[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Well, I think burning down a Danish embassy goes way too far. And so does calling to blow up Denmark and decapitating Danish people. These are things I'd never do, even if someone managed to offend me in the deepest possible way.

--Erwin

Nice to know some people still have principles Ofcourse it all went way too far, all I said was that the publishers knew this would happen (unless they're total idiots that is). It's all simple mathmatics, depicting muhammed + depicting muhammed as a terrorist = boycotts + burning flags + burning embassies + major shitstorm. See?

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Think again, there are a few christian fundamentalist groups in the US, UK and Europe that have a hitlist of doctors performing abortions. So far, atleast 50 have been murdered

Ah! Very true. I had forgotten about that. I also forgot about the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda (an utterly disgusting group of people), and creepy cultists and white supremicists who are stockpiling arms (Aryan Nation/Brotherhood).

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by jjacob

It's forbidden to depict the prophet muhammed in any drawing, icon etc.

Forbidden for Muslims to, although Muslims should be free to practice Islam however they want to. Islam forbids a lot of things I do, or more importantly, what I am. Does that mean my very existance offends them? To some Muslims, I know this to be true, to others and what I believe to be the majority, they can accept me.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Stoofa

While I wholeheartedly believe in and support free speech, I don't think publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed and Muslims was the greatest of ideas. It's like dancing around with a match in front of a massive pile of TNT.

Originally Posted by jjacob

I did not say the cartoon should not have been published, I merely stated that the publishers were foolish to do so, knowing full well what'd happen (boycotts and burning embassies included).

I see two reasons to not publish the cartoons. One is respect for the sensibilities of those who would be offended by them. In other words, politeness. That's fine, and it's often a good idea to be polite. However, rudeness and irreverence has its place, too. A blunt word or picture can communicate clearly what you'd never get around to saying if you were walking on eggshells.

The other reason is fear. If you expect nasty consequences for exercising your rights, should you? I think yes. That's exactly when you should do it. You can't sit around worrying that you might upset the crazies. When bullies are prepared to use force to take away freedom, you should value it that much more dearly. If you will excuse the analogy, that's what Rosa Parks did when she defied segregationists to take her seat on the bus.

If we let fear of the reactions we're seeing right now keep us from doing what we would otherwise do, the terrorists (I can't believe I'm writing this) win.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

You're saying this was predictable? Especially including the burning embassies event in that statement seems like a very far stretch to me. This was not predictable. It's as predictable as someone making a joke about blondes whilst guest of a blonde and getting shot (literally) for it. That is not predictable. Whining about it is predictable. At most, boycott. But burning embassies? Excuse me for my tone, but, give me a break. Overreaction (which this is, IMO) is just that - overreaction. It's called that because it's not a typical reaction, hence, does not at all qualify as "having to be expected".

Let me put it this way: If I had worked at that newspaper and the cartoonists would've asked me if the cartoon would've caused trouble, "burning embassies" and boycotts would've been present in my reply, yes. Ofcourse it's a major overreaction (which I'm not trying to justify), but between "us" invading two of "their" countries for no justifiable reason, "stealing" their land to give to the Jews (from their perspective) and some other notoriously bad decisions, such an overreaction was to be expected in the current climate, yes.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

It's theoretically forbidden to depict Yahweh, too. Yet you don't see people burning embassies over that. Or, in fact, feeling particularily offended.

It is? I think you're confused with the fact it's forbidden to say "His" name. Even if it were, that rule must've been broken about a gazillion times over the past millenium in nearly every major piece of art. There are alot more muslims in the world, and the current climate in Islam is nowhere near comparison. Bad analogy.

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by Snarky

The other reason is fear. If you expect nasty consequences for exercising your rights, should you? I think yes. That's exactly when you should do it. You can't sit around worrying that you might upset the crazies. When bullies are prepared to use force to take away freedom, you should value it that much more dearly. If you will excuse the analogy, that's what Rosa Parks did when she defied segregationists to take her seat on the bus.

It's so not much fear of the reactions. You have to weigh the worth of what you want to say against the reaction that is sure to follow. Is publishing offensive crappy cartoons mocking an entire group of people (most of whom are not insane and violent let's remember) worth the fury and loss of trust of MOST of that group, plus the violence, hate, and crazed vengance of those reactionaries in the group? I would say no. The cartoonists and newspapers can hide behind the right to free speech all they want, but the right to say something doesn't mean that what you say is something that had to be said.

That last sentence is making my eyes cross. Crap.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Let me put it this way: If I had worked at that newspaper and the cartoonists would've asked me if the cartoon would've caused trouble, "burning embassies" and boycotts would've been present in my reply, yes. Of course it's a major overreaction (which I'm not trying to justify), but between "us" invading two of "their" countries for no justifiable reason, "stealing" their land to give to the Jews (from their perspective) and some other notoriously bad decisions, such an overreaction was to be expected in the current climate, yes.

What does "'us' invading two of 'their' countries for no justifiable reason" have to do with this? If anything, that makes the cartoon entirely harmless in comparison... and beyond that, the 'terrorism' that some of the Muslims do should have clued the rest of them in that such a cartoon was to be expected. Not the other way around.

Seriously, like that one page that was linked to said, they should be outraged that their religion is abused for terrorism and this weird display of ignorance from their fellow Muslims; not about a cartoon, which would have had the impact on the global opinion about them of a fly on a windshield had they just acted civil about it.

Like I said, let them be offended if they want, but this overreaction is not understandable. Quite obviously, they can understand how such an overreaction would be justified - otherwise, they would not be doing it - but I certainly cannot.

Again, colour me naive/biased/blind, but this is beyond comprehension for me. Especially given the climate.

Originally Posted by jjacob

It is? I think you're confused with the fact it's forbidden to say "His" name. Even if it were, that rule must've been broken about a gazillion times over the past millenium in nearly every major piece of art. There are alot more muslims in the world, and the current climate in Islam is nowhere near comparison. Bad analogy.

Bad analogy? How so? That you're going to have to explain, because I don't see how anything you said has refuted my point.

Still, if you'd like a different one, how about this: anti-semitic comments from politicians (I believe there was one only just recently, though I can't remember the details off-hand). You don't see Jews throwing their "weight" around trying to burn embassies, either. Uproar, yes. Violence, no.

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Still, if you'd like a different one, how about this: anti-semitic comments from politicians (I believe there was one only just recently, though I can't remember the details off-hand). You don't see Jews throwing their "weight" around trying to burn embassies, either. Uproar, yes. Violence, no.

Yes, but you DO see radical Muslims doing those things. Therefore, the reaction to the cartoons should have been an expected reaction from that group of people.

[pinkgothic]

Then I suppose I'm just stupid. In no way would I have expected this or would expect it to happen again in future. It's ridiculous in my eyes. A far, far stretch from anything even remotely understandable, either emotionally or rationally. It makes no sense. People who do this, IMO, must be incredibly insecure and egocentric... all in one...

Really, I just don't get it. But I've made my point, so, hence, leaving this thread (posting-wise) to it now. Apparently, I'm a minority in believing this was not to be expected. I can accept that (and this is not sarcasm). I'll continue watching this thread.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Then I suppose I'm just stupid. In no way would I have expected this or would expect it to happen again in future. It's ridiculous in my eyes. A far, far stretch from anything even remotely understandable, either emotionally or rationally. It makes no sense. People who do this, IMO, must be incredibly insecure and egocentric... all in one...

Really, I just don't get it. But I've made my point, so, hence, leaving this thread (posting-wise) to it now. Apparently, I'm a minority in believing this was not to be expected. I can accept that (and this is not sarcasm). I'll continue watching this thread.

You're not alone. I never expected anything like this to happen either. I found the banning of Danish products already an extreme reaction. Now this...

To be honest, I didn't even know it was forbidden to draw their prophet. (I know very little about the Islam, or any other religion for that matter)

--Erwin

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Then I suppose I'm just stupid. In no way would I have expected this or would expect it to happen again in future.

You're not stupid, silly. You're just an optimist!

[After a brisk nap]

The extent of the outrage cannot be said to have been predictable. I offer three pieces of evidence:

1. Several of the cartoons had been published before, to little reaction.
2. They were (re-)published in September 2005. That's almost half a year ago. Although protests were made at the time (including a boycott of Danish companies), the situation only escalated in the last couple of weeks, initially after the cartoons were republished in a fringe extremist Christian newspaper in Norway.
3. Islamic groups have been touring the Middle East, whipping up outrage over the drawings. Often, the cartoons they showed were forgeries, much more offensive than the actual ones Jyllands-Posten had published.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

What does "'us' invading two of 'their' countries for no justifiable reason" have to do with this? If anything, that makes the cartoon entirely harmless in comparison... and beyond that, the 'terrorism' that some of the Muslims do should have clued the rest of them in that such a cartoon was to be expected. Not the other way around.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. It creates a climate of intolerance and non-understanding between the two cultures. This anti-western sentiment needs little cause to explode into full-frontal violence. Ofcourse the cartoon seems harmless (to a non-muslim), but it's more than enough to cause this mass hysteria and hatred.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Seriously, like that one page that was linked to said, they should be outraged that their religion is abused for terrorism and this weird display of ignorance from their fellow Muslims; not about a cartoon, which would have had the impact on the global opinion about them of a fly on a windshield had they just acted civil about it.

I don't know what page you're talking about, but I do know that the vast majority of muslims IS outraged at people like Bin Laden. The people you see on the street burning flags and tossing molotovs into embassies are a very small minority. The majority of people will consider this to be nothing more than a row, and can easily distinguish between a state and a newspaper. But there are always radical elements which will use rows like these to incite violence and hatred against an entire state. They will shout that the cartoon reflects the opinion of the Danish people, or the entire West for that matter. What I mean is, certain radicals need little fuel to cause a rapidly spreading blaze, especially in the current climate.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Like I said, let them be offended if they want, but this overreaction is not understandable. Quite obviously, they can understand how such an overreaction would be justified - otherwise, they would not be doing it - but I certainly cannot.

Perhaps it's not understandable to some people such as yourself (no offense), but it certainly was to be expected.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Again, colour me naive/biased/blind, but this is beyond comprehension for me. Especially given the climate.

Alright, pinkgothic = little bit naive.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Bad analogy? How so? That you're going to have to explain, because I don't see how anything you said has refuted my point.

Still, if you'd like a different one, how about this: anti-semitic comments from politicians (I believe there was one only just recently, though I can't remember the details off-hand). You don't see Jews throwing their "weight" around trying to burn embassies, either. Uproar, yes. Violence, no.

It's a bad analogy since it's an ancient guideline, often discarded in modern day practice. There are no Jehova terrorists and no wars with Israel. Hence, there is no comparison. Granted, it's a little hard to make a decent analogy on such a topic

You're probably referring to the president of Iran stating the holocaust was one big conspiracy/lie/whatever, either that or him stating that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. They don't take it so seriously since they've been there before, heard it before, on top of which they're smart enough to know that he did not mean a word of what he said, he was just trying to make himself popular among radical elements. Although Israel (alongside France ) has threatened with nuclear strikes if Ahmadinejad were to come through on his promise. But don't fool yourself thinking Israel has no radical elements prepared to resort to violence if the occasion calls for it. But enough with this analogy business.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

Yes, but you DO see radical Muslims doing those things. Therefore, the reaction to the cartoons should have been an expected reaction from that group of people.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Then I suppose I'm just stupid. In no way would I have expected this or would expect it to happen again in future. It's ridiculous in my eyes. A far, far stretch from anything even remotely understandable, either emotionally or rationally. It makes no sense. People who do this, IMO, must be incredibly insecure and egocentric... all in one...

Really, I just don't get it. But I've made my point, so, hence, leaving this thread (posting-wise) to it now. Apparently, I'm a minority in believing this was not to be expected. I can accept that (and this is not sarcasm). I'll continue watching this thread.

As stoofa said, you're not stupid, you're just a tad bit naive and a bit of an optimist, nothing wrong with that People who monger hatred are ofcourse insecure (about their position in a changing Islamic world) and egocentric (in believing radicalism has any positive influence on said world).

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

You're not alone. I never expected anything like this to happen either. I found the banning of Danish products already an extreme reaction. Now this...

To be honest, I didn't even know it was forbidden to draw their prophet. (I know very little about the Islam, or any other religion for that matter)

But you can bet your ass the cartoonists knew

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Snarky

The extent of the outrage cannot be said to have been predictable. I offer three pieces of evidence:

1. Several of the cartoons had been published before, to little reaction.
2. They were (re-)published in September 2005. That's almost half a year ago. Although protests were made at the time (including a boycott of Danish companies), the situation only escalated in the last couple of weeks, initially after the cartoons were republished in a fringe extremist Christian newspaper in Norway.
3. Islamic groups have been touring the Middle East, whipping up outrage over the drawings. Often, the cartoons they showed were forgeries, much more offensive than the actual ones Jyllands-Posten had published.

Two words: the media, man

[Melanie68]

jjjacob - see post 54 (mine ). I believe that's what she was referring to.

[Kolorabi]

With regards to having respect for other people's religions, there are some interesting facts about the danish flag. Legend has it the danes got their flag from God. During an important battle in 1219, a bishop prayed for help, and after the danes won, it apparently fell from the sky. As a result, it was/is believed to be holy, at least by some. Also, the red colour of the flag symbolizes the blood of Christ, while the white symbolizes his body. The symbol depicted on the flag is a cross, which symbolizes his victory over death.

So by burning the danish flag (and to a certain extent, the norwegian flag, which shares the religious symbol of the cross), the muslim protestors are making themselves guilty of exactly the same thing they're accusing the danes of, only in a much larger scale.

[SoccerDude28]

I think the cartoon is very distasteful, and it was put out there just to create controversy and piss off people. The people who drew it know (or should know) that it is blasphemy in Islam to display Mohammad in any form (whether it is drawings, movies etc..), yet they still went out and did it anyway. Sometimes you have to be considerate, especially in such matters like religion or race, although you have the freedom of speech to express your opinions. I remember last christmas, a couple put decapitated santas with blood stains, decapitated barby dolls and such as their Xmas decorations. It was also their freedom of speech to express their attitude towards the commercialism of Xmas. People in the whole neighborhood, and through out new york were really pissed about it, and expressed their anger openly. Just because you "can" say something, shouldn't mean that you "should" do it. You should use common sense and try not to just go out there to piss off as many people as possible in the name of "freedom of speech", especially in sensitive matters like religion.

[squarejawhero]

Just to note, let's not differentiate or perpetuate that in some way the "Muslim world" is different from "The West". The media have already seeded this stupid idea in us - so let's not use it any further.

It's getting so bad I'm feeling Romeo and Juliet syndrome, although Mira and I are far prettier.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Awwwww.

(((((Mira & squaresie)))))

[Sage]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

It's getting so bad I'm feeling Romeo and Juliet syndrome, although Mira and I are far prettier.

Well, if Romeo and Juliet had gotten away from their respective dividing elements together, they would have gotten to live happily ever after.
The California idea is sounding better and better.