# Muhammad cartoon



## Ping898 (Feb 1, 2006)

Has anyone been following this row with the Muslim community over political cartoons published that satire Muhammad?
Muslim countries are wanting apologies and sanctions about this...


latest BBC article

I am interested in other opinions...

I just feel like it is being blow out of proportion and that when you live in a free society and world, stuff happens.  Though the cartoon I think is in bad taste, especially considering the sensitive times were are living in, I see nothing wrong with publishing it.
Personally find it similar to people/countries who do stuff in God's name as Christians that as a Christian I find morally and personally disgusting and hate being associated with.

I am hoping these countries don't give into demands for apologies and sanctions.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Feb 1, 2006)

Typically, I don't get involved in religio-political conversations; but, I do disagree with using religious icons to further political agendas or widen the chasms that already exist between belief systems.  The Prophet, to me, is no more a terrorist than Christ or Buddha is a terrorist.  I'm no Christian.  I'm not Islamic.  I'm hardly a Buddhist.  I'm sorta Zen; but, the jury's still out on that.  Satire is one thing, blasphemy's another.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 1, 2006)

Does anyone know a link to the cartoons themselves?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2006)

Well, it may be a free society with freedom of the press, but if inflammatory items are published in the name of this freedom, expect to deal with the results.  Muslims make up a large population in Europe.  If people get angry over this and take some kind of actions to retaliate, i guess ya gotta admit that it was provoked.  I am not saying that violence would be justified, but this just didn't need to happen and it could add more fuel to the fire.

People just need to wake up and use common sense.  You don't do things to deliberately offend a large group of the population, especially when it comes to offending someone's religion.  The vast majority of devout Muslims are not attached to the radical troublemakers, but it sounds like this kind of publication doesn't care to acknowledge that.  They just lumped everyone together and acts like they are all a bunch of terrorists.  Freedom of the press or not, it is just stupid and myopic.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 1, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Well, it may be a free society with freedom of the press, but if inflammatory items are published in the name of this freedom, expect to deal with the results. Muslims make up a large population in Europe. If people get angry over this and take some kind of actions to retaliate, i guess ya gotta admit that it was provoked. I am not saying that violence would be justified, but this just didn't need to happen and it could add more fuel to the fire.
> 
> People just need to wake up and use common sense. You don't do things to deliberately offend a large group of the population, especially when it comes to offending someone's religion. The vast majority of devout Muslims are not attached to the radical troublemakers, but it sounds like this kind of publication doesn't care to acknowledge that. They just lumped everyone together and acts like they are all a bunch of terrorists. Freedom of the press or not, it is just stupid and myopic.



Just imagine if people here reacted this way to some of the cartoons printed on the editorial pages around the country.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 1, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Just imagine if people here reacted this way to some of the cartoons printed on the editorial pages around the country.


 
Of course you are right, but for many of us here in this country we have a different mindset about such things.  But some people, including entire populations, are very touchy about certain issues.  If you provoke them they just might react.  Use common sense.  You don't go around picking fights on an individual basis, so don't do in on a population level either.  Just because you have a freedom of speech or freedom of the press, don't do something stupid.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 1, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Of course you are right, but for many of us here in this country we have a different mindset about such things. But some people, including entire populations, are very touchy about certain issues. If you provoke them they just might react. Use common sense. You don't go around picking fights on an individual basis, so don't do in on a population level either. Just because you have a freedom of speech or freedom of the press, don't do something stupid.



No argument.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 1, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Does anyone know a link to the cartoons themselves?


Here are all or some of them 

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 1, 2006)

An interesting paradox.  We ask them to be tolerant of our freedom to criticize, they ask us to be tolerant of their traditions.  Neither of us really are.

I can understand that they feel offended.  However, are they justified in asking that non-muslims not caricature or otherwise represent the face of Muhammad?  I don't believe so.  A non-muslim is by no way bound to their traditions.  They likewise are bound to the traditions of no other.  I think they're being overly sensitive.

It's different than the Salman Rushdie thing, I think.  Wasn't he muslim?


----------



## Marvin (Feb 1, 2006)

here is another interesting link to/ about the drawings

PLEASE NOTE: THERE ARE SOME GRAPHIC IMAGES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

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


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 2, 2006)

What should disturb people is the fact that the international Muslim community is not just mad at the paper that printed the pictures. They are mad at the entire country because the goverment refused to censor the paper.

They actually expect goverments to crack down on anything they do not like. At the same time, they are screaming about freedom.

Oh, and for comparison of what goes on in Muslim newspapers, including the cartoon pages, check out www.memri.org for something scary.


----------



## aplonis (Feb 2, 2006)

Whosoever is wont to dish out slander of other religions...to belittle their dogma...to destory their relics...to outright ban their practices...such as these have long since forsaken their own right to complain so boisterously over anything half so small as a silly cartoon.

Let the moslems rebuild the Afganistan standing Buddha statues, let them repair the damage to ancient Egyptian relics too. Only then might I muster some small tear of sympathy for their hurt feelings over this mere paper cartoon.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> They actually expect goverments to crack down on anything they do not like. At the same time, they are screaming about freedom.



Freedom is kind of a funny thing.

Perhaps they are sreaming about freedom to follow their religion without being discriminated against because of it?

The cartoons are in very bad taste, I think just about everyone would agree with that.  And I think most people would realise before hand that they would offend the Muslim community beforehand.

Why add more gas to a fire that is already out of control?

Or let's look at other groups, would anti-semantic cartoons be tolerated?  Racist? Portraying Jesus as a pedophile?

Freedom of the press is important, unfortunately it opens the door for abusing that right, free press should not mean the right to promote what could be considered hate speech.

Is the Muslim community overreacting?  Maybe, and perhaps this taken individually would not get much attention, but their culture, religion and everything about them has been under constant attack for a while, perhaps they are just at a point where every drop of water overfills the cup...


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 2, 2006)

Well said, Mr. Green.

We need to realize that the radical, militant extremist Muslims do not represent the greater Muslim population.  Ridicule of an entire religion is not an appropriate way to deal with legitimate problems with the radical groups.  Ridicule of the entire religion will give the radical groups more strength, as others who would not otherwise join with them reach the end of their tolerance and decide the radical groups just might be right.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 2, 2006)

See this is not the proper way to resolve your problems with the cartoon and is a contributing factor to why the cartoon got drawn in the first place

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-02-cartoonuproar_x.htm

*Gunmen surround EU office to protest cartoon *


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP)  Armed militants angered by a cartoon drawing of the Prophet Mohammed published in European newspapers surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world. 
More than 300 students demonstrated in Pakistan, chanting "Death to France!" and "Death to Denmark!"  two of the countries where newspapers published the drawings. Other protests were held in Syria and Lebanon, while officials in Afghanistan, Iran and Indonesia condemned the publication. In Paris, the daily _France Soir_ fired its managing editor after it ran the caricatures Wednesday.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 2, 2006)

Flying Crane & Andrew Green

Well said. 

First, what I am saying here is a simplification of a very complicated situation. 

In the Middle East you have Muslim fighting Muslim, Sunni vs. Shiite (Sunni - accepts the first four caliphs as rightful successors of Muhammad & Shiite - believe that Mohammad designated his son-in-law, 'Ali, to succeed him as leader of the umma of Islam) the only thing you can be certain that they agree on is Muhammad was a profit.

You also still have many people of that region that view anything coming from the west as another Crusade. It is a very religiously charged area where most conflicts have religion as their basis. 

In a time when there are Western troops on Muslim lands I do not believe these cartoons are going to do anything but give extremists an excuse and anger the rest of Muslim world unnecessarily.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 2, 2006)

Exchange Muhammad for Christ and Christians for Muslims, and the same people cautioning that we should 'be more sensitive' would in turn be saying that in a free society, people should have the absolute right to vioice their opinions.  

It is only because they fear provoking what they know is a predisposition to violence, that they seek to placate certain 'interests' at every turn.  It's ironic that we have 'free speech' so long as we don't offend someone who might start shooting or blowing things up.  Free speech means that sometimes people are offended.  I hear calls of 'responsible' speech, but freedom is based on the risk of irresponsible behavior.  

The 'Crowded movie' theatre argument does not apply in this situation, as it is based on a type of speech that will immediately arouse the average rational person to respond in a certain manner.  It does no apply to irrational person, or the irrational response, that says that we should respond violence toward anyone who happens to disagree.

Since when are religious Icons OFF-limits in western society?  For decades we've considered religious icons fair game.  It is only with Islamic icons that we seem timid.  Why?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 2, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> We need to realize that the radical, militant extremist Muslims do not represent the greater Muslim population.



By the logic these protestors are using, they are representative of Arabs and Muslims.

Remember, this is not a protest aimed at just the newspaper and those tied to it like advertisers. That would be understandable.

No, in this case the protestors in the street are protesting and boycotting _an entire nation._ They do so because they hold that the goverment should have stepped in and censored this before it went to press.

So if they believe that an entire populace can be blamed for a newspaper and giving the freedom to say even that which is not popular, then it stands to reason that the Arab and Musllim world can be blamed as a whole for what is printed in their media.

Has anyone bothered to check that link to www.memri.org I posted? Go ahead and read some of the translated articles that have been run _with the full knowledge and support_ of Muslim countries. Unlike western secular democracies, stories in that part of the world have to be cleared by the goverment- so they are more responsible than us.

You will find that it is treated as an established fact that the holocaust never existed, Jews rule the world, 9-11 was an American plot, etc.

So, if the populace at large is to blame for a newspaper, then the Muslim world is to blame for this hateful, bigoted trash.

I think that the West should go on the offensive here. As I said, Arab goverments are saying that the Danish and other goverments should somehow apologize for this. If they think the goverment is responsible for the news, then they can hardly wiggle out when the example at Memri are shown them. We should push for them to make their press truely free or at least stop the stupid, hate- filled messages that are the norm for them.

Take lemons and make lemonade. Take the enemies' attack and turn it against them. Don't go on the defensive and let them push back the idea of a free press by being silent.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 2, 2006)

As this draws out, it is interesting to observe just how differently we see things, as free people.  The context of our worldview has been forming and evolving for a great deal of time.  Theirs has gone a very different way.  

It's comforting to know that our way of doing things is consistently improving _because_ of the right to express our view, to criticize, even to do so in jest, should we choose.

As long as we don't infringe on the rights of others.

How are we beholden to the values of another state?  We are beholden only to the values of our representative authorities, placed there by our own collective choosing.

I mean, do they feel an obligation to observe any of our religious traditions?  Perhaps that's not a fair comparison, as ours is a more secular society.  Well, _ours_ is, anyway.......  

At any rate, our press is free to print what they choose.  And I'd be fairly annoyed if, in acting as my representative, my government became internationally apologetic for that freedom.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 3, 2006)

Very good points, I admit when I responded I was looking at the picture based on the Middle East, since that is what I seem to be reading a lot about lately. 

I have to agree with what is being said here, if you are in a country that has freedom of speech you should not be attempting to force your national beliefs, outside of that country, upon them. 

Although I do not know the rights and laws of Denmark, I know in America there is a separation of Church and state, although of the developed nations the US tends to be more puritanical. This separation gives us a different view of government. However in the Muslim world no such separation exists. But if you have chosen to live in another country or do business in that county you should be aware of this difference and not attempt to force your agenda or beliefs down the throat of that country. 

If you were Muslim in Denmark would you have the right to be angry, sure. And do you have the right to protest, I assume you do in Denmark. But do you have the right to demand they change, possibly. But that depends, as previously mentioned by sgtmac 46, if you would be equally as outraged by an off color cartoon about Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, etc. If these cartoons do not bother you then deal with it and move on.


----------



## DngrRuss (Feb 3, 2006)

Wow.  I mean, just... wow.

Okay- the muslims are upset because of cartoons depicting Mohammed.  The Joint Chiefs are upset over a cartoon depicting and injured soldier as "battle hardened".

GET THE HELL OVER IT FOLKS.  It's just a cartoon.

Watching the news today just makes me cringe.  Muslims in many countries are protesting and threatening violence over political cartoons depicting Mohammed.  They say that Islamic law states that any depiction of the prophet is blasphemous.  Fine.  But your religous law does not rule us all.  Of the many things that are just annoying the hell out me on this topic, 2 of them bubble up to the top:

1-If anyone purportedly representing your agenda (religous, cultural, racial, topical, etc.) takes public and political action (do what we want, or we'll blow you up- etc.), you have opened yourself up for public- and even international- scrutiny.  That scrutiny may not be flattering, and even offensive.  Tough.  If you can't stand the heat...

2-Watching CNN this morning, they even pixeled out the face of the prophet from the cartoon so as not to offend viewers.  Okay- as silly as I thought that was- I can understand CNN not wanting to anger an already angry group of people and put their offices and staff at risk.  But, video of some of the protests show very graphic cartoons carried by protestors depicting decapitations of westerners (I assume Europeans) in suits for offending their sensativities.  HUH?  A cartoon offends you so much you call for beheadings?  What the hell is wrong with you?  I am all for worshipping and observing your spiritually however you want- but come on.  This is just silly.  If you don't like cartoons depicting Mohammed in a negative light, then START POLICING FROM WITHIN.  Someone kills in the name of Mohammed- Condemn them!  Fight back against them!  Seperate yourself from them.  Don't threaten to kill cartoonists and newspaper editors- eliminate the terrorists that make the opinion of those outside your faith negative.

Also on CNN this morning, they interviewed a religous writer about why Muslims are so offended by these cartoons.  At the end of the interview, he states (I'm paraphrasing) that Jews and Christians have also been depicted negatively in cartoons.  If it is wrong for one faith it is wrong for them all and it should not happen at all.  HUH?  Should not happen at all?  Screw you and your PC ideology.  If anyone of any faith, or culture, or whatever, goes into a public forum and makes statements or takes action- THEN SHUT UP AND TAKE YOUR LUMPS!

Then, another cartoon was shown depicting a seriously injured soldier and an army doctor listing his diagnosis as "battle hardened".  The Joint Chiefs are upset saying it's deplorable.  Is it insensitive?  Is it destroying  morale?  I don't care if it is or not, what it is is a CARTOON.  It is a political satire in response to statements made by Rumsfeld and it is supposed to hit hard.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  You have the right to not like it.  You can complain and be unhappy about it.  But, don't expect scrutiny to not happen.  This is the same mentality that says that if you don't agree with the administration's views and statements- you're UnAmerican or a Traitor.  GIMME A BREAK!  

I can't stand this idea that anyone has the god given right to not be offended.  This idea of political correctness is just ridiculous.  I can understand not intentionally offending someone if that is your choice.  I do not intentionally offend those I have discourse with, unless I am trying to stir the pot or make a glaring point and drive it home.

But if I do offend someone, one of two things happens-
If it was unintentional- I apologize.
If it was intentional- I stand by my statement and tell them why I am making such statements.


----------



## DngrRuss (Feb 3, 2006)

So I just saw the other thread on this topic- sorry for starting a new thread when it was not needed.

I just rant and rant...


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 3, 2006)

A lot of the articles I am seeing in newspapers seem to be making the assumption that the cartoons were done on purpose to offend.  Has anyone seen anything that says these artists drew the cartoons or the newspapers specifically published the cartoons to offend the Muslim community?

The reality of this world is after the violence that has been almost constantly happening, I think that much of the Muslim community is viewed as being represented by the radicals who are terrorists and suicide bombers.  I could easily see the cartoon as being used by the Muslim community to wake up to the fact that IMO much of the non-muslim world views them as dangerous and that they need to make efforts to change that view if they don't want to see political cartoons like that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 3, 2006)

Has the paper ever run off color or insulting cartoons that feature other religious figures, from other religions? If so then it can be chalked up to equal time. If not, then it could be just to harass Muslims, and if that is the case then Muslims do have a reason to be upset.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 3, 2006)

I wonder what the "I understand their emotions" crowd has to say about the Tom Toles cartoon of the American soldier missing his arms and legs?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 3, 2006)

Mod Note:

2 Threads of similar topic merged.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 3, 2006)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Then, another cartoon was shown depicting a seriously injured soldier and an army doctor listing his diagnosis as "battle hardened".  The Joint Chiefs are upset saying it's deplorable.  Is it insensitive?  Is it destroying  morale?  I don't care if it is or not, what it is is a CARTOON.  It is a political satire in response to statements made by Rumsfeld and it is supposed to hit hard.  If you don't like it, that's fine.  You have the right to not like it.  You can complain and be unhappy about it.  But, don't expect scrutiny to not happen.  This is the same mentality that says that if you don't agree with the administration's views and statements- you're UnAmerican or a Traitor.  GIMME A BREAK!



Who said anything about being "UnAmerican" or a "Traitor"? I have the freedom to voice my opinion about a distasteful cartoon as much as anybody else and not get labeled a "censor". I heard the Joint Cheifs letter read. They voiced their displeasure about the cartoon but said nothing about removing it or closing down the paper or the artist. Seems like your side of the coin likes to trot out the "censorship"  wagon every time somebody complains about someting in the paper you dont necessarially disagree with. Censorship is the government shutting down the paper and/or the artist. Saying that his cartoon was disgusting is as much their right as mine.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> They say that Islamic law states that any depiction of the prophet is blasphemous.  Fine.  But your religous law does not rule us all.



You kind of see now the they do indeed think that their rules govern us all.

And whether the newspaper was trying to be rude or not is besides the point. It is like the display of a crucifix in urine. A lot of people protested over that because it was funded by American tax payer dollars. Was it meant to be rude, or was it meant to make a statement about modern Christianity and make us think about it? But no one reasonable said they had no right to do it at all.

The key point is that they expect us to censor ourselves to follow _their_ rules. That is what should be causing you concern.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 3, 2006)

If someone was a Muslim, and their laws dictate not to have any images of Muhammad, then that is their business.

Yet to get upset with people of another culture, and to take up arms in protest is not the words of Muhammad either. 

To show how things get out of wack, Wheh someone of the Islam Faith goes swimming there are rules for how much skin show for both men and women. In Ann Arbor at the local YMCA (* Ignore it is a Christian org as it has nothing to do with the comparison. Please. Thank you *), they would not let the local Muslims to swim in their clothes. As it was a safety risk. With a recent new Swim suit designed to be a loose body suit, as skin tight is not desirable either, made of normal swim suit material has been approved. Now their complaints of be discriminated against are over, as they can swim, and still follow their faith.  If they had a swimming pool of their own they could swim on their property and do it with regular clothes and be fine. Yet when in a public pool, they must follow local rules and ordinances. So to expect people to change their local laws for them. with out due process is not reasonable. 

It would be like, me claiming to be non-religious insisting that all religious meetings and prayers insult me, and claim that all forms of such religous actions must stop universe wide. This is an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 3, 2006)

This was in the Friday International  Herald Tribune in Japan. I hope this case is not the only one as it is a small glimmer of hope.

The editor of Al-Shihan in Jordan, Jihad Momani ran the cartoons in his paper so people could see them for themselves and said this,



> Muslims of the world, be reasonable. 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?



This picture was a comment about the way Islam is viewed through its actions. Maybe we should be pressing the point that if they spent some time protesting the false hate speech in their own media and stood up and said that suicide bombings are wrong, then Islam would be viewed with less suspicion in the west.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 3, 2006)

Whether it be rude and offensive speech about Muhammad or rude and offensive speech about soldiers with missing limbs...the answer to free speech we find abusive or incendiary is.....MORE FREE SPEECH!!!! 

Ain't liberty grand? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  No other place i'd rather live, or era in history i'd rather exist in, than the free Western World.  At least you don't, as a rule, get shot, burned out or hung for saying something that might be considered insulting to Allah (or anyone else for that matter).


----------



## DngrRuss (Feb 4, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Whether it be rude and offensive speech about Muhammad or rude and offensive speech about soldiers with missing limbs...the answer to free speech we find abusive or incendiary is.....MORE FREE SPEECH!!!!
> 
> Ain't liberty grand?
> 
> ...



Dang Sgt- we agree again?

We gotta stop doing that or people are going to talk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Dang Sgt- we agree again?
> 
> We gotta stop doing that or people are going to talk


 I know.  We keep this up, and people are going to start thinking there's hope for the rest of the world.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




In all seriousness, my natural inclinations are libertarian.  It's exceedingly rare that I would suggest further restricting freedoms is the answer to anything.  Usually, I do fall on the side of more severe punishment for violations of laws we already have, but that's an entirely different story.  

I feel if we severely punish violations of a few, reasonable laws, then it's unnecessary to keep making MORE laws.   For example, it's unnecessary to make laws against 'hate speech' (def. Any speech that offends some interest group) that incites people to burn buildings and kill people....if we aggressively enforce the laws we already have against burning buildings and killing people.   If a group of people congregates to peacefully protest the speech of another, that is their right....to peaceably assemble.  

If those same people, however, begin burning buildings and hurting and killing innocent people, we should shoot those who forcefully resist the attempt of the lawful authority to regain control, and arrest those who caused the acts of violence and destruction in the first place.  

That's why threats of violence should not be enough in a free society to enforce silence on people's rights of free speech.  Free speech is a right.  Enforcing your views on other citizens through violence is NOT a right.  Therefore, if Muslims wish to stiffle dissent in the Islamic world through violence and force, that's their perogative, I suppose.  However, they WILL not use the same tactics if they expect to live in the Western World (or at least not the US, as it's clear some other Western nations are prepared to tolerate it).  If they live here, they are to respect the same laws and views on liberty that we have adopted and embraced for well over 200 years...even IF someone insults Allah.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> This was in the Friday International  Herald Tribune in Japan. I hope this case is not the only one as it is a small glimmer of hope.
> 
> The editor of Al-Shihan in Jordan, Jihad Momani ran the cartoons in his paper so people could see them for themselves and said this,
> 
> "Muslims of the world, be reasonable. 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?"



Sadly, the editor was arrested.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...afp/europeislammediajordanarrest_060204143615


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Sadly, the editor was arrested.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2630&ncid=2630&e=31&u=/afp/20060204/wl_mideast_afp/europeislammediajordanarrest_060204143615


 
That is so sad - say something reasonable and your freedom, and perhas your life as well, is in jeopardy. That part of the world is in sore need of a Renaissance and a liberalization (in the traditional sense meaning loosening of controls). This will be a slow process, however, and they must do it THEMSELVES. Shock democracy or democracy imposed by gunpoint (invasion), will only, IMO, bring groups such as Hamas, The Islamic Brotherhood, and the folks like Sadr to eventual power.

Although I am not a Christian, I have ALWAYS been offended by "art" that attacked and desecreted Christian symbols or beliefs. It is puzzling (and disturbing) to me that Christianity is considered fair game and other faiths are untouchable. For the record I would have preferred the editors not to have ran this particular cartoon. However; it was their right to do so and blaming the GOVERNMENTS AND NATIONS involved shows that much of the Middle Eastern world has a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> That is so sad - say something reasonable and your freedom, and perhas your life as well, is in jeopardy. That part of the world is in sore need of a Renaissance and a liberalization (in the traditional sense meaning loosening of controls). This will be a slow process, however, and they must do it THEMSELVES. Shock democracy or democracy imposed by gunpoint (invasion), will only, IMO, bring groups such as Hamas, The Islamic Brotherhood, and the folks like Sadr to eventual power.
> 
> Although I am not a Christian, I have ALWAYS been offended by "art" that attacked and desecreted Christian symbols or beliefs. It is puzzling (and disturbing) to me that Christianity is considered fair game and other faiths are untouchable. For the record I would have preferred the editors not to have ran this particular cartoon. However; it was their right to do so and blaming the GOVERNMENTS AND NATIONS involved shows that much of the Middle Eastern world has a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.


 Keep in mind the very word 'Islam' means 'Obedience to God'.  Therefore, Islam, as much as any other religion, is founded on the principle of absolute obedience, without question, to that religious ideal.  NOT responding in the prescribed manner to a threat against Islam, real or perceived, is considered the same as committing it.  Duty becomes a central tenent in Islam.  

For example, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his famous Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was declared the 'Duty' of every pious muslim to carry it out.


----------



## DuneViking (Feb 4, 2006)

Quote
DngrRuss 

Wow. I mean, just... wow.
Okay- the muslims are upset because of cartoons depicting Mohammed. The Joint Chiefs are upset over a cartoon depicting and injured soldier as "battle hardened".
GET THE HELL OVER IT FOLKS. It's just a cartoon. 
End Quote

Thousands of americans have died protecting the rights and freedoms of others as well as their countries over the years. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? The Danish ALL wore the Star of David when the Nazis called for jews to do so. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? While I am not a fan of the french of late, some French at least had an underground movement to help save lives during WWII. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? We should be considerate of the feelings of these others that call for deaths of _entire countries_ for publishing a cartoon why??

One should instead ask "Why has the satire in cartoon emerged?" Some crazy people twisting a faith in religion to serve their own warped minds walk into crowds of innocent people and blow themselves up. I am ashamed for what I am about to say, just two words- PARKING LOT! That is about how much I sympathize with those that call for death. The moderate sensible people who follow that faith must endure satire just as the rest of the world does. 
:soapbox: :viking1:


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 4, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> This was in the Friday International  Herald Tribune in Japan. I hope this case is not the only one as it is a small glimmer of hope.
> 
> The editor of Al-Shihan in Jordan, Jihad Momani ran the cartoons in his paper so people could see them for themselves and said this,
> 
> ...




Yes. The violent reaction from the Muslim world over a cartoon only serves to reinforce the message of the very cartoon that they are protesting. It's almost as if they were being "baited", and they not only took the bait, but swallowed the hook.....


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 4, 2006)

DuneViking said:
			
		

> Thousands of americans have died protecting the rights and freedoms of others as well as their countries over the years. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? The Danish ALL wore the Star of David when the Nazis called for jews to do so. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? While I am not a fan of the french of late, some French at least had an underground movement to help save lives during WWII. What Arab nations have made such sacrifice? We should be considerate of the feelings of these others that call for deaths of _entire countries_ for publishing a cartoon why??


 
It should also be remembered that, despite our differences with the French, their forces were some of the first into Afghanistan after 9/11.

While I do not like cartoons that make fun of other people's faith, calling for their _deaths _is way out of line.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 4, 2006)

DuneViking said:
			
		

> Quote
> DngrRuss
> 
> Wow. I mean, just... wow.
> ...


 For the record, many 'Arabs' cheered during the holocaust.  The Grand Mufti of Palestine was a close friend of the Nazi high-command, and is considered one of the architects of the 'Final Solution'.  In fact, it was his anger at the original plan to deport jews to Palestine that resulted in the time table being sped up.  


> The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.


http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php 


He personally helped recruit Nazi SS Muslim divisions in Serbia.  He also escaped war crimes trials after WWII because the west feared angering the Arab world.  He was the uncle and person hero to Yasser Arafat, and is still considered a national hero.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> This will be a slow process, however, and they must do it THEMSELVES. Shock democracy or democracy imposed by gunpoint (invasion), will only, IMO, bring groups such as Hamas, The Islamic Brotherhood, and the folks like Sadr to eventual power.



The second part of your statement may be true. But I must say that by letting them do things themselves does not mean that we don't do anything.

Now the the door is open for a debate about religious tolerance and media control, we should pounce on it and press our case. If someone from that part of the world wants to come on an American talk show, we should not be on the defensive. We should not try to just explain that we can't stop someone from publishing these images. We should pull out the original clips of the stories about Jews using the blood of Muslims and Gentiles for a traditional food of theirs and say, "if you think people should respect you- why don't you give a good example by stopping this type of thing?"

I don't like the way people are feeling apologetic about this matter. In the world of Islam there is not much tolerance as we can see. We can't let them continue the offensive and apologize.

They want to talk about problems with the media? Let's put it all on the table.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The second part of your statement may be true. But I must say that by letting them do things themselves does not mean that we don't do anything.
> 
> They want to talk about problems with the media? Let's put it all on the table.


 
True; I've been following the radical Islamicist press since before 9/11 and there are some REALLY bad folks out there spreading the most horrible distortions. This doesn't mean that the West has behaved particularly well in that region since WW1, but most of what I have read is just outright ridiculous.

We can put it on the table, but THEY won't. Most, if not all, of these Middle Eastern governments are ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of freedom of speech and press.

There just are no easy answeres here. That region of the world missed the Renaissance and Enlightenment and their people are enslaved by ruthless and corrupt dictatorships and those dictatorships have found it convenient to tolerate and even subsidize the anti-semitic and anti-western press.

Without the slow and steady growth of democratic TRADITIONS, extremist groups such as the Islamic Brotherhood and Hamas will simply use elections in the way the Nazis did in the late twenties and early thirties - use it first to gain power then destroy it.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> There just are no easy answeres here. That region of the world missed the Renaissance and Enlightenment and their people are enslaved by ruthless and corrupt dictatorships and those dictatorships have found it convenient to tolerate and even subsidize the anti-semitic and anti-western press.


 
Certainly.  Islam to those governments is not a faith, but a means of exerting total control over the citizenry.



			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Without the slow and steady growth of democratic TRADITIONS, extremist groups such as the Islamic Brotherhood and Hamas will simply use elections in the way the Nazis did in the late twenties and early thirties - use it first to gain power then destroy it.


 

Agreed.  But a large stumbling block is education.  A successful democracy depends on an educated electorate.   In countries where education standards are not good, and are non existant for some citizen (ie: women) the growth of democratic traditions will be very slow and difficult.  Can the process truly survive the growing pains and flourish?  How patient will they be?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 5, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Agreed.  But a large stumbling block is education.  A successful democracy depends on an educated electorate.   In countries where education standards are not good, and are non existant for some citizen (ie: women) the growth of democratic traditions will be very slow and difficult.  Can the process truly survive the growing pains and flourish?  How patient will they be?



I have to give a guarded agreement.

Too many people think that elections are the key to democracy. There was huge pressure on the Bush administration to hold elections in Iraq as part of this philosophy. The same goes for Palestine.

When you say "Education" I hear "The ability to be able to say what you want." Hence, I think that a free press is far more important than the ballot box. 

To have a free society, you need not have _only_ elections, but also individual rights, a free press and an independent legal system.

Too many people cry about the lack of elections in the middle east. We need to be screaming about the lack of a free press. With a free press, we can get new ideas in. And ideas are far more dangerous than any conventional weapon in the long term.

People pressure their senator to let elections go on in Muslim countries. Anyone want to take a look at recent Egyption elections? We should be telling our representatives to increase the amount of freedom of the press. Yes, we can expect a lot of what we don't want to be aired. But if we also try to set up alternative news groups such as the Voice of America we can at least start the battle that we need to fight.

In short, I would rather have a dictatorship with a free press than a democracy without free expression.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 5, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> I have to give a guarded agreement.
> 
> Too many people think that elections are the key to democracy. There was huge pressure on the Bush administration to hold elections in Iraq as part of this philosophy. The same goes for Palestine.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely! That was the lesson of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis - elections without democratic TRADITIONS (free speech, free press, etc.) usually lead to extremists attaining power.

I sure would rather these nations have a free press and real education system for all rather than simply free elections. Too many people see democracy alone as the solution when in fact, absent a free press and real education, it acts as more as a solvent than a glue.

On edit: I know that Weimar _had_ a free press, but Germany at that time did not have a true, longstanding democratic tradition.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Certainly. Islam to those governments is not a faith, but a means of exerting total control over the citizenry.


 Islam, literally meaning 'Obedience to Allah' is useful that way.



			
				lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Agreed. But a large stumbling block is education. A successful democracy depends on an educated electorate. In countries where education standards are not good, and are non existant for some citizen (ie: women) the growth of democratic traditions will be very slow and difficult. Can the process truly survive the growing pains and flourish? How patient will they be?


  Both the secular governments and the religious fundamentalists have a vested interest in keeping secular education away from the masses.  Sadly, those who take a more rational secular view, are often the targets of threats and violence.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Islam, literally meaning 'Obedience to Allah' is useful that way.


 
Islam is not the only useful religion.  Other religions too...including Christianity.  The Roman Emperor Constantine "converted" and formed a state religion to control the masses.  And it has served in its niche ever since.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Both the secular governments and the religious fundamentalists have a vested interest in keeping secular education away from the masses. Sadly, those who take a more rational secular view, are often the targets of threats and violence.


 
True, but this can also apply to anyone who favors a theocracy.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2006)

Does anyone remember the artist in New York a few years back that portrayed a cross in a jar full of urine as part of his exibit? I thought that was in bad taste too, but apparently he had the feedom to do it. The problem is that people have forgotten that with freedom comes personal responsibitly. 

We should, as considerate beings, take into account the feelings of others and accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions. If terrorists use these cartoons as a tool to recruit or further their cause then the authors should be held responsible for that. 

Also, if 'real-peacful' Muslims want to be mad about something, they should be mad at the terrorist that use their religion as a platform and excuse for homocide, suicide, and genocide. If they want to distance their religion from the way most of the world now views them, they should take a stand and clean up their own backyards and not tolerate it. 

MHO =)


----------



## dobermann (Feb 5, 2006)

this is so ridicilous.. i liked that phrase the best: ..while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers... 

same with this dutch guy that got killed for making a film, pim whatever the name was. years ago it was salman rushdie they wanted to kill for writing a book.

these people should grow up! its a free world we live in, not a muslim one. me, rather being a spiritual than religious person, couldnt care less for some good fun on peoples believe. i dont do bombthreads or go and light up churches for the witnesses of jehova that just came round here the other day and "made fun" of my believes. i should have sent my dog after them tough!


----------



## Kane (Feb 5, 2006)

Guys, I have to say that this Muhammad cartoon isn't the only thing Muslims are going crazy about. I was recreantly banned from a Muslim forum for stating that I created Mohammed in a WWE Smackdown game. Another reason why is because I disagreed with Muslims rioting over the cartoons. Many of these Muslims are very intolerant. But why is this? It is maybe because most Muslims are fundamentalists.

I have defended Muslims for a long time from many anti-muslim. My own father is an anti-muslim. I even told the forum the forum this and how much I defended it but they still banned me for not sharing the same opinion as me.

Although only a few Muslims are violent extremists, fundamentalist Islam is a major threat to the world. Just think how bad it was back when fundamentalist Christianity had such a hard grip on the world. Think the conquest of Americas, crusades, ect. This is basically what we are dealing with in modern times with fundamentalist Muslims. I have no problem with moderate abrahamics but these fundies can be a major threat.

The Muslims I talked to wanted to ban any type of picture of Muhammad being created. First piggy-banks and now this? It's getting ridiculous! I fear that our freedom if speech is threatened.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> The Muslims I talked to wanted to ban any type of picture of Muhammad being created


 
It is against already against Sharia law to create a likeness of Muhammad.  But in practice, this law gets politely overlooked when the likeness is favorable.

The cartoons were published in September of 2005.  To the credit of the Islamic community, Muslim organizations in Denmark responded peacefully.  The Muslim groups relied upon their freedom of speech to respond to the cartoons in October 2005:

A group of 16 Muslim organisations issued a statement on Wednesday demanding that Jyllands-Posten apologise for printing the drawings. 

"The newspaper has with its action deliberately stepped on Islam's ethical and moral values with the purpose of contempt and ridiculing Muslims' feelings, their holy sites and their religious symbols," the group said.​ 
Full Article:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66F847B8-DDE8-49A2-86B1-0D7015477090.htm

But the reason why we are talking about it now, isn't just about freedom of speech.  Its about freedom of speech not being good enough because it didn't have the outcome that the fundamentalist Muslims wanted.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> Guys, I have to say that this Muhammad cartoon isn't the only thing Muslims are going crazy about. I was recreantly banned from a Muslim forum for stating that I created Mohammed in a WWE Smackdown game. Another reason why is because I disagreed with Muslims rioting over the cartoons. Many of these Muslims are very intolerant. But why is this? It is maybe because most Muslims are fundamentalists.
> 
> I have defended Muslims for a long time from many anti-muslim. My own father is an anti-muslim. I even told the forum the forum this and how much I defended it but they still banned me for not sharing the same opinion as me.
> 
> ...


 We are a victim of our own overactive desire to appease and tolerate everyones behavior, no matter how irrational or dangerous that behavior is.  We keep preaching to each other that we have to be 'tolerant'.  Exactly WHAT are we going to decide we aren't going to tolerate?  

I keep hearing the phrase 'It isn't all Muslims, it isn't all Muslims' and that may be true.....But just exactly how many Muslims is it?  They have a right to practice their religion, but they do NOT have a right to come in to the western world, and begin dictating terms.  More and more people are seeing this for the threat it is.  

Paris burns, the Dutch embassy burns, Europe is starting to realize that they have a serious problem in their midst.  It isn't even just terrorism from Al-Qaeda that is a threat to the western world.  It's far greater than that.  The problem with the majority of the Islamic world, is the idea of blind obedience to an anachronistic ideal.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 5, 2006)

One story that I have read on this subject, is that after the deaths during the Hajj, the media in Saudi Arabia started writing a number of articles about these cartoons. I guess it is being posited that Saudi Arabi is trying to change the subject from security and safety during the Hajj to anything else. 

Watch for the Saudi flags in the protests.


----------



## Carol (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem with the majority of the Islamic world, is the idea of blind obedience to an anachronistic ideal.


 
And perhaps if you were to ask a Muslim, they would use the word sumission.  Islam = submission (only/fully) to Allah, Muslim = one who submits (only/fully) to Allah.

But is the ideal really that anachronistic?  Lust for power and glory never seems to go out of style.  And, as the dominating Muslim culture understands, the violent fundamentalists have been able to do what no other leaders of this era have been able to do:  bring down a US presidency (as the Ayatollah did to Carter) or bomb the US mainland (9/11).  

It seems like a masterful work of strategy.  We will hurt you, so give us what we want.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> And perhaps if you were to ask a Muslim, they would use the word sumission. Islam = submission (only/fully) to Allah, Muslim = one who submits (only/fully) to Allah.
> 
> But is the ideal really that anachronistic? Lust for power and glory never seems to go out of style. And, as the dominating Muslim culture understands, the violent fundamentalists have been able to do what no other leaders of this era have been able to do: bring down a US presidency (as the Ayatollah did to Carter) or bomb the US mainland (9/11).
> 
> It seems like a masterful work of strategy. We will hurt you, so give us what we want.


 Oh, it very much is a masterful work of strategy....made more masterful because it plays to our weaknesses, i.e. our, in this case, fatal desire to be perceived as being 'tolerant' at all costs, and our fear of being labelled 'xenophobic' to the point that we will allow any behavior, no matter how intolerable it is.  

Make no mistake, we have only seen the first inkling of what's coming.  Europe will burn before this is over with.  Perhaps the rest of us as well.


----------



## Satt (Feb 6, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh, it very much is a masterful work of strategy....made more masterful because it plays to our weaknesses, i.e. our, in this case, fatal desire to be perceived as being 'tolerant' at all costs, and our fear of being labelled 'xenophobic' to the point that we will allow any behavior, no matter how intolerable it is.
> 
> Make no mistake, we have only seen the first inkling of what's coming. Europe will burn before this is over with. Perhaps the rest of us as well.


 
sgtmac_46, you are my new favorite poster. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I totally agree with you.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 6, 2006)

Yes. Using AA style victimology as international policy is incredibly smart.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

I usually try to avoid judging religions and religious people, but can anybody verify if this is true?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20646


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I usually try to avoid judging religions and religious people, but can anybody verify if this is true?
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20646


 
What does judging religioins and religious people have to do with this article?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 6, 2006)

Hmm, there are riots all over the world, buildings have been burned and people have died. Over cartoons. Yet the muslim community has had no concern over publishing radically anti-semite, anti-christian articles and cartoons. I'm glad that the Muslim community has taken this opportunity to show us what a even handed, peaceful religion it is.

Question, why is it that the only condemnation from the American Muslim community has been in regards to the cartoons but nothing about the rioting, burning and deaths that have been caused by fellow muslims?


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 6, 2006)

Bingo.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> why is it that the only condemnation from the American Muslim community has been in regards to the cartoons but nothing about the rioting, burning and deaths that have been caused by fellow muslims?


 
Possibility ... Cuz you aren't listening.

http://www.cair-net.org/



> *U.S. Muslims Reject Violent Response to Cartoon Controversy*
> 
> WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/5/06)  On Sunday, February 5, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C., to express the U.S. Muslim community's rejection of violence in response to the defamatory caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in European newspapers.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 6, 2006)

And meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood has appeared because of this and on an unrelated note Hamas is in control in Beirut.  

Yes they extremists are a minority, but they are a very dangerous minority looking for a unifying reason.

These groups will exploit this if for no other reason to incite violence against the west.

And it is an absolutely correct statement to say it is ok for Muslims to attack the beliefs of the west, but a reverse of that is not acceptable.

 However knowing that and knowing the situation in the world today, how intelligent was it for the paper in Denmark to publish this? 

And even with all of this going on, you still cannot judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. There are approximately 1,504,000,000 Muslims in the world today they are not all rioting.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2006)

I read an interesting post on Huffington Post today about how societies can talk right past each other; unable to understand each other, leading to great misunderstandings. 

The scribe compared and contrasted Massachusetts and South Carolina in the 1850's. These two states both held very strong positions on slavery, and the Nebraska territories were in the process of deciding if they were going to be an abolitionist state or not. 

The different cultures of the abolitionist Massachusetts and slave holding South Carolina prohibited common ground. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/been-there-done-that_b_15192.html

Expecting Western Culture (press freedom, civil government) to be understood by those in the Middle East is as oxymoronic as our trying to understand their culture (Bishops as governmental authorities, religious law).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 6, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood has appeared because of this and on an unrelated note Hamas is in control in Beirut.


 
Correction:
And meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood has appeared because of this and on an unrelated note Hamas is in control in Palestine


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 6, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Expecting Western Culture (press freedom, civil government) to be understood by those in the Middle East is as oxymoronic as our trying to understand their culture (Bishops as governmental authorities, religious law).


 
Good article.

In America you have separation of Church and State. In Muslim nations you have no such separation, church is state.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood has appeared because of this and on an unrelated note Hamas is in control in Beirut.
> 
> Yes they extremists are a minority, but they are a very dangerous minority looking for a unifying reason.


 
It is interesting how they haven't found one yet. Despite all the hoo ha over islamo-facists (a term that just popped out of thin air recently) and their goal of creating an empire from one end of Europe to the other. Outside of random rioting, there doesn't seem to be an agenda at all.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 7, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It is interesting how they haven't found one yet. Despite all the hoo ha over islamo-facists (a term that just popped out of thin air recently) and their goal of creating an empire from one end of Europe to the other. Outside of random rioting, there doesn't seem to be an agenda at all.



Have you ever heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir? Do a web search and be prepared to get a little paranoid.:anic:


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 7, 2006)

Here's A mature handling of the situation:


*Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons* 

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's best-selling newspaper has launched a competition to find the best cartoon about the Holocaust in retaliation for the publication in many European countries of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad. 

yahoo story


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 7, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It is interesting how they haven't found one yet. Despite all the hoo ha over islamo-facists (a term that just popped out of thin air recently) and their goal of creating an empire from one end of Europe to the other. Outside of random rioting, there doesn't seem to be an agenda at all.


 
In reality, they probably will not find a reason or an impetus for the Islamic world to declare a jihad. Even in the past, long long past, when they did unify it was under 1 very powerful ruler and it did not last. 

What the Muslim world wants is one nation controlled by Islam. But there are already existing separate countries there. And you have the little matter of Shiite fighting Sunni, all based on the Prophet Mohammad. 

Terrorist organizations look for a justification to strike and hope for some cause that will unify Islam against the west. However I doubt they will ever achieve the Jihad they want, even for a cartoon done in very poor taste about the Prophet Mohammad. 



			
				Ping898 said:
			
		

> Here's A mature handling of the situation:
> 
> 
> *Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons*
> ...


 
Yup, that will solve things....not


----------



## Carol (Feb 7, 2006)

A hypothetical question...

How can the Iranian mullacrats ask for a characture of something that they don't believe even existed?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 7, 2006)

Good question, here's another one.

How is attacking the holocaust, which effected mainly people of Jewish faith, effecting Denmark?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Good question, here's another one.
> 
> How is attacking the holocaust, which effected mainly people of Jewish faith, effecting Denmark?



Because the Iranian President thinks this is all a conspiracy by Israel over their unhappiness with Hamas being elected to power by the Palestinians.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 7, 2006)

This is a time line of major events I found that goes up to last Sat

*30 Sept 2005:* Danish paper publishes cartoons
*20 Oct: *Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
*10 Jan 2006:* Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
*26 Jan:* Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
*30 Jan: *Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
*31 Jan:* Danish paper apologises
*1 Feb:* Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
*4 Feb: *Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus 
*5 Feb:* Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Have you ever heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir? Do a web search and be prepared to get a little paranoid.:anic:


 
I just did. When they're actually calling the shots, or leading a mass islamic movement, I'll amend my previous statement. Til then, they're just about as threatening right now as the folks who read the Turner Diaries. (Dangerous and best locked up, but not guiding or forming a cohesive group that's remotely capable of acheiving their aims.)


----------



## Satt (Feb 7, 2006)

That's a great idea. Let's all just sit back and wait for that to happen.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Satt said:
			
		

> That's a great idea. Let's all just sit back and wait for that to happen.


 
Interesting. Just what are you personally doing to prevent this otherwise inevatible fall of Europe?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 7, 2006)

Hizb ut-Tahrir is another in a long line of terrorist organization, however it appears to have recognized that woman can be used to commit acts of terror so it gives them rights. But if my memory serves me correctly I believe Hamas started recruiting woman too.

There are a lot of Islamic terror organizations; many are splinter groups from other Islamic terror organization. 

If you want a list of just some of the terrorist organizations both past and present go to 

Terrorist Organization Profiles from the Institute for Counter-Terrorism Database
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/org.cfm

If you want to know a bit about Hizb ut-Tahrir you can go to many places on the web, but Wikipedia gives a good over view

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir

Most Islamic terror organizations want a unified Islam or the destruction of Israel or both. Some however appear just to be looking to blow stuff up. Many end up in an internal power struggle and many cannot get past the differences between Shiite and Sunni, which messes up the whole unified Islam thing.

It is expected that they will make a big deal, bigger than the average Muslim, out of these cartoons.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

I was watching a spot on tv the other day about female suicide bombers. One of the overriding themes was that martyrdom would allow them to be one of the "72 virgins". It's considered a position of honor.


----------



## Satt (Feb 7, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Interesting. Just what are you personally doing to prevent this otherwise inevatible fall of Europe?


 
Nothing actually. I am going to do what I said, sit back and laugh as all the countries in the world fall victim to their own lack of intestinal fortitude.
opcorn: :barf:


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Satt said:
			
		

> Nothing actually. I am going to do what I said, sit back and laugh as all the countries in the world fall victim to their own lack of intestinal fortitude.


 
Funny that intestinal fortitude doesn't mean beleving your culture is perfect. Otherwise it'd mean that bigotry and cowardice equated to intestinal fortitude.


----------



## Zepp (Feb 7, 2006)

It's obvious that publishing those cartoons was in bad taste, especially considering that the response was predictable.  But, I think we can clearly see that most of the Muslim world expects a double standard of cultural tolerance.

Check out some newspaper cartoons from the Muslim world: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

Gee, aren't those hilarious?  Shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 7, 2006)

Zepp said:
			
		

> Gee, aren't those hilarious? Shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.


 
They're claiming "freedom of speech".


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 8, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Interesting. Just what are you personally doing to prevent this otherwise inevatible fall of Europe?



Well I think the first step is to let people know about the dangers of HT and groups like them.

Too many people in the west still seem to think that if we do nothing to provoke Muslims then they will have no reason to attack us. They tend to blame us rather than the attackers, thinking that we must have brought it on ourselves.

But if you know about HT, and see this controversy over the cartoons you can see that there really is not much needed for some to justify violent attacks against the west. We need to know that there are people out there that are working for a theocracy and will use any excuse to try to alienate the Muslim world. 

They are not above making things up as well. So even if we keep our noses super clean and not publish any naughty cartoons, they will still hate us for allowing Jews to kidnap Muslim children to use their blood in traditional pastries.


----------



## Odin (Feb 8, 2006)

I think sometimes people get confused in thinking that Muslims and terrorist are one of the same.....


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 8, 2006)

Zepp said:
			
		

> It's obvious that publishing those cartoons was in bad taste, especially considering that the response was predictable. But, I think we can clearly see that most of the Muslim world expects a double standard of cultural tolerance.
> 
> Check out some newspaper cartoons from the Muslim world: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm
> 
> Gee, aren't those hilarious? Shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.


 
I just wish one of these _____ "Leaders" we have would stop trying to be PC and take something like these cartoons and go on the offense.  I know the whole point is that the cartoon of Muhammad is blaphemous, but I am getting tired of the BS coming from the rioters and the people controlling them.  I know it is not all Muslims who are rioting, but as this drags on and gets more violent it is hard at times to remember the difference.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

Not all muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are muslim. There's no external power that's going to control the extremists. The peaceful muslims who vastly outnumber the radicals advocating violence are the ones who need to rein them in but that doesn't seem to be happening. There are those speaking out against the violence but it appears that the majority is maintaining its silence.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 8, 2006)

Cartoons prompt spike in Danish Web hacks 
800 Web sites defaced
News Story by Robert McMillan     

FEBRUARY 08, 2006 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - The furor over a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed is being felt on the Internet, where hackers have struck down and defaced hundreds of Danish Web sites over the past week, according to a Web site that tracks digital attacks. 

Approximately 800 Danish Web sites have been hacked since the end of January, when reaction to the cartoons began to receive widespread media attention, said Roberto Preatoni, founder of the Zone-h.org Web site. 

On Tuesday, about 200 Danish Web sites were reported as hacked with many of them defaced with messages "in support of this Islamic war on the Internet," Preatoni said. Typically between five and 10 Danish Web sites are reported hacked each day, he said. 

Messages on the hacked sites include "don't ever talk about our prophet," "[expletive] Denmark," and "Let the Muslim people live in peace [expletive]." 

Most of the hackers are "posting hate messages," Preatoni said, but there are exceptions. "In some examples, we actually saw intelligent educated people who hacked and posted very polite messages, explaining what they were thinking." 

The 12 cartoons, originally published on Sept. 30 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have offended Muslims the world over and sparked attacks by protesters on Danish embassies in Tehran, Beirut and Damascus. 

Preatoni estimates that another 700 non-Danish Web sites have also been hacked in connection with the cartoons. 

The Zone-h.org Web site contains about 10 years' worth of data on hacked Web sites, most of it submitted by the hackers themselves, including information on the motivation behind the attacks. 

Other worldwide hacking protests have flared up in the past, including a surge in attacks after a U.S. spy plane was downed in China in 2001. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there was also a "massive Islamic protest" on the Internet, Preatoni said. 

The reaction to the Danish cartoons, however, has yielded the largest number of defacements in such a short time, Preatoni sad. "Islamic hackers, regardless of where they are located in the globe, they are uniting in this general protest against Denmark," he said. 

One Danish site that has apparently not been defaced is that of the Jyllands-Posten itself. It has been the target of a number of denial-of-service attacks, where attackers attempt to flood the Web site with so many requests that it ceases to operate, but it has remained in operation, said Mikko Hypponen, director of antivirus research at F-Secure Corp. in Helsinki, Finland. 

"Outside of that, I'm not aware of any hack attacks that have succeeded in any way," he said. "It has not been defaced."


----------



## Kane (Feb 8, 2006)

You know a few years ago, a group of Muslims in Afghanistan violently destroyed two giant, ancient statues of Buddha. In Buddhism, shared by something like 300,000,000 people world wide, this is a terrible thing to do. There were no buildings burned, no violence, no death threats.

Bibles are burned daily in the Middle East. Yet there are no violence, burning, or death threats from Christians.

What is really worrying me at the moment is the different way people are talking now. More and more westerners are openly accepting that the actions of the extremists is reflective of all Muslims. Conversely, I seem to hear more and more Muslim voices telling me that the west is wicked and Islam is right to fight back.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 8, 2006)

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=261960

This is an interesting story i found.



> It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: *The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory.* The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.
> 
> ...
> 
> In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 9, 2006)

Hey....did you guys know we(the US) are the leaders of Europe?  News to me....



> Cartoon Protesters Direct Anger at U.S.
> 
> QALAT, Afghanistan - Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America.
> 
> *The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world*," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.


 
Yahoo Article


----------



## Odin (Feb 9, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Hey....did you guys know we(the US) are the leaders of Europe? News to me....
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo Article


 
Thats because you guys are the 'big satan'...(") we're (england) are just an ally.


----------



## Odin (Feb 9, 2006)

Kane said:
			
		

> You know a few years ago, a group of Muslims in Afghanistan violently destroyed two giant, ancient statues of Buddha. In Buddhism, shared by something like 300,000,000 people world wide, this is a terrible thing to do. There were no buildings burned, no violence, no death threats.
> 
> Bibles are burned daily in the Middle East. Yet there are no violence, burning, or death threats from Christians.
> 
> What is really worrying me at the moment is the different way people are talking now. More and more westerners are openly accepting that the actions of the extremists is reflective of all Muslims. Conversely, I seem to hear more and more Muslim voices telling me that the west is wicked and Islam is right to fight back.


 
I know what your saying but the christians arent that innocent...mosques and muslims were targeted after the attacks on London now weather this was conducted by mear yobs or christians is not known but I know there is tension between christians and muslim in england right now........................plus how long did them crusades last.(")


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 9, 2006)

Large riots are different from vandalism by unknown people.


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2006)

Muhammad is a common name in certain places - how do we know that these cartoons are of the prophet Muhammad?

If no likeness of Muhammad was allowed, then how does anyone know that these are depictions of the prophet Muhammad.

Personally, I'm pretty hurt by the "what's in your wallet" commercials that depict my people in a horrible light.  But you don't see the vikings or visigoths raping and pillaging because of those commercials, do you?


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 9, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> Muhammad is a common name in certain places - how do we know that these cartoons are of the prophet Muhammad?
> 
> If no likeness of Muhammad was allowed, then how does anyone know that these are depictions of the prophet Muhammad.


 
Probably the same way that even though Chrisitans don't know what Jesus looks like they can tell who he is in a picture most times....


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Probably the same way that even though Chrisitans don't know what Jesus looks like they can tell who he is in a picture most times....


The depiction of Jesus is common and has been for many years (although it's probably not an accurate portrayal).  In otherwords, Christians see pictures and statues of Jesus and are told "this is a representation of Jesus" and that's how they know.

The depiction of Muhammad is and was forbidden so I can't imagine that very many Muslims were exposed to pictures/paintings of him...therefore they cannot recognize him from the pictures.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 9, 2006)

They have no problem when the coin is turned however that is whats aggravating and hard to understand.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 9, 2006)

I don't recall the same furor over Gary Larson's depiction of Muhammad. (Had him sitting at home, with a mountain knocking on his door, and he was all like, "huh?")

Even the new stuff took months, and several fake cartoons inserted by certain theoracies before there was an outcry...


----------



## Kane (Feb 10, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> I know what your saying but the christians arent that innocent...mosques and muslims were targeted after the attacks on London now weather this was conducted by mear yobs or christians is not known but I know there is tension between christians and muslim in england right now........................plus how long did them crusades last.(")



  Yes I agree. Christianity has done as much violence as Islam, if not more. The crusades, but even worse the conquest of the Americas or the raping of India's wealth, ect.

BUT, Christian fundamentalism isn't as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism. This is due to the fact that there are far less fundamentalists today than in the past. Even Europe, the birthplace of orthodoxy Christianity, are only Christian in mere name (in other words most Europeans are secular).

Most Muslims are fundamentalists, although only a few are violent extremists or terrorists. Regardless Abrahamic fundies can be very violent even if you unintentionally piss them off.


----------



## jazkiljok (Feb 10, 2006)

for more thoughts on the subject.

http://www.slate.com/id/2135917/


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Feb 10, 2006)

What is often forgotten is that the Middle East is oft fond of living well in the past. Many parties there are holding to grudges dating back years, often centuries. I find it unremarkable that they are so upset over a few cartoons. Sad, but, not unusual.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> What is often forgotten is that the Middle East is oft fond of living well in the past. Many parties there are holding to grudges dating back years, often centuries. I find it unremarkable that they are so upset over a few cartoons. Sad, but, not unusual.


 They still invoke the crusades as a common grudge.  That's been a thousand years.....now that's what I call holding a grudge.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Kind of hard to reason with people who hold a grudge about something that happened centuries before.

I do note, with interest however, that the cartoon controversy has bumped the US off some of the top-10 slogans spouted in the Islamic world.  &#8220;Down! Down with France! Down! Down with Israel,&#8221; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11269770/


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 11, 2006)

http://www.shopmetrospy.com/

Get them while their hot!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> http://www.shopmetrospy.com/
> 
> Get them while their hot!


 That would go along nicely with my 'The Infidel' t-shirt.  (I think i'm gonna get an 'I'm with the Infidel ->' t-shirt for my girlfriend).  They're cool, they're funny.....just don't wear them unarmed on some parts of the planet.


----------



## SAVAGE (Feb 12, 2006)

They have a right to be angry...we all live in different cultures...but how is angry going to change what is done!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 12, 2006)

_ They still invoke the crusades as a common grudge. That's been a thousand years.....now that's what I call holding a grudge._

For what it's worth, I've heard that the difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans think 100 years is a long time and Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _ They still invoke the crusades as a common grudge. That's been a thousand years.....now that's what I call holding a grudge._
> 
> For what it's worth, I've heard that the difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans think 100 years is a long time and Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance


 hehe...that's probably pretty accurate.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 15, 2006)

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/4701/17_Year_Old_Girl_Sentenced_To_Death_By_Hanging


> Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 &#8211; An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.



Maybe the differences are too wide to bridge. How do "we" (Westerners) reconcile with stuff like this?


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 17, 2006)

> Iran has decided to boycott the World Ashihara Karate Championship, due on April 15-16, over Prophet Mohammad cartoons, Cabarpur Huseyni, spokesman of the Iranian Karate Federation said.
> 
> He also reported that Iran was planning to send 20 karateists to this championship.



http://www.azertag.com/en/index.sht...mes_viewing=&themes_page=&themeid=&news_page=


----------



## arnisador (Feb 17, 2006)

Meanwhile, Danish pastries must now be referred to as Roses of Muhammed...but unlike Freedom Fries, this isn't just a suggestion.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 17, 2006)

The United Church of Canada has weighed in on the side of Islamic protesters, slamming recent reprintings of the cartoons in Canadian publications. 

Reference this news article.

I'm having difficulty understanding how the United Church believes that this support will be taken seriously by Muslim leaders... are the two religions not irreconcilable?

Further, I condemn the United Church for their position.  They, quite frankly, are wrong.  The purpose of reprinting the cartoon was not to incite racial or religious hatred, it was to show solidarity with journalists of other free nations, and to provide context for the debate.  How can Canadians formulate an opinion on the matter without being shown the damn evidence?

Lunacy.


----------



## Ping898 (Feb 17, 2006)

article



> *Cleric: $1 Million to Kill Cartoonist*
> PESHAWAR, Pakistan - A Pakistani cleric announced Friday a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew Prophet Muhammad, as thousands joined street protests and Denmark temporarily closed its embassy and advised its citizens to leave the country.
> ...
> In the northwestern Pakistan city of Peshawar, prayer leader Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi announced the bounty for killing a cartoonist to about 1,000 people outside the Mohabat Khan mosque.
> ...


 
it keeps getting better and better....


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 17, 2006)

Sometimes really weird things precipitate all our war.  Does anyone see that possibility here?


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 17, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sometimes really weird things precipitate all our war.  Does anyone see that possibility here?




I see this whole conflict as simply a battle between principles of freedom vs. those of repression. A common denominator in many wars.


----------



## Simon Curran (Feb 19, 2006)

As someone who lives in Denmark, and saw the sketches when they were originally published way back in September, I do not believe this is an issue of religion, but rather of differences in humour.
Stuff like this is printed all the time in Danish newspapers, they are free to do so, and will continue to do so, since this is the nature of the Danish humour.
It is not for others to judge a nation based upon individual opinions, no matter how unsavoury they may appear to others.
Some have stated that the drawings were in bad taste, but what is bad taste to some is just plain hilarious to others.
I personally do not feel that JP (the newspaper who originally published the drawings) owe anybody an apology. The way things are in this country, if you find something offensive, then you are free to look the other way, this is no different than the Danish attitude towards for example porn, there are still those who do not like it, but no-one is forcing them to look at it.
The policy of law is such in this country that publishers are free to publish whatever they see fit (within the bounds of national security), I saw the drawings and laughed, as did many others.
They have since published an apology in English, Danish and Arabic, but that seems to have been over looked by those who would seek to make a mountain of a mole hill.
This is Denmark, not a radical muslim country, and we are free to believe whatever we choose, we are also free to dictate national policy internally, we do not need other's permission.
Simon


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 19, 2006)

_This is Denmark, not a radical muslim country, and we are free to believe whatever we choose, we are also free to dictate national policy internally, we do not need other's permission._

The problem seems to come when such a culture comes up against a culture that has no such tolerance.


----------



## Kenpoist (Feb 19, 2006)

I think a majority of what you see in the media are people who are purposefully being used, like puppets, by their oppressive regime governments.  The cartoon is just an excuse.  If these people were to protest about local issues of being starved and persecuted, they would all be beaten and killed by their leaders.  This is just a chance to let off some steam, at the will of their government - which achieves the government&#8217;s political objectives.  My understanding is these cartoons came out last year and are just now getting so much attention.  The Islmasist's are going to use any tool necessary to undermine the Western World and turn their people against the United States, in particular.  The protestors, for the most part are ignorant, uneducated people.  
That is why, WE, the Western world, need to give these people a chance at FREEDOM (like in Iraq), so they will have the will to rise up against their dictator&#8217;s and strive for something better.


----------



## Xequat (Feb 19, 2006)

I just heard on the radio yesterday that some cleric in Pakistan has now offered a one-million dollar hit on the Danish cartoonist.  Is it really worth a millions dollars, and if this SOB has a million to spend on something to support Islam, how about building a school or something?  Is that really the best use for a million dollars?  Man, if I were the cartoonist, I'd figure I'm already a target, so I'm going to make it worth my while and start drawing cartoons of Muhammed screwing a donkey, then maybe another man on a donkey, then maybe eating a Sausage McMuffin.  Actually, maybe he could draw those up and lock them away and let it be known that if anything ever happens to him, THEN those cartoons will be published and more rioting and death among Muslims themselves and destruction of their property will ensue from the new batch of rioting lunatics.  What a mess.  Is it really worth it?  I mean, if I'm a really devout Christian and I see some jerk from, say Belgium, draw an offensive cartoon about Jesus, I don't start rioting and change the name of Belgian waffles to Jesus' Square Breakfast Loaf or something stupid like that, I'm just going to let God deal with him or argue with someone at worst.  Funny how many people think they're actually speaking for God (or Allah).


----------

