« The Todenhoefer Agenda vs. the Rumsfeld Agenda | Main | Not Good News... »

Comments

Hey Ray, It's John down in Key West. Just wanted to say you did it now. Because of this picture, all the muslims down here are going to riot and burn their computers in protest.

Also, if you know of any good Danish blogs, I'm interested in logging on to see what they're talking about. This whole mess might encourage the sprouting of balls over there.

Keep up the good work.

-John.

@romanthomas
Key West! slacker.......

I'm not sure this blog is just Danish, but it's definitely Scandinavian
Viking Observer

And there's always Brussels Journal

These cartoons are like mirrors. If an ape looks into it, there ain't no apostle looking out.

I see those pathetic poltroons, the editors of SPON, have flipped and flopped on the cartoon affair so much that their position is now indistinguishable from that of the hated Bush Administration. By their own standards, we should now be calling them Bush “poodles,” and “vassals,” no? These cowardly sheep, who bahhh-bahhh, so loudly from the roof at the US wolf, because they know it will never bite them, have suddenly become as silent as the lambs now that they hear a real wolf knocking. All we hear now are ever more intricate rationalizations of the abject and craven decision of these windbags not to reprint the cartoons. First it was the sham of their infinite concern for German hostages. Then they stuck their noses in the air and imagined themselves the avatars of sweet reason between two extremes. Then they came up with long laundry lists of reasons why they disagreed with “Jylands-Posten’s” decision to print the cartoons, as if freedom of speech and the press were conditional on SPON’s approval of what is printed or said. Then they fell all over themselves to quote Kofi Annan. Now they’re providing a forum for a spokesman of the Bush Administration, straight-faced as can be. Want to know the real reason for their gutless desertion in the face of the enemy? They’re scared to death that, if they print the cartoons, there is a slightly greater than infinitesimal chance that they will end up as stars in a head-chopper video. It really didn’t take much to intimidate these noble, heroic fighters for human rights, did it?

I personally think it was insensitive and stupid to print those cartoons. It is also insensitive and stupid to print cartoons that caricature Christ or Buddha. However, SPON and its fellow travelers, who regularly insult and scorn Christians in the US and elsewhere, have suddenly become staunch defenders of the faith, cheerfully advocating the trashing of freedom of speech if there’s any chance that the political exploiters of Islam might be “insulted.” And how, one might ask, have the Islamofascists convinced the editors of SPON to suddenly become so “sensitive” in this case? Why, with death threats, trampling on the inviolability of embassies, causing journalists who disagree with them to be fired, and showing their “respect” for the sacred symbols of others by burning the flags of Germany and other European countries. In other words, Islamofacists the world over need never fear that they will ever be “insulted” by these cowardly sheep, whose “sensitivity” is notably lacking when it comes to printing racist caricatures of Americans, or scoffing at Christians. They can be very easily intimidated. In a word, they have no balls. When the battle was joined, and the enemies of freedom threw down the gauntlet, the editors of SPON deserted in the face of the enemy. They thought only of how to appease the fanatical foes of liberty.

It’s noteworthy that the major US newspapers and networks have been just as groveling as SPON in this affair, not to mention most of the big leftist blogs. Daily Kos, evidently unconcerned about any violation of human rights if the Bush Administration isn’t involved, finally broke, its long silence. It is, therefore, with some embarrassment, but with a great deal more admiration and gratitude, that I welcome the brave and principled stand of FAZ, die Welt, and many other European newspapers. Those who are fond of prattling about “European decadence” should take note. When the threat to freedom was clear, and, with everything at stake, the time came for journalists the world over to face the enemy, the ones who didn’t flinch were in Europe. Europeans should be proud that there a still a few heroes in their midst.

http://www.zeit.de/online/2006/06/karikaturen_usa?page=2

Good article on the subject.

The lack of solidarity of the "official" US with Europe is embarassing, especially as Denmark is a country allied with the US that deserves better treatment. Danish civilians and soldiers have become the focus of attacks, yet American media somehow seem to focus on criticizing the Danes, not the terrorists and arsonists that rampage against them.

For some in the US, sacrificing the EuroPeons sure seems to be worth some standing gain with the Arab world.

On the other hand, it might be a good thing that Europe recognizes how easily the hatred channelled towards the US, for which there seems to be so much understanding and empathy here, can be redirected towards their own countries.

@CCTV
>>On the other hand, it might be a good thing that Europe recognizes how easily the hatred channelled towards the US, for which there seems to be so much understanding and empathy here, can be redirected towards their own countries.

Oh, I think they all too readily understand how easily the anger can be directed towards them. Which is why they have and will continue to adopt the posture of the appeaser.

Just wait. Any minute now the U.N. will decide this is a serious issue and will investigate - either the feasibility of media restrictions or hey! demanding the Danish cartoonists be handed over to the Hague for human rights violations.

And then, it might be a good thing to point out that those who boycott French and German products have found a new ally.

CCTV: Hmmm... US not supporting Europe, US trying to gain standing with the Arabs, Denmark deserving better treatment? The irony's a little thick, don't you think?

The biggest danger I see will come about, or not come about within the next few weeks.
If the hard right in Germany and other EU countries attaches itself to the cause, after all, Auslaender raus, Deutschland ist fuer Deutsche, and starts attacking Muslims, the average German may be brought into a battle.
The hard right, Neonazies, etc. have been doing harm to turkish businesses and residents before. Should they like the fodder that's thrown to them, an escalation of violence will undoubtedly follow.

Very interesting to watch.

Support freedom of speech: http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html

My favorite about this whole controversy is still this one:

"Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged."


http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Something Awful
National Lampoon

please don't burn any embassies over these links.

This ones better

Deist, great cartoon!

Why do you have to piss on religions, folks? Yes, the Muslims went off the edge of the cliff. But why force the issue? You do it to Christianity and to Judaism, I guess, so a foolish consistentcy demands you do it to Islam.

How about trying a wise consistency and try not offering outrageous insult to any of them. You could begin by not displaying crucifixes dunked in urine, for one. And of course, don't depict the Prophet Mohammed

I'm going to post a link to an appropriate poem for all the outraged defenders of civil liberties, with a choice excerpt here:

"As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;"

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

"Why do you have to piss on religions"

Don, satire is not pissing on religion. Don't you know this? We have satire about everything and every god.

Danish journalists thought there are censorship when it comes to the theme islam. They were totally right.

And the "offended" people react just like the satire pointed out.

Oh, no, Gabi. Far more serious than any satire. How many have died as a direct cause of this do you suppose? 1000? 10000?

-Republishing the cartoons in newspapers (as opposed to on blogs) fit the poem precisely:

"the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire"

This is not any kind of frigging JOKE!

And no, Gabi - there was no censorship in Europe. Other than a wise (if far belated) and selective discretion on the part of some publications who elected not to republish the cartoons.

Censorship is when something is prevented from being published. Or the copies are destroyed afterward. Did that happen?

>How about trying a wise consistency and try not offering outrageous >insult to any of them. You could begin by not displaying crucifixes >dunked in urine, for one. And of course, don't depict the Prophet Mohammed

Well how about some consistent arguments? It is not "us" who are dunking crucifixes in urine. Its some crazy artists, its only "us" who do not pass laws against doing so.
Every single European leader has distanced himself from the pictures and expressed understanding for a feeling of insult, but they also maintained that whoever wishes to publish such pictures can do so. There is absolutely nothing more the Europeans could do.

Cant imagine that this would lead to arrests in the US either.

Second, Mohammed has been depicted throughout history, both by Muslims
and "Infidels".
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

It only has recently been chosen as the subject of initiated and planned outrage, reinforced by faked images, which btw is simply treason by some Danish muslims. And it must be possible to report about these pictures as the "object" of this affair. Not with the intention to provoke Muslims like it might have been done in the Danish newspaper, but with the intention of informing the public.

This all is about showing the "crusaders" the united strength, determination and will of the Muslim people. This is about attempting to enforce the will of Muslims upon Europe, to humiliate her and compensate for that burning feeling of inferiority that plagues the Islamic world ever since they lost their status as world power hundreds of years ago.


>> Which is why they have and will continue to adopt the posture of the
> appeaser.
> Hmmm... US not supporting Europe, US trying to gain standing with the >Arabs, Denmark deserving better treatment? The irony's a little thick, >don't you think?

I agree that Europe appeased Islam many times in the recent past. But not this time. Each criticism has times when its appropriate, and when its not. So the only "irony" I see here is that you call Europeans appeasers when its actually the official US that has chosen this stance in the current debate.

Not appeasers at all. Exercising adult judgment. Which (as has been pointed out) the elected heads of European governments have also been doing. Good for them!

There was a superb piece by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of “Die Zeit” on the cartoon affair in the opinion section of the “Washington Post” today. A few salient excerpts:

“We would not have (originally) printed the caricature out of a sense of moderation and respect for the Muslim minority in our country… Freedom of the press comes with responsibility. But the criteria change when material that is seen as offensive becomes newsworthy. That’s why we saw bodies falling out of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. That’s why we saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. On such issues we print what we usually wouldn’t. The very nature of the discourse is to find parameters of what is culturally acceptable…It seems odd that most U.S. papers patronize their readers by withholding cartoons that the whole world talks about. To publish does not mean to endorse. Context matters.”

Kleine-Brockhoff has it exactly right. Citizens in any country where freedom of the press is more than just an empty slogan need to see the cartoons, and have a right to see them. The cartoons are having a profound effect on the lives of millions of people. It is impossible to make any sound judgment regarding the merits of the arguments on either side unless we can see what the controversy is about. It is also impossible, as Kleine-Brockhoff puts it, to define the parameters of what is culturally acceptable. Kleine-Brockhoff continues:

“When this episode percolated to the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, the paper’s cultural editor commissioned the caricatures. He wanted to see whether cartoonists would self-censor their work for fear of violence from Muslim radicals. Still, the European media ignored this story in a small Scandinavian country. It took months, a boycott of Danish products in the Arab world and the intervention of such champions of religious freedom as the governments of Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Libya (all of which withdrew their ambassadors from Copenhagen) for some European papers to reconsider their stance on the cartoons. By last week, it was not an obscure topic anymore but front-page news. And it wasn’t about the religious sensibilities as much as about free speech. That’s when the cartoons started to show up in papers all over Europe.

“Much of the U.S. reporting about the fracas made it appear as if Europeans just don’t get it—again. They struggle with immigration. They struggle with religion. They struggle with respect for minorities. And in the end they find their cities burning, as evidenced in Paris. Bill Clinton even detected an “anti-Islamic prejudice” and equated it with a previous “anti-Semitic prejudice.

“The former president has turned the argument upside down. In this jihad over humor, tolerance is disdained by people who demand it of others. The authoritarian governments that claim to speak on behalf of Europe’s supposedly oppressed Muslim minorities practice systematic repression against their own religious minorities. They have radicalized what was at first a difficult question. Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules. Does Bill Clinton want to counsel tolerance toward intolerance?

“On Friday the State Department found it appropriate to intervene. It blasted the publication of the cartoons as unacceptable incitement to religious hatred. It is a peculiar moment when the government of the United States, which likes to see itself as the home of free speech, suggests to European journalists what not to print.”

Bravo, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, and bravo, Die Zeit! You have it exactly right. We Americans are being patronized by our media. They are denying us important, newsworthy information that we have a right to know. They and the Bush poodles at SPON need to get a clue.

@flux
>>And then, it might be a good thing to point out that those who boycott French and German products have found a new ally.

And then, it might be a good thing to point out that Hitler loved dogs.

@Don
Why do you have to piss on religions, folks? Yes, the Muslims went off the edge of the cliff. But why force the issue? You do it to Christianity and to Judaism, I guess, so a foolish consistentcy demands you do it to Islam.

How about trying a wise consistency and try not offering outrageous insult to any of them. You could begin by not displaying crucifixes dunked in urine, for one. And of course, don't depict the Prophet Mohammed

That isn't the point and you know it. The point is that islamofacists use any excuse to murder and these cartoons got them out of the closet.

I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I seem to be the Jewish American Princess here at Medienkritik.
So I will speak to you as a woman of faith, and as an American. Just so you and other readers have the context, ok?

As far as depicting The Christ in urine or any other denigration of a religious icon - so what? Those of us who are trying to know Hashem,g-d,Allah, whatever - are not - or should I say - SHOULD not - be distracted by the torments of those who mock us. Ok, that's me as a person of faith. That's me whose temple has been desecrated and I could go on and on. I am not thereby constrained from being a Jew; I can still pray and I can still act and when my time comes Hashem won't care about the temple but about how I tried to honor his gift of life.

As an American;

Those Danish cartooners are more American than anyone I can think of. Insult away. Islam is the problem and your scolding about wise constraints is cowardice.

Check out lgf's commentary on this SPIEGEL interview, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch politican and Muslim woman with more balls than the entire editorial staff at SPON combined. How is it that she has the brains to understand and the backbone to state for the record what's at stake when her life is literally on the line, at a time when so many Americans have concluded that free speech doesn't matter as long as they, personally, find the cartoons offensive, or that spineless groveling is the only way to respond to violence and intimidation to insure that a "dialog" is maintained. There can be no dialog with those who hate us, who want to destroy us, not accommodate us, and who have hijacked one of the world's great religions and are now exploiting it as a tool to gain political power. To the best of my knowledge, this interview has not yet appeared in SPON's German edition. I wonder why??

Helian, I have a problem.

I disagree with just about every conclusion you have ever arrived at

But when push comes to shove.....

Well, ok - not just when push comes to shove.
There can be no dialog with those who hate us, who want to destroy us, not accommodate us, and who have hijacked one of the world's great religions and are now exploiting it as a tool to gain political power. To the best of my knowledge, this interview has not yet appeared in SPON's German edition. I wonder why??

smooch

@Pamela

>>"smooch"

Great, now I'm sure to get another beating from my wife when I get home. Third time this week.

Pamela please observe your surroundings. Note that I am not defending the Islamicist reaction. That is wrong - full stop. But this is not an them and us issue no matter how much people around here think it is.

If you look around at the right-wing blogosphere about 99% of the opinions agree with you and not with me. I can't speak for Kos and that mob - I don't agree with those turkeys and don't hang there. But my opinion is decidedly not a popular one right now - particularly here.

That does not make me a 'coward'. I could argue that it might make you a coward - but I don't. I think courage or cowardice has little to do with it.

I'll tell you what I think I'm seeing shaping up. Do you know the vulgar phrase 'A pissing contest'? It's something which males are reputed to have a weakness for. I refuse to join the pissing contest - and am doing my level best to let the air out of some windbags around here - and elsewhere.

I'll be back in two hours with some replies to some of the stuff people are writing. The real world calls. My cupboards are empty and the supermarket will be closing soon.....

@Don
>>But this is not an them and us issue no matter how much people around here think it is.
>>But my opinion is decidedly not a popular one right now - particularly here.

That does not make me a 'coward'. I could argue that it might make you a coward - but I don't. I think courage or cowardice has little to do with it.

>>I refuse to join the pissing contest - and am doing my level best to let the air out of some windbags around here - and elsewhere.

Good. Go do your meatspace stuff. Come back and kick my butt.

Nice to meet you.


Helian, the interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in German appearded in the print edition DER SPIEGEL on Monday and therefore cannot be found at SPIEGEL ONLINE.
(You can buy an online version of the printed interview, though.)

@Helian

LGF is great blog, but be prepared to be labeled a "racist" and "hater" if you admit reading those threads.

@Dhimi Don

"Why do you have to piss on religions, folks?"

No one is pissing on religion, but those of a particual cult that utilize violence and threaten death with those who do not submit to their beliefs. I'm catholic and found the "piss Christ" art display offensive, but I am not about to slash the artists throat or burn down the art gallery. A persons faith should be stronger and more enduring than anything those who do not believe are able to mock, criticize and ridicule. If not, then it shows how insecure your faith really is.

"How about trying a wise consistency and try not offering outrageous insult to any of them."

You should read how Jews and Chirstians are depicted in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. You do not know what an "outrageous insult" is.

"there was no censorship in Europe. Other than a wise (if far belated) and selective discretion on the part of some publications who elected not to republish the cartoons."

No, those publications not owned by the state practiced self-censorship due to fear. Cowardice seems rife in the media fields by collapsing into islamic demands. The cartoons should be repeatedly published daily and mock the islamo-fascists of how powerless they are to stop it.

"That does not make me a 'coward'. "

If you want to put it to a vote here, I think you would be disappointed when it is affirmed that you considered one in the most abolute terms.

As a wise American once said, "Those who give up their liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."

Good luck with your lot in life and remember you need to face to the south-east in order to be facing Mecca.

Buckey, I believe Franklin's quote is even better in full (the words "essential" and "little" really make it clear):

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

>"Helian, the interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in German appearded in the print edition DER SPIEGEL on Monday and therefore cannot be found at SPIEGEL ONLINE. (You can buy an online version of the printed interview, though.)"

Thanks, Walter.

>>"LGF is great blog, but be prepared to be labeled a "racist" and "hater" if you admit reading those threads."

I'm sure Dan Rather would agree.

Meanwhile, The Philadelphia Inquirer has broken ranks with the rest of the media elite in the US, who have been keeping us ignorant for our own good. A smaller NY paper, the Sun, is also on board. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of Muslims are standing up publicly for freedom of expression. How can you think of these people without awe and respect? They stand up in the face of certain intimidation and the very real threat of physical harm or death. These are the people who really inspire respect for their religion. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

Don,

It would be easier to sympathise with your position is the Islamic media wasn't filled with a constant torrent of vile anti-Semitic articles, cartoons, and television programs. These include a TV program based on the discredited Elders of Zion and articles that claim Jews use human blood to prepare their holiday pastries. If Muslims are unwilling to show any consideration for other religions why are they upset when someone humorously points out some of the hypocricy in theirs? I believe the point of many of the cartoons was how Islam claims to be a religion of peace while constantly threating violence. Pretty accurate if you ask me!

Ok, I'm back. Sorry about the delay. I have a little beer in me, so if anyone considers me being offensive please keep in mind that you guys are not the target of my pique. Never, you are my compadres.

When I asked why you guys always *have* to piss on religion, it was a rhetorical question not aimed at the readership here but really at the class of 'euroscum' who precipitated this crisis. European and to a lesser extent US journalists and other bloviators like Juan Cole, for example.

I want to summarize my feelings. I have no sympathy with the manipulators on either side. I see an obvious adgenda from the West Bank where the rioting appeared to begin. Hamas shocked themselves by winning that election and the EU was starting to show signs of a queasy stomach, possibly resulting in aid cuts or elimination of EU aid for the PA. I see the West Bank rioting as an obvious and very direct threat to the EU by Hamas, full stop. There are more manipulators in many parts of the Mideast with similar ideas.

On the Euro side - well I've seen an article that indicated that the editors of the Danish newspaper planned this as some kind of test case or provocation. I have no sympathy with deliberate provocation - particularly one using the very centre of a somewhat unstable major religion. Go ahead and publish a cartoon showing Khomeni or Bin Laden or Al-Zawarhi or Hussein having relations with a jackass - but please don't mess with the Prophet!

Even so I kind of count the Danes as part innocents in this fargle - they simply didn't know what they were playing with.

Not so with the clowns who re-published the cartoons on whatever basis. This thing really riled people up, so OF COURSE it's obvious that you need to add fuel to the bonfire! Let's see if we can burn a whole city! Or at least a town or two. That'l be a proper story! Particularly given that YOU (the editors and journalist scum) personally are unlikely to pay any price whatsoever if the muthu blows wide open. The Danes may get a fatwah laid on them and have to hide for years. The poor suckers who find themselves in the path of a riot and get beat to death - they will pay. But not fat-ass snide 'journalists' and editors living in the 7th Arrondissiment - they won't pay worth squat.

Moreover, these people are NOT our friends! They are the same scum who compare Bush to a chimp every other week of the year, who look for every occasion to sneer and stick the stiletto in. I will defend their right to exercie their free speech but will never defend the CONTENT of that speech. I'll tear a hole in it instead - which is what I'm doing right now!

Now I'll discuss the innocents. There are lots of western innocents who will be badly injured or killed if St.Denis (Paris suburb) or Southall blows wide open. Also in the Muslim world. I think there are a lot of non-Muslim Brotherhood non Islamicist Muslims who are really offended by these cartoons. They may not be the most sophisticated people on the planet - but we need their good opinion or at least their benign disregard. This is not a good way to do it, Euroscum! I saw a story about a big demonstration in Kabul - not exactly a Al Queda stronghold these days. So I suspect sincerity rather than manipulation here.

Finally the Hall of Fame, people who have comported themselves well. #1 is Ayatollah Sistani, the big Sistani cleric. By a long shot. Bush makes the list, as does the Danish Prime Minister. Condemn the cartoons but defend free speech. Don't censor - of COURSE don't censor! Maybe other European heads of state - I'm not sure of the particulars but willing to expand the list.

The editors who declined to add napalm to the fire burning get honorable mention and my skeptical hope that their brief essay into responsible conduct might encourage more of the same. Toward Bush and Blair for example.

So what about all the racist cartoons we see from the Muslim world? This is where my previous 'pissing contest' commentcomes in. Yes they are acting like utter truthless propogandistic jerks - but that is absolutely no justification for westerners to follow their lead in any way. The 'response' argument cuts no ice with me, none whatever.

@Don

Thanks for identifying all the turkeys, windbags, euroscum, bloviators, scum, poor suckers, fat-ass, snide “journalists,” and utter, truthless, propagandistic jerks in this affair for us. I’m relieved to know that we’re not targets of your pique. How gratifying it must be to be so wise and morally superior.

I suggest you reread your post then have a look in the mirror, dude....

Careful, Don, after all your sagacious remarks about pissing contests and throwing gasoline on fires, it will hardly do for you to engage in the same sort of unseemly behavior yourself. After all, as you have gone to so much effort to inform us, you are far above the unseemly brawls of mere mortals.

More courageous journalists sacrifice their jobs, after their publisher muzzled them for attempting to do their job of informing their readers, or, as some would have it, “throwing gasoline on the fire.”

Meanwhile, according to the Wall Street Journal, it’s very possible that the Islamofascist demagogues who are so manipulating the masses in the Middle East and elsewhere with such finesse don’t really respect the prophet as much as they let on. In fact, the worst of the cartoons they passed around to stir up the popular fury never appeared in Jyllands-Posten, and, absent some other plausible source, it appears they made them up themselves. So much for their pious abhorrence of blasphemy.

Austin Bay also has some interesting comments on the response to the cartoons.

allow me to suggest that you change your sign-in name, Helian - to 'Morally Superior'.

Obviously you don't possess a mirror - or don't use it.

I'll tread lightly, lest I disturb Helian the Gatekeeper.

>>In fact, the worst of the cartoons they passed around . . . never appeared in Jyllands-Posten, and, absent some other plausible source, it appears they made them up themselves.>>

Hmmmm. The WSJ article, in fact, raises a completely plausible explanation, "Ahmed Akarri, a 28-year-old Islamist activist . . . says the photographs had been sent to Danish Muslims (committee) anonymously and were included as examples of Denmark's anti-Muslim sentiment."

The article then adds, "Mr. Rose, the (Jyllands-Posten) editor, describes it as a clear attempt at 'disinformation.'" If by 'disinformation' he means expanding the case beyond what the paper published, then he's right. If by 'disinformation' he means something the clerics invented to roil emotions, he still might be right but the article presents no evidence to support that claim.

Absent any other facts (and I haven't come across any on this specific issue), I don't see where anything 'appears' that the clerics made it up themselves. It's just a supposition, no more or less substantiated than the activist's claim.

Now, to add some qualifiers to preempt the predictable response (though I wonder if this doesn't qualify as a form of self-censorship):

I'm not defending the clerics' actions;

I'm not defending the reactions across the Moslem world; and

I support the Danish paper and it's editor.

Cheers,

@Don
>>When I asked why you guys always *have* to piss on religion, it was a rhetorical question not aimed at the readership here but really at the class of 'euroscum' who precipitated this crisis.

Ah. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. No one in Europe, be they scum or other, precipitated this.

Islam did. I know a few Muslims who are absolutely honorable people, who are and have been appalled ever since 9/11. They will be the first to tell you it is their religion that is the problem and they struggle with it. They are truly people in crisis.

Your argument about putting innocents in harms way while the perpetrators take no risk on the face of it looks reasonable. But the fact is we all - innocent, euroscum, whoever - have been and are at risk and that will not change. No Danish cartoonist put innocent people in danger. The Islamofacists do that.

@Rofe

Hi Rofe!

>>Absent any other facts (and I haven't come across any on this specific issue), I don't see where anything 'appears' that the clerics made it up themselves. It's just a supposition, no more or less substantiated than the activist's claim.

This has been circulating sort of under the radar. But this morning Fox News broadcast one of the hoax pictures that one of those imams attributed to the Danish cartoonists. It's an AP photo of a man (with beard) wearing a fake pig snout.

FWIW.

Hi Pamela,

Thanks for the tip. I recall reading about the extra cartoons / pictures a few days back, and actually when I read Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff's piece in the Post yesterday I wondered why he didn't mention them. From what I read elsewhere (Daniel Drezner or perhaps Andrew Sullivan), at least some of the Danish press is looking into this aspect of the story as well.

At this point I don't think it's disputed that the Danish clerics added extra material, but I haven't seen a definitive answer on the actual source of the extras.

Cheers,

>>”I'll tread lightly, lest I disturb Helian the Gatekeeper.”

Helian’s baleful eyes flash. He reaches for his steely knife… No, really Rofe, I’m on my meds today. If I occasionally prick an over-inflated balloon, “whosoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”

>>”Absent any other facts (and I haven't come across any on this specific issue), I don't see where anything 'appears' that the clerics made it up themselves. It's just a supposition, no more or less substantiated than the activist's claim.”

Fair enough. On the other hand, this story has been out there for some time. The clerics must know their source. They can easily silence the speculation by putting the information on the table. Until they do, I’m not above indulging in a little McCarthyite innuendo in this case.

Andrew Sullivan has some excellent posts and links on the cartoon issue this morning, including the following, from Amir Tahiri :

“The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of ‘laughing at religion,’ at times to the point of irreverence.”

Andrew adds the following regarding the editorial position of the NYT:

“The pusillanimity of the New York Times on this subject is another low-mark for the paper. They have the gall to run vicious commentary on images they will not publish. Below are two images: one of the Virgin Mary constructed out of dung and supported by public funding; and one of the "callous" Danish cartoons, that pokes fun at the newspaper that ran them. The NYT will publish one but not the other. They are not journalists. They are merely cowards.”

Hear, hear! Much the same can be said of the sheep at SPON.

"Ah. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. No one in Europe, be they scum or other, precipitated this.

Islam did."

We're definately going to have to disagree here, Pamela. The words 'Islam', 'Christianity', or 'Judaism' have no meaning in this context. They are not actors. Opus Dei has little in common with the namby-pamby folks within William Sloan Coffin's ministry and they certainly don't share an agenda except in the most general sense.

Individuals who are Muslim and even specific groups and networks who share an outlook on or means of pursuing their faith - this is valid. But 'Islam' cannot validly be blamed. Nor can the Prophet Mohammed be blamed. He is almost 1200 years in his grave, for heaven's sake!

Some of the things he did and said may have effects today, and some of those things may even be a modern curse. But it is the people living today who have made it into a curse by their own choices if it is so - not Mohammed.

Similarly, Islam is not a valid target. It is far too general and contains far too many people innocent of ill intent to be such. The people who stirred up these riots and may have fabricated some of the 'cartoons' in order to spark riots? Yes, they are legitimate targets of our anger.

In fighting these people we almost inevitably will hurt innocents but at very least we should define and refine just whom we are targeting lest we wind up hitting people whom we have no just cause to hurt.

I argue that while the bigoted cartoons out of the Muslim world are hateful that response in kind is unjustified because of two or three principals. Two wrongs don't make a right. We may target a hateful cartoonist working for a government paper in Cairo, but wind up hitting an apolitical Afghan instead. In fact we almost certainly will do that en-masse given the way the hate groups operate. They will make certain of it. Finally, all we are doing by responding in such fashion is to play straight into the hands of the haters.....

It's an AP photo of a man (with beard) wearing a fake pig snout.

Pamela, it seems that the pic is from a pig squeeling contest that took place in France--no joke. The extra photos were apparently thrown into the mix by an imam because the cartoons were not thought to be offensive enough to cause outrage in the muslim world.


>>"Pamela, it seems that the pic is from a pig squeeling contest that took place in France--no joke. The extra photos were apparently thrown into the mix by an imam because the cartoons were not thought to be offensive enough to cause outrage in the muslim world."

Someone should tell the Washington Redskins fans. They're liable to set off a jihad all by themselves.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with anything, but I was reading a news article today and came across this:

"Sitting alongside him, Jordan's Abdullah said, "Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion of peace, tolerance, moderation."

Does anyone else think it's wierd that every time someone talks about Islam, they say things like it "is a religion of peace, tolerance, moderation." It's almost like they are trying too hard. They just keep repeating it. And, you know what they say about that...

When was the last time you heard Father O'Connor, Rabbi Silverman, or Pastor Jones say his religion is "a religion of peace, tolerance, moderation"? When was the last time any of them felt the need to have to say that?

Well, it can be, Scott. I'm sure many Muslims are feeling very defensive about Islam at this time. Not without cause. Wouldn't you if you were in their shoes? I would.

It's one reaon why we hear so much about 'Crusaders' of course. The worst Crusaders weren't much (if any) better than the worst Islamicists today. Of course the Crusaders occurred 700 years or more ago, but what's a few centuries here and there? ;)

From the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

Some for the Glories of This World; and some
Sigh for the Prophet's Paradise to come;
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go,
Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!

Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare,
And those that after a TO-MORROW stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
"Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There."

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scatter'd, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise
To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies.

Then to this earthen Bowl did I adjourn
My Lip the secret Well of Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur'd--"While you live,
Drink!--for once dead you never shall return."

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to IT for help--for It
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.

And this I know: whether the one True Light,
Kindle to Love, or Wrath consume me quite,
One Glimpse of It within the Tavern caught
Better than in the Temple lost outright.

Oh Thou who didst with Pitfall and with Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestination round
Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin?

Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
And who with Eden didst devise the Snake;
For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
Is blacken'd, Man's Forgiveness give--and take!

This blasphemous stuff was written by a Moslem, a Persian, no less, and has been cheerfully tolerated for over a thousand years. How is it, then, that all these hypocrites are choking so violently on a few cartoons?

Don said: "Well, it can be, Scott. I'm sure many Muslims are feeling very defensive about Islam at this time. Not without cause. Wouldn't you if you were in their shoes? I would."

Actually, Don, my religion gets "disrespected" every day in Arab countries. And, I'm not talking about some silly cartoons. I'm talking some really vile, perverted stuff. Heck, even people in my own country "disrespect" my religion all the time. But, you know what. I don't give a rat's ass about that. I really couldn't care less.

Why should I get uptight and defensive?

Why would you? Do you really care what others think or say about your religion? Does it really matter? Would something as childish as cartoons poking fun at your religion be enough to send you off of the deep end? If so, then I'd say you have bigger things to worry about than someone blaspheming your religion.

Say what you want, but to spout off with nonsense like "Call my religion violent, and I'll kill you" is just plain ridiculous. If Muslim's are feeling defensive about their religion, well boo-frickin-hoo. They'd better clean up their own ranks before they even think about pointing fingers at others.

Scott< I think you mistake my meaning. I apologize for not making myself clear.

What I'm saying is that if people professing to follow my religion had acquired a name for killing innocent people in job lots I would be very sensitive about that. Perhaps I would emphasize how peaceful my religion also.

When I wrote that they had cause to feel that way that was precisely my meaning. Not that anyone else had made them sensitive but that the murderous behavior of their coreligionists makes shame completely appropriate.

Apart from that I think we agree. You have no cause to feel uptight and defensive and it wasn't my intent to imply that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28