The Danish Mohammed cartoons
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
I don't think that WW3 will arise from this, but a large scale conflict will definately occur soon, and Canada will of course be thrown into the fray, and then we'll finally be attacked by terrorists..........Wonderful, this world in which we live........
No, despite what the hysterical here and elsewhere may say, teh Muslims presetn little threat to the West culturally, politically or militarily. They are capable of launching the odd terrorist attack that western intelligence services will not foresee. Maybe even an occassional nuke a few years down the road. But that still poses little military threat.
WW3, in my opinion will be a Cold War with China. When that comes, it'll make this whole Muslim business look like an afterschool squabble.
jdhatt @ Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:30 pm
World War III could happen at any time and the reason for it could be anything, but we need to do our best to ensure it does not happen anytime soon.
About the cartoons, I have seen them finally (They have been found on the Internet... eventually that had to occur, didn't it?). Anyway, I think the cartoons are dumb. Cartoons are meant to be funny. These cartoons don't show any humour at all. Even if the topic was different, these cartoons are still dumb as there is no sillyness to them, except maybe with the last one I saw, but the effort was clearly lacking still.
However, for Muslims to react in the way that they did is exactly how that Danish newspaper depicted them in the cartoons, so, as for the Muslims who have been violently protesting against this and have been threatening the western world, they got what they deserved. It's sad to put it in that context, but they should have expected to receive negative feedback in return for all of their previous anger.
denmns @ Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:15 am
Not all Muslums are violent.
I think we need to step back and realilize that there are other religions out there, and unfortuneately, there are people to take their beliefs to the extreme, especially in countries where they are allowed to breed them.
I am a Roman catholic and proud of it, but I do not force it onto anybody.
I think all religious people need to do this, whether they are Muslum, Buddists, Jews or other recognized.
Movies like " The Last Temptations of Christ" and cartoons making fun of the cross are not reasons for me to go extemely violent against those who do it.
I would like to see the cartoons to see what the fuss is all about!!!!!
We are mature and have enough common sense to make our own decision about them.
Well, I was watching "Trading Spouses" on Global this Wednesday and they had some "New Age" Mum from Boston swap with a Christian mum from Louisiana.
This supposed "Christian" and her friends levels of intolerance just shocked me.
Let’s not forget where the term 'fundamentalist' came from.
It was the US.
Now those who know me will testify that I'm a cheerleader for the US on most things.
But I have seen this blind adherence to religion before (I am Irish-Catholic) and I find it disturbing.
The difference with intolerance in the US and on the Gaza is that Gaza is still in the 14th century.
Louisiana on the other hand is socially and culturally in the 21st century with pockets of the 16th and 17th century dotted about here and there.
The” Christians" don't kill kids or strap bombs to themselves but I believe they share the same sentiments of intolerance as those baying mobs in Beirut, Gaza and Tehran.
Folks, we been had.
$1:
The Cartoons and the Neocon
Daniel Pipes and the Danish Editor
By JOHN SUGG
Let me tell you a few things about blasphemy. Been there, done it. Got expelled from high school for it.
That was a few decades ago, and for those seeking titillation, I’ll give you the details at the end of this screed. First I have to tell you about a massive propaganda coup. You’ve been had by some of the most bigoted people in the world -- and I’m not talking about Muslim fundamentalists.
The big news about blasphemy today is in the Muslim world. A Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September published 12 cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. It took four months for that fuse to reach the powder keg of religious sensibilities -- the flame was relentlessly pushed along by the right-wing, neo-conservative press until it exploded. The dumbed-down media depiction was free speech versus intolerant Muslim fanatics. That’s not entirely wrong, just very incomplete. Ultimately, crowds erupted in protests in Muslim cities. The picture of the burning Danish consulate in Beirut is the icon of the day.
I have to admit a severe conflict of principles here. On the one hand, I want to shout: “I am Danish! Cartoons don’t kill, bombs do!” I don’t countenance any prior restraint on freedom of expression, and when I first read of the Muslim outrage over cartoons -- such as one depicting Mohammed’s turban as a bomb -- I sighed a deep sigh of regret. There’s no dialogue in burning embassies.
Should free speech have constraints? Official censorship is anathema to a free society. Self-censorship and spinning for a regime -- a la Fox News -- is just as corrosive. On the other hand, I think the media should be very judicious about gratuitous offense. I’m repulsed at such things as artist Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ.” And, I feel no need to antagonize Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans or any other religious groups by intentionally creating an affront to their faith. I even have respect for the misbegotten gospel of the (un)Christian Coalition.
That the Muslim world reacted with violence to the cartoons is abhorrent. That Christians have done the same thing -- lighting up town centers and hilltops across Europe with flaming heretics and blasphemers -- is just as abhorrent. Indeed, the theocratic movement in America, which would enshrine one narrow view of Christ’s teachings as the law of the land, is simply a variation on the Muslim fundamentalists bellowing hatred at Scandinavian businesses and government offices.
There are other caveats that need to be stated: The Muslim world has been under assault from western, Christian crusaders for a thousand years. We’ve colonized and despoiled their lands. Many in America regard their oil as rightfully ours -- an underlying if not complete explanation for George Bush’s war of conquest. We’ve carved up the Middle East, overthrown democracies (pre-Shah Iran, for example), and fostered despots to suit the West’s imperial whims. And we wonder why THEY don’t like us, and why THEY take insults from us so seriously.
So, let’s look at the guy who started this whole cartoon escapade. He’s Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper. In all of the Lexis-Nexis database of stories from the American media on the Mohammed cartoons, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Rose is a close confederate of arch-Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Indeed, there is almost no context at all about Rose’s newspaper. On a brief mention in the Washington Post gave a hint at a fact desperately needed to understand the situation. The Post described the affair as “a calculated insult … by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem.”
How bad is Pipes? He wants the utter military obliteration of the Palestinians; indeed, from the Muslim world, his racism is about as blatant as that of the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Pipes’ frequent outbursts of racism -- designed to toss gasoline on the neo-cons’ lust for a wholesale conflict of cultures -- earned him a Bush nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank. Rose came to America to commune with Pipes in 2004, and it was after that meeting the cartoon gambit materialized.
It’s also worth noting that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrapped himself in protestations about freedom of speech, and that’s commendable. But he is one of Bush’s few fans in Europe, steeped in the we-versus-them rhetoric, and having sent troops to the Iraqi Crusade.
Is Rose an equal opportunity offender? No way. As the British press reported last week, his newspaper refused in 2003 to run cartoons that ridiculed Jesus. And, of course, free expression in Europe is very relative. Many of the democracies have laws banning certain speech.
Rose gave a rather misanthropic rejoinder to AP when asked about whether he would have published the cartoons in light of the subsequent protests. Rose said: "I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque."
That, of course, makes the assumption that women are responsible for being raped. It’s just as fallacious as assuming the Muslim world should passively accept an intentional provocation, one that gratuitously attacked one of the religion’s strictest prohibitions.
Was the reaction overwrought? Absolutely. Was it predictable? Absolutely. Was it an intentional scheme to provoke Arab anger, and thereby engender Western disgust with the Muslim world? The involvement of Pipes and Rose argues that that is exactly what happened.
Now, my confession of blasphemy. In 1963, as an art student in Miami, I was assigned to a safety poster, “Cross at the corner.” I (humorously) depicted a crucified Christ at a Miami street corner looking down very sadly at people doing all sorts of horrible things to each other. My principal wasn’t amused, called me sacrilegious and a blasphemer, and tossed me from school. I got back in -- the First Amendment was still alive an well. And, fortunately, none of my supporters (there were quite a few) burned any consulates.
John Sugg is editor of Creative Loafing.
Lets see now, a few cartoons of their religlious leader causes weeks of violent riots by Muslims around the world. Yet when 1 of their most scared Mosques are blown up, there isn’t even a stone thrown in protest. Does this mean the west can start publishing cartoons of blowing up Mosques, and there won’t be any riots over it? 
Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:
Lets see now, a few cartoons of their religlious leader causes weeks of violent riots by Muslims around the world. Yet when 1 of their most scared Mosques are blown up, there isn’t even a stone thrown in protest. Does this mean the west can start publishing cartoons of blowing up Mosques, and there won’t be any riots over it?

Eh? some 200 odd dead since the attack?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 753084.stm
Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:
Lets see now, a few cartoons of their religlious leader causes weeks of violent riots by Muslims around the world. Yet when 1 of their most scared Mosques are blown up, there isn’t even a stone thrown in protest. Does this mean the west can start publishing cartoons of blowing up Mosques, and there won’t be any riots over it?

If by no protests and stone throwing you mean, "Large portions of Iraq have been given 3 days of curfews (Night and daytime curfews) because of the massive rioting, killing, and verge of civil war", then yes you're right.
VitaminC VitaminC:
Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:
Lets see now, a few cartoons of their religlious leader causes weeks of violent riots by Muslims around the world. Yet when 1 of their most scared Mosques are blown up, there isn’t even a stone thrown in protest. Does this mean the west can start publishing cartoons of blowing up Mosques, and there won’t be any riots over it?

If by no protests and stone throwing you mean, "Large portions of Iraq have been given 3 days of curfews (Night and daytime curfews) because of the massive rioting, killing, and verge of civil war", then yes you're right.
Did i not say world wide Muslim protests. Iraq has been a 2 1/2 year long riot. I can't even remember if there were cartoon protests there with all the suicide and car bombs daily. It was an increase of insurgent violence in the last few weeks to try and push the country into a civil war that caused the curfew, the Mosque bombing was just the finally straw that broke the camels back.
VitaminC VitaminC:
If by no protests and stone throwing you mean, "Large portions of Iraq have been given 3 days of curfews (Night and daytime curfews) because of the massive rioting, killing, and verge of civil war", then yes you're right.
Why do you deliberately try to miss the point when it doesn't fit in with your views?
It was pretty clear to me that what Alta meant was that we haven't seen the same united, widespread sense of outrage in the Muslim world in response to the Mosque slaughter by other Muslims as we've seen in response to a couple of cartoons printed by "infidels."
I haven't seen crowds in Cairo, Jakarta, London or Toronto marching in outrage against their fellow Muslims who've committed a truly heinous act like destroying an ancient mosque and killing the holy men inside.
Have you?
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
VitaminC VitaminC:
If by no protests and stone throwing you mean, "Large portions of Iraq have been given 3 days of curfews (Night and daytime curfews) because of the massive rioting, killing, and verge of civil war", then yes you're right.
Why do you deliberately try to miss the point when it doesn't fit in with your views?
It was pretty clear to me that what Alta meant was that we haven't seen the same united, widespread sense of outrage in the Muslim world in response to the Mosque slaughter by other Muslims as we've seen in response to a couple of cartoons printed by "infidels."
I haven't seen crowds in Cairo, Jakarta, London or Toronto marching in outrage against their fellow Muslims who've committed a truly heinous act like destroying an ancient mosque and killing the holy men inside.
Have you?
I'd also misunderstood the point Alta was trying to make - sorry, Alta.
It's an excellent point.
Thought some of you would might like a little follow-up even though this is probably not front page news in your countries anymore…
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/924