The Danish Cartoon - pretext to war?? !!??

Suff

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/img/arabcartoons06.jpg
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/img/arabcartoons07.jpg
goose.... gander?

The first one indecats that the Israelies/Jews are doing to the palestinians the same thing the Nazi's did to them.

The 2nd, that Bush is been tought to hate the Arabs by Israel, which we all know that the US administration has a large/strong Zionist lobby controlling it.

yes we do have political sketches like that in the ME but we dont make fun of Jewish beliefs!!

RE*AC*TOR

Suff wrote:

The first one indecates that the Jews are doing to the palestinians the same thing the Nazi's did to them.

how about this:
The first one indecates [sic] that al-qaeda (and others) are using bombs in the name of Muhammed.

ionapaul

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Many Islamic Middle Eastern newspapers have published cartoons using classical anti-Semitic themes, or those created or inspired by Nazi propaganda, like in the weekly newspaper Der Stürmer. Some examples: On June 6, 2002, Akhbar al-Khalij from Bahrain published a cartoon showing a Jew piercing a baby with a spear. On July 24, 2002 Al Watan from Qatar published a cartoon of Sharon drinking from a cup of Palestinian children's blood. On December 17, 2001, Keyhan published a cartoon showing a Jew in front of a Holocaust scenery, killing Arabs. Almost all Israeli prime ministers in the last 15 years (Shamir, Peres, Rabin, Barak, Sharon) have been depicted as Nazis. Jews are regularly depicted as spiders (Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 2001), octopuses (Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 2000), scorpions (Saudi Arabia, Al-Riyadh, Dec. 2003), snakes (Syria, Tishrin, April 30, 2000), thieves or other menacing-looking persons with exaggerated "Jewish" characteristics.

Suff

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

how about this:
The first one indecates [sic] that al-qaeda (and others) are using bombs in the name of Muhammed.

Again you being Stupid!

Suff

ionapaul wrote:

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Many Islamic Middle Eastern newspapers have published cartoons using classical anti-Semitic themes, or those created or inspired by Nazi propaganda, like in the weekly newspaper Der Stürmer. Some examples: On June 6, 2002, Akhbar al-Khalij from Bahrain published a cartoon showing a Jew piercing a baby with a spear. On July 24, 2002 Al Watan from Qatar published a cartoon of Sharon drinking from a cup of Palestinian children's blood. On December 17, 2001, Keyhan published a cartoon showing a Jew in front of a Holocaust scenery, killing Arabs. Almost all Israeli prime ministers in the last 15 years (Shamir, Peres, Rabin, Barak, Sharon) have been depicted as Nazis. Jews are regularly depicted as spiders (Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 2001), octopuses (Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 2000), scorpions (Saudi Arabia, Al-Riyadh, Dec. 2003), snakes (Syria, Tishrin, April 30, 2000), thieves or other menacing-looking persons with exaggerated "Jewish" characteristics.

sure...they are political and they dont attack their faith do they now????

RE*AC*TOR

Suff wrote:

Again you being Stupid!

There's no need for that. Perhaps you could explain how I'm being stupid?

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly, it isn't the cartoon itself, it is the message behind it. It would be like saying black people shouldn't get upset by a cartoon of MLK raping a white woman because MLK didn't rape a white woman, which completely missed the point. The cartoons (the Mohammad one, and my fictional one) are both convaying a very negative message about a group of people.

Ive watched many of comedy/cartoons about irish people being leprachauns and drunks, not once have i gotten upset or felt like going for a riot. Or burning flags for that matter. And those that do get upset, start freaking out, are nuts. Would you understand irish people occupying americans embassies with guns, because of family guy? After all, us poor irish folk, are being portrayed badly.

ionapaul

I don't think that arguments equating the Muslim world's reaction to the Danish cartoons and the Christian world's reaction to JK Rowling or abortion clinics are very plausible. The boycott of Danish food products and official (eminating from ME governments) and unofficial anger with the Danes clearly is on a far wider level than any reaction against JK Rowling and her blasphemous writings. The fact is that many people, quite rightly, are terrified about touching the subject of Islam or Muhammad in any manner other than with utmost respect and care, as they know (call it historic precendent) that by doing so they are literally risking their lives.

Davei141

Suff wrote:

sure...they are political and they dont attack their faith do they now????

Calling all jews nazi's is political? Thats like calling all muslims suicide bombers. :rolleyes: Pot><kettle.

stuartfanning

Here's a site which has all the cartoons in decent size pictures. Judge for yourself.

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

ionapaul

Canadian Muslims speak on the controversy:

Cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist are deeply offensive, but so is the violent reaction to the drawings from Islamic extremists, Canadian Muslims said Thursday.

Outrage over the cartoons, first published in Denmark in September and reprinted in other European countries, has been spreading along with ominous threats throughout the Islamic world.

“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060202.wgravenimage0202/BNStory/Front

Victor

Suff wrote:

Black people oppression in the states or make fun of the so called Holocaust then we'll see the world's reaction!!!

Wibbs wrote:

Thanks Davei141 I just spotted that. So called eh? Hmmm. Care to explain?

See how a change of emphasis change can change your view of something completely?

Look at something like the Brass Eye special about phedophiles a few years ago. Look at something like South Park. Hell christian groups have tried to get Friends banned.

Did you hear about closing of diplomatic centers or death threats with any of those nutters. Eh that would be no again then.

Remember when the News of the World ran its campaing of outing paedophiles? Some people started attacking paediatricians

Wicknight wrote:

I hope you see the irony in that ... when a Christian group with large support and positions of power call for the banning of the Beatles or the Life of Brian or South Park, well that isn't really a reflection on our society, it is rightwing nut jobs who are a small small percentage of our society (despite the fact that they actually tend to hold quite high positions of power, Life of Brian was banned by a number of local councils in England).

Life of Brian was banned here for about 20 years, a blasphemy banned by civil authorities.

How about we go do some flag burning on Ailesbury Road, see how far we get?

Suff

please...

Come on!!!! sketches making fun or displaying political/ social issues are completly different than attacking beliefs or religious icons!!!

we all see sketchs on the Irish,German, French, Arabs, Israelies, Americans, Bush, Blair,.... it'a ok cos they display POLITICAL issues.

if some newspaper issued a sketch displaying insults to Moses as a Miser diamond loving Jew or a Bloody Zionist, or of Chirst as a child molester because of the scandels with some priests or the Virgin Mary as a prostitute!
they are attacks on beliefs/religious icons and it should not be allowed.

why cant we print some sketchs on disabled people? what's stopping us if some people lost regards to everything

there should be a respect factor to these issues. if people dont then what the hell do we have left to respect!

rsynnott

Really, why is this such a big deal? People make fun of various religions all the time. People say ALL SORTS of things about atheists, and yet I refrain from boycotting their countries.

stuartfanning

Pictures censored by Digital Spy.

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=339344

Suff

Im going off-topic just to clear one thing:

the term Anti-semetic

Theodor Herzel The founder of modern Zionism

Herzl stated in his diary

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

RE*AC*TOR

Suff wrote:

Im going off-topic just to clear one thing:

the term Anti-semetic

Theodor Herzel The founder of modern Zionism

Herzl stated in his diary

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

your point is?

bernardo

religion ... religion ... again and again .... story of mankind
"religion was created by men to control other men"
how can I respect religion (for me just a well success secte with good PR at the time) and be said by these guys why I should think and do or not to do.
Freedom of speech is my right and I will stand up for it !!!

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ... its only a contradiction in your own head

It is your stereotype of Muslims that makes you believe that if something is a big deal to a Muslim they must go out and burn flags and mob embassies. Would you expect western Christians to do the same thing?

That has been my entire point all along ... sweet jesus!

It is perfectly possible for something to be insulting and a big deal to a Muslim without turning him/her into fundamentalist nut jobs who wants to go blow something up. Some of them turn into fundamentalist nut jobs, in the same way that abortion drives some Christians to murder for their religion.

Sigh...I was expecting this. I tried to specify non-violent actions for that reason. We are now starting to have the same problems we ran into in another thread a while back where you put words into my mouth. I suppose flag-burning is sort of violent, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it, but mobbing (protesting outside, not storming) an embassy isn't. It's something that often happens when people anywhere are upset with the government of some country. Plenty of Christians have been known to do it. They've boycotted stuff too BTW.

The level of protest, registering of discontent, tends to indicate how upset people are over something - doesn't it? Is that unreasonable? Do you think I'm somehow being a bigot against muslims by saying that?
If people do nothing but seethe, well, maybe they aren't that angry really.

Even if there was no violence or threat of violence I actually think the level of protest, the boycott, the complaints of governments, and the way it has been directed at "Denmark" and indeed "Europe" (how is that for a massive generalisation, eh) is excessive, a complete overreaction which I have been disturbed by.

Wicknight wrote:

It depends on if you think abortion is a big deal or not. You obviously do.

Whatever. You were the one who mentioned it.
So there are no absolutes now. These cartoons are a big deal because alot of Muslims say they are and that is it.
If enough people decide they are the most pressing issue facing the entire world they then become the most pressing issue facing the entire world.
I think I can feel what is left of my mind starting to melt yet again...

Wicknight wrote:

I seem to remember Muslims were quite pissed off about that as well until it turned out it wasn't true.

Exactly. It generated much more protest in several Islamic states than the Iraq war and Gitmo/Bagram airbase.
I suppose (if it were true) that means it is more important an issue than either. How is that for priorities.

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

Ive watched many of comedy/cartoons about irish people being leprachauns and drunks, not once have i gotten upset or felt like going for a riot.

Good for you...

Davei141 wrote:

Would you understand irish people occupying americans embassies with guns, because of family guy?

No I wouldn't, and equally I wouldn't apprecate Americans expressing attitutes along the line of "what is it about the Irish that makes them so fecking violent" if an Irish nut job did do something stupid over Family Guy.

That attitute was quite common in England during the 70s, 80s and early 90s

I don't expect to be stereotyped for being Irish because of what the IRA have been doing for the last 30 years in my name, or because of the support a group like SF enjoys.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

I tried to specify non-violent actions for that reason.

Ok, let me rephrase.

It doesn't matter if they are non-violent, they are extreme.

fly_agaric wrote:

If people do nothing but seethe, well, maybe they aren't that angry really.

When was the last time the Irish people mobbed Dial Eireann (stormed in a non-violent manner) and when was the last time the Irish people were upset about something the government has done

Based on that logic the Irish have never been upset by anything.

fly_agaric wrote:

a complete overreaction which I have been disturbed by.

That point is clear.

But then you don't seem to even understand why anyone would be upset by a picture of Mohammad dressed as a suicide bomber, so I am not really being blowed over by your ability to understand the otherside of the argument.

fly_agaric wrote:

Whatever. You were the one who mentioned it.

I mentioned it in the hope of showing you and others that there exists religious position in the west that generate equally strong feelings amoung Christians.

Unfortuanately you seemed to have missed the point by dismissing what I was saying by saying abortion is important this cartoon isn't.

Abortion isn't that big a deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

This cartoon isn't a big deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

fly_agaric wrote:

These cartoons are a big deal because alot of Muslims say they are and that is it.

True, just like anything. I don't give a sh*t about the Queen of England, she means nothing to me. English people might take a slightly different view.

Sticking two fingers up at a friend as a joke isn't a big deal. An Irish person sticking two fingers up at the Queen of England in a photo on the cover of something like the Daily Mail and you can bet that would be a big deal.

fly_agaric wrote:

I suppose (if it were true) that means it is more important an issue than either. How is that for priorities.

Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

How serious?

Good for you...

Id rather say thats good for those around me.

No I wouldn't, and equally I wouldn't apprecate Americans expressing attitutes along the line of "what is it about the Irish that makes them so fecking violent" if an Irish nut job did do something stupid over Family Guy.

That attitute was quite common in England during the 70s, 80s and early 90s

I don't expect to be stereotyped for being Irish because of what the IRA have been doing for the last 30 years in my name, or because of the support a group like SF enjoys.

Who would you be pissed off at more? Joe america or Joe english who takes the view that the irish are violent, or Joe irish that gives them that view?

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

How serious?

Quite serious

Davei141 wrote:

Joe america or Joe english who takes the view that the irish are violent, or Joe irish that gives them that view?

I would be pissed off at the person stereotyping me. I have no control of the IRA members if they want to do something stupid and claim it was in my name. I will denounce it if it comes up.

But if I get hassle for being Irish because some idiot English person believes all Irish people are two whiskeys short of killing the Queen he will be getting some sturn words from me.

Victor

Davei141 wrote:

As i said before, the one muslim country that printed the cartoon saying not to overreact

So Jordan printed the cartoon, not some Jordanian paper?

See its an easy mistake isn't it?

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Quite serious

Serious enough for violence?

I would be pissed off at the person stereotyping me. I have no control of the IRA members if they want to do something stupid and claim it was in my name. I will denounce it if it comes up.

You would educate him right? you wouldnt react violently reinforcing his stereotype. Thats exactly how those canadian muslims feel, those rioting are reinforcing stereotypes.

But if I get hassle for being Irish because some idiot English person believes all Irish people are two whiskeys short of killing the Queen he will be getting some sturn words from me.

You wouldnt resort to violence though.

Would you feel angry at the people claiming to represent you? Damn right you would, because its them that are giving the stereotype, and its up to you (and me) to change it.

Davei141

Victor wrote:

So Jordan printed the cartoon, not some Jordanian paper?

See its an easy mistake isn't it?

I already said the jordanian government was taking action against the newspaper. Why dont you quote that part aswell. Yes it was a mistake in wording, but your naive to think those saying "denmark has declared war on islam" are merely making mistakes. Dont forget, it was a muslim in denmark who said that.

And also, if my words were going to lead to rioting, burning flags, firing weapons, i would of chose them more wisely, seeing as they dont, your comparisons are crap.

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

Serious enough for violence?

Are you saying you can't take something very seriously without resorting to violence?

Davei141 wrote:

you wouldnt react violently reinforcing his stereotype.

No I wouldn't react violently

Davei141 wrote:

You wouldnt resort to violence though.

No I wouldn't. Neither would, I imagine, 99% of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world to this cartoon. Which doesn't mean they don't take their religion seriously, and it doesn't mean they would not be insulted.

Davei141 wrote:

Would you feel angry at the people claiming to represent you? Damn right you would, because its them that are giving the stereotype, and its up to you (and me) to change it.

No its not.

Its not my responsibility to make sure people don't use the name of Ireland for violent ends, nor should I accept the negative stereotypes that result in the brains of narrow minded English people who cannot see past those same violent ends.

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying you can't take something very seriously without resorting to violence?

Me? of course. Everybody? questionable.

No I wouldn't react violently

Good.

No I wouldn't. Neither would 99% of Muslims in the world to this cartoon.

Of course, but if somebody did react violently, you would condemn them? right?

No its not.

I beg to differ.

Its not my responsibility to make sure people don't use the name of Ireland for violent ends, nor should I accept the negative stereotypes that result in the brains of narrow minded English people who cannot see past those violent ends.

Its up to you to distance yourself and condemn the IRA though isnt it?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

When was the last time the Irish people mobbed Dial Eireann (stormed in a non-violent manner) and when was the last time the Irish people were upset about something the government has done

Based on that logic the Irish have never been upset by anything.

Off the top of my head (the best you deserve I'm afraid), probably one of those big IFI protests some time ago. Spare me the sarcasm anyway You know what I mean by mobbed.

Based on that logic the last things many Irish people were really, really upset by were Irish Ferries' work practices, the impending Iraq war, and Farm incomes (big issues that have brought people out onto the streets in numbers in the recent past). A pretty reasonable gauge wouldn't you say. Actually, it makes you think a bit about some of the things Irish people claim they are so upset by in opinion polls and the like (eg the state of the health service).

Wicknight wrote:

But then you don't seem to even understand why anyone would be upset by a picture of Mohammad dressed as a suicide bomber, so I am not really being blowed over by your ability to understand the otherside of the argument.

:v:
Some of the cartoons are insulting (esp. I would think the one with the bomb in Mohammed's turban and the "martyrs" queuing up for their supply of virgins).

I mean if muslims in Denmark were boycotting that paper, protesting outside its offices and writing nasty letters to the editor I wouldn't be surprised at all and I know if I were running that paper I definitely wouldn't have had the stones to print the more offensive ones. Possibly the tamer ones - but not the ones commenting on terrorism and Islam.

I don't understand why they are so very upset (er, angry would be better) over this a few thousand miles away in the ME and in other countries that they boycott products en masse, and the most "upset" people burn flags and go on marches while the extremists issue threats.

Why it has become an international incident involving the governments of Islamic states and the Danish government with an apology expected from the latter to the former for the actions of the (presumably) free press in Denmark? I don't understand that either.

Now that other rags in Europe decide to up-the-ante and reprint the cartoons (or course, they wouldn't have done this if Denmark hadn't go so much over the top flack from the governments of various Islamic states, threats and demands hadn't been made etc)- Islamic religious leaders in turn up the ante and call for a Muslim (I presume, muslims in general) day of anger (can't be good I'd say).

So yeah. It seems like a vast overreaction to me if it is really all just about these blasted cartoons. If its about "hate the West" and "go for the easy target" I can understand it.

Wicknight wrote:

Abortion isn't that big a deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

This cartoon isn't a big deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

...True, just like anything. I don't give a sh*t about the Queen of England, she means nothing to me. English people might take a slightly different view.

Sticking two fingers up at a friend as a joke isn't a big deal. An Irish person sticking two fingers up at the Queen of England in a photo on the cover of something like the Daily Mail and you can bet that would be a big deal.

Look I do try, but I can't get my head around this kind of, em, relativism, isn't that what it's called? This nothing is really important unless people think it is important and there is no absolute scale of importance for anything at all.

Perhaps if I had done some Arts/Humanities courses somewhere I'd understand.

Are you saying that people can't feel something is a big deal unless they attach a judgement of right and wrong to it?

Wicknight wrote:

...Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

So because Muslims are a special case and (generalising) take their religion more seriously than most we also have to be deadly serious about it at all times? What if that conficts with other things we hold dear and are a "big deal" for us?

Anyway what do you think should be done to calm people down about this? Whatever is necessary? A bit of political brownnosing? Some strict anti-religious hatred legislation for the press? Is it too late?

...some extra editing for crappy syntax

Essey

When one is making comparisons one should stick with apples to apples. The small number of anti-abortionists which have prescribed to blowing up practicing clinics is not comparable to what is happen in this issue. No embassy was close, tens of thousands did not take to the streets, far reaching boycotts were not called for, hundreds did not lose their jobs etc... That would be like saying someone was murdered in Dublin and everyone was calling it a massacre. People were murdered in these incidents - mureder is illegal - and if caught the offenders were punished by the law. The reaction of Muslims groups throughout the world has been to some extent quite excessive. Should they be outraged? Sure - I'm a Christian and I've been appalled by some of the things that I've read but that isn't an excuse. The appropriate response would be to demand an apology and if necessary then boycott that newspaper. Not take all Danish products off the shelves throughout the Middle East. This behavior is merely reenforcing what the cartoonists were pointing out (rightly or wrongly) - that Muslims are violent, excessive and borderline insane. To not respect the principals of freedom of speech leaves us open to "where will this end?". What next topic will upset everyone. If an Irish politician was corrupt - would you remain silent because you might offend him? his party? his mother??? If Muslims want respect they are also responsible for issuing some. They too must respect our values of free speech and if what is being said is deemed moronic then say so.