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

Boggle

We are now at the point of riots not because of the cartoons but because they come to represent what the West thinks of the Islamic faith. For example one of the cartoons depicts suicide bombers being welcome into heaven which is not true under Islamic teachings (only under fundimentalist teachings).

If anything this sort of cartoon crap helps the fundimentalists more.

You are correct in saying that these cartoons are indicative of what westerners associate with the muslim's. But what are you asking for? Should the cartoonist not be allowed to discuss this? If there is another suicide bombing in the morning - what are the odds that it will be a muslim (fundamentalist)? How much worse does it have to get before we start discussing the issue without worrying that the poor muslims might get offended by being associated with lunatics?

Maybe we should never have discussed paedophilia in the church incase it upset people... Or is it one rule for us and another for them??

Hey, maybe the Irish should have all rioted everytime the press mentioned the IRA and then linked it to Ireland...

doh.ie

ionapaul wrote:

Read a great overview from Wikipedia earlier today:

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

Yep - this is an excellent article (not least cos it allows the cartoons to be reprinted, allowing us to judge their merit, or otherwise, for ourselves.) I didn't realise Islam forbade depictions of Mohammad until now.

As for the controversy, while I respect the views of Muslims and understand they many are offended by the cartoons, I fail to see how this particular bunch of cartoons so offensive as to cause the kind of protesting and rioting we've seen in recent days. If the image of Mohammad with a turban/bomb is suggesting that 'Islam is a terrorist religion' or 'All Muslims are terrorists' (which I don't believe it is), the rioting, burning of embassies or violent protests (four dead today), do little to correct that belief. I rather suspect the artist's intentions in that particular cartoon are to suggest that when the Western world at large look at Islam, they "see" the extremists in an otherwise very peaceful and wise religion.

I'd consider these cartoons in the same league as the "Jesus LOL" material in another thread here (which are actually quite funny), or the 'Jesus' appearances in mainsteam culture like South Park or Family Guy - offensive to some, possibly, but those people most likely to be offended are least like to be exposed to them. Should we ban those instances too?

Essey

Hobbes wrote:

No they used the laws to try and get an apology for an offensive cartoon and were told to suck it up. Then brought it to the government and were ignored. Then to add insult to injury despite being told the cartoon was offensive felt the need to post it in other papers.

Has absolutly nothing to do with wanting to change Norwegians way of life.

Hobbes - I believe that several months after the first printing of the cartoons Muslims groups demanded an apology from the publications in question and not only received said apology but also retribution when the editors responsible for their printing were fired. Now these groups have moved the bar and demanded that governments where these publication are printed must now apologize. Where will this end? The governments in question have no authority over what is published in their free presses - nor have the people of said countries of which those governments represent. After these Muslim groups have obtain their requested apologies - will they then decide that All of Europe must grovel? Would you support the Irish government issuing an apology on your behalf for an error in judgment made in a foreign country in a publication which probably wasn't even sold in Ireland? Again where will this end?

the_syco

Hobbes wrote:

Of course the left one would be. Now if you replaced the right one with one of the ones pictured in the newspapers would you say they both offensive?

Not really. I've seen worse (read the comments on the bottom), but some Muslims think that any picture with Mohammad in it is offensive.

=-=

Some muslim dude, I think, hit the nail on the head when he said that the European "freedom of speech" was a joke, as

People in Europe are not allowed to do a free historical examination of the Second World War and the holocaust and freely express an opinion on it that is different than the dominating dogmatic line. Any attempt to have deviant historical examination of the holocaust will earn you the title of revisionist, anti-Semite and a jail sentence.

Finally, some other muslim dude pointed out why the riots are happening. Seems that "The West, in general, governments and people, does not apprehend that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to us than our parents, dearer to me than my father and dearer than my mother." This could be why, when the muslims see any pictures of the prophet dude, Mohammad, they go a bit mad.

=-=

So, do I think we should respect them? Yes, I do.

Should the paper apologize? No. They should tell them to f*ck off. Why? Because if you ever back down, and apologize to a terrorist (I have a tendency to call tards who burn embassy's terrorists), then they'll think they can get away with it, and next time they'll burn something else down, knowing that if they burn enough stuff down, they'll get an apology, as that worked last time.

ionapaul

People in Europe are not allowed to do a free historical examination of the Second World War and the holocaust and freely express an opinion on it that is different than the dominating dogmatic line. Any attempt to have deviant historical examination of the holocaust will earn you the title of revisionist, anti-Semite and a jail sentence.

He would have been closer to the truth if he said 'people in some countries of Europe are not allowed...', as in most European countries historians, neo-nazis and others are quite free to question the Holocaust. The reason we don't see 'The Holocaust: Did It Really Happen?' headlines on the front pages of the broadsheets, and books on the top of the best-seller lists, is because the weight of historical evidence is firmly behind those historians peddling the 'dominant dogmatic line', as some muslim dude describes it. Likewise, the only country in the the Western World where there is even a little controversy and debate about the 'dominant dogmatic line' of evolution is the United States, as in all other countries the vast weight of scientific evidence supports Darwin and his godless cronies in the evolutionary theory establishment!

Meanwhile, the 'cartoon protests' claim 4 lives today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm

GuanYin

God, this is what happens when a culture forbids alcohol

Seriously though, it seems like an excuse to cause trouble at this stage, it strikes me as ironic that people who, rightly or wrongly, resent and fight the perceived transgresion of western society, specifically US capitalism, on their beliefs could then go and engage in a campaign that basically does far worse on other societies.

As for the cartoon? I am guessing they never saw the Super Best Friends episode of South Park!!!

LostinBlanch

Essey wrote:

Hobbes - I believe that several months after the first printing of the cartoons Muslims groups demanded an apology from the publications in question and not only received said apology but also retribution when the editors responsible for their printing were fired. Now these groups have moved the bar and demanded that governments where these publication are printed must now apologize.

I heard on newstalk this afternoon that the 12 pictures were printed on the 30th of September, a group of Danish based Imams complained for three months even getting "muslim"* amabassadors who tried (unsuccessfully) to meet the Danish Prime Minister to get a personal apology from him. Then they went on three tours throughout the Middle East with 15 offending pictures. No one knows where the extra three pictures came from not Jyllands Posten who deny all knowledge of them. One of the extra three pictures purports to show Mohammed as a pig like character. It seems to me that these Imams have questions to answer, and have all the deaths related to this matter on their consciences, if they have any that is.

I use the term muslim here becuase the report didn't say which countries they came from but that they were all muslim

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

Hobbes - I believe that several months after the first printing of the cartoons Muslims groups demanded an apology from the publications in question and not only received said apology but also retribution when the editors responsible for their printing were fired.

I watched Talkback on BBC1 the other day. It was quite intresting to watch. The interviewer laid into the Muslim representative about the violence going on. I didn't much like the representative as he was trying to say that the violence was justified when it wasn't. However the reporter that started all this mess looking smug soon lost his smile when the presenter turned to him and said..

"Why did you then get the cartoons reprinted after knowing that it offended a large group of people. You were basically inciting violence".

He was all spouting about "freedom of speech" but the interviewer hit the nail on the head. They knew it was offensive to begin with, if they got the apology why print it again in more papers. So the media are not totally without blame here.

Hobbes

LostinBlanch wrote:

No one knows where the extra three pictures came from not Jyllands Posten who deny all knowledge of them.

[edit] (previous comment wrong)

Checked up on it. They were a sample of pictures that were sent into the Muslim centre in Denmark. They brought them with them to show the level of racism in Denmark directed at them. They never claimed it came from the publication.

One interesting thing from this is that the extra cartoons were extremly offensive even by western standards. I have seen reports from US news that they are "Fabricated" however I have heard from a guy who works in the Muslim center in Dublin that they get this sort of crap often, and this was long before this cartoon mess started.

Vangelis

Now Iran has discontinued their trading with Denmark.
What kind of impact that will have I don't know, but it is a huge step... in some unknown direction.

Someone reproached me for calling the Muslim protestors and embassy-burners for imbecilic monkeys earlier. If that is offensive, then I can only say that... The truth sometimes hurts. A have a right to freedom of expression. *wink*

Sand

Checked up on it. They were a sample of pictures that were sent into the Muslim centre in Denmark. They brought them with them to show the level of racism in Denmark directed at them. They never claimed it came from the publication.

One interesting thing from this is that the extra cartoons were extremly offensive even by western standards. I have seen reports from US news that they are "Fabricated" however I have heard from a guy who works in the Muslim center in Dublin that they get this sort of crap often, and this was long before this cartoon mess started.

Hobbes, really. Europe and the West is supposed to apologise for what? Some random, wholly offensive pictures that *somebody*, *somewhere* sent to the DIS, and the DIS have apparently refused to help in locating where these pictures came from. Should people be able to demand apologies from you, personally, for Stormfront views? Do you go round knocking on the doors to personally apologise for your part in the racism they may have encountered?

Theyve been talking about the 12 JP cartoons the whole time, but it appears these other images (not printed in JP or any other mainstream newspaper, with or without the blessing of the any government) are the ones that are casuing the offence - at least I can actually begin to see how devout muslims might view these as offensive enough to torch embassies over as these *particular* images *are* out and out incitement to hatred

A cynic might think the DIS didnt think their case was strong enough and could do with some "help". Afterall, hundreds if not thousands of images of Mohammed exist. Its looking more and more likely that the DIS have conned people in the Middle East to assist their own agenda in Denmark/Europe.

Now Iran has discontinued their trading with Denmark.
What kind of impact that will have I don't know, but it is a huge step... in some unknown direction.

Oil most likely, though Id imagine Norways their biggest supplier regardless.

Someone reproached me for calling the Muslim protestors and embassy-burners for imbecilic monkeys earlier. If that is offensive, then I can only say that... The truth sometimes hurts. A have a right to freedom of expression. *wink*

I did. And you called them primitive monkeys actually, not imbecillic, though hardly wholesome either way. And whilst freedom of speech might allow you to say what you want, incitment to hatred is a limiting factor on that freedom. And calling people primitive monkeys goes beyond valid criticism, wink or no wink.

Freddie59

Hagar wrote:

And who killed them? Let me remember... Ah yes Muslim fanatics.:mad:

I suppose there wasn't a single cartoon in any arabic papers gloating and taking immense pleasure in the atrocity at the time?

The so called "peaceful" Islamic people are showing their true colours now. What hypocracy.
It didn't take much to send them into a violent frenzy did it?

Amazingly, on a recent TV programme, it was revealed that some Mulsims resident in New York held celebratory parties just across the bay after the 9/11 attacks. Western freedom. Don't you love it - they apparently do. Yes a violent frenzy indeed. Heroic freedom fighters with AKAs bullying their way into unarmed civilian embassies. How brave. Amazing they're never around when the US invade. Few car bombs and the rest, but never were very good at the straight fight.

It never ceases to amaze me how the pro-mulsim faction use fora such as this in order to try and propagate warped views on 'Islam' and try to justify what are in effect cowardly attacks (you couldn't describe them as anything less). We in the West enjoy hard-fought for freedoms. We cannot allow these very freedoms to be used as vehicles which seek to glorify extremism. We must argue the case at every turn.

LostinBlanch

Fair play Sand. Good post.

And Hobbes a sample of pictures sent in to mosques in Denmark. By who exactly? Right wing yahoos? Or it could just as easily have been Muslim extremists sending this in order to inflame the situation. There is no proof where they came from and their provenance is extrememly doubtful, and as Sand has already pointed out the demonstrations have been about the 12 cartoons published in JP.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Sand

I was just wondering... Why are all the Islam folk getting upset? par Se?

Are they viewing the cartoon or being told about it?

Told more than shown Id imagine, though it would lead to comic hilarity to try and show them whats so offensive. Jehovah and the Life of Brian spring to mind.

Dammit, Islam so badly needs a sendup of Life of Brian standards.

fly_agaric

^^ Don't be getting any ideas now Sand - the guards are stretched thin enough as it is!:v: :v: Shoot that muse!

Binomate

I just saw on Sky News that Iran have backed moves to have Anti-Semetic cartoons printed in some Islamic newspaper (Nothing new there). It's a pitty they don't print degrading pictured of Jesus in their news papers. I think they'd be quite shocked when they see that pretty much nobody will care.

the_syco

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The Islam dudes seemingly love the Mohammad dude more than their own parents. And they don't like him being drawn, at all. So when someone draws him, they're in trouble. And when someone draws him with a bomb on his head, they get a bit pissed off. Dunno why, tho. This Mohammad dude seemed to be a bit of a warrior in his past (before he met some angel lass), so I dunno. Seemingly the Mohammad dude is so perfect, and misreprestentation of him pisses the muslim dudes off.

=-=

Oh, and I loved the picture which said "Behead those who say Islam is violent".

=-=

Oh, and Palistine is gonna loose out in a big way.

Binomate

I think he's like an Islamic version of St.Patrick or something. He spread Islam all over the place. His family was murdered as well I think. I've read a something about him raiding caravans and stealing as well. Wikipedia give a brief biography of him.

Eglinton

This was in the Washington Times a few years ago. I had a laugh.

http://bushsupporter.org/week29/garner0329.gif

ISAW

Michael G wrote:

Could I post something here

• defending sex with children
• proposing that black people are intrinsically inferior to whites and should not be allowed to govern themselves
• suggesting that homosexual activity between adults should once again be made a criminal offence?

No? I don't believe any of those things, but some people do, and it wouldn't take me more than half an hour to throw together a few arguments and a few dodgy statistics that would at least give you a run for your money as you tried to refute them.

But I don't believe my posts would be left on the board and I would expect the Guards to be investigating me within 24 hours under some anti-discrimination law or other.

I wouldn't. You could post it if you support sex with childred. and you would have ea right to. as far as I know theere is no law against that. If you actually supported actions based on that you would be breaking the law however. ditto for saying balcks are inferior to whites. You could stand up and say you believe that if you wanted. But if you tried to refuse someone from a pub for it then you would probably lose your licence. you can also say you hate gays and that they should be criminalised but you can;t refuse someone a job ONLY because they were gay.

That is the whole point about free expression. it is about tolerating what others say even if they are wrong as long as they do not act to harm people or encourage others to do it. It isn't just about saying do or looking at what you like. More importantly it is about tolerating what you DONT like!

So there is no absolute right to freedom of expression.

Correct. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is one example. But the only boundaries is when the expression caused actual harm. Thats "HARM" and not OFFENCE!

Why, then, do some cartoonists (and from what I have seen of the cartoons they are neither clever nor funny) have the right to hurt the feelings of Muslims? Not just slobbering suicide-bombing savages from the arse-end of the desert, but every decent, humane Muslim who believes that Mohammed is the Prophet of God.

The Life of Brian by Monty Python hurt some Christians. Was that reason enough to ban it? In some countries is was. I do not think it would be banned today.

fly_agaric

the_syco wrote:

Oh, and Palistine is gonna loose out in a big way.

Their p.r. boys really pulled out all the stops to convince the EU to give them their 0.5billion quid this year. No expense or effort was spared!:)
Maybe Denmark can chuck a bit of extra aid their way to spread the love!

Wibbs

ISAW wrote:

That is the whole point about free expression. it is about tolerating what others say even if they are wrong as long as they do not act to harm people or encourage others to do it. It isn't just about saying do or looking at what you like. More importantly it is about tolerating what you DONT like!

Nail on the head, Sir.

Hobbes

Eglinton wrote:

This was in the Washington Times a few years ago. I had a laugh.

http://bushsupporter.org/week29/garner0329.gif

That actually isn't offensive.

Kersh

They are just looking for an excuse to riot. Or else they are just 'fanatics'.... in reality, its giving muslims a sh1te name really. They just look like animals on the tv. And reinforce 'western' opinion that they are just all a bunch of terrorists.
I know its really stereotypical, but thats what i keep hearing off people I know, and whenever the news comes on or the subject comes up, the topic steers around to fanaticism and terrorism. wonder why?????

justsomebloke

Actually south park itself brings up a valid point as Mohammed was depicted in it as one of the Super Best Friends (series 5 I think, could be wrong) in one episode, however even though he was depicted in a cartoon, which seems to be the bases of this wave of Islamic extremism, nothing was ever said about it. It only seems that because Mohammed was pictured in a bad light is the extremism happening. So I think we should all burn American embassies as they let the creators of South Park depict Mohammed in a cartoon

doh.ie

jsb wrote:

Actually south park itself brings up a valid point as Mohammed was depicted in it as one of the Super Best Friends (series 5 I think, could be wrong) in one episode, however even though he was depicted in a cartoon, which seems to be the bases of this wave of Islamic extremism, nothing was ever said about it. It only seems that because Mohammed was pictured in a bad light is the extremism happening. So I think we should all burn American embassies as they let the creators of South Park depict Mohammed in a cartoon

I wondered about this myself. Would the same Muslims who are angry over the Danish (and other non-published pictures) be as angry with the depiction of Mohammad on South Park? (One of the better episodes of the show as it happens, but the other Super Best Friends were made up of Jesus, Buddha, Joseph Smith and Lao Tse, so no one was spared.) Is it possible the Muslim community at large never heard about this? If it's offensive to depict Mohammad at all (on the basis that a true depiction could never be achieved), has South Park crossed the line on this one too? (If the creators find out about the problems over the Danish pictures, you can be sure they'll try something again...)

Several years ago, an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess had to be withdrawn from international distribution after complaints from extremist Hindu groups - their crime was daring to show Krishna (though again the depiction was the crime - as I understand it, the character behaved much as the deity would have been expected to.)

Bottom line for me is, since Christianity is lampooned and spoofed all the time, and the same can be said or Judaism and other religions, is Islam hyper-sensitive to blasphemy (to the point where it will not be tolerated at all)?

Hobbes

jsb wrote:

It only seems that because Mohammed was pictured in a bad light is the extremism happening.

I would say it is a bit to do with that and a lot to do with how the whole process was handled by the media after putting a complaint in that it was offensive.

The Anne Frank cartoon now has Jewish community complaining, however although it won't happen what do you think would happen if rather then getting an apology that all newspapers in Europe printed the Anne Frank cartoon.

The Corinthian

ionapaul wrote:

He would have been closer to the truth if he said 'people in some countries of Europe are not allowed...', as in most European countries historians, neo-nazis and others are quite free to question the Holocaust. The reason we don't see 'The Holocaust: Did It Really Happen?' headlines on the front pages of the broadsheets, and books on the top of the best-seller lists, is because the weight of historical evidence is firmly behind those historians peddling the 'dominant dogmatic line', as some muslim dude describes it.

That’s not entirely true. Be it illegal or simply taboo, it is actually a no-no to question or revise any detail of the accepted detail of the Holocaust.

An example that comes to mind was during recent TV coverage of a ceremony marking the liberation of Auschwitz where a commentator pointed out that “six million Jews and five or six million of other groups died” in the Holocaust. Had the same commentator suggested “five or six million Jews” then he would have quite likely lost his job, and in some European countries would have been arrested too.

Of course, you might say (have said) that the weight of historical evidence is firmly behind the orthodox interpretation of the period, but that’s not terribly difficult when no other evidence is allowed. And we’re not even talking about Holocaust denial here, but those who may wish to challenge only some of the official facts. Actually, to even criticise the industry that has built around it (not even the Holocaust itself) will get you in trouble, even if you’re both Jewish and your parents are Holocaust survivors.

So don’t kid yourself that our approach to the Holocaust is any less irrational than Islam’s approach to Mohammad.

So, say you’re a Muslim and the president of Iran comes out and says that the Holocaust never happened. There’s international uproar - even the UN condemns it. Then, shortly thereafter, you see your Prophet not only depicted (which is pretty taboo) but grossly insulted too. But what really takes the biscuit is that this time the West throws up it’s arms and pleads “Free Speech” - even the UN calls it that and asks you to take a chill pill.

Would you think:

1. Ahh, sure, it’s only a bit of satirical fun, or
2. what a bunch or hypocritical racist-sectarian bastards.

The correct answer is of course b. If you picked a, then you are actually criminally stupid.

Of course, this does not condone the present riots, but it does explain them. And it probably also explains this too.

Zombrex

doh.ie wrote:

Bottom line for me is, since Christianity is lampooned and spoofed all the time, and the same can be said or Judaism and other religions, is Islam hyper-sensitive to blasphemy (to the point where it will not be tolerated at all)?

Not really, Martin Scorsie recieved death threats for The Last Temptation after all, and Life of Brian was banned in Ireland. When Jerry Springer - The Opera (which shows Jesus in a nappy) was shown on the BBC a fundamentalist Christian organisation published the names and home addresses of a number of BBC employees, some of who recieved death treats. A cartoonist in Greece had his book "The Life of Jesus" banned and recieved a 6 months suspended sentence for blashmony, which was eventually over turned.

I think the current problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that it is largely coming out of a very unstable region of the world, where a number of social circumstances are contributing to a far more violent reaction to precieved blasphemy. It is interesting that the riots in response to this cartoon is largely localisted in the most unstable areas of the Islamic world.

But it would be incorrect (imho) to say that Muslims are more sensitive to precieved blasphemy.