Scandinavians not welcome in Gaza

[Ryokan]

Muhammed-karikaturene setter sinn i kok i Gaza. De militante palestinske gruppene Islamsk hellig krig og al-Aqsa gir skandinaver 48 timer på å komme seg vekk fra Gazastripen.

Charicatures of the prophet Muhammed has enraged the population in Gaza. The militant Palestinian groups Islamic Holy War and the al-Aqsa Brigade gives Scandinavians 48 hours to leave Gaza.

Advarslene deles ut i form av flygeblad, og kommer som en reaksjon på karikaturtegningene av profeten Muhammed som ble publisert i den danske avisa Jyllands-Posten og senere gjengitt i den norske kristenavisa Magazinet.

The warnings are distibuted as fliers, and are a reaction to charicatures of the prophet Muhammed published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten, and later also published in the Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/45/456/456215/gaza2.jpg

A Palestinian man showing contempt for Denmark by stepping on the Danish flag.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/45/456/456215/gaza5.jpg

Members of the al-Aqsa Brigade protest the charicatures by firing into the air.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456215.html)

[Manny]

Norwegians too? That's awful dumb. The newly elected terrorists there are going to find that their list of friends grows short. Norway seems to be alone among European governments which don't classify Hamas as terrorist and which has announced its willingness to deal with the government as is.

That's not a slam on Norway, by the way. Norway has always held itself out as the country of last resort as a conduit for communications in the middle east, a role which is entirely reasonable, legitimate and honorable for them to hold. I'm just saying that given that role, the new terrorist government would have to be stupid beyond description to cut ties with their only ear on an entire continent.

[Ziggurat]

Members of the al-Aqsa Brigade protest the charicatures by firing into the air.

That could almost be an Onion headline. You know, something along the lines of "Radical muslims kill 10 to protest stereotyping as violent fanatics."

[Manny]

That could almost be an Onion headline. You know, something along the lines of "Radical muslims kill 10 to protest stereotyping as violent fanatics."Heh. Kind of makes any arguments about "collective punishment" seem pretty silly, too.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm glad all that Israeli oppression they complained of is over and done with. I mean, it has to be, right, or else they wouldn't have the time to devote to such foolish complaints?

[Mephisto]

Members of the al-Aqsa Brigade protest the charicatures by firing into the air.

Ha! That makes about as much sense as invading a country to promote Democracy. ;)

[zenith-nadir]

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060130/i/r1972072254.jpg

Palestinians burn a Norwegian flag outside the European Union headquarters in the Gaza Strip January 30, 2006. Palestinian gunmen said on Monday Danes and Norwegians visiting Gaza could be attacked unless their governments apologise after newspapers printed satirical images of the Prophet Mohammed. REUTERS/Damir SagoljIt's refreshing to see someone elses flag burnt for a change. :rolleyes:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060130/i/r2221734437.jpg

Palestinians burn a Danish flag outside the European Union headquarters in the Gaza Strip January 30, 2006. Palestinian gunmen said on Monday Danes and Norwegians visiting Gaza could be attacked unless their governments apologised after newspapers there printed satirical images of the Prophet Mohammed. REUTERS/Damir SagoljEmphasis mine.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060130/2006_01_30t072604_450x325_us_mideast.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060130/2006_01_30t072544_450x270_us_mideast.jpg

Palestinian Fatah gunmen stand outside the European Union headquarters in the Gaza Strip, January 30, 2006. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)...and where are the Palestinian Authority police to p-r-o-t-e-c-t the EU office from Fatah gunmen? Gosh I wonder.

[Ryokan]

http://www.vg.no/bilder/bildarkiv/1138627265.65822.jpg

Norwegian flag, about to be burned, with the text 'death to you' in Arabic.

I must say, as a citizen from one of the most peaceful countries in the world, it's a very strange feeling to see our flag burned and fellow citizens being threatened with death just for being Norwegian. (The Norwegian flag was burned on Sri Lanka a few years ago, though, but there were no pictures, at least that I've seen, and no death threats)

A Norwegian Christian paper prints some funny pictures of Muhammed, and I deserve death for it?

ETA : This article from Dagbladet (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456292.html) has a video of the flag burning.

[zenith-nadir]

I must say, as a citizen from one of the most peaceful countries in the world, it's a very strange feeling to see our flag burned and fellow citizens being threatened with death just for being Norwegian.Welcome to Palestine Ryokan.

(edited to add)

Masked Gunmen Briefly Take Over EU Office (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALESTINIANS_DENMARK?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=INTERNATIONAL)

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Masked gunmen on Monday briefly took over a European Union office to protest a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons deemed insulting to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, the latest in a wave of violent denunciations of the caricatures across the Islamic world.

The gunmen demanded an apology from Denmark and Norway, and said citizens of the two countries would be prevented from entering the Gaza Strip.

In Monday's violence, the gunmen burst into the EU office, then withdrew several minutes later. A group of about 15 masked men, armed with hand grenades, automatic weapons and anti-tank launchers, remained outside, keeping the offices closed. No shots were fired, and there were no reports of injuries.

The gunmen left the building after about half an hour.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group linked to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, claimed responsibility. (emphasis mine)

p.s. Fatah gunmen also make up the Palestinian Security Services and that is why no Fatah police came to arrest the Fatah terrorists - ( From the article: the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group linked to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party ) - who stormed the EU office in Gaza.

[Mike B.]

Aha!!!

Since both the Danish and Norweigan flags have crosses on them, we will shortly be seeing a crusade...

Nah!!!

[Mark]

A Norwegian Christian paper prints some funny pictures of Muhammed, and I deserve death for it?



The religion of peace. Death is just their way of saying hello.

[Mid]

Well at least they also burned the Danish flag outside the EU consulate, otherwise there's very little point in them turning up there given that Norway isn't a member of the EU

ETA Reread the original post

[Elind]

The quickest way to settle this would be for every western newspaper to publish copies of these cartoons, just as a part of explaining the issue of course, in the name of free press.

Let's see how long they stop buying anything at all from anyone but themselves.

[richardm]

A Palestinian man showing contempt for Denmark by stepping on the Danish flag.


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

[Manny]

The quickest way to settle this would be for every western newspaper to publish copies of these cartoons, just as a part of explaining the issue of course, in the name of free press.
One is almost tempted to set up camp across the street from the United Nations and alternately desecrate Tanakhs, new testaments and Korans. Just in the name of science, of course.

[dann]

... where will they get their bacon from?
Good one, Richard! (It is a joke, right?!)

/ritzau/AFP - 14:45 - 30. jan. 2006
"Clinton calls drawings 'a disgrace'": http://www.ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=332736
"On Monday former President Bill Clinton joined the ranks of people criticizing the controversial drawings of the prophet Mohammed.

On Monday Bill Clinton, the former American president, dissociated himself from the drawings of the prophet Mohammaed published by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. During a conference in Doha, the capital of Quatar, Clinton called the drawings a disgrace.
- So what are we to do. Replace anti-Semite prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice? Most the battles we have had in Europe over the past 50 years were about fighting prejudice against Jews - fighting anti-Semitism, Clinton said.
He described the ten drawings in the Danish newspaper as 'appalling' and criticized what he referred to as a tendency to generalize negative news about militant Moslems. He warned that this may make people think that all Moslems are militant fanatics." (my translation)

I think I saw the drawings in another Danish newspaper. They seemed fairly harmless to me. I'm opposed to the Danish army being in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a couple of satirical drawings are what it takes to make the Moslem attack Danish milk vans in Saudi Arabia, apparently ...

[Cleon]

One is almost tempted to set up camp across the street from the United Nations and alternately desecrate Tanakhs, new testaments and Korans. Just in the name of science, of course.

I'd advise against it. I dunno about the New Testament, but there's a ****load of Hasidim in Brooklyn, not to mention fruitcakes like the JDL and JDO, who WILL take some SERIOUS exception to desecrating a Torah (whether book or scroll).

[Manny]

That's what makes it an interesting experiment rather than simply making a point. One possible outcome is that some of the people heaping derision on the Arabs for their behaviour in this matter would be exposed as hypocrites. C'mon, we'll throw a flag or two in there too, just for fun.

[Elind]

One is almost tempted to set up camp across the street from the United Nations and alternately desecrate Tanakhs, new testaments and Korans. Just in the name of science, of course.

And the science being to determine the length of time to the hospital from the UN..?

[TragicMonkey]

And the science being to determine the length of time to the hospital from the UN..?

You're talking about the UN. The worst they'd do is set up a subcommittee to explore the possibility of convening a committee to consider examining launching an investigatory commission to look into the matter in three years. This will require $4.2 million in funding over the first three years, with an additional $6 million after that, and could we stop wasting time investigating who exactly gets that money and which UN agency head they're related to? It's a waste of resources to bother with that sort of thing. Make the check out to "Cash". It's easier for the bookkeeping that way.

[Mycroft]

Ha! That makes about as much sense as invading a country to promote Democracy. ;)

It worked for Japan, Germany and Italy.

[Tony]

It worked for Japan, Germany and Italy.

Wow. That's either profound ignorance or shameless history revisionism. Funny me, I thought WW2 was fought because a few fascist nations decided they wanted to spread their ideas and acquire more territory. Now we know it was really about promoting democracy.

[Mycroft]

Wow. That's either profound ignorance or shameless history revisionism. Funny me, I thought WW2 was fought because a few fascist nations decided they wanted to spread their ideas and acquire more territory. Now we know it was really about promoting democracy.

All of those countries are democratic nations now as a direct result of their being invaded. That the purpose of the invasions was self-defense is irrelevent, the effect was certainly to promote democracy.

[Ryokan]

There are a million threads about the Iraq war, why not take your bickerings there? In case you didn't notice, this thread is about Scandinavia, charicatures of Muhammed and Muslim extremists in Gaza.

[Mycroft]

Sorry.

[Mark]

All of those countries are democratic nations now as a direct result of their being invaded. That the purpose of the invasions was self-defense is irrelevent, the effect was certainly to promote democracy.

Their soveriegnty was taken from them, and the Allies had the support of the entire free world in that. Which in no way resembles the debacle in Iraq who remains (nominally) a sovereign nation; and we do NOT have the support of the entire free world there in any case.

[Ziggurat]

I think I saw the drawings in another Danish newspaper. They seemed fairly harmless to me.

I agree, but the thing is, though, that it shouldn't matter how offensive they are. They are legal where they were printed, and that should be the end of it. These protests are, in effect, an effort by supremacist muslims to impose their vision of what the law should be on a separate, sovereign, non-muslim population. Grant them that, and you basically accept the right of the muslim world to force Sharia law on us all. It's downright shameful that Clinton cannot recognize this blatant call for the west to accept dhimmitude for what it really is. I've criticised Europe for plenty of things, so I think it's only right to congratulate Denmark's leaders on doing the right thing by ignoring demands for appologies, etc, and I truly hope they continue to stand firm. We should all be standing vocally WITH Denmark on this one, and I'm embarrassed that Clinton chose a cowardly approach and disappointed that Bush hasn't come out strongly in support of them, as far as I can tell.

[Ed]

Good one, Richard! (It is a joke, right?!)

/ritzau/AFP - 14:45 - 30. jan. 2006
"Clinton calls drawings 'a disgrace'": http://www.ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=332736
"On Monday former President Bill Clinton joined the ranks of people criticizing the controversial drawings of the prophet Mohammed.

On Monday Bill Clinton, the former American president, dissociated himself from the drawings of the prophet Mohammaed published by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. During a conference in Doha, the capital of Quatar, Clinton called the drawings a disgrace.
- So what are we to do. Replace anti-Semite prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice? Most the battles we have had in Europe over the past 50 years were about fighting prejudice against Jews - fighting anti-Semitism, Clinton said.
He described the ten drawings in the Danish newspaper as 'appalling' and criticized what he referred to as a tendency to generalize negative news about militant Moslems. He warned that this may make people think that all Moslems are militant fanatics." (my translation)

I think I saw the drawings in another Danish newspaper. They seemed fairly harmless to me. I'm opposed to the Danish army being in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a couple of satirical drawings are what it takes to make the Moslem attack Danish milk vans in Saudi Arabia, apparently ...

So Bill could have discussed the value of freedom of speech and explained how it is one of the cornerstones of democracy and rather than that, he fellated them. Not surprising.

[Tony]

That the purpose of the invasions was self-defense is irrelevent,

No it isn't. You only want it to be. Someone said:

Ha! That makes about as much sense as invading a country to promote Democracy.

To which you replyed:

It worked for Japan, Germany and Italy.

You clearly implied, by replying to that specific post, that the purpose, not the final effect, was to promote democracy. Backpedal away.

the effect was certainly to promote democracy.

No it wasn't. The effect was an allied victory. The promotion of democracy was purely a side effect of the post-war environment. It's funny when people distort history to advance their agenda and start believing their own propaganda.

[Tony]

There are a million threads about the Iraq war, why not take your bickerings there? In case you didn't notice, this thread is about Scandinavia, charicatures of Muhammed and Muslim extremists in Gaza.

What is the mood like in your country? Do people generally support the artists who drew these cartoons and the magazines that printed them?

[Ryokan]

What is the mood like in your country? Do people generally support the artists who drew these cartoons and the magazines that printed them?

Mixed emotions, really.

The problem is that Magazinet, the paper that published the drawings, is a fundamentalist Christian paper, and their goal was not to use their freedom of expression as the Danish paper did, but to provoke Muslims. Therefore it's a little hard to come to their full defense.

[Elind]

Mixed emotions, really.

The problem is that Magazinet, the paper that published the drawings, is a fundamentalist Christian paper, and their goal was not to use their freedom of expression as the Danish paper did, but to provoke Muslims. Therefore it's a little hard to come to their full defense.

Good point, but then again they probably wouldn't have done so had it not been for the over-reaction of the Muslims in the first place.

As an associated example, I see that 5 churches were bombed in Iraq yesterday. It would be appropriate to publish that report along with the cartoons and ask the readers which was the more offensive act.

Perhaps also ask what would have been the reaction if the US had deliberately bombed 5 mosques, just for the hell of it?

One doesn't deal with hypocrits by being nice.

[Ryokan]

- Angrip norske mål

I kveld la en irakisk opprørsgruppe ut en konkret oppfordring til å angripe norske mål på en nettside som tidligere er brukt av opprørsgrupper.

- Å boikotte ost og meieriprodukter alene, er et overfladisk standpunkt, som er passende for en svak nasjon som ikke kan forsvare sin profet. Vi ber alle våre krigere ramme alle tilgjengelige mål som tilhører disse landene, står det i meldingen fra Mujaheedin-hæren, ifølge nyhetsbyrået Reuters.

- Attack Norwegian Targets

Tonight an Iraqi rebel group put up an encouragement to attack Norwegian targets on a website formerly used by rebel groups.

- Boycotting cheese and dairy products alone is a superficial standpint that only fits weak nations who can't defend their prophet. We ask all our warriors to target all available targets belonging to these countries, says the message from the Mujaheedin Army, according to Reuters.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456314.html)

Danske styrker angrepet i Irak

En bombe rammet en dansk-iraksk militærpatrulje mandag morgen nær Basra i Irak.

Ingen mennesker ble skadet i angrepet.

Angrepet er det første på danske styrker siden publiseringen av de omstridte Muhammed-tegningene i Jyllandsposten i september.

Danish forces attacked in Iraq

A bomb exploded near a Danish-Iraqi patrol monday morning near Basra in Iraq.

No one was hurt in the attack.

The attack is the first one targeting Danish forces since the publication of the disputed Muhammed drawings in Jyllandsposten last september.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456277.html)

[Elind]

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456314.html)





Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/30/456277.html)

How does it feel to be in the same boat as the US? The reasons don't really matter do they?:(

[Giz]

I agree, but the thing is, though, that it shouldn't matter how offensive they are. They are legal where they were printed, and that should be the end of it. These protests are, in effect, an effort by supremacist muslims to impose their vision of what the law should be on a separate, sovereign, non-muslim population. Grant them that, and you basically accept the right of the muslim world to force Sharia law on us all. It's downright shameful that Clinton cannot recognize this blatant call for the west to accept dhimmitude for what it really is. I've criticised Europe for plenty of things, so I think it's only right to congratulate Denmark's leaders on doing the right thing by ignoring demands for appologies, etc, and I truly hope they continue to stand firm. We should all be standing vocally WITH Denmark on this one, and I'm embarrassed that Clinton chose a cowardly approach and disappointed that Bush hasn't come out strongly in support of them, as far as I can tell.

Agreed.

[Ryokan]

How does it feel to be in the same boat as the US? The reasons don't really matter do they?:(

It's a bit, hmm, surreal.

[Giz]

Their soveriegnty was taken from them, and the Allies had the support of the entire free world in that. Which in no way resembles the debacle in Iraq who remains (nominally) a sovereign nation; and we do NOT have the support of the entire free world there in any case.

Nitpick; a whole bunch of nations eventually joined the allied side in WW2. The VAST majority of them in the latter stage of the war when allied victory was certain and they wished to appear to be on the winning side (heck, even German sympathizing Argentina cut it's losses and declared war on Germany in [from memory] March 1945 - Thanks Argentina!).

In WW2, the "entire free world" that counted was pretty much just the USA and the British Commonwealth. Whose in Iraq at the mo? - the USA, UK, AUS...

[Elind]

Agreed.

me too.

[Elind]

It's a bit, hmm, surreal.

Welcome home:D, to the real world.

[Mark]

Nitpick; a whole bunch of nations eventually joined the allied side in WW2. The VAST majority of them in the latter stage of the war when allied victory was certain and they wished to appear to be on the winning side (heck, even German sympathizing Argentina cut it's losses and declared war on Germany in [from memory] March 1945 - Thanks Argentina!).

In WW2, the "entire free world" that counted was pretty much just the USA and the British Commonwealth. Whose in Iraq at the mo? - the USA, UK, AUS...

Actively participating and "support" are not necessarily the same thing, are they? (And you left out France.) And, although not part of the free world, Russia's alliance with us should not be ignored either.

To suggest the current situation in Iraq in any way mirrors that of WWII stretches the bounds of credibility, whatever side of the issue one is on, I should think.

[Mycroft]

To suggest the current situation in Iraq in any way mirrors that of WWII stretches the bounds of credibility, whatever side of the issue one is on, I should think.

I don't believe anyone said they are similar. I brought it up to give examples of how invading a country can bring democracy.

[Art Vandelay]

You clearly implied, by replying to that specific post, that the purpose, not the final effect, was to promote democracy. Backpedal away.How is that at all relevant? Is it your position that invading other countries can promote democracy, but only if promoting democracy isn't the primary motivation for the invasion?

[Mark]

I don't believe anyone said they are similar. I brought it up to give examples of how invading a country can bring democracy.

And I brought up what I did to show that invading is not enough...their sovereignty was taken away with the support of nearly the entire world.

[Mycroft]

And I brought up what I did to show that invading is not enough...their sovereignty was taken away with the support of nearly the entire world.

Why should that make a difference?

[Mike B.]

(sarcasm)

Clearly Denmark and Norway must do some serious soul-searching and ask "Why they hate us?"

Perhaps they should spend the next few years self-flaggelating themselves.

It is quite clear that Scandanavian "arrogance" has led to this situation.

[DanishDynamite]

Wow. Amazing how this thing is escalating. Suadi-Arabia has recalled their ambassador for consultations, Libya has closed its embassy in Denmark, Arabic-Muslem countries across the board are instituting a boycott against Danish products, most of them officially, and the radical fundamentalists are encouraging attacks against all Danish interests.

Up theirs.

The Danish Primeminister just reiterated what he's said before: "It is meaningless to talk about the Danish government appologizing on behalf of a Danish newspaper. We can't. " He then underlined that freedom of speech was unnegotiable. (my translation).

The EU just released a statement wherein they said that any attack on Danish interests is an attack against the interests of the EU.

Watch this space for updates.

[Elind]

To suggest the current situation in Iraq in any way mirrors that of WWII stretches the bounds of credibility, whatever side of the issue one is on, I should think.

Depends how picky you want to get. Let's remember that in WWII it was the Europeans who got the message first. The US was a latecomer, somewhat reluctantly too and who knows what they would have done if it wasn't for the nips.

I think one could make the argument that the seats are reversed this time around.

[Elind]

Wow. Amazing how this thing is escalating. Suadi-Arabia has recalled their ambassador for consultations, Libya has closed its embassy in Denmark, Arabic-Muslem countries across the board are instituting a boycott against Danish products, most of them officially, and the radical fundamentalists are encouraging attacks against all Danish interests.

Up theirs.

The Danish Primeminister just reiterated what he's said before: "It is meaningless to talk about the Danish government appologizing on behalf of a Danish newspaper. We can't. " He then underlined that freedom of speech was unnegotiable. (my translation).

The EU just released a statement wherein they said that any attack on Danish interests is an attack against the interests of the EU.

Watch this space for updates.

Finally, we find we have common interests and standards after all; except for Clinton that is (PS. I voted for him once).

[Elind]

(sarcasm)


It's more fun if you let some people misinterpret sarcasm. Don't help with the labels, except perhaps a smilie. :den:

[Mike B.]

Wow. Amazing how this thing is escalating. Suadi-Arabia has recalled their ambassador for consultations, Libya has closed its embassy in Denmark, Arabic-Muslem countries across the board are instituting a boycott against Danish products, most of them officially, and the radical fundamentalists are encouraging attacks against all Danish interests.

Up theirs.

The Danish Primeminister just reiterated what he's said before: "It is meaningless to talk about the Danish government appologizing on behalf of a Danish newspaper. We can't. " He then underlined that freedom of speech was unnegotiable. (my translation).

The EU just released a statement wherein they said that any attack on Danish interests is an attack against the interests of the EU.

Watch this space for updates.

:den::clap::den:

[Ed]

The Danish Primeminister just reiterated what he's said before: "It is meaningless to talk about the Danish government appologizing on behalf of a Danish newspaper. We can't. " He then underlined that freedom of speech was unnegotiable. (my translation).



Worth repeating.

Tell us about your prime minister who appears to be able to teach an ex american president something about free speech.

[TragicMonkey]

Worth repeating.

Tell us about your prime minister who appears to be able to teach an ex american president something about free speech.

This Danish PM might want to tell the British government, too, what with that "insulting religion" bill fuss underway.

[Tony]

How is that at all relevant?

Because that is what the post was addressing dummy.

Read it again:

Ha! That makes about as much sense as invading a country to promote Democracy.

[Manny]

Because that is what the post was addressing dummy.

Read it again:I've just emailed the mods and informed them that I no longer intend to follow the rules of this message board when addressing people who derail threads not about Iraq into threads about Iraq. So if I get banned, that's probably why. But frankly, I don't give a ****.

[Ryokan]

I've just emailed the mods and informed them that I no longer intend to follow the rules of this message board when addressing people who derail threads not about Iraq into threads about Iraq. So if I get banned, that's probably why. But frankly, I don't give a ****.

And even after I asked them nicely not to do it.

Oh, and why are you guys only posting Danish flags?

:nors:

Hmpf, wasn't animated! :p

[peptoabysmal]

"The Danish government cannot apologise on behalf of a Danish newspaper. It does not work like that... and we have explained that to the Arab countries. Independent media are not edited by the government," he said.

I don't think they will ever grok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok) it.

Meanwhile pan-Arab organisations have begun efforts to reach a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions from insults.
That would be interesting, a UN resolution to limit free speech.

I want to see the cartoons, now.

argh... forgot the link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4664408.stm).

[Ryokan]

I want to see the cartoons, now.


http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Mohammed-drawings-newspaper1.jpg

ETA : I hope the JREF servers have insurance against suicide attacks.

After a brief discussion with the JREF I'm removing the in-line images but as usual leaving the link in place.

[Art Vandelay]

Because that is what the post was addressing dummy.No, it wasn't, idiot. It was addressing the implied claim that invasion cannot result in democracy. How is the motivation of the invasion relevant to whether it can result in democracy? Do you seriously believe that invasions can result in democracy, but only if that is not the intent? Yes, or no?

[Tony]

I've just emailed the mods and informed them that I no longer intend to follow the rules of this message board when addressing people who derail threads not about Iraq into threads about Iraq. So if I get banned, that's probably why. But frankly, I don't give a ****.

Take it up with Mycroft. Don't whine in my direction when it was other people who couldn't let the ***t go.

Ryokan, I apologize for the part I played in ****** up your thread.

[Tony]

No, it wasn't, idiot.

Yes it was. Stop derailing Ryokan's thread.

[peptoabysmal]

Wow. Thanks.
If the server is down tomorrow, I'll try to not think conspiracy thoughts. :D

So this is what all the hubub is about, eh? Are they really that offensive, or is someone just itching for a fight?

ETA: RE:
ETA : I hope the JREF servers have insurance against suicide attacks.

[Ryokan]

Wow. Thanks.
If the server is down tomorrow, I'll try to not think conspiracy thoughts. :D

So this is what all the hubub is about, eh? Are they really that offensive, or is someone just itching for a fight?

I like the third one from the bottom best! It's especially funny considering the events discussed in this thread, hehe.

Are they really that offensive? I can't really see how they are, but I'm not a Muslim. Some people take their beliefs a little too seriously, I guess. I wouldn't have minded at all if my religion got the same treatment, or worse.

Heck, Keanu Reeves (http://imdb.com/title/tt0107426/) played the Buddha in a movie, and if that shouldn't offend Buddhists, nothing should :p

[TragicMonkey]

Did the upset Muslims even see the cartoons, or just hear about them?

[Ryokan]

Did the upset Muslims even see the cartoons, or just hear about them?

From Wikipeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings#Rumours_and_misinformation) :

When the Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, they also brought an additional 13th image depicting Muhammad as a pig. This image has however never been published in Jyllands-Posten, but was still used as an argument to provoke an action. The society also allegedly exaggerated its membership and the hardships of Muslims in Denmark.

So there was a tour of the Middle East, showing the drawings. Heh.

And some lies, too. I wonder what the Holy Qur'an has to say about lying.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes it was. Stop derailing Ryokan's thread.Wow, what a hypocrite you are. You're the one keeping this going, and to top it off, you aren't even addressing my points, you've simply repeating assertions that I've already refuted, then complaing about my "derailing" the thread.

[Ryokan]

What is this, the Get The Last Word game?

[Vitnir]

In Swedish news it has been said that muslims in Denmark are not so upset, most who cares think they are tasteless if they bother to have an opinion. Muslims are unfortunately thought of as a group when they are anything from atheists to luke-warm belivers together with a fraction of nutters just like there is a fraction of nutters in any group.
In todays news it was reported that the goverment and the publisher has apologized for the offence but not the publication, nothing short of installation of a islamic state in Demnark would satisfy the nutter fraction.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, yes. As long as all the noise comes from the fundamentalists, people will tend to think they represent all moslems, which they obviously don't. However, now is a great opportunity for moderate moslems to change that. All they need to do is speak up and take a sensible stand, and most people will understand the difference.

RE, Bill Clinton: Bill Clinton who? :rolleyes:

Hans

[The_Fire]

Has anyone even told the riled up people in the middle east WHY the drawings were published? If I remember correctly, they were a reaction to deaththreats against the illustrator of one of danish author Kåre Bluitgen (sp?) books concerning the prophet Muhammed. Or have my memory taken a detour?

[David Swidler]

Has anyone even told the riled up people in the middle east WHY the drawings were published? If I remember correctly, they were a reaction to deaththreats against the illustrator of one of danish author Kåre Bluitgen (sp?) books concerning the prophet Muhammed. Or have my memory taken a detour?

That would just piss them off even more, adding insult to insult. If something is so serious as to provoke a death threat, the thinking goes, why be so insensitive as to publicly indulge in it?

[Mike B.]

Honestly is there free speech in the West if Islam is off the table?

Theo Van Gogh paid with his life in Holland because he refused to back down.
The woman he was working with still plans to go forward making films critical of Islam, yet she must be with a bodyguard all the time.

Of course we all remember Rushdie.

I think all countries that claim to respect free speech should stand in solidarity with the Danes and Norweigans.

[Ryokan]

There's an article in today's Dagbladet, about the editor of Magazinet, the Christian newspaper that published the drawings, and his motives for doing so.

Ville forby Gud å røyke

Redaktør Vebjørn K. Selbekk holder ytringsfriheten høyt etter å ha trykket Muhammed-tegningene. For to år siden mente han det var uakseptabelt at Gud røyker på teater.

Wanted to ban smoking God

Editor Vebjørn K. Selbekk holds freedom of speech highly after publishing Muhammed drawings. Two years ago he found it unacceptable that God smoked in the theater.

For to år siden gikk redaktør Selbekk på lederplass inn for å beholde blasfemiparagrafen i Straffeloven. Da mente han det var uakseptabelt med teaterstykker der Gud røykte og bannet.

Two years ago editor Selbekk wrote a lead piece for his newspaper, expressing his wish to keep the Blasphemy Law (a law making it illegal to blaspheme, this law is a sleeping law today in Norway). At that time he meant it was unacceptable with theatre shows where God smoked and cursed.

- Jeg står for lederartikkelen. Blasfemiparagrafen har eksistert siden 1933 uten å ha blitt brukt. Den er et symbol, en sovende paragraf, sa Selbekk.

- Du er for en sovende blasfemiparagraf?

- Ja, en symbolsk paragraf som viser at det finnes en grense for ytringer.

- I stand by that lead piece. The Blasphemy Law has existed since 1933 without having been used. It's a symbol, a sleeping law, said Selbekk.

- You support a sleeping Blasphemy Law?

- Yes, a symbolic law that shows there are limits to speech/expressions.

- Det Selbekk har gjort fyrer opp under islamhetsen vi finner i samfunnet, sier Unge Venstre-leder Lars-Henrik Michelsen.

Han er skeptisk til Selbekks motiver med å trykke tegningene:

- Jeg reagerer på at Selbekk sier han publiserer bildene i ytringsfrihetens navn. Han møter seg selv i døren når han selv har vært en av de sterkeste forsvarerne for blasfemiparagrafen, sier Michelsen til Dagbladet.no.

Selbekk has nourished the hate speech against Muslims we find in today's society, says the leader of the Liberal Youth, Lars-Henrik Michelsen.

He is sceptical of Selbekk's motives for publishing the drawings.

- I react strongly to the fact that he says he's publishing the pictures in the name of free speech, when he is himself one of the strongest supporters for the Blasphemy Law, says Michelsen to Dagbladet.

Advokat Abid Q. Raja, som møtte Selbekk i TV-debatten hos RedaksjonEN, tar sterk avstand fra truslene og flaggbrenningen etter publiseringen av tegningene.

- Man skal ikke komme med trusler, man skal ikke komme med drapstrusler, og man skulle ikke ha brent det norske flagget. Det er veldig synd at det er skjedd, sa advokaten.

Advokaten var likevel ikke nådig i sin kritikk av kristenredaktøren.

- Selbekk praktiserer selektiv ytringsfrihet. Han ville aldri trykket noe som støter kristne. Han er for blasfemiparagrafen. Det henger ikke i hop, å være for blasfemiparagrafen og samtidig komme med blasfemiske ytringer.

Lawyer Abib Q. Raja, who met Selbekk at a tv-debate, condemns the threats and flagburnings in the wake of the publishing of the drawings.

- You should not make threats, you should not make death threats, and you should not have burned the Norwegian flag. I'm very sorry that this has happened, says the lawyer.

The lawyer still condemned the Christian editor.

- Selbekk practices selective freedom of speech. He would never print anything that offends Christians. He supports the Blasphemy Law. It doesn't make sense, supporting the Blasphemy Law and at the same time blaspheme.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/31/456377.html)

I feel dirty dirty dirty dirty for supporting this guy's rights! I'm also glad that Lars Henrik Michelsen, a friend of mine and leader of the Liberal Youth, which I'm a member of, find time to critizise Selbekk for his selective freedom of speech, as he's usually a strong supporter for civil rights, and especially free speech.

I still support his rights to publish drawings like that, but I feel dirty.

I'm hitting the shower!

[Ed]

I feel dirty dirty dirty dirty for supporting this guy's rights! I'm also glad that Lars Henrik Michelsen, a friend of mine and leader of the Liberal Youth, which I'm a member of, find time to critizise Selbekk for his selective freedom of speech, as he's usually a strong supporter for civil rights, and especially free speech.

I still support his rights to publish drawings like that, but I feel dirty.

I'm hitting the shower!

By all means hit the shower but not for the reasons that you state.

It does not make any difference whatsoever to the principle of free speech when the speaker is repugnant or the speech is repugnant. That is in fact the best free speech. And the fact that you support free speech even when the speaker is questionable speaks volumes about your own integrity. You should feel good, not dirty.

[Ed]

From the Telegarph, today:


Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet
By David Rennie in Brussels
(Filed: 31/01/2006)
A Danish newspaper apologised to Muslims last night after provoking fury in the Arab world by running cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/04/wcartoon04.xml).

Pussys.

[Ryokan]

Pussys.

It should be noted that they apoligize for offending, not for publishing the drawings.

Here's the apology, on JyllandsPosten's own website, in English. (http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646)

[dann]

Wanted to ban smoking God

Editor Vebjørn K. Selbekk holds freedom of speech highly after publishing Muhammed drawings. Two years ago he found it unacceptable that God smoked in the theater. So do I!!!
If I´m not allowed to smoke in a theatre, God shouldn´t be allowed to do do so either!!!

[Ryokan]

So do I!!!
If I´m not allowed to smoke in a theatre, God shouldn´t be allowed to do do so either!!!

Good one :p

[Ed]

So do I!!!
If I´m not allowed to smoke in a theatre, God shouldn´t be allowed to do do so either!!!

I thank you for your support.

[MRC_Hans]

By all means hit the shower but not for the reasons that you state.

It does not make any difference whatsoever to the principle of free speech when the speaker is repugnant or the speech is repugnant. That is in fact the best free speech. And the fact that you support free speech even when the speaker is questionable speaks volumes about your own integrity. You should feel good, not dirty.I think this is an important point. It does not matter whether JP wanted to insult moslems or not. In a democracy, with a free press, it is allowed (although perhaps bad taste) to insult people. Our own politicians are insulted on a regular basis by our press.

This is what Moslem (and other) peoples and governments need to understand: In a democracy, you must be prepared to bear with insult. If this means they will not trade with us, then we must take our business elsewhere. Our democracy and free speach are NOT on sale.

Hans

[Ryokan]

Stoltenberg vil ikke beklage

Statsminister Jens Stoltenberg vil ikke beklage at en norsk avis har trykket karikaturtegninger av profeten Muhammed.

- Som statsminister i et land med ytringsfrihet kan jeg ikke beklage det som kommer på trykk i norske aviser, sier Stoltenberg. Men han er samtidig lei seg for at karikaturtegningene av profeten Muhammed har såret mange muslimers innerste religiøse følelser.

Stoltenberg will not apologize

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg will not apologize for a Norwegian newspaper publishing charicatures of the prophet Muhammed.

- As Prime Minister of a country with freedom of speech, I can't apologize for what's printed in Norwegian newspapers, says Stoltenberg. But at the same time he's sorry that the charicatures of the prophet Muhammed has hurt the deeply religious feelings of many Muslims

Stoltenberg ga klart uttrykk for at han mener det var galt og unødvendig å såre menneskers følelser ved å trykke tegningene. Men han sa samtidig at det blir helt feil når enkelte militante muslimer reagerer ved å brenne norske flagg.

På spørsmål om hva han selv ville ha gjort hvis han var avisredaktør, svarte Stoltenberg:

– Jeg er statsminister og ikke redaktør. Det er klart at ytringsfriheten også må gjelde ytringer man ikke liker. Men i et land med ytringsfrihet har alle et ansvar for å tenke gjennom hva som er klokt.

Stoltenberg made it clear that he things it was wrong and unneccesary to hurt peoples' feelings by publishing the drawings. But at the same time he said it's wrong when militant Muslims react by burning the Norwegian flag.

Questioned on what he would do himself if he was a newspaper editor, Stoltenberg replied:

- I'm a Prime Minister, not an editor. It's a matter of course that freedom of speech also includes speech you don't like. Men in a country with freedom of speech everyone has the responsibility to think through what they say.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/31/456407.html)

With a name like that, Stoltenberg should watch out so no one mistakes him for a Jew!

I'm really keeping you guys up to date on this, aren't I? :p

[Elind]

And even after I asked them nicely not to do it.

Oh, and why are you guys only posting Danish flags?

:nors:

Hmpf, wasn't animated! :p

Well they started it, but I'll bet you a bunch of grapes that the islamic woos can't tell the difference between one Scandinavian and another, so let's fly them all.

:den::nors::sw:

(Sorry the Norwegian is such a stiff one.)

[Ryokan]

Well they started it, but I'll bet you a bunch of grapes that the islamic woos can't tell the difference between one Scandinavian and another, so let's fly them all.


Case in point, they're threatening Swedes, yet the Swedes haven't posted the drawings :p

[Elind]

Case in point, they're threatening Swedes, yet the Swedes haven't posted the drawings :p

I'm tempted say I hope they do, even though it may serve no good purpose, but while we're on the subject you may have seen a an analysis of a question I have:

The Muslim prohibition against and images, including Mohammed, is well known (even his name can't be mentioned without the kneejerk "PBUH" qualifier), but is this prohibition actually stated specifically with regard to Muslims, or is it phrased so as to be applicable to infidels as well?

[Ryokan]

The Muslim prohibition against and images, including Mohammed, is well known (even his name can't be mentioned without the kneejerk "PBUH" qualifier), but is this prohibition actually stated specifically with regard to Muslims, or is it phrased so as to be applicable to infidels as well?

I have no idea.

I assume it's something like the (original and exstended) first commandment. But really, I have no idea.

[Mark]

I'm tempted say I hope they do, even though it may serve no good purpose, but while we're on the subject you may have seen a an analysis of a question I have:

The Muslim prohibition against and images, including Mohammed, is well known (even his name can't be mentioned without the kneejerk "PBUH" qualifier), but is this prohibition actually stated specifically with regard to Muslims, or is it phrased so as to be applicable to infidels as well?

From the Q'uran:

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger [Muhammad]with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.

[dann]

From the Q'uran: And what does "idolater" mean in that context?

[Mark]

And what does "idolater" mean in that context?

A non-Muslim. In context, it seems pretty clear Christians and Jews specifically.

[Ryokan]

From the Q'uran:

Are you sure that's it? Nothing in there about 'thou shalt not' make images of Muhammed.

[Ed]

This is what Moslem (and other) peoples and governments need to understand: In a democracy, you must be prepared to bear with insult. If this means they will not trade with us, then we must take our business elsewhere. Our democracy and free speach are NOT on sale.

Hans

Indeed, indeed.

There seems to be a bright line forming on this issue.

[Ed]

:den::nors::sw:

(Sorry the Norwegian is such a stiff one.)

:jaw-dropp


no other comment necessary.

[Mark]

Are you sure that's it? Nothing in there about 'thou shalt not' make images of Muhammed.

Some of them...I'm still looking, tough, for verses specifically dealing with saying the name of Muhhamad and such. May take a while, since I am not a Muslim and haven't read the thing cover to cover.

[LW]

A non-Muslim. In context, it seems pretty clear Christians and Jews specifically.

It is not so clear. The Quran specifies two different classes of unbelievers (eg. in Sura 98): 'People of the Book' (Christians and Jews) and 'polytheists'.

I don't understand Arabic so I can't say for certain whether the 'idolator' means all unbelievers or only either of the two groups. But I do know that in a modern Finnish translation of Quran, the word that is used in Sura 9 is 'pakana' that is also used in Sura 98 to denote the 'polytheists' and I haven't been able to find a Quran verse where the word is used to denote Christians or Jews.

So, to me it seems more likely that in the context of the verse 'idolator' either means all unbelievers or it specifically excludes Christians and Jews.

[Darat]

Are you sure that's it? Nothing in there about 'thou shalt not' make images of Muhammed.

See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/KT1-chap-58.html

[Mark]

See: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abdulwahab/KT1-chap-58.html

Near as I can tell there is no specific verse in the Q'uran about speaking Muhammad's name or presenting his likeness. It seems to be tradition. Have you found anything specific?

The quote in the article you posted doesn't seem to be about Muhammad. Or am I misinterpreting it?

Also, is "Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 58" from the Q'uran at all? I can't seem to find it.

[Darat]

Near as I can tell there is no specific verse in the Q'uran about speaking Muhammad's name or presenting his likeness. It seems to be tradition. Have you found anything specific?

Nope - but I've not read the Koran for many a year and only ever read it all the way through a couple of times.

(ETA) As far as I can tell it is not a prohibition in the Koran but it's appears in at least one of the hadith that each of the major denominations abide by.

[Darat]

Near as I can tell there is no specific verse in the Q'uran about speaking Muhammad's name or presenting his likeness. It seems to be tradition. Have you found anything specific?

The quote in the article you posted doesn't seem to be about Muhammad. Or am I misinterpreting it?

Also, is "Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 58" from the Q'uran at all? I can't seem to find it.

No that refers to the haddith it is found in. The site I referenced is a great site for looking up ahadeeth. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

[Mark]

No that refers to the haddith it is found in. The site I referenced is a great site for looking up ahadeeth. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

Thanks...I have been trying to examine the Q'uran is my spare time and find it confusing, to say the least.

[Darat]

Thanks...I have been trying to examine the Q'uran is my spare time and find it confusing, to say the least.

And then you have to add in all the other "teachings" such as the haddith, always remembering some denominations don't consider some of them relevant, some consider some as guidelines only and so on.

[Mark]

And then you have to add in all the other "teachings" such as the haddith, always remembering some denominations don't consider some of them relevant, some consider some as guidelines only and so on.

My brain hurts. ;)

[Manny]

Veddy interesting. (http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/)

[Ryokan]

BREAKING NEWS!

There's been a bomb threat against JyllandsPosten. Evacuation started at 1710 local time.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/01/31/456422.html)

[Vitnir]

Personally I don't find the cartoons offending if Muhammed had been replaced with Einstein which is the closest to a god I think of now, perhaps boring or tasteless.
I'd say lets publish them in Sweden as well just to spite the nutters.

[TragicMonkey]

I recall, from art history class, that there wasn't a universal Muslim prohibition on images of Muhammed. At some points, and in some places, Muslim artists depicted him. Sometimes they depicted him without a face, though. There have been conflicting beliefs on the propriety of images. Some, like the Taliban, followed the tradition that any images of anything were wrong: hence, the only art would be geometric designs and abstraction. Others happily depicted Muhammed riding up to heaven , teaching his disciples, etc. Some went middle-of-the-road and avoided depicting humans but had no issues with birds, animals, and flowers.

Here's a couple:

http://www.sufischool.org/prophet/muhammad%20on%20buraq_small.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Image13.JPG

I wonder if the people making the fuss about the cartoons would make a fuss about these two images? Was it the fact that Muhammed was depicted that enrages them, or that it was done with what they perceive as disrespect?

[Giz]

Actively participating and "support" are not necessarily the same thing, are they? (And you left out France.) And, although not part of the free world, Russia's alliance with us should not be ignored either.

To suggest the current situation in Iraq in any way mirrors that of WWII stretches the bounds of credibility, whatever side of the issue one is on, I should think.

That's moving the conversation... what I don't understand is why you feel that the (rather nebulous) "support of the whole world" was so important in running the post war occupations?

Was the moral authority of the rest of the world going to cow the ex-SS veterans? "Oh no, Brazil has joined the Allies a month after the War in Europe is finished... what chance a resistance now?!"

FWIW:
February 15 1945 Venezuela and Uruguay declare war on Germany and Japan.
April 11 1945 Chile declares war on Japan.
April 11 1945 Spain breaks diplomatic relations with Japan.
June 6 1945 Brazil declares war on Japan.

Yeah, what a moral mandate from the rest of the world... truth be told I am a little disapointed in them... disapointed that they couldn't spot the winners earlier...

[Mark]

That's moving the conversation... what I don't understand is why you feel that the (rather nebulous) "support of the whole world" was so important in running the post war occupations?

Was the moral authority of the rest of the world going to cow the ex-SS veterans? "Oh no, Brazil has joined the Allies a month after the War in Europe is finished... what chance a resistance now?!"

FWIW:
February 15 1945 Venezuela and Uruguay declare war on Germany and Japan.
April 11 1945 Chile declares war on Japan.
April 11 1945 Spain breaks diplomatic relations with Japan.
June 6 1945 Brazil declares war on Japan.

Yeah, what a moral mandate from the rest of the world... truth be told I am a little disapointed in them... disapointed that they couldn't spot the winners earlier...


You don't think the support of the rest of the world would help us in Iraq? Well, neither does Bush, obviously.

[Skeptic]

Once more, Islamic fundamentalists threathen with death everybody who "disgraced their religion" by claiming it is violent and terroristic. They are threathening a campaign of suicide bombers to blow up the painter... for painting a picture of Muhammad as a suicide bomber.

I wonder: using this logic, suppose I drew a cartoon of Muslim women engaging willingly in hot sex with everybody who asks. Will the Muslim world protest by sending a team of commando Islamic hot babes to my house to have wild sex with me until I admit, in exhaustion, that Muslim women are not sexually promiscious?

This has possibilites...

[Ziggurat]

This has possibilites...

It's only a matter of time now before we see Snoop hosting "Jihotties gone wild!" videos.

[CFLarsen]

Update: The bomb was merely a threat.

[dann]

The caricatures on page two of this thread:

1: Somebody with a turban, Mohammed?, pulling a donkey. I may have overlooked something, but I don't get it the point. However, I do remember that Per Madsen, a former mayor of Ishøj, a suburb of Copenhagen with many immigrants, used to refer to foreign labourers from Turkey as "pullers of donkeys" (æseltrækkere: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/dansk/madsen1.htm ), so it may be a way of portraying the prophet as a mere "æseltrækker". Not very funny. Condescending -if that is the case.

2. Halo/Crescent: Mohammed (?) with a halo-like crescent. The similarity between Christian and Moslem saints?

3. Crescent and star: Obviously Moslem symbols, but what is the idea? That Moslems are only able to see the world through their 'Moslem eyeglasses'? And that somehow makes them different from other believers???

4. Moslem man 'protecting' his two wives with a scimitar? Depicting Moslem men as medieval, misogynic oppressors, 'blind' to the plight of women? (Is it even supposed to be Mohammed?)

5. I just don't think it's funny: Suicide bombers arriving at the door of Heaven, where the Moslem equivalent of Saint Peter tells them that they've run out of virgins? I guess this is supposed to be some kind of critique of suicide bombing, but I don't really see how it would persuade ANYONE from doing things like hijacking planes and steering them into the Twin Towers. Not even in Denmark do people seriously believe that this is what motivated the followers of Bin Laden.

6. Valbyskole: The boy's T-shirt says: The future. He's a seventh grade pupil in a school in Copenhagen. (And Jyllands Posten's journalists actually ARE "a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", so the future seems bright indeed!)

7. Anxious cartoonist afraid of making a drawing of Mohammed. Seems to be an exaggeration of the present situation.

8. Line-up of people dressed like 'prophets': I don't regognize most of them. One of them, number two from the left, is Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the political party Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), based on xenophobia. Kåre Bluitgen, the guy to the right (probably not a coincidence), is the writer who started the whole thing in the first place. His sign reads: "Kåre PR - Call me for an offer." Kåre Bluitgen used to be a left-winger in the seventies and eighties, now a right-wing instigator of smear campaigns against Moslem immigrants in the newspaper JyllandsPosten: http://www.jp.dk/morgenavisen/mmeninger:aid=3507978/ (in Danish!)
The message of the caricature seems to be: There are an awful lot of fundamentalists involved in this case, and most of them aren't Moslem but Danish xenophobes!
I tend to agree!!!

9. I don't get the caricature. Moslem symbols, but ...? The text says: "Prophet. Bats in the bellfry, keeps the women under the yoke." It rhymes in Danish, but it is not particularly funny - or true - as a description of what characterizes Moslems as opposed to other religions.

10. You don't see any depiction, but apparently the guy is looking at a copy of one of the caricatures. The moral seems to be: The situation has got out of hand. Sensible people (and the sensible guy seems to be a Moslem!) aren't even allowed to say so! (The translation missed the word "vantro": He alså refers to the Dane as an "infidel"!)

11. Bomb in turban: Clinton seems to be right: "... criticized what he referred to as a tendency to generalize negative news about militant Moslems." What would people in Europe think of the depiction of IRA bombers stressing the fact that they were Christians?

12. Kåre Bluitgen with an orange in his turban. Text: "PR-stunt". 'To have an orange in the turban' is an old Danish saying. It means: to have a stroke of luck! The caricature actually criticizes Kåre Bluitgen, just like number 4 above!

I still think that Clinton exaggerates: "He described the ten drawings in the Danish newspaper as 'appalling' ..." But then again: in this debate everybody seems to do so!

[Skeptic]

Update: The bomb was merely a threat.

Give 'em time.

But, jeez. These cartoon are obviously very insulting to Muslims (and most of them, to artistic talent as well): imagine cartoons about jews, say, with similar stereotypes painted in a similar way.

But what is the reaction? In effect, "you painted us as violent people! We will kill you for that!".

I mean, if someone drew a caricature of jews controlling the world through money, I'm sure the jewish community would protest--but not by issuing a call, on the world bank's stationary, calling for all the banks to raise interest rates for Goyim from Denmark until the paskundyak who drew those feh!-incuding cartoons apologizes...

[dann]

"but I don't really see how it would persuade ANYONE from doing things like hijacking planes and steering them into the Twin Towers"
should have been: "... persuade anyone TO REFRAIN from doing things like ..."

[dann]

At that time he meant it was unacceptable with theatre shows where God smoked and cursed.
I thank you for your support.
You're welcome! And your swearing doesn't bother me at all!

[CFLarsen]

1: Somebody with a turban, Mohammed?, pulling a donkey. I may have overlooked something, but I don't get it the point. However, I do remember that Per Madsen, a former mayor of Ishøj, a suburb of Copenhagen with many immigrants, used to refer to foreign labourers from Turkey as "pullers of donkeys" (æseltrækkere: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/dansk/madsen1.htm ), so it may be a way of portraying the prophet as a mere "æseltrækker". Not very funny. Condescending -if that is the case.

Not even. Donkeys are an integral part of the Arab world - it's just a very humble occupation, similar to when Jesus rode on a donkey, when he entered Jerusalem. So what? I don't view it as degrading at all. It's just a depiction. BFD.

2. Halo/Crescent: Mohammed (?) with a halo-like crescent. The similarity between Christian and Moslem saints?

Absolutely. Clever imagery.

3. Crescent and star: Obviously Moslem symbols, but what is the idea? That Moslems are only able to see the world through their 'Moslem eyeglasses'? And that somehow makes them different from other believers???

I saw it as a "blackened eye" (only green). A bit crude drawing, but not really making any point. Oh, well.

4. Moslem man 'protecting' his two wives with a scimitar? Depicting Moslem men as medieval, misogynic oppressors, 'blind' to the plight of women? (Is it even supposed to be Mohammed?)

You're missing the point: While all you are allowed to see of Muslim women is the eyes, the only thing you can't see of Mohammed is the eyes.

5. I just don't think it's funny: Suicide bombers arriving at the door of Heaven, where the Moslem equivalent of Saint Peter tells them that they've run out of virgins? I guess this is supposed to be some kind of critique of suicide bombing, but I don't really see how it would persuade ANYONE from doing things like hijacking planes and steering them into the Twin Towers. Not even in Denmark do people seriously believe that this is what motivated the followers of Bin Laden.

Oh, I dunno. While the St. Peter allegory (get it? "gory" - ha, ha) is misplaced, it does serve a point: If you keep this up, there's no way there will be enough virgins for all of you.

Incidentally: If you become a martyr, you will get 72 virgins for eternity. Question is, will you get 72 virgins for eternity (thereby running out of virgins in less than 3 months), or will they be virgins for eternity? Neither is particularly enticing.

Of course, since they all will have PMS for eternity.... :D

6. Valbyskole: The boy's T-shirt says: The future. He's a seventh grade pupil in a school in Copenhagen. (And Jyllands Posten's journalists actually ARE "a bunch of reactionary provocateurs", so the future seems bright indeed!)

OK, this I didn't get. It's not particularly funny, but I fail to see what is so offending about it.

7. Anxious cartoonist afraid of making a drawing of Mohammed. Seems to be an exaggeration of the present situation.

Nope. This is exacly what spawned this debate: That some illustrators felt they couldn't draw what they would.

8. Line-up of people dressed like 'prophets': I don't regognize most of them. One of them, number two from the left, is Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the political party Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), based on xenophobia. Kåre Bluitgen, the guy to the right (probably not a coincidence), is the writer who started the whole thing in the first place. His sign reads: "Kåre PR - Call me for an offer." Kåre Bluitgen used to be a left-winger in the seventies and eighties, now a right-wing instigator of smear campaigns against Moslem immigrants in the newspaper JyllandsPosten: http://www.jp.dk/morgenavisen/mmeninger:aid=3507978/ (in Danish!)
The message of the caricature seems to be: There are an awful lot of fundamentalists involved in this case, and most of them aren't Moslem but Danish xenophobes!
I tend to agree!!!

I think the point is that we should recognize that leaders - be they religious, political or otherwise - kind of resemble each other. Rather scathing.

9. I don't get the caricature. Moslem symbols, but ...? The text says: "Prophet. Bats in the bellfry, keeps the women under the yoke." It rhymes in Danish, but it is not particularly funny - or true - as a description of what characterizes Moslems as opposed to other religions.

I don't get it either. It is crudely drawn, and the rhyme is also crude. Oh, well. Freedom of speech...

10. You don't see any depiction, but apparently the guy is looking at a copy of one of the caricatures. The moral seems to be: The situation has got out of hand. Sensible people (and the sensible guy seems to be a Moslem!) aren't even allowed to say so! (The translation missed the word "vantro": He alså refers to the Dane as an "infidel"!)

Agree.

11. Bomb in turban: Clinton seems to be right: "... criticized what he referred to as a tendency to generalize negative news about militant Moslems." What would people in Europe think of the depiction of IRA bombers stressing the fact that they were Christians?

I don't know, but perhaps some would find it to-the-point. This is possibly the most controversial drawing, because it draws a line directly between Islam and terrorism. While I don't agree with the overall idea, I see the point of stressing that some radical Muslims abuse Mohammed's teachings to promote their insane terrorist ideas.

12. Kåre Bluitgen with an orange in his turban. Text: "PR-stunt". 'To have an orange in the turban' is an old Danish saying. It means: to have a stroke of luck! The caricature actually criticizes Kåre Bluitgen, just like number 4 above!

Which is why it is important to publish is: It emphasizes what this is about: Freedom of speech, no matter who it "hits".

I still think that Clinton exaggerates: "He described the ten drawings in the Danish newspaper as 'appalling' ..." But then again: in this debate everybody seems to do so!

I don't. Some of the drawings are appalling in their artistic rendering, and with some I just don't see the point. But I fail to see why any of these should cause such an uproar.

Shortly after this, a Turkish newspaper published a cartoon where (IIRC) the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in bed with Saddam Hussein. Meant as a provocation to see what the reaction of the Danish government would be, it totally backfired: It was lame compared to what Danish politicians "endure" in our two Christmas satirical publications, "The Octopus" and the "Svikmøllen".

It takes much more than that to piss anyone off here. Which kinda emphasizes the point: Freedom of speech can be a bitch, but is sure is a necesssity in a modern society.

[Ed]

7. Anxious cartoonist afraid of making a drawing of Mohammed. Seems to be an exaggeration of the present situation.

Seems like exactly what some moslems desire.

11. Bomb in turban: Clinton seems to be right: "... criticized what he referred to as a tendency to generalize negative news about militant Moslems."

Ummmm and this generalization about militant moslems is wrong because? Again, dead on.

It seems that your major critisism is that either you don't like the style of drawing or get the joke. Thats cool. Freedom of speech is also freedom to be dumb.

[dann]

Not even. Donkeys are an integral part of the Arab world - it's just a very humble occupation, similar to when Jesus rode on a donkey, when he entered Jerusalem. So what? I don't view it as degrading at all. It's just a depiction. BFD. To pull a donkey is not something that I see as degrading, but that is obviously not the way Per Madsen looked on it. So why depict Mohammed with a donkey, Claus?
You're missing the point: While all you are allowed to see of Muslim women is the eyes, the only thing you can't see of Mohammed is the eyes. And so what?
Incidentally: If you become a martyr, you will get 72 virgins for eternity. Question is, will you get 72 virgins for eternity (thereby running out of virgins in less than 3 months), or will they be virgins for eternity? Neither is particularly enticing. I think Dennis Miller had a better way of putting it: The first two or three virgins, well, OK, but then you start longing for a pro ...
Nope. This is exacly what spawned this debate: That some illustrators felt they couldn't draw what they would. There are a lot of unemployed illustrators, and not because of Moslem repression ...
I think the point is that we should recognize that leaders - be they religious, political or otherwise - kind of resemble each other. Rather scathing. Kåre Bluitgen is not a leader of anything.
I see the point of stressing that some radical Muslims abuse Mohammed's teachings to promote their insane terrorist ideas.How do you see that this caricature stresses that only SOME Moslems abuse Mohammed? (And where do you see "abuse"?)
I don't. Some of the drawings are appalling in their artistic rendering, and with some I just don't see the point.And of course this is why Clinton called them appalling! For artistic reasons! Come on, Claus!
It takes much more than that to piss anyone off here. Which kinda emphasizes the point: Freedom of speech can be a bitch, but is sure is a necesssity in a modern society.Freedom of speech is an interesting subject, but it's not the point in this case. The point is Moslem bashing, Claus! See how the staunch defender of freedom of speech, the Norwegian editor quoted by Ryoki on page 2 of this thread, developed these tendencies very recently.

[Ed]

Freedom of speech is an interesting subject, but it's not the point in this case. The point is Moslem bashing, Claus! See how the staunch defender of freedom of speech, the Norwegian editor quoted by Ryoki on page 2 of this thread, developed these tendencies very recently.

It is precisely the point. Hurt feelings are not a reason to limit speech.

Note to add:

Is this bashing?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502tn.jpg

[Art Vandelay]

The Old Testament prohibits all depictions of things "of the heaven or the earth", and Muslims claim to consider the OT to be Scripture. Of course, Christians and Jews do, too, but that doesn't stop them.

[dann]

Hurt feelings are not a reason to limit speech.I never said it was! The point of Arab bashing, however, is not to defend the freedom of speech. Look again at the Norwegian editor!
Ummmm and this generalization about militant moslems is wrong because? Again, dead on. It's wrong because it's a generalization! What's the point of stressing that Moslem bombers are Moslems, when you never emphasize that the bombers in the Coalition of the Willing are Christian? If only Timothy Mcveigh had been a Moslem ...

[dann]

Note to add:

Is this bashing? It looks more like crucifixion, but it's a little slurred.

[Mycroft]

It looks more like crucifixion, but it's a little slurred.

That's a famous work, I'm surprised you don't recognize it.

[Ed]

I never said it was! The point of Arab bashing, however, is not to defend the freedom of speech. Look again at the Norwegian editor!
It's wrong because it's a generalization! What's the point of stressing that Moslem bombers are Moslems, when you never emphasize that the bombers in the Coalition of the Willing are Christian? If only Timothy Mcveigh had been a Moslem ...

Are you saying that the military targets, with malice aforethought, women and children wohse deaths serve no particular purpose? Are you saying that these soldiers are killing because they are christian?

And free speech is free. Make fun, ridicule, generalize do what you want.

[Ed]

It looks more like crucifixion, but it's a little slurred.

It is art my friend. That is Piss Christ. I am sure that it will occupy the same exhalted altar as works by the Renaissance masters.

[Mycroft]

I never said it was! The point of Arab bashing, however, is not to defend the freedom of speech. Look again at the Norwegian editor!
It's wrong because it's a generalization! What's the point of stressing that Moslem bombers are Moslems, when you never emphasize that the bombers in the Coalition of the Willing are Christian? If only Timothy Mcveigh had been a Moslem ...

There is a huge difference between a bomber who is Muslim and a bomber who is motivated to be a bomber by his belief in Islam.

Nobody became a soldier in the coalition forces because they are Christian. Many of those soldiers are not Christian.

Timothy McVeigh did not bomb the Federal Building because he is a Christian. Honestly, I don't recall that it was ever reported that he is christian.

[dann]

That's a famous work, I'm surprised you don't recognize it.So what?! Do you consider Piss Christ a way of defending your high ideals of Western civilization, or what?
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
(I wouldn't want to see it in my house!)

[dann]

Honestly, I don't recall that it was ever reported that he is christian.Nor was it very important to stress that Timothy McVeigh was an American!

[Ed]

So what?! Do you consider Piss Christ a way of defending your high ideals of Western civilization, or what?
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
(I wouldn't want to see it in my house!)

I wouldn't want it to leak in my house.

[dann]

Are you saying that these soldiers are killing because they are christian? No. Are you saying that the suicide bombers are killing because they are Moslem?

[Ed]

No. Are you saying that the suicide bombers are killing because they are Moslem?

Yes. The specific teachings that they follow either justify or demand murder.

[TragicMonkey]

Yes. The specific teachings that they follow either justify or demand murder.

In which case there would be many more suicide bombers all over the world, in every country with Muslims resident.

These particular suicide bombers do what they do because of their politics and religion together. Muslims with different politics don't become suicide bombers.

[dann]

Yes. The specific teachings that they follow either justify or demand murder. Which, of course, is why they choose to follow these specific teachings. You know as well as I do that believers pick and choose - and the Quran probably isn't less self-contradictory than the Christian bible. So they don't kill because they are Moslem - which is a relief since there are an awful lot of them out there!

[Mike B.]

There is a huge difference between a bomber who is Muslim and a bomber who is motivated to be a bomber by his belief in Islam.

Nobody became a soldier in the coalition forces because they are Christian. Many of those soldiers are not Christian.

Timothy McVeigh did not bomb the Federal Building because he is a Christian. Honestly, I don't recall that it was ever reported that he is christian.

I believe he was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, but claimed to be an "agnostic."

I think he did agree to talk to a priest though shortly before his death.

I always thought that was a lame analogy that is trotted out from time to time. McVeigh's agenda was anti-Federal Government anti-gun control, etc. It is not as if he was attempting to establish Roman Catholic Canon law as the US law.

[DanishDynamite]

Worth repeating.

Tell us about your prime minister who appears to be able to teach an ex american president something about free speech.
Link (http://www.ft.dk/BAGGRUND/Biografier/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen.htm)

Click the link marked "Hent Anders Fogh Rasmussens engelske biografi som PDF" and you'll get his bio as PDF.

In short, Fogh is the leader of the Liberal Party. Their stance is described here (http://www.venstre.dk/index.php?id=727). They are basically a tamed version of the Libertarians. :)

[DanishDynamite]

It should be noted that they apoligize for offending, not for publishing the drawings.

Here's the apology, on JyllandsPosten's own website, in English. (http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646)
Worth repeating.

Apology that some were offended, not for publishing.

[DanishDynamite]

Manny, I love your new avatar! :)

Just read an article in Jyllands-Posten about an American woman (Judith Alter Klinghoffer) who had started a "Buy Danish" campaign in the US as support for the enclamored Danes. Given your new avatar I wonder if you have heard about it?

[DanishDynamite]

Dann, please stick to fighting supernatural woo-woos. Politicaly, you are an embarrassment.

[Manny]

Manny, I love your new avatar! :)

Just read an article in Jyllands-Posten about an American woman (Judith Alter Klinghoffer) who had started a "Buy Danish" campaign in the US as support for the enclamored Danes. Given your new avatar I wonder if you have heard about it?Not her specifically, but the idea is percolating across the blogosphere and I swiped the icon (with permission) from someone out there.

Always happy to help a friend -- I only wish you guys exported more consumer products. I did encourage a plastics company today to consider buying some Danish extruding equipment, but I didn't get much more than a polite nod in response and I don't know if that's the kind of industrial machinery you specialize in anyways!

Any suggestions of foodstuffs (beyond the obvious) that I should try?

[gtc]

lego af Dansk, nej?*

*Pardon the online translation.

[WildCat]

Manny, I love your new avatar! :)
I thought he was you for a minute! :eek:

[Elind]

Worth repeating.

Apology that some were offended, not for publishing.

Begs the question how one can apologize on behalf of someone else's feelings, or for their failures.

[Skeptic]

No. Are you saying that the suicide bombers are killing because they are Moslem?

Yes, certainly. Their faith in Islam, or in their version of Islam, is an essential and necessary, though of course not sufficient, part of the motivation.

[Mycroft]

So what?! Do you consider Piss Christ a way of defending your high ideals of Western civilization, or what?
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/serrano.html
(I wouldn't want to see it in my house!)

In a way, yes.

You see the Piss Christ, a photograph of a crucifix submerged in piss, should be far more offensive to Christians than are any of these cartoon renditions of Muhammad are to Muslims. It was deliberately provocative, and Christians were understandably upset with it.

Yet, as upset as they were, nobody threatened to kill anyone over it. There were protests, but they were local. Nobody tried to organize an international boycott of the nation that produced it. It was understood that as offensive as the work was, that the freedom of the artist who made it would prevail.

I consider it a triumph of Western Civilization, even though I also consider the work offensive. The triumph is not the work itself, but that our civilization tolerates it.

Nor was it very important to stress that Timothy McVeigh was an American!

You’re kidding, right? That Timothy McVeigh was American was critically important. He was home grown terrorism. The whole point of what he did was that he was an American who was upset (in a psychotic sort of way) with his own government.

No. Are you saying that the suicide bombers are killing because they are Moslem?

In part, yes.

From London, to Madrid, to Jerusalem, to Bali, to New York City, and many more places all over the globe, Muslim people are committing suicide bombings because of their faith.

Of course that’s not the same as saying all Muslims are potential suicide-bombers, only that for the ones that are, Islam is a very powerful part of their motivation.

[Skeptic]

In which case there would be many more suicide bombers all over the world, in every country with Muslims resident.

These particular suicide bombers do what they do because of their politics and religion together. Muslims with different politics don't become suicide bombers.

Not quite.

Muslims with a different views of Islamic religion don't become suicide bombers. Religion is the basis: it is because of their religion that they have such "political" goals (i.e., "push the jews into the sea!" "expell the infidels from the middle east!" "establish Islamic law in Europe!", etc.) in the first place.

The political goals of radical Islam come from the religious commitment--as they see it--for establishing an Islamic world state. The "root causers"--those who think this radical religious commitment is a result of "secular" political struggle--have it precisely the wrong way around.

When Mr. Muhammad, a Muslim, refuses to join this Jihad, it's not because he thinks, "Well, my religion does command me to slaughter all infidels, like bin Laden said, but my commitment to the social contract theory and rights of man forbids it, so I won't." It's not an essentially political disagreement he has with the bin Ladens.

Rather, when other Muslims refrain from killing in the name of Islam, that's usually because they either think this demand is really a pervesion of Islam, or that Islam might have demanded it in the past and no longer does now, or simply because they don't take their nominal religion all that seriously and don't care too much what it theoretically demands (which is probably the usual case--Christians, too, usually ignore the "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" or "he who lies with men will surely be killed" bits nowadays.) It's a religious, not political, disagreement which they have with the radical Muslims.

[Tony4245]

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

Canada, eh?

[TragicMonkey]

Not quite.

Muslims with a different views of Islamic religion don't become suicide bombers. Religion is the basis: it is because of their religion that they have such "political" goals (i.e., "push the jews into the sea!" "expell the infidels from the middle east!" "establish Islamic law in Europe!", etc.) in the first place.

The political goals of radical Islam come from the religious commitment--as they see it--for establishing an Islamic world state. The "root causers"--those who think this radical religious commitment is a result of "secular" political struggle--have it precisely the wrong way around.

When Mr. Muhammad, a Muslim, refuses to join this Jihad, it's not because he thinks, "Well, my religion does command me to slaughter all infidels, like bin Laden said, but my commitment to the social contract theory and rights of man forbids it, so I won't." It's not an essentially political disagreement he has with the bin Ladens.

Rather, when other Muslims refrain from killing in the name of Islam, that's usually because they either think this demand is really a pervesion of Islam, or that Islam might have demanded it in the past and no longer does now, or simply because they don't take their nominal religion all that seriously and don't care too much what it theoretically demands (which is probably the usual case--Christians, too, usually ignore the "thou shall not suffer a witch to live" or "he who lies with men will surely be killed" bits nowadays.) It's a religious, not political, disagreement which they have with the radical Muslims.

I'm a little amazed that you apparently find no political dimension in the whole Palestine/Israel thing, only religious ones!

[Tony4245]

I mean, if someone drew a caricature of jews controlling the world through money, I'm sure the jewish community would protest--but not by issuing a call, on the world bank's stationary, calling for all the banks to raise interest rates for Goyim from Denmark until the paskundyak who drew those feh!-incuding cartoons apologizes...

Oy.

The very idea has me so verklempt I could plotz.

[Mycroft]

I'm a little amazed that you apparently find no political dimension in the whole Palestine/Israel thing, only religious ones!

What he's saying is if it wern't for the religion, the political goals would have been different, and not something to wage suicide-terror over. He's not saying there is no political dimension.

[CFLarsen]

To pull a donkey is not something that I see as degrading, but that is obviously not the way Per Madsen looked on it. So why depict Mohammed with a donkey, Claus?

Why not? It's a caricature, which necessitates boiling down some features.

And so what?

That's the pun.

I think Dennis Miller had a better way of putting it: The first two or three virgins, well, OK, but then you start longing for a pro ...

Hehehe....

There are a lot of unemployed illustrators, and not because of Moslem repression ...

True. However, this whole issue stems from Bluitgen's book, which some artists felt they couldn't safely illustrate.

Kåre Bluitgen is not a leader of anything.

True. But putting him there is funny: Can people recognize him in a line-up?

How do you see that this caricature stresses that only SOME Moslems abuse Mohammed? (And where do you see "abuse"?)

Because we all know that not all Muslims interpret the Koran in this insane, abusing way. If they did, we'd have millions of Osamas.

And of course this is why Clinton called them appalling! For artistic reasons! Come on, Claus!

Hey, he can say what he thinks of the illustrations, and so can I.

Freedom of speech is an interesting subject, but it's not the point in this case. The point is Moslem bashing, Claus!

Nope. The point is very much freedom of speech. How far can we go in a modern society?

See how the staunch defender of freedom of speech, the Norwegian editor quoted by Ryoki on page 2 of this thread, developed these tendencies very recently.

Hypocrites are everywhere, even in Norway.

It's wrong because it's a generalization! What's the point of stressing that Moslem bombers are Moslems, when you never emphasize that the bombers in the Coalition of the Willing are Christian? If only Timothy Mcveigh had been a Moslem ...

I've seen some depictions in the US press of anti-abortionists being depicted with Christian paraphernalia. The reason why we haven't seen the Coalition being depicted as Christian is because it isn't a religious issue.

JyllandsPosten: Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World (http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646)

[Art Vandelay]

Sometimes I wonder if there's some sort of Abner Doon like character behind Islam, determined to piss off as many people as possible.

[dann]

Originally posted by Ryokan:
It should be noted that they apoligize for offending, not for publishing the drawings.Here's the apology, on JyllandsPosten's own website, in English."
Worth repeating.
Apology that some were offended, not for publishing.

It should be noted that Moslems are upset right now because Jyllands Posten apparently says one thing abroad and another thing to their Danish audience. Their problem right now seems to be: How do we apologize to the Moslems without making it too obvious back home that we are not as cocky as we used to be. (A proud Danish tradition!)
Same thing in the case of your hero, Anders Fogh Rasmussen! It seems like a very long time ago when he could have solved this conflict by meeting with the Moslem ambassadors (as they required!) and simply saying (as he's saying now): 'I don't like these caricatures of your prophet.' It would have been so easy to spare himself the embarrassment he is now facing, but it's no real concern of mine.

The noble art of losing face ....

Dann, please stick to fighting supernatural woo-woos. Politicaly, you are an embarrassment.If I had been a Danish nationalist like you, I might have been embarrassed by the whole affair by now. As it is, however, I'm not.
Please stick to your own business, DD.

[dann]

Kalle. Sie waren Demokraten und haben darauf bestanden, dass jeder das Recht haben muss, einen Witz zu machen. Sie haben eine sozialdemokratische Regierung gehabt und den Ministerpräsidenten nur behalten, weil sein Bart so komisch war.
Zipfel. Sie waren alle überzeugt, dass der Faschismus bei ihnen nicht geht, weil sie zuviel Humor haben. Sie leben mehr oder weniger vom Schweineverkauf und so haben sie sich mit den Deutschen gut stellen müssen, denn die haben Schweine gebraucht, aber sie haben über sich selber gute Witze gemacht, dass man bei Schweinverkaufen leise treten muss, weils sonst dem Schwein schadet. Der Faschismus hat sich leider nicht daran gestossen, dass er in Dänemark nicht ernst genommen worden ist, sondern ist eines Morgens mit einem Dutzend Flugzeuge in der Luft erschienen und hat alles besetzt. Die Dänen haben immer versichert, dass ihr Humor leider nicht übersetzbar ist, weil er aus lauter ganz kleinen sprachlichen Wendungen besteht, die eine eigene Komik haben, das mag auch dazu beigetragen haben, dass die Deutschen nicht gemerkt haben, dass sie nicht ernst genommen werden. Die Dänen haben für ihre Schweine jetzt nur noch Papierzettel bekommen, so dass ihr Humor jedenfalls auf eine schwere Probe gestellt sein wird, denn es ist was anderes, ob man an einen Schweine verkauft, den man verachtet, oder ob man von einem, den man verachtet, nur für ein Schwein nicht bezahlt wird.
Kalle. Aber einen Witz haben sie sich bei der Besetzung doch geleistet. Es war am frühen Morgen, dass die Deutschen gekommen sind, denn die Deutschen sind grosse Frühaufsteher, weils ihrer Polizei wegen einen unruhigen Schlaf haben. Ein dänisches Bataillon hat von der Besetzung Wind bekommen und hat sich sofort in Marschkolonne in Bewegung gesetzt. Sie sind auf den Sund zumarschiert, der Dänemark von Schweden trennt, und sind viele Stunden marschiert, bis sie an die Fähre gekommen sind, wo sie Billette genommen haben und nach Schweden übergefahren sind. Drüben haben sie ein Interview gegeben, dass das Bataillon sich Dänemark kampfkraftig erhalten will. Die Schweden haben sie aber zurückgeschickt, solche Bataillone haben sie selber genug.
Zipfel. In einem Land leben, wo es keinen Humor gibt, ist unerträglich, aber noch unerträglicher ist es in einem Land, wo man Humor braucht.
(B. Brecht in "Flüchtlingsgespräche" about the proud Danish tradition ... in WW2! I'll try to find an English translation somewhere)

[dann]

Why not? It's a caricature, which necessitates boiling down some features.And how exactly is Mohammed (?) pulling a donkey the 'boiling down' of anything?
Claus, remember that even though you are Danish, you are not the one who has offended the Moslems. You are not the one who has to apologize to them. So let's just look at these caricatures and try to understand what motivated the cartoonists to make them. What is the idea expressed in them?

[plindboe]

The quickest way to settle this would be for every western newspaper to publish copies of these cartoons, just as a part of explaining the issue of course, in the name of free press.

Let's see how long they stop buying anything at all from anyone but themselves.

That's a fine idea, the problem is that no one seems to notice anymore. The drawings has been published in french media('Le Figaro', 'Nouvel Observateur' & on TV; 'France 3') as well, but no one seemed to take much notice.

Source(In danish)-> http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3529872/

I can imagine that the drawings has probably been published in various media throughout Europe, but the fanatics have picked their targets it seems, and willfully choose to ignore any other publishers.

[plindboe]

Hmm, just saw on the morning news that a french newspaper called "Francais" or something, is joining the fight today with more Muhammed drawings. Perhaps it will be noticed this time, as it's meant as a direct confrontation and support for the danish newspaper. Could turn out quite interesting.

[Skeptic]

I can see the objection to the editor's decision in the french paper: "Look, you shouldn't publish that. Islam is a religion of peace! And besides, you'll get death threats if you do!".

[CFLarsen]

And how exactly is Mohammed (?) pulling a donkey the 'boiling down' of anything?

That's the essence of caricatures: Pick a few easily recognizable stereotypes. Like one would depict a Dane wearing a "Klaphat" and drinking a Tuborg.

Claus, remember that even though you are Danish, you are not the one who has offended the Moslems. You are not the one who has to apologize to them. So let's just look at these caricatures and try to understand what motivated the cartoonists to make them. What is the idea expressed in them?

That you can, at least in Denmark, depict Mohammed, the way you want to. Despite what others might say.

[CFLarsen]

(B. Brecht in "Flüchtlingsgespräche" about the proud Danish tradition ... in WW2! I'll try to find an English translation somewhere)

That seems like a good idea.... ;)

[MRC_Hans]

And how exactly is Mohammed (?) pulling a donkey the 'boiling down' of anything?
Claus, remember that even though you are Danish, you are not the one who has offended the Moslems. You are not the one who has to apologize to them. So let's just look at these caricatures and try to understand what motivated the cartoonists to make them. What is the idea expressed in them?Remember, nobody has to apologize for offending moslems. In Denmark, it is legal, albeit possibly bad taste, to offend people.

The idea expressed in the cartoons? Apart from as CFL already said, the idea that in Denmark you can depict Mohammed if you will, they show a number of things that certain groups of moslems have associated Mohammed's name with. He is not depicted as a terrorist because somebody dreamed it up in order to be nasty, he is shown that way because some people are committing terrorism in his name.

Hans

[The_Fire]

Remember, nobody has to apologize for offending moslems. In Denmark, it is legal, albeit possibly bad taste, to offend people.

The idea expressed in the cartoons? Apart from as CFL already said, the idea that in Denmark you can depict Mohammed if you will, they show a number of things that certain groups of moslems have associated Mohammed's name with. He is not depicted as a terrorist because somebody dreamed it up in order to be nasty, he is shown that way because some people are committing terrorism in his name.

Hans

TAK!!!!! You just saved me a ******** of time!
:thanks
:den:

[plindboe]

Hmm, just saw on the morning news that a french newspaper called "Francais" or something, is joining the fight today with more Muhammed drawings. Perhaps it will be noticed this time, as it's meant as a direct confrontation and support for the danish newspaper. Could turn out quite interesting.

Have to correct myself, I misunderstood the news I posted above, sorry. Apparently it's not new drawings, they are simply republishing the old disputed drawings. *sigh*

[Ryokan]

Hmm, just saw on the morning news that a french newspaper called "Francais" or something, is joining the fight today with more Muhammed drawings. Perhaps it will be noticed this time, as it's meant as a direct confrontation and support for the danish newspaper. Could turn out quite interesting.

It's in the Norwegian papers today. As usual, I'm here to translate our seemingly made-up language (that we actually stole from the Danish, but don't tell them).

I dag trykket France Soir samtlige av de 12 tegningene av profeten Muhammed, som de siste dagene har ført til voldsomme reaksjoner mot Danmark og Norge i deler av Midtøsten, melder Ritzau.

«Ja, man har rett til karikaturer av Gud,» skriver avisen på lederplass.

Today France Soir (a French newspaper) published all of the 12 drawings of the prophet Muhammed that has led to violent reactions against Denmark and Norway in parts of the Middle East, reports Ritzau.

"Yes, you have the right to charicatures of God," writes the paper in a lead piece.

France Soir har også laget en egen karikatur til dagens utgave. På deres tegning sitter Muhammed sammen med Jesus og Buddha.

- Ikke vær så sur Muhammed, vi har alle vært i karikaturer, sier Jesus.

France Soir also made their own charicature in today's edition. In their drawing Muhammed is sitting together with Jesus and the Buddha.

- Don't be angry, Muhammed, we're all been in charicatures, says Jesus.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/01/456487.html)

So the 'pussy French' are publishing them, eh? When are the Americans going to do it? ;)

[Ryokan]

Carsten Juste, main editor og Jyllands-Posten, is declaring victory for the militant Muslims.

- Motstanderne av ytringsfrihet har vunnet en seier i saken om tegningene av profeten Muhammed.

Det erklærer Jyllands-Postens sjefredaktør Carsten Juste i Berlingske Tidende i dag.

Han mener nå at tegningene som ble publisert i september i fjor aldri skulle vært trykket.

- The opponents of free speech has won a victory over the drawings of the prophet Muhammed.

This is declared by the chief editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, to the Berlingske Tidende (another Danish paper) today.

He is now of the opinion that the drawings that were published september last year should never have been published.

- Hvis vi hadde visst at dette skulle føre til boikott, og at danske liv ville bli satt i fare, ville vi skjønt at det å trykke tegningene ikke er ansvarlig, uttaler Juste.

- De har jo vunnet. Det er det uhyggelige ved det hele. Jeg gjetter at ingen vil tegne profeten Muhammed i Danmark i neste generasjon, og derfor må jeg dypt beskjemmet si at de har vunnet, uttaler Juste.

- If we had known this would lead to a boycott, and that Danish lives would be at danger, we would have known that publishing these drawings would've been irresponsible, says Juste.

- They have won. That's the scary thing about all this. I'm guessing that no one will draw the prophet Muhammed in Denmark for the next generation, that's why I say they've won, says Juste.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/01/456481.html)

[Ryokan]

Have to correct myself, I misunderstood the news I posted above, sorry. Apparently it's not new drawings, they are simply republishing the old disputed drawings. *sigh*

They added one of their own, see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1416116#post1416116).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What I would like to see is EVERY newspaper in EVERY country that takes free speech seriously all publish them on the same day.

Lets see how important their boycott is then?

[plindboe]

They added one of their own, see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1416116#post1416116).

Ah, yes. Glad I didn't misunderstand completely then. :) Politiken's artikel is somewhat better than the norwegian, it also includes a picture of the latest drawing:

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=434156

[MRC_Hans]

That is implying a rational reaction. I don't think we can necessarily expect that.

Hans

[Ryokan]

Ah, yes. Glad I didn't misunderstand completely then. :) Politiken's artikel is somewhat better than the norwegian, it also includes a picture of the latest drawing:

http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=434156

And I'm glad they included my religion in their drawing so that I can say :

That's funny :D

[sackett]

Yesterday BBC World Service quoted an imam from Dubai to the effect that Muslims should quit being so silly. “Is your faith as weak as that?” or similar words. So they aren’t all going postal.

[Ryokan]

Yesterday BBC World Service quoted an imam from Dubai to the effect that Muslims should quit being so silly. “Is your faith as weak as that?” or similar words. So they aren’t all going postal.

Indeed, there's been a lot of Muslims saying the same thing in the Norwegian media. No Norwegian Muslim has said the opposite.

What we're seeing is a small fundamentalist group dictating what the rest of the world can say or do.

[dann]

That seems like a good idea.... ;) Kalle. They (the Danes) were democrats and insisted that everyone must have the right to tell a joke. They had a socialdemocrat governent and they kept the primeminister (Thorkild Stauning) only because his beard was so comical.

Zipfel. They were convinced that Fascism wouldn't work in their country because their sense of humour is too strong. Their income is more or less based on selling pigs so they had to get on well with the Germans since they demanded pigs, but they told good jokes about themselves, that you have to pussyfoot when you're selling pigs or else you might hurt the pig. Unfortunately Fascism did not take exception to the fact that it wasn't taken seriously in Denmark. Early one morning it appeared with a dozen planes above Denmark and occupied the whole country. The Danes had always assured that regrettably it's impossible to translate their humour since it consists of a lot of very intricate figures of speech that have a very particular comic effect, which may have contributed to the fact that the Germans didn't notice that they weren't taken seriously. The Danes were paid for their pigs in paper bills only which proved to be a severe trial for their sense of humour. There's a big difference between selling pigs to somebody that you despise and not being paid for a pig by somebody that you despise. (Dairy products? Same thing! dann)

Kalle. But the German occupation did provide them with one joke. Early one morning the Germans appeared, since the Germans tend to get up early because their sleep is ruined by the police. A Danish battalion had been alerted about the occupation and immediately started marching. They marched to the sound separating Denmark from Sweden, and they marched for hours until they arrived at the ferry station where they bought tickets and sailed to Sweden. When they arrived, they were interviewed and claimed that they would fight to save Denmark. But the Swedes sent them back to Denmark, since they already had plenty of that kind of battalions in Sweden.

Zipfel. It is intolerable to live in a country deprived of humour, but it is much more intolerable in a country where humour is a necessity.
(my translation. dann)

[dann]

What I would like to see is EVERY newspaper in EVERY country that takes free speech seriously all publish them on the same day.

Lets see how important their boycott is then?
I would like to see Piss Christ installed in the living room of the editor of Jyllands Posten. Let's see how important free speech is to him!

[dann]

That's the essence of caricatures: Pick a few easily recognizable stereotypes. Like one would depict a Dane wearing a "Klaphat" and drinking a Tuborg. So you don't see any connection either! Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.
That you can, at least in Denmark, depict Mohammed, the way you want to. Despite what others might say.
That is a very stupid thing to do! Instead of actually having something sensible to say, you demonstrate your right (and right always = power) to say it by saying something totally insane with the sole purpose of offending a certain (at least in Denmark) minority. This was so clear even to the cartoonists approached by Jyllands Posten that a few of them actually drew caricatures expressing this: Apparently they did not feel threatened by the Moslems but offended by Kåre Bluitgen and JyllandsPosten's campaign against the Moslem minority in Denmark.

Like in the case of Piss Christ introduced by the divine Mr. Ed: You haven't got a good argument against religion, against God or Mohammed, but you know how to offend the people who believe in that stuff which then becomes the sole content of your 'happening'. You demonstrate that you can. (Skepticism and artistic sensationalism are two very different things!)

In Denmark (almost) nobody had a problem with caricatures of God, Jesus or Mohammed published in newspapers now and then. By turning it into a very silly and offensive campaign and refusing to apologize, JyllandsPosten has managed - not to prove that you can, but - to engender a situation where you no longer can. And Jyllands Posten as well as Anders Fogh Rasmussen are now apologizing worldwide. If the latter had not declined to meet the Moslem ambassadors, nobody outside of Scandinavia would have heard of this. In that case, too, it was a demonstration of power - now, instead, Anders Fogh Rasmussen is demonstrating his impotence in international affairs, and not even his buddy in the White House seems to support him ...
(Not that I deplore the lack of support!)

[dann]

Remember, nobody has to apologize for offending moslems. In Denmark, it is legal, albeit possibly bad taste, to offend people.Maybe nobody has to apologize, but everybody is apologizing ...
The idea expressed in the cartoons? Apart from as CFL already said, the idea that in Denmark you can depict Mohammed if you will, Then "depict" Mohammed. Until now it didn't seem to bother anybody, not even the Moslems!
... they show a number of things that certain groups of moslems have associated Mohammed's name with. He is not depicted as a terrorist because somebody dreamed it up in order to be nasty, he is shown that way because some people are committing terrorism in his name.
It wouldn't bother anybody if "certain groups of moslems" had been depicted with the things that they "have associated Mohammed's name with".
Why didn't ANYBODY think of depicting Jesus as a gun-toting, bomb-building maniac back in the days of the IRA and their Protestant enemies? I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing caricatures like that in Jyllands Posten ...
And if you are really serious about freedom of speech, wouldn't it be a much more obvious demonstration of your high ideals to publish that kind of satire, i.e. criticizing the religion and politicians of your own country, instead of those of foreign nations?
It has always been allowed to drag the name of the enemy of your country through the mud. Not even Stalin or Hitler objected to that ...

Anyway, this discussion is beginning to bore me. Maybe we should tell the world about the way Denmark treats its immigrants instead.

[Ryokan]

The Danish embassy in Syria has been evacuated after a bomb threat.

200 people demonstrated outside the embassy earlier today.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/01/456521.html)

[Ryokan]

And if you are really serious about freedom of speech, wouldn't it be a much more obvious demonstration of your high ideals to publish that kind of satire, i.e. criticizing the religion and politicians of your own country, instead of those of foreign nations?

I can't speak for Denmark, but in Norway this is done on a daily basis.

[SuperCoolGuy]

The Muslim prohibition against and images, including Mohammed, is well known (even his name can't be mentioned without the kneejerk "PBUH" qualifier), but is this prohibition actually stated specifically with regard to Muslims, or is it phrased so as to be applicable to infidels as well?

I think I stated this elsewhere, but Muslims expectations for others to follow the rules regarding depicting Mohammed are for based on two notions:

1. Depicting anything that may lead to worship of that thing is the worst violation in Islam. If I were to carry a gold statue of a cow down the streets of Jeddah, Muslim observers would immediately freak out. Drawing a cartoon of Jesus is offensive to Muslims even. However, . . .

2. Mohammed specifically represents Islam, and any attack on Mohammed is seen as an attack directly at the heart of the religion.

Combine the two, and its a worst case scenario. By publishing a drawing of Mohammed, the newspaper is seen as directly lying about the prophet (since no one really knows what his appearance was), the newspaper is risking the the invitation to believers and non-believers to directly or indirectly worshipping the cartoon (associating something with God is the worst sin in Islam and the only sin that will not be forgiven by Allah), and the negative slant of the cartoon is a direct attack on the most cherished and protected individual in the Islamic religion.

By merely tolerating this incident, a Muslim might be considered sharing in the sin of the newspaper (the worst of sins) and enjoining others to do the same by allowing it to happen. That is the rationale Muslims will use to validate their outrage.

The real reason, however, is that a negative, physical depiction of the Prophet encompasses the worst of insults to a believing Muslim. Muslims don't have an expectation for non-Muslims to abide by Islamic law in non-Muslim countries. But Muslims have established a certain barrier that they expect non-Muslims not to cross.

Remember that Muslims consider Islam superior to other beliefs because Islam has rejected the temptation to "humanize" or weaken the one God by worshipping an image or person. Muslims see any depictions of Mohammed as the first step down that slippery slope and will fight it to ensure it doesn't happen any further.

[SuperCoolGuy]

And what does "idolater" mean in that context?

"Idolater" is refering to the polytheists in and around Mecca during the time that Mohammed and his followers was based in Medina.

[epepke]

By merely tolerating this incident, a Muslim might be considered sharing in the sin of the newspaper (the worst of sins) and enjoining others to do the same by allowing it to happen. That is the rationale Muslims will use to validate their outrage.

You do understand that there is a difference between objecting and death threats, don't you?

[Mycroft]

French and German newspapers republish caricatures (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Prophet_Drawings.html)

As do Spanish and Italian papers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm)

As it was phrased at Little Green Footballs; backbones seem to be springing up all over Europe.

[Ryokan]

French and German newspapers republish caricatures (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Prophet_Drawings.html)

As do Spanish and Italian papers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm)

As it was phrased at Little Green Footballs; backbones seem to be springing up all over Europe.

Has any American paper published them yet?

[Mycroft]

Has any American paper published them yet?

Good question. Not that I am aware of yet.

[TragicMonkey]

You do understand that there is a difference between objecting and death threats, don't you?

But death threats, unless very tactfully phrased, are generally objectionable.

I favor haiku:

Spring blossoms' fragrance
fills the air. I will explode
your embassy, swine.

Now, who wouldn't be charmed to get that?

[Ryokan]

The University of Bergen has removed pictures of Muhammed from their websites.

- Var disse bildene krenkende?

- Nei, på ingen måte. Bortsett fra at det var bilder på en ikon-utstilling. Det er ikke karikaturtegninger, det var bilder fra en utstilling innenfor rammen av et veldig skikkelig prosjekt. Faglig var det veldig solid, sier Aarbakke til Dagbladet.no.

- Hvorfor er de da fjernet?

- Det er en situasjon i Danmark og på verdensbasis som gjør at vi må være våkne i våre vurderinger. Vi var derfor enige om å kjøpe oss handlingsrom ved å ta nettsidene bort.

- Er ikke dette å innskrenke den frie akademiske debatt?

- Vi har kjøpt oss handlingsrom for å vurdere de sikkerhetsmessige sidene.

- Så bildene kan komme tilbake igjen?

- Det vurderer vi nå, sier Aarbakke.

- Were these pictures insulting?

- No, by no means. But they were pictures from an icon-exhibition. They were not charicatures, they were pictures from an exhibition well within the guidelines of a good project. Academically it was very solid, says Aarbakke to Dagbladet.no.

- Then why were they removed?

- There is a situation in Denmark and in the world that makes us have to be aware of our evaluations. We therefore agreed to buy ourselves room for evaluations by taking down the websites.

- Is this not limiting the academic debate/freedom?

- We have bought ourselves room to evaluate security concerns.

- So the pictures will be back?

- We're evaluating it now, says Aarbakke.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/01/456533.html)

The translations may look puzzling, but the woman is using an extremely academic language that's hard to translate, or even understand in its native form :p

All I can say is BOO! to the University of Bergen! Of course you're limiting academic freedom!

[Elind]

I think I stated this elsewhere, but Muslims expectations for others to follow the rules regarding depicting Mohammed are for based on two notions:

snip

Thanks for the comprehensive update. I guess the bottom line is that Muslims demand that all others respect their beliefs, upon pain of punishment, as opposed to wishing that they would and saying thanks when they do.

[SuperCoolGuy]

You do understand that there is a difference between objecting and death threats, don't you?

I was trying to provide insight on the motivations for those who object as well as those who are issuing threats. Look:

A.There are some Muslims that want these cartoonists killed.

B.There are some Muslims that just want the cartoonists to apologize.

C.There are some Muslims that want Denmark and Norway boycotted.

D.There are some Muslims that think a boycott is unnecessary.

E.There are some Muslims that are offended by the cartoons.

F.There are some Muslims that just don't care.

some members of Fatah, a sheikh in Dubai, a sheikh in Egypt, a muslim in Morocco, a few muslims posting in a forum in Australia, me, none of us can:

1. speak on behalf of all Muslims in the world
2. express the unified opinions of all Muslims in the world

Now, this thread seems to be concerned with those Muslims that have views A or C.

Muslims with view A don't really care if people portray Islam as violent, they simply think anyone who has the audacity to make ANY depiction of Mohammed should die. Hard core wahhabists tend to have this mentality.

Muslims with view C think that governments in Europe ought to have more control over the media and/or that non-Muslims should follow certain Islamic rules even if they are not Muslim.

I don't have view A, B, C, or F. Yes, the cartoons offend me and yes, boycotts are unnecessary. What percentage of the Muslim population has these particular views is hard to say. The press, however, is obviously going to focus on the Muslims with views A and C. And the motivation for those particular views was what I was trying to address.

[epepke]

I was trying to provide insight on the motivations for those who object as well as those who are issuing threats.

Yes, and I appreciate that. However, I caution against running interference, even with the best intentions, for those who would kill. It doesn't come across to me that you personally are trying to do it, but I've seen it happen far too often.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, people who want to blow things up don't need to be the majority. They just need a bomb.

[sackett]

An excellent post, SuperCool. I think you earn your handle.

I’m only sorry that you hold view E. I live and work surrounded by Muslims who hold view F – those who’ve even heard of this tempest. (They’re mostly engineers, and therefore simple souls.) Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss the issue of belief with you and other religious people on this forum.

[Ryokan]

I also thank SuperCoolGuy for voicing his opinions, and I suppert his right to be offended :)

[Skeptic]

Supercoolguy--Nobody here, I think, is saying or suggesting that all Muslims think the same way about these cartoon, or that they shouldn't be offended by them. The problem is that other religions tend not to react with threats of violence like this for similar (or worse) provocations.

Of course when I say "Islam reacts" in a certain way is not saying all or most Muslims are like that. But what is the case is that Islam does have a radical wing that does have significant power and influence and does allow and support violence against "infidels".

Take the Spanish Inquisition (WARNING: the first one to mention Monty Python's sketch will be kicked in the nuts.) Not more than, say, one in 500 European Catholics was a member of the inquisition even at the height of its power. But they called the shots and they had power to do as they wished.

Islam now has its own version of the Spanish Inquisition, called "radical Islam", "Islamofascism", "Jihadists", and many other names. I am certain not more than a few percent of Muslims adhere to its theoretical views, and not 1% if that actually acts to support them. But that is irrelevant, in a sense, since one man with a bomb can do more damage than a thousand who disagree.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Of course when I say "Islam reacts" in a certain way is not saying all or most Muslims are like that. But what is the case is that Islam does have a radical wing that does have significant power and influence and does allow and support violence against "infidels".

Your Spanish Inquisition comment echoes some other posts made concerning the current state of Islam. And I agree:

Islam is currently undergoing its own version of "the Dark Ages" and needs a renaissance or Englightenment period to get itself out of this mess.

[Elind]

I don't have view A, B, C, or F. Yes, the cartoons offend me and yes, boycotts are unnecessary. What percentage of the Muslim population has these particular views is hard to say. The press, however, is obviously going to focus on the Muslims with views A and C. And the motivation for those particular views was what I was trying to address.

I appreciate your input, and I'm sorry for lumping ALL muslims into my earlier comment, but I think that the issue that cannot be ignored here is that we see governments who claim to represent ALL Muslims, certainly all in their countries, take the views A, B and C. Miscellaneous demonstrations here and there, as we often have, is a different matter.

[Giz]

The BBCs take seems a little harsh on the Danes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4669210.stm
"Cartoon outrage bemuses Denmark"

"Denmark's reputation as an easy-going, consensual nation has been severely tarnished in recent days. All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row."

Denmark's reputation as an easy going nation damaged???

And I think that the BBC could have (should have) shown the cartoons...

[Ryokan]

Wow, I expected better than this from the ever-neutral BBC!

[Manny]

Wow, I expected better than this from the ever-neutral BBC!:D

Sorry, buddy. You're the Great Satan now! By this time next week your country will be responsible for everything from famines to floods. If you want we can send you an old copy of "How to Read Through the MSM's BS About You" by Ronald Reagan (Tear Down This Wall Press, 1987) that we've got lying around. :)

[gtc]

Thankyou for your comments SuperCoolGuy and I too accept your right to be offended (not that you need my acceptance :) )

To me, as a non-muslim, I see these cartoons as being no more offensive (an in fact probably less offensive) than the depictions of Jews, Christians and Americans from Government controlled arabic media that I have seen on sites such as memritv.org (http://www.memritv.org/).

[Tony4245]

Islam is currently undergoing its own version of "the Dark Ages" and needs a renaissance or Englightenment period to get itself out of this mess.

I agree. And it is truly unfortunate.

The most unfortunate thing about it is that it won't happen, until the "sane majority" of Muslims do something about their fundamentalists.

For the record, I sure wish there was something I could do about Christian fundies here in the States, but ignoring or ridiculing them is about it for options.

[Tony4245]

Has any American paper published them yet?

I'm surprised Dubya wasn't waving them around at his state of the Union address last night, talking smack and saying "Bring it on" again. After all, that's what a drunken cowboy would do.

[Ryokan]

And tomorrow, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister of Denmark, is apologizing on Arabic TV.

Not a joke.

[The_Fire]

SO the BBC would rather that the Danes ran around with big fake smiles on their faces while being afraid of voicing opinions or having something as healthy as , dare I say it ?*shudder*, Humour?

As for Abu Laban, well lets just say I wouldn't call him a reliable source for the opionion of danish muslims.

Take a look at this (Brought only because the original sources Ekstra Bladet used were DR and TV2):

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=333164


Abu Labans dobbeltspil


The Doubleplay of Abu Laban


Formanden for islamisk trossamfund taler ikke sandt, når han siger til danske medier, at han vil opfordre den arabiske verden til at stoppe boykotten



The Chairman of Islamic Beliefsociety* isn't saying the truth when he tells the danish media that he is asking the arabic nations to stop the boycot of danish merchandice.



Ifølge DR talte Abu Laban ikke sandt, da han tirsdag sagde til TV2, at han vil gøre sit for at få den arabiske verden til at standse boykotten mod Danmark.

According to DR, Abu Laban weren't telling the truth when he on Tuesday told TV2 that he would do his best to get the arabic nations to stop the boycot of Denmark


Samme aften udtalte formanden for islamisk trossamfund sig nemlig stik modsat, da han gav interview til den arabiske tv-station Al Jazeera:

At the same night, the Chairman of Islamic Beliefsociety contradicted himself when he gave an interview to the arabic Television station Al Jazeera.
- Hvis de muslimske lande beslutter at boykotte, og hvis de muslimske borgere føler, at det er deres pligt at forsvare profeten, så er det noget vi kan glæde os over, sagde Ahmad Abu Laban til Al Jazeera, ifølge DR.

-If the muslim countries decides to boycot , and if the muslim citizens feels that it is their duty to defend the Profet, then it is something we can rejoice in.
Abu Ahman Laban said to Al Jazeera according to DR.
Mere end 50 millioner arabiske tv-seere kunne modtage Abu Labans budskab og det irriterer den radikale politiker, Nasar Khader:

More than 50 milion arabic television viewers could recieve Abu Labans message and it annoys the Radical ** politician Nasar Khader.
- Det er ærgerligt for Abu Laban er en rollemodel for dem der er meget vrede. Nu er han med til at grave grøfter i det danske samfund mellem muslimer og danskere. Jeg er også muslim og det jeg har lært i islam er at man må ikke lyve, og slet ikke hvis man er imam, udtaler Khader til DR.

It is sad since Abu Laban is a rolemodel for those who are very angry. Now he helps dig ditches in Danish Society between Muslims and Danes. I am also a Muslim and what I've learned from Islam is that one is not allowed to lie, especially not if one is a priest.***, Nasar Khader**** say to DR.
* Not sure if this is the correct translation of the name of the organisation
**Direct translation of a danish party name,
*** There are probably a more correct translation of the word for an islamic priest, I just can't find it right now.

****Nasar Khader is, incidently, a member of the Danish Parliament.....

[Mephisto]

Sorry for getting back to the OP, but I was wondering how much of a disadvantage the Scandanavians are at for NOT being allowed in Palestine?

Actually, the Scandanavians could just as easily turn around and not allow the Palestinians into their country. Let them chew on that!

[The_Fire]

And tomorrow, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister of Denmark, is apologizing on Arabic TV.

Not a joke.

If he does that, then hes more spineless than I thought!

[The_Fire]

Uhm...Ryokan, where did you btw hear that? All I can get is that the primeminister is scheduled to give an interview on arabic television to explain the situation and avoid the two-tonguedness of Abu Laban stirring up a bigger mess......

Mephisto: Agree on that.

[Ryokan]

Sorry for getting back to the OP, but I was wondering how much of a disadvantage the Scandanavians are at for NOT being allowed in Palestine?

All the Norwegians in the area, and that were evacuated, were relief workers :rolleyes:

[Ryokan]

Uhm...Ryokan, where did you btw hear that? All I can get is that the primeminister is scheduled to give an interview on arabic television to explain the situation and avoid the two-tonguedness of Abu Laban stirring up a bigger mess......

Mephisto: Agree on that.

The source is the Norwegian Dagbladet. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/01/456543.html)

[Mycroft]

If he does that, then hes more spineless than I thought!

If he does, you and all other Danes will have my sympathy at the emasculation your leaders give you.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ryokan:
It should be noted that they apoligize for offending, not for publishing the drawings.Here's the apology, on JyllandsPosten's own website, in English."


It should be noted that Moslems are upset right now because Jyllands Posten apparently says one thing abroad and another thing to their Danish audience. Their problem right now seems to be: How do we apologize to the Moslems without making it too obvious back home that we are not as cocky as we used to be. (A proud Danish tradition!)
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Could you clarify this apparent "two-faced" behaviour of Jyllands-Posten?
Same thing in the case of your hero, Anders Fogh Rasmussen! It seems like a very long time ago when he could have solved this conflict by meeting with the Moslem ambassadors (as they required!) and simply saying (as he's saying now): 'I don't like these caricatures of your prophet.' It would have been so easy to spare himself the embarrassment he is now facing, but it's no real concern of mine.
Any particular reason why he should have bowed to their demands? Any particular reason why his personal opinion on the charicatures is of importance? What if his personal opinion was that he was OK with the drawings?
The noble art of losing face ....

If I had been a Danish nationalist like you, I might have been embarrassed by the whole affair by now. As it is, however, I'm not.
Please stick to your own business, DD.
I apollogize for my unwarrented statement regarding your own good self. I'd just been to a very "wet" goodbye party and for other reasons was in a foul mood.

Your extreme leftist views set me off. Sorry.

[Bjorn]

If he does, you and all other Danes will have my sympathy at the emasculation your leaders give you."Apologizing on Arabic TV" is sort of correct, but: According to the source given, he's going to apologize for the fact that they were offended by the cartoons, while repeating that he cannot tell a newspaper what to print or not to print - because Danmark has a freedom of speech.

[DanishDynamite]

Not her specifically, but the idea is percolating across the blogosphere and I swiped the icon (with permission) from someone out there.

Always happy to help a friend -- I only wish you guys exported more consumer products. I did encourage a plastics company today to consider buying some Danish extruding equipment, but I didn't get much more than a polite nod in response and I don't know if that's the kind of industrial machinery you specialize in anyways!

Any suggestions of foodstuffs (beyond the obvious) that I should try?
Well, I'm not even close to an expert on the exports of Denmark, but I know that DANISCO is a major supplier of foodstuff additives. ARLA exports dairy products and (I believe) meat. Sorry I'd love to be of more help, but perhaps Google?

[DanishDynamite]

lego af Dansk, nej?*

*Pardon the online translation.
Close.

"Lego er Dansk, ikke?" would be the correct translation if your question was "Lego is Danish, right?".

[DanishDynamite]

So you don't see any connection either! Thank you, that's all I wanted to know.

That is a very stupid thing to do! Instead of actually having something sensible to say, you demonstrate your right (and right always = power) to say it by saying something totally insane with the sole purpose of offending a certain (at least in Denmark) minority. This was so clear even to the cartoonists approached by Jyllands Posten that a few of them actually drew caricatures expressing this: Apparently they did not feel threatened by the Moslems but offended by Kåre Bluitgen and JyllandsPosten's campaign against the Moslem minority in Denmark.

Like in the case of Piss Christ introduced by the divine Mr. Ed: You haven't got a good argument against religion, against God or Mohammed, but you know how to offend the people who believe in that stuff which then becomes the sole content of your 'happening'. You demonstrate that you can. (Skepticism and artistic sensationalism are two very different things!)

In Denmark (almost) nobody had a problem with caricatures of God, Jesus or Mohammed published in newspapers now and then. By turning it into a very silly and offensive campaign and refusing to apologize, JyllandsPosten has managed - not to prove that you can, but - to engender a situation where you no longer can. And Jyllands Posten as well as Anders Fogh Rasmussen are now apologizing worldwide. If the latter had not declined to meet the Moslem ambassadors, nobody outside of Scandinavia would have heard of this. In that case, too, it was a demonstration of power - now, instead, Anders Fogh Rasmussen is demonstrating his impotence in international affairs, and not even his buddy in the White House seems to support him ...
(Not that I deplore the lack of support!)
You truelly don't understand the concept of "freedom of speech", do you? Or how vital it is for a democratic society? It is the freedom to state your opinion, no matter who it offends. In fact, the ability to offend is paramount.

[DanishDynamite]

Good question. Not that I am aware of yet.
Odd that. We are afterall talking about "the land of the free". Perhaps stories regarding freedom and Muslims aren't interesting in the US.

[Tony4245]

ARLA exports dairy products and (I believe) meat.

Uh-oh.

Don't let those nimrods from PETA find out about it, or Denmark will really have some trouble.

[Tony4245]

It is the freedom to state your opinion, no matter who it offends. In fact, the ability to offend is paramount.

Well put.

It's EASY to stick up for people who are saying stuff you agree with. Standing up for free speech, when you can't stand what's coming out of someone's mouth, is the tough bit.

[Mycroft]

Spinal column spotted in France, crushed immediately!

Muhammad cartoon row intensifies

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.

Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings.

Their publication in Denmark led Arab nations to protest. Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet.

The owner of one of the papers to reprint - France Soir - has now sacked its managing editor over the matter.

“It’s unfortunate our editor tried to put freedom of speech before Islam,” explained owner of France Soir, Egyptian millionaire Ramy Lakah, “for there is no freedom without Allah.”


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

Okay, I made up that last line, but I learned from Wikipedia that France Soir really is owned by Ramy Lakah, an Egyptian millionaire.

[Kopji]

Americans can buy meaningless yet attractively supportive Scandinavian T shirts here:
http://www.goingpostal.cc/ScandinavianT-shirts/

[Elind]

Americans can buy meaningless yet attractively supportive Scandinavian T shirts here:
http://www.goingpostal.cc/ScandinavianT-shirts/

Has anyone pointed out to these guys that however logical that website name may be, it is idiotic marketing?:jaw-dropp

[epepke]

In Swedish news it has been said that muslims in Denmark are not so upset, most who cares think they are tasteless if they bother to have an opinion. Muslims are unfortunately thought of as a group when they are anything from atheists to luke-warm belivers together with a fraction of nutters just like there is a fraction of nutters in any group.

The trouble is, and I think a lot of people don't grasp this, is that the nutters are the ones with the bombs. So you don't need a majority to be nutters, as long as there are enough to cause problems, and as long as the majority do nothing to rein in the nutters.

[Tony4245]

The trouble is, and I think a lot of people don't grasp this, is that the nutters are the ones with the bombs. So you don't need a majority to be nutters, as long as there are enough to cause problems, and as long as the majority do nothing to rein in the nutters.

True.

Actually, in this here country o' mine, we had a problem with nutballs bombing abortion clinics and targeting their staff for intimidation tactics all the way up to murder. And most of these wingnuts have a religious motivation, or so they claim.

Personally, I think that if it wasn't that, they'd find another excuse to hurt people.

[Skeptic]

All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row

Well, that's certainly the only option the spineless, pathetic "intellectual" fools who run the BBC can think of.

How about the PM of Denmark saying openly to Arab governments that death threats to his citizens over excercising their freedom of speech is unacceptable barbaism which only, incidentally, reinforces the stereotype of Islam as a violent, primitive cult far better than those cartoons ever could?

How about the PM of Denamark calling on all Muslims in the world to publically distance themselves from the Jihadists who want to drag all of them, Muslim and non-Muslims, into a world turned into 7th century Arabia?

(And as long as I'm dreaming, how about the PM of Denmark sending me a billion Euros?)

[peptoabysmal]

Odd that. We are afterall talking about "the land of the free". Perhaps stories regarding freedom and Muslims aren't interesting in the US.
The euro papers seem to have run with the story, though.
Offending Cartoons Reprinted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102234.html)

[Kopji]

Has anyone pointed out to these guys that however logical that website name may be, it is idiotic marketing?:jaw-dropp

Oh, I thought the site name was appropriate for this week. The world seems to have taken a turn for the nuttier.

My complaint on the T shirt site was that it was a little to hard to actually order anything. I had to look up ".cc" (and here I thought I knew them all). It once belonged to the Cocos Islands. (That's probably a $15 T shirt with $30 shipping.) :) But apparently the .cc is now being sold as a generic domain, 'goingpostal' was probably a bargain.

I'm afraid the postal employees are not doing well on reducing their stigmatization problem.

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe nobody has to apologize, but everybody is apologizing ...Yes, there seems to be a sudden loss of spine, as soon as money is involved :rolleyes:. Not that I'm surprised.

Then "depict" Mohammed. Until now it didn't seem to bother anybody, not even the Moslems!Ehhh? Where have you been? That was the starting point, remember? Nobody dared to put their name on illustrations to a perfectly neutral book about Mohammed.

It wouldn't bother anybody if "certain groups of moslems" had been depicted with the things that they "have associated Mohammed's name with".No, and we've been doing that all along.

Why didn't ANYBODY think of depicting Jesus as a gun-toting, bomb-building maniac back in the days of the IRA and their Protestant enemies? I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing caricatures like that in Jyllands Posten ...How should I know? Perhaps we know the Christian doctrine better, so we don't confuse the messenger with the message?

And if you are really serious about freedom of speech, wouldn't it be a much more obvious demonstration of your high ideals to publish that kind of satire, i.e. criticizing the religion and politicians of your own country, instead of those of foreign nations?And we don't do that? Does the name Roald Als mean anything to you? However, that is not the point. The fact that we might have done things better does not mean we cannot do what we do.

It has always been allowed to drag the name of the enemy of your country through the mud. Not even Stalin or Hitler objected to that ...And the relevance of Hitler or Stalin is?

Anyway, this discussion is beginning to bore me. Maybe we should tell the world about the way Denmark treats its immigrants instead.I think they already know. And the relevance is?

Hans

[zenith-nadir]

French editor fired over cartoons - Thursday, 2 February 2006, 12:14 GMT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4672642.stm)

The editor of a French newspaper that printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has been sacked. Jacques Lefranc was dismissed by the owner of France Soir, as his paper became embroiled in a developing row between Muslims and the European press.Meanwhile...Mohamed cartoons provoke bomb threats against Danish newspaper - 01 February 2006 (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article342412.ece)

A Danish newspaper suffered bomb scares a day after apologising for cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed which prompted protests from Muslims and a boycott of Danish products in a dozen nations.

The offices of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen and Arhus were evacuated as the storm continued over its publication last September of a series of 12 satirical cartoons regarded by many Muslims as blasphemous.


Goodness what a load of crap. I can Google literally hundreds of funny and weird pictures of Jesus and no Christians in the West are freaking out, calling for boycotts, getting fired from their jobs, calling in bomb threats or threatening the lives of aid workers in Gaza.

I am quickly getting the feeling that if one bomb went off over this half of Europe would surrender their national sovereignty to the cartoon critics. GROW A SPINE EUROPE!

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060202/capt.jrl10102021150.mideast_israel_palestinians_eu _jrl101.jpg

Palestinian masked militants of the Al-Yasser Brigades, a militia linked to the Fatah movement, left, and of the Islamic Jihad, second left, point their guns to the European Union emblem outside the EU Commission's office in Gaza City Thursday Feb. 2, 2006. A group of gunmen briefly took up position outside the office Thursday in protest over a newspaper cartoon that has riled the Muslim world. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

[NeilC]

I just heard some palestianians saying that Europe had 48 hours to apologise or there would be "big trouble" and that if it was esacalted they would bomb european countries.

I think this says a lot about the islamic mindset.

It doesn't surprise me. Their terrorism has been working for decades. You see christians offended on a daily basis but hardly any comedians (any?) will do the same to islam. They won't admit it but they are scared.

[Mephisto]

All the Norwegians in the area, and that were evacuated, were relief workers :rolleyes:

Thanks Ryokan, I'm sorry for not being quite up to speed on this particular issue, but you've answered it perfectly. The advantage at having Scandanavians in Palestine fell to the Palestinians (considering they were relief workers and not an oil company or a corporation looking for cheap labor).

It amazes me that a group of people can't see well enough through their own rhetoric and religious BS that they can't even tell who is trying to help them. I have generally supported the Palestinian's struggle for a Palestinian state, and to uplift the Palestinian people from poverty, but it's difficult to maintain any semblance of compassion when they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[Manny]

Goodness what a load of crap. I can Google literally hundreds of funny and weird pictures of Jesus...Or of Jewish stereotypes.
(http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm)

[richardm]

I just heard some palestianians saying that Europe had 48 hours to apologise or there would be "big trouble" and that if it was esacalted they would bomb european countries.

I think this says a lot about the islamic mindset.


Not least that they believe government should be responsible for what's in the papers. I'm sure European politicians wish that were true.

All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row

Well, that's certainly the only option the spineless, pathetic "intellectual" fools who run the BBC can think of.


Can you point me to where the spineless BBC said these things? I am assuming that it's a different spineless BBC to the one that's been cheerfully showing some of the cartoons on the lunchtime news bulletin.

I can Google literally hundreds of funny and weird pictures of Jesus and no Christians in the West are freaking out, calling for boycotts, getting fired from their jobs, calling in bomb threats or threatening the lives of aid workers in Gaza.


Although when "Jerry Springer - the musical" was doing the rounds there was plenty of protest. Nobody was trying to bomb anyone, admittedly.


I am quickly getting the feeling that if one bomb went off over this half of Europe would surrender their national sovereignty to the cartoon critics. GROW A SPINE EUROPE!

I think you're wrong here, actually. Several papers across Europe have republished the cartoons, and the editor who lost his job lost it because the newspaper's owner happens to be an offended muslim.

[NeilC]

Hmm, I wonder why "islamophobia" is on the rise?

[zenith-nadir]

Or of Jewish stereotypes. (http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm)Every Israeli is well aware of the racist and horrible cartoons that appear in Arab newspapers regarding jews. Why? Cuz you can buy those papers in Israel. Yet in my experience there has never been a violent jewish reaction to a cartoon.

These actions by muslims only support the stereotype depicted in the original cartoons...which I find highly ironic.

[Bjorn]

A Jordanian newspaper is printing some of the cartoons and asking muslims to calm down:

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" wrote Jihad Momani.http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1889584,00.html

[zenith-nadir]

A Jordanian newspaper is printing some of the cartoons and asking muslims to calm down:YEAH for Jordan.

Some pics of the day...

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060202/capt.jrl11202021342.mideast_israel_palestinians_eu _jrl112.jpg

Masked Palestinian militants of Al-Yasser group, a militia linked to Fatah movement, and Islamic Jihad militants stick a leaflet on the wall of the European Union headquarters in Gaza City, Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006. Palestinian gunmen said Thursday they would target citizens of France, Norway, Denmark and Germany in Gaza unless the four governments apologize for a newspaper cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, published in several European newspapers, that has riled the Muslim world. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060202/capt.jrl11102021312.mideast_israel_palestinians_eu _jrl111.jpg

Masked Palestinian gunmen of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militia linked to the Fatah movement hold their rifles in front of media members during the group's a press conference in the Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, Thursday, Feb. 2, 2006. Palestinian gunmen said Thursday they would target citizens of France, Norway, Denmark and Germany in Gaza unless the four governments apologize for a newspaper cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, published in several European newspapers, that has riled the Muslim world. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060202/capt.jrl10202021149.mideast_israel_palestinians_eu _jrl102.jpg

Palestinian masked militants of the Al-Yasser Brigades, a militia linked to the Fatah movement, left, with white Arab headscarves, and of the Islamic Jihad, with black masks, stand outside EU Commission's office in Gaza City Thursday Feb. 2, 2006. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20060202/2006_02_02t053936_450x277_us_mideast_eu_gaza.jpg

Palestinian Fatah gunmen and Islamic Jihad group members stand on the roof top of the European Union office in Gaza Strip February 2, 2006. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060202/i/r598502577.jpg

A Palestinian Fatah gunman sprays the word 'Closed' on the door of a European Union headquarter in Gaza Strip February 2, 2006. About a dozen Palestinian gunmen surrounded European Union offices in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, demanding their closure to protest caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that appeared in European newspapers. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

Gosh...where's a Palestinian Authority/Hamas policeman when you need one...:rolleyes:


p.s. send more aid!

[SuperCoolGuy]

If European leaders start firing editors and newspaper staff and ACT like the printing of the pictures was a grievous mistake, militants are going to rationalize that their posturing with guns for the cameras and multiple threats can intimidate sovereign nations.

European leaders should not apologize for anything.

Newspaper editors should not apologize for anything.

The particular cartoonists should apologize only if the cartoonists themselves think they should.

I'm afraid all these apologizes are going to make more problems than they'll fix.

[Giz]

[QUOTE=richardm;1418822]
Can you point me to where the spineless BBC said these things? I am assuming that it's a different spineless BBC to the one that's been cheerfully showing some of the cartoons on the lunchtime news bulletin.

[QUOTE]

It was on this link yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4669210.stm
"Cartoon outrage bemuses Denmark"

"Denmark's reputation as an easy-going, consensual nation has been severely tarnished in recent days. All the Danes can do now is hope the repeated apologies for the offence caused, by both the government and the newspaper, will end this unseemly row."

But looking at it today the BBC appears to have re-written it... a victory for common sense, or the BBC making a tactical retreat?

[Mephisto]

Americans can buy meaningless yet attractively supportive Scandinavian T shirts here:
http://www.goingpostal.cc/ScandinavianT-shirts/

Are they okay to wear in Washington or will they get you arrested? ;)

[Orwell]

Well, I'm an equal opportunity "offender" so...

I Will Survive! (http://mp3.yeastradio.podshow.com/jesus.mov)

This entire deal is pretty amazingly stupid. And I'll bet you that all those repressive middle east governments (and the fondamentalists) are probably pushing this crap, in the hopes of making some political hay out of it. :rolleyes:

[Ryokan]

Mullah Krekar, the leader of Ansar al-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam), currently residing in Norway, says the drawings are a declaration of war.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/45/456/456643/mullah_858.jpg

- Dette er en krigserklæring, sier Krekar til Dagbladet.no om Muhammed-tegningene som er publisert i danske Jyllands-Posten og den kristne avisen Magazinet.

Ifølge Nettavisen skal mullah Krekar ha sagt at «krigen har startet» og at «om den danske eller norske regjeringen beklager eller ikke betyr ingen ting». Overfor Dagbladet.no avviser Krekar at han har sagt dettte.

- Jeg har sagt en setning. Jeg har ikke sagt at dette er krig. Det er bare en setning jeg sier og har sagt, og det er at disse tegningene er en krigserklæring. Jeg sa det til en journalist på arabisk, sier Krekar fra sin leilighet i Oslo.

- This is a declaration of war, says Krekar to Dagbladet.no about the Muhammed drawings that have been published in the Danish Jyllands-Posten and the Norwegian Christian paper Magazinet.

According to Nettavisen, mullah Krekar has said "the war has begun" and "wether the Danish or the Norwegian government apologizes or not doesn't matter". He claims to Dagbladet.no that he has said no such thing.

- I have said a sentence. I have not said it's war. It's just one sentence I've said, and that is that these drawings are a declaration of war. I said it to a journalist in Arabic, says Krekar from his apartment in Oslo.

Source in Norwegian. (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/02/456643.html)

[Orwell]

YEAH for Jordan.

Some pics of the day...


Gosh...where's a Palestinian Authority/Hamas policeman when you need one...:rolleyes:


p.s. send more aid!
And the local Israel-right-or-wrong folks are also pretty busy using this too, it seems...

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

(sigh) :rolleyes:

[Manny]

Mullah Krekar, the leader of Ansar al-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam), currently residing in Norway, says the drawings are a declaration of war.
Deport him. Today. Internal dissent is different from damn foreigners coming in and declaring war on his host country. Seriously boot that guy out today and let him worry about where the plane will land.

[NeilC]

Everywhere on the planet there seems to be a mullah declaring war.

I love religion.

[Orwell]

Deport him. Today. Internal dissent is different from damn foreigners coming in and declaring war on his host country. Seriously boot that guy out today and let him worry about where the plane will land.

Muslims are not the only ones who need to calm down... I'm pretty sure that a state that respects its own laws can't (and shouldn't) deport someone without due process.

[Ryokan]

Deport him. Today. Internal dissent is different from damn foreigners coming in and declaring war on his host country. Seriously boot that guy out today and let him worry about where the plane will land.

Thing is, we've been trying for years.

Problem 1, there's no proof of him being involved with anything illegal. And his words are pretty much covered by free speech, wouldn't you say? I mean, unless they're backed up by action, or there's proof his words will lead to action? As long as he's been in Norway, he has acted like a perfect citizen, except for his words.

Problem 2, where to send him? He's from Iraq, but if we send him there he might face the death penalty. Norway can't, by law, send anyone to their home country if they could face the death penalty.

But most people, including the government, wants him out of here, and they're working on it.

And this isn't really helping his cause, either. Heh.

ETA : Here's more on mullah Krekar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar) for those who are interested. Charming guy.

[NeilC]

I thought it was just us in the UK that allowed these headcases to preach their filth on our benefits but I see they are abusing the generosity of many other countries.

It's a joke. They lounge around secure in the countries they'd like to see brought down. And like the little sheep we are, we let them do it.

[Nyarlathotep]

If European leaders start firing editors and newspaper staff and ACT like the printing of the pictures was a grievous mistake, militants are going to rationalize that their posturing with guns for the cameras and multiple threats can intimidate sovereign nations.

European leaders should not apologize for anything.

Newspaper editors should not apologize for anything.

The particular cartoonists should apologize only if the cartoonists themselves think they should.

I'm afraid all these apologizes are going to make more problems than they'll fix.

Exactly. The governments of these nations did nothing wrong, they ahve nothing to apologize for. It seems that these militants want these governments to suppress freedom of speech. What's next, will they use threats and violence to try and force Denmark and Norway to make their women wear Burkhas? If you give in to terrorist demands, all it does is emboldne them to make more demands.

[NeilC]

Exactly. The governments of these nations did nothing wrong, they ahve nothing to apologize for. It seems that these militants want these governments to suppress freedom of speech. What's next, will they use threats and violence to try and force Denmark and Norway to make their women wear Burkhas? If you give in to terrorist demands, all it does is emboldne them to make more demands.

No, not all freedom of speech. They need some laws to allow them to promote suicide bombings and preach anti-western hatred whilst in those countries.

[BPSCG]

Drudge Report has one of the cartoons on their homepage right now (12:30 pm US eastern time):

http://www.drudgereport.com/toon.jpg

Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little over the course of a century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.Mark Twain, in The Mysterious Stranger

[Orwell]

I thought it was just us in the UK that allowed these headcases to preach their filth on our benefits but I see they are abusing the generosity of many other countries.

It's a joke. They lounge around secure in the countries they'd like to see brought down. And like the little sheep we are, we let them do it.

And we should keep letting them do it. I'd rather have them saying their crap out loud and publicly. That's the beauty of freedom of speech, it helps to expose the idiots.

[Jon_in_london]

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

[BPSCG]

And we should keep letting them do it. I'd rather have them saying their crap out loud and publicly. That's the beauty of freedom of speech, it helps to expose the idiots.Yikes, Orwell, you're not only providing me with sig lines, but now you're quoting mine. Are you stalking me?

And did de Gaulle really say that? My grandfather used to grumble "Espece de con..." (sp?) at the drop of a hat whenever someone did something he didn't like on the autoroute.

[Bjorn]

And his words are pretty much covered by free speech, wouldn't you say? I mean, unless they're backed up by action, or there's proof his words will lead to action?His words, as they are quoted, would probably be covered by the freedom of speech both in the US and in Norway.

It's just one sentence I've said, and that is that these drawings are a declaration of war. I said it to a journalist in Arabic, says Krekar from his apartment in Oslo. Stupid statements are protected just as much as intelligent ones.

[Elind]

Mullah Krekar, the leader of Ansar al-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam), currently residing in Norway, says the drawings are a declaration of war.


I have said a sentence. I have not said it's war. It's just one sentence I've said, and that is that these drawings are a declaration of war. I said it to a journalist in Arabic, says Krekar from his apartment in Oslo.

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

[Orwell]

Yikes, Orwell, you're not only providing me with sig lines, but now you're quoting mine. Are you stalking me? Of course I'm stalking you! Isn't it obvious? Is this going in your sig too?

And did de Gaulle really say that? My grandfather used to grumble "Espece de con..." (sp?) at the drop of a hat whenever someone did something he didn't like on the autoroute.

There are several versions of this story, all involving de Gaulle.