quote:Now, if almost every time you heard about a political scandal that involved fraud and abuse of funds, it turned out to be an Orthodox Jew doing it, and if most Orthodox Jewish communities didn't really have much to say about it, I'd say you'd be absolutely correct to slam Orthodox Jews, as a group, for that kind of behavior.
"Almost every time" I see gang violence on the news, it seems as if it's always a young black man who is the suspect. What would you say I should conclude from this?
quote:But instead, when someone like Ami Popper flips out and shoots 7 unarmed, non-combatant Arab construction workers dead, you hear universal condemnation from Jews the world over, and Popper gets slammed in jail for the rest of his misbegotten life. That's how we deal with such people. But Muslim suicide bombers? They get parades. They get schools and streets and towns named after them.
But that's because the suicide bombers are viewed by those celebrating them as brave revolutionaries committing a noble sacrifice, whereas a guy who flips out and shoots people seems to us to be just crazy. But we generally celebrate our own violent (and sometimes immoral) heroes too.
I seriously think that just as many Muslims are embarrassed by what suicide bombers do as there are those who appluad it, if not more. Being Muslim nowadays seems like a tough cross to bear.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
First I want to thank you for your post, candor, thoughtfulness, and desire for good. I can see that you want the same global things that I value.
My intent is not to be snarky. As I think about my thoughts before I write them, I wonder what lines I am about to cross. I will be blunt and honest--I hope that is a quality in discussion.
My opinions of Muslims -- in general, not just the extremists, have gone down. The religion feels icky. Protests are a good thing, but when people die and property value goes down....*shiver.*
quote: I wish you guys could hear the debate within the Muslim community on this right now. In my community as on this bulletin board, NO-ONE is trying to defend the people who are bombing embassies or writing violent slogans on placards. One thing I feel fairly certain about in my mind is that the Prophet (pbuh) would neither have done nor sanctioned these things. There is a debate about the cartoons: whether they should have been printed or not.
What I find interesting about your statement is the recognition that writing violent slogans and bombing embassies is wrong, yet the focus is the debate on whether the cartoons should have been printed. I would have been impressed if you were debating how to keep your Muslim brothers protesting peacefully. Maybe you are, but it certainly wasn’t at the forefront of your remarks.
quote: I always feel horribly wrenched when I see my fellow Muslims behaving like this. I want to disown them and say "I have no part in that." And yet I am also a Muslim, and I remain so partly because I believe that Islam can be a force for good in the world.
You want to disown them and say you "have no part in that," but you admit you are Muslim. That makes it sound like to me that being Muslim means condoning on some core level these violent protests--otherwise you would "disown" them.
I "disown" any Christian who thinks they are doing Gods will by blowing up government buildings or kill abortion doctors. Actually I am agnostic now (I was once Christian), but the point remains.
Your empathy for Muslims has two facets. You are empathetic because you want Islam to be a force of peace--more power to you! You are empathetic because you understand why the protestors are reacting the way they are--less power to Islam. It sounds like there is an aspect of Islam that condones violence to keep the infidels in check over freedom of the press--no matter how repugnant that freedom can be at times.
As an "infidel," the thought of a theocratic government/force/culture that seeks to take away fundamental rights I believe in is very scary.
Islam in general seems much more threatening to me then it did a week ago. Last month I would have glossed over StarLisa's comments. Now I understand where she is coming from.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds like there is an aspect of Islam that condones violence to keep the infidels in check over freedom of the press--no matter how repugnant that freedom can be at times.
I'd argue that there's an aspect of pretty much any organized religion that condones this. The prevalence of that opinion is the important bit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By what standard, though? If it were VERY prevalent, in a population of nearly a billion people, don't you think they'd be a bit more dangerous than they already are?
I know at least a hundred Muslims. Absolutely none of them have attempted to kill me, and only one of them suggested that it should be done. (I'll let that one slide because it was after I beat him at five consecutive games of pinball.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure the cartoon was meant to specifically insult the Prophet, if anything, it strikes me more as an insult directly to those among the Muslim people who are themselves insulting the Prophet by not following the true teachings of Allah. It's saying, "this is what you have made the Prophet into."
starLisa -
I think disowning them doesn't solve the problem. Deciding across the board to expel all of them from Islam would certainly purify the faith, but it would do nothing to solve the problem. Their goal is probably more alike to bringing them into the fold, rather than insulating themselves. I'd imagine they want a unified Muslim people, all following the real words of Allah. Cutting off the others is a step away from that goal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wish you guys could hear the debate within the Muslim community on this right now. In my community as on this bulletin board, NO-ONE is trying to defend the people who are bombing embassies or writing violent slogans on placards. One thing I feel fairly certain about in my mind is that the Prophet (pbuh) would neither have done nor sanctioned these things. There is a debate about the cartoons: whether they should have been printed or not.
What I find interesting about your statement is the recognition that writing violent slogans and bombing embassies is wrong, yet the focus is the debate on whether the cartoons should have been printed. I would have been impressed if you were debating how to keep your Muslim brothers protesting peacefully. Maybe you are, but it certainly wasn’t at the forefront of your remarks.
I completely disagree. I think Amira was extremely clear about this. She said that there's debate with regards to whether the cartoons should have been printed, but that she's fairly certain that the violence is wrong.
"Fairly certain" beats "there's debate". I'm sure it was hard enough for her to post what she did without you taking it the way you did.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I completely disagree. I think Amira was extremely clear about this. She said that there's debate with regards to whether the cartoons should have been printed, but that she's fairly certain that the violence is wrong.
I know. What bothered me was that I did not see evidence that the group she belongs to was/is debating how to protest peacefully. The comic was in poor taste, but there will be more comics. I have seen no evidence of a movement on educating faithful Muslims how they should respond to these offensive situations. I hope they are. I also hope individuals are more respectful to their faith--but I think freedom of press trumps hurt feelings.
quote:"Fairly certain" beats "there's debate". I'm sure it was hard enough for her to post what she did without you taking it the way you did.
I hope she responds if I hurt her, or if she felt my post attacked or debased her. I respected her post enough to be honest. I am glad you are being honest with me.
amira tharani , if you feel my post was out of line, demeaning, hurtful, or so negative you do not want to open more, I completely apologize. I am grateful for you and your commitment to your faith. Every faith benefits from members like you.
Since you are talking with Muslims (woot! that makes me feel good), I wanted you to understand me. I don't think I am a racist person. If the media covered more instances of Muslims instructing Muslims on how to deal with extreme offenses, then my opinion of your faith would not be suffering.
What I See instead is "5 dead," "embassies burning," "violence escalating," and calls for "beheadings" and "bombings." When I hear you are talking about the situation within your faith, I am relieved.
What I saw from your post was an acknowledgment violence was wrong but no discussion on how to stop/prevent extreme reactions.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran has cut off ALL trade with Denmark. They will allow machinery and medicines in for another three months then that too will end.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure the cartoon was meant to specifically insult the Prophet, if anything, it strikes me more as an insult directly to those among the Muslim people who are themselves insulting the Prophet by not following the true teachings of Allah.
Having seen the cartoons in question, I don't think they're really that subtle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amiri, I sympathize with your position. On the one hand, I want to comment on how I understand things are, but on the other hand, there's so much backlash for even posting. I've asked Fahim before about why he doesn't get involved in conversations like these, and his comments are along the lines of "it doesn't do any good" to "it gets tiring." Or something along those lines. That, and it's repetition and more repetition.
I know hundreds of Muslims. Heck, I'm married to one, and all my in-laws are Muslims. None of them want me dead, none of them think I should die, and none of them think that that's what Islam is about anyway.
Any whom I've had conversations with express anger at the violence that the fundamentalist extremists perpetrate.
Anyway, I'm not getting involved in the debate. I don't have the time for it, nor do I have the patience for it. Have fun.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I apologize and withdraw from this discussion. I don't know any muslims. I don't live by any muslims. I do not interact with any muslims. I agree with Tom that if muslims are bad, there are more then enough to cause real damage.
Muslims must be good. I hear negative news all the time. I am perplxed by the riots. I don't know the issue. I am bowing out.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who views a guy who straps on an explosive belt and blows up kids riding on a bus is an animal. And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
I'm curious... if I told you there was a Jewish insurgent in World War II Nazi Germany, and that he blew up a Nazi school (with children and teachers inside) in order to fight back, would you consider that person to be animal? And if some Jewish individuals told you they consider him heroic for doing so, would you consider them worthy of as severe of a punishment as you'd give these Muslim terrorists?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Gwladys Fouché and agencies Monday February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.
Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
That's about as much of a surprise as the fact that nations of primarily the Islamic faith regularly have cartoons that insult Christians and Jews but never of Muhammad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm failing to see why it's a big issue.
Also, we haven't seen the cartoons that were rejected, the newspaper didn't just say they refused to publish so as not to offend anyone, they also say the cartoons weren't funny. Now whether the cartoons depicting Mohammed were funny or not is certainly debatable (I don't know, as I have not seen them) but apparently the editor thought they were.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Gwladys Fouché and agencies Monday February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
...
Hmmm
I saw a blurb about that on another news site...it was a couple days ago, so I don't remember where. But the editor said that it was an unsolicited cartoon, and that they don't accept unsolicited work, typically because most of the unsolicited stuff that is sent in is of very low quality.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lem, I can see where and why you took what you did from what I said. I put it badly, I think.
I'm slightly staggered by the assumption that we need to teach other Muslims how to protest peacefully, but I guess someone does. It just never occurred to me, living in Britain, that that sort of thing needs to be taught as such. It's just been assumed (by me and others that I've talked to) that peaceful protest would have been the right thing to do if people wanted to have their say about this. I think you are probably right that there hasn't been enough discussion on how to prevent these extreme reactions - I will certainly be discussing that with my Muslim colleagues and friends next time. When I looked at your post, though, I thought "I haven't been talking about how to stop this because I feel powerless to do anything." On reflection, that feels like a cop-out. We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions?
Edited to add: I'm unlikely to post again before late this evening British time. Please don't think I'm offended if I don't post.
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sadly, the publication of those cartoons has done nothing to help move that debate on - if anything, it adds to the "victim mentality" that many Muslims have got caught up in.
I think that if you look beyond the mob, you would see that the cartoons have generated a tremendous amount of debate and opportunity for dialogue in terms of what it means to be a Muslim, why some parts of Islamic society are different from one another, and what the Occident and the Levant need to do to get along. This thread and many others are proof of this.
You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. It seems like a bad way to respond to the cartoons, both because it doesn't get your response out very effectively, and because it makes you look like you're trying to shut down free speech. Let's face it, who is going to carry the speeches of those at the end of the march? All that's going to be reported is that a bunch of Muslims gathered to protest the cartoons, with the implication that Muslims don't have anything to say in response.
You might say that this is the problem of reporting media rather than your fault, however I think it's important to note that very few protests are reported on except in the most cursory fashion. In the states, the 'million man march' got maybe one or two lines wherein there was a synopsis of what was said, and the rest of the column was devoted to people's opinions about the march.
A far better response to the cartoons would seem to me to be a full page ad in the London Times or the like where Muslims respond to the cartoons in a fashion that guarantees all their points are heard by many in a straightforward fashion.
I think everyone, but particularly Muslims, should be thankful for the cartoons, thankful for the opportunity to address the misconceptions about Islam that exist in the west. I hope good use will be made of this opportunity.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who haven't seen the cartoons -- what I didn't realize before I went and looked for them is they're not a series of 12 cartoons by the same artist, they are 12 different representations of the Prophet by 12 different cartoonists. The site I saw them on said that the paper had put out a call for artists willing to draw Muhammad after an author had been unable to find anyone willing to illustrate a book to include depictions of Muhammad.
So some of them aren't funny, and aren't meant to be -- they're just straightforward depictions of a Middle-Eastern looking man who I wouldn't have known was supposed to be the Prophet if I'd just come across them somewhere. Those cartoons are not offensive in any way other than being a depiction of something that Muslims believe your're not supposed to depict.
Another subset of the cartoons makes fun of the fact that the artists and newspaper are probably going to get in trouble for this. Two actually show the cartoonists drawing the pictures, with one labeling it as a PR stunt. A third shows two men with swords getting upset and a third telling them to relax, it's just a sketch. Again, out of context, I wouldn't have known it was supposed to be Muhammad, although it's perfectly possible that that's out of my own ignorance.
The last subset, four of the cartoons, is deliberately offensive. This includes the one that's been mentioned by all the news reports, with the turban bomb. There's also one with Muhammad in a police line-up. Not being able to read Danish, I don't know if that one is funny or not. This subset does, however, contain the one cartoon that I think is actually funny, but it's one of only a few that try to be.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think everyone, but particularly Muslims, should be thankful for the cartoons
There's a huge difference between being thankful for an opportunity that has arisen from something wrong being done to you and being thankful for the wrong. Without the violence, there wouldn't have been nearly as much discussion. Should we all be thankful for the violence?
quote:I think that if you look beyond the mob, you would see that the cartoons have generated a tremendous amount of debate and opportunity for dialogue in terms of what it means to be a Muslim, why some parts of Islamic society are different from one another, and what the Occident and the Levant need to do to get along. This thread and many others are proof of this.
You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so.
This is a little mixed up. What was accomplished by the cartoons? At most, using your take on it, they generated useful discussion. They weren't part of that discussion.
The Danish newspaper wouldn't even have had to take a full-page ad out in the Times. They could have written an article about this topic without actually depicting Muhammad. You seem to be holding the peaceful protestors of useful discussion to a standard to which you are unwilling to allow others to hold the Danish paper to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions?
It was wrong of me to think it was your or your groups responsibility to moderate other Muslims. I admit I have fallen into being affected by a steady stream of negative news.
I married a Japanese woman. Several years ago the US media portrayed the Japanese as torturing, evil people. The government even relocated Japanese American citizens. That was very wrong.
I am trying to think how I would respond if I were Muslim. The closest thing I could come up with is if a paper made a series of cartoons about Joseph Smith that depicted him with sexual relations with multiple wives mixed in with printed temple ceremony rites. On my mission that would have been...beyond the pale.
The LDS church and the Catholic church have a strong authoritative leadership. I imagine the church would condemn the cartoons, pursue legal means to remove the cartoons (from possible websites over some type of copyright laws about the temple ceremony), and urge the membership to respond peacefully and Christ-like.
Does Islam have a strong hierarchy of power? Or is it like protestantism---many flavors depending on who the preacher/bishop/mosque religious figure is?
Is there a prophet or head of Islam today? I guess I don't understand the structure of the religion. I know about 3 factions in Iraq, the Ayatollah, and what seems to be spontaneous but structurally unrelated protests between citizens of different countries.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no head of Islam. There are Imams which are essentially local leaders, but no one is obligated to listen to them, and their opinions vary wildly.
There are no such things as congregations the way that Christians look at it. No one is baptized or registered.
Men come together for Friday mosque - the noon prayer - and there is a type of sermon given at that time (at least, there is here), but from what Fahim has told me, the person who's sermonizing here frequently gets details wrong or misinterprets things (according to Fahim's interpretation.) There is no central authority that says "This is the interpretation to believe." It's all individual.
That is one of the problems with Islam inasmuch as dissent and extremism comes in, in my view.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyone who views a guy who straps on an explosive belt and blows up kids riding on a bus is an animal. And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
I'm curious... if I told you there was a Jewish insurgent in World War II Nazi Germany, and that he blew up a Nazi school (with children and teachers inside) in order to fight back, would you consider that person to be animal?
Yes. Blowing up a school full of children would have been an act of insanity, and would have been zero help. But the utter immorality of such an act would be far more an issue than its futility.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And if some Jewish individuals told you they consider him heroic for doing so, would you consider them worthy of as severe of a punishment as you'd give these Muslim terrorists?
Absolutely not. It would be much, much worse were they to do so. Pardon my chauvinism, but I expect more from my own people.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, though there's no such thing as a killfile for an online forum, I've chosen to disregard anything Lyrhawn posts. Please don't take my lack of response as indicating agreement or acquiescence.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lem:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was wrong of me to think it was your or your groups responsibility to moderate other Muslims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it wasn't.
Let me rephrase. It was wrong of me to think it is her special or particular responsibility to moderate muslims. She is not in a position of power or authority.
Well all need to work to help stop exteme groups. As a muslim, she can certainly influence her peers to address this issue--but she has no special repsonsibilities the rest of us don't have--just different speheres of influence.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's a huge difference between being thankful for an opportunity that has arisen from something wrong being done to you and being thankful for the wrong. Without the violence, there wouldn't have been nearly as much discussion. Should we all be thankful for the violence?
I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
I recognize that Muslims would have preferred to have had more dialogue without the cartoons, but the issue of free speech and how it pertains to religion is one of the things that is closely wrapped up with the publication of the cartoons and the subsequent furor.
I'm not saying that Muslims should want more cartoons of Mohammed published. I'm just pointing out the very real fact that a lot of discussion has resulted from the publication of the cartoons.
Rakeesh, obviously we disagree.
El Jay, it's being reported that apparently some additional cartoons were inserted by some Muslims when they took the show to the Middle East to make them even more offensive.
To reiterate the information in my link from yesterday, officials in Lebanon are accusing Syrian agents of fomenting some of the riots.
quote: This is a little mixed up. What was accomplished by the cartoons? At most, using your take on it, they generated useful discussion. They weren't part of that discussion.
I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
quote: The Danish newspaper wouldn't even have had to take a full-page ad out in the Times. They could have written an article about this topic without actually depicting Muhammad. You seem to be holding the peaceful protestors of useful discussion to a standard to which you are unwilling to allow others to hold the Danish paper to.
I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity. My opinion is subjective, of course, and can't be proved.
I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
I don't see how I'm holding the protestors and the Danish newspaper to a different standard. I am pointing out that some forms of communication are more effective than others.
I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
And yet you stated that peaceful protest wouldn't be helpful.
quote:I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
quote:I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
You proposed that Muslims would have done better to take out an ad than protest. The Danish newspaper could have printed a full page article without taking out an ad - the preferred mode you suggest is even more readily available to the paper.
quote:I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity.
An article in lieu of the cartoons wouldn't have generated the anger or protests. It is the anger and protests that led to the discussion. Yet, you want the anger and protests not to happen.
quote:I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
The cartoons spread their message mostly because of the protests. The protests have made it very clear that many Muslims find this to be offensive. I guarantee you more people know that Muslims consider it blasphemous to visually portray the prophet than if the protests hadn't happened. As a means of getting a message out, it was quite effective.
Unfortunately, it was diluted by violence and other, intimidating messages.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
What's ridiculous is your inability to realize that not everyone who protested against the cartoons is a "death cultist." What's ridiculous is you equating boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger with rape.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
That's absolutely appropriate. starLisa may have even thought she was doing so. But since the accusation was aimed at a particular quote dealing with "boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger," she wasn't actually doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it unfortunate that the Iranian newspaper is choosing to have its contest focus on the Holocaust when none of the countries that ran the cartoons are predominently Jewish. Not that targetting any other group would be great, but it would more understandable. I realize it's both a question of traditional hatreds and that this has the potential to be much more offensive than a contest for cartoons making fun of Danes, but still. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
And yet you stated that peaceful protest wouldn't be helpful.
No, I said "You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. It seems like a bad way to respond to the cartoons, both because it doesn't get your response out very effectively, and because it makes you look like you're trying to shut down free speech."
I imagine the point is made equally ineffectively by both violent and peaceful protests.
quote: quote:I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
K. You recognize that you are arguing past my point about the effectiveness of the cartoons? Cartoons, boycotts, etc., are all different forms of communication generally and specifically, quantitatively and qualitatively. Further, I recognize that our perceptions of such are subjective. I'm not saying that there is some kind of absolute value assigned to each form of communication.
quote: quote:I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
You proposed that Muslims would have done better to take out an ad than protest. The Danish newspaper could have printed a full page article without taking out an ad - the preferred mode you suggest is even more readily available to the paper.
The Danish paper printed the satirical cartoons. It prints everything in its own paper. Why would it need to take out an ad? It's the paper. I said Muslims could take out an ad because that is the usual way groups get their point out in papers.
In my opinion, the cartoons are a much more effective way of communication than protests. Should they be the only thing said? No. No way. I absolutely agree that it would be good for the paper to have an article discussing both sides of the issue.
quote: quote:I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity.
An article in lieu of the cartoons wouldn't have generated the anger or protests.
Or the volume of disussion.
quote: It is the anger and protests that led to the discussion. Yet, you want the anger and protests not to happen.
No, what led to the discussion were the cartoons. Further, I don't care if people protest. Walk your little feet off, Muslims! It's just a crappy way to get out your rebuttal. To reiterate, protests only communicate edit: effectively to those present. Papers, the internet, these things reach millions.
quote: quote:I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
The cartoons spread their message mostly because of the protests. The protests have made it very clear that many Muslims find this to be offensive. I guarantee you more people know that Muslims consider it blasphemous to visually portray the prophet than if the protests hadn't happened. As a means of getting a message out, it was quite effective.
Unfortunately, it was diluted by violence and other, intimidating messages.
The message that a protest march sends is confused and muddled and basically just demonstrates anger. While I grant you that one message is that Muslims don't like depictions of Mohammed, the more forceful message for many people is just that Muslims are angry people. Further, a lot of people see it as much less of an issue of Muslims being offended at the depiction of Mohammed, than that they don't like what's being said about Islam, that they want to put themselves above the kind of satire that other groups have to deal with in a free society.
I agree that the protests help the cartoons 'spread their message', but that doesn't take away from what the cartoons are saying, the fact that the cartoons are much better at making a statement than the protests. As I said before, right or wrong, the belief that Islam is a violent religion is already very prevalent in the West. The protests, even the peaceful protests, do help make the point of some of the cartoons and further foster the perception that Muslims don't really want to be part of a free society. Lots of other groups get lampooned and don't feel the need to protest.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Danish paper printed the satirical cartoons. It prints everything in its own paper. Why would it need to take out an ad? It's the paper. I said Muslims could take out an ad because that is the usual way groups get their point out in papers.
It doesn't need to take out an ad. That's my point. I said the Danish paper could follow your advice (a full page explanation) more easily than the Muslims because it doesn't have to take out an ad. Good grief.
quote:K. You recognize that you are arguing past my point about the effectiveness of the cartoons?
No, I'm not. You said the cartoons generated a greater volume of discussion than an article would. My contention is that the cartoons only lead to discussion through the protests. Without the protest, the cartoons would have generated little discussion.
quote:No, what led to the discussion were the cartoons.
No, it's not. It was the protests that led to the discussion. The cartoons led to the protests.
quote:I agree that the protests help the cartoons 'spread their message', but that doesn't take away from what the cartoons are saying, the fact that the cartoons are much better at making a statement than the protests.
I think you drastically understate how much the sheer numbers involved in protests matter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My root disagreement with you Storm, however, is the idea that the protests are somehow an attempt at censorship or shutting down free speech, or that they appear that way. You praise the cartoons because they provoke a reaction and then condemn the reaction (and, once again starLisa, I'm not talking about the violence).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I have to ask: have you actually looked at the cartoons? You're very confident that they had a single collective purpose and that that purpose was to make the statement you ascribe to them.
Having seen them, I do agree with you that they had a single collective purpose, but as I've already mentioned in this thread, I think you're wrong about what that purpose was.
Added: Also, I don't buy your assertion that the cartoons have fostered meaningful discussion. They're like a Michael Moore film; they polarize debate rather than fostering discussion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not see a single collective purpose to the cartoons, although I admit that could be out of ignorance. What do you think it is, twinky?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to go for the day, and am probably going to be too tired to trust myself to reply intelligently (or at least what passes as such for me) later today or tomorrow. I'm pretty tired. I just want to say that I see everyone's replies. I read what you have to say, and will continue to read this thread.
Real quick, then:
Dagonee, I can't do a point by point reply to your next to last post as of this writing. Let me reply to this
quote: My root disagreement with you Storm, however, is the idea that the protests are somehow an attempt at censorship or shutting down free speech, or that they appear that way. You praise the cartoons because they provoke a reaction and then condemn the reaction (and, once again starLisa, I'm not talking about the violence).
Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
quote:
Twinky,
[quote] Storm, I have to ask: have you actually looked at the cartoons? You're very confident that they had a single collective purpose and that that purpose was to make the statement you ascribe to them.
Having seen them, I do agree with you that they had a single collective purpose, but as I've already mentioned in this thread, I disagree with you about what that purpose was.
I didn't see your previous reply in this thread. Sorry.
I don't, actually, think the cartoons all say the same thing. I don't even know that I've addressed the issue of what the general purpose of all the cartoons was, so I'm not sure what I've said that gave the impression that 'I'm very confident that they had a single collective purpose'. Since the question is basically being put to me now, I believe the original general point of the Danish paper was how Islam is percieved in the west? That religious icons aren't above 'discussion' in the west? I know that's why some other papers published the cartoons--or at least said they did.
I have to go. Thanks all for the discussion.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons
I have to give the Iran daily credit for being clever.
Really though... sticks and stones may break my bones, but cartoons published halfway around the world by some paper don't really do anything to anybody. With all the horrible things that go on the world, it's absolutely ridiculous to ever get worked up over a bunch of cartoons from a different country by a few people with poor taste, no matter who you are and what you believe. Then again, it's no worse than getting worked up over students having to say "under God" in schools, or having a statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, or the burning of a flag, or the wording of a science textbook, or countless other symbolic controversies that generally waste political time and energy - and in this case, some lives too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
That's absolutely appropriate. starLisa may have even thought she was doing so. But since the accusation was aimed at a particular quote dealing with "boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger," she wasn't actually doing so.
The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Note that their obscene Holocaust cartoon contest isn't anything new. They've been doing that for decades. And I must have missed all of the violent Jewish demonstrations.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Not that targetting any other group would be great, but it would more understandable. I realize it's both a question of traditional hatreds and that this has the potential to be much more offensive than a contest for cartoons making fun of Danes, but still. 
