Terrorists cant stop Armies, Money and Oil.

[Guest]

This is a kind of weird situtation.

CNN wont even shop the cartoon image that started this all strickly as news(probably because it fears fo ts reporters lives), yet Muslim papers often run terrible anti-semetic images and no one bothers to complain.

I only could find one site posting the oh so evil image.
http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-...ed-Westerga.jpg

Personally I think the picture itself is silly(not funny) but I understand its insulting. However censorship at gun point is a bit more offensive.

[jahcs]

Is there any more published story to this? What is the backround for this issue?

CNN can run what they choose, as long as it's factual. If they choose not to run a rather childish picture then that's their right.

Major Muslim reporting organizations and their goals and biases are a whole other can of worms.

When any news organization is used more for propaganda than impartial reporting it's a sad day for everyone.

[gekko]

Is there any more published story to this?  What is the backround for this issue?

CNN can run what they choose, as long as it's factual.  If they choose not to run a rather childish picture then that's their right.

Major Muslim reporting organizations and their goals and biases are a whole other can of worms.

When any news organization is used more for propaganda than impartial reporting it's a sad day for everyone.
[right][snapback]100968[/snapback][/right]

From canada.com,

Fundamentalist Muslims protested outside the Danish Embassy in Malaysia, chanting "Long live Islam. Destroy our enemies" and accusing Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper, which first published the cartoons, of seeking to incite hatred. (bold mine)

I understand the outrage surfacing; even positive depictions of Muhamed are strictly forbidden by most Islamic groups. However, this kind of overrarching hatred and anger towards entire countries after a single published cartoon is just a little extreme.

gekko

[jahcs]

Thanks for the link. Is it just me or are these Muslim fundamentalists wound a bit too tight?

The folks that printed the images should be ashamed of themselves. WTF did they think would happen? Anytime anything even slightly provoking happens the Radical Muslims of the world riot and scream for blood.

Egyptian Ambassador Mona Omar Attia said afterward that the Danish leader's response was inadequate and that the country should do more to "appease the whole Muslim world."

What does he suggest, turning over the responsible parties for summary execution like most of the folks quoted in the article want? Frankly I'm getting tired of all this "appeasment" and PC BS. No one should have to pander to anyone else.

In Baghdad, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, denounced publication of the caricatures. However, he suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for projecting "a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

What's that, could you speak a little louder please? I think some thousands of people need to hear this.



From the timesonline.co.uk

...The trigger for the latest clash of cultures was the publication by the Danish newspaper Jyllends-Posten on September 30 of 12 cartoons of Muhammad. A biographer of the prophet had complained that no one would dare to illustrate his book, and the newspaper challenged cartoonists to draw pictures of the prophet in a self-declared battle for freedom of speech.

In October ambassadors from ten Muslim countries complained to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, who refused to interfere with the press’s freedom.

But the issue began to boil this month after the cartoons appeared in Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, and on the website of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

Just because you can print something doesn't mean you should.

Imams denounced Denmark from their pulpits, the Arab press inflamed pent-up Muslim anger at the West and last Friday the Saudi Government recalled its ambassador, but still Mr Rasmussen refused to apologise. He condemned attempts to “demonise people because of religious beliefs”, but argued: “The Government can in no way influence the media."

The leadership of Denmark is admirable for it's backbone on this issue. Too bad poor choices by other people forced it into this spot.

...President Lahoud of Lebanon condemned the cartoons, saying his country “cannot accept any insult to any religion”.

The pot calling the kettle black on that one.

Bill Clinton, the former US President, added his voice, telling a conference in Qatar that he feared anti-Semitism would be replaced with anti-Islamic prejudice. He condemned “these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam”.

Bill Clinton needs to get his head out of the sand. Anti-Semitism won't be replaced by anything. Anti-Islamic prejudice is already there. Every car burned in Europe, every train bombed, every bus blown up, every head cut off, insures this.

Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of Jyllends-Posten, which has hired extra security after staff received death threats, said that the drawings “were not in violation of Danish law but have offended many Muslims, which we would like to apologise for”. He added that the drawings were “sober and were not meant to be offensive” to Muslims.

There's the appology - too little too late. Too many ears are clogged with anger at this point.

[Occhidiangela]

This is a kind of weird situtation.

CNN wont even shop the cartoon image that started this all strickly as news(probably because it fears fo ts reporters lives), yet Muslim papers often run terrible anti-semetic images and no one bothers to complain.

I only could find one site posting the oh so evil image.
http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-...ed-Westerga.jpg

Personally I think the picture itself is silly(not funny) but I understand its insulting. However censorship at gun point is a bit more offensive.
[right][snapback]100957[/snapback][/right]

The proper response to the complaint is as follows:

"What, you can't take a joke? Get over yourselves."

Given some of the abusive political cartoons that I have seen in my day of Jimmy Carter, Ronnie Ray Gun, WJ Clinton, Dick "Ski Slope Nose" Nixon and GW Bush, I want to know how some Muslim Arab schmoe gets an entitlement not to be poked fun of or caricatured. He doesn't, unless cowards back away from the exercise of free speech.

Gut check, Denmark. How will you handle this nonsense?

Whichever twit first coined the phrase "hate speech" needs to go to that special level of Hell, the one where they send child molesters and people who talk to loudly in the theatre. (Thanks, Shepard Book.)

Note the sense of entitlement in the statements whinging about this mockery. Whose script do you think they are reading from? Where was it first written? This is not a very original wheeze.

I am reminded of the tight arsed reaction to (milder) humor in the movie and the book "The Name Of The Rose" by Umberto Eco? I am also reminded of the old penalties for saying things nasty about a king, which was ruled as treason: drawn and quartered, et cetera.

How quaintly medeival. :P

Occhi

[GenericKen]

The proper response to the complaint is as follows:

"What, you can't take a joke?  Get over yourselves." 

Given some of the abusive political cartoons that I have seen in my day of Jimmy Carter, Ronnie Ray Gun, WJ Clinton, Dick "Ski Slope Nose" Nixon and GW Bush, I want to know how some Muslim Arab schmoe gets an entitlement not to be  poked fun of or caricatured.  He doesn't, unless cowards back away from the exercise of free speech.   

Gut check, Denmark.  How will you handle this nonsense?

Whichever twit first coined the phrase "hate speech" needs to go to that special level of Hell, the one where they send child molesters and people who talk to loudly in the theatre. (Thanks, Shepard Book.)

Note the sense of entitlement in the statements whinging about this mockery.  Whose script do you think they are reading from?  Where was it first written?  This is not a very original wheeze.

I am reminded of the tight arsed reaction to (milder) humor in the movie and the book "The Name Of The Rose" by Umberto Eco?  I am also reminded of the old penalties for saying things nasty about a king, which was ruled as treason: drawn and quartered, et cetera.

How quaintly medeival. :P

Occhi
[right][snapback]100988[/snapback][/right]

It's worth noting, Occhi, that *any* depection of Muhammed is strictly taboo. It's not like cartoons featuring Jesus; there are tenets of faith based upon it.


Trying to think of an apt analogy to Christianity, this is the best I've come up with: it'd be like the media harassing a private citizen into renouncing his faith. Or perhaps akin to Ted Turner buying the shroud of turin for his own personal collection.

*shrug*. It's a tricky analogy.

[Ashock]

Gut check, Denmark.  How will you handle this nonsense?

Occhi
[right][snapback]100988[/snapback][/right]

How? Naturally they will fold, get down on thei knees and apologize profusely. That is the European thing to do, especially these days. This type of attitude is what has led to things being what they are today in the first place anyway. Give them an inch and they will (and have been) take a mile.

But I'm sure you were just asking a rhetorical question anyway ;)

-A

[kandrathe]

It's worth noting, Occhi, that *any* depection of Muhammed is strictly taboo. It's not like cartoons featuring Jesus; there are tenets of faith based upon it.
Trying to think of an apt analogy to Christianity, this is the best I've come up with: it'd be like the media harassing a private citizen into renouncing his faith. Or perhaps akin to Ted Turner buying the shroud of turin for his own personal collection.

*shrug*. It's a tricky analogy.
[right][snapback]100991[/snapback][/right]

Or...

The Book Of Daniel

I guess Christians in the US are just jaded by Hollywoods insensitivity to SOME groups, as opposed to their hyper-political correctness when addressing others.

[GenericKen]

Or... 

The Book Of Daniel

I guess Christians in the US are just jaded by Hollywoods insensitivity to SOME groups, as opposed to their hyper-political correctness when addressing others.
[right][snapback]100994[/snapback][/right]

Good generalization. I'm sure these people speak for the majority of Christians.


Still, the Book of Daniel is hardly a reason to stage a protest. Depicting Muhammed as a suicide bomber? That's just a fricking stupid thing to do, like trying to pee on the pope.

[Guest]

It's worth noting, Occhi, that *any* depection of Muhammed is strictly taboo. It's not like cartoons featuring Jesus; there are tenets of faith based upon it.
Trying to think of an apt analogy to Christianity, this is the best I've come up with: it'd be like the media harassing a private citizen into renouncing his faith. Or perhaps akin to Ted Turner buying the shroud of turin for his own personal collection.

*shrug*. It's a tricky analogy.
[right][snapback]100991[/snapback][/right]

No, not really. According to Islamn a picture of Jesus is just as bad a picture of Mohamed.

Also your comparisons are completely flawed at least the first one. The second one might be a fair comparision, but a good many Christians could care less about the shroud.

In general moderen Christianity(and acording to my Bible reading ancient Christianity) vocally disaproves of many things but physically try to force compliance unless it feels the problem is actually hurting people(like genocide etc.)

[Guest]

Or... 

The Book Of Daniel

I guess Christians in the US are just jaded by Hollywoods insensitivity to SOME groups, as opposed to their hyper-political correctness when addressing others.
[right][snapback]100994[/snapback][/right]

Are you blind? Are you missing the crucial difference?

Protesting and boycotting are done on many issues both religious and non-religions. There is nothing wrong with a protest or boycott in themselves so there is nothing wrong with using them to deal wih any social issue.

Surrounding a building with gunmen and kidnapping people is the problem here.

[jahcs]

How? Naturally they will fold, get down on thei knees and apologize profusely. That is the European thing to do, especially these days. This type of attitude is what has led to things being what they are today in the first place anyway. Give them an inch and they will (and have been) take a mile.

But I'm sure you were just asking a rhetorical question anyway  ;)

-A
[right][snapback]100992[/snapback][/right]

The leadership of Mr. Rasmussen and his refusal to back down in his defense of free speech and Government non-interference is admirable.

Diplomacy does not mean allowing yourselves to be walked on.

Ashock brings up a good point. Concessions and backing down are viewed by many Arabs as weakness, and weakness is to be exploited. Give an inch and they want another, and another...

[Guest]

Good generalization. I'm sure these people speak for the majority of Christians.
Still, the Book of Daniel is hardly a reason to stage a protest. Depicting Muhammed as a suicide bomber? That's just a fricking stupid thing to do, like trying to pee on the pope.
[right][snapback]100995[/snapback][/right]

No its like drawing a picture of someone peeing on the Pope. You see peing on the Pope would be an actual physical assult on a real live person.

By your reasoning if I believed anything strongly enough it would be ok for me to go kidnap people who opposed me on the issue.

[kandrathe]

Good generalization. I'm sure these people speak for the majority of Christians.
Still, the Book of Daniel is hardly a reason to stage a protest. Depicting Muhammed as a suicide bomber? That's just a fricking stupid thing to do, like trying to pee on the pope.
[right][snapback]100995[/snapback][/right]

They are both insensitive representations of people considered to be prophets, or more. If you portray either Jesus, or Muhammed as a suicide bomber, pimp, or goat herder you are metaphorically peeing on the pope.

But, artists in the West have been trampling on people sensitivities for so long that the three same typical responses occur, those that hail it as courageous, those that abhor and protest it, and those that ignore the stupidity of the attention whoring artist and the other two groups for wasting their time with such manure.

Once out of the bottle, the genie was bound to display its privates. Audiences in the 1930s may have been shocked to see James Barton turn upstage to pretend to urinate in Tobacco Road, but recent audiences witnessed full-frontal pissing in Adam Rapp's Finer Noble Gases and watched a half-dozen naked men taking showers in Take Me Out. Simulated and sometimes actual sex, both oral and genital, has become a commonplace of our stage, along with often ferocious satire on America's most cherished religious pieties and political convictions--the kind of behavior designed to drive the red state of mind into a frenzy. (In 1998, Terrence McNally's Corpus Christi--about a gay Jesus surrounded by twelve flaming disciples--even brought bomb threats to the Manhattan Theatre Club and death threats to its two directors.) Red and Blue States of Mind

I just ask myself what is the purpose? Are we as a society supposed to become so bereft of indignation and shame that any level of depravity and debasement appearing in public should be condoned? It's already getting that way in many places. Is that what WE want? Do I really want to have to explain to my 5 year old what those two naked adults are doing to each other?

So, yes, yes! "That's just a fricking stupid thing to do, like trying to pee on the pope." I'm not a prude, but I think there needs to be some boundaries on what is acceptable behavior in public places.

[kandrathe]

Are you blind? Are you missing the crucial difference?

Protesting and boycotting are done on many issues both religious and non-religions. There is nothing wrong with a protest or boycott in themselves so there is nothing wrong with using them to deal wih any social issue.

Surrounding a building with gunmen and kidnapping people is the problem here.
[right][snapback]100998[/snapback][/right]

You don't think Christians are capable of violence in defending their beliefs?

[GenericKen]

No its like drawing a picture of someone peeing on the Pope. You see peing on the Pope would be an actual physical assult on a real live person.

By your reasoning if I believed anything strongly enough it would be ok for me to go kidnap people who opposed me on the issue.
[right][snapback]101000[/snapback][/right]

Peeing is assault? Are you sure there's enough distinction between a drawing of soiling the pope's garments is different enough from actually soiling them?

The distinction may be legal, but this is hardly a legal matter. It may be perfectly legal for me to call someone's mother a whore, and then photoshop that person's mother and distibute the obscenities (particularly if that person's mother did happen to be a whore, and no loss of capital in the defamation of character transpired), but that doesn't make it right.

[Guest]

Peeing is assault? Are you sure there's enough distinction between a drawing of soiling the pope's garments is different enough from actually soiling them?

The distinction may be legal, but this is hardly a legal matter. It may be perfectly legal for me to call someone's mother a whore, and then photoshop that person's mother and distibute the obscenities (particularly if that person's mother did happen to be a whore, and no loss of capital in the defamation of character transpired), but that doesn't make it right.
[right][snapback]101004[/snapback][/right]

You really need to make better analogies.


You dont seem to undertand the difference between unpopulat expression and actually doing something to a person.

[Guest]

You don't think Christians are capable of violence in defending their beliefs?
[right][snapback]101003[/snapback][/right]

Look intellectual dishonesty on display.

[kandrathe]

Look intellectual dishonesty on display.
[right][snapback]101009[/snapback][/right]

??? ;) You seem to wave that goad around alot.

Bosses at an Indiana TV station posted security outside their studios on Friday night after receiving death threats for airing controversial new religious drama Book Of Daniel. Executives at Warner Brothers affiliate WB42 picked up the show about a drug addicted Episcopalian minister - played by Aidan Quinn - and aired the debut on Friday night after rival network Wtwo dumped the show. TV Bosses Call on Security After Death Threats over 'Daniel'

I seem to recall this guy named Eric Rudolph...

[roguebanshee]

Is there any more published story to this?
[right][snapback]100968[/snapback][/right]

It's been plastered all over the local media for the last few months. Not that it'd do much good to link those sources here since it's all in danish.

Main concern right now seems to be that dairy export is going down dramatically due to the boycotts.