CNN Breaking: Danish Embassy in Damascus Set on Fire

CNN reports that the Danish Embassy in Damascus, Syria, has been set on fire.

Will update with link when it emerges.

Link:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04022006/325/syria-protestors-set-danish-embassy-fire-cartoons.html

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators set the Danish embassy on fire on Saturday to protest the printing by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, a Reuters witness said.

The fire badly damaged the embassy's building. Protestors also threw stones at the building shattering its windows.

it's really that simple?

They are completely hostile to the modern world.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

not hate propaganda, but a fucking cartoon displaying a fictional character is?

What the heck ever happened to peacefully demonstrating. I agree with you all the way

In my book, calling for people to be murdered and for repeats of the holocaust and 9/11 are slightly more serious matters than a cartoon of some long dead religious leader. Yet more grotesque double standards in play, I suppose...

And the "real" holocaust? I guess for these extremists the first one wasn't "real", because Jewish lives don't really count.:eyes::eyes:

wow, there are so many newbies replying to these posts

welcome to DU
:hi:

Thanks for the welcome. Speaking for myself, I've posted a lot on the topic of the cartoons because I care passionately about free speech amd standing up against fundies and fanatics of ANY religion, as any progressive should.
:hi:

I suspect they are causing global outrage. There are some Muslims trying to calm the situation. Doesn't look like it's working too well.

It's the extremists that create the biggest threat to their security in western countries, sadly.

front page.

I am speechless by the photos. Speechless. Ive been posting all day on another thread about the cartoon fallout defending free speech and voicing my dismay that many DUers are denouncing the cartoonists.:freak:

And by the way welcome to DU. A big welcome. :hug:

for your kind words!
:hi:

Then why do they have 'modern' universities, science, engineering and architecture?

Why do so many of them emigrate to the United States if they hate so-called 'Western modernism'
so much?

Just what do you people mean by 'modernism'?

Do you have ANY Muslims in your communities AT ALL?

I live in a big city, it wouldn't occur to me to make such an ignorant remark.

Muslims were the one that invented Al-gebra while Europe was stuck in the mud of the Dark Ages. It was the Islamic culture that kept knowledge alive while Europeans forgot the recipe to cement. I cannot stand by and watch someone say that the Isalamic faith never had an age of reason. That simply is not true. Read your history.

I can't believe the ignorance and bigotry on display here in this thread. Of course in school, I hated algebra!!

Read history yourself. The age of reason wasn't just an age of intellectual accomplishment, which Islam most definitely had and cultivated, but an era in which the JUSTIFICATION of beliefs moved out from underneath the auspices of religion to the province of REASON with a capital "R". And reading mediaeval Islamic literature it is quite clear that every pursuit was couched in the language and terms of religious belief, even if it was clear that the author didn't really *believe* in that language.

Contrast this with the evolution of western rhetoric where the role of belief was increasingly marginalized in the production of ideas, from passing mentions to an abstract creator to the eventual effacement of any acknowlegement whatsoever.

How do I know this? I've read the arabic texts in the original tongue.

and then look at your statement. We actually agree to the point I was making. To make a blanket statement that Muslims have always lived in the dark ages is an ignorant one. And the statement with which I took issue with.

BTW, you post couldn't be more arrogant.

The post you replied to said they had never had an 'Age of Reason', and are still 'Medieval'.



The 'Age of Reason' was when reason, rather than religious belief, started to guide philosophy, science and politics.

The Dark Ages either preceded the Medieval period, or were the very first part, eg



Universities were founded in Europe in the Medieval period, with the knowledge gained from Islam. But religion still dominated thought - and that's why the comparison between the 'Age of Reason' and 'Medieval' looks relevant - it's about the power of clerics and organised religion over the state, and over learning.

:hi:

Nicely handled...

That point seems to escape some...the Enlightenment isn't so much Western, as it is inevitable human achievement, unless obstructed by religious forces. The history of the West is no different in this regard...it's a struggle.

Marxist historians will talk of the flow of the river of history, but there are other theories too.

Perhaps the Great Man theory will prevail and 300 years from now the world will be a Dar Es Salaam being ruled by a fundamentalist caliph.

I don't think the decision is already set in stone.

The Age of Reason/Theism/Liberalism/Rationalism all have as their essential component 'perfectability' with incremental unfolding of human endeavour that is believed to be qualitatively different.

The notion of looking outside 'revelation' and 'divinity' is the act of looking at our objective world and all it's people. It isn't necessarily Western or even a Marxist base-superstructure dialectics, which is an old greek notion anyway.

The fact of matter is that these extremists don't really represent a lot of Muslims anyway...there are numerous Muslims and Arabs that are more than happy if folks got behind the 'Great Man' theory as opposed to the 'Caveman Mullah with a Nuke' theory of history. The idea of a 'set' human nature held in stasis by dieties is strictly a religious absolute.

I think we tend overemphasize the 'egalitarian' aspects of our culture largely to satisfy 'market theory', which is a form of religion, and as such, end up as 'moral relativists' and then as 'moral hypocrites'.

we can get some sense of how you got so confused. While you search for that consider Thamas Paine's opening remarks.


AGE OF REASON by Thomas Paine 1794


TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:


I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE


http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So the present guys are the moderates?

We have got to stop this "Longbeard shit" RIGHT NOW !!

some" teacher" you are!!-:
let's not give people the idea here at home that when they see someone with a long beard that they are terrorists!!
Many very spiritual/religious people of many cultures grow long beards throughout the world.
INNOCENT people here at home have been targeted for violence
because of misconceptions such as these-

The morning after 911 an American white Sikh in NYC was walking home from his morning prayers at his Gudwara and was gunned down
by people who think that "Long beards" are terrorists !!!--

Your Long beard generalization is so Bigotted it's not even funny!
Strongly reminiscent of the ever so popular "longhair hippie commy" from the 60's-

Please re phrase your statement accordingly

or explain why you teach bigotry and stereotyping to students

and his Grandson Hulugu tore them a new asshole in the 1200-1300s. They haven't advanced since.

civilization also. Baghdad has never been the same.

irrational response, i was in an Islamic Republic in the peace corps in '73, the moors *Muslims* were wonderful and enlightened, loving and kind, eager to learn new things,.. the Arabs were a pain in the ass trying to keep from pissing them off about one thing or the other... TOTALLY different than the Muslims of other races i met..

using cement as an indication of advancement.

:smoke:

violence on the planet?

just religion. the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. and therein lies the problem. i'm fairly certain your children and mine will die because of these silly fucking superstitions.

The decimal system of numbering that we use today (and the concept of zero) came from India. Arabs brought that concept to Europe.

without which we would not be on this "internets".

Funny how arabic mathematics/numbering system was "no big deal" in that "age of darkness".

to privilege "Western' culture as the Truth (with a big T).

Actually by western culture I mean the Enlightenment which argued that liberty trumps everything and you live in a country that is based on this truth. Do you not believe that 'all men are created equal" is a Truth.

Do you think that only Western countries should regard everyone as equal?
<edit spelling>

and Greeks. This while Europe struggled after the Roman Empire fell. Muslims eventually gave back the scrolls and ancient writings of Rome and Greece to Europeans, causing them to have a renewed interest in science and the humanities which eventually led to the Renaissance.

EDIT - Also, the Moors on the Iberian peninsula occupied the region for almost 900 years. They didn't do it through military might alone; it was their advances in architecture, medicine and science that fed a culture and forced it to move into the next generation. I might not agree with Muslim culture, but we need to give credit where credit is due.

trauma! LOL!

But those Muslims were urbane, they defined what being truly civilized means. They sought knowledge not ideology. They didnt not stick their heads into the Koran and preach fanacticism as do the Wahabbis. Wahabbism didnt exist till the 19th century. These are two radically different kettles of fish.

subject:

http://www.latimes.com/cl-et-rutten4feb04,0,4714691.column?coll=la-story-footer&track=morenews

So they have a very distant enlightenment that has since been snuffed out by the religious zealots.
This is why I figure their culture is so different (less progressive) than the west.

Anymore negative generalizations against an entire religion you can foist on us?

:evilfrown:

refers to the Enlightenment when philosophers advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. Cite me one Muslim scholar who would have wrote anything similar to the following:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

from Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, 1794

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

As much as I dislike ALL creedalistic repression, to say that Islam has NEVER had an Age Of Reason is a false statement ...

There is an epoch known as 'The Golden Age Of Baghdad', or 'The Golden Abbasid Age', which is recognized as a great period of human achievement ....

There was a great contribution to what we now refer to as 'western' culture during that era, with huge gains in Mathematics, Astronomy, Architecture, Medical Science and Art, among other increases ....

It is preposterous to make this claim ...... READ HISTORY ! .....

Damn I hate that some say such things here .... it is embarrassing ....

advocated rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge. Muslims have never gone through such a period. Cite me one Muslim scholar who would have wrote anything similar to the following:


All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.


from Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, 1794


http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

don't fall into the RW trap of stereotyping a billion people based on every bad story you see in the press.

I don't want Pat Robertson or some mullah in Syria telling me what my newspaper can print.

Radical clerics everywhere are the bane of civilization.

I don't see how generalizations about a billion people represent 'Western reason' well.

The unreasonable bigots might do well to join their fundamentalist brethren in the States.

This is a great idea - there ought to be a board called 'The Hate Republic', a bipartisan
forum for all of those who like to screech in public without bothering to explain their
true motivation, for those who substitute emotion, hatred, personal attacks and a lack
of civility for thoughful and subtle understanding.

:thumbsup:

...over a friggin' cartoon. They SAID it was because of the depiction of the amputated soldier in the bed, but the REAL reason was that they didn't like the depiction of "Dr. Rumsfeld."

It can't happen here....?

Okaaaaaaay :freak:

Outrage takes many forms. And I will bet that the JCS letter got more column-inches and TV air time than the burning of the embassy will get. Why? Because all politics is local.

Okaaaaay????????

And another fifty on the Steelers.

Outrage takes many forms. And I will bet that the JCS letter got more column-inches and TV air time than the burning of the embassy will get. Why? Because all politics is local.

Okaaaaay????????

portional. In fact, it makes more sense.

In a society ruled by freedom of speech and the press, writers and cartoonists are welcome to express what they wish, but are sure to receive vehement responses from those who disagree, but those responses cannot be violent or advocating violence.

As much as I disagree with the Joint Chiefs, they are welcome to criticize the cartoonist so long as they don't blow him up or engage in rough surveillance of him.

I despised the war right from the get-go, as did just about every one here, and even a few Congress critters. We have yet to be attacked or locked up for our extremely vocal opposition to that war, although I'm sure plenty of freepers and bushites would love to do one or the other or both.

Free speech rules here, so far, but we must continue to defend it.

I support the cartoonists, and to do my part to help the Danish export economy, I've started eating reduced fat Danish dill havarti cheese even though I'm trying to lose a few pounds. When I'm down in D.C. this weekend for a wedding I'm hoping to sneak off to a liquor store to by some Danish Kjafa liqueur to sip instead of my glass of wine.

I've started eating reduced fat Danish dill havarti cheese even though I'm trying to lose a few pounds. When I'm down in D.C. this weekend for a wedding I'm hoping to sneak off to a liquor store to by some Danish Kjafa liqueur to sip instead of my glass of wine. :)

If they wanted to boycott Danish products fine, but this is rubbish.

Sorry. New.

... that a cartoon would spark the coming global jihad?

Here's your sign, indeed.

church from burning....

Seriously, didn't some military commander make a statement like this?? The first part, the second part was mine...

Ultra-Orthodox riot over autopsy

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3208714,00.html

Hundreds of haredim riot in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Kiryat Ata in protest of autopsy carried out on body of a haredi woman who was apparently murdered in her Kiryat Ata apartment; protesters in Jerusalem block road, set fire to garbage cans

<snip>

"Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox rioted Tuesday in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Kiryat Ata in protest of an autopsy carried out on the body of a haredi woman who was found dead in her Kiryat Ata apartment at around midnight."

<snip>

"Jerusalem’s Sabbath Square was closed to traffic after hundreds of haredim gathered at there and began setting fire to garbage cans. The protesters blocked the road and threw stones at passing cars.

Ultra-Orthodox men attacked a vehicle north of Jerusalem and threw tear gas on it, as riots in the area go on. The driver was rescued by the police.

The deceased haredi woman’s son-in-law is a well known figure in northern Israel due to his philanthropic activities, prompting scores of people to protest on his behalf.

Some 100 ultra-Orthodox protested outsides the Institute for Forensic Medicine in south Tel Aviv; they tried to break in through the institute gates and snatch the body, but police forces dispatched to the scene prevented their entrance; nine protesters were arrested in the incident."

Small groups and individuals will commit acts of violence but no muslim country is going to invade, carpet bomb or nuke Europe or America.

of speech that one finds objectionable.

The Iraq war is another issue, and is not about free speech except that the many offering strident objections to it are protected here by the First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

Are you arguing that the attack on the Danish embassy and the threats against the Danish cartoonists constitute another front in the Iraq war, constitute the widening of the Iraq war to a wider civilizational conflict, or are an over the top reaction to the exercise of free speech on the part of the Danish cartoonists?

Let's not confuse the issues totally even as we discuss both.

I may have posted in the wrong thread!

It was meant to be in the one about this sparking off the next war.

You're correct that this issue is separate to Iraq.

a certain group of Muslims to the "West". Our invasion of Irag certainly contributed to this hatred (for lack of a better word).

It really angers me, too, and I'm nominally Methodist.

However, I think that the Israeli-Palestinian issues have been the most important source of Islamic anger.

Just what this world needs, more inflamed religious rhetoric coupled with incendiary actions. x(

for a few cartoons. i'm disgusted, this is the end product of cowardice .

especially for the children who were there..... I wish there was a medication/drug that could wipe out ignorance, fear and hatred. I would purchase it and give it out on the streets.... then again, it would be made illegal....

They are completely out of control.

It will scare the free speech right out of writers, journalists, etc.

Exercizing your right to free speech is not worth getting killed for.

Same as any other bully. You get your way with fear.

wasn't worth dying for as evidenced by UNESCOs list of assassinated journalists.


http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=16998&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=-481.html

not a mainstream paper. But the fact that the Danish government didn't apologize for it was interpreted as endorsement of the message.

I have a feeling that there are Neonazis like our homegrown version who would like to ignite a powderkeg in order to remove Islamic immigrants from their counties.

(I think that's the name) is a RW paper, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're motives were close to the ones you ascribe to them. Having said that, the other European papers that have recently reprinted the cartoons are a mixed bag. Some are RW, others liberal and some middle of the road. You're wrong about the Danish Government. They did apologize.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2024306,00.html

.......The cartoonists’ names were originally printed in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. Flemming Rose, the paper’s cultural editor, invited 25 newspaper cartoonists to draw a picture of Muhammad “how they saw him”, after a children’s author complained that cartoonists would only dare illustrate a book he was writing on the life of Muhammad if they could be anonymous. Twelve cartoonists responded, had their pictures printed in September, and were paid 800 Danish krone (£73) each.

In an interview with a Swedish newspaper this week, some of the cartoonists expressed their doubts about the entire episode. “It felt a little like a lose-lose situation. If I said no, I was a coward who contributes to self-censorship. If I said yes, I became an irresponsible hate monger against Islam,” one of the cartoonists said.

Another said: “I was actually angry when I first received the letter . I thought it was a really bad idea. At first I didn’t want to participate, but then I talked it over with some friends from the Middle East, and they thought I should do it.”

The cartoonists come from a variety of different political backgrounds, which is reflected in their work. While some of the pictures satirise Muhammad, others attack populist right-wing politicians and even Jyllands-Posten itself, which is rightwing.

The cartoons speak to the hypocrisy of violence done in a peaceful god's name.
Sound familiar?

Here in Europe liberal mostly means economic liberal, no morally liberal. "Liberal" makes a danish paper right wing, and Jyllandsposten is indeed right wing as anyone here can testify.

My impression (and this is just from the articles about this affair - I can't read Danish) is that it is 'mainstream', but it's politics are on the right rather than the left. Would you say it might have "neonazi" aims, as some have said in this thread?

Its hard to tell when something extreme becomes popular if it is mainstream or not. Jyllandsposten is perhaps the biggest or second biggest paper in the country, but it always been very conservative and quite often giving voice to extreme right wing views.

that's what helps make it 'main'. Unless there's an obvious, huge gap between it and other popular papers, I'd say the biggest or second biggest paper would have to be defined as 'mainstream'.

Does having the money to control marketshare mean you are 'Mainstream'?

Or simply the bully who forces and manipulates others while crushing all competition by using money rather then merit.

I have to go with NOT Mainstream. It's a matter of acknowledging Truth and Morality.

from Merriam-Webster. Yes, I'm afraid that CNN, and probably Fox too, are 'mainstream' (while Fox may be the most watched cable news channel, the network news programs are still watched by more people; so you might say that its position to the right of all of them makes it non-mainstream - but there's an argument that it's just the rightmost of a bunch of similar channels that form a continuum). There's no question of merit, morality, or truth, in 'mainstream'. People here on DU complain about the 'mainstream media' - meaning the media that forms a similar, widely read and viewed, group.

The description of the Danish newspaper as 'not mainstream, but rightwing' and perhaps 'neonazi' could give the impression of something that David Duke might publish. It's not as extreme as that. I think the 'Dallas Morning News' might be an American equivalent.

Here's the BBC's description of the main Danish newspapers.

what kind of paper it was?

Is our position now that only papers with certain political bends have a right to publish controversial things?

That's quite a twist on the concept of freedom of the press that I sure wouldn't expect to see on DU.

He is free to say outrageous things, and we are free to condemn him anywhere and anytime. However, we cannot attempt to murder him despite his calls for assassination. Whether Chavez might be able to take Robertson to court for inciting violence is another question.

Freedoms apply to everyone--everyone is completely free to make a fool of him or herself and to be subjected to endless ridicule.

but the phrase "I have a feeling that there are Neonazis like our homegrown version who would like to ignite a powderkeg" in post #6, along with "not a mainstream paper", seems to imply that the original publication was by some neonazis purely to provoke Muslims into rioting. I don't think that's correct.

are proving the cartoonist right.

and what would that be.

retribution, including physical retribution, for publishing anything having to do with the Prophet and Islam. For example, a Danish publishing company could not find any illustrator for a book explaining Islam to children. The Islamic population of Denmark was viewed as censoring freedom of the press with respect to anything involving Islam. It turned out that those illustrators and cartoonists were right about the violent retribution.

your point is?

would be threatened for exercising freedom of speech and press if they published anything that could be taken as offensive by some muslims.

but what's the next step?

and pretty soon the offended people will realize their religion and their lives will go on just fine even with an offensive cartoon now and then.

They will learn to look away when offended, or turn the page, or change the channel, or vote for the orther guy.

Which is a lesson that most of us learned when we were about seven years old.

read Guliver's Travel and Paine's Age of Reason.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

for whaat thhe country's INDEPENDANT press writes?

I'm having a hard time believing the posts I'm reading on DU.

I think it says that people will give up their freedoms very easily if bullied a bit.

There may be a little bit of the "First they came for the ... " going on too since most of us aren't cartoonists.

I support their right to publish whatever they want without fear of violance.

Why is this even a hard call for people?

It is a hard call for some because it causes a clash of deeply held notions - and the cognitive dissonace is clashing away on this and other related threads.

For example, the proposition that all cultures of are equal worth is an underpinning of multiculturalism. Yet that proposition is under direct attack when tolerance of intolerance leads to intolerable outcomes, such as demands for institutionalized intolerance (i.e., censorship) in the pursuit of tolerance for the intolerant. Makes you dizzy, doesn't it?

This piece from the Onion years ago makes the point quite well--

Crazed Palestinian Gunman Angered By Stereotypes

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39190

You really are a rayofreason.

how great The Onion is.

indisputable fact that satire is at its essence intolerant, intolerant of ignorance that is.

Obviously Muslims don't tolerate this literary device. I can't understand why so many DUers are buying into the notion that the cartoons are intolerant. I am baffled.

Sometimes it feels like the Onion is playing out in real life?

Ever read the aarticle about whta would happen under the Bush presidency before he was elected? It mentioned several wars, an increasing defecit, the end of peace and prrosperittty...

Jesus for animist immigrants--not proselytizing, but to let them know who Xians think he was--and found that illustrators were afraid of illustrating it ... because of Xian intolerance, what would you do?

Eventually the writer found an illustrator for her tasteful and respectful, albeit representational, book about Muhammed for Danish children. But the newspaper decided that the chilling of free speech by medieval fanatics was over the top: they came to Denmark and insisted on imposing their religious restrictions on works produced by non-Muslims for non-Muslims.

They asked for cartoons to show that Danes had balls, and to deny the extremists the power to strip away that right from Danes. One of the cartoons is dead-on accurate: it shows an illustrator, light shaded, furtively drawing something on his sketch pad, lest a Muslim fanatic see him and punish him.

I know I consider **that** to be the heart and core of fascism, standing up for my human and civil rights against those that would use force to intimidate and silence me.

nothing will.

Ya know ya must look strong on the playground or ya'll always jest get kicked around.

Sort of like attacking Iraq cause a bunch of Saudis attacked the WTC.

What are they after right now? Why, UN support, of course.

STUPID religious nuts.

Quote from Politiken:

Det er værd at minde om, at offentliggørelsen - med kulturredaktørens egne ord på dagen - skete med det formål, at muslimer i et sekulært samfund som det danske, skulle lære, at »man må være rede til at finde sig i hån, spot og latterliggørelse«. Og for at der ikke skulle være tvivl om hverken formål eller metode, tilføjede han:

»Det er bestemt ikke altid lige sympatisk og pænt at se på, og det betyder ikke, at religiøse følelser for enhver pris skal gøres til grin, men det er underordnet i sammenhængen«.
Source:
http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=436391

A quick "translation": Jyllandsposten is on record for saying:"muslims in a secular society should be prepared to put up with redicule...You should not always make fun of religious feelings, but that is byond the point in this case".

The danish right wing paper was trying to make a point to local muslims, which they knew would be offensive. They didnt mean to offend all muslims, just the local ones.

I think they call this blowback.

I hope nobody is hurt as a result of this insanity.

now that's insane

Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!

I love anarchy!!!!!

Muslim immigrants and their insistence that Denmark change to suit THEM.

The arrogance and the bigotry of the muslim immigrant population has pushed many of them to a breaking point. They are sick of it, and I don't blame them.

I believe theey are having teh same probleems in the Netherlands.

The impression I get is thahat many of thee immigrants aare trying to impose their beliefs on society, rather than accepting theh traditionally libereal values of those nations.

I recall hearing one incident where a Muslim clerik was debating gay rights. I have also heard that there have been incidents of violence wheree gangs of Muslims havee attacked gays.

It's unfortunate to see xenophobic and nativist attitudes in these nations, but tolerance should be shown by theh Muslim immigraants in those countries ass well as the host countries.

What strikes me is the incredible immaturity of these fanatics, they don't go through proper channels, they don't organinze to petition for their rights, they don't engage in dialogue - They go straight to killing.

i was very saddened by his murder

assimilated all of N. Africa, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq; they made headway in Malta. There are traces of Xianity and (until the latest wave of ethnic cleansing) Jews scattered about. Under their "guidance," many other nations were converted. Spain, S. France, Sicily, various Indian Ocean islands, and E. Africa weren't successfully assimilated.

The Turks were worse at assimilation: They didn't fully assimilate even Bosnia, and only the Bosnians and Albanians (for their own reasons) converted en masse; the Turks made little headway in SE Europe, or even in their own hinterland. They've mostly worked by ethnically cleansing Armenians, Kurds, Greeks, and others. Then again, they also needed their Slavs ... er, slaves.

Europe on this. There is a choice between peaceful demonstrations and violence. If the zealots choose violence, they can't expect anyone to not react.

The radicals are so in control of this religion and culture that the level headed ones don't speak out.

Where is their outrage at the kidnapping of the young female journalist?

what age are they living in?

...rioted when "The Life of Brian" was released? To be sure, they complained, but John Cleese and Eric Idle were not threatened with beheading, and the British embassy was not bombed.

All to often, when there is an outrage from Islamists, there is a response on the DU "but what about our own fundies?" The classic example of what ours do is when biblical literalists want to push "intelligent design" into science classrooms. The response is as it should be - a vigorous opposition to the imposition of religious interpretation over science. But those kind of issues are a far cry from blowing things up, beheading captives to make religious snuff films, and demanding that governments apologize for the actions of newspapers they don't even own. We will always have our fundies, India will have Hindu fundies, etc., but the emergence of the call to Jihad within a broader, growing Salafi movement is altogether something different.

I posted something on another thread that bears repeating here----

Take a look at this article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060202/en_afp/denmarkmedi...

Rushdie execution would have stopped insults: Hezbollah

..."If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so," Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said in remarks published Thursday...

There it is, this all you need to know. The Islamists want to kill those who dare disagree with them and terrorize the rest into silence. And their sights are unlimited, since, by the word of God, the laws of Islam are universal and must apply to all human societies.

No one should question the fact that the radical Salafist Jihadi movement is beyond taming or containing, and that it must be vigorously opposed, discredited, and finally discarded in the dustbin of history. There will be no peace in the world until that happens.

There are differences of degree, and they do matter.

At some point it just looks ridiculous.

It's unfortunate how many here can't seeem to reaalizee thta Islamic fundamentalism is a major threeat to the world.

..."getting flamed" is metaphorical around here.

Enraged fundamentalist Muslims carry out the literal version, as was seen in Syria.

Or that's what some here seem to think. We can forget about the Iran hostage crisis, bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon, USS Cole, first WTC bombing, etc. obviously every terrorist attack since then blamed on Islamic fundamentalists is really a CIA black op!

:sarcasm:

It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculous some of these comparisons get on DU. Someone tried to say that because of a couple abortion clinic bombings that probably killed less than a dozen people, christian fundies are comparable to these Islamic terrorist wackos. There is no comparison, none. Absolutely none. I'm proud to be a compassionate liberal, but there is no defense for there crazed wackjobs protesting/burning/kidnapping/blowing up etc.

:thumbsup:

But I'm going to have to agree with you on this.

We've had three days in a row of protests here in Doha. And this is considered to be one of the more moderate Gulf states. The westernized Muslims I work with are disgusted by what they've called "idiot protests against a stupid cartoon". The local stores have no Danish products - even the local Toys R Us has taken Lego off the shelf.

All over a set of cartoons.

That western culture has it's own fundementalists isn't an excuse for this behaviour. There are peaceful Muslims, but they're being drowned by the Wahabist/Salafist/Takfirist/Islamofascist types that don't want to respect other cultures or beliefs, they want *their* viewpoint to dominiate, period.

The current administration screwed up (what else is new) on their response. Instead of their mealy-mouthed support of the protesters, they should have supported Freedom of Speech. Oh, that's right the current administration hates freedom of speech and is buddy-buddy with the Wahabists in the House of Saud.

countries are all knitted together at the top, when he was visiting Saudi Arabia prior to the war with Iraq. Ultimately, it is they who want total control and they are only using "Islamo" as an excuse. The House of Saud is key, they probably have the means to turn this spark into a raging fire, or to put it out, depending on what the powers that be decide.

over a bunch of cartoons. Peaceful protests are one thing. This shit going on is criminal and it's becasue of 12 cartoons. Free press...some people can't handle it. They could have done PEACEFUL protests, not bought the paper, complained to the editor, written letters to the various papers, etc.

sending their children out to KILL THEMSELVES to gain 72 virgins in heaven, or murdering Olympic athletes, or blowing up train stations, or attacking women with razor blades if they show their faces outside, ....you get the point.

I certainly do get it. It's appalling

Many that do receive educations actually receive radical religious indoctrination. I fear that is also the goal of radical fundie Christians for this country.

Many Muslims are poor but that in itself is not at the root of the problem.

The Madrases funded by Saudi Arabia indoctrinates the children, teaching them to hate the West, i.e. Americans and Israel. The manifestation of this hate takes the form of terrorism and many Mosques also funded by the Saudi's are recruiting sites for terrorists.

Radical Christian fundies are trying to force their agenda onto the schools and the government but they don't resort to the same kind physical violence the radical Islamics do. The jihadists kidnap people and cut off their heads, fly airplanes into buildings, blow up embassies and strap plastic explosives around their waists and blow up buses full of school children.

The Christian fundies, as horrendously annoying as they are, aren't violent, with the exception of a few violent individuals who have blown up Planned Parenthood clinics. These individuals are in the minority and have a lot of opposition from mainstream Americans.

I don't hear too many level headed ones speaking out in this country. Just look what we have as a Supreme Court now.

Many of the mainline Protestant religions in this country have condemned the war in Iraq. Our fundies are nowhere near what the zealots in the Middle East are. Some on the left, not necessarily you, would be wise to understand that. Comparing our zealots to theirs is idiotic. We have many moderate Christians on DU and on the Left in general.

Middle East are, for example; Pat Robertson again calling for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated, the Right to Lifers bombing womens clinics and killing doctors who work in the clinics, some trying to shut down art exhibits because they don't like art depicting Jesus or Mary, burning of churches and the list goes on. I wasn't talking about moderate Christians, I was talking about the same fanatics we have in this country doing those things all in the name of religion. Also, I wasn't talking about the war in Iraq. I am wise to understand that there are radicals everywhere, including this country and they commit violent, irrational acts.

We should all be outraged at these kidnappings of innocent people by Islamic fanatics. They've murdered many people and most of the victims have nothing to do with the military.

Radical Muslims have some fucked-up priorities.

In the international discussion of this it is largely overlooked how the danish government really asked for this: For a number of years our political right wing have stayed in power on a "blame the immigrants"-agenda which is totally ignorant of the facts, but speaks to the gut of many people. This campaign has secured voters that are not benefiting from the "tax-break" policy of the government and not elevated by the danish "housing bubble". Hence, for a number of years there has been a sort of contest about who was most against immigrants and who could pass the most severe restrictions on anyone not born and raised in the country. Something which has brought a conflict with the EU human rights commissioner and sparked a number of grassroots movements.

When the the cartoons was made public in the right wing newspaper "Jyllands Posten" it raised a debate, but reactions mostly fitted the pattern of immigrant bashing and did not take into account that they were offensive not only to the immigrants but also to a billion muslims worldwide. Only when boycott campaigns were launched in the middle east did the government change its tune and slowly realized that it had to respond and perhaps even learn from these reactions.

Right to free speech is wonderful but it must be exercised within some rules of moderation. The whole point of free speech is that "might is not right" and you have to defend that point if free speech is not just an empty exercise.


The assumption of innocence is so easy to make but in this case it is clearly, evidently and totally wrong. There is nothing innocent about the cartoons and they don't have any belonging to the "beloved Danish tradition of satirical humor". Not only were they calculated to maximize anger but they are publicized in a context of right wing campaign to blame muslim immigrants for the loss of pension rights, unemployment and bad education for children.

The main reason that the paper is now apologizing is probably that big corporations like Mærsk that practically owns Denmark are twisting their arm: Its bad business to insult your business partners. And so Jyllandsposten returns to what common sense should have dictated, if they had not been so blinded by ideology and self-glorification.

The most glaring mistake people make about this is the assumption of "joker rules": It is assumed that Jyllandsposten is playing the role of the "Joker", who is allowed to make the painful points to the ones in power, that others will not make because of fear of consequences. The "beloved Danish tradition of satirical humor" is based on these spacial rules for the "Joker", who is protected and appreciated for his special role.

The reversal of this is when the King employs a "Joker" to tell his people the nasty things that he clearly thinks but he will not be on record for saying. This reversal makes the Joker a lackey and the real joke is that the lackey in this case only got the wrath of his king and no laughs.


To me this is all about immense stupidity!

The stupidity of the newspaper initiating this, Jyllandsposten, which should have know better.
The stupidity of the danish government for not handling the crisis when it was just a story.
The stupidity of the muslims blaming the danish government, when it should blame the newspaper.
The immense stupidity of the islamists threatening anything or anybody danish.
The stupidity of debaters who confuse being political correct with having no freedom of press.
The stupidity of the danish "blame the immigrants for whatever" -campaign.
The stupidity of the violent response on part of the muslims in the middle east.

This is a fantastic and educational post. Please, please, please put it up in a thread of its own. It provides some much needed context. I learned a lot from what you wrote. Thanks.

From your post Right to free speech is wonderful but it must be exercised within some rules of moderation. The whole point of free speech is that "might is not right" and you have to defend that point if free speech is not just an empty exercise.

Who determines the rules of moderation? And the whole point being might is not right works against your argument, since the Muslim Leadership in many nations have simply latched onto this crap as an effort to bolster their own corrupt governments' rulership over an uneducated populace?

"See, See", the Muslim Imam shouted, "these cartoons are the gravest insult to Islam. Ignore or nations bankrupt infrastructure, ignore or backwards schools, hospitals, code of laws! Focus your hatred outward ont he damn infidel who threatens you"

Free Speech is the issue here. I don't care what the reasons for creating these images of Muhammad were, it is the reaction which has been the most interesting thing. And that is the whole point. Europe and The West struggled for many years to throw off the yoke of religious dominance. Saying these cartoons shouldn't have been published is akin to saying Luther should not have posted his 95 Theses, or Voltaire should have been condemned for his religious satire, or Galileo should have been put down to his knees as an old man and forced to recant his heresy...

The main reason that the paper is now apologizing is probably that big corporations like Mærsk that practically owns Denmark are twisting their arm: Its bad business to insult your business partners.

I agree with you on this point, ideology, takes a back seat to money with many people...

Did you know the Court Jester's appearance (and therefor playing cards "Joker") is a European Lampoon on the dress and attitude of the "Bloody Turk"?

Anyway, images of Muhammad have been made before this and images will be made again, and since to 4.5 BILLION he was nothing more than a nomadic desert merchant, who made false treaties, raided unarmed caravans, attacked Mecca, and married a 9 year old, damn his eyes...

That if a paper wants to mess with the minds of a weak minority group, they loose rights of invoking the freedom of speech argument: "we should be protected, when we speak the truth, even if offensive". Its a valid plea if and only if you are the weaker part and you're not just asking for trouble. Freedom of speech is not a principle that lets powerful voices abuse the weak, but a protection of the vulnerable, so that they can speak without fear.

That's a good point. I think it was a "fishing for trouble" kind of creation.

However, I have trouble equating the images as "powerful voices absuing the weak", but as I bet if we publish these cartoons, we can get some wacko Islamic Fanatics to cry Jihad, and reinforce our view on all Muslims as violent non-multiculturalists...

My current view is ridcule anything, nothing is exempt from satire. Of course, it would be better for everyone if people learned more about various cultures and then used make insightful and respectful commentary on issues, but I'm afraid that is too much to ask of the Human Race...

Yes - but that is only because you don't realize how dense the campaign against emigrants have been i Denmark for about 5 years.
Sweden has taken to publicly denouncing that rules put in place by the danish government. Norwegians have been appalled. The EU commissioner for human rights have criticized the laws and practices. The right wing press here knew exactly what they did with those drawings!

Well, Do you think the Danish Government (which theoretically is supposed to represent the people) has the right to denounce immigrants? And I don't put much stock in criticism from the EU commissioner for human rights. (But then I'm from the Land of Plenty).

Also, do you think someone (me, you, a newspaper publisher) has the right to create and circulate images which may be offensive or are purposely offensive?

A leading danish politician (candidate for mayor of Copenhagen) wrote on her home page that muslim immigrants were like a national cancer. That is in fact illegal in Denmark and she has been prosecuted, but the point is not that Jyllandsposten is not on legal grounds. The point is that Jyllandsposten has been part in a general rightwing "blame the immigrants"-campaign that is just mean fear mongering. And now they want protection under "freedom of speech" rules?

They should take responsibility and either apologize to the world of muslims or at least announce that they - and not danish dairy producers - are to blame for the offense.

I don't view it as offense? And Resposibility, if they stated "Yeah, we posted them!" Does that mean Muslim nations can boycott DENMARK? Or individual fanatics can threaten death? Or the Arabic League can get the UN To FORCE an apology from the Danish Government?

Realistic ly you cant prevent any of this. And yes, Jyllandsposten is on record for saying that they are offensive, even on the same day they were published.

Of the UN to force nations to bend their knee. Oh sorry, I forgot the UN is controlled by a small group of Nations, with the United States in the lead.

or is it the last word?

...A leading danish politician (candidate for mayor of Copenhagen) wrote on her home page that muslim immigrants were like a national cancer. That is in fact illegal in Denmark and she has been prosecuted..."

I cannot even imagine living in a place where this could happen. Vote someone out office for saying something offensive and stupid...sure, but criminalize it??? No way!

I think some Europeans do not understand what "free speech" means to most US citizens.

I would destroy the entire muslim world, if I had to, to keep them from bullying my newspapers into silence with threats of violence.
I was sickened and enraged that the US State Department would post a statement supporting these crude, vile, lawless religious psychopaths by denouncing the newspaper.

to fish for trouble.

That's freedom of expression.

If you think they've gone too far, then sue them.

That's what Jerry Falwell did when Larry Flynt published a cartoon of him having sex with his mother.

Falwell thought he went too far so he sued him. I agree with Falwell by the way. I think Flynt did go too far, but so what? He has a right to go too far. The court decides not me. In that case the court ruled for Flynt and everyone agreed it was a good thing for the Freedom of Speech.

I think Falwell and Flynt eventually even became if not friendly, at least respectful of each other.

I don't care what the Danish government thought or what the newspaper's motives were.

A newspaper has a right to publish controversial things without fear of lawlessness and violence.

We all need to support that newspapers right to publish.

This was not everyone's fault.

The newspaper published which is what newspapers do.

The government has nothing to apologize for in this incident since the newspaper is a free business.

When Larry Flynt published a cartoon of Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother, Falwell sued him for slander. He lost and they both went on with their lives.

That's how free societies work and if we knuckle under to bullying and mob rule like this, we won't be free much longer.

"The newspaper published which is what newspapers do"

Its newspapers business to report the news. Jyllandsposten went overboard trying - successfully it would seem - to create the news.
Its not illegal, but is it wise?
Is it something that will benefit their readers?

Or is it indeed stupid, hateful and arrogant?

between Denmark and the U.S.

Here, the notion that the press can print whatever they want even if it is deliberately offensive is deeply held in our political and legal culture. In other words, things are a real Free-for-all and folks are likely to be extremely offended. There are always calls for censorship on the part of the offended, but others then chime in and agree to defend the right of the offender to print what he or she wants.

Our right to freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. It was listed first, and almost everyone takes it very seriously, even freepers. The Amendment starts: "Congers shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech . . ." and it is interpreted almost literally, unlike many of the other amendments. Surprisingly, it is supported on both the left and the right, because each side frequently seeks its protections.

:rofl:



So now the US has freedom of press? Where are the news on Israels warcrimes? Where are the news on the petro-euro? Where did you read about the hiding of the M-3? You get fed filthy lies day in and day out and are kept in ignorance about most important issues.

In this country we print the news we have, not the news you pulled out of yer ass. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

forum, and elsewhere on the net.

It is true that we do not see what you see in our mainstream media. However, stories are available in other sources. Most of us here on DU know about it, and most of us are Americans. How else do U.S. churches and NGOs of various types get information that causes them to talk about divesting in Israel?

That the main media outlets don't print those stories is really another subject, and is frequently debated here and elsewhere. However, it is most certainly legal for anyone for anyone to print anything on any controversial subject.


On edit: Information about the oil bourse and the discontinuation of M-3 is available in the financial press and in specialty publications directed at those who follow these issues closely. Detailed financial stories can sometimes be found in the NYT because it is essentially local economic news. I wouldn't expect to find it in daily circulation papers elsewhere.

You didn't have any independent coverage of the Iraq-sell: you had the WHIG dishing out lies and the media spreading them around. You will soon have the artist formerly known as WHIG selling an attack on Iran and nobody in the MSM is going to mount a serious challenge. The cartoon provocation and the predictable reaction of the muslims are going to be used as justification for an essentially unprovoked attack. FOX news is going to spread fear and hatred until there is a halfhearted accept that "the US will defend itself".

And you think that you have freedom of press?

Lets just hope that Fitzgerald have them by their balls before its too late. Your press is not going to help if it can help it.

that print the truth and we know what they are and where to look for them. Since the internet has become accessible to millions of people it's where many people get their news. There's no excuse for ignorance in this day and age so you needn't lecture us on freedom of the press. It sounds like you have your own problems with freedom of expression in Denmark.

Most of us on DU know when we're being fed BS so we don't rely on just one source for our news. We have the opportunity to peruse publications from all over the country and the rest of the world. I resent the implication that we are all like little mushrooms because we are kept in the dark and fed bullshit by our national media. We already know the limitations of our media.

Nobody is going to attack Muslim countries because of an over-reaction to political cartoons because that is just a symptom of a greater and growing problem: Islamic fanaticism that turns threatening and violent because of intolerance to the viewpoints of other people and their country's societal norms.

Muhammed would be drawn was the stated impetus for the newspaper's call for cartoons. The drawings were to be respectful. But that wasn't good enough.

Fundie Muslims instilled enough fear in illustrators that no illustrator could be found for a while time. "Chilling" free speech in the name of religious dogma is reprehensible, and justifying that chilling in the name of "tolerance" and "respect for cultural differences" is odious double-speak.

Sometimes an anti-immigrant backlash is justified. That is why the disrespect is "beyond (i.e., beside) the point" as one translated article from a Danish paper had it. A bigger value is at stake: one should be able to say things, even offensive things, without fear of violence. Intolerant immigrants should adapt themselves, not others.

The Muslim demonstrators have driven home the newspaper's point perfectly. I don't think that saying offensive things for no purpose is acceptable; I find that these particular offensive caricatures have a purpose that renders their publication not only acceptable, but nearly required.

thanx.

really stupid people all over the world who can not do anything unless some form of god tells them what to do.

Islamic Religious Fanatic- Hahaha, those damn infidels think they can spit on the *ONE* True God's (prophet) we will kill them all!

Question- Ummm, you know the Danish Government didn't post these on their website or in their official Danish Government view of Islam.

Islamic Religious Fanatic- It doesn't matter! The Koran being the FINAL and ABSOLUTE and DON'T GO THINKING IT CAN EVER BE ALTERED WORD OF GOD, demands we kill anyone who dares to say we are violent...

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised.

That's typical WSJ article

MARTIN WALKER. What's funny about Islam?

This is out of control, and beyond reasonable.

It is understandable that Muslims may feel offended by a cartoon published in a remote newspaper in a remote Nordic state... but like the brainwashed radical lemmings that most religious fanatics are, they are making the entire nation of Denmark, the EU and the entire west RESPONSIBLE for this "offense."

The Danish newspaper already did apologize. Not enough for them. Apparently, the entire nation of Denmark must apologize to these fanatics or else. Now they are demanding that the entire EU apologizes for this so-called "crime."

What the f*ck do they want? That the EU hang the cartoonists in a public square? Decapitate them, like they would do in Saudi Arabia? This is ridiculous, and it's ENOUGH!

Time for the EU to put their foot on the floor and STAND FIRM. This is bullshit, and if the Europeans buckle, it would only encourage even more fanatic demands. No way, not again.

And the EU has a lot of power in this negotiation. Every year the EU pumps BILLIONS of Euros in aid and developmental funds to Middle-Eastern countries (including 500 million Euros yearly to fund the Palestinian authority). They could easily mention they can close the tap, right now, if they keep up this bullshit. Let the Saudi Arabian royals fund them instead.

This is just becoming absurd. In fact, it was always absurd, yet it somehow continues to become more so.

-Voltaire. [I got this quote from Central European Dude's post but thought it was worth repeating.}

An SMS message had been circulating in Damascus, saying that Danes would gather on a square in Copenhagen to burn the Qu'ran (the only demonstration today consisted of 20-25 members of the Danish NAZI party/White Pride organisations who gathered outside of Copenhagen shouting their usual crap). I have a feeling that that message didn't really help the situation...

EDIT: The building also house the Swedish & the Chilean embassy, and the Swedish part should also be in flames. No word on the Chilean part as of yet.

somehow this popped into my mind as I read the comments.

Publish unflattering drawings of thier leaders until they self destruct in an orgy of insane violence.

I dont know whats more obsurd, that they are this afraid of a cartoon, or that they want to be taken seriously BECAUSE they are upset by it.

are crazy. Perhaps the cartoon was offensive but to torch an embassy over it? This isn't just a handful of miscontents, it's hundreds of people.

Most of us are offended by the things O'Reilly and Hannity and Rush say. Coulter is hateful and gets us all pissed. We don't go set fire to MSNBC.

Stop making excuses for people who set fire to embassies.

Mz Pip
:dem:

or trying to explain the rationale for the violence.

There is no rationale for this type of insanity!

There is absolutely no justification for violence as a result of an offensive cartoon.

If the religious clerics were offended by the cartoon, they should have urged people in Denmark not to buy the newspaper.

That's called civilized behavior.

I can't believe the rationalizing that's going on at DU over this.

they often turn to rocks.

:hi:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04022006/325/fury-prophet-cartoons.html

GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian youths tried on Saturday to storm the European Union office in Gaza in protest over the printing by European newspapers of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that has whipped up fury across the Islamic world.

.......

Inserting itself into the dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment in Muslim countries, the United States attacked the cartoons as offensive.

There were fresh demonstrations in several cities including Ankara and London. Around 500 students of Islamic seminaries or madrasas protested in the eastern city of Lahore on Saturday, chanting slogans of "Down with Denmark" and "Hang the culprits.

Meanwhile, two New Zealand newspapers on Saturday reprinted the cartoons, which have appeared in newspapers in Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Hungary, saying the decision was based on press freedom.

......
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said. "We all fully recognise and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

The United States, which before the September 11 attacks was criticised for insensitivity to the Islamic culture, has tried to become more attuned to Muslim sensibilities. Accusations last year that U.S. officials desecrated the Koran sparked deadly riots in Asia and heightened that awareness.

The U.S. response contrasted with European governments, which have tended to acknowledge tension between free speech and respect for religion but have generally accepted papers' rights to print the cartoons.

In an interview with La Repubblica daily, European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said the European Union could not apologise for the offence caused.....

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

How the hell can Jyllands-Posten be responsible for the actions which were caused by a group of extremely radical Islamic clerics going to the Middle East, where they spread all sorts of outrageous lies? (ie. Denmark is creating their own censored version of the Qu'ran, Muslims are heckled every single day, one of the cartoons depicted Mohammed as a pedophile).

Including another copy of the offending cartoon.

:evilgrin:

In an interview with La Repubblica daily, European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said the European Union could not apologise for the offence caused.

"No, it's not Europe's duty, nor do I think it is the duty of (Danish) Prime Minister Rasmussen. We don't have the power to apologise in the name of the press. That would be violating the basis of freedom of the press. If they feel it is right, it is up to the editors and the authors of the cartoons to apologise to those who feel offended."

In a country with a free press, government cannot be held accountable for what a newspaper publishes.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04022006/325/fury-prophet-cartoons.html

.....The U.S. response contrasted with European governments, which have tended to acknowledge tension between free speech and respect for religion but have generally accepted papers' rights to print the cartoons.

In an interview with La Repubblica daily, European Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said the European Union could not apologise for the offence caused.

"No, it's not Europe's duty, nor do I think it is the duty of (Danish) Prime Minister Rasmussen. We don't have the power to apologise in the name of the press. That would be violating the basis of freedom of the press. If they feel it is right, it is up to the editors and the authors of the cartoons to apologise to those who feel offended."