I can understand Muslim anger. But c'mon. >

[mr_hat]

IKEA? It's just pre-fab furniture.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/iran.wrap/index.html

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. I dont understand their anger....

they are as braindead and ignorant as their christain counterparts in this this country. religion sux

[Fatima]

2. I am beginning to think so myself n/t

[Catch22Dem]

22. I've been saying the same thing for YEARS! (n/t)

[Telly Savalas]

3. There are long passages in the Koran preaching the evils of allen keys

[mr_hat]

5. Do we not worship the same tool?

[Poiuyt]

4. To be fair, can you imagine how you'd feel if someone posted unflattering

pictures of Jesus?

[seabeyond]

6. smiling jesus, one of my favorite show is dogma

no i dont get it. well i get it. i dont agree with it. i am christian. and no...... i dont need to protect jesus. i dont need ot kill to protect jesus. i dont have to spread hate over an image or a picture. the basis to christianity tells me it isn't my place to battle these things. the basis to christianity, god is all things. jesus is in all hearts. jesus knows why people are angry, why they dont believe, why the are fearful or disrespectful.... he is in their heart, he knows and sees and he loves them anyway. the very premises of that tells me, that i dont have to protect Jesus image. he is quite capable

[regnaD kciN]

11. No kidding...

i dont need to protect jesus. i dont need ot kill to protect jesus.

Sure, I get offended when I see art or comments ridiculing my faith. But I either ignore them, or, if I feel it's justified, respond with a rebuttal of my own. I don't demand that they be taken down, or try to cause physical harm to their creators, let alone anyone who might be remotely connected to their creators.

[elshiva]

31. I guess "Piss Christ" was the most offensive and I think bad art

Just there to shock and for what? A standard crucifix in urine? It isn't even funny... :shrug:

However, IT IS NOT THE WORST because the worst is to have images that incite violence.

[elshiva]

30. Dogma is great, I don't get why people thought it was blasphemous.

:shrug:

[realisticphish]

35. ditto

ok, blashpemous to the catholic church, perhaps, but not to christianity in general

[Erika]

7. The religious right says you just found the truth

W is "the Man"!

[bloom]

8. It's IAEA - not IKEA

"IAEA referral stokes Iranian defiance"

[mr_hat]

9. Never mind.

[kick-ass-bob]

34. *SNARF*

:rofl:

:eyes:

[NNadir]

17. IAEA, IKEA, what's the difference?

I've always thought those dried out little Swedish meatballs in the restaurant section are radioactive.

The K, I note, is the letter starting "Koran." It's sacred.

[WearyOne2]

10. IKEA is a great socialist corporation !..if that makes sense

[caty]

12. I can understand a public statement to condemn those

cartoons, but to riot in the street is so immature (tantrum). It's like the only joy they get out of life is to get together in the streets to protest and burn something. Brainwashed....just sayin'.

[CanuckAmok]

13. does anyone else see the irony?

They're offended because the platonic ideal of Islam has been portrayed as a violent reactionary, so they have gone on a violent rampage to defend Islam.

I can only imagine what the vast majority of sensible, moderate Muslims must think of these nitwits.

[khashka]

20. You are absolutely right

The majority of Muslims aren't like that at all. I lived in the Middle East and most people were kind, welcoming, accepting... They were truly ashamed of how their religion was being used and abused. And how it was viewed in the West. It reflected on them and they didn't deserve it.

I hope we can reach a point where it's not political.The vast majority of Muslims simply want to live in peace and practice their religion. Unfortunately, a minority resort to violence - and since most of us Westerners have no experience with Islam and haven't read the Koran, we view their actions as definitive.

Khash.

[no name no slogan]

15. If you've seen two of your neighbors invaded by foreign armies

and a third, allied to this foreign nation, in possession of nuclear weapons AND the largest standing army in the region with a history of invading its neighbors (Israel), you may start to feel a little "paranoid", to say the least.

Let's say Cuba not only had nukes, but occupied the gulf coast from Texas to Florida illegally for the last 40 years, and had a nasty habit of dropping bombs on US power plants because we were developing nuclear power.

Add to that the fact that Russia had just invaded New England on the flimsy premise that Massachusetts possessed "WMDs", and also invaded California because they were harboring "terrorists" who wanted nothing more than to kick the Cubans out of Florida.

Then, Cuba's close ally Venezuela prints a series of "cartoons" whose sole purpose was to belittle, intimidate and frighten US citizens.

Does this make a little more sense?

[caty]

18. Freedom of religion--YES

Demanding respect for that religion--YES

Rioting--NO
Burning buildings (Danish embassy building)--NO

Once a riot starts, there is no telling where it can lead or who can get hurt or killed because of it.

[no name no slogan]

21. I'm not approving the riots, I'm saying that I can understand them

Violence is never the answer, but you have to admit the editor who ran those cartoons (AGAIN) KNEW they would be inflammatory, and would piss off a large portion of the membership of the worlds' second-largest (AND fastest-growing) religion.

With freedom comes responsibility. You can't go into a theater and yell "fire" and claim "freedom of speech" and not expect repercussions. Just like you can't poke a bear in the eye with a stick and not expect to get mauled.

Some people can only be pushed so far-- and have no problem resorting to violence. The newspaper editors share some of this responsibility.

[caty]

24. We see our flag

set on fire on a regular bases. We don't run out into the streets and burn buildings. To say you understand is saying there is a good reason to do it--and a cartoon is not a good reason. State your opinion of the cartoons and those who ran it. Boycott if you want. But, don't riot or burn buildings. I'm all for standing up for one's religion or country. But, show some degree of intelligence and restraint in how you do it.

[no name no slogan]

36. a slanderous depiction Muhammad != burning the flag

To call the depictions of Muhammad "just a cartoon" is to seriously misunderstand how Muslims view the depiction of ANY prophet-- whether it's Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, King David, or any other mentioned in the Qu'ran. A little knowledge of Islam and a look at the Orient's relation with the west would put this into perspective.

First of all, ANY graphical depiction of Muhammad is considered a sin and great insult to God. Muhammad specifically did NOT want any image of him or other prophets created, because he felt that they distracted from the true worship of God. He especially saw this in 7th century Arabia, where many cults flourished that involved the worhship of statues and icons-- even the Christians in Arabia spent more time adoring/caring for their Jesus and Mary statues than they did in worshipping God.

That's also why you never see depictions of Muhammad and the other prophets in Islamic art-- they only detract from the glory of God, and are seen as a mockery of God.

Just because I said I can understand why certain people would riot in the street does NOT mean that I condone it in any way. Most Muslims don't condone rioting, either. However, you also don't slap somebody who's bigger than you, and not expect to get hit in return.

The publications in question deliberately re-published the cartoons to provoke Muslims around the world (and to increase their newsstand sales). The cartoons were already published last fall, and they were re-run with great media fanfare just recently for the most ulterior of motives.

[caty]

37. OMG

I'm just saying that there are better ways to get your point across other than rioting in the streets, burning buildings down, and risking the live of others.

[HEyHEY]

26. Uh, no

" to belittle, intimidate and frighten US citizens."

IT WAS A CARTOON, they weren't trying to do any of that stuff.

[no name no slogan]

29. YES, they were

It's easy to dismiss it from here as "just a cartoon", but put in perspective of Muslims and Arabs. These are nations that have only JUST RECENTLY gained their independence from European colonial masters-- who often replaced their rule with that of friendly local rulers who still did the bidding of Europeans. They still feel the Crusades are going on-- or never ended.

In Islam, depictions of ANY prophet, be it Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or Adam, are STRICTLY forbidden-- as is the depiction of any living being. This is why you never see icons or statues in mosques, as they are considered a defamation of God's creation, and therefore blasphemous. Even to this day, many Muslims refuse to have their picture taken because it is a graven image.

One of Muhammad's first acts when he re-entered Mecca was to destroy all the idols and images in the Kaaba, the holiest of holies, because they promoted idolatry. Consequently, NO images of people appear in Muslim mosques because they detract from the worship of God. Even Muslim art has been influenced by this: you'll notice that their art contains many intricate patterns and caligraphy, but no images of people (and few, if any, of animals, either).

So not only is a depiction of a prophet an insult, depicting the holiest prophet as a terrorist is a blasphemy too great for words, for many Muslims. And when the only thing you have is your belief in Islam, it's pretty easy to see why you'd get upset at these depictions.

This incident just goes to show them that Euros/Americans don't give a damn about them, or their religion, or their culture. Most of them are powerless, and live in fear of US and Israeli power-- no matter how baseless these fears seem to us, they are VERY real to these people.

Most Euros and North Americans are basically clueless about Middle-Eastern and Islamic history and religion. This cavalier attitude is what causes the great animosity to the West felt by many Muslims throughout the world-- and which feeds into the fanaticism espoused by bin Laden and other fanatics.

Unfortunately, even so-called "progressives" and liberals are clueless about it, too, as this latest incident illustrates so well.

[HEyHEY]

32. All that went into a cartoon?

Sit back and think about what you just said. Call the artist a biggot, a jerk, insenitive, whatever... but to sit there and say it was all part of some scheme to bring down the Muslims is just about as dense as a ball of mercury.

"In Islam, depictions of ANY prophet, be it Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or Adam, are STRICTLY forbidden-- as is the depiction of any living being. This is why you never see icons or statues in mosques, as they are considered a defamation of God's creation, and therefore blasphemous. Even to this day, many Muslims refuse to have their picture taken because it is a graven image."

You don't need to be well-read to know the very basic facts about Islam that you just pointed out. Those facts don't make a damned bit of difference in this argument. This is a simple argument about free speech, Denmark has it, the Muslim world does not. The cartoon may not be tactful, but it isn't part of some kind of power struggle as you suggest. And the Danes have no responsibility to apologize for it.

[no name no slogan]

33. With free speech comes great responsibility

As I replied upthread, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and not expect repercussions. Just because you have "free speech" doesn't allow you to burn a cross in somebody's front yard, either. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, AND the the idea that you are responsible for your actions, whatever those consequences may be.

The fact that the cartoons were published ONCE, last September, is understandable. Why did the publisher feel that such inflammatory material needed to be republished, if for no other reason than to inflame hatreds (or get paid)? This may be a case of "free speech", but I have to question the wisdom/intent of the publisher(s) for reprinting these items and making such a media circus of it, too.

Nor am I saying it's some "vast conspiracy" to bring down Muslims. It was, however, completely thoughtless and part of a larger anti-Muslim trend that the west has been following for the last 1,000 years. It just re-enforces to the Muslim world that the West doesn't give a damn about them, or their beliefs and does not respect their religion, either.

Should the Danish government apologize? No. Should the publisher(s) of the cartoons? If they're decent human beings, YES.

But if they want to fan the flames of anti-western sentiment (AND make the world a more dangerous place for everybody), then probably not.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Would Jewish anger at Nazi cartoons have been over the top too?

http://depthome.sunysuffolk.edu/Library/HDHU/collection.asp



Magazine that was published in Germany in 1941-1942 shows a Jewish cartoon character consuming a Russian, American, and English characterization. Attempted to demonstrate that the increased hostilities occurring in Europe was due to the Jews who were essentially responsible for controlling allied policies. Nazi propaganda was designed to intimate that the Jews were responsible for WWII as well as the woes of the world that plagued humanity during this most difficult of times.

[billyskank]

19. Red card

Cartoons like that have to be seen in the context of a world in which Jews were being systematically and methodically killed.

Muslims are being killed too, but the actions of the US and the UK in Iraq and other places do not compare with the Nazi death machine. Being offended at a newspaper cartoon is one thing, being angry is one thing, storming an embassy and burning it to the ground is another thing.

These particular people want war with the West and they are looking for any excuse to incite hatred and violence. I see the same intolerance both in the Muslim extremists and the Christian ones at home, and I despair for our world. There is going to be war. I am sure of it.

[Catch22Dem]

23. Not the same...here's why

The Nazis were more concerned about the Jewish RACE than they were the Jewish faith. Muslims aren't a race at all, they're a religion. That's the difference.

[HEyHEY]

25. Before you play the WAY overused Nazi card - listen to this

http://www.otr.com/murrow_buchenwald.shtml

[democracyindanger]

16. Boy, did nobody click on the link.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

28. LOL, um... Lounge? "Play on words/spelling" anyone? Joke?

[auntAgonist]

27. IKEA ?

ummm I am missing something I think?

IAEA referral stokes Iranian defiance <-- that's the story.