Somewhere out in the world, machine guns are being fired, products removed from shelves, and death threats have been given towards whole nations, over cartoons of the prophet Mohammad commissioned by a paper in Denmark. Protests Over Muhammad Cartoons Escalate
In the name of free speech some European magazines have published the images as a stand against pacifying Muslim fundamentalism. The issue is so contentious that the very fact a news organizations choose to reprint such images becomes a news item in itself as well as bragging rights about putting it up. Canada, New Zealand, Spain, BBC
The reason these fundamentalist are upset is because creating a picture of Mohammad is blasphemy because it encourages idolatry. But it seems making death threats that one intends to carry out or drawing images of impaling people through the throat is not. So much for the religion of peace that should be so strictly followed.
So I am publishing the "offensive" images on my blog as that’s what I think about appeasing Muslim fundamentalists, or anyone who uses threats to keep the press from publishing anything they don’t like.
As for those who feel that one should respect other people’s religion, my stance is cultural relativism only goes so far. There are ideals in the world
like freedom, free speech, and freedom of expression that goes beyond
culture and region. Not to mention the cultural relativism of the free world is that you can indeed publish ideas that may be offensive and the middle east can start respecting the rights of countries like Denmark. It goes both ways.
Finding the images was a bit of a task, as they were not on the wires at all. The only place for a while was ABC news video (Go to ABC Videos to
find.) "Muslim Unfunny Video" The CNN news pieces has Pix elated the images so not to offend viewers.
In the end France’s Le Monde had them in full.
Here we go. The images
Yan Sham-Shackleton Online 
No one is arguing that freedom of speech is not an ideal to be embraced throughout the world. However it should be tempered with the knowledge how incendiary some words and pictures may be.
By ridiculing the violent reactions of militant Muslims is to make light of the culpability of the provocateurs for stirring up the hornets’ nest in the first place.
Why add fuel into a flame that’s already burning out of control?
LikeLike
But these people weren’t reacting because of how the pictures were presented. Some were almost like something you might expect from an illustrated Bible. These people were protesting because they heard the Prophet was being depicted AT ALL.
I can understand how they might feel some of their were unfair. But there was a recent TV programme that portrayed Rabbis as cannibals in the Middle East – there was no outrage from people there. This is an issue of double-standards. They feel the right to demonise Israelis, Jews, Christians, Americans, etc – but, hey, if Muslims are ever shown negatively then call out the Marines because that’s unfair!
This all started because a children’s book writer found that illustrators were all terrified about the consequences of them drawing the Prophet in his book. He complained to the media, so a challenge to depict Mohammad was made. That is why the images were produced (it just happened that some of the artists were satarists).
It is not illegal in European countries to draw pictures of religious figures – nor is it illegal to satarise. Muslims have to accept that if something is legal, just being annoyed with it doesn’t justify flag-burning and death threats. If we bowed to their wishes, what’s next? Shops having to stop selling pork and alchohol because Muslims found it offensive? No, if you don’t like something legal make a peaceful protest or ignore it. Violence is not justified in response!
LikeLike
I wasn’t making fun of Muslim Fundementalists. I am saying what I think, which is they are ridiculous. I have NO respect for such people as much as they have no respect for people who believe in secular states and lifestyles.
As for no one provoked them. The Demark Newspaper simply did what the editorial team felt would make an interesting article. You can stop doing things just because some ultra violent fantatics might get upset with you. That’s simply letting them win.
They are acting in a total unreasonable manner. Did you even look at the photo I posted. If you can’t see the hyprocracy of the situation then you’re just blinded by either fear or rose tinted glasses of what third world people are like. These people are FANATICS. they don’t even represent the majority of Muslims not even in their own country. A lot of people in those countries live in fear of the persecution of these religious nuts.
Backing down just makes the situation worse. if you look at history. Appeasement only causes further chaos. That is what Chamberlin did for the Nazis, backing down from their demands and expansion. What did it get them? An ever more violent a confidence expanding German state that lead to a full blown war that eventually turned into a “world war.”
Those fundementalists are no better than the Nazis, appeasing them is like American news papers started to write anti-semantics rhetoric in the light of what was happening in Germany. They just went with the most extreme of a society without questioning what was going on at the time.
Not to mention. Fuel to fire? I posted a few PHOTOS, they are threatenning to kill people. And you’re telling me off? Maybe you should tell them to stop burning flags first.
LikeLike
I wasn’t making fun of Muslim Fundementalists. I am saying what I think, which is they are ridiculous. I have NO respect for such people as much as they have no respect for people who believe in secular states and lifestyles.
As for no one provoked them. The Demark Newspaper simply did what the editorial team felt would make an interesting article. You can stop doing things just because some ultra violent fantatics might get upset with you. That’s simply letting them win.
They are acting in a total unreasonable manner. Did you even look at the photo I posted. If you can’t see the hyprocracy of the situation then you’re just blinded by either fear or rose tinted glasses of what third world people are like. These people are FANATICS. they don’t even represent the majority of Muslims not even in their own country. A lot of people in those countries live in fear of the persecution of these religious nuts.
Backing down just makes the situation worse. if you look at history. Appeasement only causes further chaos. That is what Chamberlin did for the Nazis, backing down from their demands and expansion. What did it get them? An ever more violent a confidence expanding German state that lead to a full blown war that eventually turned into a “world war.”
Those fundementalists are no better than the Nazis, appeasing them is like American news papers started to write anti-semantics rhetoric in the light of what was happening in Germany. They just went with the most extreme of a society without questioning what was going on at the time.
Not to mention. Fuel to fire? I posted a few PHOTOS, they are threatenning to kill people. And you’re telling me off? Maybe you should tell them to stop burning flags first.
LikeLike
Analysis: Arab Protests are Calculated Political Response
Mass protests, threats of violence and boycotts in the Arab world are exaggerated reactions to the Mohammed cartoon and an example of how governments instrumentalize hatred against the West for political purposes.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1890725,00.html
LikeLike
Yan, I totally agree.
LikeLike
The famous pictures published by Jyllandsposten can be found on this page (towards the bottom) along with many others. Some of them are modern and made by Muslims.
BTW, commenter RAJ has it completely right.
The taboo on images is strictly a religious demand that only believers can be expected to follow.
Sharia does not apply in Europe.
LikeLike
I agree that the fanatics are a disease and I am for the WoT. It’s just my sentiments that these recent events only serve to antagonise the extremists even more while putting the moderates in a hard place by depicting Islam (the whole of Islam!) as a religion of terrorism when it’s not.
Yes stand up to them by all means. Show them the power of freedom of speech. But there must better ways to criticise Islam and terrorists than this.
LikeLike
You wrote: ”The issue is so contentious that the very fact a news organizations choose to reprint such images becomes a news item in itself as well as bragging rights about putting it up.”
I believe you are more likely to be doing the same thing than preaching any idealism. You are just as self serving and attention-seeking as the mainstream.
In my personal opinion.
LikeLike
Im sorry I forgot to post the link that was my whole point of commenting here:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
-sorry
LikeLike
I would just like to add that the Muslim protestors are hypocrites. They say they’re complaining about how Muslims are treated – well how often do they protest against how the Uygurs are treated in China?! Police brutality, rape and general violence passes without comment, but they threaten war over cartoons?
These people have no decency or respectability in my opinion…..
LikeLike
Another … peculiarity, about the response by the muslim community to the cartoons is that the cartoons are being reprinted in newspapers in countries like Jordan, and being hand-carried throughout the territories just to inflame muslims even further!
If it were so haram, why do muslim papers reprint the cartoons? If they’re so immoral, why then carry them by hand to show to friends and families? It’s done to inflame passion against a perceived (real or imaginary) outside threat, a galvanizing force in the muslim world.
LikeLike
I agree with Mooiness, there must be a better way to deal with Muslim extremists, but that’s not really my audience. I didn’t do it to inflame them per se, but as a point of view that we cannot back down in any way to their violence. Today i was watching the BBC and these protesters were rioting in the Christain neighbourhood, and throwing rocks into people’s windows.
I was thinking, that would be equivilant to the Christain right wing going into a secular neighbourhood or a Muslim neighbourhood in the US doing the same thing because of some real of imagined infraction. If it was the case, peopple would be shouting and screaming about putting those people in jail as they should and it would be used to prove how unreasonable and dangerous these people are. But somehow because they are Muslim people in a third world country, some people in the first world with their cultural relativism will feel one should pacify them or understand where they are coming from. But really extremist are extremists. They are equally violent to the people in their own country who disagree with them as much as they hate “the west.”
Lately, I am slowlying coming to the conclusion these muslim fundementalists really need to be stopped not only because they are dangerous to people in democratic countries with their terroism, but they are over taking the rights of other muslims to practice their religion freely. And it’s not the west’s job to make life easy for the more moderate muslims, it’s the moderate muslim’s jobs to take back their religion, and put these people in their place by start calling them fundementalists, and activly stopping these people from hijacking their religion both politically and in the public’s eye instead of keeping quiet and backing them up through silence or fear.
LikeLike
glutter,
your last post/comment is awesome.
LikeLike
i had one more comment. i think your advocacy work is admirable. have you thought about how much longer you can safely remain in hk? if google.cn is blocking out glutter, then the security bureau probably also has a file on you.
LikeLike
I believe someone once said about religion that those who think unreasonable thoughts are bound to do unreasonable things.
LikeLike
Both sides are wrong here. The Danish paper went overboard depicting any GOD in that way..esp as being a terrorist. But the Muslims have really gone overboard with these violent demonstations that endangered innocent people. They’ve even shot a priest! They’re just being provoked and brainwashed to protest against the west.. they never even knew where Denmark is! and still dont!
Definately agree with Glutter here, it’s the educated and moderate muslims that have to take back their own religion from being soiled into the ground.
LikeLike
There are times when we need to be sensitive to other’s beliefs and there are times when we need to stand up for our rights. On this issue, we need to stand up for our rights.
Saying “both sides are wrong” is an absolute cop-out. And the idea that “there must be better ways to criticise Islam and terrorists than this” is ludicrous. How can there be a better way when the mere depiction of Muhammad insights calls for murder?
I hope that Iranian newspaper goes through with its holocaust cartoon contest. If I had the time I’ll stage my own protest with a sign that reads “We support freedom of speech. Including yours.”
LikeLike
Conflict, or “provocation from the outside,” seems to be a galvanizing force in the muslim world. Religious leaders seem to foment it: jihad, insurgencies, fanatical hatred of Israel and jews in general, contempt for the West, etc.
LikeLike
Something that illustrates the current situation very well in my opinion:
LikeLike
“Conflict, or “provocation from the outside,” seems to be a galvanizing force in the muslim world”
The same in the western world: ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’, alert levels going up causing Bush’s ratings to go up…
LikeLike
Herald,
I agree, although I wasn’t referring to the Bush administration, to the extent that it’s using similar reasoning to justify its policies in American political discourse (WoT, warrantless wiretapping, “Black sites” to detain terrorists in E.Europe, extraordinary rendition, Iraq, Afganistan, policy towards N. Korea, etc. etc.). But the admin reasons along statist lines – as opposed to strictly religious – against (for the most part) a real enemy whose leaders are at large who has already struck and has stated clearly their group, which is gaining force, will strike again.
I was referring with my earlier comment to parochial muslim leaders who feel that Islam’s been slighted by the world, denied its rightful place (by the West, by the christian crusades (which are just as alive to muslims as if it were WWII), by all infidels) as the guiding force of all human life. To bring muslims together to fight this outside influence (as opposed to an identifiable group), imams preach hatred and exclusion. I think the current middle east conflicts – US in Iraq, Afganistan, ongoing existence of Israel, et al. – have inspired conservative muslims to bring about a renaissance of muslim influence. I’ve heard the jihad against the US and Israel referred to as a “Woodstock”, which is illustrative.
The reality I perceive is a plethora of pockets of radical religious leaders (imams) who are steering their flocks towards violence against the West. Towards whom in the west apparently doesn’t matter, as long as America the “Great Satan”, and of course Israel, is included in the mix.
I’m firmly convinced that the cartoonish furor over the cartoons is a deliberate manipulation by conservative elements within the muslim world to spark a muslim revival predicated on hatred, and the destruction of opposition (chiefly Israel and the West). My earlier point was that these elements have come to define themselves by their hatred of the West and anything non-muslim, aka infidel.
LikeLike
I don’t think they ‘have become’ but rather ‘are becoming’. We’re in the middle of a spiral where escalation on one side prompts escalation on the other. Fundies on one side, wingnuts on the other. It’s time someone started de-escalating.
LikeLike
Take a read of Samuel Huntingdons excellent essay The Clash of Civilizations. Pre 9/11 he had in effect predicted what is unfolding in the world today, not only in the Muslim world but also with regard to Russia, China and India. The section on Russia is especially poignant in regards to the emergence of Putin as yet another proto-fascist oligarch.
This viewpoint is an excellent way of examining the central truth to this whole affair, that Muslims wish to establish an alternative world order. It may not be apparent to all of them, they may not all wish to be part of the struggle for one and there are many fellow travellers who stand to gain from this movement i.e. the Palestinians and the Iranian state, but the evidence is clear. It is preached by radical clerics, it is espoused by Al-Qaeda, but most importantly it is written (allegedly, as I haven’t read it) in the Koran. There are verses that call for the destruction of the enemies of Islam, and sets out exactly who those enemies are: non-Muslims.
I firmly believe that the only way to deal with the Muslim world is to treat it the same way as the West dealt with the threat of Communism. Contain it, tie it down on all fronts and force Muslims to confront choices between state and religion/ideology. At the same time be careful not to confuse statehood with religion/ideology e.g. Vietnam.
LikeLike
Harald, them’s weasel words. If someone is looking for a fight, you can’t back down.
LikeLike
Harald.
For all the bad things that the “wing nuts” did to create the situation. Do you not think something like September 11th is a “Fuck you” from the “fundies” in the point of esculation? 🙂
Otherwise..
I mean, if invading Afganistan or Iraq is another esculation, what would have been an appropiate behavior for de-esculation with a bunch of terroists who is stateless and cannot be negotiated with.
Bin-Laden and co is a more frightenning madman than Hitler was. At least the latter had borders and a state and a country which you could depose off and put another government in place.
In the recent developments, I feel fear… The fundementalist can manipulate a large number of people over NOTHING. A few cartoons into complete violence. Really. I mean, freak out if the US invaded Iran. But it’s just images on a paper. It’s not even an issue of being sensitive. At most it was a cultural “opps” and if we must make it really bad. It was a malicious cultural opps.
Breaking things, hurting people, firing machine guns inflaming hatred towards whole NATIONS and peoples in something else.
Yan
LikeLike
Afghanistan was a fitting response (or, should’ve been had they actually tried to capture Bin Laden). Iraq is the (unnecessary) escalation. Bin Laden is not more frightening than Hitler. Hitler commanded millions, Bin Laden doesn’t. Hitler killed millions, Bin Laden hasn’t and probably won’t. Al Qaeda was a small group that managed to stage a small (only 3000 dead) but spectacular attack. Attacking their base and an effective hunt would’ve severely damaged if not destroyed the organisation. Instead we forgot about Bin Laden, and created a terrorist training ground in Iraq. And if the US army wouldn’t be stretched already, they’d probably be in Syria or Iran as well. There is a lot of hatred for the US and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the West – ever wonder why that is? Why they haven’t attacked China for example? Muslims don’t have any beef with China. But the Europe in a distant past and more recently the US have made a lot of enemies there. Making more won’t help anyone.
The Muslim world is going through changes. Al Jazeera has brought political discussion to the homes of people who were used to being told what to think. European cartoons have sparked a discussion on freedom of speech. This is good. But it needs to be a discussion, not a fight. And talk by Western extremists about glass parking lots, people being animals, calling them evil, even vague things like ‘tying them down’, ‘constraining them’ strengthens the fundamentalists. It proves their assertion that the West is out to culturally conquer them. The biggest force for free speech in the Muslim world is Al Jazeera and the idiot Bush wants to bomb them (in fact they have already. twice). The West must be seen as benevolent, otherwise they will never accept our values. Aggressive policies will only be answered with hostiliy. Muslims need to see we’re working for their interests, not ours. We should be supporting reformers in the Muslim world, not forcing our reform upon them. Otherwise, like the rest of Western interference before, it will be short lived and ineffectual.
LikeLike
I’m sorry but I disagree with the whole approach of consensus building, let’s just get along bullshit. That’s the knee jerk European reaction, born of being unable to do anything else.
Consider, I am currently in Cape Town where we have a sizeable population of Muslim origin, from South East Asia. So far they have been protesting relatively peacefully. But what has been most noticeable has been the revival in the Muslim customs over the past few years, of men wearing traditional headgear and women taking the veil. I remember working in an office around the time of the first gulf war. There was a Muslim guy and a Jewish guy working in the same office and there was a lot of banter around the office(‘Saddam told me get just one Jew!’), not the tension that we expect today.
We actually had our experience of Islamic terrorism a good few years before 9/11. There was a bombing campaign in the mid 90’s by an Al-Qaeda cell, that blew up a restuarant in Cape Town killing and maiming a few tourists.
The point I am making is that there has been an awakening of a once dormant force that has emerged from what we, used to secular states, consider a relogion to become what we usually identify as an ideology. You can’t de-escalate an ideology.
LikeLike
i know of some fundamentalists who attacked a sovreign country,even after the united nations voted against this illegal act!these fundamentalist will also have you believe that another country is apparently planning to build weapons of mass destruction.its great to see the west in full cry,if youve got oil and your muslim we’ll be there to bring you democracy just as soon as we can.hang in there iran were comming to save you!!!!! its a shame china is not a muslim country with oil reserves.but alas, only muslims deserve democracy.only muslim countrys that cant defend themselves against the world bully that is.
LikeLike
That sarcasm’s radical, draper. Not reasonable. But it’s certainly well-within the popular dogma. Good job.
So the wicked West’s the global terrorist. Hmm. Novel.
LikeLike
hey tom,do you think the united states will encourage iraq to once again participate in military action against iran? hmm,the wicked west.radical sarcasm! how about….petrolium companys have finally worked out how to distill blood out of petrolium,especially that dam filthy middle eastern petrolium.consumers can now be confident of clean engines and guilt free democracy all year round.
LikeLike
“You can’t de-escalate an ideology.”
On the contrary. The thing is, you can’t kill an ideology. Every time you go in with guns blazing, American-style shooting first and talking later, dismissing dead civilians as collateral damage, torturing people, spreading corruption, screwing up entire countries, creating failed nations, then you feed the ideology, then you create more terrorists.
“So the wicked West’s the global terrorist. Hmm. Novel.” There is a point to it – just look at the West’s involvement around the world – from Chili, Nigaragua, via Iraq, Iran, to Vietnam, Indonesia. It may be sarcasm, but there is a truth in there.
LikeLike
I agree that the west (US/EU/Israel/etc.) certainly is more involved in world affairs than most other states, but terrorism is more narrowly defined. I agree that the west interferes with foreign sovereigns and sometimes acts in violation of international law (even narrowly defined), but to label the west terrorist is not at all accurate. Calling the west “terrorist” is part of an unreasonable political discourse that’s neither correct nor incorrect – it’s merely polemical.
The west may be meddling and prone to interference w/foreign states and others’ internal matters to further its own interests, but that does not mean that they engage in “terrorism” per se. I was addressing the mindless dogma in draper’s comment – the argument that the west committed “terrorism” by invading Iraq (waging war is not “terrorism”); it’s “declaring war”; that threats to strike, or actually striking, Iranian nuclear facilities is not “terrorism” – it would be an agressive state act to neutralize a perceived (actual or imagined) threat (although I think the threat is actual – for example, Russia has offered to enrich uranium and then transport it to Iran, but Iran insists on enriching its own uranium – for what other purpose than weapons? From a state that has specifically stated its desire to “wipe Israel off the map”!); that the west is involved in order to exploit oil reserves – there’s absolutely nothing credible substantiating this claim that I’ve heard or read; that the only reason the west hasn’t invaded China is b/c it has no oil (China DOES have oil – http://www.china.org.cn/english/2005/Jun/131892.htm); etc.
International affairs are complicated, and I agree that the west doesn’t have “clean hands”, if you will. But the argument that the west engages in “terrorism” against muslim states in order to steal their oil is absolute bullshit.
LikeLike
The reason the west hasn’t invaded China is because how else would they be able to get cheap commodities and products if they went to war? What would you guys wear?? 😛
But going back to the original argument about cartoons and free speech. Have you guys read about the Iranian news paper that is holding a competition asking for cartoons of the Holocaust?
What do you think?
Personally, the cartoons have to be. It’s bad taste but as the Iranian paper said, “Does this free speech issue go both ways?”
HOWEVER what I found quite horrific is that the professor in the University in Iran said that the Holocaust was a “Jewish Frabrication.”
And not to mention that Iran can’t possible be talking about freedom of speech, they jail journalists and bloggers ALL the time.
Y
LikeLike
I agree that any holocaust cartoons must be permitted. And I can say with near certainty that jews won’t burn, destroy, kill or threaten to behead Iranian cartoonists as a consequence of the cartoons.
In the US, Yan you might recall the “Piss Christ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) exhibit in NYC and elsewhere: basically a christian crucifix submerged in a jar of urine and put on display. Also, the Anti-Defamation League in the US was created to “stop the defamation of teh jewish people” – while accepting the freedom of speech and of the press, they work to change the negative ways Americans view Jews.
EVEN on the Anti-Defamation Leagues website are published some cartoons depicting jews in awful ways. From http://www.adl.org:
“Anti-Semitism in the Muslim and Arab press is hardly a new phenomenon. In newspapers throughout the Muslim and Arab world, Jews are routinely depicted in editorial cartoons as controlling, manipulative killers who are working to undermine the Islamic world and to kill Arabs. The caricatures show Jews as Nazi-like, hooked nosed and clad in stereotypical black hats and beards.”
See more anti-jew cartoons at their website here: http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm.
Muhammad cartoons are not a manifestation of the freedom of speech/press not “cutting both ways”. It’s simply a political assertion without any real evidentiary support.
Moreover, this is not the first time muslims have reacted with violence; see this clip from the 1968 edition of the New York Times: http://www.geocities.com/x95lee/Pakistanprotest.pdf.
Iranian calls for muslim media to publish anti-jew cartoons is simply “drumming the war drum” – whipping up more anti-jew sentiment. They fkg HATE Israelis, and have generalized their hatred to all jews.
Moreover, you should see the video that aired on Syrian TV during the Ramadan holy holiday called “Blood Libel”, which depicts jews kidnapping a Palestinian boy in order to drain his blood as part of a “jew ceremony”.
All this fuss about publishing anti-jew cartoons is, again, well, bullshit.
LikeLike
By the way, that “Blood Libel” video is available online at memri.org: http://www.memri.org/video/
(MEMRI = Middle East Media Research Institute)
LikeLike
Link above is screwed up:
Anti-Defamation League jew cartoons: http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm
LikeLike
1968 NY Times article:
http://www.geocities.com/x95lee/
LikeLike
Here’s a question that cuts to the heart of this issue: Do you hold the guiding principles at stake in this debate to be independent of or dependent on human experience? In other words, do the principles of free speech, or of any of what we term ‘natural rights’ transcend the human situation, or are they the result of hard won experience of which rules best govern human endeavours. Because, it seems to me that when you hold free speech up as this absolute right, unfettered by any constraint, that you place yourself in the same position as those you would oppose and who have similar absolute claims over their position.
If we examine the alternative however, that free speech is the best way to oppose the destructive forces of human nature, we run into the twin problems that we can judge some systems of thought and culture as being superior to others, and more importantly that there are no hard and fast natural rights. If empiricism governs the laws we make then if circumstances imply necessity then natural rights are free to be sacrificed.
LikeLike
Debate continues here: http://glutter.typepad.com/glutter/2006/02/holocaust_vs_mo.html
LikeLike
hey tom…. that the west is involved to exploit oil reserves.theres absolutly nothing credible substantiating this claim that ive heard or read….iraqi peoples were denied the use of their own hosptals while priority was given not to democracy,not to helping the wounded,but to securing oil fields!!!!!!!or how about the fact that the last two attacks on iraq were both led by texan presidents who are both involved in the crude oil industry when not in office!!!!hey tom,i agree that not all oil bearing muslim countrys are attacked for their oil.just look at sauidi arabia or kuwait or oman.you wont find any good ol democracy in these countrys.why is that so?why havent the west brought democracy to these muslim states,tom? absolute bullshit, hey tom? the only absolute bullshit i can smell is slowly leeching out of your flowery semantics.as for the right to free speach.who is this individual hidding out in the dannish press who commisioned these cartoons?he or she should be named and have the decentcy to explain just what was their intent.its easy to hide in a crowd and throw stones.
LikeLike
Draper could you see that one can be for free speech independent on attacking people for the sake of thier oil? That one can be stimultenously against invasion and stopping people from going to hospital but still believe in free speech?
Do you really think those ideas are contridictory of each other?
Y
LikeLike
Draper, here’s what you’re offering to support your “oil conspiracy” argument:
– “iraqi peoples were denied the use of their own hospitals while priority was given not to democracy,not to helping the wounded,but to securing oil fields”
– “the last two attacks on iraq were both led by texan presidents who are both involved in the crude oil industry when not in office”
– countries such as Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, which have oil, have not been attacked.
Not very compelling. And I’m not trying to insult you draper, I’m only trying to cut through some of the BS that’s floated around in public discussions.
As to the first, that Iraqis were denied access to their hospitals: first I question the source of your information, then I question whether it actually happened, and then I question whether there was some other compelling reason to protect oil fields rather than to “deny Iraqis access to their hospitals” as you claim, and so on. This argument is flimsy at best.
Then you argue that because the last two presidents were Texans formerly involved in the oil industry, there must be an oil conspiracy. But this is a misrepresentation of the first Gulf War. In 1991, the response to Saddam Hussein’s belligerant act of annexing Kuwait was exactly to what the UN Charter was designed to respond. The force included mostly American troops, but was truly a multinational force endorsed by UN members. The fact that George Bush senior was president at the time could be nothing other than chance, unless you’re willing to go an extra step to suggest that the “wicked west” conspired to dupe Hussein into waging an aggressive campaign to claim Kuwait.
Lastly you argue that the fact that Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, which have oil, have not been attacked, provides proof that America (and apparently also the west) conspires to “steal” the the oil supplies of smaller, weaker countries. This is misleading – isn’t it true that better proof of some sort of oil conspiracy would exist if the west/US HAD invaded those other countries? Besides, there are many other counties who’ve never been invaded that have oil. Venuzuela, for example, is openly hostile towards Washington, and they have massive oil reserves, but no invasion.
My point is that the “oil conspiracy” is a misleading, unsubstantiated, and wildly oversimplifying concept that is useless and incorrect.
As to the free speech issue, which as Yan noted is completely uncoupled from the oil debate, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons has already stated, repeatedly, that the cartoonists, or the editor who instructed the cartoonists to draw the cartoons (so ordered b/c the paper editors felt it was exercising too much self-censorship on muslim issues and wanted to move towards freer expression), b/c of safety issues. W/the muslim world inflamed over 12 simple, mostly innocuous drawings, and threatening to “behead,” “slay,” “butcher,” and “exterminate” the cartoonists, it is no secret why their actual identities are not revealed.
LikeLike
hey tom,your point is like anyones.gathered from real and or missleading information fed to a world by media outlets which are more concerned with profits and shareholders than truth in reporting.you talk of 12 simple,mostly innocuous drawings.yet muslims dont agree with your defence of these cartoons do they tom.hey tom if someone dropped a bomb on your familyy,then illegaly invaded your country,then started taking your natural resources,then made fun of your god in a cartoon,would you be upset?freer expression,what a weak argument.how about freer provocation,and an increase in paper sales.the dannish press should stick to safer issues like selling more coke and mcdonnalds!
LikeLike
I understand that Iraqis and Afganis have something to be angry about re occupation. I understand the rage that comes from having someone you care about stolen away in an act of violence.
However, protests have erupted across the muslim world, not just in those countries. And what natural resources have been stolen away? In both Afganistan and Iraq, the US has poured billions of dollars into efforts to rebuild infrastructure (which are subsequently blown up or destroyed by insurgents, by the way), provide medical care and food, and other methods to assist the people. Yet propaganda says that the Americans are “stealing natural resources,” or softening-up Iraq and Afganistan for American companies to steal their wealth, or whatever. Which paints a picture of a conspiracy, but a picture of a thing is not a thing in fact.
Did a PRIVATE newspaper in Denmark invade your country? Did it drop any bombs, ever? Did it take any resource at all, other than a small amount of electricity used to search for the images on the internet? All it did was publish several cartoons about Muhammad in order to demonstrate that it’s not censoring itself regarding muslim issues.
What you apparently cannot understand is the difference between saying something offensive and committing a tangible harm (which is an actual harm in fact (including inciting violence), rather than hurt feelings). There’s a big difference.
But instead your dialogue muddies the issues by claiming the “west” is stealing your resources, bombing your families, invading your country, etc. You ask a stupid question the answer to which ANYONE would answer “yes”, which may apply in fact to but a small community of those involved in the protests. Has the west invaded Jordan? Syria? Pakistan? Iran? The UK? The US? Indonesia? You’re arguing with half-truths and mischaracterizations.
What do you think about this argument:
There’s a lake in Scotland called Loch Ness. Numerous pictures have been taken there of some sort of dinosaur-like creature that occasionally rises from the depths to show itself. The locals tell tales of seeing the creature they call “Nessie”. Many sightings of the Nessie have been recorded, going back at least as far as St. Columba, the Irish monk who converted most of Scotland to Christianity in the 6th century.
Does that mean that a dinosaur lives on in a lake in West Highlands of Scotland?
LikeLike
But Draper, how would you feel if while you were at school in another city. Somebody who don’t like your family made up a rumour that your brother said something against The government. The secret police came in the middle of the night and took him away. Tortured him to the point he’s lost an ear, broken his legs, and all that without any proof. When they threw him back home they also came into your house and smashed everything up. Next week they came to gang rape your sister, who now has shamed the whole family, who can never get married, who as her older brother under Muslim law, you should now KILL her. Then the week after that they came and took your whole family away, including your little brother who is five and your elderly grandmother, and then buried them alive in a mass grave becaue now they decided that your whole village is full of dissidents and they can’t be bothered to find out who is who for efficiency sake.
What’s worse is there is NOTHING you can do about it. There are no courts, no law, no police, nothing is independent from the flimsy, inconsistent whims of leaders and their friends. Not to mention there is no free press, there isn’t even any blind sided media to tell any story either way because as far as the government is concerned, your family never existed, the village never existed and the atrocities didn’t happen and even if they did, hey, who really cares? And how will you get proof because they have sectioned off the whole area and no one can come in or out of it.
You can’t tell anyone, not your friends, and surely not foreign journalists because if you’re seen to talk to them, you will be dead. in fact you probably will be dead just because you know too much, or they might think you’re part of the rebels… it can all be completely untrue, but even if it is, should that still happen.
If that happenned to you how would you feel?
Sadam was not a good guy. I find it horrible people are angry that he got deposed. He should have been gone a long time ago. It’s actually the most fucked up thing about America, how they will support despots because of National Security not because they get rid of them.
yan
LikeLike
LikeLike
:), I’d like to believe in mythical monsters too – makes life more interesting.
LikeLike