If you support the Muslim reaction, then you support Bush's War in Iraq

Okay, this is my argument.

A newspaper the Jyllands-Posten publishes pictures of Muhammad, in response Arabic and Muslim nations around the world have caused an international uproar. This has included death threats to not only the cartoonists, but also any Westerner in the Gaza strip and in several Islamic nations. Mullah Krekar, the alleged leader of the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, who has been living in Norway as a refugee since 1991, said that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was a declaration of war. 11 Muslim nations responded by demanding action from the DANISH GOVERNMENT , The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the UNITED NATIONS impose international sanctions upon DENMARK.

The declaration by Muslims and Islamic nations has been if the Government doesn't do as we wish and meet our demands, Westerners and the Danish people have brought this upon themselves.

That kind of statement is what I recall Bush broadcasting to Saddam with his pack up and leave ultimatum back in March 2003, which meant Iraqi people if you do not accept us with Open arms you have brought this upon yourselves.

If you agree that threatening boycotts or death on Danes not responsible for the cartoons because another person of Danish descent created them, then you must agree with Bush when he states Iraqis who do not accept American removal of Saddam and an American backed Iraqi government deserve death and anything else done to them.

What I'm getting at is threats of violence that force Group A to change their behavior to suit Group B, is what has lead to many a Group/State/Nation/Coalition of the Willing to declaring War.

Then of course, that Coalition must make up enough lies (ie. damage to national honor, threats to home and hearth, propaganda that one group wants to rape all the nubile young women of the other group) to force a Cobbler from one country to go kill a Cobbler from another.

Just watch out everyone...

and, I'd just add, an extremist is an extremist, no matter what they use as their rallying point...

There are some that really took the reaction too far with violence and threats, but calling those protesting and those of us here that understand why they'd be that angry as supporting bush's war is just quite simply ludicrous.

my point is the cartoons are a false rallying cry by Islmaic leadership to focus the discontent peoples attention away from their corrupt leadership and onto a boogeyman (in this case the Western Islamic Blasphemers) just the same way Bush used Saddam as a boogeyman to focus United Staters attention away from corrupt leadership.

The muslims outraged by this are outraged because of their firm spiritual beliefs and that the different newspapers actions were severely offensive to them. Not because some Islamic leader is asking them to be outraged.

Do you believe that the cartoonists had the right to make the drawings?

Do I have the right to ridicule any religious figure?

doing so when done in an extremely inflammatory manner. Freedom of speech, absolutely, but that doesn't come without consequence.

It actually isn't the cartoonists I fault here. It is the subsequent papers that continued to publish them after it becamse apparent the brewing firestorm. This was just completely insensitive to a huge culture and sometimes people should just know better.

You can say and do anything you want or see fit due to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean one always SHOULD, especially when in contradicition to simple respect and courtesy of other human beings and their cultures.

The paper orginally stated they had to have a special request for cartoonists to make those drawing because too many feared they would get a fatwa (Salman Rushdie or Theo Van Gogh mean anythiong to you) and the only reason the West has progressed to the status it has today is because people like Voltaire, decryed relgious intolerance.

Also, if I feel like saying that Muhammed was a nomadic desert merchant, who married 9 year olds, had hallucinations that angels were talking to him and was not divinely inspired I will do so.

As for civilized respect for other cultures it is difficult to respect another culture that demands I bow my head, be a good dhimmi and not upset any Muslims, because if I don't the Muslims are within their right to strike off my head...

Isn't that a Freepspeak translation of Democrat?

Just asking.

is the status afforded to certain peoples in Islamic Society. Dhimmitude was orginally offered to "People's of the Book" Jews and Christians, sometimes to Persians (Zoroastrians) and never to Pagans or Atheist or Hindus.

A dhimmi had to recognize his lesser status than a muslim, his home could never be grander than a muslims, he had to pay special taxes, he could not build new temples or churches on "Muslim" lands, if his old temple fell down or was burned to the ground it could not be rebuilt, he could never try (on pain of death) to convert muslims or marry muslim women, and religious services could not be done loud enough for Muslims to hear, his word was not believed in courts of law against a Muslims word...

It was second class status.

truer words have never been spoken

won't be consequences for saying things that others may find offensive. I don't like hearing Muslim comments about pork. So do I have the right to demand they shut the fuck up?

"Freedom of speech, absolutely, but that doesn't come without consequence."

By definition that's not free speech if you have to pay for it with "consequences"

should Muslims demand the Italian government burn all copies of Dante's Inferno because it has Mohammed in the 9th Circle of Hell with his stomach flayed open? I mean that would seem to be a pretty bad blaspheme, to have the "one last true prophet" condemned to HELL?

When all this started, there were boatloads of DU'ers supporting the protesters before really even understanding the situation. I hope the Danish newspaper prints some new cartoons that are even more insulting. I couldn't care less about a bunch of lunatics with absurd demands. I choose our freedom of ideas in the west over fanatical dolts burning embassies and taking hostages. I can hardly believe people can be so fanatical, but alas, they are.

Great post, personally I don't see how DUers can defend the intolerant reaction the Muslim Ummah, I mean you would think we were living in a time when Blaspheme was the worst offense you could do. As opposed to I don't know, threating to murder those who draw?

It's almost as if many DUers came down on the side of the protesters simply because they . . . protested. Are we really saying a Western nation must adhere to the laws of Islam? And why just THAT one? Are we risking offending Islam by allowing women to walk around half naked?

Burkas for everyone! Quick!

This to me is reason # 6,349 why I dislike religion ... ALL organized religion ...

Fundies vs. Secularists. :eyes:

and NOT to be confused with "Free Speech".

Demonizing an entire culture is what hitler did to the jews with his cute little cartoons.

It's called hate speech. The people who are defending it as "free speech" are merely defending what they beleive to be their right to hate.

It's not right to hate. Hate leads to slavery, murder, death and war.

and I think I agree with you, although it gets confusing.

When do tolerant societies curtail intolerance?

This puts a whole new light on the crucifix in urine a few years back. I am glad I live in a country where we can still express ourselves no matter how disgustingly. I recently attended an art exhibit put on by graduating seniors at the local universities., And let me tell you, we still have freedom of speech in this country. At least here in Tallahasseee.

And the amazing thing (to me, at least) is that this is not even an issue of degrading symbols of their faith, but simply breaking the rules and showing the Prophet in artwork. (For which there are literally thousands of previous examples all over the world in books and museums.)

We shall see how this ends up. My gut reaction is they might have pushed the envelope (the fundamentalists) a bit this time.

for agreeing with me. You nailed the point! Thanks!

be placed upon another's back- or what that 'straw' will look like.

Lord knows, those ..Renegade-'christ'IANS who claim such 'moral superiority' have given their adversaries and even those who were..somewhat.neutral, ample reason to hate anyone outside their 'own' system of faith. Intolerance breeds intolerance-

I don't believe I live in a country that accepts 'free-speech' anymore TalahaseeGrannie- not since bush, and his cabal have invaded, and muzzled us all- Ashcroft draping the statue of justice because he couldn't stand seeing the image of a womans body, without connecting it to his own problem with lust, was a 'tipping point'- and it's all gone down hill from there.

there are certainly danger signs, but hopefully those are pockets.

But this exhibit was filled with true hatred, expressed violently, toward Bush and even some towards Christianity... and nary a word in the local rag against it. So there are beacons of hope.,

Although I have to tell you candidly the work was juvenile (after all, college age) and really, really gross. But by God they displayed it and they haven't been marched off yet.

Incediary and thoughtless. Interesting how the two so often go together. I don't know of anyone here who has defended the violence, but you seem to be issuing the same kind of blanket indictment that you're bemoaning. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with boycotts.

There would also be a huge outcry, but Catholics wouldn't burn embassies or threaten cartoonists lives. I can agree with that point. And Muslims should be put through the same grinder all religions are.

But to say that people agree with Bush is a real stretch. That's all or nothing thinking.

I said on another thread that these cartoons are nothing. "South Park" makes more fun of Arabs and Muslims than these things do.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that States and Societies often use the flimiest of reasons to impose their will upon another people.

You're right their is nothing wrong with boycotts! Of course, when people go to extra-governmental agencies and demand they step in and change the behavior of a soverign nation do you think that is allright?

What about death threats over a preceived insult?

And my point was slights to nation honor has been used by leaders in nation after nation as the cassus beli on numerous occasions.

Including sadly my nation...

The cartoons were culturally and religiously insensitive and derogatory. Newspapers have a responsiblity to not be so callous. Furthermore, they should have anticipated such a reaction that was always going to come of the material.

Don't even try to lecture us about violence, because last I checked, Denmark had a hand in Bush's little attack on an entire Muslim nation.

So what if the cartoons are the most culturally insenstive things ever! It does not allow the Muslim nations of the world to demand the UN stifle a soverign state.

And when did I lecture anyone about Violence! I'm against violence. It seems to me the Muslim community is threatening violence in regards to pictures...

Many in the US government have expressed satisfaction at a possible bombing of the UN, and others have encouraged the removal of it entirely, and nothing like these cartoons ever happened to the US!

The point is that it's not about pictures. It's about the callousness for a culture that they showed. Reactions against that are to be expected. With rights come responsibility, and with actions come reactions. It's nothing new.

are you serious? Really take a moment... I'll wait.

~ The Girl from Ipanema plays in the background ~

You are advocating that some speech is so awful and offensive that for the good of society it must be expunged!

And reactions, you are saying that since the Infidel Western World Dared Dared to insult a backwards, halluicnating, desert nomad who conducted raids on carvans and invaded Mecca, married a 9 year old girl and was generally not a nice man, they deserve the REACTION, which has included death threats, attacks on innocent not involved people because of their race, and burning of the Embassies today.

Nice to know under you we will all have to bow to the dhimmi status or die at the hands of righteous Muslims!

That much is obvious. Why would you deny that?

Nice straw-man. They have the right to publish such content, but the reaction against such an action is to be expected. They have a right to be insensitive, but don't be oblivious to the fact that insensitivity breeds backlash.

I'm glad you've clarified your disdain for Islam. However, your misguided hatred does not change the insulting nature of the caricatures, and don't expect an entire people to take an insult without protest. The reaction was not a surprise, as any idiot could tell you what was going to happen. If a newspaper is going to display that kind of inflammation, that is their action alone, and that makes it their responsibility.

Actually, I'm just asking for some respect and decency, something you clearly lack.

No straw man here.

The question is do they have the right to be Callous?

What do you think? Do they have that right?

As for an entire people taking an insult, sheesh, is the next step to AVENGE that insult???

Respect and Decency, I guess that falls under an earlier prohpet's turn the other cheeck, but clearly the Muslim world can't be expected to follow that rule.

As for my didain for Islam, I admit I am hard pressed to respect a religion that has imposed so much evil on the world, just as I am hard pressed to respect a Catholi Church which slaughtered thousands in the Inquistions, including the poor Cathars, a group to follow the teachings of Christ down to their destruction.

Instead of choosing to think I'm bigoted why don't we examine why this would be turned into such a firestorm?

It was a straw-man. They have the right to be callous, but a blind man could see the reaction that would come of it.

Oh, I see. So now you're saying Christianity is superior to Islam? History disagrees with you, because the Islamic world was the center of learning and tolerance while Christiandom was sitting in their petty fiefdoms, wallowing in ignorance, burning people, launching crusades and waiting for the apocoplypse.

It hasn't been Islam that has imposed evil on the world. Muslims have done bad things, and many are intolerant, but that does not represent Islam, and that does nothing to justify our own intolerance and callousness.

Islam is not the problem. The problem here is that a newspaper was irresponsible and callous. THAT is the problem, not Muhammed, not the Caliphate, not any fatwa, not the Saracens and certainly not Islam.

Actually, I didn't say Christianity is superior, if you read I decry the EVIL that Christians have done, however, Muslims are doing the evil today.

I like the launching Crusades line, though, because if I remember my History, the Levant and Egypt and Turkey have been Islmaic for 613,457 years, I mean damn! Muslims, didn't forcibly take any of that land in the region. No sir!

And don't give me the line of, those who do evil do not represent true Islam.

And the Key here is Islam *WAS* the center for learning, but that stopped well before Hugelu birned Baghdad to the ground in 1258.

Islam has had it's day and now is sadly on the way out.

Oh, and guess who sacked Constantinople and crippled the city first. Hint: they were Christian.

You said that "turning the other cheek" was a trait of Christianity and not of Islam. That implied that Islam is incapable of peace. You decried the Inquisitors while not expressing a hatred for Christianity, while you harbor one for Islam. That's called a double standard.

If you look at history, the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires were fighting each other for a long time. Both empires were busy at work conquering and forcing conversion on all; the Byzantine Empire was largely responsible for the extermination of the religious traditions of Europe. This fighting left both weak and allowed the Arabs to gain land militarily. However, the Muslims did not commit the same crimes of conversion, but simply imposed a tax on non-Muslims, which is preferable to the sword. Lands did not become Islamic through the use of steel (which, IIRC, was available to Muslims while Europeans had to settle with iron).

Are you saying that any Muslim who does the wrong thing is now representing Islam? Please! The actions of some followers NEVER define the religion itself, and to think that it does is beyond misled.

Islam was the center of learning and tolerance. The key here is that Islam is not at fault for the loss of that, even though you foolishly think it is.

Christians, who sacked it in 1204.

Islamic held lands were often centers of learning before the Renaissance in Europe. After that they had a long downward slide which they are still in in many respects. The leaders are usually responsible for these slides, not necessarily religions.

the Christians sacked Constantinople first.

Yes, Islamic lands were centers of learning, which is in stark contrast to Europe at the time. The Renaissance started primarily because of trade with other lands, lands which included Islamic lands (Columbus sailed with triangular sails, an invention of the Muslims). Europe, newly laden with ill-gotten wealth that was won by genocide in the Americas, was finally able to not be a feudal hellhole. However, Islamic lands did not just fall off the map in terms of knowledge. One must only look at the Taj Mahal to see this.

"The leaders are usually responsible for these slides, not necessarily religions."

Exactly. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say.

attacked Byzantium in the 660s, that seems a few years before 1204. Of course, I know none of the historical facts I point out to you will change your position that Europe is responsible for *all* evils currently affecting the world.

And don't get started on the who invented what, Muslims inherited Greek knowledge, recognized what they had (GOOD FOR THEM!) and expanded upon it, well except for the Great Library in Alexandria which, after Christian Fanatics had destroyed much, the Muslims INVADERS of Egypt finally completely destroyed.

And I'm sorry if you got the impression that I am anti-muslim, I am anti-power and that is what this issue is about to me. Power.

I await your response.

Constantinople is a city. I was asking who sacked the CITY first. The Crusaders were the first to breach the walls and sack the city (I'm quite sure of that).

Europe isn't responsible for everything that has is bad, but quite a bit, and quite more than people like to admit. Just look at the amount of land Europeans have conquered, subsequently oppressing. The Ottomans and the Mughals are examples of Muslim empires built on conquest and violence (sometimes genocide), but that does little to make Islam bad.

Just about every civilization has used knowledge from another source. The Egyptians used the technology of the Hyskos, the Greeks took a ton of everything from the Egyptians, the Romans took Greek influence in abundance (and used Gallic and Iberian military equipment), Japan has always taken things from the Asian mainland, etc.... The point is that Islamic civilization built upon other achievements, expanded upon them and created great achievements themselves. That is a mark of a great civilization.

This isn't too much about power, it's mostly about a conflict of cultures, misunderstandings and reactions. That's just my view.

The early history of Islam and the latter history of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Romans) was this. Islam ascending, Byzantium declining, especially after Manzikert in 1071, a great Turkish Victory (Alp Alsan if I recall) Byzantium put a call into the church in Rome with whom they had split back around the time of Justinian in the 500s for help against Islamic forces.

This gets very difficult, because eventually the Franj invaded and conquered the Levant and made Outremer, which lasted from 1099-1291, however, the Western Franj did not get along with the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines had better relations with their neighbors, which is quite often the case, than with their religious brothers.

So, in 1204 Venice which had, had it's special trading privileges with Constantinople or Byzantium revoked organized an attack on the greatest city in Christendom of that day.

So, you are correct in was Christians who were the first to breach the walls.

But, my friend, my whole point is I think people are being naive to believe this is some ground swell and not being helped and directed (by many people Islamic leaders and EU leaders alike) to help cement their preconceived notions.

Anyway, the whole history of man has been that of conquest and slaughter and the destruction of those weaker, and this is something Islam I think is struggling with today.

So, this is not to condemn Muslims, but to condemn those who would use jingoism to further their war aims.

Thank you for the interesting dialouge, you were an able debater.

I'll let you have the last word, on this issue.

the next step is to avenge the insult, there is always a next step

I thought it was some radical religious leaders.

"The cartoons were culturally and religiously insensitive and derogatory."

and??? So what? So is Fox news' attack on Democrats on a daily basis, but are we Dem's burning local Fox affiliates around the nation. These people are irrational in their extremism. I HATE religious fanatic extremists. I simply don't care one bit about these peoples' feelings over a newspaper cartoon. They can protest and they can boycott goods, I can understand their anger, but the kind of reaction they are choosing is symptomatic of the larger problem with these uberfanatical muslim masses. It displays to the whole world how irrational and dangerous the fanatical section of the muslim world really is. Lets not forget their really is a problem over there with the fanaticism.

The atmosphere in the US is nothing near that of the Middle East. To compare them is mistaken.

So you just "don't care" about other people's culture? Are you serious? It's called tolerance and respect, something that was gravely missing from the cartoons. That should be displayed with such topics.

I hate religious fanatics as well, but that doesn't excuse insensitivity and insults in any way. Also, it is not a bunch of fanatics protesting, it is composed of far more people than that. Let's not forget the problem that led to this, disrespect.

Respect and Tolerance are earned. Respect is not given away!

I respect all Muslims right to worship. The way I hear it is Mooslims even have this right in the hateful evil United States!

Too bad Jews, Christians, Hindus, Atheists can't get that kind of respect in Muslim Nations!

Wait, I get it you are jsut palying Mohammed's Advocate (or Devil's Advocate if you prefer)!

so now a culture has to appease the whites to not get insulted? Give me a break. Disrespect for a religion is inexcusable and wrong. Respect for cultures, on the other hand, is not something to be withheld. Restricting respect is the hallmark of an intolerant society.

Muslims have the right to worship, and newspapers have the right to insult them, but do not expect ANY GROUP to take an insult lightly.

Turkey is trying to join the EU, an organization composed entirely of Christian nations. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan and others are close allies of the US, and Iran is a close ally of Russia. What about "respect" from nations?

I'm advocating tolerance and sensitivity, something you seem to disparage.

Turkey is one of the most hateful evil nations ever!

Nice what the Turks did to the Armenians, right?
Nice what the Turks did to the Kurds, until they started giving some sham political maneuvers to convince the EU, that they changed their ways.

Do you know anything about the Kurds? Do you think the Kurds will get a nation of their own? Or will Turkey oppose it? And will Turkey go back to their destruction of Kurdish culture once they join those EVIL Christan NAtions in the EU?

Just answer me on any of those topics!

to 2006. What you are saying is like saying Germany is one of the most "hateful nations ever", or that Britain is a genocidal country, or that Belgium is an imperialist cesspool, or that Spain is a bastion of fascism, or that Russia is anti-capitalist, or that China follows the mandate of heaven.......

Yes, I know about the Kurds, but I also know about the Jews/Gypsies/Homosexuals/Liberals (Germany), the Maya/Aztecs/Inca (Spain), Native Americans (US), the Igbo/Aborigines/Indians/Palestinians/Irish (Britain), the Algerians/Wolof (France), the Catalans/Basques (Spain), Zulu (Netherlands, Britain)..........

Get it? Just about EVERY member of the EU is guilty of TERRIBLE atrocities. By comparison, Turkey is less than average. Care to post any more misled misconceptions?

The destruction of the Kurdish people is going on today , in 2006, it wasn't until 2004, that Turkey allowed the Kurds to use KURDISH or use Kurdish names for their children. Or have Kurdish schools.

You also know that Turkey has 10,000 to 15,000 troops in N. Iraq, right? That's to protect the poor Turkomen from Kurdish reprisal, or that what the Turkish Military claims.

And you are right every nation is guilty of some of the most evil things, one could ever imagine, but as I am not guilty for the Sins of My Father, I must judge a nation, a group, a single man on his actions today.

And those things tell me that the Muslim reaction to a non-Muslim nation is wrong.

I am aware of what has been happening with Turkey and the Kurds. Sure, the Turks have been terrible to the Kurds, but it is the epitome of hypocrisy to pin that on a country when the west, specifically the US, is guilty of equal and worse crimes. Moreover, I like how you use this to justify your misled disdain for Islam.

The Turkmen are being screwed by Kurds in Iraq, but you knew that, right?

Many countries have bad histories, not all do. However, if you want to get down to it, the Turks are pretty tame in comparison to Europe and the US. Again, historically, the Islamic world was the center of learning and tolerance, while Europe was just a pitiful region. Don't ignore that.

So do you judge the newspapers for publishing insulting and callous content, and therefore find them the source of these troubles? I didn't think so. Is it really unexpected for a people to take exception to an insult? No, it isn't. The Muslim reaction is not wrong at all, the caricatures caused this whole mess. Yet you insist on blaming the Muslims, the people of the religion you admittedly hate, when there is little fault in that party.

ia "pretty tame." Is that why the Turks were on the doorstep of Vienna in 1683, one of the many, many attempts by the Turks to conquer western Europe. Here's a teeny little list of the wars with the Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, the Venetians and so many other I am just providing the list. They were war-mongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe#1683-1699:__Great_Turkish_war_--_Reconquest_of_Hungary

Besides there are many atrocities recently (20th century)with the Armenians, Kurds, etc. Roughly 2 million Armenians dead, Turkey being the first genocider of the 20th century

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm

Because Europe is solely responsible for conquering and destroying the cultures of virtually every indigenous people on the planet. Wars like the Crimean War was just a case of two empires fighting one another, which is not nearly something to be condemned as unheardof. The Turks had those wars in Europe to expand their empire. How is this different from the Romans, Byzantines, Franks (Crusaders), Normans, Spanish, English, AMERICANS and many other nations? Moreover, they were fighting other empires who were seeking to do the same. It was an empire, and empires are built on expansion. The fact that it was a Muslim Empire makes it no different from any other. The real point here is that Turkey is on par with (other) EU nations in terms of history and present progress from that history.

"Turkey being the first genocider of the 20th century"

It's not about being first. Germany, Italy, the US, France, Belgium, Russia, Japan, China, Britain and other non-Turkish nations were involved in genocides at roughly the same period, so trying to lecture anyone about being genocide-happy is simply ridiculous and mistaken. The melting pot seems to be calling the kettle black.

Don't get me wrong. The Turkish have a bloody history that shouldn't be called free of shame. However, if you get down to it, Turkey is substantially less guilty than many of their potential EU counterparts.

600 years ago. Then it got very stagnant.
Yours: "Turks are pretty tame in comparison to Europe and the US"
No way. That is factually incorrect.

Again , just on the massacres of the Armenians, who,BTW, were mostly Christians:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/armenians.htm

"An estimated 75 percent of the Armenians on these marches perished, especially children and the elderly. Those who survived the ordeal were herded into the desert without a drop of water. Others were killed by being thrown off cliffs, burned alive, or drowned in rivers.

The Turkish countryside became littered with decomposing corpses. At one point, Mehmed Talaat responded to the problem by sending a coded message to all provincial leaders: "I have been advised that in certain areas unburied corpses are still to be seen. I ask you to issue the strictest instructions so that the corpses and their debris in your vilayet are buried."
snip
The warning had no effect. Newspapers in the West including the New York Times published reports of the continuing deportations with the headlines: Armenians Are Sent to Perish in the Desert - Turks Accused of Plan to Exterminate Whole Population (August 18, 1915) - Million Armenians Killed or in Exile - American Committee on Relief Says Victims of Turks Are Steadily Increasing - Policy of Extermination (December 15, 1915).
snip
After the successful obliteration of the people of historic Armenia, the Turks demolished any remnants of Armenian cultural heritage including priceless masterpieces of ancient architecture, old libraries and archives. The Turks even leveled entire cities such as the once thriving Kharpert, Van and the ancient capital at Ani, to remove all traces of the three thousand year old civilization.

the poster is trying to say that Islam is somehow incapable of tolerance. However, Islam's history proves that conclusion to be more than wrong.

I'm aware of the history of the Turks and how bloody and full of atrocity it is. The thing is that other European and non-Muslim nations are guilty of the same and worse, so it is quite unfair to condemn Turkey alone.

for centuries.

because only the evil white man has done anything bad, the Egyptians haven't been destroying the Copts, the Japenese haven't eliminated the Ainu, or subjected the Koreans to evils. There is nothing going on in the Sudan today!

Only that Damned White Man!

why? Because you deemed the Turkish "unworthy" of participating in the EUROPEAN UNION.

EUROPEAN Union. As in EUROPE. Thanks for not being able to understand the simplest of allusions.

The point was that since all those nations are involved in friendly relations with non-Muslim countries, it shows your mistaken conclusion, that non-Muslim countries are not respected by Muslim countries, to be wrong.

Okay, I missed your point.

First, I'd like to know at what point Muslim and Non-Muslim nations started having this Pax-Mohammed you speak of.
Second, as I recall it is Europe who allowed in refugees from many nations in the Middle East and AFrica and Southeast Asia.
Third, can you point to ANY, ANY, muslim nation that allows a plurality of religion.
Fourth, isn't it up to Europe to decide who gets into their stupid Union?

Lastly, my *Whole* point in starting this thread was that, I think Muslim nations and organizations worldwide, will use this as a rallying cry to keep their citizens down. I think the fact, that Syria allowed the Embassies to burn supports this, along with the fact that Muslim organizations called on the UN to enforce muslim will upon Denmark.

And the point is not that Muslims are evil, but that their governments are more concerned about keeping their people down as opposed to lifting them up...

accept it and extend one myself.

Well, Islamic civilization was most definitely very important and by far the most sophisticated society in the Mediterranean world. They tolerated Jews and Christians and pursued achievements in everything from architecture to math.

Europe is experiencing more immigration, and it is because of a few factors. First, those regions were colonized by European nations, so when they want to go somewhere, where do they have a shared history? Second, Europe is where the money is, so that's naturally going to be the destination of refugees and immigrants.

Indonesia, Lebanon, Turkey (they are very secular) and others have some degree of religious plurality.

Sure, the EU can decide who gets in, but to possibly deny a potential member based solely on difference in religion and/or culture is unfair.

Most Muslims are offended by the cartoons simply because they are insulting. Actually, very few have responded with violence. Some people are outraged and have taken their reactions way too far, and violence against an embassy is never justified. Although I'm not sure what happened, I think the Syrian government looked the other way while this happened, perhaps because they didn't want to deal with the headache of a riot; that is a poor thing for the Syrian government to do, to say the least.

I don't see that as keeping anyone down. If anything, it is a gross overreaction, but one that was not unexpected. Perhaps you could expand on that thought.

Thanks for clarifying everything. I hope I clarified my side as well as you did with yours.

Thanks for the debate.

Cheers.

.

It would seem you are casting them as unable to control themselves and have intelligent dialouge with others on issues. `well of course they are rioting and threatening people, they don't know any better`.

Pat robertson wants a hit on chavez cause he feels he is a mini-dictator and we are up in arms, islamic leaders and fanatic followers want to kill and burn things up over a cartoon and we rationalize their behavior; we expect more from christians and call them on it but islamic folks we expect it from?

Violence and rationalizing it solve nothing. Expecting that reaction from a group over a cartoon and lack of general respect for them says to me we expect less of some people - ie, they are just down the evolution chain and have not made it up to where we are so let's be extra nice to em and not offend them in anyway.

I don't think pointing out historical facts of Islam, spread through blood, death, destruction and violence, much little Christianity did in Europe, the Philippines, Americas...

Yes, Pat Robertson did call for a hit on Chavez. Did you see a crack commando assault squad of Mormon killers go down to Venezuela and burn down his palace?

Islam is violent, Islam leaders have much to gain by keeping their people down and ignorant, and much to gain by helping along this firestorm over drawings and blaming all of Islam's troubles on the Western Boogeyman...

That was what I was shooting for...

but had Denmark published anti-semitic cartoons, there would be hell to pay. People would be fired life, right and center, and I bet all duers would agree that they *should* be fired for posting anti-semitic cartoons. We all know what the nazis did to the Jewish people.
However what I ask is this: why is it okay to publish anti-muslim cartoons? Shouldn't we respect all people? Just because Muslim fanatics act a certain way doesn't mean we need to emulate them. The way I see it is that Europeans can make fun of Jesus all they want, but don't publish anti-muslim or anti-semitic cartoons. The majority of Europeans are not Muslims or Jews. By making fun of the prophet Mohammed, the cartoonist is making fun of a different community, and people of this community are bound to be angered.
Now, it's true that the Muslim reaction has been over-the-top. However, let's face it, most Muslim countries aren't democratic. Many Muslims are fanatics. We expect the sort of reactions you describe from fanatics. Moderate muslims would of course not agree with that. But let's not stoop to their level. Europe and America are civilized countries. Let's act civilized. Let's not make fun of Mohammed. It's bound to rile up Muslims.

Guess what, I saw this coming a mile away. Remember what happened to Rushdie? Muslims are even more angry now, I feel.

routinely publish pictures of Jews in sterotypical fashion or post articles by Imams claiming Jews are descended from Apes, Pigs and Dogs... Of coure this gets overlooked...

But I'll eat my shoes if Israeli newspapers don't make fun of Muslims. They got a problem over there and in a war, no side is innocent.

This is a cutting look at Muslim intolerance.

Thomas Friedman wonders why Indian Muslims don't go on a suicide bombing rampage. Turkish Muslims aren't that bad either. Not all Muslims are intolerant, so I wouldn't generalize. However, all countries that are primarily Muslim are intolerant, I agree with that.
Tell me though, if Muslims do it, are we to do what they do? In Saudi Arabia, all citizens are Muslims. There is no Christian or Jew in Saudi Arabia. Are we to kick out all Muslims from America just because Muslim countries are intolerant?

Throughout time Arabic Muslims treated other peoples who converted to Islam with disdain. After all Muhammed was a Arabic nomad, so that must mean Arabs were greater than other Muslims. Anyway the real issue is that Denmark is not under Sharia and a corparate entity not controlled by the government (even if it does support the Right Wing Stance) can publish these images if it so chooses.

All of them, and I even agree. However, I have no problem with picking on any religion or any idea. It would be fine by me if the cartoon was a mockery of Jesus or Moses. The cartoon in question tied the Muslim faith to suicide bombers, correct? OK, so is it not true that somewhere around 100% of suicide bombers are muslim? Or at least the ones we all know about. So the cartoon actually has a good point about the fanaticism of that particular religion. And trust me on this, I KNOW what I just wrote is insensitive, but that doesn't make the actual problem go away.

to Arab intolerances.

Bush created arab intolerance, where in Vienna in 1683? In Constaniople in 1452? In Israel in 1948?

No.

Islam has spread throughout the world, like many religions, through violence and oppression. Period.

for organization and a sense of purpose and hope. Islam provides that amongst a growing number of people in the world.

But, the last time I checked a MAJORITY of the world 4.5 BILLION is not Islamic and are therfore not under Sharia Law.

Does this post have an OMINOUS music tag? Dun Dun Dunnnnnn...

Of course, I know what's in store for Atheist me and my family in a Muslim controlled world.

Death and Theft of all my chattels...

I just wish the War Machine hadn't brainwashed me so much...

There is a lot left out of your discussion. Many people can sympathize with the anger Muslims feel without agreeing that violence is the answer. Many can also understand that the Muhammad cartoon is not the cause of all of this--it's just the most recent catalyst. Combine it with Qur'ans being flushed down the toilet, small boys being raped, minor prisoners being treated in ways to humiliate them and their religious beliefs. We in the West are so certain that our beliefs are the absolute, undeniable truth that we don't respect those who have their own absolute, undeniable truths to stick to. This might be excused by Muslims worldwide as simply the differences between cultures and beliefs if we didn't try to force our beliefs on them, and if we didn't support their enemies in all atrocities, and if we didn't try to control them like colonies. We try to force our beliefs on them, they rebel. They can't see a middle ground because we don't acknowledge one.

So some people can see that us invading another Muslim nation without a real military and no real way to fight back is wrong, and that flagrantly insulting the most core beliefs of a another nation is wrong, and that the anger which results is expected, without claiming that either side is right.

Just my thoughts. Not trying to pick a fight or criticize your well-thought out post. Just defining where and why I disagree with parts of it.

I don't post to WIN. Or pick fights. I post to expand knowledge, debate and arguement should be to discern the truth and advance thinking, not to win.

Thanks for you post!

So they can't complain when their own type of rhetoric is used against them, as that would by hypocrisy.

The war in Iraq is based on * lies.

The reaction to these insulting cartoons is based on something that DID happen.

Bush *justified* the Iraq invasion with propaganda, the Muslim leadership of many nations is using this as propadanda to keep their peoples in the dark, as opposed to trying to bring their nations into the 21st century.

has been from the "street", not any government.
All of us alive today ARE living in the 21st Century.

You seem to think "free speech" is absolute.

Go yell FIRE in a crowded theater and see what happens in court.

I include this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark.

The foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and Libya eventually closed its embassy in Denmark in protest after the government refused to censure the newspaper or apologise.

That is a governmental Response.

Not the so-called Arab street!

Before governments responded.

And what's more important the right of "free speech" is not a right to demean or insult anyone.

Fighting words, hate speech, etc. are not acceptable to most intelligent and civil people.

Where did you learn your rather vehement bias against Muslims ?

October and December was when the governments and leagues started problems. It's now February the protests are in response to the governments egging them on.

What's more important the Right to Free Speech or Demean or Insult?

That is a good question. Who determines what is insulting?

If I was to say your statement about me being biased against Muslims was hate speech and you should be arrested is that justified?

As for most intelligent people, you and I are not threatening death to each other are we? But, in an Islamic nation laws are still on the books for blaspheming, including death by stoning.

BTW, thanks for calling me biased.

The op is specious at best.

Do we support bigoted hate speech (which the offending cartoon is) in this country?

No we do not.

Do we tolerate racists characters in cartoons or comic strips in this country?

No we do not.

Would the Christians in this country be offended if the Taliban burned an effigy of Christ or created like imagery for publication in their news publications?

Who would argue otherwise? And do we not issue state sponsored death threats to their leaders from the white house?

c'mon people. Start using REASON for a change.

We need to discourage bigotry and hate speech, but more to the point we need to denounce religious fundamentalism within OUR OWN CULTURE, starting right here at home.

While we say that people are free to worship religion as they wish in this country, we need to make it clear that is a right in the privacy of their own lives, and church of worship but that's where it ends.

Because we allow religious fundamentalism into the realm of public fora and institutions - we encourage and cultivate tolerance for extremism here and abroad.

http://www.samharris.org/index.php/samharris/full-text/chapter-one/

Muslims are not a race.

Did you know that when the protesting Muslims burned the Danish Flag, They ARE BURNING A CROSS, I haven't heard NATO or The Papacy demand an apology from the Nations of muslims protesting over the desecration of Christian Symbol.

And if I understand the crux of your argument it's that hate speech is too be censored. So, does that mean some speech is so bad we need to cull it? Where do you stop?

"We should Support No Tolerance for Bigoted Hate Speech"

This is worth repeating.

Why did this RW newspaper publish these cartoons when the artists asked them not to do so? It's as if they wanted to offend and start a riot from the Muslim community. This isn't free speech, it's bigotry in disguise. I doubt the Jews found racist cartoons funny in Nazi Germany either.

It's unacceptable to promote hatred, pure and simple.

Do we support bigoted hate speech (which the offending cartoon is) in this country?
Yes, we do. That why the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, and that's why liberals defended the art of Robert Maplethorpe.

Do we tolerate racists characters in cartoons or comic strips in this country?
Yes, we do. Not so much in editorial cartoons anymore, but the MSM is filled with racism and racist stereotypes of other cultures and races.

Would the Christians in this country be offended if the Taliban burned an effigy of Christ or created like imagery for publication in their news publications?
Yes, they would. Not as badly as they would have been just ten or fifteen years ago, but still pretty pissed. A few fanatics (Robertson, anyone?) would have called for death threats, but Western Christians are beginning to get used to this sort of thing. It's only within the last generation that our culture has started to "lighten up" AT ALL.

Who would argue otherwise? And do we not issue state sponsored death threats to their leaders from the white house?
Not based on religion, or at least not based OFFICIALLY upon religious reasons.

c'mon people. Start using REASON for a change.
Lord know I'm trying, though I don't always get it right.

We need to discourage bigotry and hate speech, but more to the point we need to denounce religious fundamentalism within OUR OWN CULTURE, starting right here at home.
Agreed. I suspect that if those cartoons had been published in an American forum, they wouldn't have had NEARLY the worldwide reaction. Maybe they're just holding Europeans to a higher standard? After all, everyone already expects Americans to be assholes.

While we say that people are free to worship religion as they wish in this country, we need to make it clear that is a right in the privacy of their own lives, and church of worship but that's where it ends.
I agree with the literal interpretation of the premise. To each his own. However, in America we have the Creator-given right to be total and complete assholes.

Because we allow religious fundamentalism into the realm of public fora and institutions - we encourage and cultivate tolerance for extremism here and abroad.
We allow it FAR less than most other societies, including the oens whose governmental institutions are now issuing death threats. Our tolerance for religious extremism is far less than what you would encounter in almost any other country. And I'm not talking about "evil" countries like Saudi Arabia (where they murder unveiled women and cut the heads off suspected homosexuals), but next door neighbors like Mexico.

For the record, I use the following in my lesson plans. Excelent stuff here either for teachers or those curious as to the role Arabas have played in American culture. I used the first one just last week (fascinatin story, if you're interested).

Who are the Arab Americans? http://www.tolerance.org/images/teach/activities/Arab_American_quiz.pdf
Random Arab discrimination links http://www.metrokc.gov/dias/ocre/nohate.htm
More classroom lessons http://www.usao.edu/Classroom-Spice/Feb2001.PDF

Seriously.

I am not in favor of censorship or book burning on any level but I am in favor of respect for other peoples beliefs just as I would hope they respected mine.

Your with us or against us statement in your subject line is just as silly as when George says it.
"If you support the Muslim reaction, then you support Bush's War in Iraq"

that was the point of the absurb tagline.

To you the cartoons are rude, I respect your opinoin, to someone else they may not be rude or offensive, I respect that view as well.

But, the real question is, Who gets to determine?

And I think I have raised a legitmate question when I state Muslim leadership has used this firestorm to keep their peoples from focusing on domestic problems and given them a foreign boogeyman to burn...

Sometimes, literally burn...

I think that that is the responsibility of the speaker to try to be appropriate. For example I would not use the "f" word around my mother because I respect her and would not want to offend but if I was with people who would not be bothered by my language I might say it. I also would never use the "n" word because it is offensive to almost everyone. So I think it up to the speaker or in this case artist to determine what is ok. So it is out of respect for other people that I control myself and my art. Clearly these cartoons were a problem for some people. That does not mean the artist should not create them, clearly he or she had something to say but it is the venue that it was seen in that has led to the problem. On the other hand to get upset over someone's remarks or art could be over reacting. Still I would not want to be offensive. The Mapplethorpe exhibit is an interesting example to look at, people found that to be offensive but it was not in a place where any and all people could come upon it. You had to enter a gallery that was clearly marked therefore it was expected but something printed in a newspaper is there for all to see. It is impossible to protect everyone at all times but it is quite another thing to be in their face. What do you think?

but those supporting tthe reactioon are supporting fundamentalist reactionaries. They obviously support censorship. I'm absolutely appaled and disgusted by the reaction of some DUers. If this were Christian fundies they would have had a much different reaction.

The moral equivalence of Christian adn Muslim fundies is also getting old. It's time for tthose on the left to aadmitt and realize that fundamentalist Islam is a unique threeat.

I'm also tired of hearing excuse after excuse for this extremism.

"If this were Christian fundies they would have had a much different reaction."

Completely agree. What would they be saying if Christian fundies were burning NBC affiliates over "Book of Daniel" and calling for the death of those involved in the production.

Censorship is cowardly bullshit. If ideas can't stand up to opposing speech, however offensive, then they must be pretty weak ideas.

No one is supporting fundamentalist reactionaries. Continue to be appaled and disgusted by your strawmen.

Boy...I better be careful a trip trapping on some people's bridges....

who poured French wine into the streets and boycotted Dixie Chicks.

Extremists of all flavors and sizes should be sidelined for the freaks they are by a common sense, rational majority.

I hate all the Muslim nonsense violance