OT: Muhammed-caricatyres and freedom of speach

[Ruatha]

Hi.
The Danish paper Jyllands-posten thought that the media in west had a self imposed cencurship concerning islam.
This came up since a child-book authour couldn't find anyone willing to make drawings under their own name to his book about Muhammed.
The paper sent a letter to 46 drawers associated to the journalists association asing them to make a drawing of Muhammed.
12 of these pictures were published, causing a local protest storm i Denmark in the fall 2005.
A norwegian christian paper re-published some of the pictures later on.
In the late fall some danish muslim leades went on a conference to Kairo and there told of the drawings.
Some muslim countries petitioned the danish prime minister for a meeting discussing the pictures, the danish primem minister refused the meeting saying that the danish goverment had nothing to do with the pictures and couldn't interfere with the free press.
In Januari Fatah lost the Palestinian election to Hamas, to cause trouble for Hamas (A religious organisation) Fatah(A secular organisation) started rotesting and burning danish flags threatening to kidnap all danish people on alestinian soild (If Hamas told the protesters to stop they would lose their credibiity as anislamic organization, if they didn't they would loose western aid, both ways they would seem unfit to govern).
Now the protests are spreading in the muslim world with boycot of danish and norwegian and french products.
The drawings has been republished in January in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria etc.
Last night the Danish and Norwegian embassys in Syria was set on Fire, the Swedish and Chilenian embassys where damaged.

What is the US response?
The American foreign deartments spokeperson Kurtis Cooper:
"We admit and respect the press freedom of speach, but it must be combined with responsibility. To encourage religious and ethnical hatred in this way is not accepted"
I agree that the pictures propably aren't very god, I've only seen one that depicts Muhmmed with a turban and a fuse (the turban being a bomb), but hey; What pictures hasn't been published with God,Jesus, our political leaders etc.
Don't like the pictures dut don't read the paper then! The Danish Jylland-Post doesn't have that big audiance in the middle East!

Put things into proportion!
I usually am a tolerant person but this time I think that Swedsih papers ought to publish the drawings as well to stand beside denmark in this.

What is your opinion, can we only critize our own religion and not others?

[Intimidator]

To make matters worse, today the Arabic European League (an Belgium Muslem organisatian) has posted two anti-semetic drawings on their website (one with Hitler and Anna Frank in one bed and one picture which denies the holocaust)
Their comment was : ' if you (the west) has an freedom of press, so do we..........'

So I guess that the latest word isn't discussed about this isue, probably there will be an lot of protest today in Holland and Belgium from Jewish-organisations.

As for my personal opinion, I think that it indeed the freedom of press to publish what you like, but keep in account the impact it will/can give. And consider if it is worth the trouble.
As long as those caricature's are sending out an message it is okay with me, when they are only used for insulting and offending than PLEASE don't use them.

[Ruatha]

Now the Danish Consulate in Lebanon is on fire.

I belive that the main reason to publicise the drawings was inded to insult and demonize the muslims, but that still does not justify the response.
The test of self imposed censorship is I belive a secondary construction.

I do not belive jews will burn any belgian embassy due to those drawings you refer to.

[El_Phil]

The cartoons themselves aren't actually very good or particularly clever or subtle. Printing them wasn't big or clever as it was going to cause trouble while not really making any worthwhile point.

However once someone decided to publish it I have to give much credit to the Danish government for backing them up.

Good work Denmark, keep it up.

[Renegade 13]

I've been following this story with interest over the past week or so on the web, since the main news programs over here haven't even mentioned it (big surprise...)

I don't consider myself an intolerant person, but who can claim to represent a peaceful religion (Islam) when they resort to violence at every turn? I think the newspaper had every right to publish the caricatures, even if they were insulting, since saying/writing things that some people aren't going to like is what freedom of speech is all about. We wouldn't need laws ensuring freedom of speech if people only wrote/said/drew things that everybody liked!

As for the caricatures "encouraging religious and ethnical hatred"...well that's just a stupid thing to say. No caricature in the world is going to make the average Western person get up in the morning and suddenly decide after seeing the drawing that they hate Muslims! Most people would be amused by the caricatures or just shake their head at the immaturity of it. They sure won't incite hatred. Those feelings would have had to exist previously.

It's a classic example of something that got blown out of proportion.

Not to mention the fact that when European Muslim organizations went to the Middle East to draw some attention to this, they included in the 12 caricatures a few that were NOT published in any newspaper in Scandinavia or anywhere else...and were quite offensive to say the least. Talk about trying to stir up hatred...

Wikipedia has an article on this with a lot more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

[Intimidator]

El_Phil said:
The cartoons themselves aren't actually very good or particularly clever or subtle. Printing them wasn't big or clever as it was going to cause trouble while not really making any worthwhile point.

However once someone decided to publish it I have to give much credit to the Danish government for backing them up.

Good work Denmark, keep it up.




I agree , the pictures weren't worth the trouble, but again The paper can (thank you democracy and freedom of press) publish them if the want to.........

Indeed it's great work from the Danish Government but also a great job from dozens of European news papers to back their fellow paper and also publish the drawings.

But again , it's a lot of trouble about absolutly NOTHING

[Jack Simth]

From my perspective:
The originals weren't worth the ink to print them nor the trouble caused, and the person who decided they were probably ought to be put in charge of something less important, if not out and out fired.
The reprints made specifically to reinforce freedom of the press, were more than worth the ink to print them, more than worth the trouble caused, and those who decided they should be reprinted on that basis probably ought to be praised.
Why?
Well, I consider it important the the press be capable of printing pretty much anything they deem worthy, and although hateful and hurtful things probably ought not be said, I consider it more important that the press not be limited on what they may say in an opinion manner than that they not say hateful or hurtful things.
Does that make sense?

[Randallw]

Ruatha, are you sure about Fatah setting the whole thing up?. If so I can't say they have much of an argument if they are willing to use it to their own advantage.

I believe the whole thing is related to the lack of education in Muslim countries. Because Muslim countries, in part because of Islamic restriction, aren't what you might call centres of intellectualism, the common person is all too willing to lash out violently rather than consider things. Also because of the large gulf between the west and Muslim countries they feel resentment. If they are Muslims (which is arabic for believers in Allah) how is it the West is so much more powerful. As a result they have, if I may put it in such words, a persecution complex. As a result they resort to their religious arguments to call for the destruction of the west, the power and wealth of which they covet. Islam was once a center of science and mathematics, after all they invented the zero and we use arabic numerals, so where did it all go wrong. It's a result of the Mongols. When they swept into the middle east and eastern europe they practically wiped out those cultures resident there. As a result all the learning centers and intellectuals of the Islamic world were destroyed. This pretty much shattered Islamic culture and they haven't recovered since. This also in part explains why Eastern Europe is such a backwater relative to the west, although of course communism is also a major reason. Western Europe, which was saved, continued to develop, explaining in part its dominance.

[Randallw]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=85446

interesting article. I do believe there is truth in that Muslims are all for being about voicing their hatreds but get angry(er) when someone does it to them. One last thing I'd like to point out. That whole thing about getting virgins in heaven if you are a martyr, true or not, the belief in it would appear to ring false any idea that some Muslims are for womens rights. Plus my opinion of, if it was possible, terrorists is lower if they are a bunch of sexed obsessed idiots who just want to go to heaven and deflower virginal women.

[Azselendor]

"Muslim" I believe actually means "They (or he) who is surrendered to Allah". I might be mistaking for "Islam" however. Never the less, It's not education that is at fault, but fear. The muslim reaction to the cartoon is much like the recent "War on Christmas" fox news and the christian coalition spent millions on or Mike Newdow's lawsuit on the pledge of allegiance.

People simply fear what they don't understand, control, or have. That fear leads to anger and hatred of that and, as a result, they violent lash out at it without logic or reason.

Education and knowledge undoes that - but only if they are willing to grow beyond it.

[dogscoff]

That whole thing about getting virgins in heaven if you are a martyr, true or not, the belief in it would appear to ring false any idea that some Muslims are for womens rights.



Dude, i don't think you condemn the whole faith of Islam as mysoginists because of some bull**** story made up to con a few gullible zealots into committing suicide. Your average muslim (especially those living in Western counries) is going to reject that interpretation of the scripture just as quickly as they reject all the other hate-mongering interpretations that have led to death and destruction.

I mean if you base your personal philosophy on a book that was written centuries ago (and this applies just as much to Christians, jews and many other faiths) then you must either learn that some bits of the book just don't apply any more or learn not to take everything literally, or you will end up a medieval anachranism in the 21st century.

I mean if you lived by every literal word of the bible, for instance, you'd be sacrificing bulls to God and stoning your rebellious teenager kids to death...

[PvK]

Humans sure are a lot better at getting offended and attacking others, than they are at following their own supposed morals.

What irony to attack others in the name of a code that preaches peace, if one bothers to read it. Fear, ignorance, panic, rage, chaos, self-destruction. Humans are a pathetic lot.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Wasn't there also cartoons regarding other religions? You don't see see a bunch of wild eyed bomb throwing buddists rioting in the streets calling for the heads of Danes.
Boy if I went off the deep end everytime I got offended by something I would probably be looked down upon too.
Kinda reminds me of when Triumph the insult comic dog made a remark about the french speakers in Canada. Then people were saying "Your getting angry over a dog puppet"
Now it's "Your rioting and killing people over a cartoon"
Back in 1971 some gunmen fired on people in a movie theatre who went to see the movie "Muhammed: Messenger of God" because they thought the movie actually showed the image of Muhammed. It didn't!
Get a grip Abul!

[rdouglass]

I by no means condone their actions but this is what they (extremist Muslims) base their actions on:

"Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures — even positive ones — to prevent idolatry."

I absolutely don't agree but that's what many believe.

[Atrocities]

I wonder about a few things. From what I have seen, most people are not at all offended by the actions or politics of those who kidnap and then behead people in the name of radicalized Islam, yet they become livid pi**ed off over a cartoon? WTF? They expect the rest of the world to take them seriously under this juxtaposition? I think not.

[Endoperez]

The original article, and few of the actual comics published, are surprisingly accurate. As far as I understand, the pictures were meant to show the drawers' thoughts on islam, or Muhammed. As an example, one of the pictures shows Muhammed, with a crescent-shaped halo... that, to our direction, looks like devil's horns. One of the pictures has a comic artist looking over his shoulder, afraid. One actually has an auhority figure calming down sword-and-bomb zealots with "Relax guys, it's just a drawing by some Dane there somewhere".

With few of the pictures, like the head-with-fuse, I could understand this, somewhat... I just think the other pictures should be shown as well. They didn't think it would cause such a fuss. Reading the Wikipedia article, Denmark has quite loose laws in many other ways, as well.

[Renegade 13]

PvK said:
Humans are a pathetic lot.


Well...that's a rather blanketing statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

The average individual person can be intelligent, moral and calm. It's the average group of people that's usually moronic, immoral and chaotic.

EDIT: OK, the average individual can be moronic too...at least some of the spelling and grammar errors I made in this post certainly were! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Fixed now. /EDIT

[PvK]

Perhaps. Humans are certainly more dangerous in groups. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Kamog]

I looked at those cartoons and I have no idea what most of them are supposed to mean or what the point of them are.

You can see the pictures that caused all this trouble here. (http://skender.be/supportdenmark/MohammedDrawings.jpg)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

We are fortunate to have had a number of civil rights movements in the area over a period of centuries.

[dogscoff]

"Islamic law, based on clerics' interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures — even positive ones — to prevent idolatry."



And that's fine. It's their religion, and they are free to live by the rule quoted above if that's what they want.

The problem arises when people (in this case, muslims) start trying to impose their religious laws on people who do not follow their faith: If I was a muslim, then I would abstain from depicting mohammed, because that's what muslims do (or don't do=-) However, I am not a muslim, and as such I can draw him if I want to. No muslim can demand that I comply with their rules any more than I can demand that they comply with rules specific to christianity or anything else.

Now, a non-muslim might choose not to depict mohammed out of respect to islamic people, and I would very much respect that decision, but that would be a matter of courtesy, not obligation.

[AMF]

dogscoff said:
And that's fine. It's their religion, and they are free to live by the rule quoted above if that's what they want.

The problem arises when people (in this case, muslims) start trying to impose their religious laws on people who do not follow their faith: If I was a muslim, then I would abstain from depicting mohammed, because that's what muslims do (or don't do=-) However, I am not a muslim, and as such I can draw him if I want to. No muslim can demand that I comply with their rules any more than I can demand that they comply with rules specific to christianity or anything else.

Now, a non-muslim might choose not to depict mohammed out of respect to islamic people, and I would very much respect that decision, but that would be a matter of courtesy, not obligation.



Yeah, that's exactly the point, eh? Fundamentalists everywhere seem to feel the burning need to regulate other people's lives for them.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't do it.
Don't like other people's cartoons? Don't buy their newspaper.

etc...

[Jack Simth]

alarikf said:
Yeah, that's exactly the point, eh? Fundamentalists everywhere seem to feel the burning need to regulate other people's lives for them.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't do it.
Don't like other people's cartoons? Don't buy their newspaper.

etc...

Don't extend that too far:
Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone without very good cause.
Don't like theft? Don't take anything without proper permission.
Don't like rape? Don't force anyone against their will.

Most would agree that murderers, thieves, and rapists need to be caught and forced to conform to a moral code that doesn't include such activities, but it can be kinda difficult to tell where, exactly, one should draw such lines.....

[Renegade 13]

alarikf said:
Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't do it.
Don't like other people's cartoons? Don't buy their newspaper.



That's all well and good, except for a few things. People who support and have abortions do not believe it's murder. Other's who think they should be illegal, believe it is murder. It is universally accepted that murder is illegal, so who is right, since people have differing and personal views on when "life" begins.

Same sort of thing applies to gay marriage. Sure, someone may not like the idea, but be tolerant of it. But those same people may not want it taught in their children's school that homosexuality is as "natural" as heterosexuality.

My point simply is that we do not live in a vacuum. Things that other people do/do not do can affect us all. Simply saying "if you don't like it, don't do it" is too simplistic in my opinion.

[Nomis]

IMO some of Muslims are very aggressive and violent... and nothing can change that. These cartoons was just the simple reason. They could probably find another, different stupid reason to start anti-catholics/anti-judes/anti-west war.

In Poland we have almost 99% Catholics and lots of jokes, funny comics, books, stories about inquisitors, fanatics burning witches, priests molesting animals, angels behaving like devils... much more offensive than these 12 cartoons and nobody even think about violent demonstrations, throwing stones, and bomb attacks.

Today I saw one picture on x-wars game forum (Players complain that game is very buggy, so it’s like "war with bugs").
http://forum.x-wars.pl/thread.php?postid=20520#post20520
I explain that English word “Bug” sound similar to polish word means "God".
I'm catholic and I think it’s offensive, however I know that it's not serious, and just for fun.
Remember a Monty Python’s film "Brian’s Life" (or similar I didn't keep in mind original title)?.... Was controversial. Now it's just classic comedy. When we watched it some times ago even my grandmother (radical catholic) was laughing.

[Atrocities]

If they get this upset over a cartoon depicting the Profit Mohamad (sp) telling them to stop the sucide bombings, that they are all out of virgins, then image how mad they would get if they had depicted him having sex with a pig while drinking a fifth of scotch or something. "Druken and in love with ham."

I think the world understands that there are two standards being applied. Our standard, that being free speech and equal rights, the their standard, that being what it is.

Given a choice between the two, I will always choose freedom over oppression. No one in the world are going to take them seriously until they can learn to control their tempors and behave like civilised human beings.

But if your out to make them angry, at least you now know how to do it.

[Will]

Jack Simth said:

alarikf said:
Yeah, that's exactly the point, eh? Fundamentalists everywhere seem to feel the burning need to regulate other people's lives for them.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't do it.
Don't like other people's cartoons? Don't buy their newspaper.

etc...

Don't extend that too far:
Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone without very good cause.
Don't like theft? Don't take anything without proper permission.
Don't like rape? Don't force anyone against their will.

Most would agree that murderers, thieves, and rapists need to be caught and forced to conform to a moral code that doesn't include such activities, but it can be kinda difficult to tell where, exactly, one should draw such lines.....


I say non sequitur here. Abortion, Gay Marriage, cartoons... they all really have no affect on the people protesting it other than it really annoys them and gets their britches up in a bunch. Murder, theft, rape... those are crimes directly against other people. Completely different class there, and comparisons between one do not carry over to the other.

And I know there are people who believe that an embryo is a fully human entity, and abortions are the same as murder. This belief is not nearly as universal as belief that murder, theft, and rape are wrong. So these people will just have to deal with the current implementation of the law, which basically states "it's not human until the fetus can live outside the womb". Don't like it? Don't get an abortion. Nobody's forcing you to. Still don't like it? Well, volunteer, and maybe convince some of these girls and women to consider some alternatives. Resorting to fear tactics, harassment, witholding safe-sex information, plotting to kill doctors... these things don't help the case much.

Ok, and I apologize for hijacking the thread, and bringing the OT even more OT.

[dogscoff]

f they get this upset over a cartoon depicting the Profit Mohamad (sp) telling them to stop the sucide bombings, that they are all out of virgins, then image how mad they would get if they had depicted him having sex with a pig while drinking a fifth of scotch or something. "Druken and in love with ham."

I think the world understands that there are two standards being applied. Our standard, that being free speech and equal rights, the their standard, that being what it is.




At, who exactly is the "they" you refer to in this post? Muslims in general? Most Muslims do no associate themselves with suicide bombers, just as most Christians tend to distance themselves from the Spanish Inquisition and Timothy McVeigh. Or are you setting out to be delibrately offensive in order to make a point?

[Will]

I think the context is fairly clear, that "they" refered to those who "(got) this upset over a cartoon depicting the (prophet Mohammed)". With "this upset" refering to the ones that got so upset that they went bat**** crazy, basically started riots, and got themselves killed. And AT's post is basically saying "DAMN, CALM THE **** DOWN!"

[Ed Kolis]

In my country we have people painting pictures of the Virgin Mary and smearing them with feces... and no fundamentalist Christians burn down any embassies... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Yes, and wasn't there also a crucifix suspended in Urine? I was more offended at the government grant that the guy got than the possible sacriligious image. I'm pretty thick skinned and have a real demented sense of humor. Once in a great while I will get offended. But I'm a big boy now and I can deal with it.
Maybe those muslims should go have a beer and eat some porkrinds, maybe go fly a kite or something. Too much religion not enough ethics!

[Atrocities]

Will said:
I think the context is fairly clear, that "they" refered to those who "(got) this upset over a cartoon depicting the (prophet Mohammed)". With "this upset" refering to the ones that got so upset that they went bat**** crazy, basically started riots, and got themselves killed. And AT's post is basically saying "DAMN, CALM THE **** DOWN!"



Thank you, well said.

[Azselendor]

More often than not, Extremist and Fundamentalist Religious leader ethics boils down "Do as I say, not as I do."

[Mephisto]

Atrocities said:
If they get this upset over a cartoon depicting the Profit Mohamad (sp) telling them to stop the sucide bombings, that they are all out of virgins, then image how mad they would get if they had depicted him having sex with a pig while drinking a fifth of scotch or something. "Druken and in love with ham."



One one the cartoons that was shown in the Arab countries showed the Prophet having intercourse with a pig, Atrocities. However, it was not published in the newspaper but got sorted out ahead. But it was one of the contestans for being published.

[Atrocities]

OMG! Well thank God that they never published that one.

[Renegade 13]

Thing is, when a European Muslim organization went to the Middle East and drew attention to the whole thing, they included 3 cartoons in addition to those published in Europe. These 3 were NOT published anywhere, but were included, presumably to inflame those people in the middle East. Those 3 included: 1) The picture Baron described. 2) A picture of a Muslim bent over praying, and a dog...doing what they do. 3) I'm not sure what this one was, but it was similarly offensive.

As you can see, it's no surprise the Muslim world became inflamed.

[Atrocities]

Oh how I really want to go on the record here and rant but I made a promis. http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/uploads/405120-thundercloud.gif

[Renegade 13]

No rant, just explain your position http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'd like to hear it.

[dogscoff]

Atrocities said:
OMG! Well thank God that they never published that one.



I think you mean "thank Allah".

BTW, I'd like to excercise my freedom of speech and publish my own caricature of Mohammed. Here it is:

:^(#

(Note the beard). He's unhappy because of all the stupid phongwits running around killing people in his name.

Someone with some sense: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4699716.stm

EDIT: Oops, looks like shrapnel have turned off the auto-censor. Language moderated.

[Thermodyne]

Remember that old joke about the three biggest lies in the world? Well I think it’s time to take a new survey and perhaps change the list.

Islam advertises itself as a religion of tolerance, but it does not appear that way to me. It looks more like a religion of intolerance and absolute control. But then I'm probably a little biased in my view, having a less than enthusiastic view of religion as a whole.

[PvK]

There's a difference between the religion and the most moronic and violent people from the same culture. The West has violent morons too, and the Islamic militants are incited by people they trust telling them how intollerant and terrible the Westerners are.

All it takes is one incited moron with a destructive plan to have a chance to ruin or end other people's lives and get on the TV.

Then all it takes is a moron politician to use this as an excuse to erode civil rights a bit more and create some more security pork-barrel projects.

PvK

[Atrocities]

Its funny that they advertise Islam as the religion of tolerance, yet when reasonable people say wait a minute, how come the Imans aren't coming out in droves denouncing the beheading of kidnap people, and the suicide bombings that kill hundreds of inocent people, especially children, yet they come out in arms over a stupid series of cartoons.

Those reasonable people who say wait a minute are then cast as the "bad guys" because they dare say "wait a minute Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance."

Perception, actions speak louder than words. Right now the perception that many people have, including me, is that Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance. It is a religion of intolerance and hatred.

I don't see that many people standing up and saying "Stop the violance. Stop the murdering. Stop the bombings." It appears that perhaps they are ok with this and want more. It is sickening to think that people will riot and kill other people over a catoon, yet stay home and laugh when people of their own religion blow up a school yard full of kids in the name of the Islam.

Like I said, a religion of hatred. Its ok to kill people, but its not ok to draw a cartoon. WTF?

[Emperor's Child]

I believe that the Fundamentalist elements of certain countries are using this event to their advantage to foster even further fear and mistrust among their own people.

Nevertheless, can you imagine if a Fundamentalist Islamic country were to become a Nuclear power...lets say "there was no holocost" Iran, the same country that officially approves of the destruction of Israel. How long would it take from the time they get a nuclear device to the time they detonate it over Tel-Aviv? Makes you wonder.

[Renegade 13]

Religions evolve over time, they change. Change is the one thing in life that is inevitable, besides death (Taxes can be worked around http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ). I don't know my Middle Eastern history that well, but in the past wasn't Islam an honorable, decent religion?

Well, perhaps in the past it was. Perhaps it still is, I don't really know. But like I said, things change. Perhaps Islam has changed from an honorable religion gradually to one accepting of violence against those who are not believers. Maybe I'm wrong. But take for example the evolution of mainstream Christianity. It to began as an honorable religion, promoting unity, harmony and selflessness. However, that changed, as all things do. The Crusades. The higher-up Cathlics doing everything in Latin which no one understood in the Middle Ages just to keep people in the dark. The collection of money from members of the religion. The Catholic Churches is immensely rich...comes from ripping off the church-goers for millenia.

Now I'm not attacking either Islam or Christianity. Well maybe I am being critical. But I think everything I've said is accurate to the best of my knowledge, so I hope nothing I've said is overly offensive.

[Atrocities]

Don't get me wrong, but sometimes I wish a large enough group of people here in the US would get bat**** angry over things much like our eastern friends. Not to the point of killing people or destroying property, but more to the point of telling our government, private business, and so on that we don't like being treated unfairly or being ripped off. Image if all the people in the US went bat**** bad over the Enron, MCI, Tyco, collapses? Or when the Government takes private property and gives it to a developer who then makes millions. If that is not a reason to get bat**** angery, then I don't know what is.

Our friends from the east might be onto something here.

[dogscoff]

Yes, the people burning buildings and killing people are mindless [censored] idiots, but they DO NOT REPRESENT ISLAM AS A WHOLE. Islam is a peaceful religion. There are individuals within it who happen to be psychopathic ****wipes but that means nothing. You have to remember Islam has a much flatter, less heirarcichal structure than christianity. No-one represents Islam in the same way the Pope represents Catholocism, so any head-up-his-arse tosspot with a headful of other people's martyrdom can speak up and be heard. The more moderate ones speak up too, it's just that "hey, let's all be nice to one-another" doesn't grab the headlines in the same way "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS! SEND THEM BACK TO HELL!" does.

To a certain extent the fault lies with the media. Quite apart from the fact that certain media interests are more than a little influenced by certain political groups who might find that the demonisation of a particular religious persuasions could possibly go some way toward justifying certain less-than-friendly and politically-sensitive actions taken toward those groups in the recent past (and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this latest development turned out to be a deliberate attempt to antagonise the muslim world in order to more easily demonise it), the plain fact of the matter is that hatred, conflict and intolerance sell newspapers/ news TV a lot better than moderation and calm. And it works on both sides of the fence I'm sure- I don't doubt that the Islamic media have had a part in whipping up the storm, and shame on them.

Look at us from Muslim eyes. Imagine how their news reports told the stories of the last four years (or how their how their history books tell the last four HUNDRED years) and try to see the picture that must be presented to them. If we want them to believe that the abuses of abu-graib, guantanamo bay and the like are mere abberations in an the behaviour of otherwise well-behaved forces, we have to accept that the actions of the minority of muslims in this case do not reflect the majority. If we want them to believe in our humanity, we must first ackowledge theirs.

Anyway, if you want to read the words of a moderate muslim calling for calm and understanding, please go back and read the link I posted upthread. If you don't want to read it, then tough [censored] because I'm going to quote it, coz it seems clear to me that no-one bothered to read it before. Yay to the BBC for giving these words some airtime.



(Abdullah Badawi, Malaysia's prime minister) said mere talk and being nice to one another were not enough, and mutual respect should replace hegemony.

"They think Osama bin Laden speaks for the religion and its followers," he said, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

"The demonisation of Islam and the vilification of Muslims, there is no denying, is widespread within mainstream Western society."

But Muslims for their part had to avoid "sweeping denunciation of Christians, Jews and the West", he added.

"The West should treat Islam the way it wants Islam to treat the West and vice versa. They should accept one another as equals," he said.




Remember, there are a zillion examples of Islam living comfortably and peacefully side-by-side with other religions and cultures in the east, the west and everywhere else. That is the norm. That is Islam.

[Phoenix-D]

"(and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this latest development turned out to be a deliberate attempt to antagonise the muslim world in order to more easily demonise it)"

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an attempt on the part of tin-pot dictators to piss people off, in order to have an outside enemy to point at.

Notice, for example, that the cartoons were originally published in September..and that some of the cartoons circulating are fakes that look designed to be offensive.

[abda]

Post deleted by abda

[Atrocities]

If they got mad about some cartoons, then they should not watch South Park. Oh man did they ever rape Bin Laudin over the humilation coals.

[Hugh Manatee]

I have good odds that the south park creators take this and run with it. It's not beyond them to put Muhamed in their show. That or they will have their "Jesus" character get pissed about a caricture of himself.

[Ed Kolis]

/me can just imagine it now... After defeating Santa Claus over Christmas, Jesus takes on Mohammed in the ONE-ON-ONE ULTIMATE PROPHET SHOWDOWN!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
edit: hmm, perhaps we should bring this up over in the Dominions forum... throw in a few Pretender-Gods to the mix and we can REALLY have a party! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Renegade 13]

dogscoff said:
Anyway, if you want to read the words of a moderate muslim calling for calm and understanding, please go back and read the link I posted upthread. If you don't want to read it, then tough [censored] because I'm going to quote it, coz it seems clear to me that no-one bothered to read it before. Yay to the BBC for giving these words some airtime.


It seems a little hypocritical for the Malaysian PM to say that it's not representative of the Muslim world, or that most Muslims have avoided denunciations of the West, Jews, etc., when the people of his own country are marching in the streets shouting "Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America." (Also quoted from your article. Someone read it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) Seems he doesn't have a leg to stand upon when his own people are doing that...

Also rather odd, since as far as I know, American newspapers haven't published the cartoons...but I guess "Destroy America" is just the standard refrain nowadays. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I wonder how the Muslim world would react if Christians started marching in the streets shouting "Destroy Islam, Destroy Mecca, Destroy Medina, Destroy the Muslims!"

The point is, you do see some Muslims marching the streets spouting off their violent propaganda. You don't see any other religions doing that.

[Atrocities]

"Why don't moderate muslims who don't like the violence stand up against those who are causing it?"

Because they would be killed.

[dogscoff]

t seems a little hypocritical for the Malaysian PM to say that it's not representative of the Muslim world, or that most Muslims have avoided denunciations of the West, Jews, etc., when the people of his own country are marching in the streets shouting "Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America."




all the people of Malaysia?



I wonder how the Muslim world would react if Christians started marching in the streets shouting "Destroy Islam, Destroy Mecca, Destroy Medina, Destroy the Muslims!"

The point is, you do see some Muslims marching the streets spouting off their violent propaganda. You don't see any other religions doing that.




No, but what they do see is a very christian president bush and PM blair (Bush has made several references to being inspired by God regarding his actions wrt the middle east) actively MAKING WAR on middle eastern countries. I mean come on, what's more intimidating? A bunch of angry civilians marching and shouting 12000 miles away, or a couple of nuclear superpowers stomping around, blowing [censored] up and killing people by the thousand in the country next door.

[Atrocities]

Good point there Dogscoff. We all know that there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that President Bush and PM Blair are on a holly war in the middle east. But the fanic radicalized holly warriors of Ala might believe in such tripe.

[Renegade 13]

dogscoff said:


t seems a little hypocritical for the Malaysian PM to say that it's not representative of the Muslim world, or that most Muslims have avoided denunciations of the West, Jews, etc., when the people of his own country are marching in the streets shouting "Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America."




all the people of Malaysia?

I never said all the people of Malaysia. But if even a significant number of the people are marching in the streets, it is still hypocritical.




I wonder how the Muslim world would react if Christians started marching in the streets shouting "Destroy Islam, Destroy Mecca, Destroy Medina, Destroy the Muslims!"

The point is, you do see some Muslims marching the streets spouting off their violent propaganda. You don't see any other religions doing that.




No, but what they do see is a very christian president bush and PM blair (Bush has made several references to being inspired by God regarding his actions wrt the middle east) actively MAKING WAR on middle eastern countries. I mean come on, what's more intimidating? A bunch of angry civilians marching and shouting 12000 miles away, or a couple of nuclear superpowers stomping around, blowing [censored] up and killing people by the thousand in the country next door.


Granted, that explains the distrust and perhaps hatred of the US and Britain. But does it explain the hatred and denunciation of Jews and the West in general? For example, the French government was adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq. West /= US. West = Canada + US + Most of Europe + Australia.

Perhaps they think that all of the West is the enemy and wants to kill them all and destroy their religion. Thing is, if they do believe this, that doesn't matter. Ignorance is no excuse in any country. It is up to the people to discover the truth behind a matter, rather than exploding at every opportunity.

[Atrocities]

How can any of us truly understand the minds of those for whom violence and outrage has become a way of life unless we have walked in their shoes?

I wouldn't not excuse such behavior regardless of circumstance, but understanding it might be the first step toward stopping it.

I really don't like to make Nasi comparissons here but honestly this is the best case for this arguement. In Nazi Germany the Nazi Party used the Jews as the glue that held the nation together under Hitler. Hate the Jews, hate them to the core, and keep on hating them no matter what. This menatlity gave power to Hitler and he used it like any good Facist to maintain the focus of his people on hating the jews to preserve his controll over them while he ran the country into a devistating war that ultimately resulted in a horrific end for the German people.

I see the leaders of these muslim countries, their religious leaders, and Imans all doing the same thing that Hitler and his Facist Nazi party did. They focus the hatred of their people against a common enemy in order to maintain power.

The only way to combat this is with TRUTH. Unfortunetly any one cought trying to tell the truth is quickly murdered.

[dogscoff]

I hereby invoke Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) . But since we're playing "Who's the Hitler?", can I have a go? I love this game.

Here's one for ya- first suitable google hit I came across. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

(Not that I necessarily agree with everything in the article above, I'm just making the point that anyone can play the Hitler card.)

[Thermodyne]

Well, it is a free country, so people can say more or less anything they want. Let’s look at his first statement. Bush was elected by a majority of the Electoral College. This is an undisputable fact. It is the way it has always been done in this country. It was a close election but there have been close ones in the past. The difference was that in the past the defeated candidate has politely accepted the results and for the good of the country, moved on. Gore did not put the good of the country above his own ambition.



While Bush has not been a very good president, he has not been a bad one either. Everyone forgets that he has defended this country from the likes of Bin Hidden (his new name). The big news of late is NSA intercepts of overseas calls. Well duah……Here’s your sign. WTF do these people think the NSA has been doing for the last twenty years. Let’s take a look at the last two administrations. Which one spent 8 years trying to change the definition/meaning of one of the amendment of the constitution so as to take away a guaranteed right? They didn’t use the constitutional tool provided for doing this, they tried to do it by using the back door. Exactly what Hitler did when he disarmed the private citizens of Germany. Which administration used its “paramilitary” forces to kill the most of its own citizens? Citizens that for right or wrong had decided to arm themselves against just exactly that kind of government action. Citizens that the government slandered publicly as an excuse for murdering them. Citizens who either never got their day in court or only after being treated worse than we treat foreign terrorist today. Sound anything like Hitler? You bet it does. All the while we were attacking our own; we were shooting missiles at Iraq every time the Washington Post front paged a story about the strange goings on at the White House. No wonder they hated us! Who let them get away with bombing ships and embassies without taking immediate and visible action in the face of a clear and present danger? But instead, decided to do nothing, or to shoot some more SLCM at Baghdad. It’s no wonder that they became bolder with the passage of time. Hitler went on the radio and flat out lied to his people. I seem to recall a president shaking his finger in my face from the TV as he told a bold out and out lie.


The point here is that most presidents have an agenda that is counter to about half of the population. And some well versed academic will publish some well written words that bend the truth to match his needs. Hitler is an easy comparison. For all of his wrongs, the biggest was that he lost. Stalin and Mao won, while Pol Pot [sp] hid his better than the rest. It’s not so much about what a president does or does not do. The several hundred fine people elected to duty on the Hill and the thousands that “make” policy from over at State should carry more of the blame. We are in a catch 22. The Arab world needs someone to hate and blame their Islamic misfortune on. So they pick Israel and the USofA. Not realistically much we can do about that. Personally, I would like to see the west start a new Manhattan project to move the world away from carbon fuel and into hydrogen and cold fusion. Then the Islamic world could keep their oil and go quietly back to the Stone Age.

As to the author, I think that the time of these people would be better spent blogging about the exportation of jobs and wealth. Or perhaps the stacking of the Supreme Court. The 60’s are gone, but some leftovers see this war as a chance to regain past prestige. They fail to realize that this one is much different than the last one. In Iraq, everyone volunteered. There is no draft. In Iraq, poor people of color are not doing the majority of the fighting. It’s middleclass whitebread America filling out the ranks. In Iraq there are not 500,000 troops and casualties are not even a percentage point of what they were in SEA. The major news agencies would like to keep the war on the front page, and it is running up an awful bill that we will have to pay. But most Americans are more worried about their jobs, the cost of energy and who will be the next American Idol. It, 2006 and the sixties are long gone.

[Suicide Junkie]

Well, news is pretty much focussed on the bad things.
So it sounds pretty bad from over here.

Can we get a list of the good things?

[Thermodyne]

Suicide Junkie said:


Can we get a list of the good things?



Not sure what you are asking for. List of good things in Iraq?

[Atrocities]

dogscoff said:
I hereby invoke Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) . But since we're playing "Who's the Hitler?", can I have a go? I love this game.

Here's one for ya- first suitable google hit I came across. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles3/Jayne_Hitler-Bush.htm

(Not that I necessarily agree with everything in the article above, I'm just making the point that anyone can play the Hitler card.)



I am sorry Dogscoff, but I don't understand how you took my comments and connected them to this tripe? I was not making a political post, or calling any one person a Hitler, I was just stating my opinion that the people in power in the muslim world use hatred to stay in power. A tactic that was used very effectively by the Facist Nazi Party. If Bush were truly a Hitler, then why hasn't he acted like one by having all of his enemies either jailed, killed, or both? I can only speculate that the people who believe that Bush is like Hitler are too blinded by their own hatred that no amount of reason or logic could bust them out of the rut they are in. And that is truly a shame.

Thermodyne I enjoyed reading your posts. Well written. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

You're thinking far too narrowly.

It would just be nice to hear some good stuff rather than the constant negative press about everything.

[Atrocities]

With war I sincerely doubt that there is any good things to report until well after all the hoopla has long since passed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

I don't think we can win the peace in the east because there is simply to great of a divide in fundamental beliefs in religion and values of human life and liberty between the west and the east. By east I mean areas of the world that are deeply Islamic.

I don't know that much about the religion of Islam except that I am told that it is a religion of peace. Yet all I see is what the world media is showing us, and that paints a very negative image of Islam and I think that is the real victim here. If you fight terrorism, you are fighting Islam, and no matter what we say, that belief is what propels more and more Muslims to join the ranks of the radicalized. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

We are not calling Islam the religion of terrorism, that distinction, I am afraid, is being made by the followers of Islam. All because we are, rather were, aggressively going after radicalized terrorist who claim to do the heinous things that they do in the name of Islam, we are now being branded as the haters of Islam. The world’s efforts against Terrorism are not a war against Islam. That is the message that needs to be put out there and reinforced.

If many more than not, Muslims want to believe that because the US and other countries are going after terrorism, that we are waging a war against them, their religion, and their way of life, then what can we do or say otherwise? Nothing. They will hate us regardless. Nothing we say or do will have any improving effect on how they view us. If we decide to call it quits and pull out, then we will only serve to embolden them.

Honestly the only real way to win this war is to either win by showing the Muslim world that we are not at war against Islam, or wipe them all of the face of the planet without regard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif That second option is NOT an option at all, but if a race war is to come, then it might be the only option left to both sides.

With Iran leaders acting the way they are acting, one really doesn't know what the future holds. If Iran were to use a nuke against Israel, or other nation, then what would the response be? Whatever the response, it will only be viewed one way by the Muslims; as an all out war against Islam, a Holly War. It does not matter that the response was triggered by a nuclear attack perpetrated by Iran; it will only be viewed as an attack against all of Islam. The real victims will be the inocent people on all sides who die because of this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

There is really no way to win this. I can't see any good things coming from this conflict now. Only more death, more hatred, and more war. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[dogscoff]

or calling any one person a Hitler, I was just stating my opinion that the people in power in the muslim world use hatred to stay in power.




Just as the Western leaders have been benefitting from the anti-muslim sentiments that are emerging now among their own populations. After all, it's easier to justify the war in Iraq if your people think all Iraqis are terrorists. The tactics and methods used by Hitler for influencing his population and persuading them to hate the so-called enemy have been used by dozens of world leaders of every persuasion before and since. I mean if you want to talk about using hatred to stay in power, look at leaders from either either side in the N.I. troubles, or either side of the Israel/ Palestine fight. The leaders in these conflicts feed off hatred like vampires. The Islamic fundamentalists are doing the same thing, but so is the West. However as soon as you use the word 'Hitler' automatically associates your target with such emotive images of demonic evil that any rational debate can only suffer.



I don't think we can win the peace in the east because there is simply to great of a divide in fundamental beliefs in religion and values of human life and liberty between the west and the east. By east I mean areas of the world that are deeply Islamic.



This is where we disagree. This idea that all Muslims are oppressive, fundamentalist killers is a myth. That's what I've been arguing against in this thread. However the idea that more and more of them are being converted into psychos is one I happen to think is true, and perhaps I haven't yet said so in this thread. Sorry about that.


If Bush were truly a Hitler, then why hasn't he acted like one by having all of his enemies either jailed, killed, or both?


Well, first he'd need to get around certain constitutional safeguards. Things like trial by jury, access to lawyers, freedom of speech, privacy, all that. While he has already done a great deal to erode these things (Patriot Act), he still has the eyes of the world and of his own country upon him, and there are enough people that don't believe his lies to challenge him if he were ever to be undeniably linked to something undeniably monstrous. I mean it's one thing to quietly scoop up a load of random arabs and ship them off to guantanamo bay, abu ghraib or some 'client' nation for behind-clsed-doors incarceration, torture and execution, but he'd need quite a bit more support and power yet to start doing the same to those americans or europeans who opposed him.



I don't know that much about the religion of Islam except that I am told that it is a religion of peace. Yet all I see is what the world media is showing us, and that paints a very negative image of Islam and I think that is the real victim here.




This I can agree with, as long as you can accept that the image being painted is not necessarily complete or accurate.



We are not calling Islam the religion of terrorism, that distinction, I am afraid, is being made by the followers of Islam. All because we are, rather were, aggressively going after radicalized terrorist who claim to do the heinous things that they do in the name of Islam, we are now being branded as the haters of Islam. The world’s efforts against Terrorism are not a war against Islam. That is the message that needs to be put out there and reinforced.




The West might be fooled into thinking that the war on Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but the people of the middle east aren't. So what's left? If it wasn't a war on terror, what was it? They see it as a war on them, on their country and people and, with a little blood-sucking propaganda from certain radicals, a war on their religion. Just as predicted from the start, the invasions have done infinitely more to recruit terrorists than dissuade them. It's the hate-vampires at work again. The more corpses they can pile on the bonfire the better they'll feed.

[quote]

With Iran leaders acting the way they are acting, one really doesn't know what the future holds. If Iran were to use a nuke against Israel, or other nation, then what would the response be? Whatever the response, it will only be viewed one way by the Muslims; as an all out war against Islam, a Holly War. It does not matter that the response was triggered by a nuclear attack perpetrated by Iran; it will only be viewed as an attack against all of Islam. The real victims will be the inocent people on all sides who die because of this.
[quote]


That guy in Iran is scary as hell. Then again, there's nothing ususual in that as far as world-leaders are concerned, imho.

To a certain extent I think I'm in agreement with you At. You seem to think that there's little hope left for a peaceful resolution, and I tend to agree. The point of debate is just how we got here in the first place. I'm inclined to believe that a few fundamentalist dickheads in the middle east and a few more in the whitehouse antagonised one another to such a point that and sucked so many normally rational people into hatred and ignorance that only warfare can result. When it's all over, maybe the survivors can take a look at one another, realise that we're not so different after all, and chalk yet another few million deaths up to experience. Not that we ever seem to learn from it.

[Black_Knyght]

I may catch hell for this, and may even be a bit off topic, but after having served in Iraq the first go-round I consider myself at the very least comfortably familiar with the general mind-set of muslim in the Middle East.

Here is an article from a muslim Associated Press writer. The very basic, boiled-down nature of the article itself is what makes my point: A cleric, of the Muslim faith itself, has offered money for the death of an individual who has aggravated him and his beliefs.

"Cleric Offers Bounty on Cartoonist" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings)

Combine that with all the violence over what should have been a minor annoyance to an "enlightened" culture, and it speaks louder than ANY effort to put a positive spin on things.....

[Atrocities]

Thanks Dogscoff. I do hope that the common sense of peace will eventually prevail, but as long as there is curruption and power grabs happening on all sides of the politics of this world, common sense is *****ed to the back seat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

I like to think there are more people who just want to get on with living rather than fighting, and I do hope that those number continue to grow in the face of this current and on going cycle of conflict.