View Full Version : Danish paper to publish Iran's Holocaust cartoons
Goofball
02-09-2006, 01:27
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4b16647f-35e8-4a43-99dd-ce9e0d627073&k=17035
The plot thickens even more. Apparently this is meant as a test to see whether the west is as tolerant as respectful of free speech as we say we are.
Seems like apples to oranges to me (joking about an event that involved the torture, starvation and murder of millions of people vs. portraying a religious figure in a funny hat), and I would suggest that the only appropriate response would be for those of us who are offended by Holocaust jokes to stop buying this particular newspaper, as muslims the world over were free to do when it published the cartoon that so offended them.
Watchman
02-09-2006, 01:33
:wall:
head hurts.
too childish.
:scastle:
Tit for tat huh ? This is getting just stupid.
Papewaio
02-09-2006, 02:04
The only people winning are the ultra-nationalists in the West and their equivalent in the Middle East.
Watchman
02-09-2006, 02:14
They ought to start burning mosques any day now. :skull:
Well, unless the local authorities have of course been using their heads and placed those under guard just in case. Back when I visited Rome there was a Carabiniere with an SMG and armour vest standing at every corner of one synagogue I saw, so...
"I think it is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a discotheque Friday night."
Awesome.
Ah, well, we'll see how this turns out. I expect Germany to be pissed.
Leet Eriksson
02-09-2006, 03:37
How about insulting moses too?
I mean its just getting silly on both sides now.
How about insulting moses too?
I mean its just getting silly on both sides now.
Moses gets insulted all the time. I've seen action figures depicting him and his accessories, like a crook, and the commandments. He even had Tablet-Smashing Action.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2006, 04:39
I like it. If the want to test free speech they may as well test it all out.
Watchman
02-09-2006, 12:20
Yeah, but bad taste is bad taste no matter how you look at it. And this isn't bad enough to qualify as "camp" either, so it's just depressing.
Kagemusha
02-09-2006, 12:25
Hate is the path to the dark side.:book:
Adrian II
02-09-2006, 12:43
Seems like apples to oranges to me (joking about an event that involved the torture, starvation and murder of millions of people vs. portraying a religious figure in a funny hat), and I would suggest that the only appropriate response would be for those of us who are offended by Holocaust jokes to stop buying this particular newspaper, as muslims the world over were free to do when it published the cartoon that so offended them.Oh, but I certainly want to see those Iranian cartoons. And I will make sure I do, even though it will probably involve paying in some way towards the rights of the makers and publishers. One needs to stay posted in my business.
And before we judge, let us see exactly how this plays out. Making fun of the victims of the Holocaust is something entirely different from, let us say, making fun of people who abuse the Holocaust for personal or political purposes, a.k.a. the 'Holocaust industry'. Jewish audiences sometimes protest the latter in the most vehement manner and on the same purely emotional and irrational grounds that we see on display in the Arab streets today, but we don't give in to them, nor should we.
I also wonder how many of the Iranian cartoons will be merely anti-Semitic, depicting Jews as some inferior race instead of addressing the topic, i.e. the Holocaust.
And finally I am willing to bet that no matter how the Iranian cartoons are going to turn out, the debate about them will be in terms of hurt feelings. Not a rational argument about what constitutes a lie, slander or opinion, but yet another whining contest in the worst post-modern fashion.
Oh, I am so huuurt!... ~:mecry:
rory_20_uk
02-09-2006, 14:52
Well, the Man From Iran said it best "comparing the Nazi Genocide to a disrespectful cartoon". :dizzy2:
What about free "Life Of Brian" DVDs to every reader? Or a satirical version of the Lord's Prayer - something to do with religion!!!
I hope we can have a good giggle over the Iranians' who walked over the Iraqi minefields in their war. I think that was just as funny as as genocide. :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
Before we all get too excited: the Danish newspaper will not post the Hamshahri pictures.
Sjakihata
02-09-2006, 15:11
Correct, it was a misunderstanding that the Chief Editor Carsten Juste demented several times. It is NOT going to happen.
A.Saturnus
02-09-2006, 20:07
I say publish them. At least if they're funny. A caricature doesn't incite violence.
It will difficult to publish these Iranian cartoons in France. If they deny the reality of the Holocaust, or incite to racial hatred, there is a law against that.
About the Life of Brian, can we have the Life of Yusuf made by some Arabic/Muslim people and broadcast in the Muslim world? I very doubt it.
What I find interesting is the alleged offence against Muslim was made in a Christian Kingdom and the Iranian answer is about Jews…:dizzy2:
Samurai Waki
02-09-2006, 22:08
It seems like Iran has a one-track mind. You say to Iranian "I hate Cake." and he replies "Yes. I hate the Jews too.":wall:
Devastatin Dave
02-09-2006, 22:11
I like it because it will show the contrast between Islam's reaction to insignificant issues and the reaction of just about everyone else on this earth in the reaction this recieves from those insulted by these pictures. Praise Allah...
It seems like Iran has a one-track mind. You say to Iranian "I hate Cake." and he replies "Yes. I hate the Jews too.":wall:
:laugh4: That makes me wish I knew some Iranians.
Anyway, all this talk of mocking the Holocaust brought a certain joke image to mind. I had to do it.
and I had to remove it - "jokes" involving Holocaust victims are not really what we would like to see here - they rather attest to bad taste than to humor (Ser Clegane)
That last bit's your opinion, mang.
Goofball
02-09-2006, 23:36
:laugh4: That makes me wish I knew some Iranians.
Anyway, all this talk of mocking the Holocaust brought a certain joke image to mind. I had to do it.
see comment in previous post - Ser Clegane
I don't get it.
Watchman
02-10-2006, 00:33
The DJ and his paraphenelia make it very surreal.
rory_20_uk
02-10-2006, 12:43
They're supposed to be being thrown out of a club by men with guns? Not even in East End London do they do that here...
~:smoking:
Adrian II
02-10-2006, 12:52
:laugh4: That makes me wish I knew some Iranians.
Anyway, all this talk of mocking the Holocaust brought a certain joke image to mind. I had to do it.You had to? Do you think that picture is appropriate at all?
There is a huge difference between making fun of someone like Mohammed who committed genocide, and making fun of Jews who were the victims of genocide.
In case some members do not understand this difference, maybe the mods can advise them. If the picture is allowed to stay here, we might as well show pictures that make light of the victims of '9/11', the tsunami and other recent tragedies. And we shouldn't worry about PG13 issues at all, because if this picture is PG13, anything goes.
Ser Clegane
02-10-2006, 13:19
The picture probably does not violate any PG13 rules, however, I consider it to be highly offensive, considering that it is presented as a "joke"
Leet Eriksson
02-10-2006, 13:27
Freedom of speech indeed...
Ser Clegane
02-10-2006, 13:30
Freedom of speech indeed...
I case this is referring to the removal of the picture - whatever is posted on this forum is subject to the forum rules.
Content and context play a role in moderators' decisions what constitutes a violation of these rules and what does not.
Leet Eriksson
02-10-2006, 14:02
I case this is referring to the removal of the picture - whatever is posted on this forum is subject to the forum rules.
Content and context play a role in moderators' decisions what constitutes a violation of these rules and what does not.
No i didn't refer to the SA photoshop Gorebag posted, but the refusal of the danish newspaper to publish the holocaust charicatures.
I lost my faith in freedom of speech. The Muhammed cartoons were offensive, tasteless, and stereotyped yet the Jyllands-Posten newspaper published them, so why not go on and publish the hamshari newspaper cartoons? They know full well these cartoons are tasteless and stupid, but they didn't publish them, where is the freedom of speech in that?
Ser Clegane
02-10-2006, 14:03
No i didn't refer to the SA photoshop Gorebag posted, but the refusal of the danish newspaper to publish the holocaust charicatures.
Thanks for the clarification :bow:
Meneldil
02-10-2006, 14:24
No i didn't refer to the SA photoshop Gorebag posted, but the refusal of the danish newspaper to publish the holocaust charicatures.
I lost my faith in freedom of speech. The Muhammed cartoons were offensive, tasteless, and stereotyped yet the Jyllands-Posten newspaper published them, so why not go on and publish the hamshari newspaper cartoons? They know full well these cartoons are tasteless and stupid, but they didn't publish them, where is the freedom of speech in that?
Because, as it has already been stated, there's quite a difference between making fun of a so called prophet that died a while ago and killed thousands of people, and making fun of people who were tortured and slaughtered in a really horrible way and in an industrial scale 60 years ago.
So yeah, that's about it. Although I see your point, I don't really want these pics to be published in a french newspaper (furthermore, as already stated, it would hardly happen) if they're as offensive and as silly as I expect them to be (and given the statement of the guy who proposed the 'make your own funny pic of the Holocaust' contest, I expect something of really bad taste).
Now, if they started to make pics of Jesus or Moses eating a baby, or a pic of Chirac sending nukes on Iran, I couldn't care less, and wouldn't have a problem if these pics were released to the public.
Proletariat
02-10-2006, 14:29
Exactly, French Frie.
:bow:
Byzantine Prince
02-10-2006, 14:51
Well technincaly since no one has actually seen the prophet depicted, how do people infer that it is indeed him? It isn't like we have any distinct features to attribute to his persona.
As for the holocaust, the Iranians deny that it even hapened, how are they making fun of it. Make up your damn minds people! :laugh4:
Leet Eriksson
02-10-2006, 14:55
Because, as it has already been stated, there's quite a difference between making fun of a so called prophet that died a while ago and killed thousands of people, and making fun of people who were tortured and slaughtered in a really horrible way and in an industrial scale 60 years ago.
Yeah but what does it have to do with freedom of speech?
I'm supposed to have the right to insult anyone right?
Yeah but what does it have to do with freedom of speech?
I'm supposed to have the right to insult anyone right?
I agree.
It may be bad taste in both cases, but it´s also both free speech.
Yet, denying the holocaust and many other Nazi hobbies are forbidden here in Germany.
Ser Clegane
02-10-2006, 15:07
Well technincaly since no one has actually seen the prophet depicted, how do people infer that it is indeed him? It isn't like we have any distinct features to attribute to his persona.
IIRC the cartoonists were explicitly asked to make cartoons of Mohammed - so I guess it's save to assume that the cartoons are indeed supposed to show the prophet.
Well if an Iranian newspaper wants to publish cartoons about the Holocaust I dont expect mass demonstrations in the west nor boykotts, recalled ambassadors etc etc.
I might be an ignorant Dane with a stereotype image of Islam so I dont understand the big fuss about the cartoons. But I also accept that things that do offend me, like say some of the christian extremists in USA, is not something I will blame the whole USA for, as its a free country.
Jyllandsposten is free to decide what pictures to publish or not within the limits of Danish law and Hamshahri can do whatever they want within the limits of Iranian law.
Arab newspapers might have a taboo about showing pictures of their prophet and the west have a taboo about holocaust cartoons. And we can either start scrutinizing each others newspapers for thing that offends us, or just accept the differences and ignore those that do offend us.
CBR
LeftEyeNine
02-10-2006, 17:23
I have been away from anything called "online" for a week or so, before I return where I have internet access at home, I'll try to stir up in this thread a bit ~:)
The editor of the Danish paper was interviewed by one major newspaper in Turkey - Milliyet.
He claimed that they had explicitly requested having cartoons of Muhammed from cartoonists. He said that they had tried to test the tolerance of Muslims and I bet they got clear results.
Whatever -as I said before- depictation of Muhammed easily arises negative reaction among Muslim societies. And since this is directly related to the religious sources of Islam -not some individual or fractional interpretion-, you can not expect Muslim society to show tolerance, or say, get used to depictation of Muhammed. Islam does not "change" by time.
The violent and furious reactions have no basis at all. But it was something "visible" from the start considering the fact how religious polarization increased after 9/11 and the social welfare of the Muslim societies. I don't find them rightful at all, I have to repeat. This is not the way.
By the way, after reading an article by Taha Akyol about the recent events in aforementioned paper Milliyet, I'd like confirmation of European fellows out there. Akyol claims that:
"In1994, in Austria, a movie that shows the elements of the holy Trinity of Christianism in some kind of "ugly" positions was taken! Austrian government bans the movie from the theaters, therefore the film producers apply to European Court of Human Rights...
ECHR, after pointing out that freedom speech is accompanied by "showing respect to the feelings of the believers at the same time", approves the bannination of the movie by the government" (Otto-Preminger v. Austria, 295-A (20.9.9) )
"In England, by 1996, a film showing Mother Teresa and Jesus "inappropriately" was banned by the government. And the rightfulness of the bannination was confirmed by ECHR as well."(Wingrove v. the UK-Rep. 1996-V, fas. 23 (25.11.96) )
Though I can not confirm this incident myself, the writer mentions about a similar incident in Turkey as well :
"In 1993, a publisher publishes a book that offended Muhammed. A trial was opened regarding the 175th clause of the old Turkish Laws of Sentence including the statement "offending Allah, a religion, prophet or holy book or sect of these religions". The writer was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment that was converted to money fine later on, getting confirmed by the Supreme Court of Turkey as well. The publisher had appealed to the decision applying to ECHR however it was refused and the sentence was confirmed by them as well"
Considering these facts and international relationships, I'm still on the side of the rightfullness of reaction against the depictation of Muhammed in a very ugly way -that doubles the bitterness of the incident. Norwegian newspaper clearly apologized for their act today. I hope the others follow in order to settle down the flame wars.
They ought to start burning mosques any day now. :skull:
Well, unless the local authorities have of course been using their heads and placed those under guard just in case. Back when I visited Rome there was a Carabiniere with an SMG and armour vest standing at every corner of one synagogue I saw, so...
This is standard proceedure in Italy, but not to protect synagogues. Italian police are trained to stand on street corners fondling SMGs while flirting with passing females. In Italy a uniform is something to look good in!
solypsist
02-10-2006, 17:28
1. this situation is apparently going to get worse before it gets better.
2. please take this as a reminder of the current practice we have on posting images of this nature. if you must, a link to the image with a spoiler warning will suffice.
Sjakihata
02-10-2006, 17:29
I have been away from anything called "online" for a week or so, before I return where I have internet access at home, I'll try to stir up in this thread a bit ~:)
The editor of the Danish paper was interviewed by one major newspaper in Turkey - Milliyet.
He claimed that they had explicitly requested having cartoons of Muhammed from cartoonists. He said that they had tried to test the tolerance of Muslims and I bet they got clear results.
Whatever -as I said before- depictation of Muhammed easily arises negative reaction among Muslim societies. And since this is directly related to the religious sources of Islam -not some individual or fractional interpretion-, you can not expect Muslim society to show tolerance, or say, get used to depictation of Muhammed. Islam does not "change" by time.
The violent and furious reactions have no basis at all. But it was something "visible" from the start considering the fact how religious polarization increased after 9/11 and the social welfare of the Muslim societies. I don't find them rightful at all, I have to repeat. This is not the way.
By the way, after reading an article by Taha Akyol about the recent events in aforementioned paper Milliyet, I'd like confirmation of European fellows out there. Akyol claims that:
"In1994, in Austria, a movie that shows the elements of the holy Trinity of Christianism in some kind of "ugly" positions was taken! Austrian government bans the movie from the theaters, therefore the film producers apply to European Court of Human Rights...
ECHR, after pointing out that freedom speech is accompanied by "showing respect to the feelings of the believers at the same time", approves the bannination of the movie by the government" (Otto-Preminger v. Austria, 295-A (20.9.9) )
"In England, by 1996, a film showing Mother Teresa and Jesus "inappropriately" was banned by the government. And the rightfulness of the bannination was confirmed by ECHR as well."(Wingrove v. the UK-Rep. 1996-V, fas. 23 (25.11.96) )
Though I can not confirm this incident myself, the writer mentions about a similar incident in Turkey as well :
"In 1993, a publisher publishes a book that offended Muhammed. A trial was opened regarding the 175th clause of the old Turkish Laws of Sentence including the statement "offending Allah, a religion, prophet or holy book or sect of these religions". The writer was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment that was converted to money fine later on, getting confirmed by the Supreme Court of Turkey as well. The publisher had appealed to the decision applying to ECHR however it was refused and the sentence was confirmed by them as well"
Considering these facts and international relationships, I'm still on the side of the rightfullness of reaction against the depictation of Muhammed in a very ugly way -that doubles the bitterness of the incident. Norwegian newspaper clearly apologized for their act today. I hope the others follow in order to settle down the flame wars.
The cartoons was reprinted in a Egypt paper in october last year. Why didnt that result in an outcry? Only now, when religious leader can take advantage of it, it produces an outrage... this has nothing to do with the cartoons.
I might be an ignorant Dane with a stereotype image of Islam so I dont understand the big fuss about the cartoons. But I also accept that things that do offend me, like say some of the christian extremists in USA, is not something I will blame the whole USA for, as its a free country.
Jyllandsposten is free to decide what pictures to publish or not within the limits of Danish law and Hamshahri can do whatever they want within the limits of Iranian law.
Arab newspapers might have a taboo about showing pictures of their prophet and the west have a taboo about holocaust cartoons. And we can either start scrutinizing each others newspapers for thing that offends us, or just accept the differences and ignore those that do offend us.
CBR Muslims hold the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh – peace be upon him) in high regard, and he (pbuh) is also a symbol of our faith.
I get outraged because of the caricature with the bomb, because I see it as an allegation against myself, as a Muslim, and against my kin. And while I may not be the best Muslim, it is my heritage, and I do not appreciate my heritage being associated with terrorism. Despite how much the terrorists may have done to associate Islam with terrorism.
And remember that there are a lot of Muslims in your country. Would it not be appropriate to respect one of the largest religious communities in Denmark?
Goofball
02-10-2006, 17:55
Muslims hold the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh – peace be upon him) in high regard, and he (pbuh) is also a symbol of our faith.
I get outraged because of the caricature with the bomb, because I see it as an allegation against myself, as a Muslim, and against my kin. And while I may not be the best Muslim, it is my heritage, and I do not appreciate my heritage being associated with terrorism. Despite how much the terrorists may have done to associate Islam with terrorism.
And you are perfectly within your rights to be outraged. And in this case, I would even support your outrage, as I don't believe the publishing of the cartoons served any valid purpose. So, write outraged letters, wave outraged signs, and chant outraged slogans. Those are all perfectly acceptable methods of giving voice to your outrage, and I will respect your right to take part in all of them, and even sympathize with your message.
But as soon as your outrage becomes violent, you lose any sympathy you might have had from me and are deserving of nothing more than scorn and, in a case where you might present a physical threat to me and mine, swift, violent response.
I regard this cartoon on the same level as I would one depicting Germans as Nazis. Whatever its humour or the point it is making it would still be tastless and I would not expect it to be terribly popular in Germany! "Publish and be damned" works both ways.
On the other hand the reaction by certain countries and political groups is excessive, though I suspect that this is mostly to do with internal politics than anything else.
And you are perfectly within your rights to be outraged. And in this case, I would even support your outrage, as I don't believe the publishing of the cartoons served any valid purpose. So, write outraged letters, wave outraged signs, and chant outraged slogans. Those are all perfectly acceptable methods of giving voice to your outrage, and I will respect your right to take part in all of them, and even sympathize with your message.
But as soon as your outrage becomes violent, you lose any sympathy you might have had from me and are deserving of nothing more than scorn and, in a case where you might present a physical threat to me and mine, swift, violent response.
Well said. ~:)
And I dare say that all but a few protests have been non-violent. But remember, in the Middle East, there is always some group waiting to exploit any opportunity. And then the associated violence is guarantied to be appalling. :shame:
And for the record, I find the boycott wrong, as well as the protests directed against the nation of Denmark itself. The newspaper is at fault. Not the Danish people.
This may be hard to explain in nations with a state-controlled press.
:furious3: “The newspaper is at fault”; “Would it not be appropriate to respect one of the largest religious communities in Denmark?”: The paper has the right to publish the cartoons. You can find it bad taste, offensive, whatever, the Danes got the right to express what is not against the law. And to mock a religion isn’t against the law…
The respect is earned, not given, so if the Danish Muslims want to earn respect, it will be more appropriate to follow the Danish law if these cartoons were illegal, than to shout loudly and appeal to murders.
And perhaps one of the largest religious communities in Denmark should learn to respect the freedom and the laws of the country where they live.
Well, at least, the Danish workers who will lose their jobs will know who to blame.
“I regard this cartoon on the same level as I would one depicting Germans as Nazis.”: Which last war movie about WW2 did watch?
And do the Germans demonstrate and burn Embassies? Do the Germans put placards and appeal to kill?:wall:
And, probably alone in all these messages, I have no sympathy for the allegedly offended. Especially when in England one of them was a drug dealer, who sold substances which kill people, making money on death.
Pencils against guns, the victims are the pencils.:furious3:
A.Saturnus
02-10-2006, 20:47
LEN, the examples you gave are probably true. Another case: the German comedian and journalist Michael Schmitt-Salomon wrote a play that is a satire on the life of Jesus. That play is now forbidden in Germany. There's still a law in Germany against blasphemy. So there is an amount of hypocrisy. However, there are few lawsuits on basis of this law and most of them end in favour of the defendend. I'm pretty sure something like the said caricatures would have been found legal no matter what religion is involved.
Adrian II
02-10-2006, 22:24
This is not a cartoon. (https://img514.imageshack.us/img514/2424/notprophet1ro.jpg)
Muslims hold the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh – peace be upon him) in high regard, and he (pbuh) is also a symbol of our faith.
I get outraged because of the caricature with the bomb, because I see it as an allegation against myself, as a Muslim, and against my kin. And while I may not be the best Muslim, it is my heritage, and I do not appreciate my heritage being associated with terrorism. Despite how much the terrorists may have done to associate Islam with terrorism.
And you have every right to be offended. I am on the other hand offended because of some radical imams who lives here in Denmark, going off to the Middle East to stir up trouble by spreading not only the 12 cartoons but adding some extra very offensive pictures and other lies into the mix.
And remember that there are a lot of Muslims in your country. Would it not be appropriate to respect one of the largest religious communities in Denmark?
Well I guess we are ignorant of Islam and therefore cant understand why such pictures can offend so much (or is just the one with the bomb that is causing most outrage?) But the debate here in Denmark was not so much about showing respect for another religions but a question of fear as some cartoonist didnt want a fatwa on their head.
If a newspaper thinks about publishing such cartoons in the future it will most likely not do it, not because it respects Islam but because it fears it and I find that to be plain and simple wrong.
No one forces Muslims to buy the newspapers that shows such cartoons, just as well as no Christians are forced to buy my local newspaper that has a daily comic strip that often features characters like God, the pope and even Jesus.
CBR
[QUOTE=Brenus“I regard this cartoon on the same level as I would one depicting Germans as Nazis.”: Which last war movie about WW2 did watch?
And do the Germans demonstrate and burn Embassies? Do the Germans put placards and appeal to kill?:wall: [/QUOTE]
I did not say they did. Neither did I draw comparison with film. I merely compared an actual political cartoon with a hypothetical one. If you read on you will also see that I thought the resulltant outcry to be disproportionate and politically motivated. So do try to read and understand before spouting off.
Adrian II
02-11-2006, 08:59
How about insulting moses too?
I mean its just getting silly on both sides now.Excuse me? Mel Brooks, Jewish American comedian, made a fool of Mozes in History of the World part I? That was twenty-five years ago. And he was never torched, stoned or knifed to death.
The only silly side here is the Muslim side, my friend.
Samurai Waki
02-11-2006, 09:11
Excuse me? Mel Brooks, Jewish American comedian, made a fool of Mozes in History of the World part I? That was twenty-five years ago. And he was never torched, stoned or knifed to death.
The only silly side here is the Muslim side, my friend.
And Mel Brooks really didn't even mean it as anything hurtful to another religion, it just sort of explained why there are only 10 commandments instead of 15, in a hilarious way. Mel Brooks takes more shots at the Jewish Community in his movies than any other religion, and simply its because like most Western Countries, we find irony and hipocracy funny.
Adrian II
02-11-2006, 09:31
Well technically since no one has actually seen the prophet depicted, how do people infer that it is indeed him? It isn't like we have any distinct features to attribute to his persona.Actually one of the cartoons addresses precisely that issue, the eighth from the top down (https://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mohammedcartoon18jg.jpg), where a witness is confronted with a police line-up of people in turbans and goes 'Uhm.. I can't really say I recognise him..' In the line-up are Jezus, Gautama, right-wing party leader Pia Kjærsgaard, and childrens' book author Kåre Bluitgen holding a sign that says 'Kåre's PR, ring me and I'll make you an offer'.
Really, how anyone can characterise a cartoon like this as racist or anti-religious slander is beyond me. I am afraid most protesters (and the westerners who sympathise with them) are just parroting the islamists instead of using their own eyes and brains.
Excuse me? Mel Brooks, Jewish American comedian, made a fool of Mozes in History of the World part I? That was twenty-five years ago. And he was never torched, stoned or knifed to death.
He was just lucky I didn´t see the movie yet...:inquisitive:
Meneldil
02-11-2006, 15:37
Yeah but what does it have to do with freedom of speech?
I'm supposed to have the right to insult anyone right?
And there we go. You totally miss the point of free speech.
We've been caracaturing Christians for years (almost a century I'd say), and for some reason, we wouldn't be able to make funny pics of the Prophet, either because
1 - the pics are considered as being offensive by a part of the population
2 - someone said 'The Prophet you shall not draw'
Free speech has different limitation. One of them is morality. In a western society, making fun of a dead religious figure isn't considered as amoral, while making fun of people who were exterminated for no reason might be.
If you can't understand the difference between the 2 cases, then I guess the gap between the Western and the Muslim civilizations might be larger than I thought.
rory_20_uk
02-11-2006, 16:10
Dâriûsh, you appear to be saying that your outrage is because of your own personal interpretation in linking it with your entire faith, famil and yourself.
My own opinion on doing that is that it makes about as much rational sense as me getting upset about any cartoon depicting a white male doing something.
Again, nothing about your heritage is mentioned - you are making that link completely independently of the cartoon.
But acts such as, oh I don't know, Iran calling America "the Great Satan"... that's OK ya? :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
Actually one of the cartoons addresses precisely that issue, the eighth from the top down (https://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mohammedcartoon18jg.jpg), where a witness is confronted with a police line-up of people in turbans and goes 'Uhm.. I can't really say I recognise him..' In the line-up are Jezus, Gautama, right-wing party leader Pia Kjærsgaard, and childrens' book author Kåre Bluitgen holding a sign that says 'Kåre's PR, ring me and I'll make you an offer'.
Really, how anyone can characterise a cartoon like this as racist or anti-religious slander is beyond me. I am afraid most protesters (and the westerners who sympathise with them) are just parroting the islamists instead of using their own eyes and brains.
Pot calling the Kettle Black Adrian by not recongizing the racist nature of some of the drawings your refusing to acknowledge the legiment criticism of the moderate islam follewers who find the drawings offensive.
Beside that drawing isn't one of the more problematic ones Adrian, however it is an attempt at sterotyping other cultures - there are a couple of them that are flat out racist and ignorant drawings by the uninformed, fearful, and racist Danes that instead of looking at the immigrant culture decide to go with sterotypical racist drawings about a culture they refuse to learn anything about, nor does the immigrant culture learn anything about their new home because of the racism that prevents either group from looking for the benefits that each have to offer to the overall society.
Instead of learning to co-exist with the new immirgants to the nation, the racists in both groups keep themselves seperated from each other, and then wonder why they can not get along. Hince the drawings done by the fearful, racists that decided to enter the contest hosted by a news rag that is practicing Yellow Journalism because its allowed by the concept of Freedom of Speech. Irresponsible journalism by a racist rag seems to be the rage in Europe now adays.
Adrian II
02-11-2006, 16:58
Beside that drawing isn't one of the more problematic ones Adrian, however it is an attempt at sterotyping other culturesLOL! Redleg, I am beginning to think you need professional help here.
Look. A cartoon that makes fun of the Jyllands-Posten by saying 'Sorry, I can't recognise the Mohammed stereotype' -- you think that is an example of stereotyping other cultures?
The Danish cartoonist draws silly heads of Pia Kjaersgard and Kare Bluitgen --who do you think he is stereotyping? Mohammed?
Speaking of unwillingness to understand other cultures... :laugh4:
I say print every cartoon they can think of. People that are offended by cartoons are idiots.
Leet Eriksson
02-11-2006, 18:49
Excuse me? Mel Brooks, Jewish American comedian, made a fool of Mozes in History of the World part I? That was twenty-five years ago. And he was never torched, stoned or knifed to death.
The only silly side here is the Muslim side, my friend.
There is a difference my friend.
A jewish american insulting his own race/religion is different from a bunch of bigoted retards using sheer ignorance to incite religious tentions.
I mean hay, we have Dawud Hussain, Naser Darweesh and Jaber Nagmoosh who constantly insult muslims/imams in their comedy, but at least they are funny.
On another note, the real problem is the first one with the bomb turban, it would have been less problematic if the artist didn't put the entire shahada (a primary pillar) in a very readable format there.
Free speech has different limitation. One of them is morality. In a western society, making fun of a dead religious figure isn't considered as amoral, while making fun of people who were exterminated for no reason might be.
If you can't understand the difference between the 2 cases, then I guess the gap between the Western and the Muslim civilizations might be larger than I thought.
There we go, regardless if its moral or not, if you claim freedom of speech is truly free, there shouldn't be any limitations. Otherwise the entire argument is pointless.
:furious3: “The newspaper is at fault”; “Would it not be appropriate to respect one of the largest religious communities in Denmark?”: The paper has the right to publish the cartoons. You can find it bad taste, offensive, whatever, the Danes got the right to express what is not against the law. And to mock a religion isn’t against the law…
The respect is earned, not given, so if the Danish Muslims want to earn respect, it will be more appropriate to follow the Danish law if these cartoons were illegal, than to shout loudly and appeal to murders.
And perhaps one of the largest religious communities in Denmark should learn to respect the freedom and the laws of the country where they live.
Well, at least, the Danish workers who will lose their jobs will know who to blame.
Dâriûsh, you appear to be saying that your outrage is because of your own personal interpretation in linking it with your entire faith, famil and yourself.
My own opinion on doing that is that it makes about as much rational sense as me getting upset about any cartoon depicting a white male doing something.
Again, nothing about your heritage is mentioned - you are making that link completely independently of the cartoon.
I am sorry, but it is not just the caricatures, it is the general tone in the Danish media, on top of them. It makes me feel vilified and unwelcome, and when I learned that they (the newspaper) would not publish the Jesus (pbuh) cartoons because they were considered offensive, and yet they decided to publish the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), it makes me feel that I, as a citizen, belonging to a minority culture, was not worthy of the same respect as my non-Muslim countrymen.
I have not joined any protests, nor do I advocate censorship, the newspaper has every right to publish whatever they want, I only wish they would show respect to a minority culture in their own country, already feeling vilified in the media.
And Brenus, I do not believe any Danish Muslims have been publicly appealing for murder.
But acts such as, oh I don't know, Iran calling America "the Great Satan"... that's OK ya? :inquisitive:
That's low. Granted, before this one I had only 361 posts, so I may not be the most “vocal” or noticed participant here. Yet I wonder how many of these posts I used to berate the Mullah rulers, surely it must have been several… So no, that is not okay, ya? :no:
And you have every right to be offended. I am on the other hand offended because of some radical imams who lives here in Denmark, going off to the Middle East to stir up trouble by spreading not only the 12 cartoons but adding some extra very offensive pictures and other lies into the mix. As well you should be. I believe my first comment on this matter was blaming a lot of this on those self-proclaimed Imams and their little trip south.
Well I guess we are ignorant of Islam and therefore cant understand why such pictures can offend so much (or is just the one with the bomb that is causing most outrage?) But the debate here in Denmark was not so much about showing respect for another religions but a question of fear as some cartoonist didnt want a fatwa on their head.
If a newspaper thinks about publishing such cartoons in the future it will most likely not do it, not because it respects Islam but because it fears it and I find that to be plain and simple wrong.
No one forces Muslims to buy the newspapers that shows such cartoons, just as well as no Christians are forced to buy my local newspaper that has a daily comic strip that often features characters like God, the pope and even Jesus.
Yes “the one with the bomb”, as Faisal mentioned, is very offensive. Please, I do not want to sound like a religious bigot, but there is a difference between publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in a tasteful way, and rude caricatures solely meant as a provocation (not all of the pictures were offensive.).
LOL! Redleg, I am beginning to think you need professional help here.
Not at all - but since you believe I might need it - yuo should seek professional help yourself.
Look. A cartoon that makes fun of the Jyllands-Posten by saying 'Sorry, I can't recognise the Mohammed stereotype' -- you think that is an example of stereotyping other cultures?
Oh if you can't see it that is your problem. Muslims were not the only ones being sterotyped in the cartoon.
The Danish cartoonist draws silly heads of Pia Kjaersgard and Kare Bluitgen --who do you think he is stereotyping? Mohammed?
Tsk Tsk - those are only two subjects in the drawing. If you can't see the racism inherient in the drawings - not my problem. If you believe that pointing out that the drawings are racist is taking the side of Islamic extremists - then your just as bad as the people you are saying are blind to the issue.
Speaking of unwillingness to understand other cultures... :laugh4:
Yes it really rather amusing considering how much the United States does co-exist with each other and accepts other cultures into its being. ITs not always pretty, its not always peaceful, but we at least can recongize racism when we encounter it amoung ourselves. Unfortunately those in Europe hid themselves from the truth of their own racism.
Adrian II
02-11-2006, 22:21
Yes it really rather amusing considering how much the United States does co-exist with each other and accepts other cultures into its being.Sure, Redleg. U.S. relations with the Muslim world couldn't be better since 11 September 2001. If we are to believe your President, a second airborne token of Muslim-American friendship was thwarted in the nick of time in 2002. And since the war in Iraq started, poll after international poll shows Muslim sympathies for the U.S. on the rise. The moon is a paper disc with eyes painted on it. Pigs can fly.
Now, about that bridge you were interested in buying..
Incongruous
02-11-2006, 23:34
I wonder how many peole the Iranian president has had killed yet?...
Adrian II
02-11-2006, 23:34
I do not want to sound like a religious bigot, but there is a difference between publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in a tasteful way, and rude caricatures solely meant as a provocation (not all of the pictures were offensive.).Frankly I think the only offensive drawing of those twelve is the one at the bottom (https://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mohammedcartoon18jg.jpg) depicting Kåre Bluitgen with a little drawing of Mohammed in his hand and a proverbial orange in his turban with the words 'PR stunt' on it. The suggestion that there is nothing more to the affair than a publicity stunt is slanderous indeed; the fear of artists to make use of their rights under Danish law is real and justified, as shown by the killings of Van Gogh or the Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
The drawing of Mohammed with the 'turbomb' reflects a modern view on the historic Mohammed who was rather a violent, treacherous character; true to the tribal traditions of the period and area, but totally unsuitable as a role model for today. The artist probably feels that there is too little in the present-day Muslim faith and practice to redeem those barbaric roots, and that Mohammed, were he alive today, would probably support Osama rather than the opposition. This notion has certainly been reinforced by the Muslim reactions to his cartoon -- reactions that are far more furious and wide-spread than any Muslim protest we have seen so far against oppression, obscurantism and terrorism in the name of the Prophet, and in particular against Osama bin Laden's preachings. It may not be your preferred Mohammed, Dâriûsh, but for that you have only the sorry state of Islam to blame, not some Danish cartoonist.
Speaking of Osama -- does anyone here know of an instance of Muslims burning an effigy of Osama bin Laden? With a linky and possibly a pic?
LeftEyeNine
02-12-2006, 01:36
The artist probably feels that there is too little in the present-day Muslim faith and practice to redeem those barbaric roots, and that Mohammed, were he alive today, would probably support Osama rather than the opposition.
You are totally on the wrong side of the panaroma. Making assumptions about a holy character happenning to support a terrorist is offensive. How can you derive such decisions ? Noone forces one to believe something, you don't have to love Islam but what you just did has not much difference than what those "tolero-meter" Danes tried to do -which is a fault from the start. I'm expecting more careful expressions from such a patron of The Org like you, AdrianII.
Speaking of Osama -- does anyone here know of an instance of Muslims burning an effigy of Osama bin Laden? With a linky and possibly a pic?
I did not see a Kurd protesting against Abdullah Ocalan.
Sure, Redleg. U.S. relations with the Muslim world couldn't be better since 11 September 2001. If we are to believe your President, a second airborne token of Muslim-American friendship was thwarted in the nick of time in 2002. And since the war in Iraq started, poll after international poll shows Muslim sympathies for the U.S. on the rise. The moon is a paper disc with eyes painted on it. Pigs can fly.
An extremist fundmental Islamic Terrorist does not equate what your attempting to state here. I don't see Muslims in the United States attempting to storm the Danish Embassy. I don't see Muslims in the United States forced into community by the government of this nation to keep them seperated from the rest of us. Nor did your attempt to distort what is going on in the world go un-noticed.
Now, about that bridge you were interested in buying..
When individuals resort to ad hominem comments and personal insults like the last two post of yours - I know that they understand that their arguement is weak. That and would you care to show me where the racism against Muslims from the Middle-East and elsewhere does not exist in Europe. Several episodes over the last several monthes shows very clearly that racism is alive and well in Europe. So when you can't counter the fact that many in Europe instead of attempting to live together have become more and more racist.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 02:37
@Redleg
You wrote you were happy about the way the U.S. 'co-exists' with the Muslim world. I pointed out huge flaws in that notion, flaws the size of '9/11'. Now you tell me there are no flaws because American Muslims are not torching the Danish embassy?
@LeftEyeNine
1. Mohammed is not holy to me.
2. I just explained how I came to conclusions (not assumptions).
3. Indeed, I do not have to love Islam. Not at all. I don't have to respect it either. Not even a teensy weensy little bit. I don't even have to understand it. No Sir. I have to tolerate it, that is all.
Anyone found a report about Muslims burning the effigy of Osama bin Laden yet? Anywhere? Any time? Just a single instance?
PanzerJaeger
02-12-2006, 02:46
I get outraged because of the caricature with the bomb, because I see it as an allegation against myself, as a Muslim, and against my kin.
Thats probably because it is... When a culture, such as that of Islam, has fallen so far behind compared to the rest of the world that all it is known for is producing terrorists, then such stereotypes are to be expected.
To be quite honest, Muslims have become nothing but a thorn in the side of modern society. They cause trouble where ever they go. Africa, Asia, Europe, and of course most blatantly in the attacks against America.
The culture has deteriorated so much so that the land Muslims occupy(actually whats under it) is worth far more than the intellectual or industrial contributions of the people living on it.
At least Africa keeps its problems primarily to itself. Theres no "Oh we live in a shithole, lets go bomb the people who have made better lives for themselves". At least the civilized world can sympathize with Africa.
The west is getting fed up with what amounts to a bunch of whining babies crying about their fall from the peak of civilization.
Right now, the babies have a bargaining chip. Soon though, after we suck the only thing of worth left out of your little hell hole, you will have no soap box to stand on.
The days of pandering to the Middle East are coming to an end as fast as alternative fuel sources are being developed. If you think Muslims are poor, pathetic, and backwards now, wait until the flow of Western cash comes to an end.
Enjoy these little hissy fits while you can, without the oil the world is going to be much less willing to accept the violence and death brought into the world by Islam. ~:)
Strike For The South
02-12-2006, 02:48
Well you came back just in time:laugh4:
Proletariat
02-12-2006, 02:55
Wow, welcome back.
LeftEyeNine
02-12-2006, 03:00
Anyone found a report about Muslims burning the effigy of Osama bin Laden yet? Anywhere? Any time? Just a single instance?
Anyone found a report about Kurds burning the effigy of Abdullah Ocalan yet? Anywhere? Any time? Just a single instance?
1. Mohammed is not holy to me.
So you can assume him being no better than Osama if he was alive. That's where it all starts indeed. You have just been another proof of the mutual conflict between the sides.
2. I just explained how I came to conclusions (not assumptions).
I can't see it
3. Indeed, I do not have to love Islam. Not at all. I don't have to respect it either. Not even a teensy weensy little bit. I don't even have to understand it. No Sir. I have to tolerate it, that is all.
Seconding yourself. The stuff here is all about the ugly depictation of Muhammed, you remember? Who forced you to tolerate more of it - I'd like to know if any?
I can't do anything about how Muslims look like to you - neither the ones in the suburbs of your country nor those from a global point of view -though I can exactly understand how one feels when he feels his land is raped by "emmigrants". But you have to understand, Islam is not the cause for it - if you are bothered with such problems somehow.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 03:11
The stuff here is all about the ugly depictation of Muhammed, you remember? Who forced you to tolerate more of it - I'd like to know if any?I did. I forced myself to tolerate more of it because I accept and support free speech.
I can't do anything about how Muslims look like to you - neither the ones in the suburbs of your country nor those from a global point of view -though I can exactly understand how one feels when he feels his land is raped by "emmigrants".LOL, there is no way my country has been 'raped by immigrants'! That sort of nonsense is Fragony's department. We are doing quite well, thank you.
@Redleg
You wrote you were happy about the way the U.S. 'co-exists' with the Muslim world. I pointed out huge flaws in that notion, flaws the size of '9/11'. Now you tell me there are no flaws because American Muslims are not torching the Danish embassy?
Again you distort what was stated. I said culture. You decided to imply that I meant world. Look very carefully at what was stated.
Yes it really rather amusing considering how much the United States does co-exist with each other and accepts other cultures into its being.
So does it say Muslim world or does it state the United States co-exists with each other and accepts other cultures into its being. I can't help if you assume it meant the world.
Then there is the delicous irony of this statement of yours. And I am willing to bet you don't have a clue on what it is.
Frankly I think the only offensive drawing of those twelve is the one at the bottom depicting Kåre Bluitgen with a little drawing of Mohammed in his hand and a proverbial orange in his turban with the words 'PR stunt' on it. The suggestion that there is nothing more to the affair than a publicity stunt is slanderous indeed; the fear of artists to make use of their rights under Danish law is real and justified, as shown by the killings of Van Gogh or the Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
It seems you have a problem understanding that the artist that drew this picture understood the nature of the contest when he submitted his drawing.
But you seem to have a problem recongizing that several of the drawings are based purely upon racist views toward a culture that immigrated into Europe but has not been accepted into the society in which you live. Both aspects of the situation happen because of the racist and intolerance of both groups.
Oh the irony is just to damn amusing.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 03:21
It seems you have a problem understanding that the artist that drew this picture understood the nature of the contest when he submitted his drawing.LOL, oh man. This is what I have been writing on this forum all along, for six days now!! Some of the cartoons criticise the Jyllands-Posten instead of Muslims.
Oh, and for the last time: none of the drawings are racist. Observe:
ISLAM. IS. NOT. A. RACE. ISLAM. IS. A. RELIGION.
Criticising a religion is not racist. It's a God-given right! Ha!
KukriKhan
02-12-2006, 03:50
...Criticising a religion is not racist. It's a God-given right! Ha!
Man has a point.
That is true. The catoons are not racist. They may be prejudiced of course, but are not racist. Unfortunately what Redleg says about the integration of immigrant cultures, whether Islamic or not, is often true. Despite this I would however, if American, hesitate to quite such broad, sweeping generalizations about Europe as a whole.
LEN the question was not about the Kurds. It was about Muslim reactions to Osama Bin Laden, specifically after 9/11. Moderate Muslims, especially here in the Britain, are too slow and too defensive in their condemnation of terror attacks commited in the name, if not the spirit, of their faith. It harms the faith which they seek to protect. On the other hand suggestion that Mohammed would, if alive today, suppost OBL is mere conjecture and not worth paying attention to.
LeftEyeNine
02-12-2006, 04:11
LEN the question was not about the Kurds. It was about Muslim reactions to Osama Bin Laden, specifically after 9/11.
I countered AdrianII 's question with Kurds because though they have a comfortable life here -poverty does not recognize race or religion- no Kurd ever protested against the head of Kurdish terrorist organization PKK, Abdullah Ocalan.
The point is I don't expect them to. AdrianII 's question sounds nonsense to me, that's why I put Kurds example on the table.
Questioning with AdrianII will turn more personal, and the attitude is clear -that double-clarifies why we fight on this matter. I don't get why you dislike a religion without seeing the core though. Should I mention Islam-phobia or should I blame terrorist organizations that yell so loud as if they are the only ones interpreting discipline of Islam, I don't know.
Louis VI the Fat
02-12-2006, 04:12
Granted, before this one I had only 361 posts, so I may not be the most “vocal” or noticed participant here. Yet I wonder how many of these posts I used to berate the Mullah rulers, surely it must have been several… But you are noticed! As my beloved girlfriend so reassuringly states whenever I drop my pants: 'quality, not quantity, is what matters'. Peace be on her.
I remember a thread in the aftermath of the hurricane Katrina, the subject being the Iranian Mullahs more or less threatening the US with more natural disasters.
Your post 'Let those Sith Lords in Tehran conjure up some human rights instead' should get an award for sharpest wit and funniest post of 2005.
Byzantine Prince
02-12-2006, 04:13
LOL, oh man. This is what I have been writing on this forum all along, for six days now!! Some of the cartoons criticise the Jyllands-Posten instead of Muslims.
Oh, and for the last time: none of the drawings are racist. Observe:
ISLAM. IS. NOT. A. RACE. ISLAM. IS. A. RELIGION.
Criticising a religion is not racist. It's a God-given right! Ha!
Redleg is not known for his impacable ability with semantics. Just give up. That is what I have to do or else he will continue repeating himself.
And yes no one is racist by disliking Islam.
BTW. Good post Panzer.
LOL, oh man. This is what I have been writing on this forum all along, for six days now!! Some of the cartoons criticise the Jyllands-Posten instead of Muslims.
It seems you did miss the irony of your last post.
Oh, and for the last time: none of the drawings are racist. Observe:
ISLAM. IS. NOT. A. RACE. ISLAM. IS. A. RELIGION.
Criticising a religion is not racist. It's a God-given right! Ha!
Adrian it seems that you fail to understand that the drawings that use sterotypes of middle-eastern men as fundmental islamic extremists are indeed not only criticising Islam - but also the people of a specific race. Racial sterotypes to make fun of religion - is indeed racism. That its attempting to hide behind the criticism of religion does not make it go away.
Did we see any White muslims from Southern Europe in those drawings? Or how about the Muslims from the Phillipines? There are many different ethnic groups that are followers of Islam beside just those from the Middle-East.
Its been interesting to see you spin the information about the drawing to say its responsible free speech, and in the same breath call one of the drawings slanderous. Hell that was the only artist that got the whole contest correct. The contest and the publication of the drawings was nothing else but Yellow Journalism. Just like what Iran is doing with its drawings in return.
It seems the educated in Europe are just as gullible to Yellow Journalism as the educated in the United States, maybe more so, when one looks how in Europe the people are often seperated by not only their economic status but also their ethnic point of orgin. There is a lesson for Europe in this ironic situation. I wonder if Europe will begin to recongize it.
Redleg is not known for his impacable ability with semantics. Just give up. That is what I have to do or else he will continue repeating himself.
And yes no one is racist by disliking Islam.
Being clever is beyond your ability.
Back to reading Philosophy with you. :laugh4:
Byzantine Prince
02-12-2006, 06:50
Being clever is beyond your ability.
Back to reading Philosophy with you. :laugh4:
Apparently being clever is also beyond YOUR abilities. :laugh4:
Samurai Waki
02-12-2006, 09:14
Isn't it kind of Childish to nit pick at the little things that only really detract from the subject of the thread? I mean, yes there is a difference between being a racist and being prejudiced, but saying you hate Islam, is sort of a racial prejudism to the majority of the people who follow it... but, at the same time, it's not racist, because Islam is a religion and can be followed by any race.
Anyway, Islam is not the problem in the middle east, in so much as Christianity is not the problem with America, or Europe... both sides have their nut cases who have an agenda, and don't really care about the core of their beliefs, so they twist the unimportant texts into making it sound like they have a point.
The Middle East has not progressed for such a long time, because after the Crusades the middle east did not have much to offer the West. Because of the Crusades, the Caliphates became wary of war, and did not want to provoke any further conflict, and so decided to keep to themselves. The same thing could have happened in Europe as well, but because Europe is sharply divided in many cultural aspects, continued to flourish, just so that one side would be able to contend with the other.
If you take a good look at the region, you can see sort of a dividing line. The Ottomans were continually pressured from the west, and so they had to progress with them, or else face certain disaster. This is how you can see that Islam is capable of progress, in Turkey you have a very moderate form of Islam, that allows the average citizen far more liberties, then in say, Saudi Arabia who had virtually no contact with the west until pre WW1, because they didn't have to compete with anyone.
Then in the late 40s you have Israel, a new non muslim country, which is about the same concept to the American Indians when the British first started colonizing...except that now the Middle East has support from the Soviet Union who can provide middle eastern countries equal technology to the Israelis. OBVIOUSLY the cultures don't like change, especially the arrival of unwelcome visitors who act like they are superior, and to some degree, subjugate the former inhabitants of Palestine.
The Oil Craze hits, Middle Eastern countries get lots of money from the west, and the conservative elements within the region liked the old ways better, the money is changing everything. Suddenly the middle east goes from 1500 AD to 1960.... 440 years of progress packed into about 10 years is bound to be a fairly violent combination, and Israel is the powder keg that ignited everything. There is no small wonder that the middle east hates us, imagine what the temperament in the west would have been, if the Arabs had successfully invaded Western Europe 200 years after the Crusades and were moderatly successful? someone would be pissed, and would also probably use Christian dogma to rally all the Christians together to fight off the Arabs in anyway possible, even if they thought they were superior in technology.
I have a tough time with Middle East... they've just recieved a very bad hand of fate on after another, and are finally fed up with it all. However, on the other hand, I don't sympathize for them, because it's their own damn fault!
Meneldil
02-12-2006, 12:24
I mean hay, we have Dawud Hussain, Naser Darweesh and Jaber Nagmoosh who constantly insult muslims/imams in their comedy, but at least they are funny.
So, for some reason, people are allowed to make fun of idiots only if they share the same beliefs, have the same skin color, and eventually live in the same country ?
There we go, regardless if its moral or not, if you claim freedom of speech is truly free, there shouldn't be any limitations. Otherwise the entire argument is pointless.
Who the hell stated such a thing ? If the article 19 of the UDHR support freedom of speech, many other UN decisions have also stated that there might be limits to free speech, especially when it comes to morality or respect of public order.
The European Court of Human Rights, which can be considered as fairly liberal, tolerant and left winged, already accepted limitations of freedom of speech (ie. negationism of the holocaust is forbidden in France).
Can't you see the difference between total outrage and lack of respect ?
Can't you see the difference between soviet, chinese or egyptian-like censorship and refusing to make fun of the holocaust ?
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 13:03
It seems you did miss the irony of your last post.I'll get over it.
Over the past days I have seen you come round and acknowledge that not all the Danish cartoons were - in your term - 'racist' and that some are even 'anti-racist'. That is progress. Let's try and take this one step further.
Taken together, those twelve Danish cartoons do not reflect Danish racism. They reflect an ongoing debate in Danish (and wider European) society about the presence of a large Muslim minority.
Go figure. If half the population of U.S. cities such as New York, Washington and Los Angeles were to become Muslim within the span of one generation, there would be similar debates in the United States. In particular if the majority of those Muslims were poorly educated people from poorly developed and tribal areas. U.S. immigration has always cherry-picked highly educated Muslim immigrants and allowed them into the country in small trickles.
In fact there are, and always have been, similar debates in American society. Just think of the Mexican immigration issue. It regularly gives rise to 'racist' posts from Americans in the Backroom, posts of the 'shoot them' or 'send them all back' type that are rarely seen from European members. And may I remind readers of the recent wild spate of racist accusations in the U.S. in connection with 'Katrina'? It seems the U.S. and Europe can learn from each other, but in different ways than you think.
Anyway, you wrote that American Muslims have not torched Danish embassies. Good for them. Nor have European Muslims. Or Danish Muslims.
Kralizec
02-12-2006, 13:44
Did we see any White muslims from Southern Europe in those drawings? Or how about the Muslims from the Phillipines? There are many different ethnic groups that are followers of Islam beside just those from the Middle-East.
Maybe that's becaues Mohammed was not from Southern Europe, or from the Phillipenes. He was an Arab, and the drawers wanted to make sure he was recognisable as such. And I haven't seen muslims complaining because Mohammed wears a beard, sandals and robes in the cartoons.
I can see why the turban bomb has stepped on a couple of toes, but this particular sketch hits the nail on the head.
https://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1604/mohammed11lj.th.gif (https://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mohammed11lj.gif)
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 14:05
The point is I don't expect them to.But I do. If Islam is truly a religion of peace, I expect Muslims to react against Osama bin Laden at least as vehemently as against a Danish cartoon. If Islam forbids any defiling of the Prophet, then Osama should be burnt in effigy first, not Bush, Blair, Chirac, Rasmussen, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali and countless other non-Muslims whose straw puppets are burning in Arab streets all the time.
But he isn't. My conclusion is that Islam is not at present a force for social change and improvement. In many ways it is still as violent and primitive as it was at the time of Mohammed. Of course there are individual exceptions. There always are.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4b16647f-35e8-4a43-99dd-ce9e0d627073&k=17035
The plot thickens even more. Apparently this is meant as a test to see whether the west is as tolerant as respectful of free speech as we say we are.
Seems like apples to oranges to me (joking about an event that involved the torture, starvation and murder of millions of people vs. portraying a religious figure in a funny hat), and I would suggest that the only appropriate response would be for those of us who are offended by Holocaust jokes to stop buying this particular newspaper, as muslims the world over were free to do when it published the cartoon that so offended them.
The Globe IIRC published antisemetic cartoons from Arab news papers last week. No flab about it here.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=4b16647f-35e8-4a43-99dd-ce9e0d627073&k=17035
The plot thickens even more. Apparently this is meant as a test to see whether the west is as tolerant as respectful of free speech as we say we are.
Seems like apples to oranges to me (joking about an event that involved the torture, starvation and murder of millions of people vs. portraying a religious figure in a funny hat), and I would suggest that the only appropriate response would be for those of us who are offended by Holocaust jokes to stop buying this particular newspaper, as muslims the world over were free to do when it published the cartoon that so offended them.
The Globe IIRC published antisemetic cartoons from Arab news papers last week. No flab about it here.
LeftEyeNine
02-12-2006, 14:41
But I do...
OK, Volunteer the job to tell the Kurds, I'm eagerly waiting for the news.
..If Islam is truly a religion of peace, I expect Muslims to react against Osama bin Laden at least as vehemently as against a Danish cartoon. If Islam forbids any defiling of the Prophet, then Osama should be burnt in effigy first, not Bush, Blair, Chirac, Rasmussen, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali and countless other non-Muslims whose straw puppets are burning in Arab streets all the time.
But he isn't. My conclusion is that Islam is not at present a force for social change and improvement. In many ways it is still as violent and primitive as it was at the time of Mohammed. Of course there are individual exceptions. There always are.
I accept interpretion of Islam was a total disaster following the contribution of harsh, strict and despot Islam "alim"s throughout the history of Islam. (There were so many of them being influent religious figures who were shown respect and obeyed by their times)
However considering the facts of my young country's 86 years of history, I am confident that Islam can be a major religion without expecting it to "grow" or "change" - I refuse such human-done actions on religions. Then what can be holy and superior ?
It can be done - the deal is not building a state on religious basis. I think this equals to priciples of laicism, a gift from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk during the foundation -a hard fought and popular word that is used whenever something fanatic happens or reveals in Turkey. I can now see how a vision he had years ago. I am happy to live in a Muslim country where people do not react by burning the embassies.
Briefly, Islam is not primitive. We live with it the way it was sent.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 15:00
(..) I am confident that Islam can be a major religion without expecting it to "grow" or "change" - I refuse such human-done actions on religions. Then what can be holy and superior?Simple. Nothing is holy, Socialism is superior, the rest is a joke. ~:)
Anyway, your personal interpretation of the Quran may be profoundly humanistic and all that. I don't expect you to burn an effigy of Osama or anyone else.
I mean, you don't belong to the Burn-Bad-Things sect, or the Trample-Hated-Symbols-With-Rolling-Eyes school, or the Grow-A-Beard-And-Screech-Like-A-Baboon tradition of Islam, do you?
Can't you see the difference between soviet, chinese or egyptian-like censorship and refusing to make fun of the holocaust ?
Of course, it´s a different degree of censorship, but it´s all censorship.
And I have to say in China it´s really funny, in Europe it´s not very noticeable and in Russia it´s brutal and makes for a good stereotype of russian mentality IMO.
And I´m still in favor of censoring homosexuality.:knight:
LeftEyeNine
02-12-2006, 15:27
I mean, you don't belong to the Burn-Bad-Things sect, or the Trample-Hated-Symbols-With-Rolling-Eyes school, or the Grow-A-Beard-And-Screech-Like-A-Baboon tradition of Islam, do you?
Islam advises none of them, that's what you've been shown. Leave me aside, Islam is not what they perform and behave.
Leet Eriksson
02-12-2006, 16:40
So, for some reason, people are allowed to make fun of idiots only if they share the same beliefs, have the same skin color, and eventually live in the same country ?
So its totally ok if i made a satirical show with an all arab audience about the french, calling them uppity bigoted idiots, surrender monkies and pussy fighters?
EDIT: Oh hey lets also mock the founders of the french state too, they are the founders of mass genocide after all.
Who the hell stated such a thing ? If the article 19 of the UDHR support freedom of speech, many other UN decisions have also stated that there might be limits to free speech, especially when it comes to morality or respect of public order.
The European Court of Human Rights, which can be considered as fairly liberal, tolerant and left winged, already accepted limitations of freedom of speech (ie. negationism of the holocaust is forbidden in France).
Can't you see the difference between total outrage and lack of respect ?
Can't you see the difference between soviet, chinese or egyptian-like censorship and refusing to make fun of the holocaust ?
So long as there are limits, its not really freedom of speech.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 18:38
So its totally ok if i made a satirical show with an all arab audience about the french, calling them uppity bigoted idiots, surrender monkies and pussy fighters?
EDIT: Oh hey lets also mock the founders of the french state too, they are the founders of mass genocide after all.It seems you have no idea what free speech is, how it works, how it is incorporated in European society. Everything you mention has been done in France, publicly and at verious levels of society, ever since I first visited that country several decades ago. Some of the founders of the nation have been attacked particularly viciously by the so-called New Philosophers and accused of being the founding fathers of French fascism. The same applies to the UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, etcetera. In The Netherlands at present we have a brand of immigrant stand-up comedians who hit the nation above and below the belt and who are hilariously funny. No one in his right mind would dare to harm them, let alone sue them or make a stink abroad.
Again, the only silly side in this whole affair is the Muslim side.
Leet Eriksson
02-12-2006, 18:52
It seems you have no idea what free speech is, how it works, how it is incorporated in European society.
Oh i perfectly do, but when you are talking about a total facade like "freedom" of speech be prepared to back it up, my point is J-P pussied out of it.
Which is why i don't consider it freedom of speech.
Gimme something really "free" like US freedom of speech.
By the way, i'm just playing devils advocate, the muslims might be silly(the protestors), but your "freedom" of speech parade is even sillier.
Unless you can prove to the idiots on this side of the fence that you really have freedom of speech by publishing these holocaust denying cartoons, it'll just be another pointless circle jerk between fanatics and voltaire fans.
Kanamori
02-12-2006, 19:31
No i didn't refer to the SA photoshop Gorebag posted, but the refusal of the danish newspaper to publish the holocaust charicatures.
I lost my faith in freedom of speech. The Muhammed cartoons were offensive, tasteless, and stereotyped yet the Jyllands-Posten newspaper published them, so why not go on and publish the hamshari newspaper cartoons? They know full well these cartoons are tasteless and stupid, but they didn't publish them, where is the freedom of speech in that?
Do you expect neo-nazis to preach about how biased they are? Freedom of speech does not say that every view should be expressed, or that all of them will. The fact is that someone should be able to express their view, whatever it may be, w/o the government sending them to jail. The process of political redress, and the principle of a government for and by the people, cannot be withiout free speech.
There is an obvious difference between making fun of the Holocaust and carictures of the prophet mohammed. None of those differences are enough for the government to keep some person from expressing that view however. Free speech does not mean that the government should make people express different views, only that they should be able to express views that they wish to express.
You are criticising the newspaper for not being balanced or fair when representing their material. That is a valid criticism, and you certainly should have the right to make it, or any criticism. Censorship is not the answer for any government that can claim to represent its citizens, or at least to listen to them.
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 20:02
Oh i perfectly do, but when you are talking about a total facade like "freedom" of speech be prepared to back it up, my point is J-P pussied out of it. Which is why i don't consider it freedom of speech.Free speech is a right, not an obligation. There is no European law that obliges media or individuals to say, print or support views that they do not share. That's why we call it 'free speech', not 'obligatory speech'.
So Jyllands-Posten has no obligation whatsoever to publish things they don't want. That is what the protesters don't understand: Denmark is not some third-rate Islamic state steeped in oppression and corruption where the press is nothing but the current leadership's doormat.
Unless you can prove to the idiots on this side of the fence that you really have freedom of speech by publishing these holocaust denying cartoons, it'll just be another pointless circle jerk between fanatics and voltaire fans.You mean European editors should consent in advance to publish unseen cartoons in order to prove something to a bunch of raving idiots across the Med? Forget it.
And by not publishing a particular genre of caretoons that make light of the Holocaust, I think we are teaching the idiots the difference between free speech and defamation. Not that they are in the least interested, of course. But it is an important difference and maybe they will come to see the light at some point in the future. In no way should we give in to the demands of the idiots, that would really be the pits.
Rules and laws differ for European nations, but there is also a lot of common European ground. In a 1997 case, the European Human Rights Court has drawn the limits on free speech in the EU rather wide, as follows:
The Court reiterates that the press plays an essential role in a democratic society. (...) freedom of expression is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the community. In addition, journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation.Judging by case law, freedom of expression in the EU includes the right to make fun for instance of the Jewish religion, or of Israeli leaders, or of anyone who abuses the Holocaust for his own purposes.
However, it does not include the right to make fun of the Holocaust itself or of the victims. It also does not include the right to print the sort of anti-Semitic cartoons that led up to and accompanied the Holocaust. The exact same restrictions apply to anti-Arab cartoons and any other ethnic insults against Arabs, blacks, etcetera. Ethnic slurs or insults are punishable by fine and/or prison in all EU member states.
So no, satirising the Holocaust in order to 'convince' Muslim fanatics (as if they would ever be satisfied by any gestures of goodwill from infidels) is out of the question I am afraid. The silliness is and will remain confined to the Muslim side.
Papewaio
02-12-2006, 21:10
So its totally ok if i made a satirical show with an all arab audience about the french, calling them uppity bigoted idiots, surrender monkies and pussy fighters?
EDIT: Oh hey lets also mock the founders of the french state too, they are the founders of mass genocide after all.
Why produce your own when you could just dub the BBC?
Hello Hello = French, calling them uppity bigoted idiots, surrender monkies and pussy fighters + a bonus of the Germans, calling them uppity bigoted idiots...
It has been done, is being done and will continue to be done. And I don't remember the French rioting and killing each other over British comedies... well they might if forced to watch them at super high volume on a small tropical island. :laugh4:
I'll get over it.
Over the past days I have seen you come round and acknowledge that not all the Danish cartoons were - in your term - 'racist' and that some are even 'anti-racist'. That is progress. Let's try and take this one step further.
You might want to go back and read what I stated - I never claimed all were racist now did I. I stated my overall impression. It seems you have an inablity to understand those viewpoints that are different from your own.
Taken together, those twelve Danish cartoons do not reflect Danish racism. They reflect an ongoing debate in Danish (and wider European) society about the presence of a large Muslim minority.
Taken together it shows a fearful society that is generally racist and xenophopic toward cultures that are different then their own. And this goes for both the immigrant culture and the native culture.
Go figure. If half the population of U.S. cities such as New York, Washington and Los Angeles were to become Muslim within the span of one generation, there would be similar debates in the United States. In particular if the majority of those Muslims were poorly educated people from poorly developed and tribal areas. U.S. immigration has always cherry-picked highly educated Muslim immigrants and allowed them into the country in small trickles.
And then why don't you explain the large immigrantion of Latin America into parts of the United States. Accepting the immigrants is something Europe needs to figure out.
In fact there are, and always have been, similar debates in American society. Just think of the Mexican immigration issue. It regularly gives rise to 'racist' posts from Americans in the Backroom, posts of the 'shoot them' or 'send them all back' type that are rarely seen from European members.
Oh they are indeed racist - and if you notice I periodically remind people of that. However you are incorrect about it being rarely seen from European members. You might want to check some previous posts out.
And may I remind readers of the recent wild spate of racist accusations in the U.S. in connection with 'Katrina'? It seems the U.S. and Europe can learn from each other, but in different ways than you think.
You would actually be surprised how I think. I don't see skin color only behavior.
Anyway, you wrote that American Muslims have not torched Danish embassies. Good for them. Nor have European Muslims. Or Danish Muslims.
And that shows the idiocy of the paper in practicing Yellow Journalism now doesn't?
Simple. Nothing is holy, Socialism is superior, the rest is a joke. ~:)
Part of the problem with getting the new immigrants to co-exist into the new nation in which they live in is just this Socialism. So to call it superior is to ignore the failures of Socialism and its ability to get people to improve themselves.
Sjakihata
02-12-2006, 21:50
omg, let's not have the debate whether socialism works or not. socialism WORKS, look at any scandinavian country - simple proof. or call it socialdemocratism or what ever, buttom line is, it is socialism in one form or another - that i learned at a leftwing european university, by reading a biased book by a communist author.
:juggle2:
Adrian II
02-12-2006, 22:20
Part of the problem with getting the new immigrants to co-exist into the new nation in which they live in is just this Socialism.:sleeping:
When has insulting Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, or any of the Jewish religious figures...
... or Jesus...
in a newspaper provoked any sort of violent, calling-for-death response? I speak of in recent memory, of course.. the dark ages doesn't count.
In any case, how is publishing a cartoon indirectly referring to a religious figure as a terrorist in any way comparable to publishing a cartoon glorifying the systematic extermination of millions of men, women and children based on race?
omg, let's not have the debate whether socialism works or not. socialism WORKS, look at any scandinavian country - simple proof. or call it socialdemocratism or what ever, buttom line is, it is socialism in one form or another - that i learned at a leftwing european university, by reading a biased book by a communist author.
:juggle2:
Didn't say socialism does not work. Just that it is not a superior system of government.
Social democracy is not socialism - but an attempt to use both the postive aspects of socialism and capitalism to insure the well being of the nation. However even then it has several weaknesses.
Adrian an emoticon does not make a retort to the comment. Your arguement was that socialism is a superior system. If socialism is such a superior system why the clash of cultures? If Socialism is far superior to all others, the nations that use socialism as a base form of government should be able to handle new immigrants into the nation.
We all know that several nations are having problems handling new immigrants because it is overwhelming the ablity of the state to take care of all the requirments that socialism requires the state to perform. When the nation can not handle the influx of new immigrants - it generally results in conflict. Normally this conflict centers around the aspects of the difference in the immigrants and the natives of the nation. Such is the conflict that is happening in Denmark, France, and other European nations.
Watchman
02-12-2006, 23:12
Social Demacracy is essentially the working, reformist version of Socialism. Communism is the dysfunctional, millenarian-revolutionary edition that really just tries to create a "Kingdom of Heaven Now," as did so many other popular uprisings in the past (and yes, pretty much all of them bombed too).
Adopting some degree of reformatory Socialist policies proved to be among the better ways to keep things from polarizing to the point where militant revolutionary Communism becomes a serious issue.
Reformatory socialism/social democracy is really just "taking the middle road" and making compromises as necessary to keep the whole system running smoothly. As an approach that sort of syncretist attitude has much to recommend itself over various purebred "this and only this" ideas, which tend to be blind to their own shortcomings.
The immigrant tensions don't have much to do with "socialism", except in the sense the disenfranchised immigrants would be even worse off without the (increasingly moth- or rather liberalist-eaten) social safety net. The main problem is essentially what I've seen one commentator warn against - "greet them with jobs and tolerance, so they won't seclude themselves into beard-and-veil cults". Alas, the winds of global economy blow in such directions that jobs are increasingly scarce even for the natives everywhere (and *they* don't have the extra hurdle of prejudices to cross), and as always tough times lead to tough and discriminatory attitudes. As a result particularly the younger, second- and third-generation immigrants who so far as they themselves are concerned are born and bred in their native countries, not their parents', are put between the rock and the hard place. They have little connection to the culture and traditions their parents cling to, and cannot console themselves with wistful dreams of someday "returning to the old country" like the first-generations (partly as their "old country" is right here); yet in various ways the society around them makes it quite clear it doesn't want them and doesn't intend to treat them as native citizens but as aliens, and their future horizons are on the average far more constrained than those of their native social peers.
Big surprise they have a propensity towards becoming angry, bitter and disillusioned particularly if segregated into run-down "ethnic" ghettoes and suburbs to stew in their common misery. And if there's an element that is troublesome, destabilizing and easy prey to extremist agitation in any society, it's disenfranchised and bitter young men with too much loose time and too little to do...
Curious detail: in Weimar Germany the National Socialists and the Communist competed over the same unhappy strata of the lower classes, and when the Nazis came out on top Communist party membership deserted to them en masse (the more ideological and less analytical Party members were quite alarmed at this influx of "potential traitors"). Think about it.
Kralizec
02-12-2006, 23:39
I once read that in Italy, because the government doesn't bother to do much to integrate immigrants into society, most immigrants are quicker to learn the Italian language. They don't have any choice, really.
While I don't think that social democracy is a bad concept, sometimes it's just better to let people make it on their own rather then protect them for everything, such as protecting people who refuse to learn the country's language. That didn't work in the Netherlands, for example.
Watchman
02-13-2006, 00:32
I am personally rather testy about societal applications of the "sink or swim" principle. It not only has the stench of Social Darwinism about it, but also a suspicious lack of suggestions as to what to do with those who for one reason or another sink...
Full immersion into the mainstream society is AFAIK just about the single best way for anyone to acclimate into a new country, even with the inevitable "culture shock" instances. But that requires everyday contact with the natives, preferably in some constructive context such as education or work. Social policies related to immigrants should above all aim to making that transition as smooth as possible, and not content with just sustaining the immigrants in some gray limbo or leaving them high and dry to fend on their own to the best of their ability (which is all too often lacking even in the lot less disadvantaged natives).
rory_20_uk
02-14-2006, 12:56
I would have thought that the analogy with "sinking" is pretty clear as to what happens... :skull:
In some ways I do feel that systems in this country cater far too much for other languages. Signs should always only be in English (with the possible abberation being allowed in Wales where they decorate the sign with a collection of letters that sounds like someone trying to clear a bad case of bronchitis). We don't speak Hindi here, nor Punjabi, nor German or French for that matter (although signs never seem to be present in French or German).
If one goes completely the opposite of "sinking or swimming" more and more resources get given to the failing tail end of society, whereas the "top" get increasingly ignored. Note I am not talking about income or net worth here, I agree that it is fair that the top can look after itself
But schools: the bright are ignored as they meet the standards. The no hopers are sent to special schools with one to one teaching... So one class is 60 to 1, whilst one mentally handicapped child gets one qualified teacher to him/herself. This misallocation of funds is what I find completely unfair.
And often it does extend to hospitals: do you know people come to this country to get treated, knowing that they are ill before they arrive? And then of course many can't pay, and so get welfare on top of that. If the NHS was an infinite supply of money, that's fine - but it's not. People coming to this country from abroad in this manner are taking far more than they give (in this context, many give nothing and are eventually deported). In my experience Somalis do this far more often than any other national grouping, and almost more than every other group.
Social darwinism I believe has far more with the active extermination of "undesirables" rather than choosing that it is not the best solution for the larger portion of aid to be thrown at that part of society that can benefit and provide the least.
If it is known that one is left to sink or swim, then this will discourage people from coming that can't swim - people are generally trying to do the best for themselves. I am all for people coming to join this country regardless of religion or melatonin production, but I do expect they come here to work, to have a grasp of the country's laws, language and to a lesser degree the indigenous culture. Else go elsewhere.
~:smoking:
Adrian II
02-14-2006, 15:20
In any case, how is publishing a cartoon indirectly referring to a religious figure as a terrorist in any way comparable to publishing a cartoon glorifying the systematic extermination of millions of men, women and children based on race?Exactly. Before this thread veered off into a discussion of Social Darwinism, I recall some of our members complaining that Jyllands-Posten wouldn't promise in advance to print Iranian cartoons satirising the Holocaust. One even claimed that this caused him to lose faith in free speech. I daresay his faith in free speech must be as shallow as his faith in Islam's capacity to survive a few Danish cartoons.
In order to establish the truth of the matter, a little research is not amiss. First, let us draw a bit of scenery to show the political background of the Iranian claim.
On the 24th of April, 2002, the Iranian daily Johmhuri Al-Islami made a claim, believed to express the views of supreme leader ayatolla Ali Khamenei, that Jews drink blood with their meals. The Jewish community in Iran sent a letter protesting the libel. The newspaper published the letter and expressed its satisfaction that the Jews of Iran do not engage in these ceremonies since they have become ‘integrated into Iranian society’.This, gentlemen, is an accurate reflection of the all-pervasive, habitual anti-Semitism in many Islamic countries. No wonder then that Muslims around the globe have responded to the Danish cartoons by targeting Jews. Who else but an anti-Semite would be blind to the profound idiocy of this Muslim ‘retaliation’: 'Europeans are picking on Mohammed? Let us pick on the Jews!'
What is more: this idiocy is systemic. It reflects a wider notion in the Arab and Islamic world that Jews are pulling the levers of western society, a notion that is, of course, in and of itself anti-Semitic. Just last week Iran's supreme leader Khamenei stated that Israel was behind the publication of the Danish cartoons. Khamenei explained that Israel conspired against the world's Muslims through the cartoons as a result of their frustration over Palestine: the drawings are a ‘conspiracy by Zionists who were angry because of the victory of Hamas’.
And just last month the University of Tehran – bear with me: not some backwater organisation, but the supposed intellectual center of the nation -- produced a film entitled ‘The Cinema, The Promised Land’ which claims that Jews have taken over the American film industry because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion call on Jews to surreptitiously rule the world from such positions of power.
As for the Iranian paper in question, the mere mention of it in connection with freedom of speech is ridiculous. Hamshahri launched its Holocaust cartoon contest together with the House of Caricatures, a Tehran exhibition center for cartoons. Both the paper and the cartoon center are owned by the Tehran Municipality which is dominated by allies of President (and former Tehran mayor) Ahmadinejad, a man who claims that the Holocaust is a myth and that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Hamshahri will publish the results of the contest in May. No doubt some of our Muslim members will be holding their breath to see which of the myriad anti-Semitic doodles the paper is bound to receive will make it into print and demonstrate the Iranian concept of free speech to the world. I, for one, will be eating Danish yoghurt that day. It is pretty good stuff.
No doubt some of our Muslim members (italics added) will be holding their breath to see which of the myriad anti-Semitic doodles the paper is bound to receive will make it into print and demonstrate the Iranian concept of free speech to the world.
I can see that you are riled, Adrian and I too am mortified at the Iranian cartoon competition. But I don't know why you have to take a cheap jibe at Muslim members of the Org. They are not associated with the competition in anyway and none will be behaving in the way you suggest. The heavy handed sarcasm above seems rather provocative and gratuitous when so far several Muslim members of the Org have responded to you in this and related threads with what I consider admirable restraint.
Adrian II
02-14-2006, 18:05
I can see that you are riled, Adrian and I too am mortified at the Iranian cartoon competition. But I don't know why you have to take a cheap jibe at Muslim members of the Org.They wrote they were offended as Muslims, and demanded publication of the Iranian cartoons in return. Hitting on Jews and the Holocaust in return for a European cartoon about Mohammed -- doesn't that strike you as the real cheap jibe in this whole affair?
Leet Eriksson
02-14-2006, 21:04
They wrote they were offended as Muslims, and demanded publication of the Iranian cartoons in return. Hitting on Jews and the Holocaust in return for a European cartoon about Mohammed -- doesn't that strike you as the real cheap jibe in this whole affair?
Ok i'll bite.
No one else besides me called for the publication of the anti-semitic cartoons. Might as well call me out instead of using vague references.
My point is, J-P said they would publish the cartoons becuase everyone is equal under freedom of speech. But they backed down, which put me in a tizzy and i started questioning europes freedom of speech.
So i took a few days off and cooled down, sorry for the emotional arguments. And no i don't hate jews and i'm not an anti-semite or someone who blames isreal for everything (i'm biased, but i'm not racist).
Now thats out of the way, i'll back out from the backroom for a bit, sorry again.
Hey, I think I’ll join you.
Well done, AdrianII. :no:
You said earlier you do not owe religions your respect. Fine, as a militant aetheist, I can accept that. But I think in practice we do have to treat religious beliefs with respect when we personally debate with believers. Otherwise there will simply be no communication - it will just degenerate into a rant among the non-believers. This thread is becoming a case in point.
Adrian II
02-14-2006, 21:33
But I think in practice we do have to treat religious beliefs with respect when we personally debate with believers.I draw the line at anti-Semitism. The demand that the Danish cartoons be met with cartoons about the Holocaust is ipso facto anti-Semitic.
The demand that the Danish cartoons be met with cartoons about the Holocaust is ipso facto anti-Semitic.
I think my point is to take care to separate the demand from the person demanding it. I think you went too far to imply - even with irony - that Faisal would welcome seeing anti-semitic cartoons published.
Adrian II
02-14-2006, 22:04
I think my point is to take care to separate the demand from the person demanding it. I think you went too far to imply - even with irony - that Faisal would welcome seeing anti-semitic cartoons published.Faisal is quite capable of stating his own position. He apologised. I propose that we let the matter rest now.
The Black Ship
02-15-2006, 06:02
I'm curious Adrian why the line is drawn at anti-semitism? Are there no other religions that qualify?
Divinus Arma
02-15-2006, 06:09
I'm curious Adrian why the line is drawn at anti-semitism? Are there no other religions that qualify?
Ya. Why not be an equal opportunity offender?
I'm a militant agnostic. You can draw cartoons about my skepticism. Then I'll set cities on fire and burn your flag in protest to show you that believing in God with impunity should be punished! Bow down and guess whether there is a God or the hand of something I'm not sure about may or may not strike you down!
LeftEyeNine
02-15-2006, 06:41
I'm a militant agnostic. You can draw cartoons about my skepticism. Then I'll set cities on fire and burn your flag in protest to show you that believing in God with impunity should be punished!
You are a poor manipulator. Try better.
..Whatever -as I said before- depictation of Muhammed easily arises negative reaction among Muslim societies. And since this is directly related to the religious sources of Islam -not some individual or fractional interpretion-, you can not expect Muslim society to show tolerance, or say, get used to depictation of Muhammed. Islam does not "change" by time..
Adrian II
02-15-2006, 07:19
I'm curious Adrian why the line is drawn at anti-semitism? Are there no other religions that qualify?Wake up. Since when is race a religion?
Divinus Arma
02-15-2006, 07:42
You are a poor manipulator. Try better.
I did.
Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1067756&postcount=20)
and
here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1067761&postcount=21)
Wake up. Since when is race a religion?
So if I convert, become a jew and go to live in Israel, I changed my race because anti-semites will now hate me?:inquisitive:
rory_20_uk
02-15-2006, 12:26
I don't think you can convert strictly speaking - as the Jews are a race as well as a religion. Same with Hindus.
~:smoking:
Adrian II
02-15-2006, 12:47
So if I convert, become a jew and go to live in Israel, I changed my race because anti-semites will now hate me?:inquisitive:That presents a problem to racists, not to me. I find it unacceptable to categorise people according to (supposed) genetic traits, let alone ridicule them for it. And riciduling people because their ancestors were the victims of mass murder on racial grounds is, in my view, truly the pits.
What I do find acceptable is to critisise and ridicule views: philosophical thoughts, political notions, systems of belief and such.
I don't think you can convert strictly speaking - as the Jews are a race as well as a religion. Same with Hindus.
~:smoking:
Jews are most certainly not a race. Speaking as one with a giant nose whose family came from Poland, we are certainly a culture, but calling us a race is a bit far out there. Even so, that cultural depiction really only applies to the Eastern European Yiddish culture. There are millions of Jews all over the world who have nothing to do with this background. There are cultural Jews and there are religious Jews, but not all religious Jews are cultural Jews.
I don't think you can convert strictly speaking - as the Jews are a race as well as a religion. Same with Hindus.
~:smoking:
Maybe in the past, and I mean the very beggining of the religion you could say that all of the members of the Jewish religion were of a certain racial profile, but that has been blown out of the water long ago.....to me a jewish person is someone who shares the jewish belief system as well as the general culture associated with it....I don´t see how race comes into it nowadays.
LeftEyeNine
02-15-2006, 14:21
I did.
Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1067756&postcount=20)
and
here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1067761&postcount=21)
Strange that you are still not aware that you are a poor manipulator in the ugliest thread ever of yours in this forum . I'll prepare a badge for you don't worry, you'll have a public label for it.
So. The muslims are still going nuts over mohammedbomberhead.
Anybody care to post the most absurd pic they can find on the topic? Or any ridiculous pic of protesting muslims for that matter.
This isn't a flame on muslims. I just think the protesters are absurd and I find the photogrpahs to be interesting and educational. It's a sign of the times.
I couldn't do better to prove it out better than how you did.
Ser Clegane
02-16-2006, 17:55
I just came across the following link:
Israeli group announces anti-semitic cartoons contest (http://www.boomka.org/)
“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”
:2thumbsup:
Adrian II
02-16-2006, 18:09
I just came across the following link:
Israeli group announces anti-semitic cartoons contest (http://www.boomka.org/)
:2thumbsup:Try beating that! :laugh4:
Proletariat
02-16-2006, 21:56
Just heard that guy's interview on Fresh Air. Pretty good.
http://www.boomka.org/entries/moses-daniel-higgins-s.jpg
:laugh4:
Papewaio
02-16-2006, 23:16
That presents a problem to racists, not to me. I find it unacceptable to categorise people according to (supposed) genetic traits, let alone ridicule them for it. And riciduling people because their ancestors were the victims of mass murder on racial grounds is, in my view, truly the pits.
What I do find acceptable is to critisise and ridicule views: philosophical thoughts, political notions, systems of belief and such.
So in short, don't criticise hardware, only criticise software.
Adrian II
02-17-2006, 07:37
So in short, don't criticise hardware, only criticise software.:smash: (you nailed it!)
Adrian II
02-17-2006, 07:41
Just heard that guy's interview on Fresh Air. Pretty good.
http://www.boomka.org/entries/moses-daniel-higgins-s.jpg
:laugh4:W00t!1 :laugh4:
Ironside
02-17-2006, 09:48
I just came across the following link:
Israeli group announces anti-semitic cartoons contest (http://www.boomka.org/)
:2thumbsup:
Oddly enough the most brilliant and sensible move in this entire cartoon issue (says alot doesn't it). :inquisitive:
:2thumbsup: Amitai Sandy. :bow:
Power to the jews :laugh4:
What a great way to make the mullahs look even more rediculous with their rabid rage :2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.