride.

I feel manipulated. Don't you?

I tend to side with free speech pretty much by default, but in this case, even though I'm still siding on the side of free speech, I get the urge to just slap silly the provocateurs who absolutely needed to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre!

Not that it matters anyway, things are so tense between the Muslim communities in Europe (and probably elsewhere too) and the West that something like this had to eventually happen, if it wasn't the stupid cartoons, it would have been something else. I expect to hear a lot of the "clash of civilisations" malarky in the next few weeks...

First: I do not read Jyllands-Posten because it is clearly right-wing and to a degree that I find ridiculous (It has a nickname in Denmark - the right name is "Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten" which translates into something like "The morning paper Jyllands Posten", but the nickname is "Morgenfascisten Jyllandspesten", which would be "The Morning Fascist (the) Jyllands plague").

BUT it still doesn't matter what their political motivation were. We live in a country where it is legal to print such things, and it is NOT freedom of speech, if you refrain from that "freedom" because you are afraid of repercussions. That would be the opposite: NOT freedom of speech. Besides: I'm rather sure that even Jyllands-Posten has brought pictures or articles that would be considered offensive by some Christians. We might joke about the paper being fascist, but that IS just a joke.

Please enlighten me - why is their motivation important? Would "bad intentions" justify the destruction of embassies?

(And I too want to slap the idiot screaming "fire" in the theater, but it's hardly comparable. This all started because a book writer couldn't get anyone to draw the pictures for his book about Mohammad, because they were afraid of the reaction)

[stamenflicker]

Ok so I'm a bit slow...

I just read that these cartoons appeared back in September of last year? After trying to gin up some response locally (and failing) a prominent muslim cleric in Demark proceeded to tour the middle east, adding other content to the cartoons in order to stir up aggitation. He then appeared on Danish television stating an apology was not going to be enough that the Danes had to undergo serious political reform...

Is all this true? If so, this is a terrorist act on the Danish government using propaganda instead of C-4.

Flick

[Ryokan]

Is all this true?

Yes.

[Elind]

Please enlighten me - why is their motivation important? Would "bad intentions" justify the destruction of embassies?

(And I too want to slap the idiot screaming "fire" in the theater, but it's hardly comparable. This all started because a book writer couldn't get anyone to draw the pictures for his book about Mohammad, because they were afraid of the reaction)

As you say, the motivation is not the most important; the reaction is.

The Muslim idiots have contemptible motivations all the time, we have never burned their embassies.

We dwell too much on these "finer" points.

[Elind]

The US is actually coming out of this quite well, but 'Murrican culture does value politeness. Far more young 'Murricans "Sir" their elders than young Brits (more than none ain't much, but does draw attention). Some damn it as political correctness, but I find it rather fetching.

Is that an in joke? "Murrican"?

I don't think any murricans consider it political correctness, nor fetching. Of course the word "fetching" has it's own connotation, so who am I to be critical of your perceptions; or is it humor?

:confused:

[CapelDodger]

Not sure what you're trying to say here (read that last sentence aloud and see if it makes sense as written), but if you're saying that the demonstrators in Europe weren't making death threats and incitements to violence, then what's this about? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1430976#post1430976) ... threats of death and incitement to violence a minority exercise and actionable. can surely not be interpreted as saying that no demonstrators made such threats. By "actionable" I mean that legal action can, and probably will, be taken over those threats. Many Muslim groups in the UK are calling for such prosecutions, and what's more their calls are getting coverage. The Islamists over here have shot themselves in the foot, and possibly somewhere more vital. They must be gagging for UK publication of the cartoons so they can save face.

Talking about self-inflicted wounds, the Ayatollah's zionist-conspiracy theory presumably requires that the US and UK, which haven't published, are not subject to zionist control, contrary to other theories. But hey, he's religious, and religion rots the brain.

[CapelDodger]

Because they can. And because it's not illegal. For the same reasons someone dropped Jesus on the cross in a jar of human urine and called it art. For the same reason someone made a virgin Mary out of vaginas cut from a Penthouse magazine.

Why provoke? Because you can.We can all provoke, even me - ask my mother. But not all provocations are simply bullying. Some are intended to provoke a reaction as part of a wider intent. The provocation of Muslim response to insulting depictions of Muhammad is intended to further polarise Muslims (immigrant, because there are no long-established Muslim populations in Europe excepting Bosnia, and that's on hold) and "proper" Europeans.

The Muslim response can be, and is, represented as irrational anger at any depiction of Muhammad, proving Muslim irrationality and the childish nature of dark-skinned people. The Islamist threats can be, and are, represented as the reaction of all Muslims. The Islamists are happy with that, since their aim is exactly the same polarisation, but on a wider canvas, West v Islam. Muslim responses in the wider world can be tacitly attributed to European Muslims - "Muslims did this because Islam demands it, these guys are Muslims, ergo ..." to be more explicit - when such actions are about local issues, not the cartoons at all.

The intent is to promote the idea that Muslims cannot be integrated into Europe, and the promoters are not righteous people.

[Tony4245]

Is that an in joke? "Murrican"?

Yep.

I don't think any murricans consider it political correctness, nor fetching. Of course the word "fetching" has it's own connotation, so who am I to be critical of your perceptions; or is it humor?
:confused:

Well, some people consider it mildly funny. Mostly 'Murricans. (HINT: Think heavy accents!)

I noted today that Isladiots in Afghanistan are burning trucks and buses outside of the US Embassy - because, after all, the US is the leader of the Free World/Great Satan, and therefore we must be responsible for a Danish newspaper doing something they don't like.

I mean, not even the Nazis could tell Danes what to do...!
;)

[Elind]

(HINT: Think heavy accents!)



If you actually wanted to insult my intelligence, you would have to give me more hints like that.
:cool:

[BPSCG]

The US is actually coming out of this quite well, but 'Murrican culture does value politeness. Far more young 'Murricans "Sir" their elders than young Brits (more than none ain't much, but does draw attention). Some damn it as political correctness, but I find it rather fetching.Teenage Texas son of a family friend stayed with Mrs. BPSCG and me a couple of days while visiting the DC area last summer. He's known Mrs. BPSCG literally his entire lift; she's like an aunt to him.

So we were stunned when he kept calling her "ma'am, and me "sir". Stunned further when he helped set the dinner table and clear away the dishes. We knew he was a good kid, but...

His mom called every day to see how he was doing. Needless to say, she got a glowing report. He really likes the DC area, and, also needless to say, we let him know he's always welcome.

Now, back to Muslim-bashing.

[CapelDodger]

Of course that's what I'm focused on right now.:confused:And so you assume that people who wish to talk about events in Europe should address all the wider issues, in detail. You posted that Muslims had vaguely condemned extra-European violence, but mentioned no specific events. Why should they? Because that's what you're focused on?

I'm sure you know how this started by now. The issue is the reaction by Muslims, not whether there are right wing islamophobes in the wings. There always will be.I'm explicitly focused on Europe, and in Europe a right-wing anti-immigrant (by overlap, anti-Muslim) party is in coaliton with the Danish government. They had, as I recall, 13% of the vote last time around, they might have more now, they might have less. We'll have to wait for the wheels of the democratic process to turn. My bet's on more. The same crowd have about that percentage across much of Europe, they're not in the wings they're on stage.

Burning emabassies signifies nothing? Wow.How much is signified by the Beirut burning if the Lebanese are right that it was a Syrian provocation? To me it signifies that the Syrians and Lebanese are sticking to local issues, so I don't got to worry about it.

Your suggestion that all this is engineered by some right wingers in Europe will no doubt be seen as insulting by many. Personally, I'll just control myself and say that I think that opinion is not worth further comment.I'm prepared to insult the many, frankly I've no time for the many. The many are easily swayed. If you assume that Europe is safe for democracy because the many have the vote, you are not paying attention to Europe. Palestinians have the vote.

We Europeans do not have the option of ignoring Europe. As a Brit I'm least under personal threat, but I can't ignore the Continent.

[CapelDodger]

So we were stunned when he kept calling her "ma'am, and me "sir". Stunned further when he helped set the dinner table and clear away the dishes. We knew he was a good kid, but...It does make you jump, doesn't it? I appreciate it's regional in the States, but regional is a major US theme. As it is in the Muslim world.

Texas is, of course, of the South. The least go-getting, dog-eat-dog, Civil War winnin' region of the US. The deepest-rooted and most likely to honour parents and be polite. What that signifies is anybody's guess.

[CapelDodger]

(HINT: Think heavy accents!)I thought a War on Tourism had been declared, at first hearing.

I have too much invested in the 16thCE to use American as equivalent to US citizen, "Yank" is out, waddya gonna do?

I mean, not even the Nazis could tell Danes what to do...!
;)Denmark was good ground for Waffen SS recruitment. Danish industry integrated itself with Austro-Germany with alacrity. Some Danes acted in exemplary manner, many others didn't. Nazism found fertile soil in Denmark from the get-go - Danes weren't racial inferiors to Nazis, they were fellow Teutonic Aryans. No down-side for the majority, and being part of Austro-German success as the upside. Many Danes eagerly gave up being Danish for being Reich-citizens. Royalty does not, in reality, represent a population.

[epepke]

The Muslim response can be, and is, represented as irrational anger at any depiction of Muhammad, proving Muslim irrationality and the childish nature of dark-skinned people. The Islamist threats can be, and are, represented as the reaction of all Muslims. The Islamists are happy with that, since their aim is exactly the same polarisation, but on a wider canvas, West v Islam. Muslim responses in the wider world can be tacitly attributed to European Muslims - "Muslims did this because Islam demands it, these guys are Muslims, ergo ..." to be more explicit - when such actions are about local issues, not the cartoons at all.

The intent is to promote the idea that Muslims cannot be integrated into Europe, and the promoters are not righteous people.

As with the other post, you're using wording that I find highly confusing and difficult to understand. I think you need to work on this. I'm not even going to try to make a good-faith effort figure out what you're saying, because that's what BPSCG did, and you basically said "wrong."

[Elind]

And so you assume that people who wish to talk about events in Europe should address all the wider issues, in detail. You posted that Muslims had vaguely condemned extra-European violence, but mentioned no specific events. Why should they? Because that's what you're focused on?



Why so evasive? You know what this discussion is about. It's about what has happened outside Europe, so far; not one little Danish publication 4 or 5 months ago. The others republished only after being threatened, not before.

Those American Muslims, conciliatory as they tried to sound, would not have had that conference otherwise. Where were they 5 months ago?

You can talk all you want about anti Muslim sentiments in Europe, and there was plenty on that during the French riots. All you have to do is start another thread.

I repeat, the American Muslims were quite rational and reasonable, and called only for respect for others, including other religions.

However I repeat again, that I was most disapointed to hear them repeatedly talk about the entire issue only in terms of "what has happened in Europe".

That is just more of the same disingenuous spin we usually hear, and what you are doing for that matter.

[Skeptic]

As for the second publication, in Norway, it was by a Christian newspaper... The double standard is implicit.

Well, not really. It would have been a double standard if Islamic papers did publish cartoons mocking Muhammad, or jewish papers cartoons making fun of Moses. But you do not even dream of accusing them of a double standard because tjey don't do that, do you? It's only when Christian newspapers do not mock Jesus that they use an "implicit double standard".

[Skeptic]

The Muslim response can be, and is, represented as irrational anger at any depiction of Muhammad, proving Muslim irrationality and the childish nature of dark-skinned people.

First, nobody here said or implied anything about the Islamists' skin color. This is your invention, not what anybody else here said or implied, no doubt so it will be easier for you to whine about "racism" later on.

Second, while the anger itself might be understandable, the response-death threats, embassy burning, etc., etc., etc.--IS rather obviously the irrational, childish, petulent and self-centered response of a bunch of bullies who are outraged that somebody in the world dared to disagree or, heaven forbid, actually insult them.

Do you make death threats and burn down buildings when insulted?

If there is racism, it is in the implicit belief that it is perfectly normal for the Islamists to behave this way because, well, that's what they do. Sure, civlized people like ourselves don't behave like this, say those who excuse the riots--but they are only third-world barbarians; you can't really hold them to the same standards as we ask of ourselves, it's so unfair.

[Skeptic]

Some Danes acted in exemplary manner, many others didn't.

The Danes were the only country which, as a body, resisted the Nazi plans for the extermination of the jews. Tipped off by a German diplomat (Ferdinand Duckwitz), the Danish resistance organized a mass evacuation. The Danish people hid their jews in their homes, and fishermen ferried them across the water to Sweden, despite the fact that such action was, of course, punishable by death.

Yes, some Danes--for once, really a "tiny minority of extremists"--joined the SS, to Denmark's shame. Yes, some were collaborators. But the DANES as a people were brave resisters of the Nazis and saviors of the jews. The Danish (or for that matter, the English) royalty's brave resistance to the Nazis, contrary to your dismissive sneer, WAS quite representative of that of the population as a whole.

Perhaps in your world, where everything seems to float in a world of equal value and nobody is ever good or evil, correct or incorrect, just because nobody is ever completely good or evil or totally correct or incorrect, you cannot see the difference between the Danes then and the Islamists now.

But that is merely a sign of your moral bankrupcy: supporting evil over good, or being indifferent to which side wins, because the trite truths "nobody's perfect" and "nobody's all bad" make you, for some reason, utterly incapable of passing moral judgement for either good or evil about anybody in any circumstances.

[Orwell]

As for the second publication, in Norway, it was by a Christian newspaper... The double standard is implicit.

Well, not really. It would have been a double standard if Islamic papers did publish cartoons mocking Muhammad, or jewish papers cartoons making fun of Moses. But you do not even dream of accusing them of a double standard because tjey don't do that, do you? It's only when Christian newspapers do not mock Jesus that they use an "implicit double standard".

Uh? I don't understand what you're saying. It sounds like you're confusing double-standard with Tu Quoque.

These Europeans papers probably wouldn't print cartoons mocking Jesus or Moses, but they printed cartoons mocking Mohammed. I think you're arguing that that's not a double-standard because the Muslims represent a small minority of the Danish and Norwegian populations, but I'm not sure... But if that's the case, well, it should be pointed out that the people who would be offended by Jesus or Moses being cartooned also represent a small minority of the Danish and Norwegian population. Scandinavians are amongst some of the less religious populations on the planet.

[Orwell]

Here's another moron that deserves to be slapped silly:

'It is not what I want to happen'
Young Danish Islamic scholar distributed booklets of photocopied cartoons to Muslim leaders in the Mideast, sparking a firestorm of anger around the world (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060208.wxcartooncleric08/BNStory/International)

Mr. Akkari now finds himself regretting the results of his brief journey, the somewhat distorted message of which flashed around the Muslim world by Internet, newspaper and text message, and caused millions of Muslims to believe that Denmark and the Nordic countries had become home to blasphemies. Idiot...

[Orwell]

Please enlighten me - why is their motivation important? Would "bad intentions" justify the destruction of embassies?

(And I too want to slap the idiot screaming "fire" in the theater, but it's hardly comparable. This all started because a book writer couldn't get anyone to draw the pictures for his book about Mohammad, because they were afraid of the reaction)

But of course the motivations are important! I mean, I'm all for free speech, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of everything free speech allows people to say, does it? I also resent having to defend idiots who used their free speech rights irresponsibly. I'm using my free speech rights to complain about it! And no, bad intentions don't justify violence. But I do believe that we can legitimately criticise the newspapers who initially printed the cartoons, and question their motivations. Lets not turn these clowns into martyrs of free speech. You can approve of the principle without supporting the message.

[Ed]

His actions, while stupid, do not bear on the core issue of freedom of speech.

[Mark]

His actions, while stupid, do not bear on the core issue of freedom of speech.

No, but they do reflect on the mind set of people who blindly follow religious texts written by people barely out of the stone age. Not to mention blindly following religious leaders whose main goal is to avoid working for a living.

[CFLarsen]

This gets weirder and weirder.

The Danish Ambassador in Egypt, Bjarne Sørensen, has told Ritzau that 6 of the 12 drawings were published in an Egyptian newspaper, Al Fagr, on October 17th, 2005. It was accompanied by an article condemning the drawings as insulting to all Muslims and Islam.

But it didn't spark either a debate or a riot.

The riots started after a delegation of Danish Muslims went on a tour to various Middle East countries and showed the 12 drawings, along with some drawings they had found on the Internet, but never published in Denmark.

Oh, and the now infamous "Pig" photo, which didn't - as claimed by the delegation - depict Muhammed, but was a French auto mechanic, who, during a local pig festival, was trying to win competition on who could sound and act as a pig the most convincingly.

The spokesman for the Danish Muslims, Mr. Akkari, who also has shown the pig photo to foreign journalists as an example of how vicious the climate against Muslims in Denmark had become, went on Danish TV last night, to try and explain it away. He didn't succeed: He was outed as a bald-faced liar.

We live in interesting times.

[Nyarlathotep]

The spokesman for the Danish Muslims, Mr. Akkari, who also has shown the pig photo to foreign journalists as an example of how vicious the climate against Muslims in Denmark had become, went on Danish TV last night, to try and explain it away. He didn't succeed: He was outed as a bald-faced liar.

We live in interesting times.

Five bucks says that outing him as a liar won't make a damn bit of difference to the rioters, though.